- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- Feb/13/24 6:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have more respect for the charter than I believe this member of the government has. Notably, they have chosen, in the case of the Emergencies Act ruling, to appeal a court ruling. In the case of the Truchon decision, made by one judge, they chose not to appeal. I think this was clearly because the ideological minister of justice at the time was desperate to justify the expansion of the already flawed regime. Therefore, the government arbitrarily chooses not to appeal certain rulings when it likes the ruling and to appeal other rulings.
This is not about what the courts have said. The government has consistently pushed an ideological agenda that goes far beyond what the courts have said, and the mental health provision has absolutely nothing to do with the court ruling.
The members opposite would sometimes like to dispense with an actual substantive engagement on the topic and just say they are going to let other people make the decision. However, it does not wash, especially in the case where they chose not to appeal the ruling.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite, in her speech, spoke a little about following rules, the rule of law and so forth.
I think that it has been interesting over the last few months. We have seen the incredible disregard that this government has for our institutions and for adherence to rules. We had the court rule, for example, that the government's imposition of the Emergencies Act was unlawful. We have seen, even today, how institutions are undermined when we have people in positions of authority, such as the Speaker, making outrageous rulings without any basis or precedent.
Can the member explain why her government and its partners in various positions consistently ignore precedent, ignore rules, ignore the law and think that they are somehow above the rules?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, respectfully, your description of the events is distinct from what happened. The Speaker has said that a member of this House, prior to him making his final ruling, will be prevented from speaking.
The problem with the Speaker is that he is continually inventing new rules and applying ideas that are completely outside of the precedents of the House. If he is coming back to the House with a ruling, then the member for Battle River—Crowfoot should be able to be present prior to that final ruling, but—
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:52:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Chair needs to clarify whether the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot will be able to speak prior to your further ruling. I appreciate you would like to take the time to—
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 11:50:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, you have very clearly made a ruling with respect to a standing order on reflecting on a vote. This is not a matter of what individual members want or prefer, it is simply a matter of enforcement of the ruling you made.
This member is continuing to show disrespect for the Chair, which is against another standing order, by doing everything he can to make a point that the Speaker has said he cannot make. It is not for me to say what the standing order should or should not be or what the Chair should or should not have ruled, but this member is showing profound disrespect to—
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:37:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best but I am constantly interrupted.
Standing Order 116 directs us to bring these matters to the attention of the House. I believe the member for Winnipeg North supported the addition of Standing Order 116(2)(a) and (b). This was a proposal from the previous government House leader, I believe. He could propose further changes to the Standing Orders, if he does not believe that members should be able to bring these matters to the House.
Here is what happened at 4:25 p.m. on October 31, at the natural resources committee. I began to speak. I was given the floor. The chair said that he was going to ask all members; there was myself and then the member for Timmins—James Bay. I began to speak. At the time I said that I would seek to move a privilege motion at committee regarding the breach of privilege for the member for Peace River—Westlock. I said that the chair had breached his privileges by refusing to allow him to speak on Bill C-69.
I would ask the Speaker to review the record regarding the breach of privilege as it pertains to the member for Peace River—Westlock.
This is not the only instance. At 4:25 on October 31, I took the floor and spoke to the matter of privilege. There were various repeated interruptions as I sought to make the argument. I, nonetheless, continued to make the argument in the midst of those various efforts to silence those arguments regarding the privilege.
The chair did not, at the time, issue a specific ruling about whether or not this was, in his view, a matter pertaining to privilege. As members know, if a question of privilege is raised at committee, the chair then makes a determination, if he sees it as being a matter relating to privilege. If he deems it to be so, then a debate ensues on privilege.
The chair did not specifically say that he considered it a matter pertaining to privilege, although my understanding at the time was that it was a matter pertaining to privilege and he had deemed it so, because he allowed the debate to continue.
Again, I go to, at 5:05, the chair, the member for Calgary Skyview saying that I had the floor, where I left off. At that point I continued and the debate continued. Actually, it continued through until the end of the meeting on October 31, and then it resumed, the same meeting of the natural resources committee resumed on November 1. I still had the floor.
The chair said that when we concluded the last meeting, I had the floor and he wanted to provide me the opportunity, and asked whether I would like to cede the floor or continue. I said that upon serious reflection of the matter, I had decided I would like to keep the floor because I had more to say and would do so.
Thus, I continued on the point. This was on November 1. Subsequently, the chair, I gather having maybe learned some rules that he had not previously been aware of, and of which there are a good many, said much later—
547 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:08:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, just logically, I am confused by the arguments from the member for Winnipeg North. He is saying that the Speaker is, in his view, about to make a ruling, and, therefore, that the member should wait to hear the Speaker's ruling before making arguments that would be material to the Speaker's ruling. It seems to be quite logical that members would want to make arguments to the Speaker prior to the Speaker's ruling, in order to inform the Speaker in their deliberations about what ruling they are going to make.
The Standing Orders are also explicit about the fact that oral arguments may be part of the deliberations around which amendments are put forward. Standing Order 76 describes not only the procedure whereby members may write to the Speaker, but also the procedure whereby members may address or be called upon to address the Speaker with oral arguments. It is fairly rare that we are in the situation where this is necessary, but insofar as the situation is necessary, the procedure being followed by my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, is clearly anticipated by the Standing Orders.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
I want to, respectfully, just draw your attention to an exchange that I had with the Speaker on June 9 of this year. The context was that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul sought unanimous consent for a motion and was cut off in the middle by the Speaker because of a number of nays.
I asked the Speaker, “Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could clarify the process. Is it your ruling going forward that if a member is saying 'no', you will stop the reading of the motion? I think we have had cases where some members were saying 'no' and yet the member continued with the unanimous consent motion.”
The Speaker ruled as follows. He said, “In fact, I have been getting this from both sides. Both government and opposition members have been asking for that exact type of behaviour, rather than let it all go through. Sometimes unanimous consent motions are used as a method of getting a message across, but that is what S.O. 31s are for. If we can just shift everything over, we can use it that way. We will do our best to make that happen.”
Given the precedent set and given the cutting off of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul on June 9, I ask that this be taken into consideration in future moments like this.
243 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 3:10:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could clarify the process. Is it your ruling going forward that if a member is saying “no”, you will stop the reading of the motion? I think we have had cases where some members were saying “no” and yet the member continued with the unanimous consent motion.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
