House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was program.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Liberal MP for Cape Breton—Canso (Nova Scotia)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 74% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply October 16th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, holy smokes, the minister saying that we are trying to create a false impression is very rich on his part.

The minister referred to a ruling by a past Speaker with regard other legislation that has come before the House. Speaker Parent said that it was well in line that a budget bill could amend several statutes. The minister tried to sort of lump this in with the abuses we have seen from the government. What about the 400-page document with 753 clauses changing or repealing 70 acts of Parliament and 60 distinct measures? How is that for several statutes? The minister should not lump the two examples together.

He also talked about consultation, the number of interventions and the 145 groups. There were 800 amendments proposed to the bill.

The government likes to say that it had this, this and this and that we voted against it. The fact is that it is a bouquet of thorns that may have a rose in it.

However, the government voted against the 800 amendments. It was 47% of the representatives in the House that put forward 800 amendments. Was there nothing there that the government saw that could have added to the overall bill or maybe to the debate? Was not one of them worthy of support?

Employment Insurance October 15th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, for the last month the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has embarrassed herself by regurgitating lame talking points about the working while on claim program.

Last week, in a grasp for political appeasement, she made changes that made it more convoluted and more unfair by creating two different types of EI recipients. It is sort of like the captain of the Titanic saying, “Anybody who boarded before lunchtime gets a life jacket; anybody else, enjoy the dip”.

Will the minister put back in the allowable earnings provision to—

Employment Insurance October 5th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, the acclaimed American actor, Samuel L. Jackson, has posted a powerful YouTube video encouraging people to wake up and realize that some of their fellow citizens are experiencing hardship and pain. I would encourage all members to check out the video.

Low-income earners who are receiving EI benefits are experiencing such pain, but it seems that the minister is sleepwalking past their hardship.

My plea is to the Prime Minister. Will he take charge of this file and wake up the members on the front bench?

Firefighters October 4th, 2012

Whatever I can do.

This is absolutely an important motion. For the last number of years, the International Association of Firefighters has done an exemplary job of putting its views and issues before parliamentarians. Each week that we come to the Hill or go to our constituency offices we are in a constant state of meeting with various groups and organizations, but the firefighters have been consistent year after year. They are truly professional when they meet with members of Parliament. They have seen small victories but each year the game continues to move down the field, almost like my golf game, a little side to side, but, hopefully, we are making progress. This motion is an opportunity to recognize that their efforts over these past years have not gone unnoticed, because they have been consistent in their messaging, obviously because it means so much to so many.

What we hear in debate with any legislation that comes forward with regard to first responders and firefighters is the fact that they are so involved in the community. I come from a fairly rural community. I have 50 volunteer fire departments in my riding in a great number of smaller communities. They are all the core of those communities, like Dominion, Reserve Mines, Port Morien, Port Hood and Port Hastings. Whether it is a community festival, an event or someone in need, the firefighters are the people we go to.

That is all well and fine, but there are many organizations within communities that do those types of honourable things for their fellow citizens. Where these men and women stand apart is the risk that is inherent in what they do. As has been mentioned, they are the ones who are running into the building when everyone else is running out. They lay it on the line for their fellow citizens. They are tasked with a job, a career in some cases, although, in many cases, like my own situation, many of these people are volunteers, but there is so much expected of them beyond what is expected of other people in communities and it is physical, mental, emotional and spiritual.

One of the aspects of the motion, being engaged in building code development, is that it properly takes into account first responder safety issues in building designs and materials. That would go a long way in ensuring that at least when they go into a particular building there is chance of recognizing the materials being used so that they know what they will be battling when they get in there.

That would be one aspect of the physical part of what is expected of them that could be addressed through the adoption of this motion.

If the people here in the chamber want to get a really good sense of what it is that firefighters go through, they should pick up a copy of the book written by Russell Wangersky called Burning Down the House. I could lend a copy to my friend and colleague in the Conservative Party. It is a great read. It is about a firefighter who had dreamed about being a firefighter his whole life. He went to Acadia University and started to work as a volunteer firefighter there. He went through various levels of training and became a firefighter.

Sometimes people delineate between a volunteer and a professional firefighter but when the alarm goes off and the truck is on the way there is an expectation that those volunteer firefighters know what the heck they are doing. Quite often the training for volunteer firefighters is pretty much the same as that for the professional firefighters because there is an expectation that they will be well-trained and ready to perform when they get to the scene of a fire or whatever else they are asked to do.

