- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- May/27/24 11:13:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if you deem the name “hypocrite” to be offensive, I appreciate that, and I withdraw it, but I just want to know this: Does the hypocrisy really bother him?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:13:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will retract “hypocrite” and replace it with ”the hypocrisy of it”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 12:29:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I get a real kick out of the question from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, who continues to heckle. He said the government is not needed to set up the system and to let the market do it, which can do it all on its own. That is right, because for decades we have not been helping the oil sector and basically providing government intervention to make sure the oil sector is successful in Canada. The hypocrisy that comes from the Conservatives is absolutely amazing.
Why does the member think the Conservatives are so afraid of this legislation? If they do not think the future is in this technology, why would they even bother to get all worked up about this?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/10/24 5:49:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I agree completely with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman that those discussions should be had in advance. The unfortunate reality is that Conservatives never do that. They are the biggest abusers of that rule in the House, so for the member to stand up and say that is quite ironic and demonstrates hypocrisy.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:54:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, despite the fact that it may have been heckling, the member's contribution was so good that I think we should have made an exception on this one occasion.
I find it interesting that the member for Saskatoon West said, “Let us call a spade a spade”, right after he did not answer a single question he was asked. He just pivoted and went to a completely different place. I asked him about something in his speech, and rather than address the question, he totally went off and started talking about heat pumps, which I did not even hear him talk about in his speech.
This just goes to the point that I will be making in my comments, which is the fact that this is all about Conservative hypocrisy. Before I go any further, I will indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
I find it very fascinating. At the heart of this is the issue of the price on pollution, and the reason I find it so difficult is that I feel as though, once again, it is Groundhog Day. I have given a similar speech many times before. I am talking about the same hypocrisy that comes from Conservatives in the House. What we repeatedly see is Conservative after Conservative standing up against a policy that they all ran on; some of them did so not once, but twice. Some members in here, 19 members, who ran and were elected in the 2008 election and are still here today, ran cap and trade.
Cap and trade is just another form of pricing pollution; it is just done slightly differently. However, the Conservatives ran on it. Again, of course, just in the most recent election, they ran under Erin O'Toole as their leader with their signature platform titled “The Man with the Plan”. They talked about how they were going to put a price on pollution, but rather than just giving the money back to Canadians, which is what we are doing, they would put the money into a special carbon savings account. Then, depending on how much a person grew that account, they could go out and qualify for different rewards. I imagine there would be some form of catalogue, and people would look through it, just as one would with Air Miles. Depending on how much they had built up in that carbon fund, they could get some really good prizes. Maybe they could get a really nice bicycle or something. However, if they had not spent a lot and had not built up a lot in that carbon account, they might get a smaller prize as a result.
Despite the fact that it would have been pricing pollution, the problem with that plan is that it actually incentivized people to use carbon and have a larger carbon footprint. The larger the carbon footprint a person had, the more credits they would build into this carbon account, so they could get even better prizes at the end. Their plan was immensely flawed, and our party, and all parties in this House, would never support something like that.
That is what they ran on most recently, in 2021. In 2008, 18 of them also ran on “The True North Strong and Free: Stephen Harper's plan for Canadians”. In that, as I previously mentioned, Stephen Harper outlined how his newly formed government, if elected, would bring in cap and trade. It was revolutionary at the time, at least for North America, because it was just a handful of states in the United States; Ontario, which came along a bit after that; and Quebec, which had also signed on, that were part of this North American version of cap and trade among a number of jurisdictions.
Did Stephen Harper actually implement that and put in that price on pollution? No, he did not. He completely abandoned it once he had the opportunity. However, the point is that 19 Conservatives who currently sit on that side of the House ran on that in 2008.
The hypocrisy is even better than that, because a number of the Conservative members sitting in the House right now actually sat previously in legislatures that had adopted pricing pollution. To take it a step further, they have comments in the official records of those legislatures, where they actually commit to pricing pollution.
