- 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 3:20:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do agree with the member and what he said.
In particular, I would bring to the attention of the Chair that there is still a member of Parliament on this side of the House who has not spoken in about a month and a half because he accused Conservatives of being pro-Russia.
As a result, your deputy asked him to withdraw his comment. He did not want to withdraw because he believed what he was saying was correct. As a result, he has not been able to speak for about six weeks.
In your consideration about this issue, I would ask that you also consider whether or not it is appropriate to make a statement like that, because I would agree with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin that this would be limiting the words we can use in this House.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 1:37:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, how is it possible for the hon. member to have listened to the first half of my sentence and not the second half of it? The second half of my sentence, after I said that I knew I was better off, I said that I had no problem believing the PBO when he said that that eight out of 10 Canadians were better off.
To member's point, that is why we have a rural top-up. It is why the rural top-up was doubled in the last fall economic statement. The reality is that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. More important, as I indicated at the conclusion of my speech, 94% of households that make $50,000 or less are better off.
The member is on a crusade to fight a price on pollution and to fight the carbon rebates that come along with them. He should know that his crusade is not with the least fortunate in our country. His crusade is with the best and the most well-off in our country.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:32:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said that I do not have a bit of FOMO for not being invited to the party in the back room.
In any event, I found it very interesting when the member said that the Liberals took all the Conservatives' great ideas and put them into the fall economic statement, yet she still will not vote for it. What is going on here? Does she not like the initiatives that she claims the Liberals took from the Conservatives?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:04:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I do not think anybody is trying to dance around anything. I would just like to seek clarity on what was just said.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition issued a similar statement to what the opposition House leader is saying. Would he agree then that any evidence that would be germane to this case and that would be gathered by officials in their investigation should not be made public, even if it was given to the Prime Minister at one time? Would he agree that should remain—
93 words
All Topics
- 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
- May/4/23 10:17:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the Leader of the Opposition, who is making such a big deal of this, or the member who is supposedly affected by this, is not the one leading off the discussion today. Nonetheless, my question for the member is this. I will start with a statement of fact—
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Supposedly affected?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/23 12:12:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we naturally accept that all members in this House are being honourable. The member has indicated that there was a significant amount of noise. It has been a practice in the House that we accept that. I would strongly encourage all members of the House to allow the member to give her statement again, given the circumstances.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 5:06:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, why would one have to make that statement when it is written in the law? It is literally in the first part of the legislation. It says that the privatization of health care is not an option. It has to be available to the public in a prepaid fashion, and no point-of-service payments have to be made. Why would it be necessary to tell people something that is already the law?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
