- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- Jun/6/24 3:20:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order arising from question period, following my question in which I referred to the other Randy, you made some comments about skating close to the line in terms of using the first names of members in the House. I wonder if you could just clarify your ruling. Is your ruling that the other Randy is a member of the House of Commons?
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:02:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Here is a story that is a bit randyabout a Liberal's excuse that seemed just too handy:Blame others for failures; they just could not resist,but if one is going to blame someone, be sure they exist.
The employment minister continues to blame the mysterious other Randy for his ethical trouble. Meanwhile, after nine years, all of this country's problems have actually been caused by the other Justin.
Will the person responsible for the scandal, the real Randy, please stand up?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 3:11:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the Liberal minister would do everything to avoid talking about or even mentioning McKinsey in the response.
This question is about McKinsey. The company supercharged the opioid crisis, advised totalitarian regimes and held a corporate retreat down the road from a concentration camp. It has a vile track record, yet the Liberals have constantly turned to this company, supercharging its profits. They have turned to McKinsey to make critical decisions about this country's future.
Now that it has finally been caught by the Auditor General, will the NDP-Liberal government finally ban this vile company from government contracts, yes or no?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 3:10:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report proves that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost and corruption. Most of the government's $200 million in contracts with its friends at McKinsey broke the rules.
The Liberals are tight with McKinsey. The former ambassador to China and head of the Prime Minister's economic advisory panel came from McKinsey. The policy director to the former minister of public services and procurement was also from McKinsey. The current government serves McKinsey consultants and scandalizes Canadians.
Why did the Liberals repeatedly break the rules to benefit their friends at McKinsey?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 12:18:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary addressed the question of ministerial accountability for these scandals. I want to drill down on that.
We have had ministers come to committee. They have not always been forthcoming, and there are many ministers we still need to hear from. However, when we have had ministers at committee, they have always tried to present their role in government as that of a passive bystander, a painting on the wall or a potted plant that is there and that hears things, but it is not actually responsible for anything that happens.
I have asked these questions over a series of procurement ministers, various ministers responsible for CBSA. What did they do? Were they briefed about the problems? Were they briefed about the abuses? I understand that ministers do not take every little individual decision, but as these issues were being raised publicly in Parliament and committee, did they issue directives? Did they take action? The answer is always no. They received briefings. They expected other people to solve the problems.
When will they take responsibility?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 12:10:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today is an important day in the arrive scam scandal saga, because later today, Minh Doan, who is one of the central figures in this affair, will be testifying before the government operations committee.
He will be testifying for three hours and will be required to answer critical questions about how the decision was made to choose GC Strategies and who was responsible for that decision. He will need to answer questions about significant allegations around the destruction of emails. Since his last appearance before the government operations and committee, there have been revelations in The Globe and Mail that note an accusation of unusual steps that he took that led to the destruction of emails at the Canada Border Services Agency.
There is an Auditor General's report on the arrive scam scandal that shows that there are missing records. There are also allegations filed by a CBSA IT employee that were obtained by The Globe and Mail, allegations of moving files in an odd way that led to the destruction of emails and other critical documents. This has, of course, as The Globe and Mail noted, particular importance given that we are seeking information about what happened with GC Strategies, that is, how it was awarded the contract. One of the deeply suspicious aspects of the arrive scam scandal is that nobody is actually prepared to take responsibility for the decision to choose GC Strategies. There is a flurry of very sharp and public accusations among senior public servants, which speaks to significant and enduring challenges at CBSA.
There are new audits that came out yesterday, new, damning audits from the Auditor General. One issue in particular that we have highlighted has been the government's cosy relationship with McKinsey, the government's constantly funnelling money and contracts to McKinsey, close friends with the government, without the proper processes in place and without demonstrating value for money.
It is another day, another series of corruption scandals and more damning reports from the Auditor General. Whether it is yesterday's Auditor General's report on McKinsey, as well as the green slush fund, or today's hearings that we are going to have with Minh Doan, it is scandal after scandal. After nine years, the Liberal government always wants to blame somebody else. The Liberals always want to say that it is somebody else's responsibility, without any clarity about who is actually going to take responsibility.
