- 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 10:58:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is when the court makes a decision, we respect that decision. Even if we do not like it or even if we do not agree with it, we respect it. We do not then turn around and say maybe we will use the notwithstanding clause in order to supersede the decision, which is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition does.
The member talked earlier in his speech about the inflationary budget and all this spending was going to lead to inflation. Conservatives have been scaring the public about that since the fall. However, here we are, for the fourth month in a row, and inflation is within the Bank of Canada's targets. As a matter of fact, inflation right now is the lowest it has been in three years.
Can the member explain to the House how the inflationary budgets the Conservatives mentioned never actually ended up materializing to produce inflation?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 4:34:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will admit to the member that I do not have the exact details on his question, but I will say this. If human rights activists and others are pushing because they do not believe that charter rights are being upheld, I can guarantee one thing: This Liberal government will not use the notwithstanding clause to impose its rules upon them.
This is exactly the rhetoric we are hearing from the Conservative leader. He is basically saying that if he does not like the way the courts want to treat his policies or laws because they are unconstitutional, he will just use the notwithstanding clause and will still get his law.
I can guarantee the member that I would never sit in a political party that uses the notwithstanding clause in such a way as to be so precarious about how and when to use it just to impose the supreme leader's decisions, that being the leader of the Conservative Party.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- May/6/24 3:39:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my question is about pharmacare, in particular, the contraceptive angle of this and the supports it is going to provide.
At the heart of this is really a woman's right to choose. I found it very alarming that, on Friday, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes stood up in the House and said, “A common-sense Conservative government would use the notwithstanding clause only on matters of criminal justice.”
It was in the nineties when it was actually made a crime to perform an abortion. What we have seen is that the Supreme Court, using those charters rights, overturned that law. We now have Conservative members saying that, in terms of criminal justice, which that law was, Conservatives would consider using the notwithstanding clause. In theory, Conservatives could bring back a similar law to that which was in the nineties, using the notwithstanding clause to make sure that it stuck, something that the Supreme Court would not be able to overturn.
I find it alarming that, only a year after the United States reintroduced legislation regarding a woman's right to choose and preventing it, Conservatives are now toying with and basically laying out the framework for how they would restrict those rights in the future. I am wondering if the Minister of Health would like to comment on that.
231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:35:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that notwithstanding the last comment by my Conservative colleague, there is not a single Westminster parliamentary system that follows what he outlined.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 1:49:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge today.
Before I start talking about this opposition motion, I note that the Speaker has allowed a lot of latitude regarding where people have gone when talking about it, especially the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who spoke a few minutes ago. She spent a lot of time talking about NORAD and our defence system despite the fact that this motion has nothing to do with that.
I thought it would perhaps be relevant to reflect on the previous opposition motion that was before this House, brought forward by the Bloc, on the use of the notwithstanding clause. I would like to observe that very few Conservative speakers spoke to it. I think there were three in total. None of them really asked any questions, and when they did, they never talked about the subject. Then, of course, yesterday, they all voted in favour of encouraging premiers like Doug Ford to continue trampling on individual constitutional rights by supporting that opposition motion, which said provinces should be using the notwithstanding clause.
I found their approach on that a couple of days ago very interesting. They did not say a word, but voted in favour of it when the time came. I hope that Canadians paid attention to that, because it was very revealing, in my opinion, as to how the member for Carleton and Leader of the Opposition will treat the courts if he ever has the opportunity to be the Prime Minister.
I will just leave that for a moment and focus a bit more on the opposition motion, or the omnibus opposition motion, that is before us today.
The Conservatives are really trying to get this “eight years” thing to stick. I do not understand it. I do not think Canadians really see the difference between seven and eight years, but it is the new talking point. They have mentioned “eight years” in the motion probably about a dozen times. I am still trying to understand how that is supposed to be anywhere near as crafty as the “triple, triple, triple” thing, which I still have not even figured out. I wonder who they are testing these slogans on before they roll them out to the public.
I heard the member for Calgary Forest Lawn earlier today talk specifically about the measures the government brought into place and how, in his words, “None of those measures have been working.” He specifically said this. However, look at some of the measures we have brought in, such as topping up the GST, assisting people with paying their rents and other previous initiatives brought forward during COVID. For a member to get up in this House and suggest that those are not working is absolutely ridiculous and completely out of touch with the reality of what is going on with Canadians.
Let us talk about those specific programs, the programs the Conservatives are saying contribute to inflation. When we top up the GST for some of the most vulnerable people in our country, the people who need it the most and who will immediately go out and spend it on things they actually need, not on luxuries, that is not going to contribute to inflation.
