- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- May/28/24 12:09:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the costly, crooked, cover-up coalition engaged in corrupt practices in the arrive scam scandal. The Auditor General's report revealed that the government rigged the process, which was that senior officials sat down with the well-connected insider firm, GC Strategies, and discussed and arranged the terms of a deal, which GC Strategies would then bid on. It was able to rig the process, discuss the terms of the deal, which it then bid on and, surprise, got the contract. However, we still do not know why the NDP-Liberal coalition went to such lengths to favour GC Strategies.
Let us paint the picture. GC Strategies is two guys who work out of a basement. They do not do any actual work on projects; they simply receive the contracts and then subcontract them and take massive commissions along the way. It would be as if the member for York—Simcoe and I went out and started Lake Simcoe Enterprises, did no work but just got contracts and passed them along. That would be a good deal for us, but it would be a bad deal for taxpayers.
Why is it that the government did not simply hire the IT professionals to do the work rather than going through a couple of middlemen sitting in their basement who know nothing about IT and whose only business is to go on LinkedIn, find people who can do the work, then get the contracts, find the people to actually do the work, and collect millions of dollars in commissions in the process?
However, the government chose the two people from GC Strategies. The government chose this company to be the favoured son of Liberal corrupt procurement. Why were they chosen? We still do not have an answer to that. Maybe the parliamentary secretary will be able to explain it to the House.
Frankly, we have seen that the government, the Prime Minister and the people working under him, have persistently rigged the process to reward insiders and punish taxpayers, and the process is broken. We will hear Liberals say, “Well, those Conservatives will make cuts. What will they spend less on when they are in government?” I will tell members; it is not rocket science. If there is a two-person firm that receives the contracts then passes them along and does no work in the process, it seems pretty uncomplicated. I mean, it would be ideal to cut out the contracting in general and have the work done inside government, but at least cut out the middleman.
GC Strategies has rightly gotten a lot of attention. It has done very well under the current government. It was founded in 2015 and has done extremely well under the NDP-Liberals. However, there are over 600 different companies doing IT middleman contracting and subcontracting, doing so-called staff augmentation for the public service. This is out of control, and it involves massive amounts of money. There has been a dramatic growth in public service spending but also a dramatic growth in contracting out at the same time, and a substantial amount of the contracting out is going to do-nothing middleman companies and is going to advice from professional services.
Why is the government spending so much and getting so little for Canadians?
560 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. We have heard many excellent speeches from Conservative colleagues tonight about the importance of the energy sector, jobs and opportunity.
After nine years of the Liberal government, it is clear that its policies are not working, and it is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption. We will get to that, but in the context of the bill, certainly, it is not worth the cost.
However, the good news is that, after nine years, there is hope on the horizon. Canadians know that it was not this way before the extreme NDP-Liberal coalition took power, and it will not be that way once we have a restoration of common-sense leadership in this country.
Could the member share a little more about the promise associated with a restoration of common-sense leadership in this country and how his constituents are reacting to that?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 5:26:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would have expected a thicker skin from that member, especially given what he says about other members.
Here is the point: He is, through this line of argumentation, trying to exploit what may be a gap in some people's understanding of the mechanics of the parliamentary process. The way the process works is that when we are voting non-confidence in the government, we are voting non-confidence in the government. Through that vote, we are expressing the fact that we do not have confidence in the government.
Of course, if we go through the budget, we would find there are specific measures we would maintain, and there are specific measures we would change or alter in some way, naturally. We have been clear, and we will continue to be clear that we do not have confidence in the NDP-Liberal coalition. We do not have confidence in it because of the damage it is doing in this country and, in part, because of its failure to actually deliver the support Ukraine requires.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:59:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know members have been missing me over the Christmas break. It is good to see everyone back and to be restored to my friends here in the Chamber. It is sad in a way, because many of them will not be here after the next election. We should spend as much time together in fruitful, substantial debate as possible.
