- 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 1:11:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleagues are asking me to skip the speech and go straight to questions. If the Speaker would allow me to take 30 minutes of straight questions, I would absolutely love the opportunity to do that, but I do not think she will. If there was unanimous consent from the House, I would even take them up on that offer—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 1:54:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to please go back and review the first four minutes of my speech. It seems that he did not actually listen like he said did. Apparently the Conservatives only listen to the parts when I start to critique them. I spent four minutes talking about the national school food program that would be introduced and how not only did I applaud the government for doing this, but I applauded the local champions in my community. They went from school to school to get people to sign multiple petitions, which I presented in the House.
I am very proud of the fact that our government is bringing in, for the first time ever, a national school food program to help kids get an early start in life.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:49:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a well-established precedent that if a member does not have a tie, but then gets a tie and puts it on the Speakers have always allowed them to continue their speech.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 5:15:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the parliamentary secretary's speech he was talking about the specific location of the national council for reconciliation. He suggested Winnipeg. I wonder if he can expand on why he thinks that Winnipeg would be the best choice for that.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:21:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I guess we will pick up our debate where we left off on the Friday before we recessed for the Christmas break.
What we discovered and what we talked about in my speech on that Friday prior to our leaving for the Christmas season was that this is actually nothing new. As a matter of fact, when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the Speaker of the House of Commons, he went to a fundraiser, and paid $100 to go to it, for the member for Regina—Wascana at the time. He was there. There are pictures of him there. He was there with the now Leader of the Opposition. They have pictures documenting this. Therefore, this is not something unique to this particular Speaker. This is apparently something that has been going on. Coming from a riding that had the longest-serving Speaker of the House of Commons, I am fully aware of what a Speaker will do and how they will engage in their riding and perhaps in just one or two of the neighbouring ridings.
Therefore, I am curious. Can the member from the Bloc inform the House, with respect to when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did the exact same thing, how many times the Bloc called for his resignation at that time? Was it one, two, three or four? Perhaps the members from the Bloc never even bothered to question it when it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
We are being fed this story right now that this is somehow just this Speaker because he did something wrong. It is nothing personal about the Speaker, yet the Bloc does not have a history of calling this out in the past when it has happened. I wonder if the member can inform the House as to how many times the Bloc Québécois raised the issue when it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle going to a fundraiser in the member for Regina—Wascana's riding and paying $100 to go there.
352 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:48:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, did members hear that? The member did again literally what I complained about in my entire speech. He said that the price on pollution is going to quadruple, but what did he forget to include? The rebate is going to quadruple, and 94% of Canadians get back more than they put in. The member refuses to stand up stand up and say that. Why will he not? It is the reality. Even if one makes $250,000 a year, 55% of Canadian households that make $250,000 a year still get more back than they put in. Why will he not say that when he stands up? It is because it does not feed his ultrapartisan talking points that the member for Carleton gave him.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 1:55:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, talk about walking on eggshells. I have not even gotten to that point yet. The member is trying to predict where I am going in my speech and is rising on a point of order pre-emptively because he is afraid I am going to make a comparison between the approach of Russia and the approach of the Conservative Party of Canada. I have not even gotten to that yet. All I said was that the member was afraid I would do that. I did not even actually make the comparison.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 5:18:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow the member for Labrador to finish her speech and Q and A, which were interrupted due to technical challenges.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is sometimes what happens when members are just reading speeches that are given to them that are written by staffers who perhaps do not know the rules of the House, but the member just said the Prime Minister's name in the context of it being “the [Prime Minister]'s Canada”.
Perhaps the member should inform those who are writing his speeches how the rules of the House work so that this does not happen again.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:54:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, despite the fact that it may have been heckling, the member's contribution was so good that I think we should have made an exception on this one occasion.
I find it interesting that the member for Saskatoon West said, “Let us call a spade a spade”, right after he did not answer a single question he was asked. He just pivoted and went to a completely different place. I asked him about something in his speech, and rather than address the question, he totally went off and started talking about heat pumps, which I did not even hear him talk about in his speech.
This just goes to the point that I will be making in my comments, which is the fact that this is all about Conservative hypocrisy. Before I go any further, I will indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
I find it very fascinating. At the heart of this is the issue of the price on pollution, and the reason I find it so difficult is that I feel as though, once again, it is Groundhog Day. I have given a similar speech many times before. I am talking about the same hypocrisy that comes from Conservatives in the House. What we repeatedly see is Conservative after Conservative standing up against a policy that they all ran on; some of them did so not once, but twice. Some members in here, 19 members, who ran and were elected in the 2008 election and are still here today, ran cap and trade.