There are many options, but I will start with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, now a Conservative member of Parliament in this federal House. He said, while sitting in the provincial legislature in B.C.:
In 2008, our government made the decision to implement a tax on carbon. It was designed to help British Columbia reduce greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time be fair to hard-working families.
A Conservative member said that, which is literally what we are saying.
We did not even come up with that material; the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge did. He ran on it. He said that in the provincial legislature. He also went on to say:
I know that the member for Vancouver-Kensington made a comment about it and tried to blame it on the federal government, as far as revenue neutrality. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have the option of how we wanted to bring this about, as far as a carbon tax. Our policy—it's law—is to put it back into the pockets of taxpayers.
This is not a Liberal saying this; it is a current sitting member of the House in the Conservative Party who said this. Now, suddenly, he can just blindly abandon his values and principles, in terms of how he at least felt while in the provincial legislature, to follow the lead of the alt-right leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality of what is going on.
I am always really amazed when Conservatives try to suggest that Liberals are gagged in terms of their ability to speak, when example after example comes from that side of the House.
It does not end there. There were two other members who were in the Quebec legislature and voted in favour of pricing pollution: the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. Both of them sat in the provincial legislature and voted in favour and helped adopt pricing pollution in Quebec.
Now they suddenly show up here at the federal level and act as though pricing pollution is the absolute worst thing one could do. How is it possible that they can be so hypocritical? A lot of people can say things about me, but I am very consistent as it relates to my position on pricing pollution; I have been from the beginning.
I want to raise something else, and this is my final point about Conservative hypocrisy. It actually involves you, Madam Speaker, and I would like to tell members what happened in this House back on October 20, 2022. You were presiding, Madam Speaker, and there was an opposition day motion from the Conservatives.
Our NDP colleagues tried to put forward a motion to build on to the motion the Conservatives had on the floor; it would basically have eliminated the GST from home heating sources. It did not even require a vote or anything. All the mover of the motion needed to do was accept it, and then it would have carried.
Madam Speaker, you said:
It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party.
The hon. member does not have the support of the opposition; therefore, the amendment cannot be accepted.
Conservatives are just playing games with this. They did not want that to be adopted, because if it did get adopted, they would not get the political ammunition they are looking for to hold over the NDP and everybody else.
This hypocrisy was pointed out by both the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and the NDP, who have been rising on it all day long. To make matters even worse, today, the member for Timmins—James Bay again tried to amend this motion to add “and to eliminate the GST on home heating in provinces where no federal carbon tax is in place.”
The member for Battle River—Crowfoot said no; basically, it was rejected once again. One is left wondering why. Why are Conservatives acting this way? Are they really interested in the best interests of Canadians, or is this all just for political gain?
1509 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, for starters, I would love to know what a $600 bottle of champagne tastes like. I have not had that luxury to be able to do that, unlike some of my colleagues across the way.
What we are seeing and what the member is ultimately pointing out here is some of the hypocrisy that comes from the Conservatives. They certainly talk a good game when it comes to protecting our interests, but then they do things like what the member just mentioned or move concurrence motions when we are supposed to talk about this important issue.
The Conservatives talk a really good game, but at the end of the day, they do not seem to be able to produce any kind of result that would suggest they actually believe in what they say.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed some of the exchanges that I have heard from Conservatives in the last half hour.
The previous MP to speak specifically talked about the Conservatives being willing and open and saw the need for change and transition, and for growing out all sectors of the energy opportunities in Canada. However, moments before that, the member for King—Vaughan stood up and complained that it took 80 gallons of oil to lubricate a single windmill.
The red herrings that those members seem to throw up in the air, as if that is going to suddenly justify stopping all investment in renewable energy, seem to be countless.
Could the member for Timmins—James Bay comment on the hypocrisy we seem to hear from Conservatives from time to time.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I also found it very interesting that the member for Yorkton—Melville, in the exact same speech, said that a $467 grocery rebate was pretty much insignificant and that nobody would care about it because it really did not mean anything, but that later on in the same speech she said that a $330 CPP increase would mean something significant to people. In the same speech, she tried to downplay the grocery rebate because it was not going to be impactful, but apparently a CPP contribution amount increase that is lower than that will have a devastating impact on Canadians. We can see the hypocrisy coming from the other side. That was not just from day to day, but within the exact speeches they gave in a 10-minute period.
