- 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
- 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/4/23 3:56:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is what we did right after we were elected. We established NSICOP to have that oversight. The member is suggesting, just based on question period alone over the last two weeks, that we should start expelling people. We are not going to expel people based on the questions asked and answers given in the House.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 3:54:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we do have that oversight. It is through NSIRA and NSICOP. We have a committee of parliamentarians that has been specifically given the responsibility to have that oversight.
However, when it comes to executing the laws that we have, parliamentarians do not execute laws. We make the laws. We create the laws that we then charge our agencies to deliver. Do we need to have oversight on that? We absolutely do, and that is what we do. We have oversight on what goes on, and we do that through the two organizations I just mentioned: NSIRA and NSICOP.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:27:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member should try to educate himself on the difference between evidence and allegations.
The member used the term “mounting evidence”. Those were his words. There is no evidence to date. As a matter of fact, the RCMP has said that it does not have any active investigations ongoing. What there have been are allegations. If the member is unaware of the difference between allegations, information and intelligence versus evidence, he should really take the time to educate himself on that.
What I think is even more remarkable about the member's speech is the massive misunderstanding of the reality of the situation when he opened his speech by saying that the government has done virtually nothing. That is categorically false. As a matter of fact, this government is the only government that has ever done anything on this issue.
I will inform the member what we have done since 2015. We introduced Bill C-76, which was a bill that tightened up financing rules and tightened up on opportunities for foreign interference specifically. The Conservatives, who this member seems to be cozying up a lot to lately, actually voted against that.
The other thing we did was install a special panel of experts who have the ability to monitor, in real time, what is going on during a writ period. They have the opportunity to assess, make decisions, inform parties, gather intelligence from political parties and take action when necessary. That is a panel that never existed before. Most importantly, after the election is over, a third party prepares a report based on the panel's information. That third party concluded, both after the 2019 and 2021 election, that the elections were done in a free, fair, open and transparent manner and were not influenced by foreign interference.
Finally, on the member's issue about the public inquiry. Perhaps the member did not hear my answer to the impromptu question from the NDP member just before him, but I laid it out very clearly. On the experts that the member gave a lot of credit to in his speech, and he sang the praises of CSIS saying that we have to respect its processes, I can tell him that CSIS came to the PROC committee and specifically told us that the place to do this is not in a public inquiry. We have the established organizations, such as NSICOP, which is another thing this government put together, that specifically looks at, and has the ability for parliamentarian oversight over, highly classified information. That is the best place that we were told it should go.
However, notwithstanding that, and understanding the incredible position and incredible attention that Canadians are seized with on this issue, the Prime Minister went a step further and said that even though our experts were telling us that a public inquiry is not the best place, we understand that we need to put this in a non-partisan environment and will allow a special expert, the former governor general David Johnston, to determine what the best path forward is. As I said to the previous member, if it is determined that the best way forward is through a public inquiry, the Prime Minister has already said that we will accept that recommendation and proceed with it based on his advice.
558 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 4:27:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we can see the politics of it right there. When he was trying to define what the Prime Minister was saying, he put it in quotes. He said, “We need to get re-elected”. The Prime Minister never said that.
He cannot provide me with a single time the Prime Minister actually said that. The member is just making assumptions and trying to put it in quotes as though it is something that actually happened.
He talked about a track record. He is absolutely right that we have a track record. We have a track record when it comes to dealing with foreign interference.
We have actually made election security a priority. We have put in an oversight process over elections. We have tasked NSICOP with ensuring it has oversight from a parliamentarian perspective. We have tightened up fundraising loopholes. We have cracked down on the wild west advertising schemes that used to exist. We have ensured the integrity of the voters list and we have appointed a special independent expert to specifically look at this issue that we are seized with today, foreign interference.
Yes, we have a track record when it comes to that.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, she did not. What she did was she talked about guns, she talked about various different crimes, and she talked about her position on this government, which is all very important. I listened to her speech from beginning to end, and there were only two or three sentences at about the nine-minute and 30-second mark where she actually brought it back to the bill by saying that what we are going to vote on is the oversight on all of this stuff.
I am wondering if she would like to take the opportunity now to comment on why it is important to have this oversight committee set up to look into the conduct, the actions and, indeed, the complaints brought forward. That is what this bill is really about.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, forgive me, but I rise on a point of order. This is completely off topic. The issue we are talking about is directly with respect to the oversight bodies that are going to be set up for the CBSA and the RCMP. The member, like so many Conservative members who have spoken today, has gone way off topic. Perhaps the Speaker could encourage the member to get back on topic.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure how this question in particular relates to this piece of legislation. This legislation was specifically about bringing in oversight and review bodies to look at the work of the CBSA and the RCMP and to respond to the complaints out there.
When it comes to properly resourcing our individual agencies and departments, yes, we have an obligation to do that and provide them with resources so they can deliver on our expectations and what we are asking them to do. I think it goes without saying, as I believe every member of the House would agree, that providing the proper resources is absolutely critical, in this case to the CBSA and the RCMP.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I most certainly agree with my colleague that if anybody is detaining individuals based on their immigration status, citizenship status or race for that matter, it is completely unacceptable and wrong. It is something that we should not do.
I do not know if we need to actually put it in the legislation, because it would appear to me as though that would be unconstitutional on its own anyway. I am not against the idea of putting that in legislation, if that is what the committee determines when the committee does its work. I find it very alarming and very concerning, the suggestion that is coming from the member. I take her word that she is aware of this happening.
That is exactly why we need the measures that are put in this, so that those complaints can be heard and can be dealt with in a manner that has the proper oversight of the very important agencies that have this discretionary power in looking out for our safety.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all I would say that I agree with the hon. member in terms of the incentive. Certainly there is an incentive there for other levels of government to use the opportunity to claw back, because they see another form of payment coming, and use that money for something else. It is very basic. It is fair to say that this would be something that would be very attractive to different levels of government. One of the first things we would need to do is to ensure that this does not happen.
The member also asked about the oversight on this and what it would look like down the road. As I indicated toward the end of my speech, one of the things about this bill, which is unique, is that the first time it has to be reviewed in terms of the oversight on it is three years after the legislation comes into force. That is unique, because typically it is five years. I would say that Parliament would have oversight on this. I would say that there are a lot of programs out there on which the member might use the logic he brought up. He might consider why the same thing is not done with OAS, for example. I will leave it to him to come back to the House on that.
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 10:35:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I hope we caught what just happened there toward the end of his speech. On the one side, the member is saying that we need proper oversight, and we need to properly go over this in the details. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken since report stage to this, compared to five Bloc members, two NDP, two Green and three Liberal, but what is even more remarkable is that he concluded his speech by saying they are going to vote against it.
Which is it? Are we going to debate this endlessly because we really want to have that proper oversight? Is that what they want, or do they already know they are going to vote against it, which the member just revealed at the end of his speech?
He is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to say, “We want to have proper oversight”, but he has also given away the fact that he already plans to vote against it.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