Cap and trade is just another form of pricing pollution; it is just done slightly differently. However, the Conservatives ran on it. Again, of course, just in the most recent election, they ran under Erin O'Toole as their leader with their signature platform titled “The Man with the Plan”. They talked about how they were going to put a price on pollution, but rather than just giving the money back to Canadians, which is what we are doing, they would put the money into a special carbon savings account. Then, depending on how much a person grew that account, they could go out and qualify for different rewards. I imagine there would be some form of catalogue, and people would look through it, just as one would with Air Miles. Depending on how much they had built up in that carbon fund, they could get some really good prizes. Maybe they could get a really nice bicycle or something. However, if they had not spent a lot and had not built up a lot in that carbon account, they might get a smaller prize as a result.
Despite the fact that it would have been pricing pollution, the problem with that plan is that it actually incentivized people to use carbon and have a larger carbon footprint. The larger the carbon footprint a person had, the more credits they would build into this carbon account, so they could get even better prizes at the end. Their plan was immensely flawed, and our party, and all parties in this House, would never support something like that.
That is what they ran on most recently, in 2021. In 2008, 18 of them also ran on “The True North Strong and Free: Stephen Harper's plan for Canadians”. In that, as I previously mentioned, Stephen Harper outlined how his newly formed government, if elected, would bring in cap and trade. It was revolutionary at the time, at least for North America, because it was just a handful of states in the United States; Ontario, which came along a bit after that; and Quebec, which had also signed on, that were part of this North American version of cap and trade among a number of jurisdictions.
Did Stephen Harper actually implement that and put in that price on pollution? No, he did not. He completely abandoned it once he had the opportunity. However, the point is that 19 Conservatives who currently sit on that side of the House ran on that in 2008.
The hypocrisy is even better than that, because a number of the Conservative members sitting in the House right now actually sat previously in legislatures that had adopted pricing pollution. To take it a step further, they have comments in the official records of those legislatures, where they actually commit to pricing pollution.
There are many options, but I will start with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, now a Conservative member of Parliament in this federal House. He said, while sitting in the provincial legislature in B.C.:
In 2008, our government made the decision to implement a tax on carbon. It was designed to help British Columbia reduce greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time be fair to hard-working families.
A Conservative member said that, which is literally what we are saying.
We did not even come up with that material; the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge did. He ran on it. He said that in the provincial legislature. He also went on to say:
I know that the member for Vancouver-Kensington made a comment about it and tried to blame it on the federal government, as far as revenue neutrality. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have the option of how we wanted to bring this about, as far as a carbon tax. Our policy—it's law—is to put it back into the pockets of taxpayers.
This is not a Liberal saying this; it is a current sitting member of the House in the Conservative Party who said this. Now, suddenly, he can just blindly abandon his values and principles, in terms of how he at least felt while in the provincial legislature, to follow the lead of the alt-right leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality of what is going on.
I am always really amazed when Conservatives try to suggest that Liberals are gagged in terms of their ability to speak, when example after example comes from that side of the House.
It does not end there. There were two other members who were in the Quebec legislature and voted in favour of pricing pollution: the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. Both of them sat in the provincial legislature and voted in favour and helped adopt pricing pollution in Quebec.
Now they suddenly show up here at the federal level and act as though pricing pollution is the absolute worst thing one could do. How is it possible that they can be so hypocritical? A lot of people can say things about me, but I am very consistent as it relates to my position on pricing pollution; I have been from the beginning.
I want to raise something else, and this is my final point about Conservative hypocrisy. It actually involves you, Madam Speaker, and I would like to tell members what happened in this House back on October 20, 2022. You were presiding, Madam Speaker, and there was an opposition day motion from the Conservatives.
Our NDP colleagues tried to put forward a motion to build on to the motion the Conservatives had on the floor; it would basically have eliminated the GST from home heating sources. It did not even require a vote or anything. All the mover of the motion needed to do was accept it, and then it would have carried.
Madam Speaker, you said:
It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party.
The hon. member does not have the support of the opposition; therefore, the amendment cannot be accepted.
Conservatives are just playing games with this. They did not want that to be adopted, because if it did get adopted, they would not get the political ammunition they are looking for to hold over the NDP and everybody else.
This hypocrisy was pointed out by both the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and the NDP, who have been rising on it all day long. To make matters even worse, today, the member for Timmins—James Bay again tried to amend this motion to add “and to eliminate the GST on home heating in provinces where no federal carbon tax is in place.”
The member for Battle River—Crowfoot said no; basically, it was rejected once again. One is left wondering why. Why are Conservatives acting this way? Are they really interested in the best interests of Canadians, or is this all just for political gain?
1509 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/23 5:55:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to bring to your attention that during my speech, I made reference to the fact that Conservatives had tried to move unanimous consent on Bill C-57. My information was incorrect. It was Bill C-350 I was thinking of when I made that comment.
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 5:37:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with any of the challenges that he pointed out. All those challenges are real, and I spoke about them in my speech. I am not sure if he was listening, or if he came into the chamber just moments before I concluded. Perhaps he was listening out in the lobby, and that would be good.
