- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I think the member just gave an excellent and powerful speech about the importance of listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
I know from talking to community members across Canada that there is wide support for the proposal. There are many different communities that see the negative impacts of IRGC violence: the Iranian community, the Jewish community, the Iraqi community, the Lebanese community and the Yemeni community. Communities in South America are also talking about how the Iranian regime is spreading its violence and collaborating with authoritarian regimes in South America.
We are going to vote on the motion on Wednesday. I think it is going to pass, based on what the opposition parties have said. We will see what the government does. At the end of the day, what we need is executive action or the passage of my bill, Bill C-350. It is not good enough to just pass a motion. After the motion is voted on, and if it passes, what should we expect the government to actually do? A motion like this one passed before, six years ago, and the government has done absolutely nothing in six years. We will pass the motion, I hope, on Wednesday, but we need to hold the government's feet to the fire because what really matters is whether something actually gets done.
227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on Bill S-205, a bill that comes from a Conservative senator and a Conservative member of Parliament. It is a Conservative initiative aimed at combatting domestic violence.
Before I speak specifically about this bill, I do want to pay particular tribute to Senator Boisvenu, who is responsible for putting this bill forward. Senator Boisvenu has seen the impacts of this kind of violence on his family. He has turned personal tragedy into public advocacy, standing up for victims of crime. He has devoted his energies in the Senate and outside of the Senate to standing for justice and for the inclusion of victims' voices in various processes.
I want to take this opportunity to recognize his incredible work on this bill and on so many other different areas. He is now retiring, and I think all members from all sides in the other place and in this place would pay tribute to him, his commitment to public service and his work. Bill S-205 is one of many proposals he has put forward for combatting domestic violence and other forms of violence, as well as standing up for victims.
Bill S-205 seeks to deal with orders that go against perpetrators of domestic violence, which a judge would issue in order to protect victims and control the perpetrators' activities. In particular, it would create a mechanism where a judge can mandate that a perpetrator would wear an electronic monitoring device and also that victims would be consulted in the process of judges making decisions about the kinds of orders that apply to perpetrators.
These initiatives make sense. They are common sense. They would give victims of domestic violence a greater sense of security, and I believe they would reduce subsequent violence and would save lives.
Unfortunately, what we have seen in the process of this bill making its way through Parliament is that members of the Liberal government supported amendments at committee that would weaken the bill, so here we are in the House at report stage, which is when this bill comes out of committee, and Conservatives are working to add back in some of those critical sections that were removed at committee. There is a lot of discussion in this place about combatting domestic violence, but when the rubber hits the road, we have Liberals voting against critical measures that would actually protect victims of crime.
Victims of crime are not primarily concerned about words of solidarity from politicians. There are a lot of politicians who say they have had enough, that enough is enough and that it must stop, but the rubber hits the road with the concrete legislative initiatives we put forward that punish perpetrators of this horrible crime and that create the kinds of mechanisms, such as electronic monitoring, that will allow victims of these crimes to feel safer.
It is disappointing that, while having words to say about the problem of domestic violence, Liberal members have not actually supported the constructive initiatives that Conservatives in the other place and in this place have put forward.
As well, I wanted to mention an issue I have been working on and advocating for, and that is more bystander intervention training. I think one of the ways we can combat crime, domestic violence and other forms of violence, is by empowering bystanders, people who may be outside of a situation and see things that are going on, to know how to respond, how to intervene and what kinds of tools are available to them. I have been to a number of bystander training events, including in my own community, and I think these are very powerful tools for combatting this kind of violence. We have focused a lot, as we should, on punishing the perpetrator and protecting the victim, but I think we can also look at other people, bystanders and potential bystanders, in terms of how to engage them. I have put forward Motion No. 57 in the House that deals with promoting more bystander intervention, awareness and training, which I think is another step we should be talking more about in terms of combatting domestic violence.
