- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- Mar/20/24 10:45:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, let us be very clear about the precedent that was set by the Speaker's decision with respect to the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake. When there are regimes that are clearly deplored by all parliamentarians, by all Canadians, and that are subject in some way to sanctions by the Government of Canada, then casting those kinds of aspersions to say that members in the House are affiliated with or are supportive of those regimes has been deemed to be unparliamentary. Of course, it is the sort of the thing that someone has the freedom to say outside the House in the same way that someone has the freedom to call another member a “liar” outside the House. However, members do not have unlimited ability to say whatever they want while still being within the parameters of what is allowable under parliamentary procedure.
The Speaker ruled, and the Speaker has ruled in similar cases, that making the direct, clearly false claim that members of the House are affiliated with or supportive of regimes that are deplored by all parliamentarians and all Canadians, such as the Putin regime or Hamas, is deemed unparliamentary. The Chair is now applying the precedent that was set to the member for Etobicoke Centre, who claims to care about partisan unity on this issue but clearly does not. He is clearly trying to drive a partisan agenda for electoral purposes, not for principled reasons, which is unparliamentary. The member for Etobicoke Centre has rightly been called to order, and he should rethink the approach he is taking if he actually cares about advancing the cause of Ukraine.
276 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 9:56:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, tonight, we were actually supposed to have a take-note debate on the agreement on security co-operation between Canada and Ukraine, something that I think we all agree on.
This member is intent on sowing division and being hyperpartisan, so let me point something out to the member. He pointed out that President Zelenskyy may have disagreed with the position we took on a particular trade deal. Let us talk about a disagreement between President Zelenskyy and the current government. Early on in the conflict, the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was actually summoned by the Government of Ukraine, an extraordinary step. The ambassador was summoned as a sign of the Ukrainian government's displeasure with the Liberal government's action. What was that action?
It was the Liberal government's decision to grant a waiver of sanctions regarding those Siemens turbines. It was the Liberal government trying to facilitate the export of Russian gas that was fuelling Russia's economy and Russia's invasion. The Government of Ukraine was deeply concerned that Canada was undermining global sanctions unity and was pushing toward a reality of Swiss-cheese sanctions that would be ineffective. The government should be ashamed of what it did, and it was only the Conservatives pushing back that led to the change.
Will the member apologize for his shameful role in allowing that exemption in the sanctions?
232 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/4/23 1:00:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, maybe there are more I am not aware of, but my understanding is that we have three former Speakers in this chamber: the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming and the member who is speaking.
I think it is important to hear from members with specific expertise on the role of the Speaker who have been Speakers. They understand the pressures on them far more than I do, as I have fortunately never had to take off my partisan colours for any reason.
I want to hear what the member's experience is and what he has to say.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the government right now, through this bill, is asking for more power. It is saying it wants to be able to exercise greater influence over ports, and particularly over the process of appointments. It wants to take over what has historically been the role of the board itself, to select its chair. The government wants to appoint that chair itself. The government is coming to Parliament asking for more power when it comes to appointments.
If we are going to evaluate that desire for power, I think it is important to look at how the government has used this power in the past. We can see with the vast powers of appointment the federal government already has that there have been many instances of clearly partisan filters as opposed to competence filters being applied by the government, whether in an attempt to manage away sensitive issues by appointing people who are close to the Prime Minister or by looking at who has donated to the Liberal Party when considering appointments.
I do not think it is reasonable for a government that has so clearly failed to demonstrate a commitment to competency in appointments to then come back and ask the House to give it more power in the area of appointments.
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are less than an hour into debate on this important government bill on Afghanistan, debate that is, in my view, a year and a half too late. It shows the partisan political approach of the Liberals to immediately try to throw this important debate about Afghanistan over the side and shift to something else.
Beyond that, I would challenge the member to actually be aware of what is happening in the foreign affairs committee. The study that allegedly I have been filibustering has actually finished now. We have been through four hearings at the foreign affairs committee on that study, and I would invite the member to listen to some of the very thoughtful and insightful witnesses. We heard some witnesses from western NGOs. We also heard witnesses from throughout the developing world who shared their particular perspective on these issues.
I would welcome the member to actually come to the committee, as I have never seen her there before, to review the blues, listen to the witnesses and maybe be aware of what is actually happening at committee before she tries to divert an important debate on Afghanistan with something else.
195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 10:33:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the House has sat for three weeks thus far this fall, and the government did not call Bill S-5 on any of the days in those three weeks. The government has clearly demonstrated that Bill S-5 is not a priority, and I suppose the member could talk to his House leader about why the government has not chosen to prioritize this bill.
This issue of supporting the Russian opposition is critical. We felt it that was valuable and important to have this debate at a time when Evgenia Kara-Murza is in Ottawa, engaging in this advocacy and supporting the Russian opposition. This is an opportunity for all members to call for Vladimir Kara-Murza's release and to express our support for the Russian opposition.
Later today, the government will have an opportunity to call whatever legislation is its priority. The government has most of the day available to it, but there are some limited opportunities the opposition has to raise its priorities and this is one opportunity. We have chosen to raise this important issue of supporting the Russian opposition in a non-partisan way, and we hope it gathers the support of all members.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 7:00:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been working on a private member's bill initiative for the past six years. People were working on the same initiative for 10 years before that, and it has not passed yet. It is something everyone agrees on. That just shows that, when the government has the regulatory power to solve a problem, saying one should wait 15 years for a private member's bill is not very helpful.
I think members could reasonably draw the conclusion, from the statement of the parliamentary secretary and from the statements of ministers, that the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state, and I think some Canadians will take some comfort in that. However, it is a little frustrating that the parliamentary secretary could not provide a clear response to a clear question, and it is not a partisan question at all. It is simply saying that it is up to the government, in a sense, to define in the context of its foreign policy what states it considers friendly and not friendly, for the purposes of the act. Presumably, courts would refer to statements and opinions of the government, when considering what is a friendly foreign state.
Why will the parliamentary secretary not simply and clearly state that, for the purposes of the act, the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state?
228 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 11:41:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member's speech was very much on point. The Liberals always claim that other people are being partisan when they do not want to support an obviously good idea that has the support of the rest of the House and the support of Canadians. It is important that we being forward a substantive issue at a critical time and it is too bad that it sounds like the government is not going to support it.
I was struck by the last question from the member for Winnipeg North, in that he implied that more support should be offered by provinces and by universities when in fact the federal government has been criticized for not stepping up to provide basic assistance for those coming from Ukraine. Those who are coming are not technically considered refugees under the refugee category, which means they do not have access to federal programs that normally exist for people in that situation.
I wonder if the member from the Bloc wants to comment on the fact that the government has been heavily criticized by the Canadian Ukrainian Congress and others for not offering support to those who come from Ukraine, and then the member is using the needs for support as an excuse for not allowing visa-free travel. The government should be offering that support, but why not let people come through the visa-free travel channel since the government is not currently offering that support as it is?
247 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:27:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last week in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister made deplorable comments, accusing the member for Thornhill of standing with those with swastikas. Those comments were rightfully called out by the member's predecessor, Michael Levitt, a well respected member of the House of Commons who never resorted to the kind of partisan approach that we have seen from the Prime Minister or even, at times, from this member. Michael Levitt said on Twitter that it is disappointing to see the swastika politicized in the House of Commons or anywhere else.
Is the member willing to stand with Michael Levitt and recognize that the Prime Minister's comments last week to the member for Thornhill were inappropriate?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
