- 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/9/24 11:49:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing I reflected on as I was listening to the member and his colleague who spoke before him was that the one constituency where the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to gain a lot of traction in terms of his position on a price on pollution is Quebec. I think that is because Quebec has had a price on pollution for many years, understands the importance of it and understands how the mechanics of it work. However, what I cannot understand is how Conservatives, in particular, Conservatives from Quebec, keep talking about this price on pollution and trying to demonize the policy. They must know that Quebeckers believe in pricing pollution, whether it be through a carbon tax or through cap and trade.
What does the member think about this? Can he wrap his head around why Quebec Conservative MPs keep going on about this, even though they know that Quebeckers, by and large, do not support what they are saying?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:34:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague put together his arguments very well and delivered his intervention very passionately, with probably a lot of assistance from the university he attended, which is the best university in Canada.
In all seriousness, what I hear a lot is misinformation coming from Conservatives that somehow the federal backstop is applied in Quebec, when in reality Quebec has been very progressive on pricing pollution through the cap and trade model, with California and other states in the United States. Unfortunately Ontario used to be a part but has now taken itself out of it. Quebec has been so progressive that the tax does not even apply to Quebec, yet day after day after day, Conservatives get up and say that it does.
Why does he think Conservatives are doing that? Does he think they are specifically trying to spread misinformation to Quebeckers?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 10:32:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, that is not true. I would miss Quebec if it were to leave Canada, as the member spoke about towards the end of his speech. I would even suggest that a good portion of Quebeckers, if not a majority, would feel the same way.
At the beginning of the member's intervention, he spoke about whether there is even a need for having this discussion right now, and I could not agree more. We are literally talking about something right now that everybody is in agreement with. It has primarily just been Conservatives getting up to speak to this. I am baffled as to why that is when everybody is in agreement, notwithstanding the fact that I know people stand up and use the excuse of making sure they represent their constituents by talking about it.
Can the member try to shed some light on why we are not moving along? All it takes is for everybody to stop talking; then, by default, we would just go to a vote. Could he give his thoughts on why we are not able to do that?
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 12:42:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with almost every single passionate word that member said today. I have never heard both Shakespeare and Wayne Gretzky referenced in the same speech, but nonetheless, it was very impressive.
I cannot help but think of my own childhood. I grew up watching TVO, TV Ontario, and being exposed to shows like Today's Special and the Polka Dot Door. I look at my kids now. My youngest two are four and six, and they are watching all this YouTube content. I have no idea where it is being generated from, and there is certainly no degree of Canadian content in there. I am sure that this member can speak in the same way about what was seen back in the day on Quebec TV stations versus what young children in Quebec are being exposed to today.
Could he speak to the impact that this would have culturally on young Quebeckers and young Canadians?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:37:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
I would like to start my debate contribution today by addressing one of the more recent points from the Bloc member who spoke before me. He said that this Constitution has been forced upon Quebeckers. I would remind the member that Quebec has decided, not once but twice, not to leave Canada. As recently as 1995, which would have been after the 1982 Constitution came along, Quebeckers chose not to leave. Despite the fact that the Bloc will come into the House and assert a degree of sovereignty over Quebec, I would remind him that the majority of Quebeckers have decided to stay within the country of Canada.
Quite frankly, as a member from Ontario, I am very grateful for that. I think our country is so rich and diverse because of the incredible contribution we have from Quebec, the culture and the diversity. It is a relationship that no doubt has been difficult from time to time over the years, but a relationship that has made this country a better place. It has not just added to the cultural vibrancy and diversity, but it has encouraged us to tackle the challenging issues around this relationship and it has made Canada a better country.
My issue with this particular motion today is not that I see the notwithstanding clause as being a problem when it was originally put into our Constitution years ago. I see it as a problem now because of the pre-emptive nature of the way in which it is being used. I will focus my comments primarily on the use of it in Ontario recently; however, it definitely links back to some of the comments that the member for Drummond made earlier, and I will address those in a moment.
Let us talk about Doug Ford's pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. Right after Doug Ford was elected premier, one of the first orders of business, oddly enough, was to determine the makeup of the Toronto city council. Do not ask me why he did that, as a new premier of Ontario, one of the largest provinces in the country. I do not understand why that had to be a job for day one, but it was. He put into his legislation the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause.
The problem is that, when people use the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive fashion like this, they are basically saying, “I don't care if the law I am making is constitutional. I don't care if the court will uphold it. I am not even interested in arguing my case with the court to try to prove that what I am doing is right.” What they are basically saying is that they do not care about any of that because they do not care about the law or the Constitution. That is effectively what is happening when the premiers are trying to use it in a pre-emptive fashion.