I am really glad she talked about forest fires and what we are seeing outside. If someone walks outside the doors of this place, they are going to smell the smoke, as we all have for the last day or so. These are the impacts of climate change. I am not trying to fearmonger. I am not trying to suggest that the entire city is going to be burnt to the ground in a couple of days, but we have to be realistic about this. The reality is that forest fires in this country have been increasing significantly since the 1980s. Despite the incredible work we have done with respect to prevention and suppression, they still tend to increase. Why is that? Someone may say it cannot just be climate change. They might ask how climate change does that.
The fire season, the season in which we see forest fires, now starts a week earlier and ends a week later than it did historically. We have drier conditions, which allow fires to start in the first place, to burn quicker and to be more impactful. We also know that half of the forest fires started in Canada are caused by lightening. Where does lightening come from? It comes from increased weather events, and we are seeing increased weather events. It is no mystery to anybody that the weather events happening throughout this country are much more dire than they used to be. Conservatives are heckling at that. I do not understand why they would, as it is a serious issue. These are Canadians' lives we are talking about
We have to make a meaningful impact. We have to realize we cannot do what the member for Yorkton—Melville said, which is that we are just one little country within a globe and this is a global ecosystem, so there is nothing we can really do and we should just throw up our hands. No, we work together with other countries on this planet, like Brian Mulroney did when he saved the world from the depletion of the ozone later. Brian Mulroney brought together 42 representatives from different countries throughout the world, in Montreal, to sign the Montreal Protocol on dealing with the depletion of the ozone layer. That is how we get things done.
Yes, members should clap for Brian Mulroney, a great progressive Conservative.
The problem is that the Conservatives of today do not look at it like that. They say we are just one little country in the world, and our emissions, comparatively speaking, are so low that we should not even worry about them. That is a very defeatist approach, and if that is the approach one wants to take, I guess it is their prerogative. I much prefer the approach of Brian Mulroney, a true progressive Conservative, who knew how to tackle world issues on the national stage and how to tackle world issues. He comes from a country that is so vast in size and limited in population compared to other countries in the world, but he knew what to do. We had a reputation of being able to do that. I find this defeatist attitude of “there is nothing we can do about it and we should just go on living our lives”, while there is literally smoke outside the doors of this building right now, so alarming.
I am very happy to see that, in this budget, we are continuing to support initiatives to get us away from burning fossil fuels. This is a transition we have to make, and it is a transition that is going to happen whether the Conservatives, or the House for that matter, are interested in being part of it or not. We are transitioning away from fossil fuels; it is happening.
One in 10 cars sold in 2022 in Canada was an electric vehicle. Do I have to explain to Conservatives how, when a new technology comes along, it takes off and the curve is exponential? By 2030, I predict, there will be very few cars sold in this country that are not zero-emission vehicles. That is the reality. This budget would provide for ensuring that we incentivize the production of EVs, the production of the batteries and the proper recycling of those batteries, because that is key as well. We want to be at the forefront of the new industries that are coming.
We can have the approach of just pretending it is not happening, and we can just keep burning fossil fuels, turn our backs on it and pretend that the world is not changing around us, like the Conservatives want, or we can be at the lead of it. We can be at the forefront of it. We can be bringing the talent and developing the talent right in our country to produce these products, patents and new ideas and concepts so Canada can be an exporter of that technology and not an importer of it. This is what we are poised to do right now with the countless number of EV manufacturers and EV battery plants that have expressed an interest and have decided to set up in Canada. In my opinion, we are genuinely at the forefront, and that is what is so absolutely key in this budget. This is why, every time I have spoken to the budget, I have spoken specifically to that.
Now, of course, what we are going to hear are multiple arguments about why electric vehicles are not sustainable or how our electricity grid will never be able to handle it. However, I have great confidence in Canadians' ability to innovate, to create and to develop new technologies that will help us deal with the challenges we face on any particular day. I have no doubt we will get through it, but we have to stay focused on the goal, and the goal is to transition to cleaner energy and away from fossil fuels.
