- Member of Parliament
- Deputy whip of the New Democratic Party
- NDP
- Victoria
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 60%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $127,392.53
- Government Page
- Mar/8/23 5:05:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising because people in my riding of Victoria are drawing attention to the fact that the overdose and toxic drug supply crisis is one of the most deadly public health emergencies of our lifetime, with over 20 deaths per day.
People are calling on the government to declare the overdose crisis a national public health emergency and take immediate steps to end overdose deaths. This would include working with provinces and territories to create a pan-Canadian action plan and ensuring that plan considers reforms that other countries have used, such as legal regulation of drugs, safe supply, decriminalization, and changes to flawed drug policies in policing. Petitioners call on the government to ensure this emergency is taken seriously with adequately funded programming and supports.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 4:56:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am presenting three petitions today.
I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of constituents who remind us that the toxic drug supply and overdose crisis is one of the most deadly public health emergencies of our lifetime and that, on average, someone dies every two hours. The petitioners call on the government to declare a national public health emergency and develop a pan-Canadian overdose action plan. They talk about other reforms, including decriminalization, flawed drug policy and policing reforms, and the need for funding for programming and supports.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:42:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am struck today by the importance of this moment and also by the immense responsibility that we hold as members of Parliament. As people across the country deal with the impacts of the global pandemic, we are tasked with creating the laws that will best help them deal with the challenges they face, keep them safe and healthy and provide the supports they need.
In this already unparalleled moment in our history, on top of everything else, we have witnessed the occupation of our nation's capital. We are now tasked in this debate with examining and deciding on the use, for the first time ever, of the Emergencies Act. This is not a moment any of us should take lightly.
As someone who came to this role through community activism, attending countless protests, standing in front of trucks filled with contaminated soil, delivering food to tree sitters, protecting fragile ecosystems and organizing climate demonstrations, protest, dissent and social movements are vital elements of our democracy. We need to ensure that non-violent civil disobedience remains a protected and valued part of our society.
We also need to ensure there is effective oversight of any additional powers given to government. The Emergencies Act itself has provisions that require, after the emergency is over, an inquiry into the circumstances under which the declaration was issued and the measures taken. This should also include a public inquiry into the role of law enforcement in these occupations, the reports of officers supporting the occupiers and police refusing to enforce the law. It is clear there needs to be a sober examination of policing in Canada. The difference between how occupiers were treated by police versus how indigenous and racialized people have been treated is stark. This disparity is unjust and also undermines the trust of Canadians in law enforcement.
I have been contacted by many people who are concerned about the use of the Emergencies Act. Many are concerned that we should not set a precedent of cracking down on protests. It is important to note that what we have seen over the past 24 days has not just been a protest. It has not been peaceful.
The core organizers of this occupation were very clear from the outset that their goal was to overthrow a democratically elected government. I have to admit that I laughed when I first read their aim. Like most Canadians, to me it sounded preposterous. They could not seriously think the Governor General and the Senate could just remove the Prime Minister or that it would be possible in Canada to hand over power to an unelected group of occupiers, but these organizers, many of whom are well-known far-right figures, who have espoused Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-indigenous and other hateful views, published their goal to take down the government in a manifesto.
To quote Maya Anjelou, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them”. This illegal occupation raised millions of dollars, had significant foreign involvement and was explicit in its goal to undermine our democracy. We have also witnessed instances of organized militia-style activity, weapons seized, body armour with white supremacist insignia and thousands of rounds of ammunition. In January, as the convoy initially rolled across the country, there were supporters who went on TV to say they had guns and would stand up and bring them out. When people tell us who they are, we should believe them.
While all of this was happening, a number of Conservative MPs were welcoming the convoy to the city, handing out doughnuts, making excuses for the deplorable actions at memorials and encouraging the convoy participants to stay. The member for Carleton said that he was proud of the convoy and stands with it. Convoy participants occupied the city, making it unbearable for residents. They harassed journalists and health care workers. There were reports of attempted arson, bomb threats to hospitals and plans to block airports and railways. Our borders were shut down. Weapons were seized. There were attempted murder charges laid. The member for Carleton, who wants to be the prime minister of Canada, stands with them. When people tell us who they are, we should believe them.
If the Conservative members truly stand with truckers, they should stand with the 90% of truckers who are vaccinated and the truckers who have been profoundly negatively impacted by border blockades. They should listen to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which put out a statement saying that it applauds the use of the Emergencies Act to help end the illegal blockades.
In those initial weeks, while Conservative MPs encouraged the occupiers, the Liberal government stood idly by. As the convoy rolled toward Ottawa, as the far-right rhetoric rose in the truck convoy, as foreign funding poured into a movement that aimed to undermine our democracy, the government did nothing. It should have never come to this.
