- 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
- May/30/24 1:39:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am always pushing my government, whether in the House or in our caucus meetings, to do as much as we possibly can as it relates to reducing GHG emissions. A model that incentivizes people to make different choices, such as pricing pollution, whether it be at the retail or industrial level, will benefit tangible results in the future. This is not just me saying this. A vast majority of economists are saying this.
The joint signed letter of economists throughout Canada has over 400 signatories now. They believe that pricing pollution is an effective way to deal with GHG emissions and reduce them, and that more people are better off under the carbon rebate program.
It is only the Conservatives, with their rhetoric and their misinformation, who are informing people otherwise. If we were to ask the vast majority of people, they would agree that there are certainly benefits to them and, in particular, the least fortunate.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 10:22:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would wear that red light as a badge of honour. I think it is absolutely shameful that people focus so much of their time on trying to figure out how they can try to correct other people because they do not fit into the mould that they see as being ideal for them. They really need to stop paying so much attention to other people and start reflecting on themselves to figure out what is wrong with themselves.
With regard to the member's question about pensions, of course the Leader of the Opposition would refer to the CPP as a payroll tax. It is not a payroll tax; it is something that people pay into. It is something that the employee pays into, as does the employer.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 4:27:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a very good memory. The member asked me a question the last time I talked about the budget, only a couple of week ago, and he did the exact same thing that he did this time. He did not listen to what I said, but he chose to listen to certain parts of it.
Had the member listened, he would have known that I talked about the fact that this is a local program in my community, where I went with my family to help them put together boxes of food to distribute to schools. I specifically talked about food banks and about how I find it ironic that Conservatives sit here and talk about food banks and talk about the hardships of Canadians, yet the member, while he stands there trying to preach to me about Canadians' use of food banks, will not even support a national school food program to put food in the bellies of children while they start their day at school.
With all due respect, I take a lot from Conservatives, but I will not be lectured on food programs, in particular, school food programs, from a Conservative member.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 6:05:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit that with a program like this, which was born out of Quebec and was inspired by Quebec's model, Quebec has shown the results. To my Conservative colleagues, if they are questioning whether or not more women get into the workforce as a result of a program like this, they should just look at Quebec. Quebec has had a program like this in place for a number of years, and when we look at Quebec, we see that there are more women in the workforce there.
However, we are seeing a repeat of the Conservatives' position last time this was in the House. They talk it down the whole time they are here. They criticize it repeatedly, and then when it comes time to vote, they silently stand up and vote in favour of it.
Does my colleague think the Conservatives will do the same thing this time, just trash-talk it the whole time but then, when it comes time to vote, vote in favour of it?
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:59:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said, when a member stands up during questions during this debate and make claims that 150 members of his caucus already feel a certain way, it makes me wonder what the purpose is in even sending the matter to committee if the outcome has already been predetermined, at least by one particular group. However, it does not diminish the fact that the committee can still do very good work on the matter. I think the committee could actually use this as an opportunity not just to figure out the proper recourse in terms of what should be done now about what has occurred and what the proper remedy is, but also to set a precedent and certain rules, and to establish a best practice to ensure that something like this does not happen again.
I do not know the context for why the Speaker chose to do this, nor will I try to guess as to what it was, but I will say that the Speaker has stood and apologized; he has recognized that it was not the best course of action. He has nonetheless done that, which is I why I think it is extremely important that we accept it but still determine whether there are other courses of action that need to be taken.
There is also an amendment on the motion that came forward. It was odd, because the motion was moved, and then the second speaker from the same party put forward an amendment. I do not know why they did not just include it in the full motion. It was:
That the motion be amended by adding the following: “provided that the committee: (a) meets within 24 hours of receiving this referral order to study the matter; (b) prioritizes this matter over all other business; (c) has first priority in using the resources of the house for committee meetings, subject to special orders adopted on Monday, May 16, 2022, and Monday, December 4, 2023; and (d) is tasked with reporting to the house no later than Thursday, December 14, 2023.”
The original motion set the context for the work that needed to be done and for how important it was, and then it appears as though the amendment that came forward just moments later got very prescriptive in terms of how to deal with the issue. I would have thought that this would all have come together. It certainly does not appear to be an amendment that was proposed as a result of having listened to the debate. From how it was tabled, I perceive it to be something that was well planned in advanced. My sense is that it is probably to try to pressure political parties one way or the other with respect to potentially voting against one part but not the other. Maybe, tactically speaking, it is a good move. However, that certainly does not support the notion that has been widely spread around the House during discussion, which is that this should be a non-partisan issue. If my assumptions are correct, that would suggest that there is a partisan nature to the manner in which the amendment has been tabled, and obviously I would have a concern about that.
