- 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/6/24 5:03:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are offering it under a Westminster parliamentary system that is multiple centuries old. The member is talking about a minority government as though she has never even come close to understanding what happens in a minority. I am sorry if the NDP figured out how to actually get things done on behalf of Canadians while Conservatives would rather just yell and scream all day long about what they wish would happen; clearly, they do not use any kind of ability to act like adults in this room to get things done on behalf of their constituents.
Very simply, if Conservatives are going to be voting against this, is it safe to then say that they would remove this program if elected into government?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 1:56:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we need to ensure that taxpayers get what they deserve and that they are being treated fairly in terms of money being spent on their behalf. Whenever an issue arises through government like we have seen with ArriveCAN, we need to get to the bottom of it on behalf of taxpayers.
To that end, I am definitely supportive of what the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has indicated. However, I do want to stress that the reason I put forward the amendment is my concern as to what we will actually get out of the process of having the individual here. That is why I stress that rather than having a debacle, and everybody perhaps not really knowing the procedure and how we are going to deal this because we have not done it in over 200 years, we lay it out clearly and that it is set up so we have a process in place to do that. That is what my amendment is about.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 5:54:04 p.m.
- Watch
To be fair, Madam Speaker, I did not even notice it; I am used to a lot of yelling on that side.
The Liberals ran on this idea, as did the NDP. I genuinely believe that, because of the partnership we have with the NDP, we have a better piece of legislation now that Canadians can feel very proud of. Could the member for New Westminster—Burnaby inform the House of what it is like to be an adult in the room?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 11:31:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, nobody is saying, “Trust us.” I do not think anybody is saying that at all.
All we are saying is that we should use the Westminster parliamentary system in the way that it is intended to work, which is to bring an idea before the House, have a debate here about it and move it to committee to make the required improvements that the member wants. Every Conservative who has stood up so far has basically said that the bill does not go far enough. Why on earth would we not at least get it to committee, which is the way our system works, and then we could try to improve where Conservatives do not think it goes far enough? Then we could bring it back to the House in due course.
The member says Liberals have a majority with the NDP and the Bloc. That is how the system works; that is how Parliament works. We debate things, we vote on things and we move on. Just because the Conservatives might be upset that they are in the minority, and are against a particular bill, does not mean they should just throw up their hands, throw their bike in the ditch and run home.
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:35:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that notwithstanding the last comment by my Conservative colleague, there is not a single Westminster parliamentary system that follows what he outlined.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 7:04:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in your consideration of the point of order from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, I would like to add that I too believe it is important that the Speaker look into this, that we investigate why Conservatives seem to be having a tough time with technology. Maybe it is just the old archaic ways that surround them, but nonetheless, we need to look into this. We need to get to the bottom of this.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:21:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that this was where the day would go, but I guess we have to be prepared for anything.
I have to hand it to the NDP. They said that they wanted to bring forward their concurrence on this particular report, and they did that. The reality is, for those who do not really understand what is going on, that the Conservatives have an opposition supply day today. However, what has happened because of the fact that they sidelined the NDP yesterday, I guess, is that this is just payback for that. Nonetheless, it is a very important topic. I am glad that we have the opportunity to continue talking about this.
I do not think that my position, personally, is too far from that of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. However, I do take exception with his last comment that the Liberals said that they did not want a public inquiry. I actually was very clear about this.
By the way, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
I was very clear about this at committee. I said in a speech at committee, at the beginning of this, when a public inquiry was first floated, that I actually thought a public inquiry kind of made the most sense. Why not broaden it and allow the public to have that insight?
We heard from the experts who came forward that a public inquiry would not gather any more information than what could be provided at committee. A public inquiry of this nature, which is going to dive into some highly sensitive information and highly sensitive reports, needs to be treated with the classification specifications that surround it.
It is not just in our own domestic interest to ensure that it occurs. It is also in the interest of the relationship that we have with our allies. We share secrets. We share information. They share information with us. If it becomes very apparent to our allies that we are unable to hold information safely, then they are not going to be interested in continuing to work with us. This is what we heard from the experts who came to committee and who talked about why a public inquiry was not the right route.
At the beginning, I started off thinking that, yes, a public inquiry kind of makes the most sense. However, I was very easily persuaded by those experts coming forward to actually see this occur in a different way, in a way that allows for the classification of that information to remain intact. I find it unfortunate that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby would make that comment and say that Liberals are against it. No, Liberals listened to the advice of the experts, and we formed our opinion based on that.
That is the only difference, in my opinion, between my position and that of the NDP. I agree with them. Why not look at all foreign interference? The Conservatives have been very hell-bent on ensuring that the only issue we look at is Chinese interference, but we know that interference comes from other foreign state actors.
