- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Chief opposition whip
Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Conservative
- South Surrey—White Rock
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $130,172.43
- Government Page
- Jun/20/23 2:00:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will speak to this now. In fact, when the Speaker thought the member was heckling and asked her to stop, she did not continue to do so. She was speaking to a colleague. However, when we consider the outrageous interruptions that came from the member who just spoke and the member for Kingston and the Islands during our leader's four-hour speech recently, when they would not allow him to even get through what he had to say minute to minute, we are talking about the acceptance of an apology that was given when demanded. It was accepted that the language that was spoken had been unparliamentary, and the apology was given. It is not consistent ruling for the member for Lethbridge to be told she cannot participate in debates afterward.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a serious point of order with respect to the right of the member for Lethbridge to speak during the debate that is currently on in the House.
At the end of the time provided to question the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his use of time allocation on Bill C-18, the online news act, there was a heated exchange between the minister and the member for Lethbridge. It is no secret that the member for Lethbridge is a fierce critic of the minister and has opposed his legislation every step of the way. She makes the point that Bill C-18 is the next step in the government's censorship of the Internet. The member has repeatedly argued that the minister is the one rewarding tech giants, as he will give them more power with Bill C-18. The minister accused the member for Lethbridge of using the talking points of tech giants in opposition to the bill. In response, the member for Lethbridge accused the minister of lying.
We know that term is unparliamentary, and I accept the decision of the Assistant Deputy Speaker to call her to order. It should also be pointed out that, when one member makes a false claim about another member, it is not uncommon for disorder to follow. The member for Lethbridge did the right thing when she said clearly, “I will apologize for using that word.” She went on to say, “He misinformed the House.” This is a matter for debate, although for my part, I agree with her.
The Chair took exception to that comment, informing the House that the member for Lethbridge would not be recognized for the remainder of the day. To be clear, the member did not accuse the minister of deliberately misinforming the House. She simply made the point that the minister was misinformed and brought that misinformation to the House. At most, this is a point of debate. It is not something that a member should be sanctioned for.
The irony is not lost on me that the member is being censored during debate on what amounts to a censorship bill. In my view, this is a heavy-handed response from the Chair, given the poor behaviour of Liberal members in recent days. The Chair has accepted apologies for behaviour that is far more egregious without Liberal members attracting any sanction.
We can take the member for Kingston and the Islands as an example. Last week, he gave me the middle finger when I called him out for denying a unanimous consent motion that called for Paul Bernardo to be put back in maximum security. That member gave the most insincere apology I can recall in the House. There was no sanction for him. In fact, later that day, he was given the floor in the debate.
Therefore, I would expect that the apology from the member for Lethbridge would be accepted by the House and that the Chair would allow her to participate in the debate this afternoon. Further, the House would benefit from even-handed application of the rules that is not seen to benefit one party over another. I would like the Speaker to clarify how the rules should be applied, regardless of who is presiding over the debates.
556 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, those families are suffering again because of the inaction of the government.
The minister makes an art form of spreading misinformation. He said CSIS did not inform him that Beijing was targeting an MP, that Chinese-run police stations were closed and that Bill C-21 did not target hunting rifles. That was false, false and false. Now he says he did not know that Paul Bernardo was transferred to medium security. He has known since March.
Canadians deserve a public safety minister who tells the truth. This one, who threatens our safety with his deceptions, should resign.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 2:47:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Paul Bernardo is a serial rapist and murderer who targeted teenagers. He deserves to stay in a maximum security prison forever, full stop.
If the minister's staff keeps secrets from him on serious issues, then the public safety minister has no control over his files. He has not fired anyone. To allow the minister to keep his job is to be anti-woman, anti-justice and anti-victim.
If the Liberals want to stand with women, tell him to resign.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 3:06:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety knew two years ago that a foreign agent participated in threats to a member of Parliament's family because of his vote in this House. Aside from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, any evidence of any threat against any member in this House should have resulted in expulsion of that agent.
Who was asleep at the switch two years ago, and who is still asleep this week?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 2:46:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety misled Canadians repeatedly. Using the Emergencies Act after its invocation and needing the act beforehand are two very different things. The current Liberal government invoked a Canada-wide civil liberties-limiting act to force tow truck drivers to move trucks, which is not exactly proportional.
The scandal-ridden Liberal government has a serious issue with transparency. From SNC to WE, it seems to be in its DNA. When will the Prime Minister ensure the public safety minister's resignation?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 2:45:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the emergency preparedness minister said the police did not recommend enacting the Emergencies Act, and nor would it have been appropriate. The public safety minister has said for months that the police requested the act. The Deputy Prime Minister, in committee, is now amazingly vague on her recollections on this controversial issue. The RCMP and Ottawa Police said they did not request that the act be used, period. When will the Prime Minister uphold accountability, transparency and ethics and ask for the public safety minister's resignation?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