However, I do want to see the matter sent to committee. I think it is extremely important that we have a resolution, that we set some parameters for how Speakers are expected to engage in the future, and that we have something reported back to the House that we can then debate and determine how to move forward with.
I will return to what I said when I began, which was about the importance of the impartiality of the Speaker. As many members of the House know, with a good Speaker, yourself included, Madam Speaker, after a while, people do not look at them as being associated with a political party; they start to just respect the fact that the Speaker is non-partisan, However, we do come from a partisan nature; the vast majority of us who are elected to the House are elected under a political banner. Nonetheless, it is really important that once somebody is elected into that position, they ensure that they do it with utmost impartiality in order to avoid a situation that can be seen as their favouring one side or another.
I will be the first to admit that, during my time here, there have been times when I have agreed wholeheartedly with what Speakers have said, and that there have been times I have not agreed with them. During the time I have been here, all the Speakers who have sat in the chair have been of the political party I am associated with, and sometimes I do not agree with them and am frustrated by a particular ruling they make.
There is an appropriate way to handle this in terms of when the Speaker is doing their very important work of being impartial. They receive advice from the Clerk's table. I remember once asking Peter Milliken how he used to deal with situations where he would have to rule on something like that. He told me that he took the advice from the clerks around the table, and then at the end of the day it was his decision as to how he would proceed. Having that kind of authority is extremely important, and that is why we need to ensure that impartiality continues.
I will conclude by saying that I hope the matter goes to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so we can deal with it there and report back to the House.
954 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:02:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, we are debating the concurrence motion on a report. We are not even debating the report. We are debating whether or not the report should be concurred in. I am speaking directly to the procedure and to why I think Conservatives are using this motion right now. I am extremely relevant on my points.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 7:24:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I never said that Arctic sovereignty was not important. It is quite the contrary. I said it was important. I said my concern was that the Conservatives were just using this report as a way to block something that they did not want to talk about. It was something that they did not want to talk about so badly, the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal, that they ended up voting against it later on.
Arctic sovereignty is extremely important. I do not believe I was on the committee, and I do not believe I filibustered as he referenced. I will say that, when I was on the committee and we studied it, we looked into the different things we could recommend to the government. When it comes to recommendation 24, I would have him note that the Government of Canada agrees, in principle, with these recommendations. Nobody is disagreeing.
This is my point: Why is it so important that we talk about this report on the floor of the House of Commons when the reality is that the government agrees with the majority of the report?
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:33:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at least we always know when a Conservative is wrapping up their speech. It is a good cue.
I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. He has been very critical of the government, the government's responses to COVID and the various measures that have been put in place. However, I want to read what one of his predecessors, a previous leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, said. Brian Mulroney said that the Prime Minister and the premiers “conducted themselves as well as anybody else in the world” in dealing with COVID, something Mulroney called “the greatest challenge that any prime minister has dealt with in Canada in 156 years.” The Conservatives are laughing at Mulroney. With respect to NAFTA, Mulroney said he saw first-hand how the Prime Minister made “big decisions at crucial moments” and won “a significant victory for Canada”.
How can the current leader of the Conservative Party differ so much from the leader of his party a few decades ago?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:24:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is incorrect when he said that we have not been doing our part in the world when it comes to reducing emissions. As a matter of fact, between 2019 and 2021, Canada's GHG emissions dropped by 9%.
Conservatives will quickly say it was the pandemic that slowed it down. The problem with that argument is that our economy continued to grow during that time, so we are indeed bending the curve on GHG emissions, despite the fact we continue to see economic growth.
Would the member like to reflect on his comment and perhaps provide more truth in his next statement?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member should know the countless number of initiatives the government has taken with respect to climate change and reducing our carbon footprint. The member should also know that the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change talked about a portion of that being specifically about carbon capture.
I will read to her the exact quote. It says, “A net-zero energy system...can only be achieved with a broad suite of technologies. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage...is only a group of technologies that contributes to both reducing emissions in key sectors directly and removing CO2 to balance emissions that are challenging to avoid—a critical part of 'net' zero goals.” That is from the report, specifically.
The member should also know, and it is interesting because this did come up in the debate earlier today, that the finance committee did make a recommendation to the government to do exactly what she was saying, which is to reduce the fossil fuel subsidies and to put that money into renewable transition, specifically as it relates to a cleaner environment and a cleaner energy supply.
When it comes to reducing the fossil fuel subsidies specifically, it might not be as quickly as we would like to see it. In my personal opinion, I might agree with the member more than she thinks, but the reality is that the government has been reducing the amount of fossil fuel subsidies over the year. The problem is that when the NDP members talk about this, they specifically include, in that calculation, money that is being used for abandoned or orphaned wells. The reality of the situation is that, although I would have loved to see the companies that abandoned those wells deal with them, they have not. A lot of them have left, so it becomes society's responsibility to deal with those wells, despite the fact that we let those companies get away with it in years and decades gone by.