I realize that the Conservatives will say that we have some of the cleanest standards and some of the cleanest fossil fuels, which I do not necessarily disagree with. However, I do not think it is fair, from the position of a first world country and G7 partner, one of the leaders in the OECD, to point fingers at other countries, developing countries in particular, and say “Well, look at what they are doing.” We have a responsibility in this world to be leaders, and Conservatives of the past knew that. As I mentioned, Brian Mulroney did that. He knew that about the ozone layer and when it came dealing with acid rain, and he took action. He did not care where the problem originated. He did not care who was ultimately responsible for the problem, but he believed in finding solutions everybody could agree on, and he believed that Canada could be part of the leadership on that.
Rather than Conservatives sitting on their hands and saying, “Oh well, there is nothing we can do. We are emitting only 7% of the emissions, blah, blah, blah”, why do they not start coming into the House with ideas on how we can encourage other nations to follow in our path and encourage them that the way Canada is doing it is right? That is Canada's role in this world, and it has been its role in the past. Conservative governments in the past have known that. It is just unfortunate that the reform party of today, which wears the colour blue, does not know that.
1404 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 3:41:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is such an interesting take on it. Conservatives are basically creating their own content by using this issue in order to fundraise and generate money for their party. It is total hypocrisy on the part of the Conservatives. They should know better and they should stop playing with an issue in a way that encourages disinformation, which is what they are doing.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 1:17:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the most interesting thing and the biggest display of hypocrisy in this place is when this member stands up and talks about the supply and confidence agreement between the NDP and the Liberals as though it is not something that the electorate voted for, while this member, in 2018, was elected as a provincial Conservative in New Brunswick, where they then formed a supply and confidence agreement with the alt-right party in New Brunswick. The hypocrisy is literally spewing off the Conservative benches right now from the member.
Could he somehow justify to this House and Canadians how he could be so critical of the Liberals and the NDP in this agreement, when—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 1:52:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the House leader of the opposition for bringing forward this amendment because by doing so he is giving the member for Winnipeg North another opportunity to speak to this. I did not have an opportunity to hear what the member for Winnipeg North said on Thursday, so I am looking forward to hearing his thoughts on this one. He speaks again for the second time to this.
My question for the opposition House leader is quite simple. He seems to be quite concerned about staff members right now and the impact that asking them to stay until midnight will have on them. I wonder where his empathy was a couple of years ago, when the Conservatives literally made this house vote for 30 hours straight, or a couple of years after that, when they made this house vote for 22 hours straight. They knew full well it would produce absolutely nothing with respect to a tangible result of improving this country; rather, it was just for the purpose of being destructive.
Can the member justify for me the hypocrisy I am hearing from him when he talks about being so overly concerned about staff and the impacts on them? That party will force staff to stay here for 30 hours straight just to appease its own desire to see this place move as slowly as possible.
234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:25:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said that all the Prime Minister needed to do was to engage in dialogue and we could have come to a peaceful resolution with the occupiers outside while his premier, Jason Kenney, did not engage in dialogue at the Coutts crossing. The premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, did not engage in dialogue. The premier of Manitoba did not engage in dialogue at the blockade there.
I am curious. Can the member comment on whether it is just Liberal leaders who need to engage in dialogue, or does the member not see the hypocrisy in his statements?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:57:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not saying that the Bloc is delaying the process. What I am saying is that it is because of the NDP that the Bloc members have the luxury of being able to vote against this motion. The Bloc members know full well that if they were not in this position and the NDP was not voting in favour of this motion, they would have a lot more pressure to vote in favour of it.
Where I am identifying the hypocrisy is that the Bloc members were willing to deal with this issue through a unanimous consent motion that they raised on a number of occasions today, to deal with it swiftly in one quick motion, in less than 15 seconds, yet they will not vote in favour of this motion to move it along just as quickly. That is the hypocrisy.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