The point is that we have a concurrence report regarding the actions of the Speaker. It should have been a clear case. After repeated instances of partisan activity by the Speaker, including an incident involving being in the Speaker's office, wearing the Speaker's robes and so forth, it should have been clear that the Speaker would not continue with the confidence of the full House.
However, the governing coalition, backstopped by the NDP, chose to defend scandalous behaviour. The NDP is consistently tied up in knots, because it wants to be tough and challenge the government. It wants to be in opposition and in government at the same time. However, Canadians can see the hypocrisy. They can see how, every time there is an important vote or Liberals are under investigation, which is a lot these days, their friends in the NDP will back them up.
We are calling for a restoration of integrity in politics, where people do the things they say and where they are consistent in what they say, regardless of where they are or whom they are talking to; where politicians do not take on an office and then do things that are contrary to the requirements of that office; and where politicians do not attack the government on the one hand and then provide them with a blank cheque on the other hand.
That is what this debate is fundamentally about. I challenge the NDP, in particular. Liberals are going to act in a scandalous way, but the NDP should stop covering for them. What I said when this coalition deal came about was that we were at risk of getting the worst of both worlds: NDP economics and Liberal corruption. That is what we have: radical left-wing NDP economics with typical, same old Liberal corruption.
366 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 11:15:01 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is a good opportunity to talk about how we are getting to the end of the year, and we are well over the NDP's red line. Do members remember the NDP convention, where the New Democrats said that they would ensure their plan is supported by the government? Then they said, “Oh, it is actually flexible.” The New Democrats continually cave to their coalition partners, the Liberals. I would say that the member should first focus on trying to get his coalition partners onside for whatever the New Democrats are proposing. There is a long history of the NDP putting forward things that would allegedly save us money; to be charitable, I will say that it does not always—
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 11:13:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think what I was talking about in my speech was very clear. That is the reality of how the government, in the midst of talking about the issue of replacement workers, is actually bringing in foreign replacement workers.
The member for Windsor—Tecumseh said I should visit and meet with the people who are going to be working on these projects. Actually, I would love to be able to go to Korea and do that.
The Liberal government is bringing in foreign replacement workers. It is trying to bury and hide the contracts. The NDP is now complicit. To their credit, the Bloc has been working with the Conservatives to try to expose these contracts. It is the costly cover-up coalition that wants to hide the contracts from workers.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 11:11:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it would seem that I correctly foresaw exactly what the member's question and comment would be.
He got up and said that this is the best deal we have never seen. He said that it is unbelievable how good a deal this is for workers. However, he did not address the fact that he is going to the government operations committee and filibustering to cover up the release of these contracts. Actually, it is worse than that, because the NDP flip-flopped. There was a little filibustering from the Liberals, and the NDP said, “Okay, we will fold to the pressure from our colleagues in the costly, corrupt, cover-up coalition, and we will agree to hide the contracts.”
I agree with the member on one point. He said there was an incredible sense of optimism in Windsor. I have seen the rallies and the number of people who have come out to hear the member for Carleton speak in Windsor. It is incredible. People in Windsor know that, after eight years of NDP-Liberal rule and of this corrupt government, hope is on the horizon with the member for Carleton.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on Bill C-33.
I hope members had productive summers in their ridings. It is good to be back to reconnect with my colleagues on all sides of the House.
Bill C-33, on the face of it, deals with the technical subject matter of port and railway systems in Canada, but I think this bill also exposes a philosophical gulf that exists between those of us in the Conservative Party and, frankly, those in the other three parties, in how they act and vote, if not how they always sound. The Liberals and their coalition partners in the NDP have an approach that emphasizes a big, centralized government that is constantly seeking to weaken the decision-making powers, not only of private individuals, but also of the institutions that are supposed to hold delegated authority and respond to local circumstances and independent economic factors. Their agenda is a centralizing one, pulling that authority away from individuals, with losses of their freedom, and pulling that authority away from institutions that are supposed to be able to operate independently.
