- Member of Parliament
- House leader of the New Democratic Party
Member of the Board of Internal Economy
- NDP
- New Westminster—Burnaby
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $138,331.47
- Government Page
- Jun/11/24 1:25:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay does care. That is why he was voted by all parliamentarians just a few years ago the best constituency politician in the country, because he cares about his constituents in Timmins—James Bay. It is true—
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 3:57:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Table has received notice, and I did mention prior to the break when we went back to our constituencies that I would be intervening on the issue of the use of false titles in the House of Commons. Members will recall that this came up just prior to the constituency break. I did say at the time that I would be bringing forward further information, so I am rising on it today.
When we speak in the House, we have to follow clear rules of decorum in the way we address each other. We are guided by general principles, by being respectful, being truthful and not using false information, which is why we do not refer to each other with false titles. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, commonly referred to as Bosc and Gagnon, which is, of course, our procedural bible, says:
During debate, Members do not refer to one another by their names but rather by title, position or constituency name in order to guard against all tendency to personalize debate. A Minister is referred to by the portfolio he or she holds....
Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member.
The Speaker will recall that, on April 18, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn had to retract his comment after stating that the member for Edmonton Strathcona was “in the government right now”. The Speaker will also recall that the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes had to withdraw his comments on April 18, while we were questioning Mr. Firth before the bar, because the member was saying things that were not true. On the same day, during question period, the member for Milton referred to the leader of the Conservatives with a false title and the Speaker immediately intervened to ask the member to withdraw his statement.
We are encouraged to see that the speakership is taking the matter of false titles and factually incorrect statements to heart.
I would like to quote a ruling handed down by the Chair on March 29, 2022:
Members are elected to the House under the banner of a political party or as independents. The party that can obtain the confidence of the House forms the government. As such, it is the governing party and it consists of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and backbenchers who, without being members of the executive, are all part of the same political group. The other parties in the House and independent members constitute the opposition since they are not members of the governing party.
...
It is clear to the Chair that there is no change in the status or designation of the members of the New Democratic Party, nor in that of their officers, as a result of this agreement.
That agreement being the confidence and supply agreement.
...No NDP member is holding a ministerial post. There has been no change in the representation of the parties in the House. As a result, it seems obvious to the Chair that the NDP still forms a recognized opposition party, just like the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois.
Since that ruling, the official opposition, the Conservative Party, has interchangeably used, in a very false way, the terms “NDP-Liberal government” and “Bloc-Liberal government”, which makes no sense. This shows the contradiction, and that they are aware they are issuing falsehoods. They have repeatedly used these false titles, these false comments, in the House of Commons. Repeating in the House over and over—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are, of course, heckling because—
658 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 3:21:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, you have just indicated that, over the coming constituency week, you will be reflecting on the usage of false titles or false information in the House of Commons.
As I pointed out yesterday, the use of the term “NDP-Liberal government” is a false term. There is no doubt that it is disinformation. There is no coalition in place. This is something that the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes did withdraw when we were questioning the witness yesterday. I believe it should be common practice in the House that, when any member rises, they give accurate and not false information.
We will certainly be asking you, Mr. Speaker, to make that ruling in the coming days after the constituency week.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 11:03:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone here sends their best wishes to Mr. Blaikie and his family.
We were debating this question of privilege right before we all left for the two-week constituency break.
I first want to say that the NDP was shocked that Mr. Firth would not answer questions. When asked to answer questions before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, he refused. That is unacceptable in our Parliament. That is why we think it is important that Mr. Firth be summoned to the bar of the House of Commons so that we can ask him questions.
The problem is that the original motion did not include all the steps we would have to follow to question Mr. Firth. The Conservatives' motion is basically an empty shell. It does not explain the process. The last time this process was used was in 1913. That was a long time ago. There was no simultaneous interpretation in the House back then. We did not have microphones in the House, or even television.
