House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was deal.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour (Nova Scotia)

Lost his last election, in 2015, with 24% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply March 8th, 2012

A columnist who is very well respected even though the members opposite are trying to degrade her reputation. However, her columns appear across the country in different newspapers and different publications because they are sound, well considered and contain an incredible amount of wisdom.

What she said in the article today was true, but there was a level of cynicism that it represented. The article said that the tactics of the Conservative government, whether it be the in and out, or proroguing government, or being held in contempt of Parliament, or now this case of voter suppression, it represented an attitude or mentality that was working, she suggested, that the base of Conservatives' support was holding and that it would be ever thus.

When I read it initially, I was discouraged about what it meant, but then I did not accept it for one second. I do not believe Canadians are that cynical. I do not believe Canadians will stand by and watch the Conservative Party hijack the democracy in our country. Canadians deserve better.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and his colleagues in the opposition are going to work tirelessly every step of the way and we are going to defend the interests of Canadians and their right to the kind of democracy that is going to ensure their rights are respected and these kind of tactics will be no more. That is what we are going to do.

My time is running out, and I know members opposite would like me to have more time. Perhaps we can find another opportunity to have this discussion. However, in all seriousness, it is extremely important that we get this done and get it right. The very foundation of our democracy is at stake. We need to stand up for democratic principles and we need to start right now.

While I support the motion and think it has incredible merit and should be supported by all members of the House, we need to ensure it is amended to some degree to capture the current controversy in which we are involved. Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words: “in all future election campaigns”.

Business of Supply March 8th, 2012

The member opposite says it is completely false. Why did they pay some $263,000? I guess it was a donation. It was in and out. I do not know what it was.

The point is the government does not have any credibility when it comes to giving Canadians the straight goods. That is the bottom line.

I woke up this morning and one of the first things I did, as I usually do, was scan the newspapers and I read an article in the Toronto Star written by a columnist I have a lot of respect for—

Business of Supply March 8th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and put my oar in the water on a matter that goes to the heart of why I and many other people are here. That is the democratic right of Canadians to participate in elections and debate without fear of intimidation or fear of receiving misinformation or otherwise being subject to the kinds of fraudulent actions that are being considered in this most recent case involving the Conservative party in a number of ridings across the country.

I want to commend my colleagues, including the member for Hamilton Centre for moving this important motion and the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for seconding it. It is a critically important motion because of what we have seen happening with our democracy in the country over the past number of years.

I listened to an earlier speaker talk about the days of nylons and rum. He went back to roasting pigs and barrels of rum. It is not a very pretty sight when we talk about that. The province I come from has its own history of how elections were conducted, but we have come some considerable distance, I would say, or at least that is what we want to tell the world. We have come a considerable distance in our country at living up to the democratic ideals and principles that we love to discuss with other countries around the world. We often see the Prime Minister and members on the other side when they are in other lands almost shaking their fingers at other countries, suggesting that they should be as democratic as we are, that they should adhere to the kinds of principles and moral standards with which politics is conducted in our country. Then we come up against the kind of situation we are facing now.

Why is the motion before the House at this time? Within the last few months the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and made a series of recommendations. He asked for, among other things, the power to require political parties to supply every document or piece of information deemed necessary to verify compliance with the requirements of the act with respect to the election.

Those recommendations came to a vote in the committee. The New Democratic Party voted in favour of those recommendations. The Liberal party, the third party, also voted in favour of those recommendations. Lo and behold, the government, which has a majority on the committee, refused to allow the committee to strengthen the Chief Electoral Officer's power of investigation and ability to proceed in this manner.

That is why we are here today, because we want to get to the bottom of this and give Elections Canada the authority to quickly get to the bottom of any similar cases of electoral fraud in the future and, hence, prevent their recurrence.

I would like to take a few moments to talk a bit about what we can do now, or maybe what we need to do about things that have happened just recently.

I will tell the House why this is so important to me. I first ran for office back in 1991. I was successful, thanks to the good people of Halifax Atlantic. I have been in this business for 13 years.

The key factors which motivated me throughout my time of getting into and continuing in politics, as well as now getting in at the federal level, were the desire to do everything I could to make our political system and our democracy more effective, as well as ensure that voters and citizens felt that it was worth their while to participate. By that, I do not only mean they should only vote, but they should feel somewhat compelled to participate in debates and raise concerns with members of government or their elected officials. On many occasions, when speaking in high schools to young people, when speaking to Canadians of all ages and certainly when speaking to those in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour where I have had the most opportunity, I have even suggested that I feel it is somewhat part of our responsibility as citizens to actively participate in the political process.

