- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present one petition to the House in support of Bill C-257, an excellent private member's bill that would protect Canadians from political discrimination.
It is a bill that I put forward in the House. The petitioners want to see the House pass it as quickly as possible.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Feb/26/24 3:35:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is in support of parents being able to make decisions about their own families without the interference of the federal government. The petitioners call attention to how the Liberal government is trying to involve itself in decisions that should properly be made by parents and by provinces. These petitioners particularly reference the policy in New Brunswick of having parental consent involved in the changing of names and pronouns for students under 16.
The petitioners note 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. They note that the role of government is to support families and respect parents, not dictate how they should make decisions for their children. The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to butt out and let parents raise their own children.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 11:57:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech, but there is this framing of not being ready. We support further delay so that a Conservative government can forever protect Canadians by ensuring this expansion never happens, but it does not make sense to me that the member would identify obvious problems with this, and not just present problems or short-term problems, but structural problems, with allowing the medically facilitated killing of those with mental health challenges, and say that just means we are not ready.
I think it is quite obvious that, after years of the government trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and trying to say that somehow we can have medically facilitated killing for those with mental health challenges while at the same time not increasing other kinds of risks and problems, the government has tried to figure out how to do this for years and has clearly concluded that it is not something that is desirable.
Why not just admit that this was a terrible idea from the beginning rather than couch it in this framing of not being ready, but that maybe we will be soon?
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 11:38:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the position of the government when it comes euthanasia is so disconnected from the reality and the concerns many Canadians have. The Liberals constantly want to have a conversation about further expansion. However, I hear concerns from constituents and from people across the country about the abuses under the existing system; about how people with disabilities have been pressured and told that they are selfish for not wanting to go down this road; about how, in the absence of proper support, life and dignity affirming support, we have individuals who are at risk of giving up. Instead of being affirmed in their pursuit of meaning and purpose, they are being told “Sure, go ahead and give up.” This is the reality in Canada.
When I talk to legislators in other parts of the world, including legislators from the so-called progressive left, they are horrified by what is happening in Canada. Canada is presented as a counter-example of what can go wrong when we go down this road.
Why are we not having more conversations about addressing the existing abuses in the system instead of this fanatical push by the government to always look for the next expansion. Why not stop and look at how we got here and how we can address these significant problems that have emerged in the current system?
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:41:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his service in Afghanistan and to our country.
It has been inspiring to me to see the deep bonds that were established between Canadian Forces members who served and the Afghan people, and to see the incredible lengths that people who served in Afghanistan have gone, since the pullout in 2021, to assist and support the Afghan people. That goes for not only this member and other members of the House, but also many veterans and members of our military, who are not in elected office but who are nonetheless doing everything they can to raise money and take other actions. I want to salute the service of our veterans and their work supporting the Afghan people. They understand. They have made these sacrifices.
To the member's question about fatigue, those who fought and served understand the immense sacrifice. They have made far more sacrifices than any of us who did not serve in that way have made. They understand the importance of us continuing to stand with the Afghan people.
This is why I talked about the proposals in my speech of refusing to legitimize or tolerate the Taliban and continuing to apply maximum pressure while engaging with and supporting opposition groups. Different opposition groups are organizing and coming together in various ways to oppose the Taliban. We should be opposing the Taliban while actively engaging and supporting the opposition, recognizing that the fight is not over, that it is the birthright of the Afghan people to have freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and that we must be with them until the job is finished.
280 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:38:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is not as ignorant as he pretends to be. He knows that we support Operation Unifier, and he knows that we started Operation Unifier—
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 10:29:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing some very important personal reflections that I think are very valuable for the House to consider.
I want to ask a question on a somewhat different aspect of this debate. It is a question I have asked a few government members. It is about the role of the Iranian regime in supporting Hamas and supporting other terrorist organizations that threaten Israel.
Up until now, it has not been the position of the government to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. I know there are some members of the government who have individually expressed support for the idea of listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization. This is another example. We have seen many examples in recent years of IRGC violence.
Does the member think there may possibly be a change coming in the government's position on listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization?
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, earlier the member from Winnipeg talked about how we all agree that it was wrong that a staffer at Veterans Affairs Canada was talking about euthanasia with a veteran who called looking for help. He asked if we do not all agree on that.
I think what confuses me about the government's position is that apparently it objects to the fact that over and over again, when a veteran called in for help at Veterans Affairs Canada, they were told to consider euthanasia or medical assistance in dying, yet if that same veteran had gone to see a psychiatrist or visited a nurse practitioner, the government would be totally fine with that person being given that advice. The government is fine with people being told by the medical system that they should consider or pursue this option, just apparently not when it comes from Veterans Affairs.
