- 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 10:47:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about Jordan's principle, and I would really love for her to expand on the importance of that within her own community and on the dangers that we see with the government stepping back from the commitment to ensure that the needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis are placed in priority over money and squabbling between jurisdictions.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:23:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech and I agree that people are suffering in this country. However, the Conservatives seem to put it all on the carbon tax, when as governments, we consistently and consecutively legislate poverty.
I want to note a statement from the Ontario Human Rights Commission that talks about poverty. It says that to deal with poverty, we need to recognize the right to an adequate standard of living, help by providing good health care and a universal basic income, and ensure we meet needs related to food insecurity, minimum wage and low-paid work.
Why do the Conservatives focus on one thing instead of dealing with the problem in the first place?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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/29/24 2:51:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, report after report has shown that women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces are not safe, and consecutive governments have failed to act urgently. Shamefully, a new report has revealed that 5% of women have been sexually attacked at their military colleges in the last 12 months. Justice Arbour was clear that now is the time to end the toxic culture that exists within these colleges. Women deserve a safe place to train and learn.
When will the Prime Minister act to protect the women who are the future generation of the Canadian Armed Forces?
98 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 5:38:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not mind sports metaphors. It is true that the Conservatives are trying to take their ball and bat and run home, but the member hit it out of the park in terms of his question. I was on the doorsteps in many elections, but in the last election, I promised my constituents that I would get real things done for them. While it is not exactly perfect, and I certainly do not love all the things that Liberals have put forward, we are doing some core, key work that will help people. Again, millions of Canadians will receive medications that they desperately need. Let us focus on that instead of ourselves.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:35:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.
The Liberal Party of Canada made a mistake. That is what is at issue here. The Speaker did not make a mistake. The Speaker verified all communications related to this matter and got permission. It was an error made by the Liberal Party.
That is the crux of the issue today.
60 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
Madam Speaker, it is a pretty critical point in the legislative agenda that has come up.
I agree with the Bloc Québécois member and her argument that there are many bills we would like to discuss.
I appreciate that this is a critical time right now. We have a lot of legislation that we need to discuss in the House, legislation that our constituents have sent us to this place to get through. It is serious things that are so important, such as Bill C-49, Bill C-59, Bill C-70 and Bill C-64. We have two opposition day motions just this week. We are trying to deliver the help that Canadians so desperately need, including through legislation like the fall economic statement, which the official opposition has filibustered at committee for months and which is something that would deliver a great deal of support in terms of housing.
Something I am particularly proud of as a part of that piece of legislation is actually the removal of the HST on psychotherapy and counselling services. It is something that would help those who are working within that profession, and something that I actually had a conversation about just yesterday with a psychotherapist who asked me when we would be getting the legislation passed. I said we are working on it and trying to make sure it goes through. The person I spoke to needs the fairness for the removal of the federal tax to occur. She spoke to me about how important it was for her clients to have equality within the services that are provided to them. We know, of course, that we are in a mental health crisis and that every bit of assistance helps in that regard. That is one piece of legislation that the official opposition has filibustered at the committee.
There are, of course, amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia accord act that we need to get through. There is the foreign interference act, which is of course becoming more and more important as we move through this parliamentary session.
I do not know how many times New Democrats have to talk about how incredibly important pharmacare is. We certainly know that the official opposition does not believe that. I think about the millions of Canadians who rely upon that piece of legislation to help them afford the medications they need, diabetics in this country, and I believe there are 3.7 million of them, who need the legislation to go through so they would not have to worry about the cost of their diabetes medications and devices. So many constituents have written to me thanking me for moving that forward.
Those are the key pieces of law that we need to get moving in the House. Yes, we are sitting until midnight most nights to do that. New Democrats believe in that absolutely because it is for people that it is important. There is an opposition party determined to delay every single one of the bills. Time again, the Conservatives have obfuscated, filibustered, screamed and yelled in outrage and then attempted to delay and stall all of that progress, all of those supports. I find it unacceptable.
The fact is that what the Conservatives are now calling out, in terms of their outrage, is that the Speaker seems to have been caught up in supposed partisan activity that clearly was not of his doing. He did everything he was supposed to do, ran through the permissions that he was supposed to get, and yet mistakes were made. The partisanship that the Conservatives are so outraged about actually fuels their own partisanship fire of trying to find yet some other thing that they can hold on to, so much so that it will delay again all of the incredible supports that we need to get to people.
I see this every day, whether I am at the procedure and House affairs committee or here in the House. The Conservatives are desperate to cling on to anything they can, and destroy whatever we are trying to do in the process, to show that this place does not work, because that fits into their communication strategy. I am sorry, but I am not going to allow something to fit into their communication strategy to disrupt what needs to happen for my constituents.
The member across the way for Winnipeg North did quote the letter, but I want to mention it again. We are here, in this case, over a tweet that was sent out by the Liberal Party without having consulted the Speaker. The letter is very clear. It is from the national director of the Liberal Party, apologizing very clearly to the Speaker. It states, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.”