Right now upward of 40% of the population are eligible to vote but do not. Between 75% and 80% of young people between the ages of 18 and 33 do not participate in the political process. They do not vote, nor do they become engaged. That is crazy and it is wrong. Why are they not participating?

I have asked the young people in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour what we can do to give them a better sense that it makes a difference for them to participate. They have talked about the fact that their politicians need to engage with them, that they need to solicit their opinions, that they need to take their comments seriously and help them see some of their wishes and dreams reflected in government policy and debate. They want to know that they matter. As well, when a political party or politician runs for election and makes certain commitments, they want to see those commitments fulfilled in an honourable and respectful manner if they are elected. They do not want them to just respond to the people who actually cast ballots for them, but represent the principles of our democracy and all of the people for whom they have been elected to represent. When people come to my office in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, I do not check to see if they can prove they voted for me before my staff and I will try to help them or intervene on their behalf.

It is somewhat troubling the way the government perceives that it should not act on the basis of the 39.6% of the population that voted for the Conservatives. In our parliamentary democracy, the majority wins. In this case, they have the majority of the seats in the House. That does not mean they represent the majority of Canadians. It means they were elected by not quite 40% of the population. There is 60% of the population that did not sign onto whatever their campaign booklet called for that time.

Canadians who voted for me also have important things to say. They also have good ideas. There are things that think need to be done for our country and our communities. They expect the government to pay attention. Just because a citizen did not vote Conservative does not mean that individual is less of a Canadian. This is part of the issue the opposition has had with the government. The Conservatives always stand and say that a majority of Canadians voted for them, so therefore they can do whatever they want. That is wrong. Less than a majority of Canadians voted for the Conservative government. That kind of stuff turns voters off.

That is why I and my colleagues on the official opposition benches received over four and a half million votes in the last election. That is why we are so determined to do everything we can to try to restore some sense of accountability, decorum and responsibility to the political process.

We have heard from the government on the recent issue of people getting misleading calls, about being misdirected, about getting illegal calls. The calls were illegal because the callers indicated they represented Elections Canada when in fact they did not. The government says that it is doing everything it can to assist Elections Canada. It has been trying to turn the problem around to the opposition, saying that we should be as helpful.

Canadians understand this. Why do we not believe the Conservatives when they say that they have done everything right, that they are assisting in every way, shape and form? We only have to go back a couple of days to when the government finally admitted it was wrong with respect to the in and out scam. It pleaded guilty and paid upward of a quarter of a million dollars in fines as a result.

What is the in and out issue? The in and out issue started after the 2006 election. It took Elections Canada about five years to finally get to the point where the Conservative government admitted that it did something wrong and paid the fines accordingly.

The investigation took far too long. It took five years and cost taxpayers almost $2 million because the Conservative Party of Canada did what it is doing right now. Members stood in their places and said day after day that they did not do anything, that somebody took on a vendetta, that somebody was trying to smear them, somebody was providing inaccurate information. They pleaded their innocence. They took Elections Canada to court and spent millions of dollars defending themselves to no avail. They finally recognized they were done like dinner and admitted their guilt and paid the fine.

Business of Supply March 8th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the member and his colleagues on the government side. In response to the demand made by Canadians that the government actually co-operate with Elections Canada, they say that the New Democrats and Liberals have not provided any information. The reality of the situation is that it is the Conservative Party of Canada that has been requested by Elections Canada to provide information, and it is the Conservative Party of Canada that has not released that information.

If or when the New Democratic Party is requested to provide that information, it will provide any and all information. I would like to ask the member why the Conservatives continue to present this information that clearly is not true.

Business of Supply March 8th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, it is important to keep reminding the minister that the Conservative Party is under investigation. It is the Conservative Party that Elections Canada has asked for information. It is the Conservative Party that has failed to provide that information.

The minister seems to think the Conservatives will support the motion and that they have been helpful to Elections Canada. He has said that the other parties should do so as well, but it is the Conservative Party that has been asked to make information available and it has refused to do so.

Why have the minister and the Conservative Party not been prepared to honour the request by Elections Canada?

Committees of the House March 7th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his extremely important question, because in the past 20 years, and especially over the last six years under the current government, we have increasingly been moving back to the situation we faced in the 1950s and 1960s when we were very much hewers of wood and drawers of water. We were sending raw logs out of Nova Scotia, British Columbia, and other provinces, including Quebec, completely unprocessed. All of those jobs were going to Europe and the United States.

We are doing the same thing with raw bitumen. It is a problem that has to be addressed. Thank heavens that in 2015, there will be an NDP government to begin to—

Committees of the House March 7th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, the member is the international trade critic who stands here repeatedly and talks about the failures of the government and its ability to negotiate fair deals with other countries, deals that would properly protect Canadian workers, protect jobs, and enhance opportunities for our businesses and communities to prosper.

