Votes Votes

✔︎ S-3 (Indian Act)

Voted yea. Motion passed.

Bill

S-3: An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) 

Senate Amendment.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

This bill responds to the Descheneaux ruling. It will provide relief for 35,000 individuals waiting for their rights to be granted and enshrine additional procedural protections for individuals who are registering their child in circumstances where the other parent, or other relevant relatives, is unknown or unstated. Bill S-3, as passed by the House of Commons, remedied all sex-based discrimination in Indian Act registration since the modern Indian registry was created in 1951. The Government is now seeking to amend the legislation to also remedy sex-based inequities that existed between 1869 and 1951. With this new government amendment, which was passed by the Senate, Bill S-3 will remove all residual sex-based inequities from registration provisions in the Indian Act. The new amendment, dealing with the pre 1951 sex-based inequities, will be brought into force at a later date, after meaningful consultations and a comprehensive plan is developed in partnership with First Nations regarding its implementation.

Result

Passed.

Read More
Votes Votes

✘ C-240 (Income Tax Act)

Voted nay. Motion defeated.

Bill

C-240:  An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit — first aid)

Report.

Vote

Nay.

Rationale

While incentivizing further participation in First Aid and CPR training courses is a laudable goal, the tax system is not the appropriate vehicle for action and would be unlikely to increase participation. The bill is inconsistent with the government’s stated policy objective of tax system simplicity and efficiency. Further, the credit would be unlikely to increase participation in first aid and other health and safety training programs and would cost the Government an estimated $17 million on an annual basis.  Given the significant number of Canadians already enrolled in these courses, the credit would mostly subsidize those already enrolled, rather than incentivizing new enrollments. Finally, the average benefit, in terms of reduced tax payable, would be low relative to administration and compliance costs.  

Result

Defeated.

Read More
Votes Votes

✔︎ C-45 (Cannabis Act)

Voted yea. Bill adopted.

Bill

C-45: An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts.

Third Reading.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

Protecting the health and safety of Canadians is a top priority for our Government. The current approach to cannabis does not work. It has allowed criminals and organized crime to profit, while failing to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth. In many cases, it is easier for our kids to buy cannabis than cigarettes or a bottle of beer. That is why our Government, after extensive consultation with law enforcement, health and safety experts, and the hard work of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, has introduced legislation to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis.

Result

Passed.

Read More
Votes Votes

S-211 (Sickle Cell Awareness Day)

Voted yea. Motion passed.

Bill

S-211: Respecting National Sickle Cell Awareness Day

Vote

No Vote.

Rationale

I had an important announcement on improvements to our EI/Parental Benefits system that I needed to deliver in our community on behalf of Minister Duclos. This is something I have been passionately engaged on and was proud of this announcement; these changes represent more choice and flexibility for Canadian families. 

Result

Read More
Votes Votes

✔︎ C-63 (Budget Implementation Act)

Voted yea. Motion passed.

Bill

C-63: A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures

Second Reading.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

 The Budget Implementation Act provides the legislative framework to implement key campaign commitments that were reiterated in Budget 2017.

Result

Passed.

Read More
Votes Votes

✔︎ M-126 (Portuguese Heritage Month)

Voted yea. Motion passed.

Motion

M-126: Portuguese Heritage Month

Second Reading.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

This motion demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring the results of federally funded health research are made available to the public, and to support reducing the costs of pharmaceutical drugs to improve access to needed medicines. Though this motion is not an explicit link to lowering drug costs, addressing “global access licensing” is one measure proposed by domestic and international stakeholders to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. The proposed Motion supports the Government’s efforts in enhancing public access to science supported by the federal government.

Result

Passed.

Read More
Votes Votes

✔︎ M-132 (Health Research Fund)

Voted yea. Motion passed.

Motion

M-132: Federally funded health research

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

Support for the motion aligns with the Government’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, which includes the Speech from the Throne’s pronouncement of diversity as Canada’s strength, as well as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act objective to recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin, to support their efforts to raise awareness about their historic contributions to Canadian society, and to enhance the community’s development. Support would also be consistent with section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Federal-level recognition of June 10 as Portugal Day and June as Portuguese Heritage Month, already recognized by the Province of Ontario and British Columbia, would provide the opportunity to raise awareness of the many contributions Canadians of Portuguese heritage have made to Canada, and acknowledge the importance of this month for Canadians of Portuguese heritage. Support would be also consistent with that given to other recognition proposals that help foster social inclusion.

Result

Passed.

Read More
Votes Votes

✘ C-325 (Right to Housing Act)

Voted nay. Motion defeated.

Bill

C-325:  An Act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to housing)

Second reading.

Vote

Nay.

Rationale

There are a number of reasons: first, the Canadian Bill of Rights is not the optimal mechanism for protecting a right to adequate housing in Canada.  Our upcoming National Housing Strategy combined with our investments in Budgets 2016 and 2017 re-establish the Government of Canada’s leadership in housing.   Our strategy will include open and transparent reporting mechanisms based in a stringent accountability framework.  This will ensure that the Government of Canada continues to play a leadership role in housing for generations to come.  Our strategy will prioritize support for vulnerable citizens, including seniors, survivors of domestic violence, persons with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, and veterans.  Further, Bill C-325 differs markedly from Canada’s obligation to ensure the right to adequate housing as framed in international law.  The UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes a right to adequate housing as a component of an adequate standard of living. Canada is implementing this right through a wide range of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal laws, policies and programs, including the Homelessness Partnering Strategy and the Investment in Affordable Housing, among others. 

Result

Defeated.

Read More