- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- New Westminster—Burnaby
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $194,227.44
- Government Page
- May/29/24 5:52:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as usual, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague.
Last year, the NDP moved a motion to establish the Hogue commission to counter foreign interference. Every party except one supported that motion. We participated in negotiations all summer. We negotiated in good faith and it led to the implementation of the Hogue commission, led by Justice Hogue. Most of these elements were established by consensus.
I want to ask my colleague a question about the importance of all of the political parties working together. It is important that, rather than seeking partisan advantage, we really try to implement the best legislation possible, to implement the best tools to counter foreign interference. We must all work together, use the abilities of every member of the House and every recognized political party to create a bill that we can be proud of and that gives us all of the important tools without any shortcomings.
Does my colleague agree with that?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 1:52:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member for Sarnia—Lambton that two-thirds of Conservatives voted virtually with the app to vote against a virtual Parliament. It is unbelievable that two-thirds of Conservatives said they do not like the virtual Parliament, but voted virtually to end it. I think it is really important to raise that point. Sometimes we really have to wonder why they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents by acting that way.
If Conservatives want to raise a point of order, they are welcome to do that.
The second part of this motion deals with the fact that we voted all night one night. We saw how that affected the staff. We saw how that affected the interpreters, who work so hard and who had to work all night.
As the member for La Prairie said earlier, the member for Salaberry—Suroît is a strong advocate for the interpreters' health and safety in the workplace. If the Bloc Québécois truly believes in that, then they should vote in favour of this motion, because requiring House employees and interpreters to work all night jeopardizes their health and safety. That is the reality.
There are two aspects of the motion that should be supported. Apart from the Conservative Party, there should be a consensus among the parties in the House to vote in favour of this motion, which gives us more hours to work and more hours to debate, which is good, while also protecting employees, interpreters and everyone who is subject to the decisions made by the Conservatives, who are clearly showing a complete lack of respect for the employees of the House.
The two aspects of the motion that we are talking about have to do with working harder and working evenings, but that is not something the government can impose. There has to be the support of another recognized party in the House to have the evening sessions. What evening sessions mean is more members of Parliament being able to speak out with respect to legislation. This is something that should be a no-brainer. This is something that should pass by consensus: that we believe that we need more time to debate pieces of legislation. Then the idea of having evening sessions makes a great deal of sense.
Second, there is the issue of all-night voting sessions. We have had a discussion, which I know the Speaker will be bringing back to the House, about the member for Carleton's triggering votes, six of them in person and 124 of them virtual. I know we cannot question whether a member has been in the House, but the reality is that there is a caveat that says somebody can stand up—
472 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 10:11:11 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we do have a date that has been fixed, which is March 17. We have, at this point, only 14 sitting days to get this bill not only through the House of Commons but also through the Senate, as the Minister of Justice said.
My concern is the confusion. If this bill has not gone through both Houses, what we would end up with is a situation of utter confusion for something as fundamental as medical assistance in dying. To have that confusion is something that I do not think is acceptable to any Canadian.
It is important that we get this right. It is important that we meet the deadline. What I am surprised about is that we do not have a consensus. This is the kind of situation where all parties should get together and facilitate getting this through the House because of the importance of not adding or installing the confusion that would surely result in us not meeting the deadline.
My question for my colleague is very simple. Why is there not a consensus around this so that we can move it through the House this week without the use of time allocation?
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/23 7:34:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, given the hypocrisy of what we have heard from the Conservatives tonight, I am pleased to rise to defend the recommendations made by the foreign affairs committee, which the Conservatives are trying to gut. More importantly, I want to come back to the importance of adopting concurrence on the report rather than seeing it gutted, as we are seeing, by the Conservatives. In a procedural sleight of hand, they are trying to destroy all of the recommendations that form part of a consensus we have had since Putin invaded Ukraine.
We have seen the appalling civilian casualties. We have seen the evidence of war crimes and sexual abuse. We have seen the appalling bombings of hospitals, schools and apartment buildings. We have all seen that. It is fair to say there was initially a consensus, and it is reflected in the report the Conservatives are now trying to gut, trying to destroy. It was reflected as well in President Zelenskyy's comments to us parliamentarians. He asked, on behalf of the people of Ukraine, to adopt the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. This resonated across Canada and should have resonated with Conservative members given that a million and a half Canadians are of Ukrainian origin and they believe strongly in Canada supporting Ukraine.
