- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, the next petition is in support of a private member's bill, Bill C-257, which would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The petitioners note that Canadians should be free from political discrimination. This reflects a broad opposition to Canadians facing arbitrary discrimination; protection from political discrimination also ensures that Canadians will be able to express themselves on important issues of the day without fear of employment or other reprisals. Therefore, the petitioners call on the House to support Bill C-257.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, next I am pleased to present a petition in support of a Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-257, which would add political belief or activity to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The petitioners identify that all Canadians have a right to be protected against freedom from discrimination, that many Canadians face political discrimination or discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity, and that it is a fundamental right to be politically active and vote without fear of reprisal. They say that it is in the best interest of Canadian democracy to protect public debate and the exchange of different ideas.
As Bill C-257 would add this additional language to the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would protect people from political discrimination and create an environment where people can feel free to express themselves on important issues of the day without fear of reprisal.
Therefore, the petitioners ask the House to support Bill C-257 and defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 4:05:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present a number of petitions to the House on behalf of my constituents.
The first petition I will present today deals with the issue of parental rights. The petitioners note that the Liberal government has sought to involve itself in decisions that should be made by parents and provinces.
They further note that the Conservative leader has criticized the government's attempt at interference in this area and called on the Prime Minister to butt out of provincial decisions. In particular, they reference the New Brunswick policy in this respect.
They say that, in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them much more than any state-run institutions do. The role of the government is to support families and respect parents, not to dictate to them how they should make decisions for their children. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to butt out and let parents raise their own children.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my second petition is in support of a private member's bill, Bill C-257, that would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. There are prohibitions on discrimination of various kinds in federal jurisdiction, but no such prohibition on discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity. The petitioners note that it is a fundamental Canadian right to be politically active and vocal, and also that protecting this right benefits our democracy and leads to great vitality in our public debates.
The petitioners want the House to support Bill C-257.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:58:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition calls on the government to butt out of decisions that should be made by provinces and parents. The petition is in support of the rights of parents to have a role in their children's lives without the interference of the state. It notes that in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them much more than any state-run institution does.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:24:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling deals with another human rights issue in the same region. It deals with the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Petitioners identify the history of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, including, but not limited to, the horrific practice of organ harvesting. The petitioners want to see the House take additional action to raise the plight of Falun Gong practitioners and to seek to hold those responsible for this persecution accountable through sanctions and other means and to continue the work on combatting forced organ harvesting, which the House began with the passage of a private member's bill on that issue.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 10:29:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, next, I am presenting a petition that is in support of Premier Blaine Higgs in New Brunswick and his policy to protect the rights of parents. The petitioners want to see the federal government butt out and not try to insert itself into decisions that should properly be made by provinces and parents.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today.
The first is from some great people from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I want to thank them for signing this petition in support of Bill C-257. It is a private member's bill put forward by me in the House to combat political discrimination.
Petitioners note that it should be a protected right in Canada to be free from discrimination on the basis of political views, yet there is no such protection in the Canadian Human Rights Act. They support this bill, which would add political belief and activity to the Canadian Human Rights Act as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:40:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here debating an important motion about human rights in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover. A couple of members have said we should not be debating this. We do not need to be debating this for the full three hours. Those members have proceeded to give lengthy speeches on the subject. Of course, those members know the process is if they think it should maybe collapse on an item, then the most effective way they bring about that result is by not speaking to it. I am referring in particular to my friend across the way from Winnipeg North.
My friend from the Bloc, of course, found ways of connecting all kinds of other issues into the discussion, as sometimes happens in this place, but I do want to ask him a question about Afghanistan. I would like to hear his views on what we in Canada can do to concretely promote democratic development in Afghanistan. I think some people look at the situation and they feel a certain kind of fatalism. I believe there are still things we can do and we need to do to stand with the people of Afghanistan, that we cannot give up on the cause of freedom and democracy.
What does he think that Canada can concretely do to support the people of Afghanistan in their desire to realize democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law?