The Conservatives' proposal does not provide for any structure, and that is unacceptable. That is why the NDP tried to convene meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs over the past two weeks. We felt it was important to have a framework in place. For the time being, there is no framework. There are ongoing discussions with House leaders. I am optimistic that we will come to an agreement. That is what matters.
At the end of my speech, I will explain how the NDP will contribute to the debate if no agreement is reached. We do think it is important to call Mr. Firth to the bar. The Liberals moved an amendment just before the House adjourned for the two-week constituency break. However, that amendment is not acceptable either because it would be several weeks before we would get a chance to question Mr. Firth.
The Conservatives have not proposed any sort of procedure. The Liberals are proposing an unacceptable timeline. The NDP is proposing something that will shorten the whole process, if we do not manage to reach an agreement by the end of the day. It is important that we ask questions. Given how much money this cost taxpayers, we need to set up a time for those questions to be asked. That is extremely important.
In a few moments, I will explain how other committees managed to ask for and get those answers. Mr. Firth, who refused to provide answers that are extremely important to the committee, to Parliament and, of course, to Canadian taxpayers, must be compelled to provide answers to all of the questions that are asked.
Sixty million dollars is a lot of money. The ArriveCAN app is a controversy that we have been struggling to get to the bottom of. Our representative on the government operations committee, the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, has done an extraordinary job. When we see all the articles about ArriveCAN, the questions he has asked are the questions everybody has asked.
In the past, we have seen these kinds of scandals. I remember the ETS scandal under the Harper government, which cost Canadians $400 million. Because it was a majority government, there was no opportunity for parliamentarians to get those kinds of answers. It was basically shut down.
In this case, in a minority Parliament, the $60-million charge to taxpayers needs to be fully investigated. The fact is that Mr. Firth appeared before the government operations committee numerous times and refused to provide the answers that are so important for Canadians to obtain. The Speaker, in his ruling just prior to us rising for the two weeks in our ridings, saw this as a question of privilege, showing a profound lack of respect to parliamentarians. It is not the parliamentarians that count; it is the profound lack of respect to Canadians. When a witness comes before committee and refuses to answer those questions, it is our obligation to put in place a process so that those answers are obtained.
We support the question of privilege. We support the idea of bringing Mr. Firth before the bar of the House of Commons, to oblige him to answer those questions that are so relevant in this scandal, as it was relevant under the Harper Conservatives and the ETS scandal, $400 million that basically disappeared.
The fact that, in a minority Parliament, we have the ability to do this is fundamental. That is why New Democrats believe minority Parliaments simply govern better. There is more of that ability to get the transparency and to get the answers for which so many Canadians are asking.
We have a $60-million scandal. We had the half owner of the company GC Strategies come before committee and refuse to answer questions, including from my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, that were relevant, pertinent and extremely important overall.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could ask my colleagues for order. I would appreciate that.
848 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 8:52:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He has never referred to anything I have said as “wonderful” before, and I appreciate that. We generally tend to disagree, but on this I think we do agree.
The reality is that, over the last few years, my team and I have helped over 20,000 people in our riding with federal issues, yes, but also with consumer issues and a wide variety of issues that are not, strictly speaking, related to the federal government. However, by being on the ground, by having such an active constituency office where we are constantly doing outreach and by understanding what the needs of my community are, I am better able to advocate for them. Being at home is really the most important part of ensuring that I am fighting for good representation. When we talk about confidence in supply, dental care, affordable housing and the grocery rebate, it all comes from understanding what my constituents' needs are and fighting for them in Ottawa.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 8:31:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important issue. I will give a little history lesson in a moment, but first I would like to build on some of the things we have already established about the hybrid Parliament.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was quite right a few minutes ago when he said that, on March 13, 2020, all the parties came together and agreed to suspend Parliament. We knew that the pandemic was coming and that we could not have all 338 members in the same room, with COVID‑19 having begun to wreak havoc across the country. On March 13, 2020, we unanimously decided to suspend Parliament and set up what has since become the virtual Parliament we know today. It has set an example for the whole world. Other parliaments have permanently adopted rules for a virtual or hybrid assembly. Today, we are discussing the next steps we might take.