After nine years, the Prime Minister bears responsibility. He bears responsibility for a broken contracting system, for the fact that the Auditor General's reports repeatedly emphasize the lack of accountability for the way the government is serving up contracts to its close friends, and for the fact that there is a GC Strategies model. It is not just one company; it is a model that we see growing across government, where a small firm specializes in simply getting government contracts but then subcontracts all of the actual work and takes a big cut along the way.
This is systemic corruption in the procurement process that we have seen in the arrive scam and in multiple other instances. When will the corruption end? Will it be soon, or will it be after the election?
544 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 11:51:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think if we were to put the question to the members present in the House tonight, there would actually be a demand for even more concurrence motions than we have seen previously.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 11:49:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is right. It is quite simple. The Liberals complain about this Sisyphean task of passing legislation, but they are the ones who send the boulder down the hill every time. They bring all this legislation almost to the point of passing, and then they prorogue Parliament or call an early election. They then complain, but we did not make them do it.
That said, we would be prepared to have an early election at this point. Given the disaster we have seen over the last years, if they were to call an election, bring it on. We want to have that carbon tax election, and we have no confidence in the government. Nonetheless, Liberals complain about their own failures to pass legislation when they are the ones that undermine the passage of their own legislation by constantly resetting the clock. It does not make any sense.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 11:47:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not going to allow his comment about concurrence motions to go unanswered. He says the legislation is important. I would just say that I am proud of my record of proposing many important, substantive concurrence motions in the House that are not aimed at blocking government legislation but at advancing serious issues that are important to different communities.
I put forward a concurrence motion to reopen the Lachin corridor, an issue that was critically important to the Armenian community, given the escalating aggression that we have seen. I was pleased to put forward a concurrence motion to call for genuine autonomy for Tibet, affirming the right to democratic self-determination that Tibetans, Uyghurs and all people everywhere enjoy.
I was pleased to, again, put forward a concurrence motion calling on the government to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, a motion that passed unanimously, yet it is one that the government has persistently failed to implement. I think that many of these communities, the Iranian community, the Tibetan community, the Armenian community, which have been deeply invested in the outcome of these concurrence motions, would find it offensive the way this member persistently dismisses the substantive role that concurrence motions have played in advancing issues that are critical to different communities across this country.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the debate tonight and follow my friend from Saskatoon—Grasswood, who gave an excellent speech. He mentioned that the police would be coming to the Saskatchewan Conservative caucus meeting tomorrow, which is great news. I wonder if the police will be going to the Liberal caucus meeting tomorrow as well after all the ethical scandals that we have been seeing, but that is to be determined.
I have been listening to the debate tonight and want to start by delving into some of the exchanges that have taken place so far, some more substantive ones and less substantive ones that perhaps should be commented on. Earlier in the evening, I had the opportunity to have a good exchange with my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach. In his speech, he highlighted, importantly, instances of injustice, abuse and violence through the actions of members of the police. We need to draw attention to those instances of violence, injustice and racism, call them out and put in place the actions to combat them.
I also think it is important to establish a positive discourse about the work being done by police and the positive role that police officers play within our society. That is important because, of course, without a positive message around the contributions that police officers are making in our society, we will struggle to recruit, which other members have commented on the importance of. Moreover, we should be grateful to the vast majority of police officers, who sacrifice and risk their lives and safety every day when they go to work, not knowing what they will encounter or what the outcomes will be and nonetheless working hard to protect their communities.
Are there instances where people in those sorts of positions betray that trust? Absolutely those instances exist. Are there more than just individual instances? Are there cases that we might be able to identify where there are histories or mentalities that contribute to wrong action? Those are legitimate things to discuss and certainly explore, but we need to recognize that, overwhelmingly, police play a positive role in our society, particularly when we have proper oversight, as advanced by this bill. As I and my colleagues have said, we support Bill C-20, but in the context of proper oversight, the commitment and sacrifice of police officers can be harnessed for them to play a dramatic, productive role in our society.
I worry that a discourse that emphasizes the negatives without the positives has led to bad policy outcomes, which are very dangerous for marginalized communities. All the evidence shows us that when we do not have a properly funded, effective police force in place, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. In certain contexts, there may be weaker state institutions, which we see in certain places around the world where the state does not have the capacity to provide the kind of protection from law enforcement that we take for granted generally here in Canada. There, wealthier people are still able to provide for their own protection through other kinds of private means for protecting their security, whereas those who cannot afford these mechanisms are the most vulnerable.
