- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- Jun/4/24 9:58:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been some suggestions about what my colleague's speech could have focused on, but normally the way speeches proceed in the House is that members choose particular themes that relate to what they are hearing from their constituents. Certainly, the rise in crime that has occurred under the NDP-Liberal government over the last nine years is a major topic of concern in constituencies across the country and is affecting many of the country's most vulnerable communities to a greater extent. People who do not have the means to protect themselves or secure their property in other ways are more vulnerable as a result of the rise in crime that has been driven by the failed policies of the NDP-Liberal government.
I wonder whether my colleague can share a bit more in particular about what he is hearing from people in his community about the negative impacts of the government's policies, the way that as soon as it took office there was a change in the trajectory of crime, with it dropping under the previous government and rising again under the now nine-year-old NDP-Liberal government.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 6:51:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, briefly, on the same point, the member knows very well that the comments he cited are outside the jurisdiction of the House. The precedence he cited are examples of statements that were made in the House and that have nothing to do with his apparent desire for the Speaker to go about policing what people say in conversations far beyond.
I do want to draw the attention of the House to something that occurred on June 13, 2022. The NDP House leader was giving a speech in the House and he said, “We have had absolutely wacko claims by Conservatives.” I will note that the NDP House leader was not called to order at the time. With false indignation, the NDP House leader wishes to call, on the carpet, people who have said words that he himself has said in this chamber and was allowed to say.
The point is that the Speaker did not call the NDP House leader to order at the time, and a precedent was established. If the NDP House leader is outraged by what has gone on, he needs to reflect and to consider the state of his own conscience and whether he has some words he needs to withdraw in the future.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:19:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity, although grieved by the necessity of raising this.
I am rising to draw the attention of the House to a violation of my privileges and the privileges of other members that relates to the provisions of Standing Order 116, which I will briefly read. It pertains to the work of committees:
In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
At the end of debate, which is the crucial point under (2)(a) and (b), it states:
(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A [notice of the] decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.
(b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.
I am taking advantage of the new opportunity that the provision offers members, which is to bring to the attention of the Speaker violations of privilege that have occurred in committee, in this case, at the natural resources committee.
Of course, historically, it was not the case that such violations could be brought to the attention of the Chair, but there are new rules that, fortunately, in this context at least, provide us with an opportunity to bring the absolutely egregious behaviour of the member for Calgary Skyview, the Chair of the natural resources committee, to the attention of the Speaker and seek an appropriate remedy.
On multiple occasions, the member for Calgary Skyview, who is the Chair of the natural resources committee, showed flagrant disregard for the rules and the rights of members in limiting the ability of members to speak, in arbitrarily imposing time limits, in depriving members of the floor when they had the floor, and in reassigning the floor. One member had the floor; he took the floor away from them and reassigned it to another member. These all had the effect—
430 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/23 7:15:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is some confusion here, but the member said that he was splitting his time. He recalls saying that, so I believe the question and comments period should be over and we should be on to the next speech. Many members heard that said.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:40:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member knows what the word “hypocrisy” means. I have been clear that I think the rules, as they presently exist, weaken this institution. As such, I do not think those rules should be in place.
I also believe, though, that it is legitimate for the members to use the tools as they exist. I do not think it is hypocritical at all to observe that these rules should not be in place, but insofar as they are in place, members can use them. The fact of the matter is that a speech is qualitatively different when it is delivered on the floor of the House of Commons. That is why I think all members should endeavour to be here as much as they can and that the rules should maximize the presence of members in the House.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I disagree with some aspects of the member's characterization of my speech. Part of the obligation of members of Parliament is to provide a broader and deeper analysis of the principles involved, and I think I have done that. Maybe the member can take some time this evening to watch the speech again on CPAC. He might enjoy that. Perhaps it will be edifying to him and those he watches it with. I know the member for Winnipeg North does this on a regular basis.
