- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- Jun/6/24 7:12:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member joked a few minutes ago about quoting the CBC. I found that interesting because he is right; Conservatives never quote the CBC. I was surprised to hear him do that.
I know that he happens to be greenlit by the Campaign Life Coalition as an anti-choice member of Parliament, one of their flag-bearers here. I am wondering if he could give me his insight into what he thinks would more likely expel him from his caucus. Would it be his position on a woman's right to choose or the fact that he speaks favourably of the CBC in the House?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 1:12:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member brought up grocery prices.
I am curious as to how surprised he was when he found out that a paid lobbyist regularly attends his caucus meetings in order to provide strategy to the Leader of the Opposition, somebody who is directly profiting from the crisis that people are faced with, the inflation as it relates to groceries.
If he would rather not answer that question, then I would just encourage him to pivot to something else.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:59:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said, when a member stands up during questions during this debate and make claims that 150 members of his caucus already feel a certain way, it makes me wonder what the purpose is in even sending the matter to committee if the outcome has already been predetermined, at least by one particular group. However, it does not diminish the fact that the committee can still do very good work on the matter. I think the committee could actually use this as an opportunity not just to figure out the proper recourse in terms of what should be done now about what has occurred and what the proper remedy is, but also to set a precedent and certain rules, and to establish a best practice to ensure that something like this does not happen again.
I do not know the context for why the Speaker chose to do this, nor will I try to guess as to what it was, but I will say that the Speaker has stood and apologized; he has recognized that it was not the best course of action. He has nonetheless done that, which is I why I think it is extremely important that we accept it but still determine whether there are other courses of action that need to be taken.
There is also an amendment on the motion that came forward. It was odd, because the motion was moved, and then the second speaker from the same party put forward an amendment. I do not know why they did not just include it in the full motion. It was:
That the motion be amended by adding the following: “provided that the committee: (a) meets within 24 hours of receiving this referral order to study the matter; (b) prioritizes this matter over all other business; (c) has first priority in using the resources of the house for committee meetings, subject to special orders adopted on Monday, May 16, 2022, and Monday, December 4, 2023; and (d) is tasked with reporting to the house no later than Thursday, December 14, 2023.”
The original motion set the context for the work that needed to be done and for how important it was, and then it appears as though the amendment that came forward just moments later got very prescriptive in terms of how to deal with the issue. I would have thought that this would all have come together. It certainly does not appear to be an amendment that was proposed as a result of having listened to the debate. From how it was tabled, I perceive it to be something that was well planned in advanced. My sense is that it is probably to try to pressure political parties one way or the other with respect to potentially voting against one part but not the other. Maybe, tactically speaking, it is a good move. However, that certainly does not support the notion that has been widely spread around the House during discussion, which is that this should be a non-partisan issue. If my assumptions are correct, that would suggest that there is a partisan nature to the manner in which the amendment has been tabled, and obviously I would have a concern about that.
However, I do want to see the matter sent to committee. I think it is extremely important that we have a resolution, that we set some parameters for how Speakers are expected to engage in the future, and that we have something reported back to the House that we can then debate and determine how to move forward with.
I will return to what I said when I began, which was about the importance of the impartiality of the Speaker. As many members of the House know, with a good Speaker, yourself included, Madam Speaker, after a while, people do not look at them as being associated with a political party; they start to just respect the fact that the Speaker is non-partisan, However, we do come from a partisan nature; the vast majority of us who are elected to the House are elected under a political banner. Nonetheless, it is really important that once somebody is elected into that position, they ensure that they do it with utmost impartiality in order to avoid a situation that can be seen as their favouring one side or another.
I will be the first to admit that, during my time here, there have been times when I have agreed wholeheartedly with what Speakers have said, and that there have been times I have not agreed with them. During the time I have been here, all the Speakers who have sat in the chair have been of the political party I am associated with, and sometimes I do not agree with them and am frustrated by a particular ruling they make.
There is an appropriate way to handle this in terms of when the Speaker is doing their very important work of being impartial. They receive advice from the Clerk's table. I remember once asking Peter Milliken how he used to deal with situations where he would have to rule on something like that. He told me that he took the advice from the clerks around the table, and then at the end of the day it was his decision as to how he would proceed. Having that kind of authority is extremely important, and that is why we need to ensure that impartiality continues.
I will conclude by saying that I hope the matter goes to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so we can deal with it there and report back to the House.
954 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 1:53:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for the Canadians who may not pay a lot of attention to what goes on in the House, I will just explain what happened there.
I spoke about nothing but the bill and its relevance. Somebody in the back rooms of the Conservative caucus decided to send somebody in here because I was about to talk about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The member literally sat on the edge of his seat waiting for the word “Ukraine” to come out of my mouth. As soon as it did, he jumped up on a point of order as though to try to indicate there was no relevance. That is what is going on right now. That is where the Conservative Party of Canada is right now. That is how Conservatives feel about the issue. They are so afraid of Canadians' finding out where they stand on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement that they literally send people in here, when they see I have gotten up to speak, to sit on the edge of their seat waiting in anticipation for—
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:39:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know that all too well, because I had a private member's bill that had passed the House of Commons and gone over to the Senate. It was just before the election, and those Conservative senators stalled it to the point where my bill as well ended up dying on the Order Paper as a result.
