- 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
- May/6/24 8:04:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been suggesting recently that he will use the notwithstanding clause where he sees fit.
On Friday, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston specifically said, “A common-sense Conservative government would use the notwithstanding clause only on matters of criminal justice.” Well, performing an abortion back in the nineties was considered a crime.
The member could very easily put my concern to rest by answering this question. Can the member categorically say that a future Conservative government would absolutely protect a woman's right to choose and not use the notwithstanding clause on a matter such as that, yes or no?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:52:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, every Canadian should be invested in this conversation, because the more the clause is used, the more normalized it becomes throughout the country, the more people are willing to accept it. If we do not denounce the use of it now and stand up against it, the problems will only be much greater later on.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:15:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem with the notwithstanding clause in recent years has been the pre-emptive use of it. I specifically think of the most recent example in Ontario where Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, used the notwithstanding clause to pre-emptively limit the ability for teachers to strike.
Bloc members will come into the House and quite often talk about how they encourage and are great supporters of the labour movement and of unions specifically. Would the member from the Bloc support the use of the notwithstanding clause by the Quebec government if it were doing what Doug Ford had done, which was to limit the rights of teachers to collectively bargain? I hope the member can answer that rather than—
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 1:04:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said he has been listening to the debate all morning. I am assuming he listened to the speech I just gave. I talked at great length about bail reform and how the Minister of Justice has committed to working with those leaders. He met with them in the fall, and he is meeting with them again in February. He is committed to ensuring that we can bring forward the proper legislation and the reforms necessary.
By the way, this is not a bill. This is just a motion. I am very critical of the intent of this and what is behind it. I do not believe that any of the resolved clauses in here would actually make changes that were constitutional, or that would benefit anybody.
I think it is necessary for the conversations to happen at the local levels, the provincial and territorial levels, so the proper reforms can come in.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member indicated that it is not in the preamble. Could it be in the preamble? Maybe it should be. I am not sure.
What I did learn very quickly from my days on municipal council is that the preamble really does not matter; it is the resolve clauses in the motion, or in this case the bill, that really matter. Do I believe that privacy is of the utmost importance? Absolutely. It is talked about throughout this bill. Should that be in the preamble? I am sure that is another matter that could be discussed at committee to determine if it is appropriate.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 4:15:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to clarify something with respect to this motion, because I have been getting different and conflicting answers from Conservatives and the NDP today. The very first clause in this motion, the first “whereas” clause, says “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living”.
What we heard the Leader of the Opposition say today is that he was referring to the fact there are more public servants now, more public sector jobs, than there were before the pandemic. He was essentially criticizing those public sector jobs. The NDP seems to claim it has to do with subsidizing oil, which is what the member for Courtenay—Alberni said. I am wondering if this member can clarify for me item (i) of this motion, where it says, “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living”. Is that indeed talking about the fact that there are more public sector jobs now than there were prior to the pandemic?
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 1:47:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I disappointed the Bloc by not bringing up health care transfers because that is the only thing its members ever really want to talk about in here.
I will say that my concern for the NDP was laid out very clearly. I am concerned that the NDP would vote in favour of a motion that has a whereas clause basically saying that we have too many public servants working for the government. That is my concern.
I did not say they had to haphazardly follow the government like a lapdog, as the member suggested. I laid out exactly what my concern was. The member is trying to suggest I am doing something other than that, and that is simply not the case.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 1:19:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am looking for a little clarification and perhaps the member could help.
The very first clause in the motion says, “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living.” When I asked the New Democrats about this, they said that this referred to oil subsidies. However, what I heard the Leader of the Opposition and the finance critic say this morning was that more and more government employees were being hired and that was what they were being critical of.
I want to ensure that the NDP knows what it is voting for here. With respect to the first clause in the motion, could the member confirm whether we are talking about oil subsidies or are we talking about the hiring more and more federal employees?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:52:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand that the NDP will be voting in favour of this motion. The first clause in the preamble says, “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living”.
Could the member comment on what cost of government he thinks is driving up the cost of living?
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the member asked me that question because it gives me an opportunity to once again talk about the games the members on that side of the House play. They brought forward a motion with three parts to it. This is what the Conservatives do. They insert a poison pill into it, knowing that we cannot vote in favour of it. In this case, the second clause was to chastise the government over an issue. They did this just so this member could get up later on and ask the exact question he did.
The Conservatives know exactly what they are up to. They know the games they play in this House. If the member actually cared, like he says he does, the Conservatives would have brought forward a straightforward motion that did not include a poison pill, and he probably would have seen a lot—
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 1:39:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if members listened to that speech, they would think that this motion today was about providing sources of information to make decisions. It is not.
I do not know if the member is aware of what is in the motion, but I will skip right to the resolve clause, which says: “the House call on the government to immediately revert to prepandemic rules and service levels for travel.” That is it.
The motion is not asking about providing information that made us make the decision, but that is what the member spent his entire speech talking about. The motion is about pretending that the pandemic never happened, and going back, or in the Conservatives' words, “reverting” back to the way that life used to be.
Did the member read the motion before he decided to stand up and speak today?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
