- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Subcommittee on Review of Parliament’s involvement with associations and recognized Interparliamentary groups
Deputy House leader of the New Democratic Party
- NDP
- London—Fanshawe
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,911.16
- Government Page
- May/2/24 6:43:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, “scintilla” is not a word I hear a lot. I appreciate the vocabulary from the member, although the tone is certainly not appropriate. I want to do everything I possibly can to work together, as I said in my speech, to ensure that things are better.
Was the budget an NDP budget? If the member had maybe caught my speech a couple of days ago about the budget, I was very clear that it was not. However, the division that we consistently see, the trying to tear down this institution, is unhelpful. I will do everything I possibly can to honour the institution and to work as hard as I possibly can to ensure that people in the armed forces get what they need. It may not be perfect, but we need to move forward, and we need to do that together.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 4:11:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it to be an interesting comment that there were absolutely no problems, when, in fact, the Harper government was plagued with problems.
Specifically on budgetary policy, the member continued to comment about how amazing Harper's government was in terms of financial management. However, Harper ran a reported five straight budgetary deficits.
What does he have to say about that? I would really love to hear.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 5:02:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been at the forefront of pushing back against those corporate giveaways to the oil and gas sector. It is incumbent on those corporate owners to pay their fair share.
As I said in my speech, we will continue to push against that. This is not an NDP budget. I will fight for the day when we see a fair share being paid by everyone in order to ensure that we have a safe, healthy future, both with all those social programs and in terms of our environment.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 4:56:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was really quite happy to hear the member talk about the fact that the government is not actually making the ultrarich pay their fair share. That is fascinating. I do agree that in terms of what we are seeing in this budget, it certainly does not go far enough. The increase of the inclusion rate for capital gains simply is not enough. New Democrats have been calling for an increase of the excess profits tax, the corporate book tax and other taxes.
Would the member be willing to work with New Democrats, and maybe put forward an amendment, to ensure that the government, within this budget, would actually increase the corporate tax rate, like what we are seeing in the states, so that we are competitive as opposed to being the lowest in the OECD?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 7:20:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been brought to mind by this motion is the focus on this idea of returning to balanced budgets. In times past, during both Conservative and Liberal majority governments, they tried to make themselves look better by balancing the budget. To do this, not only did they cut services, but they also cut housing strategies and a lot of things Canadians depend upon. They also raided the employment insurance fund, which was paid for by the deferred wages of workers. What is the member's perspective on that? I would really love to hear.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/24/23 6:32:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot let this pass that there is yet another Conservative speaker who is extending debate on this issue when they do not have to do it. If they are so concerned about debating the budget all they have to do is stop talking and we could get on with it. I have a speech today and I would like to talk about the budget.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for all of his work on this file.
This is really key and something that New Democrats, for a long time, have been fighting for. We have been trying to ensure we are protecting the deferred wages that workers are putting into that system, so they know they are there and they will be allowed to access them when they need them. Those are the key things. It is not about ensuring that governments can use them to prop up what they consider is a balanced budget.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, throughout this debate on the budget we have been talking a lot about the affordability crisis and people being able to make ends meet. Throughout the member's speech he was talking about his constituents, meeting a lot of targets and helping indigenous people in his riding.
One of the proposals the New Democrats have put forward is for a guaranteed livable basic income, which meets the requirements of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I wonder if the member would be supportive of our colleague's bill, Bill C-223, which would support a guaranteed livable basic income.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 11:51:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the MP for Edmonton Strathcona.
Today, I rise in the House to speak to the opposition day motion proposed by the Conservatives about Canada's future defence spending requirements under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have much respect for my colleagues, especially the member for South Surrey—White Rock who introduced this motion, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee for National Defence. I have enjoyed working with her thus far; however, I cannot agree with her today.
I want to be very clear and ensure that New Democrats are on the record for being in favour of adequate federal government spending for the Canadian Armed Forces. New Democrats have long pushed for the government to make sure that our troops have the equipment, training and support they need to do the difficult and dangerous work we ask them to undertake. We support upgrading outdated equipment and providing a clear mandate, while also providing a realistic and responsible spending plan to deliver on these goals. We need to make sure funding is adequate to support our national and international roles, but should not adopt an arbitrary target for spending.
Therefore, we cannot support a call for the federal government to increase its defence spending to hit NATO's target of 2% of GDP, as we believe this request from the international military alliance is just that: arbitrary. Members do not have to believe me on this. I will quote Dr. Robert Huebert, associate professor of political science at the University of Calgary, who said:
“Let's recognize that the 2% increase, when it was created by NATO, is a political target. We need to have the ability to go beyond just simply saying, okay, 2% or 1.9%. Those are numbers. They don't mean anything.”
I could also quote Dr. Kimball, associate professor of political science from the University of Laval, who said:
One thing that is clear is that 2% is clearly a political target. Two per cent does not come from any sort of quantitative analysis. It doesn't come from any sort of strategic analysis or anything like that, and I can say that relatively confidently because, in doing my NATO research, I've looked at over 200 pieces of research published on NATO burden sharing—policy papers, books, articles and all of that. The first thing I can say is that 2% is something that politicians created, which defence budgets had to very much react to and try to attain afterwards.
If 2% is arbitrary, why specifically demand that it be spent? The Conservatives are demanding a huge increase in military spending based on an arbitrary political target. Currently, Canada spends $24.29 billion on the Department of National Defence. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, hitting NATO's 2% target would mean spending $54 billion to $56 billion a year on defence.
