- Member of Parliament
- Minister of Health
- Liberal
- Ajax
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,982.00
- Government Page
- Feb/29/24 2:45:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the representations made by the member are inaccurate, and I would invite people to read the documents, which have been fully redacted.
However, this is the contrast with a party that is focused on partisanship and differences. The member opposite talked about working with another party and what that might accomplish. What about dental care? When we focused on co-operation, we were able to get dental care for this country. We were able to make sure that nine million Canadians, including three million seniors, will have access to dental care. They are voting against that. They are against that. Are they against pharmacare? Are they against the other fruits of co-operation that come from—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 2:29:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in a time of great global difficulty, in a time when people all over the world are finding things hard, there are those who stand up, provide solutions and talk about how we make things better. I want to recognize the NDP for stepping forward and talking about solutions and talking about answers, when we saw Conservatives voting against dental care, voting against support for seniors, voting against support for persons with disability, voting against our children who need dental support. Shame on them.
Congratulations to any party that stands up for ideas and getting things done in this country.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 4:31:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was January 31 that PROC completed its report. Immediately after that, we were able to engage in discussions with the House leader from his party. Then we got the response from his party about, I believe, three or four weeks ago, when they let us know what their final position was and what their proposed changes were. It took a little while for them to get them. I do not criticize them. I know there are a lot of things happening in his party, but we certainly appreciated receiving those.
What I heard from the Bloc Québécois was, “Well, maybe, maybe not; maybe we want to change some things; maybe we don't.” There was never any specificity. I still do not know what the position of the Bloc is. I heard, “Maybe we're for the voting application.” That would be great, as they use it. In one recent case, 80% of the Bloc members used it. Some Bloc members have told me that they love the voting app and the ability to speak at a distance, use the screen and participate virtually, while other members do not agree with that, so I do not know what their position is.
That is over the past three years, by the way, which we have come back to again and again.
The Conservatives have been very consistent, I have to say: They are against it in any and all circumstances. They say they want to debate it more, but the only thing they say when they debate it is that they are against it. I do not know how many speeches we have to listen to, year after year after year, as they say “No, we're against it. We don't support it.”
We have heard them, but these provisions, which have been in place now for three years, allow the House to continue to do its work and the government to continue to be accountable. These provisions provide a little bit of flexibility, and, by the way, Conservatives and Bloc members use them every single day.
360 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 4:29:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, over the past three years, I have had several discussions with the Bloc Québécois. I asked them what changes they were proposing for a hybrid system and for voting. Unfortunately, they made it clear every time that a hybrid system was not acceptable.
This is very odd, because the member opposite uses this system every day. I see this as providing an option. With the support of a majority of members, it would be possible to change the rules and, for example, cancel the hybrid system.
I do wonder what would happen if we did not adopt the hybrid system, however. In the future, this way of doing things will continue to exist for one reason: It provides flexibility for important moments in a member's life. That is so important that we must continue using this system.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 4:18:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, context is really important. At the start of the pandemic, when we were in a very difficult situation and it was impossible to work in person, we had to use technology to be able to continue our work in Parliament. At that time, we unanimously passed a motion to operate in a hybrid format.
When health conditions improved, we were able to return to the House to continue our work in person. Over the past three years, we have seen just how effective the system has been. Ministers have continued to be in the House when members on the other side stand up during question period, and this will continue to be the case. The concept of accountability is included in the change proposed today.
However, this motion provides some flexibility. Every party, whether it is the Conservative Party or the Bloc Québécois, uses the hybrid format. Every day, the members use technology to vote. Just a few moments ago, we saw the Bloc using this technology. I find it strange that the Bloc is against this proposal when it makes use of all the options available in the hybrid format, such as electronic voting.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 11:11:12 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps the member could ask that question of members of his own caucus who are participating virtually today and will be voting virtually today. He could ask that question of members in his own caucus: why they are using it and why they find it useful. Perhaps he could level those criticisms at his caucus—
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 10:53:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the angrier somebody gets, the more it reflects on their position as opposed to the circumstance we are debating.
Let us take a step back for a second regarding the measures the member is talking about. If he is opposed to them, he and his colleagues do not have to use them. If they want to not use the hybrid provisions, then they can do so.
I am sure that when the vote happens later today, we will see all Conservative members here in the seats. I am sure all members will be voting in person. After that impassioned speech about how terrible these measures are, I am sure that in question period today we will see every single member of the Conservative Party here. We are going to see every vote taken in person, because of course this is a terrible affront to democracy, right? The anger is real, and because the anger is real, we are going to see them all here.
Here is what happened. At the beginning of the pandemic, of course we had no idea what was going to happen. We developed provisions that would give us the flexibility—
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what we are seeing at the crux of this is a different view of what Canadians sent us here to do and what the role of official opposition is, or of opposition generally.
It is my view that Canadians sent us here in a minority government with an expectation that we are going to work together. Yes, we are going to disagree, and will do so respectfully. We are going to be voting either for or against different things, but we will be putting ideas on the table and moving them respectfully through this place. That is what Canadians' expectations are.
We could knock on doors this week and have Canadians ask us what we are doing here. If we told people that dental care, the environment and housing were extremely important, what they would want to hear is that we are making sure we get to those issues, that we get to the legislation and to the debate that is going to inform the policies that are going to drive forward an agenda that is going to serve and help Canadians.
I would reflect back to the members, particularly as they draw the weeks on and on and do the same thing again and again, that it is not a great message to go back to those same constituents and say, “I tried to block the House from doing its work. I stood up every day and moved concurrence motions. I limited debate. I tried to make sure other elected members did not have an opportunity to engage in debate, and I tried to stop legislation from coming forward.” I cannot imagine that is a very compelling narrative to give to constituents.
287 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
