- 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
- Feb/5/24 5:24:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if we are to believe what the member just said, if we are to believe that this free trade agreement is only about the price on pollution and if we are to believe that, other than that, Conservatives completely and fully support Ukraine, can the member explain why, when his party separated 138 items on a budget, he and his Conservative colleagues voted against supporting Ukraine for Operation Unifier and Operation Reassurance? They voted against the military.
What people are going to hear from them is that those were confidence votes, and they always vote against the government on a confidence vote. I have news for them: They could have voted for just those two items and still could have had 136 other opportunities to vote on confidence.
Why could they not have brought themselves to vote for just those two issues with respect to supporting Ukraine if there was not more to it than what he is proposing?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this fall economic statement is about investing in Canadians and supporting Canadians, in particular those who need supports right now. What we are continually seeing from the Conservatives is how they talk down these supports. They start talking about removing the carbon incentive rebate cheques, taking those away from Canadians. They are talking about the putting the GST back on building homes for Canadians who need them right now.
I am wondering whether my colleague could share his thoughts on the stark difference for Canadians in terms of an option between what we are providing and what the Conservatives are proposing.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/23 4:26:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member was sitting in the chamber when his two colleagues just spoke, but neither of them spoke about the bill at all.
The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support Ukraine. The Conservatives can say all they want about what they do, but their actions speak louder than words. We have seen that, and Canadians have seen that. It is coming to light now, and everybody is becoming aware of it.
It is not supporting Ukraine for the same reason that Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not supporting Ukraine, which is that far right influence, and it is in the Conservative Party of Canada. They know it. For those who are still wondering, the real reason the Leader of the Opposition is so petrified to show support for Ukraine is that he would lose votes to Maxime Bernier. It is that simple. He is trying to hold on to a base.
When it comes to this particular piece of legislation, we are talking about increasing competition and, by default, increasing trade. We know that, to ensure we put the right measures in place when we are looking internally within our own country, we have to recognize that there are anti-competitive practices going on. When Loblaw has nearly 40% of the market share of groceries between Loblaw's and Shoppers Drug Mart and every other entity it owns, we quickly start to see that it would be extremely difficult for competition to exist.
In comparison, Walmart in the United States, which is the retailer with the largest grocery share, has about 18% of the marketplace. We know that, in Canada, there is a problem with this. That is why this bill seeks to strengthen the rules around competition. It seeks to empower the Competition Bureau further, providing it with more resources and the money it would need to effectively operate and giving it the tools to make advances and make moves, when it needs to, to ensure that competition exists.
Competition is great, and we need to encourage competition, but sometimes government, or government-charged agencies, have to get involved because we do run into situations where that competition starts to get limited, and then we see price-fixing, as we saw with the Canada Bread Company and its bread price-fixing. That is why this is so incredibly important.
Conservatives are going to tell people that inflation is driven by a price on pollution, when it has virtually no effect on it. They are going to tell people that a price on pollution is why the price of gas and oil has skyrocketed over the last year, and it is simply not true. The reality is that, in the oil and gas sector specifically, the carbon tax added two cents per litre. It is two cents and people get more than that back.
Meanwhile, wholesale profit margins for the large oil distributors rose by 18¢ per litre. I do not hear the outrage about the profits. The profits of Loblaw were announced just yesterday for its third quarter, and it was, again, a double-digit increase in profits over the previous quarter. It is extremely important that we put the right measures in place to assist with this.
I can understand why Conservatives are reluctant to do this. They never seem to fall on the side of those who are struggling, of those who need these supports and tools in place, or of those who need the benefit of healthy competition. This government will do that. I have said this many times in the House before, and I will say it again: I am very glad there is another party in the room who are acting like adults, which is the NDP. It sees this need as well, and it sees the need to push this legislation through for the betterment of all Canadians.
We all know that, if we had not put closure on this today, the bill would be here forever. That is what Conservatives have done with so many other pieces of legislation.
692 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 6:23:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would note that the member has never been supportive of any of the programs that the federal government has done with respect to building affordable housing throughout the country, yet in the member's very own riding, when a project with federal dollars that she voted against was announced and the groundbreaking ceremony occurred, she tweeted out, “Step by step, brick by brick. Very happy to support this project!!” I am curious whether the member can inform the House how she was supporting the project, because it clearly was not by supporting the monetary measures that went towards it.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the closing remarks of the member's speech, he said that he will not be supporting the bill, but he hopes that once it gets to committee, the government will accept the recommendations.
My questions are: First, would the member support the bill if it came back with the recommendations, as he indicated? If the answer to that is yes, then why would he not support the bill to get to committee?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 4:48:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will check the seats around me. I hope that is better.
I note that the member started his speech by saying that he would be supporting the bill, but then he spent about eight of the 10 minutes talking about everything that was bad about it. The member then came back at the end and said that there are a couple of good things about it, so therefore he would be supporting it.
Does this means that the couple of good things outweigh all the bad things, and that is why the member would be voting for it?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk at great length about supporting farmers. He said that any measures we are able to come up with we should do expeditiously to provide that support. However, I can not help but reflect on the fact that for Bill C-8, which was specifically intended for and helped 24,000 farmers throughout the country, the Conservative Party and this member put up roadblocks by bringing in various political games to avoid the passage of the bill, a bill that would directly impact and provide supports to farmers.
I am curious if the member can rectify the fact that, although he says it now, that was not what we saw when Bill C-8 was before us, which had support in it for 24,000 farmers.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 6:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the member did not hear me, it is because he chose not to listen. I will repeat what I just read to the member so that hopefully it will settle in a little better this time.