On day one, Doug Ford did that. He then did it again, in 2021, with the Protecting Elections and Defending Democracy Act, which ultimately received royal assent, on June 14.
The most recent time Doug Ford utilized that clause, which I brought up in one of my questions, he used it as a pre-emptive tool to prevent teachers from having the ability to negotiate in good faith. Imagine that. Teachers, like all organized labour, have the right afforded to them in our country to negotiate their union's position in a collective manner. That is a fundamental right with organized labour in our country, and I would argue in most developed countries, especially ones that operate under a democratic system like ours. Here we have a premier saying he does not really care about their ability to negotiate. He does not care about whether they want to do that. He is just going to supersede it before even bringing in a law and determine that they do not have the right to do that.
I found it most interesting when I brought this up a little while ago and asked the member for Drummond what I thought to be a very legitimate question. I have concerns about that. I believe in the collective bargaining process. I believe in union rights. I believe that unions should have the ability to negotiate in good faith. I always thought that Bloc Québécois members felt the same way. They have always come in here and talked about unions, the strong labour movements and the need to have a strong labour movement, so I asked the member for Drummond a very simple question: Does he believe that Quebec should have the right to trample on those union rights the same way Doug Ford did? The member for Drummond just attacked my question and basically said that the provinces should have the right to use it in their own way, which is a de facto way of saying he supports it.
I am left to believe that the Bloc Québécois is okay with a province, including Quebec, using the notwithstanding clause to strip away the rights of a union to negotiate. That leaves me with the conclusion that the most important thing to the Bloc Québécois, above any rights out there, is power and ensuring that the province has the power to trample over top of any legislation. That is effectively what they are saying by not answering that question and not coming clean by at least saying Doug Ford went above and beyond. They could have said that. The member for Drummond could have stood up and said that maybe Doug Ford went a little too far, but the member did not do that, because the Bloc is afraid of giving an inch on this. Bloc members do not ever want to suggest that there might even be a time when it is not appropriate to use it.
I think anybody out there who is watching this debate, or considering the disregard the Bloc has for those rights in an attempt to ensure that power is retained, should be concerned because, as my NDP colleague from B.C. said earlier, we live in a country based on the rule of law. We live in a country based on a Constitution that affords certain rights and responsibilities. We are required to ensure that those are upheld, and one of them is the right of organized labour to negotiate, and, in particular, unions.
I will end where I started this, which is by saying that I am extremely concerned when provinces start to pre-emptively use this tool, because what they are saying is that they do not care if what they are doing is unconstitutional; they are doing it anyway, and that is problematic. That should concern every citizen, because Doug Ford has maybe done it only three times, but it pretty much had never been done in Ontario before that.
Doug Ford and the Conservative government in Ontario are just testing the waters. They are banking on the fact that eventually people will not really care about it, because it will have happened a bunch of times and life still goes on. We have to be careful about this. We have to protect this, and we have to ensure that people's rights that are afforded to them under the Constitution are not infringed upon as a result of the abusive use of the notwithstanding clause.
1277 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, three times the other night while I was speaking, the Conservatives did the exact same thing. I would take this opportunity to encourage people to go to my Twitter feed right now, where I posted a really interesting video that shows how Conservatives were playing with that quorum game just two nights ago in the House. They did it again. What happened when they did a quorum call? The Speaker stood up, verified we had quorum, and then I continued. This happens to me; it happened to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The Conservatives are doing it routinely, and I do not understand if they think that is the business of the House, because it is not.
I would like to get back to the Bloc, and I apologize to my Conservative friends that I have gone off topic from them, and I want to focus on the Bloc. I am back with the Bloc now. Its members say we are not doing any initiatives for Canadians and that there is nothing to help Canadians. They can look at the countless measures in here making life more affordable, like by taking the interest off students loans. They can go talk to students who have interest on their loans and ask them if that is going to help make life more affordable for them. We are lowering credit card transactions and doubling the GST tax credit for six months for certain Canadians. There is a $500 top-up for the Canada housing benefit, the Canada dental benefit and a new quarterly Canada workers benefit.
Are Bloc members trying to tell me that those are not meaningful things that would impact people? Are they nodding? If they are nodding, that basically means they do not think that stuff would be impactful to Canadians and Quebeckers. Even if they are nodding, I doubt they would actually agree with that.
We can also look at some of the other stuff in here, like making housing more affordable. The housing top-up I mentioned is helping young Canadians afford a down payment faster. We are helping Canadians save on closing costs, introducing a new refundable multi-generational home renovation tax credit and cracking down on house flipping by ensuring profits from properties are held for less than 12 months. Do those members think these are initiatives that Canadians are not going to benefit from?