Foreign interference in elections is not a new concept. This has become more obvious and more real within the last 10 or 15 years, as people have been able to infiltrate through social media networks to get information out there in different ways and be sinister in ways that may have been a little more difficult in the past. What we have are real threats. I think that Canadians should be concerned, and they are rightfully concerned.
For me, this does not come down to a matter of whether we study foreign interference. I am actually relieved to see so many people interested in this. The previous minister of public safety, in 2020, sent an actual copy of election preparedness and foreign interference to every single member in the House. He sent a physical copy of a report that he put together, specifically talking about China in that. Not a single member in the House stood up. No Conservatives stood up to say they wanted to talk about the report by the previous public safety minister.
In one sense, I am glad that we are having this conversation out in the open and in the public forum. It is important to do that and to get to the bottom of these issues, but it is also really important to study all interference, not just by China, and to do it in the context that respects the classification of the information. We heard from expert after expert, and I do not think there was a single individual who came before PROC, with expertise in understanding how to utilize this information, who said that a public forum would be the best place to have this discussion.
Having said all of that, the government appointed a special expert to specifically look into this: former governor general David Johnston. He was tasked with looking into a number of things, one of which included the best way for Canadians to go forward with this issue to fully understand it. The Prime Minister said, when he announced this, that he will take whatever recommendations come forward from that independent expert.
Of course, Conservatives, as they are heckling me right now, will say that Mr. Johnston is biased, that he is a family friend and so on. We are talking about David Johnston, who is 81 years old. Now they are laughing about it. We are talking about David Johnston, one of the most highly respected Canadians in this country, who is going to look into this issue. If they want to continue to heckle and run all over his incredible reputation, they can go right ahead, like the former speaker of the House, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle—
988 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 4:47:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the House leader for the NDP really hit the nail on the head at the beginning of his comments when he specifically took aim at the issue that the Conservatives seem to have. They are repeatedly getting up and calling this motion undemocratic, but all it does really is extend the ability to debate in this House. I cannot even wrap my head around their argument. It is so incredibly weak. They are saying it is undemocratic what we are putting forward here today, which would add more time to have more debate.
I am at a loss for words trying to understand this argument. I wonder if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is equally confused with the position that the Conservatives are taking by calling this undemocratic.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:10:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing that I think is extremely disingenuous, and I am curious if the member would agree, is that every time the Conservatives talk about the price on pollution, they conveniently neglect to talk about the rebate that Canadians will be getting. They say the price on pollution will triple, triple, triple, but the reality is that the rebate will triple, triple, triple.
I wonder if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby could provide his input on whether or not the Conservatives, when making that claim, are being quite disingenuous given the reality of the program.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened to the intervention of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby prior to question period. He started by talking about the way that the NDP, a relatively small party in this chamber, was able to successfully take forward its concerns to committee through amendments and to negotiate at committee to properly represent their constituents.
I know my question is going to come off tongue-in-cheek, but I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby can provide the Conservatives some insight into how it feels to know that members are actually doing the job that they have been elected to do as opposed to just coming forward with rhetoric and bringing forward misinformation about everything the bill does not represent, and that they actually did their job and were able to bring forward some amendments that were important to them.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it appears that the Conservatives do not even know what we are debating right now, based on the point of order that came earlier. The suggestion was that we were debating Bill C-13. We are not. We are actually debating a motion to time allocate it, because we have to: It is a position that the Conservatives have put us in.
The member for New Westminster—Burnaby actually was spot-on as to why we are in the situation that we are in: Conservatives are just putting up person after person for no reason other than to obstruct this Parliament. We saw that on Monday night, when they put up speaker after speaker on a bill that they supposedly support.
Can the minister please explain to the House how she sees the difficulties coming from the other side?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:26:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted. What does the member mean by “shut Parliament down”? This motion would do the complete opposite. It would keep Parliament open longer. It would give the ability for Conservatives who want to put up 51 speakers and more on each piece of legislation the ability to do that. This is the same comment that the Bloc member for Montcalm made earlier, when he talked about restricting Parliament.
This motion would do nothing to restrict Parliament. It is about giving more opportunity to discuss the issues that are clearly important to the Conservatives. That is, of course, if it really is the issues that they care about. I would argue what they care about is stopping absolutely everything at every cost, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby said earlier, “Nothing will pass”. That is their objective, that absolutely nothing will pass, and that is very clear from where I am sitting.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:25:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am being heckled by the member for Peterborough—Kawartha who is asking, “Are you?”
