House of Commons photo

Track Thomas

Your Say


Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is conservatives.

NDP MP for Outremont (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 56.40% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Natural Resources June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts: the highest level of the U.S. administration, after Enbridge was responsible for the worst spill in U.S., called Enbridge, “the Keystone Kops”. It called them a bunch of clowns, not us.

Yesterday's announcement said that Enbridge:

—clearly has more work to do in order to fulfill the public commitment it has made to engage with Aboriginal groups and local communities along the route.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that it engages the honour of the Crown to deal with first nations? That is the government; that is his responsibility. He cannot subcontract the honour of the Crown to Enbridge.

Natural Resources June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, we all know that a spill on the British Columbia coast would put thousands of fishing and tourism jobs in jeopardy. However, the Conservatives' plan for cleaning up spills involves using chemicals that are banned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Simply put, the Conservatives are proposing to create one environmental disaster to fix another. We were not the ones who called Enbridge a bunch of clowns. It was the American government that called them “Keystone Kops” because of how they bungled the Kalamazoo spill.

Is that who the Prime Minister wants Canadians to trust? He wants them to trust Enbridge, with their pitiful record?

Natural Resources June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister removed all of the barriers to this pipeline, going so far as to scuttle all of the legislative requirements with respect to environmental assessments.

He even went so far as to use one of his notorious omnibus bills to say that pipelines, and only pipelines, are no longer subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

If that is the case, how can the Prime Minister possibly deny that he stacked the deck in favour of the pipeline? It was a done deal. Why does he not just admit it?

Natural Resources June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, in that case, can the Prime Minister please explain, if this reckless pipeline through British Columbia's most pristine wilderness is actually in the interest of all British Columbians, why every single one of his 21 British Columbia MPs has entered the witness protection program?

Natural Resources June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, for three years, the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been out there shilling for the northern gateway pipeline, saying that it was of “vital interest”. Now, not a single Conservative minister is available to explain the decision to Canadians.

If no B.C. Conservatives will defend this decision, will the Prime Minister please explain to us why approving this pipeline is worth putting 45,000 British Columbia coastal jobs at risk?

Natural Resources June 17th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the municipalities of Kitimat, Terrace, Prince Rupert, and Smithers all say no. More than 130 first nations across B.C. all say no. Three hundred scientists all say no. The Prime Minister endorsed this pipeline publicly three years ago. No matter what evidence, how many people speak out, how many people stand up against him, he keeps pushing this project.

How can the Prime Minister deny that this whole process is a sham and that the decision was taken before the process even started?

Natural Resources June 17th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, for three years, the Prime Minister has staunchly defended the northern gateway pipeline.

However, he was unable to get the support of the first nations, local communities and British Columbia residents who oppose this pipeline project.

We will soon find out whether the Prime Minister cares about the interests of Canadians or the oil lobby.

Will the Prime Minister listen to the residents of British Columbia and reject this dangerous, risky project, or was the decision made before the process even started, as usual?

Justice June 17th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, he still will not answer.

First the Prime Minister ignored warnings from the Chief Justice about appointing a Federal Court judge to represent Quebec on the Supreme Court. Then the Prime Minister publicly attacked the Chief Justice, which is unprecedented in the history of Canada. Now he has made another appointment that violates a nearly identical rule, daring the Supreme Court to reject his appointment yet again.

Why is the Prime Minister starting a war with the Supreme Court? What can be accomplished by this?

Justice June 17th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice made a telling slip of the tongue yesterday when he said that Justice Mainville's wealth of legal knowledge will be welcome at the Supreme Court, not the Quebec Court of Appeal.

We are not questioning Mr. Mainville's undisputed legal knowledge. We are questioning his eligibility.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to appoint Mr. Mainville to the Supreme Court of Canada? Yes or no?

Justice June 17th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, section 98 of the Constitution Act of 1867 states:

The Judges of the Courts of Quebec shall be selected from the Bar of that Province.

In the Nadon case, the Supreme Court was very clear about what that means. It is a question of complying with the Constitution and upholding the rule of law.

The Prime Minister already promised the House that he would uphold both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision in the Nadon case.

Why is the Prime Minister not delivering on that promise?