Fundamentally, this is a phenomenal bill, a great bill, and I want to again recognize the excellent work of Senator Boisvenu throughout his life and career standing for and with victims of crime. However, it is unfortunate to see efforts by Liberals and others to water down these kinds of initiatives. Words of solidarity are not enough. We need action, we need policy, to punish perpetrators and protect victims. Those concrete initiatives are going to really make a difference to vulnerable people in our society. I hope that the House will support Conservative efforts to reverse the watering-down amendments at committee and to strengthen this bill again so that we can do the work that everybody talks about, which is to protect victims of domestic violence.
830 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 4:15:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the comment that my colleague just made, that essentially there are instances of zealous practitioners who may be going very far in terms of determining that someone is eligible when they should not be. Part of the problem with the euthanasia regime we have is that it allows doctor shopping. It allows somebody to find two doctors who may not be representative at all and may not be the attending physician, and asking them, “Would you sign this, please?” They may get approved even if they should not meet the criteria.
Conservatives proposed in the last election platform that we should require MAID assessors to complete MAID assessor training to ensure full awareness of and compliance with the laws and best practices around MAID. Would the member be supportive of the proposal that we put forward to have specific MAID assessor training to try to have more consistency and less arbitrariness and fewer instances of people shopping around?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that many Canadians are struggling right now. I would challenge her to reconsider her participation in the confidence and supply agreement with the government as a result. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on whether more federal spending on federal bureaucracy, sticking its nose into provincial jurisdiction, is actually going to improve the lives of, for instance, kids who are hungry in schools.
I want to ask the member about the bill before us, Bill C-62, and the situation around euthanasia and facilitated suicide in Canada. Because of the challenges we are seeing, with people facing pressure and people being offered or having euthanasia pushed on them, in our last election platform, Conservatives proposed that we would protect the right of patients to choose to receive care in a MAID-free environment. That is, by protecting the conscience rights of physicians and health care institutions, we would preserve the right of patients to choose to be in a hospice or a health care facility where they know they would be offered life-affirming care.
There are many Canadians, I think, who want that. They do not appreciate being in a situation where government bureaucrats, health care officials or bureaucrats in other departments are pushing, promoting or encouraging them to choose a path they do not want to take.
Does the NDP support our proposal to protect the right of patients to choose to receive care in euthanasia-free or MAID-free spaces?
252 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to address the House on Bill C-29. My understanding of the schedule today is that I have about 12 minutes and then we will continue when we next come back to the bill. I know some members are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to ask questions or make comments, but they will sadly need to wait until this bill is next up for consideration.
It has been a pleasure for me to listen to many of the interesting and insightful speeches that have been given by my colleagues. There might have been a few less interesting and insightful speeches given, but I will not name any names.
I wanted to, first of all, identify some of the key aspects of this bill and then drill into a few specific areas around reconciliation. Bill C-29, for those just joining us, deals with the creation of a national council for reconciliation. This is a body that was called for in the calls to action associated with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and it now seeks to, through legislation, give life to that specific recommendation by creating a council that would be responsible for, in various fora, providing advice and recommendations around reconciliation. This specifically responds to calls to action 53 through 56.
I would just note out of interest that we do seem to see a number of these legislative proposals from the government for the creation of advisory councils or bodies that would be representative of some community of concern and provide advice to the government on specific issues. What I always look for in these kinds of proposals is whether these advisory bodies would have the capacity to authentically represent the people they are supposed to represent or whether these advisory bodies are subject to such a level of control by the government that they would be more limited in being able to be representative or operate independently.
I can think of a similar case of the creation of an advisory body on child care, where the government said it was going to create a child care advisory body. In every case, the impulse of the government is to say it is going to create this consultative advisory body that will be an important stakeholder that will inform it of situations on the ground, but then to, at the same time, create a system in which the power of creation of appointment, and maybe in some cases in an ongoing way and in other cases just in the first instance, is by a minister. This obviously creates challenges for that body to be authentically representative or to challenge the government with an alternative conception of how to proceed in a policy area that may be different from what the government is proposing.
If the government says it wants to have an independent body advising it that is going to be championing specific issues such as child care, reconciliation and some other issue and yet it is going to choose the people on that body, then to what extent is that body able to be a meaningful check on what the government is doing? This is an important area of caution in general. I would hope to see, and suspect the framers of the calls to action were more thinking of, a council for reconciliation that could provide that check on government.