In response, the government has said that the NDP has never supported any trade deal. Our response is that we want to see trade deals that protect and encourage Canadians jobs and not devastate communities. That is what the member has been doing.

Committees of the House March 7th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about this. I think the reason that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster enjoyed my presentation was that I complimented him so many times about what a great job he was doing as the opposition finance critic.

Try as I might, I know that I would not be able to lay out in the same detail as that member could the steps that an NDP government would take from one end of this country to the other, but let me try.

We would certainly listen to the communities, like the ones in Nova Scotia that we met with this weekend, who talked about the need to support funding programs like community economic development, which the government will reduce through devastating cuts to ACOA. We would focus on reversing their priorities, which we believe are wrong, including the corporate tax cuts. We would reverse those so that we would have the revenue to be able to direct money to veterans, to seniors, to the people who desperately need support.

Committees of the House March 7th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is a hard act to follow. I always learn a lot from what the member has to say. I think we all do.

This past weekend I had the pleasure, as did many of the residents of Halifax, the south shore, Bridgewater and Queen's County, of speaking with the member for Burnaby--New Westminster. He talked at some length with us on Friday night and again on Saturday afternoon about what he and the official opposition thought needed to be done with respect to the economy. He also talked at some length about the wrong-headed priorities of the Conservative government, which we found to be quite interesting.

He and I also took the opportunity to listen to a number of constituents. They talked about some of their concerns with respect to the economy and some of the things they were doing.

A business development officer from Lunenburg-Queens talked about how the economy of that region is changing and what people are doing to try to deal with those changes. He talked about what could be done at the federal level by the government, or by the NDP government that will be formed in 2015, in order to properly support the south shore of Nova Scotia and other communities throughout the country.

The people who attended those meetings were very comfortable with the information. They were inspired by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I thank him for that.

The report of the Standing Committee on Finance is on the prebudget consultations. As the member for Burnaby—New Westminster mentioned, there is a minority report attached to the report. The official opposition members on the committee did not think that the majority report properly reflected some concerns. Some ideas and concerns that witnesses had were not properly reflected in the report, and therefore, opposition members on the committee presented a minority report.

It was an important consultation. It gave Canadians an opportunity to bring to the attention of the committee important issues that affect the economy, their communities and families. There is no question that the consultation was a good thing.

We go through the prebudget consultation process to inform the House, the Minister of Finance and his officials about what Canadians think should be reflected in the budget. However, after that happened, the Prime Minister of this country, while on a sojourn across the water to attend a think-tank session in Davos, Switzerland, announced that a critical program for seniors in this country was going to be changed. I do not know what he was drinking at the time, pop or Chardonnay or whatever, but he mentioned it in passing.

The committee had already heard from senior citizens. The committee had already talked to seniors. While it is not reflected in the main report, in the minority report we talk about senior Canadians' concerns about income security and the lack thereof when they reach retirement. WIthout question it is a very serious concern. Had they known that the government was going to change the OAS, which preponderantly advantages low-income seniors, they would have been outraged. They would have lined up to attend the meetings that were held across the country.

What troubles me is this facade of having consultations. We ask Canadians to contribute to this chamber's understanding of their concerns and what we should do. Then the government unilaterally announces what it is going to do, and it is going to affect hundreds of thousands of seniors across the country.

Another example is health care. It is fundamental to the lives of Canadians and the success of many organizations and businesses in this country. The Minister of Finance unilaterally announced to the first ministers of the provinces what the funding formula is going to be over the next number of years. There was no discussion or consultation. There was no talk about how the government is going to work with the provinces in order to ensure that health care is not only maintained but restored, reinvigorated, modernized and properly funded. On an issue which is very important to the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, the people in all of Nova Scotia, indeed the people across the country, there was no attempt to have those discussions. The finance minister and the government unilaterally determined that they were going to make this funding change.

Once again, outside of the prebudget consultations, this information was announced and blindsided Canadians. Without question, it causes us some concern.

Another thing that happened this week was the government's attack on veterans. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore moved a motion to ensure that the programs and services to support the women and men who represent, fight for and defend our country are not cut. The government did not support the motion.

I am sufficiently troubled about this that I would suggest the government and members of the House need some time to reflect. Therefore, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Fisheries and Oceans March 6th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, once again the only people who are complaining about the state of the fishery are the corporate investors and the financiers who want a piece of the pie.

The inshore fishery in Atlantic Canada and Quebec fought back against corporate interests in the 1990s. However, it looks like it is going to have to do it again as a result of what this minister is intending to do.

I ask the minister, will he stand with New Democrats in Quebec and Atlantic Canada for inshore fishers and their communities?