When we talk about fossil fuel subsidies, I think it is disingenuous to do what the NDP does and include the money that is being used to deal with orphaned wells in that as a subsidy. If we exclude that, it clearly shows that the subsidies have been declining year after year and are on target to meet what the minister and the department have been proposing for the last number of years.
407 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 6:05:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find that answer very interesting because it begs the question of why the Conservatives did not bring forward a more holistic motion. If the Leader of the Opposition is genuine in saying the opposition motion today is one that opens the books up, as he said, and looks at everything, why would he bring forward a motion that is centred on one specific company? If it were not for anything other than political gain—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to wrap my head around the Conservative Party's approach to this. I have asked members of that party this question several times but they have never answered it. Maybe the Bloc member has some insight into this.
The Conservatives seem to have a newfound interest in ensuring that programs are means tested, but we know that their default, whenever it comes to any program, is to have a tax credit. There could not be anything that is less means tested than just a standard tax credit that applies equally to everybody. It was their signature move under the Harper government. Everything was a tax credit, which we know only benefits wealthier Canadians. Those particularly in need do not have the same kind of ability when it is just a tax credit.
I wonder if the member from the Bloc has some insight into this newfound desire of the Conservative Party for things to be means tested.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the speech the member just gave, she criticized this legislation for not being means-tested. I would remind her that when she ran in the last election under the leader from Durham, the Conservatives' plan was to get rid of this universal child care and replace it with a tax credit. A tax credit would be the least available option if one were looking to means-test a program. Can she somehow explain to the House how it is she ran on a tax credit, which by no means would provide a means test, and is now suddenly critical of that specifically?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:36:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps they are embarrassed.
However, here is the best part about it. I will read what members of the Conservative Party said when they released this plan prior to the last election.
The member for Durham, as we know, brought forward the plan, because he was the leader at the time. He said, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.”
The member for Calgary Centre, who I know has asked questions challenging this in the House today, said, “I think it's an evolution for parts of our party—but there's also many parts of our party that have been pushing forward for environmental solutions of all types.” This is a sitting member who is supportive of it, and this was what he said when he ran in the last election.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
153 words
- 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
He referred to the NDP as “partners in crime”.
11 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did not write the bill, so I do not know exactly what the consultative process has been up to this point, but what I do know is that the next stage of this bill is in committee, where the committee could do a lot of that consultative process and perhaps come up with some solutions and ideas. There is the idea her colleague mentioned in the House earlier about making it a requirement that the tip of the gun be painted a certain colour. I would argue that a nice, bright red would be better than orange, as suggested by her colleague earlier, but, nonetheless, I am sure there are opportunities out there to help improve the bill.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 12:31:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 533 and 538.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we certainly know that this member had a lot of opportunity to speak at the committee. As a matter of fact, when the minister came to speak to the committee, this member filibustered the committee so that the minister could not even answer questions that were being asked by committee members.
I think it is quite rich for this member to get up and talk about the democratic process and how it was not able to unfold at committee, when this member used tools that she had to specifically disrupt the operations of the committee. The other committee members could actually do their work.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 7:28:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I was saying was that the Conservatives' job here is to help inform policy and to make policy that is better for Canadians. What do they have before them? It is not only a policy the government feels would be better for Canadians, but a policy that the Conservatives ran on, a policy that they are interested in and a policy they saw as beneficial, at least during election time. Then, they lost the election, and suddenly they are no longer interested in these policies for Canadians that they ran on.
The opposition House leader instructed his MPs to put forward a concurrence motion earlier today, which burned three hours of House time. We have spent three hours debating a concurrence motion of a report that this Parliament's ethics committee did not even produce. It did not do the research. It did not study it, and it did not create the recommendations. The Conservatives literally grabbed the report from the last Parliament and retabled it as their own in this one, then they moved a concurrence motion on it, which is rare on its own, let alone on a report that was not even from a committee in this Parliament.
After the opposition House leader did that, he asked the question earlier through the member for Calgary Shepard about more debate time and wanting more debate, notwithstanding the fact that they had already filibustered the motion we had to give them that.
Members might remember Motion No. 11. That motion was about giving the House more time to debate issues, because the Conservatives were concerned that they were not getting enough time, but then they filibustered Motion No. 11, which was to give them more time. Now, the member comes forward and moves another motion still within the motions proceedings we are in during the daily Routine Proceedings, just to kill more time.
If it is, indeed, true, and the member for Barrie—Innisfil is the de facto leader of the Conservative Party now—
An hon. member: You are the only one saying that.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, no, I am not the only one saying that. As a matter of fact, I said it earlier. I will respond to their heckles, if they want—
383 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
