- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Edmonton Manning
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,026.29
- Government Page
- May/3/24 11:12:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years, shady business has become the government's status quo.
It has recently been revealed that the Prime Minister's only Alberta minister was sneakily cashing cheques from a lobbyist who secured $110 million in contracts from his own government, even from his own ministry. Not only that, but until two weeks ago, he was listed as a director of Global Health Imports, a company winning over $8 million in government contracts. The smell of a looming scandal is undeniably pungent.
Despite that, time and time again, the minister has sat quietly in this House and hidden behind his government House leader, claiming he did nothing wrong. If he is so innocent, why does the Minister of Employment not stand up in this House today and tell us how much money he got from his lobbying side hustle?
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 11:46:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are speaking of two types of residents. I receive so many complaints from Canadians, from Albertans, from my riding and from his riding, my neighbour riding, about the carbon tax.
The hon. member needs to convince his own constituents about the carbon tax and explain how crazy life has become since it was increased. He and his party have supported the government in increasing the cost of living for Canadians, as well as the cost of groceries. If the member can convince his own people in Alberta, then I will be satisfied.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 11:52:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the second anniversary of the NDP-Liberal love affair, this nonsense government chose to vote for a 23% hike on the carbon tax, making the cost of gas, groceries and home heating even more expensive. This will cost the average Albertan an extra $911 per year.
The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Why is he still ignoring the 70% of Canadians and the seven premiers who want to spike the hike and axe the tax?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:38:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the speech from the member was sort of all over the place. I just want to ask him a very simple question: Is he aware of the closure of so many day cares in Alberta because of the $10-a-day program?
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:35:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about wanting to solve the environmental issues, but only from lens of what suits Quebec. It does not suit other places, such as Alberta, where the temperature was -50°C a few weeks ago. The carbon tax is not working. Emissions are not being reduced, and Canadians are paying more than they receive.
If the system is not working, does the member believe that we should continue with it, or should we halt it to move to another way of dealing with the environment?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:53:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we believe that we should not impose things on the provinces, as the government is doing to Alberta specifically. We will not interfere with the way British Columbia is doing its business now.
As for the calculation the member is speaking about, reason and logic tell us that if something does not work we should not repeat it. This carbon tax does not work. This carbon tax is not reducing emissions. It has clearly become a tax rather than a climate solution. That is why when we bring our own proposal to Canadians, our own platform, it will be based on logic and on solutions that are going to make a difference, reduce emissions and help reduce the effects of climate change.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 1:38:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, the environment is on all our minds these days as we see images of more than 100 wildfires raging in my home province of Alberta. Thousands of people have had to flee their homes. The provincial government has declared a state of emergency.
As I mentioned in my S.O. 31 last week, such situations as these remind us that the circumstances people endure may be uncontrollable, but we can definitely control our response to them. Canadians understand the need to work together. I am thankful to those across the country who have travelled to Alberta to assist the firefighting efforts.
One of the biggest strengths of our nation is the willingness of Canadians to come together in a crisis. We support each other because that is the Canadian way of doing things. On behalf of everyone in Alberta, I want to thank those from other provinces and territories for standing up to fight the wildfires.
With the environment on our minds, we turn to consider an environmental bill, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. What is the big rush with this bill? Suddenly, the government is in a hurry to pass this legislation; it has come to the point where the government has to limit debate. I find this somewhat amusing. It introduced pretty much the same bill during the last Parliament, but that one failed to pass because the Prime Minister thought an early election was more important.
Protecting the environment is something Liberals talk about a lot. We have heard them talking about setting targets for carbon emissions. We do not hear them talk about how the government has never met a target that it set for itself. Talk is easy. Doing something seems to be more difficult.
Bill S-5 is the first major overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act since the 1990s. Much has changed since then in our understanding of the environment and climate change. The bill is long overdue; however, given the lack of priority the Liberals have given this issue in recent years, I am surprised they feel it is important to limit debate.
When one looks at the legislation, one cannot help but be disappointed. The bill is not really about environmental protection; it is about updating the rules. There is no doubt that many environmental rules need to be updated. Those on toxic substances come to mind. So much can change in 20 years, but there is nothing new here besides vague and undefined promises.
Many pieces of legislation that have come before this House highlight the stark differences in the visions of Canada put forward by the Liberals and the Conservatives. Conservatives put people first, seeking to make the lives of ordinary Canadians better through sensible financial policies. We understand that the government is not supposed to magically create jobs; rather, it should create an environment where the private sector sees opportunities to create jobs.
