- 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
- Mar/19/24 1:11:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the member for the NDP brought forward an opposition motion that we charge an excess profit tax on the oil and gas industry, I would vote for it.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion of the Conservative Party.
I must admit that I was really surprised when the Conservatives put forward this particular motion. There are always a few opposition day motions put on the Notice Paper, and then the opposition will decide at the last minute which one they want to proceed with. When I reviewed the options, I have to be honest that this is the absolute last one I thought they would bring forward, given the context of what has been going with this particular bill. The motion calls on the Senate to immediately pass Bill C-234, but I thought they would not come anywhere near this issue because of what we have seen from Conservative members over the last couple of days and, indeed, week.
I really wish I could share a poster with members, but I respect the rules of the House. I realize that I am not allowed to use a prop, so I will not go so far as to show it, but I would like to describe it as I look at it. This is a poster made by the Conservative Party of Canada, which its members have been sharing in social media forums. It is meant to look like a wanted poster. The edges around the sides look at though they are burnt out. There are two pictures of two individuals on it with grainy pixelation. They have the individuals' names, in this case, the two senators, and then at the top it says “Call and ask these [Prime Minister's name] senators why they shut down debate on giving farmers a carbon tax carveout.”
The reason I find this so disrespectful is that, notwithstanding the fact that more developed out of that poster, which I will talk about momentarily, out of one side of their mouths, Conservatives are trying to somehow justify attacking senators to get results. On the other hand, we do not have to think that far back in the institutional memory of this place to remember when one of their own colleagues, Rona Ambrose, brought forward a bill intended to make sure that judges received sexual harassment training in this country. One would think that it would have been an easy bill to support, but their Conservative senators held that bill up in the Senate to the point it ended up being removed as a result of Parliament being dissolved.
I find it incredibly rich that we have this motion here today demanding that we get answers and that the Senate do something that the Conservatives want. Where was their outrage when it came to that really important piece of legislation that one of their own members, Rona Ambrose, tabled? She was a former minister and a former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Their senators would not even let that bill pass through.
As well, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Whitby.
I will go back to this particular call-out from the Conservatives in the form of a wanted poster, which is trying to generate phone calls and emails to these particular senators. Well, their plan worked. Now one of these senators, at least, is expressing extreme concern over the fact that she has been harassed and intimidated along with her staff. She has had to leave her home. I will read what she said about the matter. She said:
There has been much online chatter about my adjourning Bill C-234 last Thursday. I'm the deputy facilitator of the Independent Senators Group. I adjourn debate on numerous items every time the Senate sits—it's is my job and this adjournment is no different than any other.
She goes on to say:
I wasn't going to post about this because, as I said, there is no story here. However, in response to a...Twitter post that asked for calls to my office, a young female staff member received a phone call from a man threatening to show up at my house. This type of behaviour is unacceptable. It was fueled by social media posts, like that one, encouraging anger, and by the misinformation that has been circulating over the past week. I know the senators who posted this to [Twitter], and I recognize that it would not have been their intention to cause a stranger to show up at my house and put my safety at risk. More thought needs to be given to the dangerous effects of the angry public messaging targeted at others.
Conservative members and their senators targeted two female senators, which also affected one of their female staff members, as I indicated. I think it is also extremely perplexing that this is happening during the particular time period we are in right now, the 16 days of activism against violence against women. That is taking place this year between November 25 and December 10, yet we are getting this kind of action from Conservatives. It is absolutely despicable the way that they are engaging in activity that is certainly resulting in threatening and harassing forms of activity towards two senators. By the way, those two senators have never sat in a Liberal caucus. I have been here since 2015—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
901 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 4:40:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, then they should bring forward that motion. Why not bring forward a motion that is very direct and simple and says, “We stand for universal health care. We do not support the privatization of health care”, full stop? They did not do that.
Instead, they brought forward a motion that was intended to wedge Liberals and NDP. They brought forward a motion that they knew we would not support because they put two little poison pills into it. This is where we are.
I love the grandstanding that we just saw there, but the reality is that, if that member was as genuine as she claims, she would have brought forward something much more simple and direct.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 6:05:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find that answer very interesting because it begs the question of why the Conservatives did not bring forward a more holistic motion. If the Leader of the Opposition is genuine in saying the opposition motion today is one that opens the books up, as he said, and looks at everything, why would he bring forward a motion that is centred on one specific company? If it were not for anything other than political gain—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 4:16:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The spread between the haves and the have-nots has only gotten larger and larger. The reality of the situation is that not only is it not good that CEOs are being paid 191 times more because of the difference between those who are making incredible sums of money and those who are making very little bits of money, but it is also generally not good for our economy as a whole when we do not have a strong middle class. We need a strong middle class because they are the ones who actually drive the economy.