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:31:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the point that privilege has priority in this House. The Standing Orders do provide that when there is an issue at committee that involves the rights of members to speak, the ability of members to not be interrupted, the imposition of time limits and contravention of the rules or the orders adopted by that committee, that it is an issue that can be brought to the House. This is a new standing order: Standing Order 116(2)(a) and Standing Order 116(2)(b). It is new material in the Standing Orders, so the member for Winnipeg North and other members may not be familiar with it. It does not have, of course, the same history as other provisions because it is new.
However, this clearly violated the privileges of members. It is being brought to the House because Standing Order 116 specifically invites members to bring such matters to the House. There were multiple instances, in fact, where the member for Calgary Skyview limited the ability of members to speak, interrupted them and stopped them from being able to move forward. I will go through those examples for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, and then look forward to your ruling after that.
The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands highlighted that in his view, the member for Peace River—Westlock should be able to join the debate. This was on October 31 at 3:30 p.m. He said, “ If one of the independent members or a member from the Green Party were to walk in and sit down at this table, they'd be able to join in this debate. This is a debate on a motion. It's not a substantive part of committee policy. Right now we're debating a motion, and they'd be able to join into the debate.” There was various back-and-forth among members about whether a member who is not subbed in can still participate in the debate on the motion. As members know, it is long established and consistent with Standing Order 116 on the application of the general rules of the House to committees that a member should be able to speak as part of a motion, regardless of whether they are subbed in.
The chair ruled against the ability of members to do that and, as such, I raised a question of privilege on this matter in committee. I draw members' attention to about the 4:20 p.m. to 4:25 p.m. mark on October 31. This speaks to the second issue of limiting time. I was given the floor to speak by the chair, following a request from the member for Lakeland about the speaking order. It was at that time that I sought to move a question of privilege with respect to the operations of the committee.
The member for Lakeland said, “Chair, just so we can all have confidence, can you review the speaking list again?” Subsequently, the chair said that the speaking list was me and then the member for Timmins—James Bay. Therefore, at 4:25 p.m. on October 31, I was able to take the—
538 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:22:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member said it was a point of order. He was actually making arguments regarding the question of privilege, which he will have an opportunity to do. He is intimately involved in these proceedings and, I am sure, will have a great deal to say about it.
I did begin my remarks, which maybe the member for Timmins—James Bay was not listening to, by mentioning that I am speaking in the context of the provisions of Standing Order 116(2)(a) and (b), provisions that, by the way, I mentioned in the discussion at the committee. The member may or may not recall that during some of the back and forth at the natural resources committee, I informed the Chair and the member for Timmins—James Bay, as well as other members, that they should be careful about whether or not they respect the rules, rights and privileges of members because, unlike what was the case in the past, there is now a provision of the Standing Orders whereby members can seek a remedy in the House.
The member would be right most of the time, but he should have heeded my warnings in this case because I read Standing Order 116(2)a) and (b) to him and to other members in committee, and I have read them in the House again. They do speak to my right to highlight violations of privilege. If the member wants to speak to the issue later, he can. I, of course, think this is an extremely important issue of privilege.
We see the complicity of the NDP; in fact, in some cases, the NDP is worse than the government in trying to shut down members of Parliament and deprive them of their right to speak. I think workers in the member's riding and across the country will take note of that.
I would like to provide you with the evidence that I am speaking of in terms of how Standing Order 116(2)a) and (b) was violated in the proceedings of the natural resources committee. It was violated in a number of ways. The first instance was when the member for Peace River—Westlock was seeking to be added to the list of speakers and was in fact arbitrarily prevented from doing so. Committee rules allow any member who is present, even if they are not a regular member of the committee or a substitute, to be able to participate in the proceedings of the committee, with certain limited exceptions. They cannot vote, but they can participate by speaking, etc.
I will draw the attention to the House of when the incident happened. It was 3:50 p.m. on October 31. This was a continuation of the meeting of the natural resources committee that began on October 1. Mr. Viersen had been seeking to have himself added to the list. I apologize. This will be challenging because I need to cite some evidence from the transcript. I know that in committees it is our convention to use surnames; of course, in the House, we do not use surnames. I will do my best to switch it over in every case, but I apologize for my error previously and I apologize in advance if I err again. I will do my best.
