Todd Doherty

[Canada Labour Code, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for our hon. colleague. I listened intently to her speech. I have a very simple question.

In the member's opinion, do victims of harassment and violence experience such violations differently from the perpetrators?

[Canada Labour Code, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and our hon. colleagues have said how far we have come with respect to the #MeToo movement. Perhaps we have come far, but the Prime Minister missed a very real opportunity to stand up and be a leader this summer, instead of deflecting and denying in his answer about the serious allegation of groping.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague feels that the Prime Minister had a real opportunity to come forward and show true leadership and right a past wrong.

[Canada Labour Code, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her passionate speech. It was very well thought out and measured. She is somebody I respect dearly.

We have a Prime Minister who, in the last session, called the member for Thornhill a derogatory term. My colleague gave a couple of examples of where the Prime Minister thought it was appropriate to stoop to name calling. There was also the time when Motion No. 6 was being debated. Everyone remembers the “elbowgate” incident, where he felt it was appropriate, as he walked across the aisle, to swear at the opposition members and then physically grab our colleague and direct him to his seat. That was totally inappropriate.

I am a father of three beautiful daughters. With respect to the incident involving a reporter earlier on, I want to mention what the Prime Minister said in answer to this. First, he did not remember the incident and then he said, “I do not feel that I acted inappropriately in any way, but I respect the fact that someone else might have experienced that differently.” He went on to add, “This lesson that we are learning, and I’ll be blunt about it, often a man experiences an interaction as being benign or not inappropriate and a woman, particularly in a professional context, can experience it differently and we have to respect that and reflect on that.” That is not an admission of guilt. Indeed, it is a denial that the incident even happened. Is this not the same as the #MeToo movement now, when men in power are saying they thought it was consensual?

I was appalled when the Prime Minister offered that as an explanation. I expected more from the Prime Minister, regardless of who he is or where he is from. It is disappointing for me. I am glad to stand up on this and I will now offer my hon. colleague an opportunity to comment.

[Petitions, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and table this petition from Canadians regarding their increasing concern over the international trafficking of human organs.

The petitioners urge the government and all parliamentarians to work to pass Bill C-350 as well as Bill S-240 in the Senate.

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's intervention. I do not say this in jest. With all sincerity, how does taxing Canadians—

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate all night and I am taking it seriously, as I think all Canadians are. We all agree that something has to be done, but the comments coming from the minister are rich given that here in Ottawa she has a taxpayer-funded chauffeur who drives her to and from meetings. In her riding she has a taxpayer-funded chauffeur who drives her back and forth to all of her meetings. She flies to and from commitments. She does not walk.

She has introduced no real, tangible plan except for a tax that is really going to do nothing to drive down global emissions. Why not come up with innovative solutions like investing in technology or supporting industry in providing new technology that cuts down emissions?

Is this all that Canadians can expect from the minister, a tax-and-spend type of plan? Where is the real innovative technology and the real investment in industry to help provide industries with new tools so they no longer emit or are no longer among the worst emitters? Why do Canadians have to shoulder the entire financial burden for this? Why do Canadians have to do the heavy lifting?

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our hon. colleague for bringing forth this debate tonight, but perhaps I misunderstood him in his presentation.

I shared with full disclosure about my family and my wife's family. Much of my riding of Cariboo—Prince George is cattle country. I know that Canada's cattle producers are leading the way in sustainable practices, sustainable harvesting and sustainable farming. They have been at the table with government, whether it was the previous government or the current government, and have worked with each administration to help achieve their economic as well as environmental goals.

I would ask my hon. colleague what he is proposing Canadians do, or the families who are dependent on this industry, through his presentation.

[National Defence Act, October 15th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to sit in committee during this study and there were some great witnesses, far more learned witnesses than I am. One of the witnesses, herself a criminal lawyer, testified that a great way to speed up the judicial process, which this bill is partly intended to address, was to fill some of the judicial vacancies. This administration has moved on that at a glacial pace. That impacts ridings, rural ridings specifically such as mine, Cariboo—Prince George. We are seeing cases being thrown out because a judge is not always available to hear some of the court cases. I would like to ask my hon. colleague his points of view on the glacial pace that his administration, this administration, is moving at to fill those judicial vacancies.

[Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the intervention by our hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay was well-thought-out and had a lot of key points.

I too find it very rich that we have, as has been said before, a trust fund duo with the Prime Minister and the finance minister, a finance minister who registered a Toronto-based company in Alberta. I am wondering why he would have done that.

I know of a number of incidents where the CRA has gone after single mothers and small businesses yet lets big business get away with things. One who comes to mind is Irvin Leroux in my riding, who actually took the CRA to the highest court in our country and won his case, showing that the CRA owed Canadians a duty of care. The process absolutely bankrupted him, but it was a case of the little man, just an everyday Canadian, winning.

I am wondering if our hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay has more examples of where the CRA has been heavy-handed. Perhaps it should be turning its attention to the folks who are in big business, which this bill really looks to tackle. I wonder if our hon. colleague has more local examples from Timmins—James Bay.

[Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the government chose the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook to stand up. I will remind those listening, and those in the House, that his family was on the receiving end of a lucrative surf clam quota given by the former fisheries minister. Subsequently, the Ethics Commissioner did an investigation on this.

If that is not enough, our hon. colleague is waxing on about how great the government is, when its own Minister of Finance registered a Toronto-based company in Alberta. Is that not a version of tax avoidance? Could our colleague explain, in his own words, why he feels the Minister of Finance did that?