- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- May/8/24 10:20:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the previous question, let us be very clear: The Communications Security Establishment published four unclassified reports of cyber-threats to Canada's democracy process. It highlighted this: “Cyber threat activity targeting elections has increased worldwide.” It is not just Canada, and I think it is important to recognize that. It also says that Canada remains a “lower priority target for cyber threat activity than some of its allies, such as the US and UK.”
I think it is important. The government, from the get-go, has been very proactive in dealing with the issue of international foreign interference. That is the reality, and our actions show that.
I am surprised the member would bring up human rights, given their position on the notwithstanding clause.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 12:02:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the second reading stage of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill be deemed put, any recorded divisions be deemed requested and take place immediately following the disposal of the motion related to the business of supply later this day, after which the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day, and that the debate pursuant to Standing Order 38 not take place.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 1:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I was fascinated by the previous point of order.
However, my point of order is based on some discussions among the parties. If you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the remainder of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 52 to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.
As indicated, there were discussions among the parties; I believe you will find agreement.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 5:09:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is actually an opposition day, so it is the opposition that gets to determine what is going to be debated today. However, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the Conservatives get an opposition day next week. That will be an opportunity for the Conservative Party to give all sorts of false information on the record.
The bad news is that, on this opposition day, we are still waiting for one Conservative to have the political courage to stand up and say that what Doug Ford did in regard to the pre-emptive usage of the notwithstanding clause to go against the rights of unionized workers, against thousands of teachers, was wrong. I will say that.
Will the member be the first Conservative to be bold enough to say that Doug Ford was wrong?
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:54:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this should not be a debate about the province of Quebec. This should be a debate about the notwithstanding clause, the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, and the arguments for or against it.
The example I use continually is that of the Province of Ontario and the teachers' union. I would be interested in the member's thoughts regarding the Bloc's position concerning the notwithstanding clause being used in a pre-emptive manner against the teachers' union.
Could the member also explain why René Lévesque himself did not incorporate a notwithstanding clause in the Quebec charter when he was the premier?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:39:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in listening to the member, one would think the primary motivation for the motion we have today from the Bloc is to talk about division and try to plant and continue to grow a seed of division inside the province of Quebec. The example I have been talking about is the Province of Ontario. I did not even make reference to Quebec. Ontario took a pre-emptive measure by using the notwithstanding clause to take advantage of labour unions, which affected thousands of teachers.
I am arguing that the federal government has a responsibility, and all the Bloc wants to talk about is the notwithstanding clause only applying or being utilized in the province of Quebec. Every member of the Liberal caucus has a love and passion for the province of Quebec that is just as great as that of the member opposite. The member sees Quebec in a different light. I see the province of Quebec as a very unique province that adds so much to our Canadian heritage, but what we are talking about—
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:23:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not going to raise up the many times New Democratic administrations in provincial governments brought in back-to-work legislation. I am not going to fall into that trap.
I believe what we are really talking about is governments, provincial governments in particular, using the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive fashion. I am emphasizing that, because whenever we institute the notwithstanding clause, we are talking about taking away rights and freedoms, and the example I am using is one that is very recent.
What I would like to see is members reflect on what took place in the province of Ontario and cite their opinion. I have no idea. The Conservative Party's position, for example, seems to be “We don't care about what the Province of Ontario was doing. It's not our business, because it wasn't in our jurisdiction.” I would argue that they should care. When we are talking about the notwithstanding clause and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we all have a vested interest.
How many times have we talked collectively about human rights abroad? Countries around the world look to Canada and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They see the notwithstanding clause, and if in fact it is abused by pre-emptive measures, that does not reflect well on us as a nation.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:21:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the motion the Bloc has brought forward to the House today, which is of very grave concern. All of us should be taking a look, and the example we have used is with regard to the Province of Ontario using the notwithstanding clause as a pre-emptive measure in order to squash union rights for free bargaining, affecting thousands of Ontarians.
This was not in the 1990s. This was just last fall, and I would think that members on all sides of the House would be concerned. The Minister of Justice has made reference to the fact that we need to be clear that pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is of concern to the government. The Prime Minister himself has made reference to that. The Conservative Party, in contrast, has been nowhere to be found. This is such an important issue, reflecting on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the notwithstanding clause, and the Conservatives have been silent. That is unfortunate.
The member might want to refer to something a number of years back, but what we are talking about is the issue of pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. We should all be concerned about that.
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:17:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we walked into members' statements, I was trying to highlight the importance of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that we should never take it for granted.