In Parliament, we are not supposed to mention absences. However, at the beginning of the pandemic, we had the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the House of Commons gave the rate of participation this one rare time. It was reported in the June 23, 2020, edition of The Globe and Mail. In the COVID‑19 committee of this virtual Parliament, the NDP had the highest participation rate with 85%.
The Liberals were second with 76%, as The Globe and Mail reported in June 2020. The Bloc Québécois was at 73% at that time, in 2020. The Conservative Party had the lowest participation rate with only 47%. That caused a bit of a stir.
This was in June 2020. Today, three years later, we have beaten COVID-19 in most respects, but we must remain prudent and take measures to protect our health. The same applies to virtual voting. In June 2023, we see it once again.
The lowest rate of virtual voting translates into the highest attendance in the House, and the NDP wins again, albeit tied with the Conservatives, at 58%. The Liberals are at 65%, and the Bloc Québécois uses virtual voting 80% of the time. This gives an idea of how the NDP uses both virtual Parliament and virtual voting. The NDP has the highest participation rate in both of those categories.
Some people wonder whether the hybrid Parliament means that we will be working less actively. That is certainly not the case for the NDP, as the NDP members have proven. Our leader, the member for Burnaby South, has repeatedly pointed out that we are still working, but that there are some exceptions. I will come back to these exceptions later.
Given that the NDP has the highest attendance record in terms of virtual Parliament, the voting application and in the House, we have to look at, historically, how we have come to a point where the New Democrats support the idea of moving ahead with a hybrid Parliament that has been tested over the course of the last three years.
I know the Speaker is well aware of this, but historically we have changed the Standing Orders to reflect new technology and new trends. We just have to look at how Parliament functioned prior to the development of commercial air travel in this country. For somebody like me living 5,000 kilometres from Ottawa, the commute, even with air travel, sometimes takes 24 hours. When we think of the commute for northern members of Parliament and rural members of Parliament in British Columbia, at both ends of the country, we are talking about commutes that are sometimes extremely demanding.
If we went back 100 years, the member of Parliament for New Westminster at that time would have taken a slow train to travel across the country in mid-fall and basically set up lodgings in Ottawa. They would not have gone back to their ridings. They would not have gone back to British Columbia. They would spend the winter in Ottawa doing the work that we now do, in a contemporary sense, and they would have done it for four, five or six months. Then in the spring, they would have taken that slow train back to see their constituents.
Obviously, at that time, for members of Parliament to actively engage with their constituents and be effective for their constituents was hard to do if they had not been in the constituency for six months. With the development of commercial air travel, we changed the development of the parliamentary calendar. We no longer have that six month block where members are in Ottawa to the exclusion of their constituencies. In fact, now we have constituency breaks, and because of those constituency breaks, we can be back in our ridings meeting with constituents, who are fundamentally our bosses, a lot more often.
In other words, with the development of commercial air travel, we understood that the important role of a member of Parliament was to be serving constituents. We therefore changed the Standing Orders. We changed the calendar. We developed a new system to respond to the ability of a member of Parliament, even from New Westminster—Burnaby in British Columbia, to fly out and fly back, to see their constituents and to still do their work in Ottawa.
COVID has allowed us to innovate yet again. We have seen the technologies that have allowed other parliaments to meet in a hybrid way, with some members in person and other members participating online. As a result of that, they have become more effective and more efficient. There is no doubt that a member of Parliament who is in their constituency is going to be a lot better at responding to the needs of constituents.