The member's question was about why the government will not move forward on it. In this motion the NDP calls for that, and I just told her that I am going to support the motion. Therefore, I do support the call that is in the motion.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I particularly took note of the fact that he took credit for the previous government's truth and reconciliation report. I would remind him that there were protests in the street demanding that the government do that, which finally forced the government to do that.
Nonetheless, I think what is more important is that, of those 94 recommendations, to date, it has only been the Liberal Party that has gone on record to say it would move to implement all of them.
Does the Conservative Party support moving forward and accomplishing all 94 and working with the different jurisdictions to do that? If it does not, which of the 94 does it not support?
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:42:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that sentiment is reciprocated to the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I know that in the House it quite often seems like we are continually sparring, but the member and I just had a great opportunity to have a very civilized personal conversation prior to this debate, despite the fact that we might be at odds on this particular issue.
I obviously do not have a direct answer to the member's question, but I also do not understand how this demand is coming forward through this question and answer period. If the member wants to put forward a policy objective of the government, he should do so through a motion or various other forms where he can do that. In the meantime, I do not think that it is indicative of the government in any regard to say that it can guarantee one way or another that it will do one thing or another. If the member is interested in changing the policy of the government, there are ways to do that, but I do not believe that this back-and-forth is the proper place.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:28:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, he asked about the government not being able to bring forward the important pieces of legislation. Why can we not bring them forward? It is because we have been debating Bill C-8 for 12 days. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to it, along with five Bloc members, two Greens, two NDP members and three Liberals. The Conservatives are clearly stopping at nothing to make sure that legislation cannot get through. That is why this is important.
I would encourage that member, who shares an opposition lobby with the Conservatives, to walk over to his colleagues and ask why those guys are holding up the fall economic statement. It is May of 2022, and this is the economic statement that was to provide support for Canadians from the fall of last year.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:25:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to the opposition day motion that has been introduced by the Conservative Party.
I just want to start by saying that I am glad to see such a motion being put forward today. It is a motion that actually addresses policy. It is a nice departure from what we typically see coming from across the way, which are motions that are geared more toward personal attacks on the Prime Minister or a particular minister. Rather, this is a motion that is actually discussing policy and putting forward a policy idea. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with this particular course of action, I am very grateful for the fact that what has been introduced by the Conservatives today through this opposition motion is of substance and can actually allow us to have a very good wholesome debate about a possible policy to implement in Canada.
When reading the text of the motion, the first thing that popped out to me was the issue in the motion with respect to GST, HST and the QST. The reason is that QST is the Quebec sales tax. It is a tax levied by the Quebec government. I am not sure how my Bloc Québécois colleagues feel about this, given that they stand up routinely for Quebec sovereignty in this House in terms of its ability to manage its own finances, but I find it perplexing that the Conservatives would bring forward a motion that would somehow allow the federal government to inject itself into the jurisdiction of Quebec, namely by creating options to rebate some sales taxes that are collected by Quebec. Perhaps that was not the intent of the motion. Perhaps the idea that the drafter of the motion had was something different, but at the end of the day that is certainly how it presents itself, at least in my reading of it.
I also find it very interesting that, for the six years I have been in the House, I have heard time and time again the Conservative Party criticize the government, quite often blaming the price of oil in Canada squarely on the Prime Minister as if it was his fault that the price of oil was so low that Alberta and other western provinces were not able to extract efficiently more oil out of the ground. Now, suddenly, they seem to be in a position where they are basically advocating that gas, which is made from oil, be now subsidized or the funds that are collected by the government with respect to that increase should now somehow be turned back over, basically criticizing the fact that the price of oil is now so high.
I think the issue I have the biggest concern with, as it relates to this opposition motion, is one that brings me back to my time as a city councillor and mayor of Kingston. One of the things that we relied upon quite seriously when building infrastructure in the city of Kingston was being able to rely on what was at least then called the gas tax, which is now called the Canada community-building fund. This is where a portion of that HST that is collected at the pumps is actually taken by the federal government and distributed right back to municipalities so that those municipalities can spend it on very important infrastructure projects in their communities. There are more than 650 community recipients of various different municipalities and jurisdictions within Ontario alone that receive funding through the former gas tax and now the Canada community-building fund, which totals roughly $816 million annually in Ontario alone.
