- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Edmonton Manning
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,026.29
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the motion.
The text of this bill claims:
it is fitting that March 11 of each year be officially designated as “Pandemic Observance Day” in order to give the Canadian public an opportunity to commemorate the efforts to get through the pandemic, to remember its effects and to reflect on ways to prepare for any future pandemics.
Certainly, it is fitting that we take time to remember the effects COVID-19 had on our lives. More than 55,000 Canadians died COVID-related deaths. That is a sobering statistic. This number is more than die each year of heart disease and about four times the number of people who die accidentally each year.
We do not remember statistics though. We remember husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and grandparents whose lives were shortened by the disease. Each one was an individual. Each one was loved. Behind each death, there is an intensely personal story. Their loved ones remember them every day. They do not need the government to set aside a designated day for that purpose.
Do we need a pandemic observance day to give the Canadian public an opportunity to commemorate the efforts to get through the pandemic? Communities came together in innovative ways to deal with a situation no one had prepared for. It can be inspiring to think of the ways individual Canadians reached out to others for the benefit of all. It can be said that Canadians showed their resilience in the way they supported each other through that very trying period.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought the Canadian people together. It was a shared experience that brought out the best in people. It also brought out the worst of the government's performance. The most memorable stories of the COVID-19 pandemic are not those of individuals coming together but of a government out of control, out of touch with reality and showing itself to be incompetent, corrupt or maybe both.
As the pandemic was unfolding, the government sent 16 tonnes of badly needed personal protective equipment to another country: 50,118 face shields, 1,101 masks, 1,820 pairs of goggles, 36,425 medical coveralls, 200,000 nitrile gloves and 3,000 aprons. In doing so, it left our country without sufficient supplies for our own medical personnel. Canada was unprepared for the pandemic. The government failed in its duty to protect the Canadian people. It apparently believed the virus was not going to come here. It kept that attitude despite the fact that it had been warned.
In 2004, the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health presented its recommendations to the government. Canada was unprepared for the SARS outbreak, it said, “because too many earlier lessons were ignored.”
SARS made hundreds of Canadians sick and killed 44. It paralyzed a major segment of Ontario's health care system for weeks, and thousands were placed in quarantine. Overworked health care workers felt mental and emotional stress. Does that not sound just like the COVID-19 pandemic?
It was sadly obvious that the Liberals were unprepared for COVID-19. If they had paid attention to the SARS report, they would not have been giving away the very materials our health care system needed.
Given the Liberal track record, Canadians have no reason to believe the government will, as this bill suggests, spend any time reflecting on ways to prepare for any future pandemics, unless it is reflecting on finding ways to enrich its friends during a time of crisis. This will happen at the taxpayers’ expense, of course.
As unprepared as they were, the Liberals did see some opportunities as COVID-19 cases mounted in Canada. This is something all Canadians should remember.
We can think back to March 2020, as the first COVID cases were being reported in Canada. After giving away the PPE equipment our health care workers needed to fight the pandemic, the Liberals decided that they needed sweeping new powers to tax and spend without parliamentary scrutiny. When that did not work, they shut down Parliament to avoid being held accountable.
Faced with a global health emergency, their first response was an attack on democracy. They did not want Canadians to be informed of what was going on. They did not want to have to answer questions in Parliament.
They hoped no one would notice when an organization with financial ties to the Prime Minister’s and finance minister’s families were chosen to receive millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money through sole-sourced contracts.
The public service has considerable expertise and experience in administering government programs. Instead, the Liberals tried to funnel the money to their friends. When the wrongdoing by the former minister of finance was discovered, at least he was honourable enough to resign, unlike the Prime Minister, who has apparently never done anything wrong in his life.
Apparently, the Prime Minister has not even read the Ethics Commissioner’s reports, which is perhaps not surprising. The pandemic has shown that the Liberals are, at best, ethically challenged. They do not understand the rules, even simple ones, such as that we do not give government contracts to our friends.
After the Ethics Commissioner found that the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development had broken the rules, she apologized. However, she has not offered to repay the money that she had her department give to her friend.
There was also the former Liberal MP whose medical supply company was awarded a $237-million contract for 8,000 ventilators, at $10,000 more each than what is paid in the U.S.A. Once again, a contract was awarded without competitive bidding, this time to a company that had never made ventilators before.
The government spent $1.1 billion for 40,000 ventilators. Most of them were not needed because COVID was not as bad as forecasted, and now they are just gathering dust in warehouses.
When Canadians remember the pandemic, they will remember the Liberals investing $130 million of taxpayers' money in a vaccine that was being developed by a Canadian firm partially owned by a tobacco company. Was there no one smart enough to ask whether such a vaccine would be acceptable to the World Health Organization? Apparently there was not. It was no surprise to anyone, except perhaps the Liberal government, when the WHO failed to approve the vaccine because of the tobacco company involvement.