This bill recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment. It would require the Government of Canada to protect this right, but it would leave it up to the minister to develop an implementation framework and tell us how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of CEPA.
Several years ago, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made recommendations regarding national standards for clean air and clean water. I would have expected them to be included in this legislation. Maybe the minister will get around to including them in the implementation framework, but it would have been nice to have them included so that we could see what the government is planning and make some suggestions for improvement, if needed, in the House.
With all due respect to the minister, I am curious as to what is considered a “healthy environment”. In many ways, the concept goes far beyond the scope of this legislation. Does it include the air we breathe? It most certainly does. What about access to clean drinking water? That goes without saying, although I suppose some communities under drinking water advisories would warn us that such a right has not been extended to all Canadians. Is a healthy environment access to affordable, healthy food? If so, where are the provisions to deal with the inflation the government has created? Yes, the bill would deal with toxic chemicals and with obvious environmental hazards, but there is so much more that needs to be done. I will admit to being a little concerned as to what the minister thinks a healthy environment is, and I hope that, when the definition finally comes, it will be science-based and not sprung out of ideological dogma.
As I have mentioned here before, the current government has a habit of making pronouncements highlighting its environmental plans, then not following through. I hope that, this time, its members really mean what they say. Certainly, the legislation is long overdue. We know so much more about the environment, climate change and the need for action than we did 20 years ago.
It is certainly time to modernize Canada's chemicals management plan. I would suspect that, given rapid advances in industry, we may want to take another look at the plan in a few years. As a nation, we need to be proactive, making sure the environment is properly protected rather than waiting for an industrial accident that could cause harm to the environment and to the Canadian people. The risk-based approach to chemicals management proposed in Bill S-5 makes sense to me.
Last week, I spoke in this chamber regarding Bill S-6, which is an attempt to reduce the mountain of governmental red tape that Canadians face. It seems that, everywhere we turn, there are more regulations. It is almost as if they were breeding.
It is important to have regulations regarding the environment. We need to ensure that our air is fresh and our water pure, not just for today, but for future generations. We hold the environment in trust for our children and grandchildren. Sometimes, though, regulations are unnecessary; they add to the mountain of red tape without achieving what they are supposed to achieve. This is why I am please that Bill S-5 sets out to remove unnecessary red tape from our environmental regulations.
We need protections, but they should be necessary ones. Given the limited scope of the bill, I would not be surprised to see more environmental regulations from the government. Chemicals management and toxic substances are not the only areas of environmental protection that are concerning Canadians.
In this House, we are all committed to protecting our environment, although we sometimes differ as to what the best approach would be. Canada remains the envy of the world for our clean water and clean air, as well as the natural beauty of our country. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same healthy environment that we have today. If we can leave our planet and its environment healthier than it was when our parents passed it on to us, then that will be a fitting legacy.
Revisions to our environmental protection laws are long overdue. Perhaps the government has not acted quickly enough, but it is acting. Perhaps the provisions of the bill do not go as far as some would have liked, but the bill is a beginning. It is not the all-encompassing legislation that some would have hoped for. It is a modest beginning that addresses a need. At least it is a start.
1277 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/23 11:10:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as wildfires rage across Alberta, the people of Edmonton have opened their doors and their hearts to those fleeing the devastation. Adversity brings out the spirit of community adopted by the pioneers who settled our province in the face of much hardship.
Many times, we have no control over the situations we find ourselves in, but we can control our response. Canadians come together in a crisis. We support each other, because that is the Canadian thing to do. Albertans and Canadians understand the need to work together. I am grateful to those across the country who have travelled to Alberta to aid the firefighting efforts.
On behalf of everyone in Alberta, I want to thank those from other provinces and territories for standing with us to fight the wildfires. I hope the federal government will do the same.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 2:05:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, runaway inflation is hurting Canadian students. The University of Alberta campus food bank is facing the highest demand ever. In the past year, the food bank has gone from serving fewer than 300 families to having more than 1,100 clients. Most of these new food bank users are international students.
Four litres of milk is $1 more than last year, and it costs 60¢ more for a loaf of bread. That may not seem like much to the Prime Minister, but it is a hardship for students on fixed budgets. With price hikes already on textbooks and rent, it is no wonder students cannot afford to feed themselves.
Why is the government making it so hard for students to be successful?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.