I want to give a shout-out to my staff team. They do tremendous work. We have helped thousands of constituents over the course of the last few years. The fact is that we work together to help constituents with a wide variety of cases before the federal government, even consumer cases, and with other things they need vital help with. This is a key part of the job. It is as important to me and my constituents for me to be working in my riding as it is to do that valuable work in Ottawa. There is a balance that has to be maintained, and with the idea of a hybrid Parliament, what we have found over the last three years is that we can do that work more effectively.
The member for Vancouver East raised a question half an hour or 45 minutes ago about when she became sick with COVID. The reality is that many members of Parliament, during the COVID pandemic, became sick and were unable to come here. In fact, we did not want them in the House of Commons. We did not want them spreading the virus. We did not want the House of Commons to become a vector for the virus.
The reality is, she was able, through hybrid Parliament, even while sick and this is the same case for every one of those members of Parliament who found themselves in a similar situation, to vote and to make her voice heard in the halls of power in the House of Commons, even while being sick with COVID, and we know that COVID cases often last for weeks.
That is also the case when we are talking about serious issues that come up in our ridings in emergencies. We are seeing now, because of climate change, an increasing in floods and forest fires. We are seeing, tragically, right across this country an outbreak of fires that we have not seen the likes of before. I know with climate change as well, the heat dome fell over the Lower Mainland. It killed dozens of my constituents and killed over 600 British Columbians. It is another example of the tragic catastrophes that are happening increasingly because of climate change. Atmospheric rivers have cut British Columbia off from the rest of the country. Therefore, the catastrophic impacts of climate change are felt more and more often. A member of Parliament then has to choose between serving their constituents and being able to advocate for their constituents. Whether it is a forest fire ravaging and threatening some of the major towns or villages in their riding or a heat dome that has settled over the city that is killing many of their constituents or the floods that have hit so many parts of this country, members of Parliament need to be able to intervene on behalf of their constituents. It is a much more effective intervention if they can do it on the ground as they are with their constituents and they see the needs that are there.
The government House leader also mentioned another element, and this I understand from first-hand experience. That is family crises that we all live through as members of Parliament. We are trying to get the job done on behalf of our constituents. We are trying to serve the country and build a country that really reflects the values that most of us share, but when family emergencies happen, up until COVID there were incredibly stark choices presented to people. A member of Parliament who had a dying relative would have to choose whether they needed to be with that relative or they needed to serve their constituents. We know that our constituents' needs are significant and we need to be at all times trying to advocate for them.
When my mother fell sick for the final time last year, I was able to participate through virtual Parliament. I was able to hold her hand when she passed away and it was a heartbreaking and terrible time for my family. It was unbelievably difficult, but I could still do the work, while being at her bedside.
These are the things that a make a hybrid Parliament something that opens the door for far more Canadians, if they do not have to make those stark choices. If they are sick, they will serve their constituents. If there are emergencies in their riding, they can still serve their constituents. In fact they can advocate for their constituents from that constituency while talking to their constituents. In the event of family tragedies that we all struggle to get through, we still can do the work that is so important and be with our family members and help them.
This is the world's largest democracy. It is a 5,000-kilometre commute from my riding. When we talk about members of Parliament from northern British Columbia and northern Canada and from Vancouver Island, they have an even farther commute. With air travel these days and the difficulty we are having with some of the air travel networks, increasingly it is challenging to get from the constituency to Ottawa.
Given all of those elements, there is no doubt that a hybrid Parliament makes the most sense.
A number of issues have been raised through this debate thus far. One issue that has been raised is the question of accessibility to ministers. My experience under the Harper regime, which I lived through first-hand, with a majority government, was that while there were exceptions like Jim Flaherty, who was always available to talk, quite frankly most of the ministers were not, even though we were in physical proximity, even though we were a few feet away, even though we approached them. In so many cases, there was a complete unwillingness to engage with members of the opposition. That argument, that somehow ministers will be more accessible if one is in physical proximity with them, has certainly not been my experience.
It was not my experience during those years and, quite frankly, if a minister wants to be accessible, they will be accessible whether we are three feet away or 3,000 kilometres away. They will take one's call. That has been my experience.