We have the Bloc, and I think this was demonstrated by the speaker before me, wanting to rhetorically position itself as being a decentralizer, but in fact, if we look at the way Bloc members vote, we see their support, for example, for the Liberal carbon taxes, in particular the second carbon tax, and it boggles the mind that a party that, on the one hand, says it wants to divide the country and make Quebec its own country, is on the other hand, supporting these kinds of from-Ottawa measures that impose additional costs on Quebeckers.
It is becoming clear that Conservatives stand alone when it comes to offering a different vision, which recognizes the role, yes, of the federal government, but also the richness and diversity of experience and capacity that exists across this country and, therefore, supports affirming the decision-making responsibility of other institutions, provinces, municipalities and, in this case, port authorities and recognizes the importance of having a multiplicity of different institutions making decisions that respond to those local circumstances.
This is an important bill in its policy implications. However, it is also an important bill in the way that it demonstrates a Conservative vision of emphasizing strong institutions, respect for arm's-length institutions and divisions of power, our belief in big citizens as an alternative to big government, and the role of mediating institutions.
Bill C-33 is entitled “strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act”. My preferred alternative title is, “strengthening Liberal control of the port system”. It is not strengthening the port system, but strengthening Liberal control of the port system. It is on that basis, and for some of the reasons I have already indicated, that we do not support it.
I do, though, in passing, want to extend my best wishes to the outgoing minister, who tabled this bill and has since, from what I understand, announced his intention not to seek re-election. I know that he has been in public life for a long time. I wish him very well.
Those who are not as familiar may ask how ports function in Canada. Each port has its own board, and that board is able to act relatively autonomously. It is supposed to act at arm's length from the government, which includes electing its own chair. It is also supposed to be able to look at the best interests of the port. It is supposed to be able to look at what is in the economic interests of the country, but also of that particular region, taking those local factors into account. It is also supposed to be able to develop structures for engagement and consultation that, while reflecting broad, unifying principles, are appropriate to the particular local circumstances.
The way, for instance, indigenous consultation happens at a port may vary depending on the particular local circumstances, such as the proximity of indigenous nations and so forth. This ability of ports to act at arm's length recognizes that one size does not fit all. It recognizes that expertise, local decision-making and an understanding of local factors are very important in the case of port management and in general when it comes to government decision-making. Creating institutions that can be responsive to particulars of local circumstances is important. This existing structure of ports is a reflection of that reality, and it stands in contrast with the Liberal centralizing vision held, if not officially then certainly enacted by all of the other parties in this place, save for the Conservatives.
This bill seeks to make changes that bring ports, to a greater extent, under the domination of the central government. This is where we obviously part company with the direction.
On the structure of ports, members of the ports are appointed by the federal government. There is a federal role in making these appointments, and that does provide tools for influencing the direction of ports, but it creates a balance that allows autonomous, arm's-length action on a day-to-day level. However, the federal government is still selecting the individuals it believes to be appropriate.
The bill would change the authority structure in a number of ways. It would make the boards subject to ministerial direction and would also allow the minister to appoint the chair. The previous structure was that the minister appointed members of the board, but the board would then elect its own chair, which again still involves a substantial role for the government but gives the board more autonomy in identifying the person who is best positioned to lead the board. The new structure would involve the minister appointing the board members and also the board members appointing the chair. It would also make the board subject to ministerial direction and would mandate certain structures around environmental and indigenous consultations.
Those considerations and consultations are obviously very important, but the specific structures that may be appropriate can legitimately vary depending on the size of the port and the local circumstances. They could well be matters subject to innovation and exchange of information rather than the requirement of standardization.
This is a centralizing Ottawa-knows-best type of Liberal bill, and Conservatives are opposed to it. In many respects, this bill is a missed opportunity insofar as there are things that are important about how we could be strengthening our port and rail system, but instead, the Liberal approach to strengthening anything is to try to strengthen their control or involvement in that particular thing.