I never said that we were declaring a victory. As a matter of fact, I talked only about the various programs put in place to work to create solutions. There will never be victory on this. He is talking to somebody who has been involved in affordable housing since 2005. I have seen the waiting lists in Kingston go up and come down. This is something that we will always be working on. I will never stand up and declare victory, because I know there is always more work to be done.
The problem is that the Conservatives, for all their talk, do not actually put forward any kind of plan. They have not said what they are going to do, other than rebrand what we have already done, which is the housing accelerator fund.
I know the member is going to get up and speak soon. I do not want to hear more complaints about it. I want to hear what they are actually going to do. They can debate me by telling me why my policy is not good and why theirs is better, but they have to actually talk about a policy. The problem is that they do not have one.
265 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 5:14:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just need clarification. The speech finishes at a set time. Does the member mean going to the end of the set time? If so, certainly she would get consent from me.
34 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 12:07:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech, in particular when he was talking about how Conservatives are being muzzled by their leader. He is absolutely right.
A take-note debate occurred in this House in early September, and we were discussing a Canadian citizen who may have potentially been murdered by a foreign government. The Conservatives chose to be absolutely silent. They did not stand and give one speech, other than their House leader speaking for five minutes at the beginning. They did not ask a single question the whole time.
Then, about a week later, there were protests on the streets in front of this building regarding the LGBTQ movement, and once again the Conservatives were told not to speak. As a matter of fact, a leaked email from their leadership told MPs not to make any comment on it whatsoever.
What does that say to the member about the “freedom” the Leader of the Opposition purports to express to the country?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that question is certainly well outside the scope of this piece of legislation, as the member knows. My entire speech was based around the security of containers and the changes to the act that we are putting in place to assist with ensuring that those containers can be kept in a secure location, can be properly monitored by CBSA and, most importantly, can be dealt with in a timely manner that increases the efficiency of our ability to process containers.
I appreciate that the member has a very specific question that is completely unrelated to this bill. I would encourage him to perhaps ask that question in question period, provided that the Leader of the Opposition has released his iron grip on what Conservatives are allowed to say these days.
Nonetheless, I look forward, hopefully, to a question that relates to the substance of my speech.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 10:28:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I understand that this is the last speech, and so perhaps I will ask the member her opinion of what has gone on tonight.
Never in the eight years that I have spent in this House have I seen the Conservatives so utterly silent on an issue. They have not given a single speech other than the five minutes right at the very beginning. They have not asked a single question. It is absolutely clear to me that there is an orchestrated attempt within the Conservative caucus and somebody has said that nobody is speaking on this. They have silenced the members, which is the only thing I can interpret from this, but I do not know why. I cannot understand why. It would be so easy for all of us to come together and be in solidarity on this. I wonder if the member, as the last speaker tonight, can provide her thoughts on why that might be.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 10:07:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, building on that last question, we would almost have to assume, based on the lack of intervention into this debate by Conservatives, that it is an orchestrated, coordinated and collaborated attempt to be absolutely silent on the issue. The only individual to speak was the House leader for the Conservatives who had a 20-minute spot to speak. He spoke for only five minutes, and since then we have heard from no Conservatives. They have not even gotten up to ask a simple question. This is not an issue of politics; this is an issue of solidarity. This is an issue of realizing that we all come together because we all respect and value the rule of law in this country.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can comment on the incredible absence we have seen in this House today, not just in speeches, but in the simple act of just getting up and asking a question and showing that solidarity.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is why this legislation is before the House. It is here specifically for the purpose of trying to give those resources to those news organizations. In my speech, I spent five minutes describing a set of conditions yesterday that led to a wild spread of misinformation. We need this legislation to help combat that kind of stuff.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have that ATIP right here. I did research this before making that speech and I think it is very convenient that the member read out one sentence of the entire document.
What is specifically in here is reference to a whole host of grievances that have been put into the ATIP. To extract that one sentence to mean the Prime Minister is being investigated for a particular incident is an exaggeration. I know that the Conservatives know this too, because they did not once bring it up in question period today. If the Conservatives thought there was a scandal to be had, can anyone imagine them just sitting on their hands over there and pretending it does not exist? Why will the member not bring it up in question period?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the member. We were chuckling while he was speaking, but it was not for anything he was saying. It was just for the rich and incredible irony that we were hearing oohs out of that side of the House of Commons, because it was only a short three sitting days ago that the member spoke in the House on Bill C-41 by giving a virtual speech through Zoom. I am assuming he had good reason not to be in the chamber to do that and there was a really good reason he needed to do it by Zoom, and that is what put him in the position to not be able to be here physically.
The reality is that, from time to time, all members of this House need the ability to do that. Would the member like to address our concern over his hypocrisy for his speech about needing to be in the House as a member of Parliament when he delivered a full speech on Bill C-41 on Friday on Zoom?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