I note the legislation, Bill C-29, does identify certain organizations that should be represented on the council. The problem with that is if the minister is still choosing the individual, that there must be someone from this group and someone from this group, or if the minister exercises a greater degree of discretion for a majority of those individuals, again that creates some obvious problems. It is something we need to be cautious about.
I note as well, as my colleagues have, there was no representation for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Members have pointed out in questions and comments it is possible the council might choose someone, in replacing a position, with an affiliation with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but it is also possible it might not. The fact that there are protections for the inclusion of specific voices and not for the inclusion of the voice that represents indigenous people living off reserve is a problem as well, and one that Conservatives have highlighted.
We have also spoken about economic reconciliation, and I will come to that. However, I want to add to the conversation with some reflections on diversity in procurement and on the inclusion of indigenous businesses in procurement. This is something that has been on my mind and the minds of many members today, of course, with the release of the explosive arrive scam report from the Auditor General. This report contains a variety of findings that I know we have had an opportunity to discuss and will have more opportunity to discuss in the House. Basically, the Auditor General found multiple levels of incompetence and corruption in government procurement associated with the procurement of the arrive scam app, with $60 million spent, but no certainty about how much money was actually spent; a complete lack of documentation and tracking; a two-person company that was hired, with no IT experience, to do an IT application; and on and on. Why in the world was this company hired? Who made this decision? We are still asking these questions.
However, the Auditor General's report builds on work that was done by the procurement ombudsman, who identified aspects in the procurement system that are loaded towards insiders. This is important for the discussion that I want to have in the context of the bill before us, which is diversity and inclusion in the context of procurement.
For a long time, there have been asks from indigenous business owners. I have also met with leaders in the Black business community and representatives of other communities, who are saying that they want to see more inclusion of businesses from their community in the procurement system. Governments have talked about this. They have set targets, which they have not always achieved. There has been discussion about whether we should set quotas or targets, how we should do this, and all of that.
However, if we look at the existing system, and this was revealed through the procurement ombudsman's report, we have a situation where there is actually strong protection in place for incumbent businesses. Therefore, we had a situation with GC Strategies, which is not what we think of as an incumbent business. It is not massive; it is a two-person company with lots of close connections with government. It gets the work, it subcontracts and it makes a lot of money in the process. There are a lot of problems there. However, we have this incumbent business with close relationships to the government. Then we find out that GC Strategies sat down with the government to discuss what the terms of the contract were going to be. Therefore, this company has a significant advantage, because it is sitting down with people in government that it has a relationship with, and it says, “We think you should ask for these specifications in the contract.” I think that process is effectively rigged.
The government then puts requirements in, where it says, “You have to have a certain amount of experience of having procured with the government.” This is a structure that advantages existing incumbent businesses with a lot of privilege. If a company is part of a historically disadvantaged community, such as an indigenous business owner or a business owner from another community who does not have the same privilege of access or incumbency in the existing system, then it is disadvantaged. It is not a matter of saying that people who may not have the best product should be advantaged. No, it is actually saying that, if we took out the protections for insiders who are not providing a good product, which is clear in the case of ArriveCAN, then we would probably see more diversity in procurement. If we had a more open, democratic, accessible procurement process where we were not protecting incumbent bidders, I think we would see more indigenous-owned and minority-owned businesses being able to engage in the procurement process.
When we talk about this issue of economic reconciliation, providing jobs and opportunity for people of diverse backgrounds, one easy way to do that is, to coin a phrase, to remove the gatekeepers. We can break down the systems in place that are preventing people who are in a situation where they may not have generational money, privilege or access to government, but who have good ideas and who have started their own businesses, from being able to access government procurement.
Part of economic reconciliation is to authentically democratize procurement to allow the opportunity for more businesses in Canada that have not sold to the Government of Canada before to nonetheless pitch their product as the best product. The other thing we heard from the procurement ombudsman is that they actually had a system for disadvantaging those who present low prices. It is crazy. People who did not ask for enough money when they were selling their product to the government got cut out.