Conservatives will meet tomorrow morning at their caucus meeting with senators, and I do not even know what that is like. I have been here since 2015, and I have never sat in a caucus room with senators. The concept is foreign to me. When Conservatives start pointing the finger at us like we are somehow able to control what happens in the Senate because we control the senators is ludicrous. They literally sit in the same caucus room once a week with Conservative senators.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:28:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for Conservatives to do this is absolutely appalling. We do not have senators sitting in our caucus. I have been here since 2015—
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 5:04:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition tried to excuse himself and his caucus out of the way they voted earlier with respect to the Ukraine free trade agreement. I want to tell him that nobody believes him.
President Zelenskyy asked us to vote in favour of this. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked us to vote in favour of this. As a matter of fact, “international trade lawyer Larry Herman said that the Conservatives' concern about reference to a carbon pricing makes them look ‘petty and hyperpartisan.’”
It is nothing more than a red herring. The reality is that MAGA Republican politics now lives and resides within the Conservative Party of Canada.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 10:28:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I understand that this is the last speech, and so perhaps I will ask the member her opinion of what has gone on tonight.
Never in the eight years that I have spent in this House have I seen the Conservatives so utterly silent on an issue. They have not given a single speech other than the five minutes right at the very beginning. They have not asked a single question. It is absolutely clear to me that there is an orchestrated attempt within the Conservative caucus and somebody has said that nobody is speaking on this. They have silenced the members, which is the only thing I can interpret from this, but I do not know why. I cannot understand why. It would be so easy for all of us to come together and be in solidarity on this. I wonder if the member, as the last speaker tonight, can provide her thoughts on why that might be.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:39:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a lot is said in this House, when we have debates on this topic, about the fact that all members of the Conservative caucus who sit here today ran on pricing pollution in 2021. However, the Leader of the Opposition sits in a special club, a club that is joined by five other Ontario MPs, six from Alberta, one from B.C., one from Manitoba, one from New Brunswick, one from Quebec and three from Saskatchewan. This is a club of MPs who not only ran on it in 2021, but also ran on it in 2006. In 2006, the member, along with all the other MPs I just referenced, ran on Stephen Harper's plan to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gas and air pollution.
The member has now run, with other members from the Conservative caucus, on pricing pollution twice. Could he explain the flip-flop?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 1:43:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we do not hear as much from the member as we used to, and I miss that. I am being genuine. She is actually one of the more progressive in the Conservative Party and I wish we would hear her voice more often, notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with her on this particular issue.
I did take note that the member spoke specifically about the government backbench and the NDP as though they were the only members in the House who support this, but that is not true. The entire Bloc Québécois caucus and the Green Party caucus support it as well. Therefore, the only party here that does not support this is the Conservative Party. I think it is a huge stretch to suggest that the Bloc Québécois, the separatist party, is somehow going along with a scheme to allow cabinet to make decisions on algorithms and what people see.
I am wondering if the member can comment on why she talked just specifically about the Liberals and the NDP in her statement and completely left out the Bloc and Green Party.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened to the intervention from the member and I could not help but reflect that he was here when the Conservatives were last in power. I realize that part of his argument, as it often is from the Conservatives on gun-related issues, is about cracking down on illegal guns that are coming across the border, but I cannot help but reflect on the previous government. He was part of that government, as he was a member of the Conservative Party when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and that government actually significantly reduced funding that border services needed in order to crack down on this kind of stuff.
Can the member inform the House how he responded to that when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and he got to sit in a caucus meeting with him? Did he often and routinely raise the issue that the government of the day should not be removing money needed by border operations in order to crack down on this illegal activity?
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 11:11:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I see I have got the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake all worked up. There is no doubt, given the hypocrisy I revealed only moments ago.
Nonetheless, we are investing in those charging stations right across the country. As a matter of fact, the federal government has already contributed to over 1,500 charging stations throughout this country. Later this year, we, the Liberal Party, are having our national caucus meeting in St. Andrews by-the-Sea in New Brunswick. My wife and I will be attending the conference, and we will be driving our electric car from Kingston, Ontario, to St. Andrews by-the-Sea, New Brunswick.
I look forward to giving the member a full update on the various charging stations we stopped at along the way, including those in New Brunswick, so he can see the value in having an electric vehicle and the ability to move across the country quite freely with an electric vehicle. Later on, perhaps in the fall, I will have the opportunity to update the member on the success of our trip and whether or not my wife and I made it back in one piece.
I do want to also touch on another part, a very important part, of this budget.
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