If we push the “defund the police” movement forward, the result is that those who are not able to protect themselves are more vulnerable to violence, while those who have more power and resources within a society are, to a greater extent, able to invest in their own protection. This is why the demonization of police and the movements to defund the police are ultimately deeply destructive, especially to the most vulnerable and marginalized. I would affirm the importance of recognizing injustice, of holding people accountable and of proper oversight, but I would also challenge all members in all parties of this House to recognize the positive contribution of police officers and police forces and establish a discourse that is affirming of their efforts and sacrifices.
I also believe in the importance of individual responsibility. I think when we see bad actions take place, the primary response should be holding the individuals who commit those actions responsible, recognizing that individual action is never rendered inevitable by institutional context, and that regardless of the context in which an individual is, the organization they are a member of, etc., they still bear responsibility for their own choices to act or not to act in a certain way.
Now, I want to respond as well to the exchange that I had with the member for Winnipeg Centre, and this was a perplexing exchange. I rose in response to her speech about violence against indigenous communities to ask a specific question about violence against indigenous communities and the destruction of churches and other cultural property that we have seen. It is a highly pertinent question at this time in Canada when dozens of churches have been not just vandalized but burned to the ground, many historic churches in indigenous communities, and where indigenous leaders have spoken out against these attacks on their communities. I think it is important when we see this rampage of violence against indigenous cultural property, against churches in particular, that leaders at all levels speak out against that violence. Strikingly, there has been a lack of response to these attacks on churches, in particular, on churches in indigenous communities. There has been a stark silence from so many leaders who should be condemning these acts of violence, and who would be quick to condemn acts of violence against other kinds of religious institutions.
The reason I have persisted in asking the member for Winnipeg Centre these questions is because I had asked the questions before and she had refused to condemn these acts of violence against churches. I have now asked the member the same question four times, and her response has been to attack me personally and to make all kinds of absurd, obviously verifiably bizarre allegations and accusations, which she has been told by the Speaker to withdraw. She has refused to withdraw, and I have no doubt that there will be follow-up on that matter. However, the point is that these were serious questions that were ignored. I think we should be clear and consistent in condemning all forms of abuse, all forms of violence against all communities. It is a glaring hole in that pattern of general condemnation to see the lack of response from many politicians to the rampage of destruction that has targeted Christian churches.
Further to the debate that has happened tonight, I want to agree with the comments that have been made by many of my Conservative colleagues about the increase in crime being an important part of the context of this legislation, and about how there was, leading up to 2015, during the tenure of the previous Conservative government, a decline in the rates of violent crime, and there has been a spike in violent crime since this Prime Minister took office. As they say, elections have consequences. When we elect a political party that has an ideology and implements that ideology, we see the results of it. I think we have seen, over the last nine years, the ideological experimentation of this Prime Minister, and we have seen the results: higher rent, higher cost of living, declining reputation in the world and increasing violent crime. The Prime Minister, over the last nine years, has experimented with putting one of the furthest left ideologies we have ever seen in this country into action, and we have seen, over the last nine years, the results of that extreme ideology.
There has also been some discussion tonight of scheduling issues. I think it is clear that this government has wildly mismanaged its legislative agenda, and every time the member for Winnipeg North stands up to speak for 20 minutes about how the opposition should stop talking about bills, yes, I do just shake my head.
We support Bill C-20. We think there are some important provisions in it, and I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate and engage in dialogue with various members about various issues.
1368 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:48:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously we are here to debate the substance of the bill, although I will say that we see so much entitlement from the Liberal government, entitlement to something we certainly see as being in the public interest to discuss.
Behind this bill also, as my colleagues have talked about, is the reality that we see increasing crime in this country, and this informs the context of this bill and of the provisions that would be put in place around complaints and the adjudication of those complaints.
I wonder if the member will acknowledge how, following the change in government in 2015, the trajectory of violent crime in this country changed dramatically and how violent crime was dropping when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister and violent crime has gone up dramatically. So much of it is because the same criminals are committing crimes over and over again, and under the Liberals it is bail, not jail. Conservatives would bring in jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders.