I come from a province that for years was under-represented in this House when its population was taken into account. For years, Albertans felt there was an injustice in the way seats were apportioned in the House of Commons, until more seats were finally added in 2011 to allow fair representation for my home province.
Canada has always been a place of competing interests, of give-and-take between provinces and regions. As a nation we have always tried to strike a balance, knowing that compromise is necessary but not always acceptable to everyone.
In theory, we agree with the principle that each member of Parliament should represent a riding with a similar number of electors. It may not be a perfect system, but it allows constituencies to be more or less equal in population size and makes it possible for a member of Parliament to serve his or her constituents without being overwhelmed by the numbers.
Of course, we do make allowances for history. No province can have fewer MPs than it does senators, and we have agreed that no province should have fewer MPs than it did in 1985. That explains why Prince Edward Island has four ridings with a population size of about 35,000 people each, while ridings in Nova Scotia are double that population. In Quebec, most of the ridings have more than 100,000 people, as do all the ridings in Alberta, except for one.
We have accepted this disparity in the name of national unity. The system has worked well on the whole, and, as I mentioned, the number of MPs was expanded in 2011 to allow for more representation in this House, especially for Alberta and Quebec. I have to wonder, therefore, why the government desires to change the rules once more.
As population shifts, so do riding boundaries and representation in this House. That is something we all understand and accept, or maybe not all of us. Looking at the bill, I wonder what sort of precedent it sets and what sort of message it sends about democracy in Canada. How do those who are already feeling jaded about the state of our political system feel about the rules apparently once more not being applied fairly?
In any sports contest, the rules are agreed upon before the game starts. Both teams take to the field knowing what they must do in order to win. They do not pause midway to suggest rule changes because they have decided that the rules they started with were not good enough. I know that may be an imperfect analogy, but I am sure this proposal to redistribute seats and change the 1985 benchmark looks that way to many Canadians. Someone does not like the rules of the game, so they want to change them.
The population of Canada is constantly shifting. Our cities are growing bigger. Some regions are attracting more immigrants than others. The reasons for demographic change are many, varied and complex. In this House we are tasked with finding a balance between competing needs or, more accurately, competing wants. The latest census data, as examined by Elections Canada, would see the addition of four more seats to this House to take into account the increase in our nation’s population. Given the increasing workload of members of Parliament, I doubt there is any member of this House who would disagree with the conclusion that more seats will enable MPs to better serve constituents.
The problem is that under this impartial formula, Quebec would lose a seat in the House of Commons. Those from that province are understandably concerned that their influence will be lessened, though there would still be more MPs from Quebec than from the three prairie provinces combined and Quebec would still have more MPs than it did 20 years ago.
What are we to do here? We could guarantee that Quebec would always have the same number of seats it does now, which is the intent of this bill. There are those who believe it important to recognize the historical importance of Canada’s only francophone province. Would that be enough? What if the population of Quebec continues to shrink? This bill would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that when the number of seats in the House of Commons is redistributed after each decennial census, no province would have fewer seats than it had in the 43rd Parliament. At some future time, will we want to guarantee an even more uneven distribution of seats as a tribute to what once was? What will the 50th Parliament wish to address, or does our living democracy mean that this House will only tackle this question in the future?
After all, the House of Commons is the people's chamber and should be representative of the population across the country. Conservatives respect the fundamental constitutional principle of representation by population that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1991. However, we acknowledge that sometimes, as is proposed by this bill, there are other considerations, and deciding which considerations are more important is a difficult task.
This bill reflects a motion that this House considered last month, which stated:
That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.
Coming from a province that will receive three more seats in the next redistribution and received additional seats from the last one, I understand the desire of members from an area of the country not blessed with Alberta’s growth to preserve what they have. The question we must ask and hopefully answer is this: Is this the wisest course to take? This Liberal bill preserves the redistribution formula created by the previous Conservative government’s 2011 Fair Representation Act, which added 30 new seats in the House of Commons. That was a huge jump in representation, much larger than the one about to be implemented, and perhaps set the stage for where we find ourselves today. Instead of giving a larger workload to members of Parliament and adding the resources necessary to do the extra work, this House chose to increase its size. How long can we continue to expand in this way?
The Liberal government has made many promises on electoral reform but has failed to even start an honest discussion on what this House should look like a decade or a century from now. We should be having a longer and deeper discussion on how we want to govern ourselves. Until we do, we will be passing this same act, with slight amendments, every decade or so. Is that the way we want to run a country?
1163 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