In his book, Russell Wangersky said that it was not too bad when he was in the valley going to university and volunteering there. However, when he went back home he said that it was really tough. He remembers being called into a situation as a first responder. His best friend's father was having a heart attack. He showed up at the scene and had to try to revive his friend's father. The emotional impact of going through a situation like that is sometimes not taken into account. When these firefighters, these first responders, show up at the scene of a car accident, they can be asked to scrape a 17-year-old kid off the dash of a car. That is not normal for any citizen other than these first responders.

One can only imagine what firefighters go through emotionally, mentally and spiritually when they are on the back of a truck going to a fire. Their may be given more information about it being a house fire and that kids are in the house. We can imagine the heart rate of everyone in that vehicle going up.

That is something that we do not ask of other citizens but we expect our first responders to handle that type of thing. That is why they stand alone. That is why they stand apart.

The first part of this motion deals with the public safety officer compensation fund. A firefighter's family should know that there will be some kind of help, some kind of assistance should everything go wrong or should something not work out and the firefighter loses his or her life. We could at lease give the families the comfort of knowing that their federal government will be there with them, standing with them in appreciation and support.

I would hope that each and every member of this chamber searches their soul and finds a way to support this motion.

Firefighters October 4th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to the motion. I want to congratulate my friend and colleague from Wascana for putting this motion forward and giving us an opportunity speak to it.

I have to admit that I have been both surprised and pleased with some of the comments that have come forward in the debate thus far. To have my friend from Burnaby—Douglas actually commend the member for Wascana, I was pleased and surprised with that one. I was almost as surprised as was when I listened to the parliamentary secretary from the government side address the House and not hear the words, “$21 billion job-killing carbon tax”. I am sure she is in the woodshed behind the PMO now for not having taken the opportunity to throw that one out there.

Employment Insurance October 3rd, 2012

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' have used a carrot and stick approach in their changes to working while on claim, a little bit of carrot and a whole lot of stick. For some people, the more they make, the more they keep. That is their little bit of carrot. However, for the majority, the less they make, the more the government keeps. That is a whole lot of stick. That is putting the stick to low-income earners in this country, honest people looking for honest work to feed their families.

When is the minister going to reinstate the allowable earnings provision and quit putting the stick to low-income Canadians?

Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada Act October 2nd, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his presentation and bringing this forward. Twenty-one years later its time has come. Also, I very much appreciate the gesture and notification of support from the NDP.

This came forward in 1991. Brian Mulroney would have been prime minister at the time and it would have been a Conservative government that ratified the convention. I would think that would point toward the unanimous acceptance of this by the House. Is that the view of my colleague?

Business of Supply October 2nd, 2012

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of excellent points but I want to elaborate on one in particular. What is in it for Canadian business if we pursue and go forward with this deal?

The member mentioned how there would be potential possibilities for the banking sector with respect to increased trade with China. However, Jeffrey Simpson raised the concern of reciprocity. He said that to really judge this deal we should look at it in reverse. If this were a Canadian company trying to embark on a deal like this within China would this deal actually go ahead? I think there is one answer to that, which is that it would never happen.

Does my colleague agree that there needs to be some kind of benefit for Canadian business? What sectors of Canadian business would benefit from increased trade with China?

Business of Supply October 1st, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a man of science. Using some kind of science or measurement, I would think that if one is going to change something for the better then there must have been a time when it was worse.

The stuff about “our party is all about working” is great. Everyone is for working and creating jobs, but when there are no jobs then there has to be a safety net. That is what this debate is about today. When people are sick, there is a hospital. When people are unemployed, there is EI.

What measurement did the Conservatives use? The reference was made several times, for the last two weeks probably, that the vast majority are benefiting. Give us a number; any number at all, pick one. It can be plus or minus ten on either side. I would be comfortable with that.

How many are benefiting, how many are being hurt and what is the measurement?

Business of Supply October 1st, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question but I will throw a question in at the end.

If this is something deliberate, then I am missing what the rationale is behind why the Conservatives made this change. If it came to their attention that they were hurting the most vulnerable, I would think a caring government would want to make a change. Yet, it continues to attack the NDP. The Conservatives are talking all around it over there today and not addressing the problem.

We are sort of befuddled. We think this can be fixed and, obviously, the official opposition does too, which is why it brought forward this motion today. What can the government do to fix this problem so that people will no longer be hurt?