I wonder if, after nine years of failure, the member is prepared to acknowledge that his government's decisions have had a negative impact on public safety in this country.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:18:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for all members in the House. I think I tried to ask a civil, serious question a couple of times. I would like you to clarify your ruling, because the member accused me of regularly perpetrating colonial violence inside the House of Commons.
I do not think any reasonable person would consider that a remotely plausible accusation. Did you or did you not direct the member to withdraw and apologize?
Is she going to respect the authority of the Chair, or is she going to defy the Chair?
If that was your ruling, then those are the choices: respect the Chair or defy the Chair.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:14:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, very respectfully to the member, I asked a simple question and the member did not want to answer it. I had asked her twice previously. I guess I will have a chance to ask her twice tonight. It is not a trick question; it is a very sincere question. The question is, for the fourth time, will the member condemn the destruction of churches and other cultural property that has occurred? I see this as a form of violence and racism against indigenous communities. There have been many instances of destruction of churches and other cultural property. If the member had condemned it, I would not have asked the question a second time. Will the member condemn this?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:13:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made an outrageous, unfounded and obviously false claim in the House, and I think she should be called to order for that. She did not even claim she had any evidence for her statement. She just said that she suspected that I may have particular views that I have never stated. Come on.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:12:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:11:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her impassioned speech highlighting ongoing instances of racism and injustice in our country and within our institutions.
One instance where I see this happening is with the destruction of cultural property in indigenous communities. That has not been treated with nearly the level of seriousness that it deserves. I was just reading a report saying, for instance, that a significant amount of cultural and religious property, in this particular case churches, has been destroyed in indigenous communities. I think this required a stronger response from leaders at all levels.
I have asked the member twice whether she would condemn this destruction of cultural property in indigenous communities. I asked her twice during a debate in February, and she chose not to answer at that time. I wonder if this time, a third time, she would join me in condemning the destruction of churches and other cultural property that has occurred in indigenous communities and call for a stronger response to that destruction.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Jun/4/24 9:40:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend's speech and he recounted some truly horrifying instances of abusive action by police officers against individuals, in particular individuals from marginalized communities. I want to affirm the importance of noting and reflecting on those instances of abuse.
I would also contend that I think it is important to include, as part of this conversation, that the vast majority of police officers go to work every day with good intentions to protect our communities. Indeed, the role of police officers is important in protecting all of us, particularly in protecting marginalized communities that would otherwise be at greater risk of violence. Further, I would say that efforts to defund the police undermine the role of police in our society and have made people less safe and have made marginalized communities, in particular, less safe.
Does the member agree with me that, in confronting these instances of abuse, we also need to affirm the work that the vast majority of officers are doing, which is working hard to keep all of us safe?
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 2:49:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report proves once again that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the corruption.
Now, Liberals love McKinsey; apparently, all is fair in love and government contracting. Most of the $200 million in McKinsey contracts did not follow the rules and, in almost half of cases, it was not clear that the contract was needed. In some cases, the government even rigged the process to favour McKinsey.
Why do the Liberals show such affection for McKinsey but such disdain for Canadian taxpayers?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 2:13:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, they advised the Communist regime in Beijing on building military islands, and they tried to block their employees from pro-democracy activity in Russia. They pointed the finger at influential Saudi dissidents, and they helped to supercharge the opioid crisis. They even advised Disney on how to increase profits at the expense of safety. Armed with dark suits and PowerPoint slides, they are the McKinsey consultants, the people who can execute on anything and solve absolutely nothing.
When Liberals came to office nine years ago, they wanted to bring in well-connected insiders, and of course they chose their dear friends at McKinsey. Today's explosive Auditor General's report reveals that the NDP-Liberal government repeatedly broke basic contracting rules to send $200 million worth of contracts to this certifiably amoral company. There was no value for money. The scales were intentionally tipped in McKinsey's favour, and there is a lack of evidence the contracts were even needed.
Liberals love McKinsey and have broken the rules to shower it with taxpayer dollars, but Canadians have had enough. It is time to throw out the consultants and bring back common sense.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