We are opposed to this expansion of direct government control over the ports for four main reasons, which I will now proceed to discuss. There is, first of all, a general conviction about the importance of subsidiarity; second, a concern about the current government in particular expanding its management of things; third, the Liberal record on appointments raising some concerns about why the Liberals are trying to pass legislation to give themselves more control and ability to shape direction through appointment; and finally, highlighting how scale differences matter at the port level, and there are particular reasons in this case why having a diversity of structures for how certain issues are engaged with is quite worthwhile.
First, on the principle of subsidiarity in general, I subscribe to the general principle of subsidiarity, which means that decisions should be made at the level closest to the people affected as possible. Better decisions are made when the local experiences of the people affected are harnessed. This comes from a basic recognition of universal human potential for responsibility and creativity. If they harness the views and experiences of more people who are directly involved a situation, they will get better outcomes than if there were a smaller number of people with less immediate experience involved in that decision. A belief in subsidiarity flows naturally from a belief in human dignity and human potential for creativity.
Our constitutional framework is designed to recognize the value of that subsidiarity, which is why not every decision is made by the federal government. We have areas of responsibility of provincial jurisdiction. We have strong municipalities, and we also have arm's-length institutions that act within the federal government. Subsidiarity is not incompatible with the belief that there are also certain kinds of decisions that are of a scale and a nature that do require larger levels of coordination or action by a larger entity, such as, let us say, the national government. The impulse to subsidiarity is not to say that no decisions should be made collectively because there are certain kinds of things where the nature of the scale requires that action.
I want to point out in particular that, in this context, our Conservative plan on housing does involve recognizing the need to push municipalities to do more in getting housing built. This is completely compatible with the principle of subsidiarity because we see a situation in Canada right now where we are so far behind in getting homes built that there is an urgency that requires more pressure to move forward. There has also been a lack of appropriate scale in considering the response to this.
Members will notice in the discussion on this that the Prime Minister has tried, at certain points, to say that this is not really his responsibility and this is not something that he is going to get involved in. However, the Prime Minister has a housing minister. The government seeks to create policy on this. It is just that the government's policy has been ineffective. In the plan that Conservatives have put forward, it is about pushing municipalities, setting targets for them and tying federal funding to commitments to move forward. However, it is not about taking away that authority from municipalities or trying to micromanage specific decisions. Rather, it is about using the tools we have to create incentives, define what a national objective should be and reward them for moving toward that objective.
This is just to illustrate that obviously, on certain areas, there is a vital role for the federal government to engage in, but there has to be a healthy interplay. With the Liberals, the irony has been that, on some areas where the federal government needed to engage, they have tried to avoid responsibility. However, the Liberals have, at the same time, tried to intervene, rhetorically if not directly, in areas that are very clearly not their jurisdiction, butting in on things that very obviously have nothing to do with the decision-making power of the federal government.
Again, as it applies in the case of ports, we can see the importance of local decision-making and the impulse of the government to ignore the role of local decision-makers and to move counter to this principle of subsidiarity, which is a principle that, sadly, the Liberals do not believe in.
In their ideal vision of the world, all of the decisions that are of significance to this country would be made by a small group of people inside the Prime Minister's Office, without even harnessing the full energies of our national parliamentary democracy. I think that has had some dire consequences in many obvious cases, and on this point I will move to the next, which is the challenges with the government's centralizing impulse in particular, in a context where the government has demonstrated profound incompetence in all aspects of our national life.
I will not have time to detail all of these points, but in a context where the government is failing to do its job, is failing to make life more affordable for Canadians and has failed on environmental policy, on housing and on many other fronts, it is nonetheless persistent in saying that it wants more control of people's lives and that it wants to be able to exercise more control and direction over previously independent bodies. I will point out as an obvious example, in one particular case, the on-again-off-again labour disruptions, or the back-and-forth associated with that, the harm that was done and the failure of the minister to resolve that situation.