An hon. member: All the time. I have your speeches on repeat.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, if that did not make it on the record, the member for Winnipeg North shared that he has my speeches on repeat when he goes home. Unfortunately, it has not had the desired effect. You would think that if he were really watching and listening, he would—
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it seems the members across the way misunderstood my meaning, whether intentionally or not. I think it is wonderful when members stand up in the House and speak on behalf of their constituents. The member for Winnipeg North speaks quite often on behalf of the government, maybe occasionally on behalf of his constituents, but the point is that he spent 20 minutes telling us there have been too many people speaking to this bill. He gave a 20-minute speech about how we should just stop debating this bill and, in fact, let it pass.
I would put it to the member that if he wants more legislation to pass, he could speak less himself, if that was his goal. I am not suggesting that he speak less. He is welcome to speak as much as he wishes. However, it is a bit rich for him to tell other people to speak less when he is giving a 20-minute speech on this legislation. I am sure there are other members of the government caucus who have a particular interest in these subjects or particular expertise and who might have wanted to speak as well.
The other point to make about legislation is that the member is right to say that we had bills in the last Parliament that were put forward and then did not become law. I was trying to remember what happened in the last Parliament that might have prevented government legislation from becoming law.
One thing was that the government suspended Parliament completely, with the acquiescence of the NDP. For a substantial portion of 2020, when Conservatives were saying it was time to bring Parliament back in some form and that we were ready to work in a modified form, the Liberals, in fact, wanted to shut down Parliament because they did not want to have to deal with question period. Part of that was that their legislation did not move forward, and then they prorogued Parliament. We came back after prorogation, and then they called an election.
The Liberals now come back to us and say that they have these bills they have been working on for multiple Parliaments. They ask what happened, when they are the ones who made the decisions around suspending Parliament, prorogation and calling an early election. I think the member for Winnipeg North and the government have to face up to the fact that, if there are bills before us today that have been considered and were widely supported in previous Parliaments, they certainly bear some of the responsibility for decisions that they made.
I will make a final point in response to what the member for Winnipeg North said about how the government really wants to pass the bill. We have the same situation when Private Members' Business has been substantially delayed by the government's calling of an early election and by the government's unwillingness to be collaborative.
I will give one example. My private member's bill on organ harvesting and trafficking has been before the foreign affairs committee, approaching the full 60 sitting days, at which time it will be automatically reported back to the House. We actually also have another private member's bill, by a government member, which is before the foreign affairs committee, that has been subject to the same kinds of delays. We have private members' bills, as well, that have been back, Parliament after Parliament. Rather than the government being willing to have those studied at committee, we have seen significant delays.
Hopefully if the government wants assistance in passing legislation, it will take seriously the fact that there are good ideas that come from all corners of the House and take a little bit more of a collaborative approach around moving forward with Private Members' Business as well.
Bill C-20 deals with oversight for law enforcement, as well as for CBSA. It is a bill that underlines, I think, the profound failures of the government when it comes to criminal justice and policing in the country.
I want to share some statistics that underline the fact that whatever the government is doing is clearly not working. We are not seeing the kinds of outcomes we would want to see.
There has been a 32% increase in serious violent crime since 2015. There were 124,000 more violent crimes committed last year than in 2015. There were 788 homicides in Canada last year. There were 611 in 2015. That is a 29% increase in homicides, a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015 and a 61% increase in reported sexual assaults since 2015. Police have reported that hate crimes have increased 72% over the last two years.
The point I made in a question earlier in debate and that I will underscore again is that when we look at these statistics we have to at some point face up to the fact that the government is failing if its objective is to reduce crime. We hear a lot of talk from the government about the problem of violent crime and how we need to work to reduce it. At the same time, the government is presiding over a significant escalation in violent crime, which means that either its strategy is making the problem worse or at least not solving it, or there is such a preponderance of exogenous factors that are shifting the landscape that those factors are driving this increase in crime despite the government's best efforts.