Of course we are, that is why we are putting the legislation forward. That is why we have this motion here. This motion is asking for members to be able to do that.
I find it fascinating that the same party that accuses this side of the House of not wanting to work, for their own political grandstanding purposes, is now suddenly against this motion that will give us the ability to sit and work throughout the evening when necessary so that we can get the legislation passed.
I will hand it to the members of the NDP. At least their interest is doing things on behalf of Canadians. They do not agree with us on everything. We can see from the questions they ask during question period that there are things they have an issue with. There is policy they have an issue with, and they bring it up and voice it. However, they are still able to work together with the government for the greater good. That is what the Westminster parliamentary system is about. That is what working with political parties and working together when we get here is all about.
We did just have an election six months ago, and one would think that the Conservatives had no idea that the election happened. They literally walked back into this room and picked up right where they left off, with accusatory remarks towards the government, picking at individual people, pointing at the Prime Minister and calling him names, and making everything a scandal and about corruption. They are trying to manufacture stories so they can somehow hope that they win the next election based on knocking the other guy down instead of actually trying to tell people what their policies and ideas are.
I am all in favour of working until midnight if that is what it takes to get the pieces of legislation that I mentioned through. I expect that any member who passionately cares about Canadians, and about making sure that the policies are put in place that will benefit them the most, would do the same.
372 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:08:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start by picking up where the member for Elmwood—Transcona left off with respect to answering this question about the NDP selling its soul. I have heard this talk on a number of occasions from the Bloc and the Conservatives, as though they are jealous they were not the parties chosen to work with the government. We hear this kind of language coming from across the way repeatedly. They say the NDP has sold itself out and this is not what Canadians voted for.
We operate under the Westminster parliamentary system. The entire system is built on political parties working together. Look around the world. We can open our eyes to other Westminster parliamentary systems to see that what we see here with regard to working together with another political party is exactly what our system is designed to do. This notion that it is somehow wrong for parties to be working together only underscores, if anything, the disdain the Conservative Party, and now apparently the Bloc, have for this place and the very institution that we use to exercise our democracy.
In any event, let us talk about government Motion No. 11, because that is what we are here to talk about today. I think it is clear from the outset exactly what this motion is about. The core of this motion, at least in terms of what is being debated today, is with respect to extending sitting hours. This motion sets out our government's proposal for the proceedings of the House of Commons until June 23 of this year. It specifically will allow for extended sitting hours to debate bills into the evenings when the government and one party, which represents a majority in the House, request it.
What we are trying to do here is empower the House to be more democratic and give members more opportunity to speak. I heard the member for Montcalm not that long ago talk about how this motion is restricting Parliament. He should explain to me how extending sitting hours to give people more opportunity to speak is somehow restricting Parliament. It is the exact opposite. It is increasing the opportunity for members to get up and speak.
I heard what members of the Conservative Party said earlier today, which they said on Thursday as well when they raised a point of order on it specifically, about putting into this motion that no quorum calls can be made. Suddenly, this is a constitutional issue for the Conservatives. It is absolutely remarkable. We pass unanimous consent motions waiving the requirement for quorum calls routinely. Consider the number of times that I have stood up and moved unanimous consent motions to waive the requirement for quorum calls when we have evening debates. I have done it at least 15 to 20 times and everybody always votes in favour of it. It is something that has been negotiated in advance.
To somehow suggest that it is unconstitutional to move this goes against a practice of the House that is so incredibly well established and entrenched into the daily operations of this place. It is ludicrous to suggest that it is somehow unconstitutional, and the Conservatives are bringing up that point.
This makes me think: Why are the Conservatives bringing this up? Is this the best they have, saying that it is unconstitutional to waive the requirement for quorum calls? That is how it appears, because they are scraping, literally, at the bottom of the barrel by trying to suggest that this is somehow a constitutional issue.
Nonetheless, why is it so important? Let me talk about this for a second.
There are a number of very important pieces of legislation, and something has become very clear regarding the Conservatives, and now the Bloc for some reason. I am not going to lie: Ever since the member for Durham was removed as the leader of the official opposition, the Bloc Québécois has had this cozy relationship with the Conservatives, and I just cannot wrap my head around it. It is a complete change in their posture. They used to be a progressive party that fought for Quebec, primarily, pushed forward ideas and saw past the games the Conservatives played, but suddenly they have taken a completely different approach.
I cannot help but think it is all based on the fact that they see the cluster of activity going on in the Conservative Party right now. They see the implosion literally happening before our eyes with these far-right candidates and the progressives. They might see an opportunity to pick up a couple of members. Who knows what might happen after the leadership vote in September? Who knows—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
798 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
