House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.
Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act May 29th, 2019
Madam Speaker, I am in substantial agreement with the thrust of the question from the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dealt with this question at least insofar as it said that in a dispute between a patient and a physician, “the interests of patients come first, and physicians have a duty not to abandon their patients.” Can the member square his initiative with that requirement in law?
Petitions May 27th, 2019
Madam Speaker, the second petition raises an issue of importance to people not just in my constituency but from across Canada. It calls on the House of Commons to support Bill S-214 and ban the sale and/or manufacture of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients in Canada. The petitioners submit that the European Union, one of the largest cosmetics markets in the world, banned animal testing in 2013, and they ask that Canadians have the same opportunity.
Petitions May 27th, 2019
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to raise today.
The first is petition e-1090, which is from about 900 Victorians calling on the government to immediately begin turning over all historical documents to public archives and to reform the Access to Information Act and Library and Archives Canada to ensure that historical material does not remain hidden outside of our public archives.
Business of Supply May 15th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, I have two very quick questions, connected together, I hope.
Number one, does the hon. member believe there is a climate emergency? Number two, knowing that he opposes the carbon tax, what would he do instead?
Madam Chair, I am not sure what that meant. I understand from a quote in a newspaper attributed to the minister that he is deeply disappointed to see the sweeping cuts that have been made to this important program. Why should the federal government not pay all of the legal expenses insofar as refugees and immigration matters are 100% federal in nature, whereas criminal law and family law are shared? In this one area, why should the federal government cut the budget entirely for that matter and simply stand by? Should it not pick up the tab so that these very important services can be provided to people in those dire circumstances?
Madam Chair, in the last fiscal year, in the province of British Columbia, the Legal Services Society, which distributes legal aid, had a budget of $86 million. The federal government's contribution was less than $17.5 million. Just this past month, we saw the province of Ontario's legal aid funding slashed. More specifically, when it came to issues of refugees and immigration matters, a matter that is 100% within federal jurisdiction, a small portion of that funding came from the federal government.
Is the minister satisfied with the state of affairs of legal aid generally, and specifically in the context of refugee and immigration matters?
Madam Chair, the Supreme Court of Canada has announced that it will hear two cases in the city of Winnipeg in September this year. Under section 32 of the Supreme Court Act, the court will determine appeals and “shall hold, in each year, in the city of Ottawa, three sessions.” There is apparently the ability under the statute to change the dates of the sessions, but nothing that would seem to suggest there is a possibility of doing what the Supreme Court of Canada has said it wishes to do. I would like the Minister of Justice's comments on that.
Madam Chair, a quarter of the 289 judges appointed since 2016 had donated to the Liberal Party. A total of $322,000, or 90.9% of the total amount donated, was paid to the Liberal Party. I do not understand what the premise of the question was. Those are the facts. I would like to ask whether or not that can be reconciled with the notion of a merit-based appointment system.
Madam Chair, I stand corrected. It is true that he was not at the time the minister. I was wondering if his views had changed since he became one.
On a different topic, that is the topic of judicial appointments, The Globe and Mail reported earlier this year that 91% of those people who had sought an appointment to the courts had in fact made donations to the Liberal Party of Canada, 90.9% of those amounts made payable to parties were paid to the Liberal Party. Is that a coincidence?
Madam Chair, in an answer to a question I posed in this place to the minister on December 6, 2018, he told me that academic writing had pointed out, in particular an article by Lorraine Weinrib, “ that...it ought to be used only as a last resort and after the courts had struck down a piece of legislation.”
Does the minister still agree with that? If so, will he be intervening for a declaration that the use of the notwithstanding clause is premature at this stage?