What we heard from an NDP member earlier, as we might expect offering defence of the government's approach, was that we should acknowledge that the causes of crime are complex, that there are many different issues that may be contributing to the rise in violent crime we are seeing in Canada and that we should acknowledge it may not all come down to what the federal government is doing. That is plausible. It is true that the causes of crime are diverse and complex. It is true that there are always lots of different things going on that may contribute to crime.
However, the government has pursued a particular strategy around criminal justice that is different from what we had seen previously, including the legalization and decriminalization of things. In the case of B.C., we have the government decriminalizing the use of extreme and very dangerous drugs like fentanyl. We see a particular approach to criminal justice being taken by the government with no acknowledgement that, in light of the increase in violent crime, there may be some relationship between the fact that the government changed the strategy on criminal justice and at the same time there was a significant increase in crime.
It is also particularly telling that this deflecting of responsibility to exogenous factors is what the government always does on every policy issue. The Liberals talk about how they are trying to achieve certain things and about how they are fighting for certain things, yet when the outcomes they promised are not realized, it is always somebody else's fault.
It is the current government that came in saying it was going to help the middle class and those working hard to join it. How is that going? We have an affordability crisis in this country seven years after the government took power. The Liberals said that they were going to work to bring about change for the middle class, to make life more affordable and to promote economic growth and so forth, yet we are seeing significant negative outcomes in terms of the middle class and those working hard to join it.
However, the government is here to assure us it is not the government's fault and that all of the measures it put in place were apparently positive. It says that the fact we have an affordability crisis has nothing to do with actions government members have taken, even though experts, including Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and prospective future leader of the Liberal Party, has said that inflation is a homegrown problem. We have these instances when, on the economy, the members of the government say things are going wrong but it is not their fault because they are there for the middle class, even though things have gotten significantly worse for the middle class.
On drug policy, the government says it is going to take a different approach and it has solutions to offer, which include decriminalization and safe supply, in which the government subsidizes drugs. Again, how is that going? The government has pursued a policy approach that is not working and is not achieving the results it promised. Then the Liberals are here to say again, on drug policy, that it is not them, that it is other factors driving this.
We see this in violent crime. It is worth mentioning the hate crime statistics again. There has been an increase of 72% over the last two years in hate crime. There are many factors, absolutely, that may be impacting levels of hate crime, but if the government says that its goal is to combat hate, and then we see a significant increase, it might be worth coming back to the government and asking why its policy approach has not achieved the results that clearly we all consider desirable.
Maybe doubling down on the same failed approach is not the right way to go. We see this across a broad range of policy areas. There are exogenous factors, of course, but if the government constantly says that when things go well it is because of them, and when things go poorly, it is not the government causing it, that is liable to generate some suspicion. We see how the failures of the government on a broad range of policy issues in criminal justice, drug policy, the economy and other areas, are contributing to a declining faith in government, a declining trust in institutions.
The good news, of course, is that we can try to rebuild that trust by having a new government that would chart a new course. What we see now increasingly is a declining trust in institutions, with people having a sense that the current government is not on their side and looking for change.
This bill, in creating a mechanism of oversight for the RCMP, seeks to engage in that dynamic of declining trust in institutions. There is a question of the level of public trust in certain communities in particular, of our RCMP, our CBSA, etc., and what can be done to strengthen that trust and to respond to the discourse around declining trust in government and other institutions.
I would say this about the broader question of trust in institutions. There are a couple of different factors that can cause declining trust in institutions. One is those institutions failing to earn that trust, but another is those institutions being maliciously run down by those who have an agenda to run them down. What we see in this case is the government failing to earn the trust of Canadians, thus losing their trust. Sometimes when the government shows itself to be unworthy of trust, it tries to invoke a “trust in institutions'” discourse to suggest that people should not be criticizing the government because that leads to declining trust in institutions.
In those cases it is important we hold the government accountable, that we push the government to, in fact, earn that trust of Canadians, to act with integrity and to address the repeated problems of corruption we see within the government. I know the Conservative Party is prepared to do that as we offer Canadians an alternative.