There is the Canada growth fund to help build technology, infrastructure and businesses. I could go on and on, and then the Bloc is going to get up, ask about the health transfers and say we are failing because they do not happen to agree with the manner in which we are distributing the health transfers.
This fall economic statement is about providing supports for Canadians. That is exactly what has been laid out in this document. It is exactly why I am very much in favour of supporting it, and I think the Canadian people will judge those who choose not to support these measures, and we will see how that comes to be when we get to vote for this. Hopefully Conservatives will let us vote on this some time in the fall, rather than waiting until June, like last year, but I will not hold my breath.
553 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 5:11:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was just going to conclude by saying that if Conservatives thought when they were elected that this was a nine-to-five job, they were mistaken. I am sure there are a lot of opportunities for them to have a nine-to-five job and contribute to society in a way other than being in the House, and perhaps they want to explore those opportunities, but the reality of the situation is that democracy does not end at five o'clock. This is not a nine-to-five job, and we have to be prepared to work later into the evening when it is going to directly benefit Canadians, which is the reality of a lot of the measures that have been brought forward this fall alone that the Conservatives have routinely held up.
I hope my Bloc friends, who sometimes can see the light, can come around on this issue, see the importance of this and vote in favour of it, because I know this is what Canadians and Quebeckers are expecting of them.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:08:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I love when we talk about the sponsorship scandal. I was in high school at the time, so forgive me if I do not remember the details of that.
On the topic of the last question asked, about trusting the Liberals, I wonder if the member from the Bloc could tell us how Quebeckers feel about trusting Conservatives. They must trust Conservatives more than they trust Liberals. Is that correct?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:23:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem telling the Bloc my position. I have no issue with the prayer. We can continue doing it because it does not affect anything, other than using up about 15 seconds of the House's time. I have no problem with the current form of our parliamentary system, which includes a monarch in it. Quite frankly, I do not see life being any different.
Let me ask my previous question, which the member did not answer, in another way. Could she explain to the House, if the monarch were suddenly abolished at midnight tonight, when Quebeckers and Canadians woke up tomorrow morning, how would their lives be so different from what they are right now?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Pickering—Uxbridge on the outstanding work she did in reaching out to her community, Uxbridge in particular, during the recent events that happened with the storm and the number of people who were displaced in one way or another. She really rose up and showed what it is to be an exemplary member of Parliament in terms of taking care of her constituents.
To her point, this is exactly what I was trying to say, which is that the Bloc Québécois wants to somehow tell the committee what to do, and we are past that point. The committee has been instructed on what to do. The committee has the work before it. The committee now has the opportunity to go out and talk to the public. The time for the politicians, with all due respect to my colleagues in the Bloc, is over, and now it is time to let the public speak. I want to hear what Quebeckers have to say about this particular piece of legislation and where they stand on it.
I do not know why the Bloc Québécois is afraid to hear what Quebeckers actually have to say. Instead, its members seem more interested in trying to direct the discussion even more. Perhaps that is an indication they are worried about the outcome. I do not know, but I am just assuming.
245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 5:17:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is going on, but ever since the former leader of the opposition stepped down, or was kicked out, and the member for Carleton became the heir apparent to lead the party, the Bloc Québécois members have taken a massive change in their approach. They have lined up with the Conservatives time and again, as though they have to regurgitate the same rhetoric that we hear from the Conservatives all the time.
That is what we are seeing: a brand new approach by the Bloc Québécois. This member spoke for 20 minutes, at least 19 minutes of which was just an opportunity to air his personal grievances about the Prime Minister. He spoke very little to the actual substance of this motion.
How is it that the Bloc Québécois has put itself in this position, when polling shows that 73% of Quebeckers support this move?
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:35:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that I get to ask this NDP member from Quebec a question, because I would love to hear his insight into this.
Public opinion polling is showing that 72% of Quebeckers are in favour of the Emergencies Act being invoked, but even more astonishing, according to Abacus Data, 63% of the people who voted for the Bloc Québécois in the last election say that they would never vote for an MP that supports the protests outside.
What we are seeing here is the Bloc Québécois lining up with the Conservatives, saying they are supportive of what is going on outside right now. I wonder if the member could provide his comments, being a member of Parliament from Quebec, on why it is the Bloc is taking this approach.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:30:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today I noticed some very interesting public opinion polling coming out of Quebec. As a matter of fact, it says that 72% of Quebeckers support the use of the Emergencies Act. More importantly, in polling from Abacus Data that was released recently, 63% of Bloc supporters in the last election indicated that they would never vote for an MP who supports the occupation going on outside. However, the Bloc seems to be showing its support for the occupation.
Can the parliamentary secretary provide some insight on that?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