Secondly, as to the issue of whether this should be permanent or subject to a sunset clause, quite frankly, Parliaments make their decisions. There is no doubt about that. The reality is that we have had three years to test this system. We know that there are still some improvements to make but we know, as well, that the system works, that members of Parliament can participate. They can vote and it is done effectively.
For this, I pay tribute to the House of Commons administration, our IT staff and the interpreting staff, who do such a remarkable job each and every day. The reality is that they created a system out of nothing, at a time when it was critical to put in place provisions for a temporary virtual Parliament and then a hybrid Parliament. They put in the long hours to make sure that everything was functioning.
Although we still have a lot of work to do to ensure the health and safety of interpreters, who do a remarkable job, without whom our Parliament simply could not function, and we still have improvements to make, the reality is that the system is working very effectively.
If Parliament reflects the country, what we are trying to do is open the doors to people who have families, people who come from communities that are not represented or are under-represented in the House of Commons. We need to make provisions like a hybrid Parliament. It is not only more effective for the constituents, it is also effective in attracting people to political life, which is very demanding. We work seven days a week. We sometimes work 20 hours a day. We need to make sure that more Canadians from diverse origins have access to our political system.
The way to do that is to have tools in place so that those new members, those upcoming members and those future members can really advocate on behalf of their constituents in the most effective way possible.
Living in a country as vast and as diverse as ours, where a 5,000-kilometre commute is sometimes necessary, we need to ensure that we put in place all of these measures. We know that they have worked. They have worked very effectively. They were established by consensus, unanimously, and, as a result of that, we are the better for it.
As far as the New Democrats are concerned, we believe that this is an important innovation that should be continued. That is why we will be voting yes on this motion and putting in place a virtual Parliament that can really serve the interests of all Canadians.
2472 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the government House leader about the complete lack of self-awareness in the Conservative MPs. They blocked, for months, important legislative changes that would help teachers and would help farmers. I certainly heard from teachers in my riding and people saying, “Let us get this done.” Conservatives said, “No, we are not going to let anything through.”
Now we have the budget implementation act, which, for the first time, would put in place national dental care. Thanks to the NDP and the member for Burnaby South, we actually would see thousands of people in every Conservative constituency, but also in the constituencies of every one of us in the House of Commons, have access to dental care. This is a significant shift. With respect to affordable housing, as well for the first time, we would have in place an affordable housing program that would create tens of thousands of affordable housing units right across the country to address the housing crisis. These are all things that benefit everybody: every constituent of not just Conservative MPs, but all MPs in the House.
This is what we should be working on. For five days in a row, the budget implementation act was supposed to be brought forward, and for five days in a row, the Conservatives blocked any sort of discussion. They just refused to let this move forward in any way and they would not debate it either. The official opposition House leader neglects the fact that, every single day for two weeks, Routine Proceedings has been disrupted by the Conservatives.
Why is there no self-awareness, among Conservative MPs, that what they are doing is harming Canadians?
287 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 6:54:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the member. The consideration of having both sides represented as co-chairs is fundamentally important. We would not have supported having a government chair, as that is not appropriate for a parliamentary review.
I had understood the Conservative position as being similar, but the Conservatives have tragically changed their position so many times over the past few days that I am not even sure where they are at now. In each change of position, there seems to be a willingness to delay. Knowing that there are two constituency weeks, knowing that the decision had to be made this week if we were to get the committee up and running and working promptly this week, so we could start to get answers in the coming weeks, it seems strange to me that a party that said it wanted accountability would want to delay to such an unacceptable extent. It just does not make sense.
I know it would be unparliamentary for me to note that there is not a single Conservative actually debating this motion in the House tonight, so I will not mention that. Very clearly, the Conservatives have not been responsible or appropriate. The other three parties who are recognized in the House of Commons have agreement. The Senate groups have agreement. Let us get on with it, and let us get this committee started.
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