In the case of law enforcement, mistakes have been made at various times by various enforcement agencies, but I think we also have a dynamic in which trust is challenged because trust in our law enforcement is repeatedly undermined by those who offer extreme criticisms of those agencies. It is very important that we work to build up and support those who serve in our various security agencies, who have a challenging job, who do their best and are worthy of our support.
There are some quarters in the House where we hear, for instance, people talking about defunding the police. I will say very clearly that I am against these proposals for defunding the police. I think clarity from other quarters would be appreciated on that topic. We recognize the allied service provision has a role to play alongside law enforcement, absolutely, but we also recognize the critical role played by law enforcement. It is not realistic, in many cases it is counterproductive for those most vulnerable, to say we should be pulling resources from law enforcement.
Law enforcement should earn the public's trust, and we should also be critical of a discourse that seeks to run down that trust or undermine that trust. We need to recognize, appreciate and affirm the positive role in our society played by law enforcement. To understand the reality of proposals to defund the police, one only needs to look at places in the world where law enforcement is not available, where the institutions of justice, police, courts, etc., do not function properly or are not available to protect the vast majority of society.
In all of those cases, inevitably, when people do not have access to protection and justice, there is more crime, more violence and more harm done. From our perspective on this side of the House, we need to reject those efforts to undermine our law enforcement. At the same time, we need to build up those institutions, such as this civilian complaints mechanism, that support the building of trust.
With that in mind, the legislation before us should proceed to committee and be studied. We look forward to the further review on how to make this legislation work as effectively as possible.
I think there is work required, but we need to also understand the context in which this work is happening. It is a context in which we have increasing crime and increasing concern about public safety. The government's response to that concern is to double down on a failed approach of reducing sentences. Lowering sentences does not help people give up a life of crime.
There are various critical steps that we could take to support rehabilitation, and I am a big believer in rehabilitation. This is work that the justice system and all of us need to do to help people make a transition from a life of crime to a healthy, safe and productive life. However, reducing serious consequences for serious criminality is not a way to achieve that.
In terms of oversight of law enforcement and this government's failed approach, I will say a few words about the horrific mass shooting in Nova Scotia. This was an example of perhaps not only gaps in enforcement but also significant failures of policy.
We had an individual who was never a licensed firearms owner in Canada, but who had a NEXUS card. By all indications, he repeatedly brought guns across the border from the United States, using the ease facilitated by his NEXUS card. He was known by others in his community to have firearms, even though he was not licensed to be a firearms owner in Canada, and he carried out this horrific act of violence.
The immediate response of the government was to try to seize this moment to say that it needed to change and tighten its policy around firearms. However, the lesson it should have learned from that situation, and probably a variety of lessons around enforcement, was that the policy solution clearly was not to make more guns illegal. This was a person who smuggled guns from the United States. He used illegal guns, and he was never licensed to own firearms in Canada.
How do we have a situation where someone who had guns, but was not a licensed firearms owner, was not apprehended for his possession of illegal guns in a way that would have prevented this violence? These are questions that we need to hear answered. The fact of the matter is that the government was missing the point, and it was missing the response that was required. It was not about which guns were legal. It was about the fact that illegal guns were still being brought into this country and used.
I call on the government to recognize its failures in policy, to stop doubling down on those failures, to correct policies that clearly are not working and to take a new approach when it comes to criminal justice.
2800 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 8:04:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated a lot of the member's speech. I did not agree with everything. I think, for instance, it is important to note that I and other members of my caucus have spoken out repeatedly about human rights in Yemen and some of the other examples she mentioned. The arms deal she referred to was signed prior to the start of the Yemen war, and we have been very critical of the atrocities in that context.
It is also important to note that tonight's debate is happening in the way it is and the time it is because a unanimous consent motion was adopted today, and it was agreed to by all parties. In terms of the process issues, we are having this debate now because, fortunately, there was agreement and the unanimous consent of the House to do so.
