- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
House leader of the official opposition
- Conservative
- Regina—Qu'Appelle
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $172,932.98
- Government Page
- Jun/1/23 2:31:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada is cursed by a Prime Minister who tarnished that man's reputation by involving him in this scandal.
The Prime Minister cannot be the one to decide how to investigate this scandal, because he benefited from it. David Johnston cannot decide either, because he is a family friend and a long-time member of the Trudeau Foundation. Frank Iacobucci cannot be the one to sign off on David Johnston's role, because he is part of the Trudeau Foundation as well. Those are conflicts of interest.
Why is it that whenever the best interests of Canadians conflict with the political interests of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister always chooses himself?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 2:30:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in response to yesterday's vote, where MPs, representing a clear majority of Canadians, voted for him to step aside, rapporteur David Johnston said he is not going anywhere. In fact, he said he does not work for Parliament or Canadians; he said he works for the government.
That is the problem. He works for the same Liberal government that benefited from Beijing's election interference. He personally serves the Prime Minister, who chose to do nothing while Chinese Canadians were bullied into voting for his Liberal Party. Nobody is fooled by this sham of a process. When will the Prime Minister fire his ski buddy and call a public inquiry?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 2:30:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in response to yesterday's vote, in which members of Parliament, representing a clear majority of Canadian voters, demanded that he step down, phony rapporteur David Johnston said he is not going anywhere. In fact, he said—
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:03:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, why did it take the leader of the NDP two weeks to decide that he was going to do the right thing and ensure that the Prime Minister's chief of staff testified?
If the hon. member wants to talk about why this or that happened, why does it always take so much public pressure to get the NDP to do the right thing? That is what the Canadians who used to vote for the New Democrats want to know.
I come from Saskatchewan, the home of the NDP. Since the New Democrats decided to sell out their core principles, as they used to be in favour of transparency and ethics, they have been shut out of Saskatchewan. Their caucus has diminished in every single election. If they want to continue to show Canadians that they are way more excited to be part of the club, that they can make deals with the government and move pieces around and feel like they are more relevant than they have ever been while they are selling out their core principles, they can fill their boots.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:02:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague was very active in politics. I think he joined the House in 2006, but of course he would have been watching all that unfold in 2004.
Finally, at the right time, the leader of the NDP at the time suddenly realized that he could not keep propping up a government that was under that kind of scandal and with that cloud hanging over it, which ultimately worked out for the NDP down the road. The NDP ended up having a bigger caucus in the 2011 election after standing on that principle. We have seen what has happened in the last few elections under the current NDP leader, when the caucus has diminished after every election.
I think the two things go hand in hand, and I appreciate the hon. member's pointing that out.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:00:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, if the NPD members had not turned their phones on silent and stopped reading their emails as we were trying to work with them to get their support, and if they had said, “Yes, we are going to support your motion and we are going to tell our coalition partners that we are going to support your motion”, we could have had all of this taken care of on the weekend and we would have been happy to move a different motion on Monday. If anybody was wasting the House's time with that, it was the NDP, taking so long, getting dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing.
That is why that happened on Monday.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:59:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if we just replay what happened on Monday, if the NDP had just indicated that it was going to support our motion right from the beginning, the Prime Minister would have realized it was inevitable and we could have addressed—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to represent the interests of the good people of Regina—Qu'Appelle and represent my caucus as the opposition House leader.
We need to frame what is going on here because what we saw over the last few weeks was a despicable display at committee, a mockery of the parliamentary process. We found out that the Prime Minister has known for years about allegations of foreign interference from the Communist regime in Beijing, specifically helping the Liberal Party. Chinese representatives of that Communist regime here in Canada said they preferred a Liberal government, and there are reports coming from The Globe and Mail, citing CSIS reports and national security committee reports, indicating that there is a large “clandestine network” of funding of candidates that is coming from the Communist regime in Beijing. Conservatives have been trying to shine a light on this at committee. We have all seen the lengths that the Liberals have gone to.