Canadians do not need a special pandemic observance day to remember the most out-of-control government spending. There was billions of dollars in handouts, no accountability and no determination as to whether the funds were really needed.
Canadians will have no choice but to remember the biggest government spending spree in our history because they will be paying off the debt for decades. My unborn grandchildren will be paying off the Liberals' debt. They will wish they had nothing to remember.
Canadians remember the incompetence of the government as the pandemic became endemic. As travel became possible once more, those lucky enough to get a passport endured chaos at the airports. The Liberal government could not even figure out how to make the system work.
Inflation rose to record levels, and the government responded by tripling its carbon tax instead of providing relief for Canadians struggling to make ends meet. Canadians will remember that every day; no special day is required. Canadians do not need a pandemic observance day to remember their loved ones, nor do they need this legislation to remember just how incompetent and corrupt the Liberal government was in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
1298 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respect your decision, but you never called my riding by name. You looked my way, and I—
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 4:49:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of stories. In my constituency office I was approached by several people who had the same concern over the timing. Again, it is the job of the government and lawmakers to provide all the tools needed so we do not end up facing these circumstances.
As I said earlier, justice should be in the justice system itself, which is why there will always be a demand to provide the proper tools to make sure everyone gets the same, equal opportunity.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 4:36:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).
The judicial system has been facing a series of delays in cases proceeding to trial, which has been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Conservatives have raised concerns about the delays and the potential for criminals to walk free due to the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, which said that no more than 18 months can pass between the laying of a charge and the end of trial cases in provincial courts, or 30 months for cases in superior courts.
We have raised our concerns over the delays in the judicial system a number of times during the pandemic, both in the House and through the media, so it is good that the Liberals are finally listening. I understand that sometimes they have different priorities.
The court system scrambled to adapt and learn how to function during the pandemic, and it was obvious that changes were needed. I could have made this speech at the height of the pandemic, when the need was very urgent. The government recognized the need then and introduced Bill C-23, but it was obviously not a priority. That bill died on the Order Paper when the House was dissolved by the Liberals for their unnecessary election. However, as with many efforts of the government, I suppose we can consider it to be better late than never, though it seems sometimes that on truly pressing issues, such as inflation, for the Liberals to do anything, it is more never than late.
It is indeed important to support the courts in the technological transition that has been stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also important to be as prepared as possible for a future pandemic or similar disruptions.
In the past two years, we have all discovered new ways of doing business. Some of those ways have been beneficial, others arguably not as much. So too is the case with this bill.
For justice to be truly done, it must be seen to be done. Any citizen has the right to attend court and observe the proceedings. In the past, that has naturally been a right that could be limited by the physical space of the courtroom. Allowing virtual proceedings would change that limitation while bringing with it the issue of controlling the dissemination of images from the proceedings. We have gone from cameras not being allowed into a courtroom to everyone having the ability to take screenshots or even videos of the proceedings.
There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been felt throughout our criminal justice system. Problems that perhaps we did not realize we had have been brought into focus. A modernization of the system is long overdue. The pandemic has shown us that action is very necessary now.
With the technological tools that are now available to us, it makes sense to allow, as this bill would, peace officers to apply for and obtain a warrant using telecommunications rather than having to appear in person before a judge. This would not take away from the necessity of the officer to answer any questions as to whether the warrant is really necessary. The legal necessities would not change, but there is a savings to the taxpayer and the environment in the officer not having to drive to appear before a judge.
We are all aware that the criminal justice system has been subjected to delays in proceedings, and sometimes that was exacerbated by the pandemic. While justice delayed is justice denied, no one wants to see a criminal walk free because the system could not bring them to trial fast enough.
The reforms suggested in this bill are small but incremental. It is important to remember that the fundamentals of justice would still be being observed, and that the increased use of teleconferencing in the courts would not take away from the fundamental rights of the accused to appear in person, but many, given the choice, might prefer to appear by video conference. This, incidentally, could reduce their legal fees since their lawyer would not have to be with them at the courthouse waiting for their case to be called.
One thing that concerns me with these reforms is the issue of fairness. I am not sure how the government can address that. Appearing by video in court proceedings requires access to technology that, at this point, is not available to every Canadian. Not everyone has the financial resources to own a computer. Not everyone has high-speed Internet access available to them. Certainly, the government does not have the resources to provide that.
At the same time, I recognize that there are other different burdens that come with having to make a court appearance in person that could bring with it the expense and hardship of travel. I am not certain how we can provide equal access to the justice system for all Canadians, but I know we have to try to keep improving the system until we get it right.