I believe that over the last 40 years we have seen that Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, not only have recognized the importance of it, but it has become a part of our values. When parliamentarians or others travel abroad, we get a sense of pride in the fact that so many other countries around the world look to Canada to demonstrate leadership on the issue of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Yes, there is a clause in there called the notwithstanding clause. At the time, back in 1982, when it was ratified and when Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Queen and Jean Chrétien as the Attorney General signed off on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there was a great sense of optimism. We can hold our heads high in terms of the way Canada is perceived around the world.
The notwithstanding clause was a part of it, and it was something that was put in place in order to demonstrate that Parliament is supreme. It is also something that should be very rarely used or referenced. What we have seen since 2017 is the issue of the pre-emptive usage of the notwithstanding clause. We should all be concerned about that.
We have Liberals on this side of the House who have stood up on that particular issue. The official opposition is nowhere to be found on the issue. That is quite concerning. When I ask questions of Conservatives attempting to address the issue, the simple answer they provide is that it is not federal jurisdiction but provincial. I find that unfortunate because I think the vast majority of Canadians look to the Parliament of Canada to protect the fundamental freedoms and rights of individuals.
I have run out of time. I hope I get a couple of questions.
337 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:52:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and address this particular motion brought forward by the Bloc.
I am not surprised by Bloc members bringing forward this motion, because, after all, from the Bloc Party's perspective, they want to cause division, even though when we look at their attempt this time around, the member for Kingston and the Islands is correct in his assumption.
If we think through the logic, what the Bloc is actually proposing is to say that the federal government plays no role and that it should be silent when a province wants to invoke, in a pre-emptive way, the notwithstanding clause. The best example I can use offhand is the Province of Ontario, which is the largest province by population in the country. When the Province of Ontario makes the statement that it wants to take away labour rights, all of us should be concerned as it affects thousands of people. The Bloc tries to give the false impression that it is sympathetic to the labour movement or the working person, but this motion contradicts that. However, I am not surprised by the Bloc. I expect that.
I can tell members that Canadians would be very disappointed in the official opposition, which is what I would like to pick up on. I would suggest that one of the greatest values we have as Canadians that we treasure, besides health care, which is a debate for another day, is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We understand how important that is. In terms of values, we like to share our values around the world, and there are countries around the world that have adopted Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canada has demonstrated leadership for 40 years on the issue of human rights and the protecting of freedoms and rights for the individual. One would think that the Conservative Party of Canada would care about that when it applies here in Canada, but that is not the case.
In reference to the teachers' and union issue in Ontario and the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause to walk all over the rights of thousands of people in Ontario, here is what the Prime Minister had to say:
Canadians themselves should be extremely worried about the increased commonality of provincial governments using the notwithstanding clause preemptively to suspend their fundamental rights and freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot become a suggestion.
Since 2017, we have had Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and, to a certain point, the Province of Saskatchewan, entertain or use pre-emptive notwithstanding, which I would suggest is a form of threats, to take away rights. The Prime Minister, demonstrating leadership, makes statements in regard to it.
However, the current leader of the official opposition is nowhere to be found. If members watch the debate today and take a look at the debates that have been occurring on this very important issue, they will find a vacuum of leadership coming from the Conservative Party. Liberals will stand and defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognize how—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
526 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:02:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on my colleague's very last point where she talked about the pre-emptive nature. The example I have been providing is that of the province of Ontario with regard to labour issues that impacted literally thousands of labour people, people working in our teaching profession. Using a pre-emptive attitude toward the notwithstanding clause, I and many members of our caucus felt, was just wrong.
I wonder if she could expand upon her thoughts in regard to whether they are using the notwithstanding clause in that pre-emptive fashion.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:16:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, is the member then suggesting that if a provincial jurisdiction decides to use the notwithstanding clause for whatever it deems it wants to do, then Ottawa has absolutely no role to play, even if the citizens of the nation feel compelled that there should be some national leadership on an issue?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:28:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on that note, the member says the Conservatives will always stand for the freedom and rights of Canadians. Would that very same principle he spoke about apply also to the Province of Ontario when it did a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause to limit labour negotiations? Does he believe that was an appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause by Ontario, in its pre-emptive way?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:20:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am raising the issue of relevance. We are debating the notwithstanding clause, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is all sorts of room in which the member could provide comment on that. I do not think the member has been even remotely relevant, unless he is suggesting that we use the notwithstanding clause for bail.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:12:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we signed off on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and brought the Canadian Constitution home back in 1982. I cannot imagine that, at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien envisioned, for example, the Province of Ontario using the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive way to put limits on labour. As we go through the debate today, it is important just to recognize how, in recent years, some provinces seem to use the clause as a pre-emptive measure. I think a great majority of Canadians would disagree with that kind of usage. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on governments, whether national or provincial, taking advantage of that clause and using it in a pre-emptive way?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