It is very concerning that we might reduce, even just for a short term, the amount of money that can be collected and turned back over to municipalities to invest specifically in infrastructure. A lot of the time, at least in Kingston, we spent a lot of that gas tax money on improving the infrastructure within our transit network, everything from road rehabilitation right through to public transit, quite often relying on tourism perspectives to get people in and out of our community. We relied, as a municipality, quite heavily on that funding. I know a lot of municipalities throughout Ontario do that.
The AMO, the Association of Municipalities Ontario, does a very good job for the federal government of tracking exactly where that money is spent. We can go to its website to see where money from the gas tax, now known as the Canada community-building fund, is being distributed throughout the province of Ontario and know exactly how that money is being applied.
I am not surprised that the Conservatives want to perhaps take this position on the issue. If we look back, historically Stephen Harper had an absolutely horrible record at providing infrastructure money to municipalities throughout Canada. This government has taken a much different approach that says municipalities throughout Canada are our partners and that we will partner with them to make sure we are building the infrastructure they need not only for today, but more importantly for tomorrow. That is what this money is all about. That is the importance of collecting and redistributing the gas tax, now known as the Canada community-building fund, back to municipalities throughout Ontario.
I recognize that the Conservatives might have a different approach on this, and I respect that. I respect the fact that when they bring forward a motion like this, they might be signalling back to that style of engagement with municipalities. However, it certainly is not the manner in which this government has acted in looking at that relationship to build infrastructure with municipalities over the last six years, nor is it in any way an indication, if we look at the language coming from the finance minister, of what our plan is moving forward. We genuinely want to be there with municipalities to get them the funding they need to keep building infrastructure, and a huge portion of that comes through the Canada community-building fund and the collection of HST at the pumps. If members think about that, it is the people using the roads who are contributing to this fund. They are the ones who will be putting money into the fund through that tax, which will go back to investing in and building on the infrastructure they are using.
There is no doubt, and I will echo a lot of what has been said in the House today, that what we are seeing here is a rise in the price of gas. Members of the opposition continually try to suggest that this and inflation are somehow the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Somehow they think the Prime Minister of Canada, somebody who they have criticized for years as being unable to do anything, suddenly has the ability to arbitrarily affect the price of oil and gas throughout the world, and inflation for that matter. However, this is a global problem. This is a problem that has come largely from the war that Vladimir Putin began with Ukraine. We have seen why this is happening, and it is a stark reality of the situation throughout the world. This is the reality of what happens when countries become dependent on fossil fuels, and energy in particular, from other jurisdictions around the world. They become dependent and reliant on those other jurisdictions, and that is exactly what we are seeing.
When we look at what the leaders in other parts of the world, in particular in Europe, are saying, they want to move at a faster pace away from fossil fuels and transition to more renewable, sustainable sources. This leads me to my last point. Once again, the Conservatives are bringing forward a motion that is entirely based on fossil fuels. They have this incredible addiction to and obsession with oil in particular. They are unable to realize and recognize that we are moving away from oil. The world is moving away from oil. This is not a Liberal thing. It is not an NDP thing. It is not a Bloc thing. It is not a Green Party thing. The world is moving away from oil, and the Conservatives need to get on board, figure that out and become part of it so that we can capitalize on our opportunities in Canada to ensure that happens.
Even in the province of Alberta, the growth in the renewable energy sector is far outpacing any growth in the fossil fuel industry. Members are laughing at it as though they are concerned about it. We can look at the stats from Statistics Canada that relate to that growth. It is happening, and it is time that we get on board and be part of it.
1481 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:12:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was watching the member's speech on the TV in the lobby, and she was commenting on the unanimous consent motion the Bloc brought forward in the previous Parliament. I think it was in May of last year.
The Bloc wants to set this up as though it somehow introduced a unanimous consent motion that would have solved everything, but the reality is that the motion had a number of problems in it. It did not indicate whether things would be indexed over time or whether people who had a higher income would receive a clawback. It did not indicate anything about how long somebody had been in Canada. The motion did not address how it would handle somebody who had been in Canada for 10 years versus 40 years. It is very disingenuous for the Bloc to suggest it brought forward a motion that somehow would have rectified all this.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
