- 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/30/24 3:24:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will start back at the point where I was interrupted.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, earlier this week there was debate about the Liberal Party of Canada's posting of an inappropriate ad featuring the Speaker, as well as partisan messaging. That party took responsibility and the matter was concluded.
I suspect that in the case of the member for West Nova and the ad I have raised today, the same is true. I believe an opportunity should be afforded to the member and to the Conservative Party of Canada to clarify who was responsible. Should the party prove to have made this decision without the knowledge or consent of the Deputy Speaker, then the member is owed an apology from the party and I would consider the matter closed.
However, I would think that if the Deputy Speaker did approve or direct this ad wherein he is clearly using the office of Speaker for partisanship gain, then I believe, Mr. Speaker, you would have to find a prima facie case for a question of privilege. If so, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this matter referred to the procedure and House affairs committee.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 3:21:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon, my office submitted to you the necessary letter pursuant to Standing Order 48(2) to give notice to you of my intention to rise now and to speak to what I believe to be a potential question of privilege. The document that I will be referring to was just recently brought to my attention and I am bringing this forward at my first opportunity, as is required.
It has come to my attention that on October 31, 2023, the member of Parliament for West Nova and our esteemed Deputy Speaker appeared in his Speaker robes in a Conservative Party advertisement. At first sight, this constitutes an improper use of the Speaker's robes, which of course are meant to be above the partisan fray. It is also worth noting that the ad specifically mentions him as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and not just as an MP.
As outlined in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the role of Deputy Speaker is an important one, with the Deputy Speaker's authority being comparable to that of Speaker. Page 359 reads, “Every action of the Deputy Speaker when acting in the Speaker’s place has the same effect and validity as if the Speaker had acted,....”
We do have some previous examples in recent months of discussions in the chamber around the principles of impartiality and of the use of House of Commons resources, namely the Speaker's robes. On December 4, 2023, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was commenting on the appearance of the Speaker in a partisan ad while wearing his robes and when being referred to as “Speaker”. As the member pointed out:
[The Speaker] made these remarks from the Speaker's office in the West Block while dressed in his Speaker's robes. As bad as it would have been to appear at a party convention at all, it might have at least been a little different if he had been introduced as the member for Hull—Aylmer, and worn a suit or a sweater, while standing in front of a scenic backdrop in his riding, but he was not.
On the following day, the same member said:
When somebody enters this place and decides to run for Speaker, they usually go to some length to assure members that they do have a non-partisan side, that they can put aside their partisanship and partisan affiliations, and that they can take the Speaker's chair, put on the Speaker's robe and be impartial.
Again, the critical detail here is the use of the robes, which the member contends are meant to represent the impartiality of the office. Ultimately, the procedure and House affairs committee found that in using the Speaker's robes, the Speaker had effectively used House of Commons resources. On that basis, the Speaker was ordered to pay a fine.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier this week, there was also a debate over the Liberal Party of Canada's posting of an inappropriate ad featuring the Speaker, as well as partisan messaging. The party—
529 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 6:32:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it very difficult, within the context of what the member has put forward, to take this seriously.
I have just gone on to Hansard and did a quick search of our current Deputy Speaker, the member for West Nova. He has said so many things that are partisan as well. I could list them off. He criticizes the Liberals consistently. He was an opposition member. However, that seems to have no play in this place.
Throughout our careers, there are roles we have here. The member, herself, was on the government side. She is no longer. Our roles change. I believe her argument against the current Speaker, in the context she was using throughout her speech, is poor.
I would like to hear her response to that, considering we all have roles, and they change over time. This could be said about the current Deputy Speaker. It could be said about you, Madam Speaker. This is all applicable.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:32:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a clear perspective I was talking about in my speech on what Conservatives believe is broken or what they are trying to make appear to be broken. This institution can run quite well if they allow it to do so.
What I find ridiculous is the insulting manner in which the member tried to ask his question. It is up to all of us to create the rules that govern this place, so he is wrong with respect to what he said about the Speaker's creating those rules.
We as a caucus will, absolutely, look at the motion. We will take it to caucus on Wednesday. We will discuss it. We will take the time to do so. What I find offensive is Conservatives' use, which I do not appreciate or agree with, of this institution for their own partisan games.
I am entirely clear in my mission here in the House to deliver what my constituents and the people of Canada need, and I do not believe that is the Conservative Party.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:29:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are not in a unique situation in the House of Commons in trying to work collaboratively on legislation. It is not a wild idea. There are so many governments, legislatures and parliamentary institutions around the world that figure out ways of coming together to make things better. They do it through different forms of proportional representation, an issue I would love the government to have taken seriously. There is a partisan dig.
However, this is not unusual. I have said many times throughout my career that there are members within this place who think this is about them. They are here because it benefits them. It benefits a very small number of people who already have a great deal of power and privilege. I am here in this institution to represent the people who do not have that power or privilege. I am here to try to redistribute wealth and power, because that is what democracy truly calls for. As lofty as those goals may be, and as difficult as I find incremental progress, those are the things we work together on to ensure that Canadians truly benefit.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 6:35:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope that is the last interruption.
I am working hard to support and fight for the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces and their families as they face the rising cost of living and the Department of National Defence, which is not meeting the urgency that this moment requires.
I look forward to discussing our ideas on how we could support CAF members and their families, but first I want to put today's debate into context. Since I first took on the role in 2021, I have greatly appreciated the maturity and seriousness that all my colleagues bring to the Standing Committee on National Defence. Members from all parties do understand that we are there not just to criticize the government of the day. As parliamentarians in general and as members of the defence committee, we have a sacred obligation to the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces, and we must prioritize supporting them over our partisan interests. At the committee, we look at a lot of big generational questions, questions that are not siloed to the government of the day and questions that do not always make the evening news.
Successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, have failed to grapple with defence procurement reform, with Arctic security and sovereignty, with recruitment and retention, with meeting our international commitments on peacekeeping, with combatting sexual misconduct in the military and with the supply of military housing. These are big questions that cannot be tackled in a day, and that is why the defence committee's work is so important.
We can work together across party lines to study these big, generational questions and to propose solutions for government, which is why I find it so disappointing that I have to tell the House today that the committee is not immune to the tricks that have come to dominate Parliament as of late. Particularly since the change in the leadership of the official opposition, I have seen the committee stray from our sacred obligation in favour of obstructive tactics and rage-farming clips.
That brings me to the debate today. At a time when Canadians are being forced to decide between filling their prescriptions or buying groceries, the NDP was able to fight for a national pharmacare program. Parliament was due to debate the bill, but the Conservatives used procedural tricks and tactics to delay the important legislation from coming forward by moving the concurrence motion before us.
Let me be clear: I want Parliament to study military housing and to find the solutions that CAF members and their families need. That is why I worked with all parties to ensure that the Standing Committee on National Defence undertook a study on the lack of housing availability on or near bases, and the challenges facing military families when they are required to relocate. The motion was moved for debate while the committee was meeting to hear from officials on the very subject. We should have all been at committee to work on finding real solutions for this really big question, but there was a deliberate choice to weaponize the military housing crisis as a procedural tool against pharmacare and, I would say, against Parliament.
When it comes to supporting military members and their families, we need to put the partisan games aside. I want to share an example of how this could be done. In December, the Nova Scotia Legislature heard testimony that military personnel in that province were living precariously and some may be homeless. Canadians were shocked by this, and as parliamentarians, we knew we had a responsibility to investigate the matter further.
I tried to coordinate a joint letter from all opposition parties to the Minister of Housing, asking him to engage in a whole-of-government approach to tackle the housing crisis. I wanted to take the partisanship and games out of this tragic situation, and instead focus on finding answers to this really big question. I am deeply grateful to my Bloc colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, for sending the joint letter to the minister with me. The Bloc and I were able to set aside partisan differences that we may have on other things and collaborate on this important issue. I am disappointed to say that the Conservative Party could not do the same.
Regardless, I am happy to share some of our ideas on military housing. I have heard about the horrific state of Canadian Forces real property portfolio. The buildings on bases, whether it is military housing, child care buildings or mess halls, are falling apart. According to the government's response to an Order Paper question that I put forward, there are 51,586 open work orders for repairs across the country. There are bases where buildings are being demolished without any plans to replace them, and there are countless incidents of military members being exposed to hazards from old buildings.
A major part of the problem is the mess of maintenance and service contract procurement by the Canadian Armed Forces. According to a 2018 report by the assistant deputy minister of review services, the real property operations group is completely unequipped to make a value-for-money analysis on maintenance and service contracts. It is not equipped to measure the success of individual contracts in order to inform future business with contractors.
I have heard of constant examples of base contracts being handed out to contractors with no oversight, only to have more damage be done by poor craftsmanship, which is then fixed by department public servants. In effect, we are paying for many repairs twice, once to the contractor and then again through the salaries of the department staff brought in to fix the mess and do the work properly. When I hear from CAF members, one of the largest concerns we hear is the mess of properties on base.
Building housing and base properties was a large part of the defence policy update published last month. Billions of dollars were earmarked to be spent on military housing and property maintenance, but I have two concerns that I want to raise about that plan. First, of the $295 million promised for building military housing, we will see only $7 million earmarked for the next five years. When I asked the minister about this, he stated that the previously existing funding for housing is enough to carry them for those five years. However, we know that the current status quo approach is not enough. There is a shortfall of 7,000 housing units, but in the last two years, fewer than 40 new units have been built.
Second, I am concerned that we will not be able to tackle the military housing crisis without fixing the overreliance on contractors on bases. The department knew its approach to contracts was a problem, so it ended up hiring Deloitte on a major contract to audit its real property portfolio. However, as a New Democrat, and after all the discussions we had in the chamber last year on the growing reliance on big consultants, I am incredibly skeptical that this major contract was made with the best intentions. The government should be seeking recommendations for solutions from public servants, not from for-profit consultants.
The audit by Deloitte proposed solutions to work more closely with the private sector, and I fear that the government listened based on its new vision for military housing. It has proposed leasing DND properties to develop P3 housing near bases. Instead of cutting down on the problematic contractors in military housing, we will be fronting the cash for private, for-profit developers to become the landlords for CAF members. The Department had the option to partner with not-for-profits to deliver housing or for that build to be public, to be federally run, and I hope that at committee we can continue to push that forward in terms of that solution.
In closing, there are so many more aspects of military housing that we have not been able to discuss in this concurrence debate, which is exactly why I worked to get the issue studied at committee, where we can work collectively and productively towards the production of a report to present to the House. I am proud of a lot of the work that we have been able to accomplish at committee to date, and I invite all committee members to stay committed to our obligation to CAF members and not be distracted by the political gamesmanship.
1427 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 9:27:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I know a lot of us, and I mentioned this before, have probably been reaching out to those in our community who are greatly impacted by this, members of the Sikh community.
I was having a conversation tonight, and one of the community members asked me, “What will it take for us to be considered as first-class citizens in this country?” It really just broke my heart, and I did not know what to say to him. I said it is about solidarity. It is about that non-partisan coming together and speaking out against what we know is wrong.
As a member of the government, could she speak to my constituents as well on how we are all working together, for the most part, to do just that and to make their lives safer and better, as much as we can?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