Today is what is called an opposition day. Today is the supply day when opposition parties are allowed to introduce a topic and have a debate on something. Normally the government gets to set the calendar. This is its right, as it brings forward legislation, but a certain number of days throughout the year are allocated to each opposition party. For today, the Conservatives put forward a motion to call on the government to abandon its plan to increase taxes on beer, wine and spirits. That is what we are supposed to be debating right now.
On Monday, we had a fulsome debate on this whole issue of foreign interference, and I should point out that Conservatives, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, indicated to the NDP that we are totally fine with expanding the scope of the investigation. We believe that if there are allegations of foreign interference coming from any country, they should be investigated. We were willing to work with the New Democrats on that. We were hoping that they would vote in favour of our motion on Monday calling on the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify at committee. The problem was that they did not let us know. They kept ragging the puck. It was a very simple question. It was the exact same motion that we had proposed at committee. Even the NDP House leader had indicated his support at committee.
It kind of reminds me of something that happened a little while ago. I was in the chamber and I saw the NDP House leader get up and try to indicate that the NDP opposed certain amendments at committee when it was dealing with Bill C-21. Of course, Bill C-21 is the piece of legislation that would massively expand the power of the government to take away lawful firearms from Canadians. I am not trying to mix topics too much, but the reason I am talking about this is that Conservatives recognized instantly what was going on. We saw it at committee. We said it was going to make unlawful so many firearms that hunters and indigenous communities use every season for their long-held Canadian heritage and history of using firearms legally.
What happened was that Conservatives at the committee saw that not only were these bad policy amendments, but they were also out of order, beyond the scope of the bill itself, so at the committee, almost immediately, we asked the chair to rule those amendments out of order. The chair said no. The Liberal chair said that the amendments were in order.
Why do I bring this up? At committee, the Conservatives challenged the chair. We asked our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP to please support us on this as the amendments were out of order. The NDP voted no. The NDP voted to keep those amendments in Bill C-21, yet the NDP House leader came to this chamber and asked the Speaker to do what his team actually voted against at committee. He tried to take credit, saying they were bad. It was only after their MPs heard from their constituents, who told them how terrible it was. This is exactly what we are facing here today.
We have tried to give the opportunity to the NDP members multiple times to hold this government to account and yet, time and time again, they are showing Canadians that they would rather prop up Liberal corruption and help keep the truth covered, instead of shining a light. It is very disappointing. It is very disappointing that we see the NDP here on an opposition day move this motion. They are trying to come up with this phony story.
Conservatives want a public inquiry. We have called for it. We were trying to get this report back in the House; we could have dealt with this last week. They are the ones playing procedural games and we are not going to let them get away with it. We are going to highlight to Canadians the hypocrisy that the NDP has been showing.
I just want to indicate that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.
In closing, I want to make a couple of points about this. I hear from colleagues across the way who are throwing all kinds of baseless allegations that are just not backed up by facts. Conservatives have been calling for a public inquiry. The first time the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue in the House, the Prime Minister said that he did not know anything about it, so we started to press. We started to call for this. We started to call for a full, independent public inquiry. What did the government do? It appointed a special rapporteur.
I understand. I understand the hon. government House leader and I am hoping to have a discussion with him in a few moments, but it is important to set the stage for it.
I will wrap it up with this. It is impossible to restore the confidence that has been shaken by the Prime Minister's inaction on this file without a public inquiry, not a special rapporteur with close family ties to the Prime Minister, not someone on the Trudeau Foundation board. We support the call for a full public inquiry and we are just disappointed that it took so long to drag the NDP kicking and screaming to ensure that the Prime Minister's chief of staff testifies at committee.
1103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:28:55 p.m.
- Watch
On a point of order, I have a quick question, Mr. Speaker. It has been a while since I occupied the Speaker's chair and oversaw the House administration. I know that the hon. member had a “check for context” label attached to his last week. Does Hansard do that when an hon. member misleads the House?
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