One area where I have serious concerns is the proposal in the bill that would allow the jury selection process to be done by video conference in some circumstances. While this would certainly make it less onerous for prospective jurors to take part in the selection process from their home or workplace, it does raise some privacy concerns. While technology makes remote appearances possible, technology could also be used to subvert the process, not to mention the right of an accused to see those who are to pass judgment on his or her case.
In Canada, an accused has a right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers, but there are times when, for security reasons, the jurors are anonymous. With the availability of facial recognition software, it is easy to imagine that prospective jurors appearing by video conference could be easily identified. This could leave them open to harassment or attempts to influence a jury's decision. That may sound unlikely, but if we are concerned for the administration of justice, it must be considered. Has the government considered how to deal with this issue?
This bill is not perfect, but neither is our justice system. The question we as parliamentarians must ask ourselves is this: Does the legislation make positive improvements to the administration of justice in our country, even if it is not perfect? If so, then we should probably support it.
1115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 3:22:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I pleased to present e-petition 3824 with 617 signatures.
The petition states:
Whereas:
The vaccine injury support program (VISP) is open to individuals who have experienced a serious or permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine, administered in Canada, on or after December 8, 2020;
Vaccine injuries have occurred before December 8, 2020, and the mental, physical and financial toll of a vaccine injury is overwhelming, exhausting, time-consuming and cumbersome; and
As vaccine injuries are extremely rare, all vaccine injuries should be supported by the government of Canada.
We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to support and compensate all Canadians who have had a vaccine injury from a Health Canada approved vaccine, not just those who have had one on December 8, 2020, and afterwards.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 11:49:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in April 2022, airports in greater Toronto held more than two thousand planes on the tarmac. In April 2019, they only held eight. The reason is travel restrictions. Travellers suffered through thousands of hours of delays, no thanks to the government’s unnecessary travel policies.
When will the Liberals allow Canadians to travel freely again?
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 3:06:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have followed public health measures and have made tremendous sacrifices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canada has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. Provincial health officials have followed the science to remove vaccine and mask mandates.
With all the provinces and most countries moving on from pandemic restrictions, why will the Prime Minister not follow the science and immediately end all federal vaccine mandates and restrictions on Canadians?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/22 10:58:12 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, the answer is simple. This is a government that tries to use excuses every time they have their backs to the wall because they are doing a bad job and because they are mismanaging. What I am hearing from the other side is complete irresponsibility over how to deal with the economy or how to even understand the economy. The Liberals are talking about figures, rhetoric and how much we spend, and are trying to pit Canadians against each other over their spending for COVID.
Now more than ever, they need to be responsible. They need to understand what inflation can do to the loonie and what inflation can do to the currency. It is not buying as much as it should. They need to understand the economy before they talk about it, stop the rhetoric and get to work.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 12:03:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct some of the facts for my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona.
Could the member deny how happy Albertans are now, since some, or even most, of the restrictions have been lifted, and how relieved families are at all levels that life is going back to normal? I am sure the member is receiving as many emails as I am about how happy people are about their lives going back to normal.
I am not sure if the member's speech reflects the reality of Edmontonians and Albertans with respect to this situation and the lifting of restrictions. I hope the member will take this opportunity to correct the fact that Albertans and Edmontonians are happy, and everybody wants out of the pandemic.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:35:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this crisis started on January 7. The government knew about it for six weeks, but all of a sudden, it was an emergency.
Is the hon. member convinced that the government is not doing this for any other reason than a power grab?
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:16:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yesterday, I was listening to a speech of an NDP member who was talking about the far right and the far left. I will call members of the NDP today the far lost. They are lost and do not remember their history. Quebec is remembering the history, but the members of the NDP are not. I would call on those members to vote no today just to be on the right side of history.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:14:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can see that the Bloc Québécois and Quebeckers remember that dark chapter when people were arrested without any link and victims were lumped together with criminals. At that time, what was done was unnecessary and it was done on an imaginary basis. I will support an apology to Quebec and Quebeckers, because I believe that chapter of our history has to be turned forever.
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:12:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member can call it by whatever name, at the end of the day, the action and the effect of it is what will be remembered by Canadians for generations to come. Let us not divide on this issue of the name, as the Prime Minister, her boss, has been doing in dividing Canadians for the last years, and we have seen the outcome of that right now. That is my answer. I hope that hon. member will be able to stand on the right side of history and vote against this draconian bill.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:01:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me begin by wishing all Canadians a happy family day. Today is supposed to be a day for Canadian families to celebrate and enjoy being a family, with all the peace and prosperity that they deserve. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister chooses to be the sole architect of this crisis, which we have been talking about for the last few days.
We stand at a crossroads in the House today. It is by this motion, and no other, that this Parliament, and the men and women in the House of Commons today, will be remembered. During the First World War, Canadians saw the War Measures Act imposed for the first time. Under that act, more than 8,500 men, women and children of Ukrainian background were interned in 24 camps across the country. Many of them had been born in Canada.
