- 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/30/24 1:19:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this happens a lot. Whenever I talk about the Conservatives and compare them to the MAGA Republicans in the south, they get outraged like this. The Conservatives do not like it.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 5:25:28 p.m.
- Watch
On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is of public record how a member voted, whether in person or on the app. All the House leader did was reference that.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:56:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I reflect on the motion the Conservatives have brought before the House today, the only one of the four demands I really see as problematic is that calling for the establishment of the national public inquiry.
When this was first being discussed in the PROC committee, of which I am a sitting member, I actually thought, yes, it made sense to have a national public inquiry to get to the bottom of it. The problem is that, witness after witness who are privy to this sensitive information and understand how information would be provided and where information should and should not be provided, kept telling the committee, time after time that, no, a public inquiry would not be successful because we would be trying to put information in the public domain that cannot be discussed there for national security issues.
Could the member explain why it is that Conservatives, and indeed, the Bloc and the NDP, cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the experts are advising against that course of action?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 10:43:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, towards the end of the member's speech, he talked about the size of the public service and the individuals who work for the federal government to deliver the services that we provide to Canadians.
The member talked with great pride about Stephen Harper's legacy of reducing the public service size. I am curious as to where he thinks the best places to start eliminating jobs within the public service would be. Could he inform the House about that?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:21:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem answering that question. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the ruling.
I have been very clear. I said in a speech earlier today in the House that when the issue first came to light, being on the procedure and House affairs committee, I initially asked myself why we are not having a public inquiry. It makes the most sense. However, expert after expert and witness after witness who came before the committee told us the best place to deal with highly classified information is not in the public domain. They full-on said they cannot provide any more information to a public inquiry than they can to that committee because of the sensitivity of the information. It is not the answer I was hoping to hear, but it is an answer that makes sense, and it is an answer that I think warrants consideration.
Having said all of that, the Prime Minister has appointed a special expert, the former governor general David Johnston, to look specifically at this issue. If the former governor general, the expert looking at this, determines the best way forward is a public inquiry, the Prime Minister and this government have said that they will accept that recommendation. We will leave it in the hands of an expert, in the incredibly well-deserved position that the former governor general was given, to make that determination.
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:11:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have said this a number of times: I do not think my position is that far off from that of the NDP. I am just concerned about the fact that the NDP thinks this needs to happen in a public inquiry.
The member and I are both on the PROC committee, or he was on it for a few meetings, and we heard from experts that a public inquiry is not the best venue to do this. He said there were some allegations; fair enough. However, more importantly, we have professionals to look into those allegations. CSIS specifically said it takes information, and when necessary, refers it to the RCMP. The RCMP also said it has no active investigations going on. One does not have to be great at reading between the lines to figure out the reality there.
Why does the member think it has to be a public inquiry? Why can we not use one of the other mechanisms that we already have to do this very important work?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 6:19:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware, but this side of the House will be voting in favour of the motion. We do not see a particular issue with it.
We have guidelines and policies in place for department heads and various different public servants to follow. We have processes to ensure that this happens. Does she believe that the processes in place are being properly administered by our public service?
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 5:51:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there was a follow-up question to that of the member for Hamilton Centre from a Bloc member. I thought I heard her say that we cut the public service and scaled back on it, which is not true.
To the member for Hamilton Centre, I agree that when we can, we should be utilizing our public service. That is what we pay them for. When we pay them well and treat them well, they will want to stay and work for us. However, I also respect the fact that there are times when contracting something out makes more sense. It might be something extremely specialized. It might be for something we know will mean a short-term increase in workload. We have to be willing to be flexible in our approach, and we have to use all options available.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 1:48:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am being lectured on not protecting public service jobs while the member is about to vote in favour of a motion that criticizes the government for having too many public sector employees. Maybe he should go back to read the motion again.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 4:25:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan has a member on the BOIE committee. As a matter of fact, that member answered a question today in question period. It was completely unorthodox, but nonetheless it happened anyway. Why was the question not to the member from BOIE, his very own member, about this issue?
A rule was made that until this session was complete, masks were required to be worn in the House unless members were standing in the House speaking. If the member for Regina—Lewvan has a problem with that, I suggest he take it up with his leadership on BOIE who helped to make that decision.
The member for Prince Albert recently said, about wearing masks, that he forgot his mask and had to go back to his truck and get a mask for the airport. He said it as if we are the only place on earth that requires people to wear a mask in an airport.