Yesterday was no simple day. It was the 10th anniversary of the Day of Dignity and Freedom for Ukrainian people. It is important symbolism, a profound symbolic act of Canada standing in support of Ukraine. Ukrainians could not celebrate that day because they are trying to defend their villages, farms and homes. What we saw yesterday, on the Day of Dignity and Freedom, was the entire Conservative caucus, not just the leader, the member for Carleton, whose extremist views we know about, rising one after the other to betray Ukraine, to betray the commitment that all Canadians feel they have to Ukraine.
President Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada asked us, as an act of solidarity and support for the Ukrainian people, to adopt the trade agreement, and every single member in this House except Conservatives rose as one to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Every single member of the Conservative caucus betrayed the consensus we have had since the beginning of the horrific invasion and horrific violence that has been engendered toward the Ukrainian people. Conservatives decided to choose the Day of Dignity and Freedom to betray Ukrainian Canadians and betray Ukraine.
I continue to believe that this vote lives in infamy. The member for Carleton has an obsession with the federal price on carbon, which does not even apply in my province of British Columbia, in Quebec or in the Northwest Territories, and demands that the federal price on carbon be part of a carbon election. What does that mean for my province or our second-largest province, the Quebec nation? What does that mean for the Northwest Territories and other jurisdictions where the federal price on carbon does not even apply? He has never even asked that question, but his obsession with the price on carbon and his obsession with the denial of climate change I find to be profoundly disturbing.
This is a step further. This is taking the extremism of the Republican Party in the United States, which is rejecting supports for Ukraine and refusing to stand with the Ukrainian people as we speak, and manifesting it here in this chamber. Canadians were all witness to it yesterday, on a symbolic day of such importance.
The Day of Dignity and Freedom is the day the Conservative MPs chose to betray Ukraine. That was the day the entire Conservative caucus turned its back on Ukraine. The Day of Dignity and Freedom was hard fought by Ukrainians, to establish their democracy, to fight back against this totalitarian, authoritarian dictator Putin who has ravaged the country. That was the day Conservatives chose to side, not with the Ukrainian people but, with the extremists that we see in the Republican Party. I find that profoundly disturbing.
Not a single Conservative MP rose to stand with Ukraine. How could they go back to their constituents with this weird extremist obsession of their new leader, the member for Carleton, with the price on carbon and denying climate change? How could they go back and say that their obsession with the price on carbon was what led them to betray Ukraine?
Today, we have a report from the foreign affairs committee. This is part of the consensus that Canadians saw, in a very positive light, since the invasion of Ukraine, since the horrific violence brought against the people of Ukraine. There was an all-party consensus that lasted up until the Day of Dignity and Freedom, when Conservatives betrayed and turned their back on the people of Ukraine, breaking that consensus.
Then tonight, we have another example. We have a report that has come forward with the consensus of all parties, that speaks to Canada taking a leading role against the crimes against humanity, the war crimes, the violations of international human rights, the gender-based and sexual violence, with Canada play a leading role in that prosecution. Conservatives said no, that they were going to gut the report, and were—
881 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 1:52:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his speech.
I in turn will ask him a question about the importance of reaching a consensus. It is all well and good for my colleague to work on reaching a consensus, and that is also what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and I are trying to do, but there is no consensus. That is where things stand.
I find that sad. Instead of obtaining the unanimous consent of the Bloc Québécois, the government and the NDP today on a motion that will let the committee get to work tomorrow, we will have to debate it for several days.
Does he too find that sad?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 1:38:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is consensus among three of the four parties recognized in the House, as well as among most groups in the Senate. It seems to me that we could have adopted this motion by unanimous consent today and started work tomorrow.
However, one party is refusing to consent. I would like to know whether my colleague finds it unfortunate that we have to wait several days, rather than start tomorrow morning by consensus of the majority of the parties in the House and Senate.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
