- 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 8:00:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have one question for the member and I really hope he can give me a yes or no on this.
What happens if a commissioner comes forward who is overly qualified, has everything the commission wants, but only speaks French? Would the member then suggest that individual should be disqualified?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/24 10:13:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not have an answer to his specific question in terms of the particular organizations that he referenced. What I do know, as I indicated in my speech, there was an absolute ton of work done in creating this commission and in consulting with indigenous peoples directly.
I am a partisan person. I think the Speaker would acknowledge that. When I stand in the House, I am quite partisan. I will take the shots where I see necessary. I really hope that on this particular issue, an issue as important as this, the entire House can support it. We are talking about establishing a council with oversight. I really hope that we can put aside partisanship and that we can move forward in doing what it is right because I know, at heart, every member believes that.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:34:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, David Christopherson sat on the procedure and House affairs committee. He was in this chamber for a very long time. He was well regarded among my NDP colleagues and indeed probably by everybody in this House. Here is what he had to say when he was before David Johnston at a PROC committee just a couple of years ago: “You are the gold standard of public service and I can't imagine any position for which you wouldn't be eminently qualified to represent Canadians and bring that fairness and values, and your integrity and your intelligence, your experience, to bear.” He went on to say, “I have the highest regard for you, as does my caucus, and if at the end of the day, you end up being the debates commissioner, we as a country would be well served.”
That is David Christopherson, the former NDP member from Hamilton, who made those comments. If he is correct and the NDP feels the way Mr. Christopherson does about David Johnston, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say someone is an eminent Canadian who is overly qualified to do this and whose integrity and intelligence are above everybody else's, and then all of a sudden, when they get a report from him, say they do not like what he said, so it is best that he step aside and we do it a different way. I am very perplexed by it. I cannot understand why the NDP is skating this line, trying to position themselves somewhere between thinking David Johnston is amazing and saying he has to go because they do not like the report he produced.
Members will note that NDP members were not calling for David Johnston to leave a week ago. They only started doing that when he brought out this report. In their eyes, the only difference they could have possibly had between then and now is the fact that this report came out. They do not like what he said in the report, but I will tell my NDP colleagues, as can anybody who sits on the PROC committee and heard the witnesses who came forward, that Mr. Johnston's reasoning for not having a public inquiry jibes exactly with what the head of the RCMP, the head of CSIS and the national security intelligence people said. All of these individuals, who came before committee, told us the exact same thing. He came to the exact same conclusion the experts were telling us in committee.
I am glad to see the member for Burnaby South is willing to accept and receive classified information in order to understand how Mr. Johnston came to these conclusion, but two other parties in this House, which are supposed to be here for the purpose of holding the government accountable, are not even interested in the information that would give them the ability to hold the government accountable.
It should not come as a surprise that I will vote against the opposition day motion. There has been a lot of talk, and I find it very unfortunate that we seem to be on this crusade of trampling over the reputations of Canadians, with a willingness to do whatever is possible for a bit of political gain. Again I am reminded, and I have thought about it several times today, that I was one of the only Liberals sitting in the House of Commons during the pandemic, in this exact same seat, when the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc dragged the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada before the bar just for political gain.
I understand where the NDP is on this. If we want to assess the politics of it, the NDP is just trying to find a difference between themselves and the Liberals. The only way they can really do it is by trying to shift things a bit to say they will call out David Johnston and call for the firing of David Johnston. They dragged the president of PHAC to the bar of the House of Commons, which had only happened prior to that twice in the history of this country. They had no problem doing that.
This is for political gain. It is for no reason other than that, and I find it shameful. It is one thing to have a debate and an open discussion about the best way forward for this country in light of foreign interference. It is a whole other thing when we start trampling over people's reputations, in particular people who cannot defend themselves in here and people who have served this country with incredible distinction over the years.
790 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:13:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it incredibly rich that the member would take the time to requote his question and then gloss over the answer he received, not bothering to even read it into the record, so I will do that for him now. The response given was, “Madam Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recused himself from all deliberations and decisions related to the appointment of the interim Ethics Commissioner.”
The member suggested that this was just dancing around answering the question. To me, that sounds like a pretty direct answer to the question. However, what is even more important is to reflect on the fact that the individual who was appointed had a 10-year record in senior roles within the Ethics Commissioner's office, which began when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.
The truth is that the characterization being sought by the member and the Conservatives on this issue, like on so many other issues related to it, undermines the office and undermines the integrity of the work it does. Quite frankly, I find it very concerning that time after time, the Conservatives get up and do the exact same thing. However, it is exactly on brand for what they do.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not understand exactly what the member means by just empowering the Privacy Commissioner. My understanding was that the intent of the tribunal was to oversee decisions that were made by the commissioner. That being the case, I think it is important that there be a body in place to bring complaints about the commissioner to.
Having said that, again, if the concern is not about the structure of the bodies but more about the composition and how that is determined, then I think this is a great conversation that can be had at committee, and the committee can bring forward its suggestions on this.
The government that introduced the bill certainly is not in a majority, as we know, and the NDP have been there to work with the government quite a bit. If these are suggestions that need to be brought forward, in a minority Parliament there is going to have to be at least a majority of the members on the committee that make recommendations back. I guess we will see what comes back from the committee.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:19:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is because the previous question was about the Prime Minister. If the member wants to talk about the previous finance minister, then yes, the Ethics Commissioner came to a conclusion and the information was out there, so why do we still need this report?
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for referencing somebody other than Michael Geist. It took the Conservatives only until 11:35 p.m., 20 minutes before the debate is to be over, to do that. I greatly appreciate that.
More to the point, the member started to go down the road of algorithms again. I heard him talk about that, like many Conservatives did. I do not know if the member has read the bill, but he should refer to page 14 of the bill, which specifically speaks to algorithms, “computer algorithm or source code”. It says:
The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.
It is written in the bill that the commission does not have the authority to do that. Why do this member and all Conservative members continue to get up and say the same thing over and over?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