I want to pick up on a comment the member made about the fact that there is sometimes pressure to say if we are going to prioritize this community or that community, or prioritize this issue or that issue. Unfortunately, we have seen the government trying to help refugees in one context, which means pulling resources away from another context. I think we have seen that from the beginning of the tenure of the government.
That is why we believe, in the Conservative caucus, that part of the solution to that is strengthening the opportunities for the private, not-for-profit sector when it comes to refugee sponsorship and lifting caps on private sponsorship by trying to reduce red tape and remove barriers for private sponsoring organizations.
Frankly, that would allow us to welcome more refugees and would perhaps allow us to welcome folks in risk of persecution earlier on in the process, when those issues are identified by diaspora communities and others.
What does the member think about strengthening the opportunities for private sponsors to be involved in the refugee system and lifting caps? That could be a tool in perhaps taking the government out of needing to be responsible for prioritizing this situation versus that situation, and allow us to welcome more vulnerable people into communities that are choosing to support them as they come here.
372 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 7:10:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we speak often about family-friendliness. My daughter is in town, and I was in the lobby with her, listening to the speech—
26 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 7:05:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona seems to be unaware of the fact that we can watch a speech from outside of the chamber itself.
26 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 7:05:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was, bar none, the worst speech in this context that I have ever heard delivered in this place. The member—
24 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I expect better when it comes to ruling on the rules. You know that there is broad latitude. I have a 20-minute speech. I spent the first half of the speech discussing financial benefits, and I said that I would spend the second half of the speech discussing—
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/22 9:44:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank the member for her passion and thoughtful speech.
I wonder if she would like to identify some specific policy changes that she would suggest that the government could consider in terms of addressing this problem, given the ongoing nature of the problem. Could she could propose any specific ideas that the government should be doing differently to respond to it?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 3:50:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge that the member might have a point. I did not intend to leave this button on for this speech. I will tell them, since members are curious, that it says “end federal mandates”. I could also table the button if—
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/22 4:23:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not entirely surprising that a Liberal member from Ontario would use a speech in the House of Commons to engage in politicking related to the provincial election that is going on in Ontario.
The member did actually use the term “crimes against humanity” to refer to a policy of the Ford government. That is quite a serious accusation to be making. I would encourage the member, especially in light of actual crimes against humanity that we are seeing in Europe right now, to take the opportunity to apologize and withdraw that comment.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 2:14:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ken Epp, the MP for my area from 1993-2008. Ken passed away on February 20 at the age of 82. It is always sad for those of us left behind to have to say goodbye to a great leader and a great friend, but that sadness is tempered by Ken's confidence that death was a doorway and not an end. Ken's hope of an eternity with Jesus and with his dear wife Betty, who predeceased him, is one that I and many in our community share and draw comfort from.
Ken was a math teacher before getting elected. It was a natural transition from teaching math to young people to try to teach math to Liberals. Unfortunately, I think his students did a better job of grasping mathematical concepts than did his colleagues opposite.
One of Ken's key parliamentary accomplishments was to sponsor and see the passage at second reading of Bill C-484, a bill to recognize unborn victims of crime. The bill achieved substantial cross-party support, but we will remember Ken not primarily by the speeches he gave or the votes he cast. We will remember him by the joy, the grace, the humility and the kindness that characterized his long service.
He remained faithful throughout to his convictions and to the virtues that defined his life. Ken changed Ottawa, but Ottawa did not change him. I thank Ken for his service and his example.
250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for giving the calibre of speech that members of the House have come to expect from him, with many trumped-up comments. As a Conservative, I am not at all ashamed or embarrassed about the fact that our party champions freedom, freedom of speech and the freedom of individuals to make their own choices.
I want to ask the member a specific question about misinformation. We have heard a lot in this House today about RT and the problems with it, and I share those concerns. However, I have similar concerns about state-backed misinformation coming from news channels that are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. We should not forget that the issue of state-backed misinformation, even of torture and forced confession happening on air, is not just an issue coming out of Russia. It is also an issue in China. Should we not be dealing with that as well?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