Their rights, including the right to vote, were ignored by the government of the day, and Parliament and the people of Canada remained silent to those injustices. It was only in 2005, with the passage of the Internment of Persons of Ukrainian Origin Recognition Act, that some redress was made to the descendants of those who were abused by the government, acknowledging that what was done was wrong.
In early 1942, the government of Canada used the War Measures Act to intern more than 21,000 Japanese Canadians. They were held for the duration of the Second World War. Their homes and businesses were seized and sold to pay for the detention. Once again, Parliament and the people of Canada remained silent about the mistreatment of citizens. It was only in 1988 that the then prime minister Brian Mulroney apologized for this wrongful act by the Canadian government.
The last time the War Measures Act was used was during the October Crisis of 1970. The government of the day imposed it because of a perceived insurrection, which turned out to be much less of an insurrection than the government had imagined. Hundreds of Quebeckers were ousted from their beds in the middle of the night and held without a trial, only to eventually be released without apology. Their supposed crime had been to show support for an unpopular idea, which was Quebec's independence. The government of the day lumped them together with those who had committed the crimes, unable to separate the difference between beliefs and actions.
If that sounds much like what has happened in Canada over the past few weeks, that is because it is. The government does not seem able to grasp that it is possible to disagree with a policy and to protest against that policy without being dangerous to society, so it invoked the Emergencies Act. As former NDP leader Tommy Douglas famously remarked in 1970, it is like “using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut”. The government has failed to prove any justification for this action. In effect, it is using the most draconian piece of legislation at its disposal to fix a parking problem in downtown Ottawa.
Members of the government ask us to trust them on this matter. They tell us that their actions will remain consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They tell us that there are no plans to call in the army.
Pardon me for looking at the government's track record and taking those statements with a huge grain of salt. I am sure government members are sincere and believe what they are saying. Unfortunately, as we have seen, their actions are frequently quite different from the high ideals of their words, and it is by their actions that they will be judged, not by their flowery language.
I would challenge any member from the government side to explain how freezing the bank accounts, without a warrant, of persons who have not been charged with a crime is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does the action apply only to those who have illegally parked their vehicles in downtown Ottawa? What about their families? Does it extend to those who have liked the “freedom convoy” on Facebook? How far will the Prime Minister go to silence those who disagree with his policies? We should just watch him.
We have all heard stories about the government's no-fly list, which prevents thousands of people with alleged terrorist connections from air travel. We all agree that such a list had a purpose. However, that list of names is just that. It does not include passport numbers, dates of birth or other information to better identify those who may not fly. That means we regularly hear of those who are banned from air travel because their names are on the list, but they are not the ones who are targeted. A five-year-old child with the same name as a terrorist had no redress when turned away at the airport.
Forgive me for wondering how we can trust the government to freeze the bank accounts of only those who have taken part in the Ottawa protest. It would be simple to arrest those on the scene. Instead, it is making it more complicated, and it is sure to make mistakes. Telling Canadians that the government respects the Charter of Rights will be cold comfort when it makes those mistakes and starts seizing the bank accounts of people who have no connection to the protests. Canadian citizens who have done nothing wrong will have the government seizing their assets, and they will have no redress.
Government members will tell us that this could not happen. I ask members to remember the no-fly list and ask themselves if they believe it.
Over the past week, I have received hundreds of phone calls, as I am sure is the case for every member in the House, not just from constituents, but also from other concerned Canadians. Some are angry at the state of our country. They do not understand why the federal government is not following the science in bringing an end to various mandates. They demand action.
Many more, though, are afraid. They are afraid of the direction they see Canada taking. They see division in the House of Commons and in the country. Many blame the Prime Minister for creating those divisions. Others blame politicians.
One woman I spoke with, a senior citizen, was in tears. She loves Canada. She is horrified at what we are becoming. After two years of the pandemic, she feels helpless. She is looking to Parliament to show leadership, and what she sees is a government attempting to divide Canadians instead of unifying them, a government that denies the right to peaceful protest for anyone who disagrees with its policies, a prime minister who is too afraid of others' viewpoints to even meet with them on Zoom.
I encourage all hon. members, as we cast our vote today, to consider their place in history, remember the abuses by governments past and ask ourselves if the situation at hand warrants the method being used by the government. Let us put aside our different political party identities and come together to vote as Canadians.
The nation is watching us now. Will we pretend that we are living in 1917, 1942 or 1970, or will we show that we understand that, in 2022, Canadians must not be abused on a whim of a prime minister? History will remember our actions.
1245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:45:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, history has taught us that giving any government or politician too much power or too much money leads to a dictatorship style of governance. How much does this motion and this experience remind us of history?
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