Does the member think there is an inconsistency in the government's position that we should be supporting people in all cases, regardless?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to provide support to Canadians in all circumstances and that we need to do better to support Canadians living with disabilities. I would make one point in response to the member's question, which is that I believe human dignity is inherent. Dignity is not given by government; it is not given by circumstances. Dignity is inherent in the individual. It is incumbent upon us, at the core level, to recognize that inherent human dignity, that meaning that exists for all of us in spite of whatever challenging circumstances we may be experiencing, and for us as a society to treat people in a way that accords with and recognizes their inherent human dignity and allows them to live in ways that are fulfilling and meaningful in terms of their full potential.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/22 6:28:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this motion and everybody who is joining us for this debate. I know there are many people present in the precinct and following along online.
I have the honour of being the co-chair, along with my friend, the mover of this motion, of the parliamentary friendship group for Uighurs. That is one of many reasons that I am proud to speak in support of Motion No. 62 and express the support of the Conservative Party for this motion. I expect that when it comes to a vote, we will be able to speak united and with one voice.
I think there is a critically important role for the official opposition, which is to support the government in the areas we agree with and challenge the government when there are gaps in the response.
This issue is deeply personal for me. It is not hard to tell that I am not of Uighur background myself, but my grandmother was a Holocaust survivor. She was a Jewish child who grew up in Germany and hid out, and many of her family members were killed. I was raised with an awareness of the grievous injustice that had been visited upon her extended family. She was in a position, as a vulnerable child and a member of a persecuted minority, where she was not able to speak out about her own situation, but she survived the war because people who had a voice and had an opportunity to speak had the courage to speak out against what was happening, the injustices that were happening.
I have a big portrait on the wall in my office of Blessed Clemens von Galen, who was the bishop of the Munster area of Germany where she was. He was a bold, fearless critic of the Nazis, someone who had a position of privilege within that society and used his position to speak out against injustice.
A couple of years ago, my sister and I took a trip to Berlin. We were looking at the sites of deportation. What strikes Canadians when they go to Europe is how much closer everything is together. We are used to wide open spaces. We saw the streets through which Jews were brought to a train station and where they were being sent away, and what struck me was the apartment buildings that are close by where people, everyday Germans, would have been living. They would have been able to look down and see their former neighbours and people from their community being pushed and herded away to their deaths.
When I was there with my sister, we talked about this, and I wondered what these people were thinking, the ones who could see what was going on. Perhaps they had a mix of perspectives and knew it was wrong but were afraid in some way of the consequences of speaking out for truth and justice. What were they thinking? Why did they not do more?
At the end of the Second World War, we made a promise to my grandmother's generation of “never again”. Never again would we allow people to be slaughtered because of their ethnic or religious background. We would do everything possible to make genocide a crime and stop it everywhere. However, in the seven years I have spent as a member of Parliament, we have recognized and responded to not one but multiple cases of ongoing genocide. It is clear that we have failed to deliver on the promise we made to my grandmother's generation.
I think about those apartment buildings and the people who could see the injustice happening in front of them. Today, we have satellite imagery. We do not need to be in apartment buildings directly above what is happening. We can see the photographs. We can look at the numbers and see the precipitous drop in birth rates as a result of forced abortion, forced sterilization and systemic sexual violence targeting the Uighur community.
I owe it to my grandmother and to those like her to use the voice I have now to speak out against contemporary injustices, recognize the failure to live up to that promise of “never again” and do all we can to respond.
The first step should be a recognition of the crime of genocide, because in the history of jurisprudence following the Second World War, we tried to establish this crime of genocide and establish a responsibility to protect. Individual nations that are a party to the genocide convention have an obligation. It is not just an obligation where there is conclusive proof of genocide, but an obligation when there is evidence that genocide may be occurring.
Those obligations exist for individual states who are parties to that convention. Those obligations do not depend on whether some international body determines it to be a genocide. Those obligations are for individual states who are signatories to the genocide convention. Canada is a signatory, so Canada has obligations. We have a responsibility to act to protect when we see a genocide happening or when there is evidence to suggest that there may be a genocide happening.
This testimony was clearly given by former justice minister Irwin Cotler at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights when we studied this question. He made clear in his testimony that not one but all five of the possible conditions of the genocide convention have likely been transgressed in the case of Uighurs. The evidence was clear then, and the evidence is more clear now than it was then. When this Parliament first voted on the question of genocide recognition, it was before some of the new information that has come out since and various other tribunals that have made all the more clear the situation we are in.
The problem is that, since nations have recognized that they have an obligation to respond to genocide and that they have an obligation to protect in the case of genocide, those same nations have become reluctant to acknowledge that a genocide is taking place, because when they acknowledge that a genocide is happening, then they are legally obliged to act. However, whether or not they are willing to admit that they know, they do know because the evidence is clear. To paraphrase William Wilberforce, we may choose to look away, but in the face of the evidence, we may never again say that we did not know.
The evidence has been there, yet again this week we had a motion before the House on genocide recognition. Everyone who voted, voted in favour of genocide recognition, but the cabinet still abstained. This is extremely important because, if the government had voted in favour of that motion, it would be recognizing the legal obligations it has under the genocide convention, but it still failed to do that. I salute members of all parties who have been prepared to take that step nonetheless, but it would be that much more impactful if the cabinet, if the Government of Canada, was prepared to take that step.