Was there a mistake made? Absolutely. Is it horribly unfortunate? Absolutely. Are we punishing the right person in this instance? No. Should there be more vigilance on this issue? Absolutely, of course. However, calling for the Speaker's resignation is clawing to the communication strategy that benefits one group. It does not benefit the entire House. I do not agree with that. We on this side of the House do not agree with that.
We have to work on the legislation that the people have sent us to work on. We have a very important job, and I have no time for all of the bickering and squabbling. Canadians need this place to work. They need us to get to work. We can make this all about ourselves or we can make it about them. Canadians deserve that. New Democrats want to help deliver the supports they need. The work is urgent, and the official opposition just wants to delay. That is all I have to say on this matter.
987 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/24 11:44:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals are out of touch with everyday Canadians and the Conservatives are worse. After voting “no” to free medication, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex wants people to know that the real problem is not that they have to pay out-of-pocket for care; the real problem is Tim Hortons and its new paper coffee cups.
While New Democrats are getting free dental care and pharmacare for Canadians, Liberals delay and Conservatives obstruct support for people and also blast coffee lids. Why is the government, like the Conservatives, so completely out to lunch with the reality of everyday Canadians?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:17:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way is my constituency neighbour in London. I also have to admit that his daughter is ridiculously adorable.
We were at an event a few months ago, and the hon. member was talking about some of the different innovations within housing. He was talking about mobile units potentially being built. I think he was in Alberta to visit a plant there. I had conversations about those mobile units with members of a firefighters union when they were here in Ottawa, and a concern was raised. We spoke about the construction of the units and how the firefighters are maybe not being consulted with respect to codes and so on.
Could the member talk about that? Innovation in housing is very important, but so is safety.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this economic update that I am particularly happy with, of course, is something that I have been pushing for for a long time. It is the removal of the GST on psychotherapy and counselling services.
While I was frustrated that the current government and previous governments did not do anything about it and that it took a long time to do it, this is something that makes a lot of sense. If the member could talk about the importance of this measure within Bill C-59, that would be great.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 10:22:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just looked myself up on Campaign Life Coalition's website, and I got a giant red light too, so I think I am doing well. One of the things, interestingly, is that not only am I listed as pro-choice and a defender of human rights, but also that it lists my ideology as pro-LGBT. I think that is interesting to note in terms of the coalition and defending human rights. However, maybe I am crazy and maybe I should be condemned for being in favour of paper tops for cups at Tim Hortons as well.
The Leader of the Opposition has often gone after pensions, calling them “payroll taxes”. Could the hon. member explain why that is a problem as well?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 9:52:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the federal housing advocate has called out the government for failing to uphold Inuits' right to housing. For the people in Nunavut especially, and my colleague has done an incredible job of representing them, there have been significant failures to address the significant housing shortage there now.
We were pushing for the federal government to provide Nunavut's request of $250 million in housing in this fall economic statement. Could he explain why that did not happen and when the federal government will meet its obligations to people in Nunavut?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:38:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a point in this piece of legislation is actually something that I have been pushing for, for a long time. It is the removal of the GST from psychotherapy and counselling services. It is something that tens of thousands of counsellors and psychotherapists have been asking for, from the government, for a very long time. Moving this forward is a small but good step to ensure fairness in those industries and fairness for people who are seeking mental health supports.
Can the minister talk about the importance of that as part of this piece of legislation, moving forward?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 4:39:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I noted that the member, in his speech, talked about London. Of course, that is my constituency, and I am so incredibly proud to represent it.
One thing, though, that might be of note is that, in London, we do have safer supply programs. There is actually an organization, called the temporary overdose prevention site, that has been operating quite successfully for several years now. It did a survey, which is something it has to continue to do in order to meet Ontario Ministry of Health regulations, and 89% of clients who use this site responded they agreed that “staff have talked to them and helped them access other health and social services.”
The survey continues to say that examples of referrals included wound care at clinics or hospitals, primary care, addiction counselling, recovery and addiction treatment services, mental health services, pain management clinics, housing supports and testing and treatment for hep C and HIV.
In the qualitative feedback, many respondents highlighted the value of incorporating wraparound services at this site, as well as the benefits of having medical staff on site and building trusting relationships with officials at TOPS who help facilitate linkage and referrals to multiple health and social services.
These are the services the Conservatives are talking about destroying right now with this motion. Could the member respond to that?
227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:48:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am curious. We have seen that the Conservative Party of Canada is riddled with corporate lobbyists in its governing body: big oil, real estate, anti-union companies, insurance companies and big pharma. In fact, its members are using the talking points from those corporate entities in their conversations today against the bill. Ultimately, is the member actually defending his constituents or the corporate interests of big lobbyists?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:31:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, members have spoken a lot today about the money saved by individuals and the money saved by the system, which we could reinvest into health care. By providing free contraception, an individual is said to have a lifetime savings of up to $10,000, which is huge.
I would like to hear more about the larger issue. How can this piece of legislation itself, through contraception, empower women and those who menstruate?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