What about the United States? On April 30, it extended the mask mandate in airports. It just happened. We have to do the same thing in the United States, but the member for Prince Albert would make us believe, as a number of Conservatives have today, that somehow Canada is taking a completely foreign approach when it comes to dealing with this on an international basis, with people coming and going in and out of the country in particular.
The member for Winnipeg North listed a number of countries that still have various mandates in place to keep protection for their citizens. I will not repeat those, because they are already on the record.
I also found something very interesting that the member for Prince Albert said a few moments ago. When he was asked a question from the Bloc about listening to advice from the experts, he referred to Dr. Tam's recommendations, her professional medical advice, as her “suggestions”. Those are Dr. Tam's “suggestions”. Those were his words.
This goes to a key point about how Conservatives treat science. They are ready to wrap themselves in the science, provided that it is science that backs up what they already believe. That is the problem. For the member for Prince Albert to say those were Dr. Tam's “suggestions” basically passes her off as though she makes suggestions just like anybody else can. She is the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the country. She makes recommendations. She provides advice to the Government of Canada so it can inform itself on how to implement policy.
There has been criticism after criticism, and I will pre-empt the question by answering it now from members from the opposite side who are saying, “Table it, table it.” Can they tell me one time that Stephen Harper tabled recommendations to cabinet or the Privy Council? Can they tell me one time that Stephen Harper did that? The suggestion is that the government is taking advice from its professionals. The Conservatives want to frame this like it is being hidden from the public. It is very normal to receive advice and then make decisions based on that advice.
I am sorry if the Conservatives are not privy to that. Guess what? I am not privy to it either. I am not in cabinet, so I have not seen the advice. I do have faith in those who are providing the advice, and that they will give their professional advice. We hire individuals in this country in many different forms, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level, to advise policy makers based on their professional advice. It has been no secret from day one that the Conservatives have been willing to trample all over that advice, time after time. If they believe that they will get the slightest political gain out of it, they will walk over anybody. That is what they are trying to do here. That is exactly what they are trying to do here.
From my perspective, the best speech today was actually given by the Bloc member for Jonquière. His entire speech was on populism and the manner in which the member for Carleton is using populism for his own personal political gain, full stop. It does not matter what happens in the process.
I really encourage those who were not able to listen to the speech by the member for Jonquière earlier today to go back and listen to it. He hit the nail on the head with respect to what is happening in this country right now as it relates to the populist movement and those, like the member for Carleton, who are literally walking over top of the freedoms that they somehow want to make Canadians believe do not exist and that they are the only ones who will be able to provide those freedoms once again to Canadians.
It was actually a really good speech. It was extremely germane to the discussion. The reason is because this discussion today, in my opinion, is about why the Conservatives have continually used the same tactics day after day, trying to sow this idea of the government being the enemy and the only individuals in this country who can save Canadians and give them back their freedoms are Conservatives. It is so incredibly dangerous when we allow that kind of politics to dominate the discussion, and when we allow politics like that to shape the manner in which discussions are being had in public that are based on conspiracy theory and people peddling misinformation. That is exactly what is going on here.
I have no problem with voting against this motion today because I have faith in those who we have employed to provide advice to the government in order to make the best decisions possible on our behalf. I have no doubt that at times there is conflicting advice. It is the government's job, whatever government that may be, to receive that advice and make the best decision on behalf of people, and I have faith that is exactly what has been happening in Canada.
1035 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/4/22 1:13:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House. I know the member is new. I am certainly a big fan of his predecessor, so if he should see him in the future, I ask him to please pass along my hello.
I have brought this up a lot in the House, although I will accept the fact that the member may not have heard me speak of this given that he is relatively new. The price on pollution was not meant to be a revenue-generating item for the government. All the money goes back to individuals and back to farmers in many cases. It is intended to be a mechanism to change market patterns and the decisions that are out there.
Will the member at least acknowledge the fact that, of the money that is collected in the provinces where the federal government has to do it, that money is returned back to the public in various ways?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:16:47 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is so typical of Conservatives. I find it interesting that the member is already willing to provide the House with the outcome of a public inquiry that will happen afterward. That underscores the Conservative gaming here. The member does not care about the public inquiry that will happen. He has already determined the outcome. He just informed the House what it would be, and that is the unfortunate reality of this.
Would the member like to actually have a public inquiry that looks into the matter and comes to its own decisions, or would he rather just tell us what the outcome is going to be right now?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