The House of Commons, by the way, has led in the world. We were the first democratic legislature in the world to recognize the Uighur genocide, and many other legislatures followed. Ironically, while our legislature has led, the government has not yet taken that step.
Nonetheless, there are still so many more things that we can do and we need to do. Now we are seeing myriad private member's motions and bills coming from various parties that respond to the recognition that at least individual members have, if not the government, that a genocide is taking place. We have Motion No. 62, which seeks to advance targeted immigration measures to support Uighurs. We have various pieces of legislation, such as Bill S-211 and Bill S-204, that seek to address forced labour. We have proposals, such Bill C-281, which would strengthen our sanctions regime and allow parliamentary committees to nominate individuals for sanction.
We see this flurry of activity now from members of Parliament and senators using the power that we have as parliamentarians to respond to this recognition of genocide, but the ultimate power rests in the hands of the government. It is the government that has to act, even in the case of the motion before us, which is a non-binding motion that makes a recommendation to the government. It is an important tool to encourage the government to act.
Of course, the government did not have to wait for Motion No. 62, and it does not need to wait for it now. The motion contains a timeline that is fairly generous to the government, fair enough, but I would challenge the government to take up its responsibility. Individual members of Parliament are doing what we can to be a voice for the voiceless to recognize the reality, and the government must as well.
I believe that every single member of this cabinet who has looked at the evidence knows that a genocide is happening and knows that they have an obligation. It will be to their eternal shame if they do not act on that knowledge as soon as possible.
1546 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 10:55:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made a lot of bizarre and unrelated procedural comments. I will just observe for his benefit that immediately after I spoke, the parliamentary secretary for international development got up and made what I thought was a very thoughtful intervention with respect to the issue at hand and thanked me for moving the important motion. Maybe this parliamentary secretary could consult the team within his own caucus who is responsible for foreign affairs issues before he gets up and speaks on these things, but I am much more interested in talking about the issue, rather than chasing the rabbit tracks he has put down for us.
What was the member's reaction on the weekend to comments made on CBC Radio's The House by a Ukrainian member of Parliament who really was sounding the alarm, saying that Canada has fallen behind with respect to supplying vital weapons and that it seems to be strangely reluctant to supply some of the key equipment Ukraine requires? Does he agree with what Ukrainian members of Parliament from various parties are saying, that Canada, which is thought of as an important friend of Ukraine certainly, and the Canadian people want to see their government do more, but it is really falling behind with respect to supporting Ukraine, whether with respect to weapons, energy or other issues?
226 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 10:33:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the House has sat for three weeks thus far this fall, and the government did not call Bill S-5 on any of the days in those three weeks. The government has clearly demonstrated that Bill S-5 is not a priority, and I suppose the member could talk to his House leader about why the government has not chosen to prioritize this bill.
This issue of supporting the Russian opposition is critical. We felt it that was valuable and important to have this debate at a time when Evgenia Kara-Murza is in Ottawa, engaging in this advocacy and supporting the Russian opposition. This is an opportunity for all members to call for Vladimir Kara-Murza's release and to express our support for the Russian opposition.
Later today, the government will have an opportunity to call whatever legislation is its priority. The government has most of the day available to it, but there are some limited opportunities the opposition has to raise its priorities and this is one opportunity. We have chosen to raise this important issue of supporting the Russian opposition in a non-partisan way, and we hope it gathers the support of all members.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 11:41:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member's speech was very much on point. The Liberals always claim that other people are being partisan when they do not want to support an obviously good idea that has the support of the rest of the House and the support of Canadians. It is important that we being forward a substantive issue at a critical time and it is too bad that it sounds like the government is not going to support it.
I was struck by the last question from the member for Winnipeg North, in that he implied that more support should be offered by provinces and by universities when in fact the federal government has been criticized for not stepping up to provide basic assistance for those coming from Ukraine. Those who are coming are not technically considered refugees under the refugee category, which means they do not have access to federal programs that normally exist for people in that situation.
I wonder if the member from the Bloc wants to comment on the fact that the government has been heavily criticized by the Canadian Ukrainian Congress and others for not offering support to those who come from Ukraine, and then the member is using the needs for support as an excuse for not allowing visa-free travel. The government should be offering that support, but why not let people come through the visa-free travel channel since the government is not currently offering that support as it is?
247 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:52:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing aspects of her own experience and the experience of her communities. I think it is a powerful reminder of the injustices that have been committed by federal governments toward indigenous peoples and also about, really, the abuses we have seen from overreaching federal governments.
I think it underlines the importance of freedom, the freedom of peoples to be authors of their own story, to work and to live where they wish. I think is it important to underline the fact, and I think there has been some misstatement around this, that there are people who have been involved in these protests from all different backgrounds. Being on Wellington Street, I have seen members of visible minority communities, indigenous people and people who are concerned about mandates from all walks of life, who do feel that this is an overreach.
The member seems, in the principles she articulates, to be very aligned with where I am and where we are in terms of not wanting the federal government to be able to interfere too much in people's lives. I do not understand why she is supporting this motion.
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