The use of the Emergencies Act is an acknowledgement of a failure of leadership. The government has allowed things to escalate unchecked and could have addressed this crisis early on but failed to. After over two weeks of turmoil and chaos, the Ottawa Police Services Board chair stated, “Frankly, the response to this crisis so far has been ineffective.” She said that police have been “unable to adequately enforce our law and our residents continue to be terrorized.”
In this debate, we are being asked whether the Emergencies Act is necessary. It has been clear that for the past three weeks the municipality and a number of provinces were not able to maintain security in our nation's capital and at our borders. This is one of the key reasons why the situation meets the definition of a national emergency under section 3 of the act.
Once the Emergencies Act was enacted, the interim Ottawa police chief made it clear that without these additional powers, they would not have been able to make the progress that they have made. Over the past week, we finally saw police taking appropriate and measured steps to remove the occupiers.
The act allowed the RCMP to direct tow truck drivers to tow vehicles. In addition, without the Emergencies Act, the RCMP and financial institutions could not quickly freeze funds that were fundraised with the explicit intent to destabilize our elected government.
We know there has been significant foreign funding. When the convoy's GoFundMe site was shut down, they started using GiveSendGo, a Christian platform infamously known for being the platform used by many of the groups involved in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and also for raising millions for the Proud Boys, a listed terrorist entity in Canada. A recent data leak identifying GiveSendGo's donors to the convoy campaign showed that over half of the donors were from the U.S. and less than a third of the donors were Canadian.
The Emergencies Act also gives the power to prohibit bringing children to unlawful assemblies. Many of us watched in horror as occupiers brought their children to block the border crossing. We heard reports of occupiers keeping their kids near the police line, using them as shields. As a parent, it is hard to wrap my head around the choice to bring children into such dangerous situations.
The powers granted by the Emergencies Act were needed as they did help secure our national capital. Yesterday, the occupation was still happening and there were still border closures happening in Surrey because of the convoy protest. Today, things are quieter. New Democrats have been clear that we are ready to withdraw our support at any time. If the situation is actually under control, then the government has to provide a compelling reason for why it still needs these emergency powers. If there is not one, then we have said all along that we will withdraw support.
We have heard again and again comparisons to the War Measures Act, but we know this is not the same law. It is not even close. Under the War Measures Act, there is no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no provincial constitutions. The government would have the power to do anything it wants to intern citizens, to deport any citizen, to arrest any person. We can all agree that is unacceptable.
That is why Tommy Douglas and other New Democrats voted against it. The War Measures Act suspended the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is why, in 1988, the act was repealed. The Emergencies Act, the act that replaced it, is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
There is a still a valid concern that the government could misuse the powers in the Emergencies Act. This is why New Democrats have been clear that if we vote in favour of the government's request, the government must stay within the established powers or we will withdraw support.
We will protect the right to protest. We must continue to hold dissent and non-violent civil disobedience as sacred, as integral parts of our democracy.
I want to close my speech by speaking to the vast majority of Canadians who have been following public health orders, who banged pots to show support for health care workers, who have been helping out their neighbours, who have made great sacrifices in order to keep their loved ones, their families and their communities safe.
As mandates and restrictions begin to lift, they should know that it is because of their acts of solidarity and the fact that they got vaccinated, and the convoy participants, while they might not realize it, owe the majority of Canadians a great debt of gratitude. The vast majority of Canadians have not only saved lives, but they are also the reason we are going to get through this together.
1656 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 5:55:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, having the option for a virtual hybrid parliament is a no-brainer in a pandemic, so rather than start off my speech describing the obvious reasons why we would want to protect our fellow members of Parliament, our staff, our families and our communities, I am going to talk about some of the other reasons why a virtual parliament could be supportive in the House.
I am the MP who represents the beautiful riding of Victoria in British Columbia. I am also a new mom to the light of my life, my daughter Alora. She is seven months old. From door to door, our commute is about 10 hours. There are no direct flights. Mostly we are lucky to take two flights, but the past few times there have been three in a row. Travelling back and forth with a seven-month-old is not easy. In the past few months, she has been on 12 different planes. In normal times that would be exhausting, but in a pandemic it is also nerve-racking.
Beyond the big worry that flying here might put her at risk, I have also been thinking about what happens when she gets a cold. Last month, she got a really bad cold, then my partner and I got it and we were coughing for about two weeks straight. Luckily, our multiple COVID tests were negative, but we would not have been able to get on a plane if we needed to because we were symptomatic. Anyone who has raised little ones knows that they are constantly getting runny noses, coughs and mild fevers. Also, their immune systems are still developing. Babies who are teething often get fevers. Alora's two front teeth are just starting to come in, and if she has a fever we cannot fly. We would be stuck in Victoria, far across the country on Vancouver Island. A virtual Parliament for me would mean I could still work, even if I was stuck in Victoria unable to fly because she is still breastfeeding, has caught a mild cold or has a teething fever.