Do not take my word for it; take the word of the countless economists who have come forward. As a matter of fact, just last night, before the agriculture committee, a few witnesses spoke to that. I know the member for Foothills, the member for Beauce, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who were all at that meeting yesterday, would have heard the following two quotes.
The first is from Dr. D.T. Cochrane of Canadians for Tax Fairness, who said, “Inflation is a complex phenomenon. Unfortunately, an overly simplistic claim about the cause of inflation being ‘too much money chasing too few goods’ has driven an overly simplistic policy solution—higher interest rates. This claim also lends itself to blaming the federal government for inflation because of the money created to support Canadians during the pandemic.”
Another witness, Dr. Jim Stanford, said that clearly, it is not due to the Prime Minister either and that our inflation and food inflation are both below the average of other industrial countries.
That leads me to my next point. It is this idea that in a globalized world, where we are trading goods and services in a free market, which Conservatives support because they support free trade, apparently, somehow we can isolate ourselves from the policies that other countries make and the effects those policies will have on Canada.
The member for New Brunswick Southwest, in an answer to one of my questions, specifically said that inflation is driven by monetary policy, and he was implying that the Conservatives were not worried about the rest of the world. When I asked him about the impact the rest of the world has, he said they do not care about the rest of the world and that this was only about Canada.
The reality is that when we work to have a market like Canada's, which is open to other developed countries in the world, policies created in other countries are going to have an impact on Canada and vice versa. That is why, in my opinion, it was important for Canada to stay in lockstep with other countries throughout the world, particularly those we do a lot of trading with, rely on and have shared values with, during the pandemic. We needed to provide supports and resources to our population, just as those countries did.
Now, somehow, the Conservatives imply that if Canada had not gone that route to support Canadians and taken care of them to the best of our ability during the pandemic, we would not be subject to this inflation right now. That is an absolutely ludicrous claim. They are trying to suggest that every other country out there experiencing inflation can do the same thing by controlling, in isolation, their own inflation even though their markets are globally connected as well.
Where are the inflation rates right now? Let us recap. In the G7 alone, the inflation rate in Japan is 4%, in France it is 5.8%, in Canada it is 6.3%, in the U.S. it is 6.4%, in Germany it is 8.5%, in the U.K. it is 9.2% and in Italy it is 10.1%. These are numbers as of January this year. If we drill down into energy specifically in the G7, Canada and the U.S. have the exact same inflation, at 7.3%. The rest of the G7 is anywhere between 15% and 64% inflation.
I think it is very important, when we have these discussions, to focus on the fact that inflation is not just domestic in nature or completely controlled by our government. Because of the relationship we have with other countries throughout the world, inflation relies on the trading that happens throughout the world, and our policies feed into the inflationary impacts in different countries.
This leads me to my conclusion. The Conservatives want to completely wash over the fact that a lot of what has happened with inflation has to do with global issues that are happening right now, in particular the war in Ukraine. That is driving so much of this, and every economist will tell us that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, who are heckling right now, will try to say that the Prime Minister is responsible for all of it. I have one thing to say to my Conservative colleagues in response to that.
1315 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:50:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am so glad to hear the Conservatives get into this debate today, because they have been absent until this point. Even when they do decide to get in, they do not bring up the topic at hand. We are talking about the use of the notwithstanding clause and the motion brought forward by the Bloc, so I find it incredibly rich that the Conservatives suddenly want to participate in the debate when they have been completely silent the entire morning.
83 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 11:57:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but reflect on the fact that there have been at least three pieces of legislation brought in by the former Harper government with mandatory minimum sentences that have been struck down by the court. I guess the only way to go around that is either to rewrite the charter or use the notwithstanding clause. It seems that the Conservatives keep bringing forward legislation that is clearly infringing upon people's charter rights. Would the member be willing to share his thoughts on what a charter of rights developed by the Conservative Party would look like?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker,I found the hon. member's intervention to be quite fascinating. He spent a lot of time talking about fundamental human rights and using rights-based language, yet today the Conservatives' provincial cousins in Ontario are literally trampling all over those rights by using the notwithstanding clause in legislation to force people to work before even allowing a court to weigh in on whether it is appropriate or if the law that they created was appropriate.
I am wondering, with all of this talk about fundamental rights, would the member agree that these should be rights that are not subject to a notwithstanding clause or should not be able to be trampled all over, like their provincial cousins are doing in Ontario right now.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/4/22 11:03:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise in solidarity with the tens of thousands of Ontarians who are protesting Doug Ford's blatant attack on their charter rights through the notwithstanding clause.
Mr. Michael Cooper: Sit down. Just sit down.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