The PBO recently reported that the Department of Defence struggles with actually spending the current allocation of $24 billion, and it delays planned expenditures until later years. Former Liberal MP and retired general Andrew Leslie commented clearly on this inability for the Department of Defence to spend its full allocation, saying:
The department has a chronic problem with actually using the funds. You can promise the moon and the stars. If you can't get the money out the door, then it's of no value.
The department cannot spend what it has now, so how can the Conservatives expect it to spend double? I do not believe that we should be spending double our current budget, but there are reasons why we should increase defence spending.
We in the House know that the Canadian Armed Forces have a significant recruitment and retention problem, and it is absolutely something the federal government needs to address. Each year, the Canadian Armed Forces must select and train thousands of recruits, and retain a substantial number of its trained personnel to maintain operational readiness.
The CAF comprises approximately 65,800 regular force members, 27,000 reserve force members, 5,200 Canadian rangers and more than 27,000 civilian employees, who support the CAF. At the end of February 2022, we were almost 4,000 people short of the 69,750 funded positions that would make up the CAF's authorized strength. At approximately 37%, the largest portion of DND's budget is allocated for personnel, but of course if it does not have the personnel to pay, it is unable to spend that money that is allocated.
A lack of inclusion is also a major barrier to both retention and recruitment. The CAF must attract, recruit and retain talent that is representative of Canadian society.
New Democrats have called on the government to create and fund a special program within the Canadian Armed Forces aimed at the recruitment of women and under-represented groups, as recommended by the Auditor General in 2016.
In the last Parliament, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We studied the horrific problem of sexual misconduct in the armed forces. This has, of course, impacted the CAF's ability to attract and retain individuals. Articles in Maclean's and l'Actualité in 2014 estimated that 1,780 sexual assaults per year occurred in the CAF.
New Democrats continue to call on the Canadian government to fully implement all recommendations of Justice Deschamps's 2015 report. Despite having the Deschamps report, the Justice Fish report and two other reports from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, this Liberal government has delayed action and stated that it will wait yet again for another report from Justice Arbour. It continues to wait. It continues to make women in the CAF wait, and the solutions are already known.
All women, including women who serve, deserve much better from this government. We need to ensure that women who serve can do so equally. We need to adequately fund the supports for women who serve, and adequately fund the educational programs needed to change the toxic culture within the forces.
I would add that the Canadian Armed Forces must do a better job of responding to mental health issues among its members. This plays a huge role in retention as well, and it is something that the federal government must invest in for its members. On average, the Canadian Armed Forces still lose one serving member per month to death by suicide.
My colleague for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has a bill, Bill C-206, that would remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence. By making this change, the government could show leadership and mark a major shift in attitude and policy on mental health. In addition, it could provide more funds for mental health supports to all forces members. It needs to start by recognizing that although not all injuries are visible, those invisible injuries are injuries all the same.
Again, I say yes to responsible spending for the Canadian Armed Forces, but I return to the question of the arbitrary 2%. If spending was increased to 2%, this would make military spending the largest expenditure of the Government of Canada, even compared with the Canada Health Transfer of $45 billion per year.
I find this a bit strange for a party that touts fiscal responsibility. Why would the Conservatives push so much for such an incredible increase? When the NDP calls for a national pharmacare program, a national child care program or a national dental care program, they scream bloody murder. When we call for the federal government to put money back into the pockets of taxpayers in the form of services and programs, they say that we are being unrealistic, irresponsible and, dare I say, socialists. This increase in spending that the Conservatives are calling for in today's motion is equivalent to a national pharmacare program and a national dental care program combined.
New Democrats certainly agree that Canada needs to spend more on defence to make sure we can meet our international obligations and to make sure the Canadian Forces have the support, training and equipment they need. The war in Ukraine, and the growing tensions around the world, demand that we take a serious approach to upgrading and equipping our military. Our armed forces stationed in Latvia and protecting us at home certainly deserve it. Canada needs to be a force for stability in this increasingly unstable international climate, but I do not think we get there by choosing an arbitrary figure. We must plan efficiently, effectively and reasonably.
Canada can be a stabilizing force by increasing our funding to international humanitarian aid and increasing resources to our diplomatic efforts. We could take a leadership role in fulfilling NATO's goals of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons. Canada could support the agenda of the NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for Women, Peace and Security with a commitment of additional resources to that agenda, including measures to promote increased recruitment of women in peacekeeping.
We can increase military spending wisely by streamlining our defence procurement system and ensuring that we get better value for our money by ensuring that money is spent domestically. We can invest intelligently by stopping the outsourcing and privatization of Canadian Forces maintenance and repair work: This is work that has traditionally been done by either DND employees or regular serving members. We can provide those stable, public jobs as part of that domestic economic health. We can invest in the programs and services needed by members of the armed forces, such as supports the department used to provide for members to secure affordable housing, family and medical services.
All of this is necessary and is a valid argument for responsible defence spending, but to double the budget based on an arbitrary political figure to simply appear as though we are contributing to the international defence community is unsound, and New Democrats will not support such fiscal folly.
1700 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 10:31:52 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget officer, for Canada to meet that 2% of NATO spending that the Conservatives are calling for, we would have to spend an additional $54 billion to $56 billion annually on defence, which is approximately double what we spend now.
Can the member clarify which government programs the Conservatives would cut in order to justify that increase in spending?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 4:48:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to put something on the record to clarify it, because I know that my hon. colleague for Kingston and the Islands would appreciate this point of clarification.
The member was talking about Conservatives and balanced budgets and the myths that go along with it. I would like to remind the House that in the time of the Conservative government when the Conservatives did try to balance the budget, it was because they raided the EI fund; those deferred wages from taxpayers and from those workers. Of course, when they raided that EI fund, they learned from the best, the Liberals, who had done it three times before them to the tune of over $50 billion.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