Mr. Charlie Angus: Oh, oh!
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay is very keen to get into this conversation. Frankly, I am sure he is embarrassed right now because his conduct at committee was—
602 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the next petition expresses support for a private member's bill, Bill C-257, which would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds for discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Petitioners know how fundamental and important the free exchange of ideas is in a democracy and that discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and threats to employment and the like, against those whose political beliefs an employer or others may disagree with, undermine the free exchange of ideas.
Bill C-257 seeks to remedy that. Petitioners ask the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of all Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is in support of Bill C-257. This is a private member's bill I have put forward that would add political belief and activity to prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The petitioners say that it is in the best interests of Canadian democracy to have a free public exchange of ideas, to protect the political speech of those with different points of view and to protect them from the possibility of discrimination or punishment for their perspectives.
The petitioners ask the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today.
The first is in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-257. The petitioners raise concern about the problem of political discrimination in Canada. They note that Canadians can face discrimination on the basis of their political beliefs and that this limits free debate and exchange of ideas. Bill C-257 would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The petitioners ask the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief this morning. I have only three petitions to share with the House today. I would say to my colleagues that I will do better in the future.
The first petition is from petitioners who are very fond of a particular private member's bill, which happens to be one that I have put forward in this House. Bill C-257 is aimed at combatting the growing problem of political discrimination, that is, people facing discrimination on the basis of their political views or activity. They note that it is a fundamental Canadian right to be politically active and vocal, and it is in the best interest of Canadian democracy to protect public debate and the exchange of different ideas. Bill C-257 would add protections against political discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act by making discrimination on the basis of political views or activity prohibited grounds, alongside various other grounds.
The petitioners call on the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of all Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions without discrimination.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am presenting is on a private member's bill, Bill C-281, the international human rights act, from a colleague of mine. The petitioners highlight that Canada should be committed to upholding the protection of international human rights. Therefore, they call upon the House to pass Bill C-281 to add protections against human rights violations and to promote a stronger role for Parliament in responding to those violations.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do think it is material to the requirements here that the government made a last-minute change to the schedule with respect to the calling of Bill C-47. Members became aware of it for the first time in the Thursday question, which was very late in the day yesterday.
I understand that it is common for members to write to the Speaker in advance, and that is ideal, but it is ideal under circumstances in which members have sufficient time. As I am going to raise in a question of privilege shortly, there was a mad scramble, which limited the rights of members in terms of submitting amendments. Therefore, some degree of recognition of that fact is important in this case, in light of the fact that the government is trying to limit the ability of members to move amendments and make arguments by these last-minute changes to the schedule. I hope that is part of the consideration as well.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:47:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his work. It is a pleasure to work with him on the matter of Uyghurs' rights and other important human rights issues.
It is important to underline how the threats that were made against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills followed the leadership he showed in recognizing the Uyghur genocide issue. The fact is that Canada's Parliament was the first in the world to pass this motion. In a way, this is a recognition of how important that moment was in catalyzing the global response. It was a proposal vote that had such an impact on the discussion that it catalyzed some of these responses and threats. However, the government still has not been willing to take the step of recognizing that.
Does the member think that now would be a good time for the government to recognize the importance of this issue and recognize the Uyghur genocide?
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions that I will table relatively quickly.
The first petition is in support of Bill C-257, which is an excellent private member's bill put forward by me. It seeks to prohibit discrimination on the basis of political activity or belief by adding reference to political belief or activity to the Canadian Human Rights Act. One effect of this is that people could bring human rights complaints against social media companies if they were facing political discrimination by those companies.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is also in support of a private member's bill, Bill C-281, which is currently before the foreign affairs committee.
Petitioners note the importance of Canada's standing up for the rights of ethnic, religious and other minority groups targeted by human rights violations around the world, and they see this bill as an important step and an important tool in that fight for greater Canadian engagement in international human rights. They want to see the House act quickly to adopt Bill C-281, the international human rights act.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