I said, “These partners requested the federal government's action in supporting police of jurisdiction to address the threat.” If the member wants to split hairs between the exact wording of what was said, he can do that to his heart's content, but as I stated, the police jurisdictions were requesting support from the federal government.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I started off my speech by telling the story about how I lived on the street five doors down from Judge Baker's house where The Tragically Hip used to practise in the basement. As a newspaper boy, I used to listen to the noise that was coming from the basement, and I had no idea I was witnessing the formation of The Tragically Hip.
Members heard from the words of Gord Sinclair when he was at committee, which I read out in the House, when he said that, had it not been for CanCon and government investment, The Tragically Hip would have never become what it did.
Finally, regarding the member's comment about the Conservatives being worried about somebody being able to watch somebody repair a deck, I just hope that all members know that the member for Timmins—James Bay has a great YouTube channel where they can watch some of his home improvements. If I thought for a second that this bill would limit my ability to do that, I certainly would not be supporting it.
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:16:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this opposition motion. I am sure nobody will be surprised by this, but I regret to inform the House so early on that I will not be supporting this opposition motion.
This motion we have before us has nothing to do with Ukraine. This is a motion about pipelines. It is extremely unfortunate the Conservative Party of Canada would bring a motion to this House about pipelines under the guise of trying to be supportive of Ukraine.
This is so glaringly obvious to me, because nobody would every disagree with the first two clauses of this motion. I do not think there is a Canadian out there who does not realize the vast majority of Canadians stand with Ukraine right now. There is no one who follows politics closely, or even remotely follows politics, who does not realize that every party in this House supports the Ukrainian people, supports what they are fighting for and condemns Vladimir Putin.
The first two clauses in this motion are moot because we already passed unanimous consent motions of this support. We already talked about the different things we can be doing in Ukraine to make the situation there better and to properly support Ukraine as it is going through this extremely difficult time.
It all comes down to the third clause in this motion, which is a clause about pipelines. It would have been much more genuine had the Conservatives just shown up here today and said that they had a motion about pipelines, presented their motion saying that they want more pipelines, like they do so often in this House, and just called it for what it was.
Instead, Conservatives come in with this motion with these two additional clauses in it to somehow suggest that this has to do with Ukraine. This is just wedge politics they are doing right now. It is feeding to their base, which is so dead set on oil being the only solution.
We listened to what the Conservatives said today about energy security. They talk about energy as though oil is the only option for energy. They use the terms energy and oil interchangeably because they see oil as being the only option when it comes to energy.
I will talk about this motion in the context of it being a motion about pipelines. Let us just assume for a second that that was genuinely what the Conservatives wanted, that they came in here to talk about pipelines. It does not make any sense even from a pipeline perspective. The Conservatives keep talking about these new pipelines and the eastern European countries, and the other countries, that will supposedly be saved by them, but why is it that Conservatives think Europe wants to transfer its dependency from one third country to another third country? They do not want to do that.
As a matter of fact, the European commissioner for energy, Kadri Simson, said that the Russian invasion made their vulnerability painfully clear. She stated, “We cannot let any third country destabilize our energy markets or influence our energy choices.”
We have the energy commissioner for the European Union saying they do not want to be dependent on any third country for their energy sources, but then we have the Conservatives coming in here and saying that we need to build pipelines so we can make them dependent on us. The same commissioner for energy for the European Union said that they had to be “boosting renewables and energy efficiency as fast as technically possible.”
Even if the European Union was looking to diversify and get some of this oil, even though the commissioner said it is not, it is not interested in oil as a source of energy. It is interested in renewables. That is what it is saying. Even if the Conservatives are coming from a well-intentioned place on this and really thought that these pipelines were about the security of Europe, those in Europe are telling us that they are not interested in them. They do not want to be dependent on another country and they are very much interested in looking for a very fast transition to renewables. That is not to mention the fact that building these pipelines will cost billions of dollars and will take years to complete.
Europe has made it clear that it is comfortable with its current reserve situation for this winter, but has to start looking toward next winter. It has also made it clear that it is not interested in being dependent on another country, and that it is interested in renewables as a form of energy as quickly as possible. Most of the western world is on board with this and understands it, the European energy commissioner knows this, four parties in the House know this and I would say the vast majority of Canadians know this, yet somehow the Conservatives come in here and are completely unaware of it. I am left wondering why they are doing this. Why do they think they need to put this forward? Do they genuinely think this is plausible? Let us remember that the European Union has said it is not interested and this will take years to build and a lot of money. Why are they doing this? Is it just to shore up their base and prove to their base that they are fighting for oil and gas? That is the only thing I can conclude as the motivation for bringing forward such a motion today.
In conclusion, I will say that I am more than willing to tell my Conservative colleagues across the way, all members of the House and all Canadians that I am not interested in pipelines. I am certainly not interested in the government subsidizing pipelines. I do not think there is a role anymore in this day and age for the Government of Canada to be subsidizing pipelines. Does that mean I am completely naive to the amount of oil we use? No, I am not. I am fully aware that to make the vast majority of the products in this room, if not all, we used oil, whether directly or indirectly. I am also aware that the technologies we need to be investing in and subsidizing are those that provide options to make these products differently so we can put different things into the various products we are currently making out of oil.
This is the default reaction from the Conservatives all the time. They always say that we need oil and that we will not be getting off oil tomorrow. I get that, I agree with that, I understand that and I am not dismissing it at all. However, I am saying that my personal opinion is that oil is not the solution long term. When we talk about building pipelines, we are talking long term. We are interested in 20, 30 or 40 years down the road. There will always be a dependency on some form of oil or gas and I get that, but hopefully not the degree of dependency we have today. We need to move away from this.
I surely do not support this motion, and I think it is shameful that the Conservatives are using a crisis on the other side of the world to promote their agenda.
1242 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