Environmental policy is something that, rhetorically, we hear a lot about from the government, yet the government is missing all of its environmental targets while using environmental policy as an excuse to impose new taxes. The way the Liberals talk about it, if one does not support their tax plan, one is against taking action on the environment.
The reality is that the government's tax plan has made life less affordable for Canadians and has not actually allowed it to achieve any of its targets. Sadly, we see the other parties in the House, the NDP and the Bloc, in lockstep with the government in its insistence on imposing new taxes. This is a space in which the government is trying to take more control for itself again, telling provinces that they have to have a carbon tax or it will impose one directly from Ottawa.
It has not worked on many fronts. We can talk about the government's approach to passports. We can talk about its policy failures during COVID and about the fact that fewer houses are being built today than decades ago, even when our population was smaller. We have a government that has, across the board, been either incompetent or malicious, yet it is seeking more control over institutional decision-making, through Bill C-33. We are not prepared to give them that control.
The third point I wanted to raise around this is that we have a particular concern about the government's desire to use this bill as a tool for strengthening its power of appointment, in terms of its ability to appoint chairs of boards. We have heard numerous stories about the flawed approach the government has taken to appointments, appointing donors or consulting supporter information before making important appointments, trying to whitewash issues by appointing people who have close relationships with the Prime Minister. This is the way the government has approached appointments, so it will not be surprising that there is no appetite on this side of the House to give the government more control over the appointment process when the current system, the election of a chair of a board by the existing members of the board, is working just fine.
I will quickly make my last point, which is that, obviously, in terms of important decision-making, scale matters. There are many different kinds of ports that have very different circumstances because of such massive variations in the amount of traffic that goes through them. We recognize the importance of all ports. We want them to thrive and succeed in ways that reflect their local circumstances and the expertise of those who are running the ports. That means avoiding Ottawa-knows-best, Liberals-know-best and one-size-fits-all approaches to this.
In conclusion, Conservatives recognize the importance of freedom, local autonomy and subsidiarity. We reject the centralizing we-know-best approach of the Prime Minister and of the other three parties in the House that are supporting his vision. I believe that our alternative approach in opposing the bill and emphasizing local autonomy, expertise and the importance of community-based decision making is a much better approach and one that would be much better received by the Canadian public.
2609 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 2:54:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if there is nothing to hide, then why will the cover-up coalition not allow these hearings to take place? The fact is the Prime Minister is a member of the foundation. His name is on its annual report. Why is he still a member of the foundation? We would like to know. We would like to know why, after $125 million of taxpayers' money was given to this foundation, a foundation defined in statute as a government institution, it said the money was returned when in fact it was not.
Will this cover-up coalition end the cover-up and allow committee hearings into what happened at the Trudeau Foundation?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 2:52:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the costly coalition is also a cover-up coalition. Yesterday at committee, the NDP voted with the Liberals to shut down debate on our motion to investigate the Trudeau Foundation. This family foundation has been bankrolled by taxpayers and the Communist regime in Beijing. It said the money had been returned to the Communist regime. That turned out not to be true. Why is the costly cover-up coalition currently covering up corrupt conduct clearly concocted and conducted contrary to Canada's national interests? When will these hearings take place?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:10:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday an executive from McKinsey finally showed up at the operations committee. Opposition members were excited about the opportunity to finally ask tough questions of the company that fuelled the opioid crisis, helped Saudi authorities identify dissidents and received over $100 million in contracts from the Liberal government.
Liberal members were excited about the opportunity to pitch their resumés and consider career options for after the next election.
Liberals have long claimed that all the rules were followed in their contracts with McKinsey, but on Friday they admitted otherwise. A government press release contradicted the government House leader, saying that rules were, in fact, not consistently followed for the awarding of these contracts. There are no surprises here. Again, Liberals ignore the rules in order to reward their well-connected and ethically deficient friends.
It is time to privatize McKinsey. Canadians have had enough of the Liberal-NDP-McKinsey coalition. They want austerity for McKinsey and opportunity for Canadians. They want a government that will finally put the people ahead of the high-priced consultants.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