One can imagine how, for someone who has not sold to the government before, but who says that they know what they are doing, that they can build this app, that they have a great product and that they are going to charge less to try to get the business, to still make a decent return but to try to charge less, with the existing system that the government has put forward, that new entrant, who might be trying to pitch at a lower price, is actually disadvantaged in the evaluation system purely because of the low price he has charged.
We want to create jobs and opportunity for all Canadians. Part of how we do that is by removing the gatekeepers that prevent authentic diversity and inclusion in our procurement system.
I might be on the verge of being done. When I come back, I will have more to say about economic reconciliation, jobs and opportunity for indigenous Canadians and how Conservatives will remove the gatekeepers to help make that happen.
I know that there is some discussion of a possible UC motion to allow me to speak more, but I think I will save the surprise for when I come back.
1773 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 10:17:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition raises concerns about and expresses opposition to proposals for the expansion of euthanasia to include children.
It notes a proposal to legalize euthanasia for minors, including even very young children. Petitioners find the proposal deeply disturbing. They believe that killing children is always wrong and they call on the government to block any attempt to legalize euthanasia, killing or facilitated suicide for minors.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/23 10:24:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the fourth and final petition I will table for today is from petitioners who are deeply concerned about proposals to legalize the killing of children under the rubric of so-called medical assistance in dying. The petitioners find these proposals deeply disturbing, and they call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children in Canada.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague and look forward to working with him on the government operations committee with the revisions that have been made to committee memberships.
When it comes to indigenous engagement, I think it is important for that engagement to happen and for it to be driven by the particulars of the circumstances in terms of where the port is. Just because of location and where indigenous nations are, it seems to me that there would likely be significant variation in terms of the approach taken, depending on where those ports are and what nations are proximate, how many there are and so forth.
The member's proposal is an interesting one, but any kind of mandating and structure from us in Ottawa should be done very carefully, if at all. A better approach would be to recognize the need for local boards to make evaluations and determinations around how this proceeds.
To his point about indigenous representation on the board, it is the power of the minister to make these appointments. The minister currently, without this legislation, has the power to determine who sits on the board. The minister could appoint members. I suppose what he is suggesting is not so much that. Maybe he is suggesting the nations themselves would be able to make these appointments. I welcome him to further illustrate what that structure could look like, and I am sure he will make those points if the bill gets to committee.
251 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 3:20:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order arising out of question period. There were a number of important questions about McKinsey's offering a proposal to Purdue Pharma to help boost opioid sales here in Canada. I do wonder if there would be unanimous consent to table the important story from The Globe and Mail, which highlights these issues from the 2014-15 period.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 1:17:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights concerns about the dramatic expansion of euthanasia under the government, and in particular a recommendation to allow euthanasia for infants. The proposal to legalize the euthanasia of infants is a matter of grave concern for these petitioners, and they call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to legalize the killing of children in Canada.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 1:01:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise the member that I do not agree with her characterization of the Conservatives' role in this. We have been putting forward constructive solutions from the beginning. We have been proposing policy ideas that the government could take. Our motion is very clear in putting forward policy solutions. It does not contain any shots at the government in terms of the policy proposals that are being put forward. It proposes solutions. If the House could get behind these solutions, then I think we would have a clear road map for going forward. I am proud of the role we have played in holding the government accountable and also in being constructive in the approach we are taking.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 10:23:09 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is also on an issue of human rights and freedom of conscience and religion.
It highlights the Liberal 2021 platform proposal to deny charitable status to organizations that have different perspectives on the issue of abortion than the Liberal Party does. This threat to the charitable status of organizations that do not share the political outlook of the government could jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations doing important work. The proposal from the Liberals follows a previous proposal for a values test associated with the Canada summer jobs program. Now they want to apply it to charitable status in general.
Petitioners argue that charitable status should be allocated on a politically neutral basis based on objective criteria, not based on agreement with the political positions of the government of the day. They call on the House, therefore, to preserve the application of charitable status on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, to not impose new values tests and to affirm the right of freedom of expression for all Canadians.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 10:20:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition responds to the horrific, unprovoked genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine and the human rights crisis it has caused.