That is now. When I was pregnant this past year, if it had not been for a virtual Parliament, I would not have been able to work for months in the latter part of my pregnancy when I was unable to fly. Instead, I was able to continue working into my ninth month of pregnancy. Not every woman wants to do that, but every woman deserves the choice. Women deserve the choice to participate. They should not have to face institutional barriers. I am sad to say that despite the gains we have made, we still face many of them. The vast majority of the members of Parliament here are men. The House of Commons was built by men, for men, and we have a long way to go if we want equal access, equal participation and equity for Alora's generation.
If we want to encourage more young women to run, one important step is to make sure that Parliament is more family-friendly. One small example is that there is one family room here at Parliament. There are at least three moms with babies. Because of COVID, only one family can be in the family room at a time. That means when one of the other moms has booked that room, I breastfeed and pump in the quiet room: the room for meditation and quiet reflection. There is no lock on the door to the quiet room, so I have had MPs come in even though I barricaded the door. It has been awkward and funny, but there are small changes that we could make that would make life less challenging for new moms. It would be great to have more family rooms. It would be great to have a private place to change into my pumping gear or to take my baby when she needs a nap, and a fridge to store breast milk in. Those would be small changes that would make a small difference.
Do members know what would make a huge difference? The option for a virtual Parliament. Women in every sector have taken on more during this pandemic. Whether through the loss of employment, additional child care challenges, increased unpaid labour at home or increased care for elderly family members, women have borne the brunt of this pandemic.
We need to address the barriers that women face across Canada. We need to especially address these barriers for women who face additional barriers: women who are single moms, indigenous women, racialized women, trans women, queer women and women with disabilities. We need these women in Parliament to help us make laws because we know that representation matters. It is not guaranteed, but people who have lived the experience of barriers are much more likely to fight to reduce those barriers.
Every chance I get, I encourage young women to get involved in politics, to put their names forward to run for elected office. However, when I am talking to women about running to be an MP, it is a hard sell to women with young kids, women from B.C. I have to be honest with them about the challenges. Being a mom is a demanding job, and that is just on its own. Being an MP is a demanding job just on its own. Doing them at the same time is beyond challenging. I accept that and am committed to rising to those challenges, but what is unacceptable to me is that MPs could make the House more family friendly but they choose not to.
What is unacceptable to me is when I hear MPs in this debate say that those who want a hybrid Parliament want it because we do not want to come to work. I want to come to work. I want a hybrid Parliament so that when my daughter gets sick and I am stuck in Victoria, I can still participate. I want a hybrid Parliament so that pregnant MPs have the choice to keep working. I want a hybrid Parliament so that when I am talking to young women, I can tell them honestly that things are changing, that MPs in the House are working to make Parliament more accessible and more family friendly.
I want to take a moment to express a huge thanks to my partner James. Without his support, love and incredible parenting, I would not be here. I also want to thank our parents, Alora’s grandparents, and our community. It takes a village, and I would not be able to do this without them.
I want to thank my campaign team and my staff too. Running in an election with a baby and being an MP with a baby are tough, and I am so lucky to have amazing people on my team and in my community.
My partner James is also a huge advocate for a hybrid Parliament. He is on parental leave and is caring for our daughter. He is bringing her to Parliament for breastfeeding or just so I can see her in our 14-hour days when we have emergency debates and late nights. He wants a hybrid Parliament because it would maybe give us a bit more time in Victoria. When we are in Victoria, we have a community supporting us, with grandparents' support and someone to hold the baby when he needs to sleep because he has been up all night with her. It would give us the option of a bit more balance. It would give us peace of mind about making choices to reduce risk to my daughter.
I have heard some members in this debate speak as if the pandemic is over. However, while we are making great progress with vaccines, the pandemic is not over. We have continued to see outbreaks, and countries in Europe that are facing rising cases and hospitalizations are once again implementing lockdown policies. Having a hybrid Parliament in place right now would ensure that whatever happens in the coming weeks and months, Parliament can continue to function.
The pandemic has had devastating impacts. COVID-19 has killed around 30,000 people in Canada and five million people around the world. We should all pause and reflect on these victims. We should reflect on how we can work together to take every measure possible to end the pandemic.
This motion is a continuation of the measures that have already collectively been taken by members of Parliament, measures that were taken unanimously because we all understood that we are in a public health emergency. It is the right thing to do to keep everyone safe; to protect not just members of Parliament but their families, their staff and the employees on Parliament Hill; and to protect the communities that we go home to.
Without a hybrid Parliament, someone who might have symptoms of COVID, tests positive or needs to quarantine will not have the chance to bring concerns forward. I am worried that without hybrid Parliament, they may to be tempted to show up anyway and put other MPs at risk, put their families at risk—
1541 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