Petitioners want to see the Government of Canada immediately waive visa requirements and grant visa-free travel to Ukrainians. This was a proposal that had the majority support of the House but sadly does not have the support of the government.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, again, to the parliamentary secretary, we are not disputing the significance and importance of making changes in this regard. The issue is that it has been 18 months since the fall of Afghanistan, nine months since the Afghanistan committee made these recommendations and I think four or five months since the foreign affairs committee adopted a recommendation that mirrored those by the special committee on Afghanistan. Now we have a proposal that is potentially unwieldy.
We need to study at committee how to make it work better and to make it work more effectively. I am hearing from stakeholders that it is better than nothing. However, we need to figure out how to make sure that not only the timelines for passing this legislation will be addressed but also the timelines that charitable organizations will be needing to get support to the ground.
I wonder if the member could share a bit about what amendments the government would be willing to support, especially when it comes to ensuring that all organizations will be able to access these exemptions on reasonable terms, in a reasonable time frame and that especially small diaspora-led organizations will be able to access this process in a reasonable way so that we are able to get aid to the ground in Afghanistan as quickly as possible.
223 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will say that the announcement our leader made last week was quite historic. It was so historic that the place where he made the announcement might one day be designated a historic site. The important point about that announcement was that, in the current situation, we are seeing so much gatekeeping at the municipal level. We need a federal government that is prepared to stand up and say, across levels of government, on the funding the federal government provides, that we need to ensure barriers are removed and housing is getting built.
There are a variety of different factors that influence the price of housing, but a key one surely has to be the supply of housing. If there is not enough housing supply, then prices are going to be pushed up. I will say that it was a historic announcement by our leader, and it will be proven to have a very significant impact. Conservatives have been proposing a number of different measures around improving access to housing for a long time, including opening up federal lands and other such measures. Our leader is taking this as an important step further with these historic proposals.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 6:43:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting highlights a proposal in the 2022 report of the Minister of National Defence's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination, a proposal that ironically was itself discriminatory. It calls for the exclusion of clergy from religions that have a different view on gender and sexuality than the Department of National Defence.
The petitioners call on the government to reject those recommendations and to affirm the right of all Canadians, including the Canadian Armed Forces chaplains, to freedom of religion.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/23 10:16:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the third petition I am tabling is similar to a petition tabled by a number of my colleagues. It relates to a proposal made by Louis Roy of the Collège des médecins du Québec recommending the expansion of euthanasia to “babies from birth to one year of age”.
This proposal from such an association is deeply disturbing to Canadians. Canadians generally recognize that killing children is always wrong, and the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call on the Government of Canada to be clear in its opposition to this proposal and block any attempt to allow the legalized killing of children in this country.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/22 10:38:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions I want to present. The first is similar to that presented by my colleague.
The petitioners highlight, with horror, proposals from the Quebec college of physicians to legalize euthanasia for babies. They find this proposal deeply disturbing. Infants cannot consent. Killing children is always wrong. Infanticide is always wrong. There is no justification for proposing to legalize the killing of children.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children for any reason.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 3:23:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to table today.
The petitioners are deeply concerned about a proposal from Louis Roy of the Collège des médecins du Québec, who recommended expanding euthanasia to “babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes”. This proposal for the legalized killing of infants is deeply disturbing to many Canadians.
The petitioners take the view that killing children is always wrong. They call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 11:18:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to pick up and follow the comments made by the member for Timmins—James Bay. The Conservative Party has been very clear in its support for Ukraine and in pushing the government to do more. Certainly, our focus is on federal politics and on Canada's need to engage internationally in a principled way when it comes to supplying the weapons that are required.
I think the member for Timmins—James Bay should reflect on the failures of his own party in this respect. His party, from what I understand, continues to call for unilateral nuclear disarmament as a supposed solution to the international threats we have seen. Unilateral nuclear disarmament by NATO countries would leave us that much more vulnerable to threats and pressure from the Putin regime.
We are having this discussion with the NDP through our colleague from the Bloc, which is a bit unfair to him in some ways, but I wonder if I could ask him to share his thoughts on the proposal of unilateral nuclear disarmament and what the impacts of that would be.
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
