- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Conservative
- St. Albert—Edmonton
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $119,185.60
- Government Page
- May/31/23 4:30:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Conservative members of the procedure and House affairs committee to table a dissenting report to the main report of the committee with respect to redistribution for the Province of British Columbia.
Conservative members on the committee respect the work of the electoral boundaries commission, which consulted broadly, and therefore we oppose many of the objections; however, we do ask the commission to respectfully consider in a favourable light the objection of the member for South Surrey—White Rock to move Lantzville into Nanaimo—Ladysmith as well as to favourably consider the name changes proposed by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country and the member for Langley—Aldergrove
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 4:30:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to table two dissenting reports in response to the main reports of the committee in respect of the reports of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the provinces of Quebec and Alberta.
The Conservative members support the work of the commissions and appreciate their efforts to engage in significant consultations in reaching their final reports. However, we respectfully request that the committees respectively and favourably view the objections of the members for Yellowhead, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie and Peace River—Westlock, as well as the objections of the members for Mégantic—L'Érable and Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 7:09:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague, respectfully, why the NDP joined the Liberals in blocking Katie Telford from appearing before committee not once, not twice, but on three occasions? They did finally come around and support my motion, and that is a good thing.
Earlier, my hon. colleague said that Telford was a mere staff member and that she should therefore not be called. The second most powerful person in the government is the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Why did the NDP block Telford?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:19:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that it was the NDP that worked with the Liberals three times to block Katie Telford from appearing before the committee. That is the NDP record. New Democrats cannot walk that back, and they cannot hide from that track record.
It was only as a result of public pressure and Conservative pressure, and the fact that we finally put a motion before the House to have a vote, that the Liberals capitulated; finally, the NDP capitulated, too. I guess the cover-up coalition finally recognized they could not—
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:18:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my hon. colleague.
He highlights to what degree the Liberal government has turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference, not only in our elections but also in other aspects. These include interference in our sovereignty, such as by opening up at least seven illegal police stations under the Liberal government's watch. Chinese Canadian citizens are being intimidated and harassed.
What has happened? What have the Liberals done? No charges have been laid. No diplomats have been expelled. The best that the foreign affairs minister could say is that one diplomat's visa was denied. That is it. That is not a government that takes Beijing's interference seriously.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:15:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, Conservatives have been very clear that Beijing's election interference did not impact the overall election result in 2019 or 2021, but Beijing's interference may have had an impact in some ridings. If it had an impact on any riding, that is alarming; it is a matter of national concern, and it needs to be addressed. However, the Prime Minister has been entirely unwilling to do this; instead, he is dodging, deflecting and covering up.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:04:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the concurrence motion, which was strengthened considerably as a result of the Conservative amendment brought forward at the procedure and House affairs committee.
In the face of the alarming revelations of Beijing's interference in two elections that took place under the Prime Minister's watch, Canadians deserve answers. This interference has been characterized by Global News and The Globe and Mail based upon their review of CSIS documents as a vast campaign of interference in the 2019 election and an orchestrated machine in the 2021 election to help the Liberals secure a minority government and to defeat certain Conservative candidates. Canadians deserve to know about the scale of Beijing's election interference and what is really at the heart of this scandal, namely: What did the Prime Minister know, when did he know it and what did he do or fail to do about Beijing's attack on our democracy?
In order to get to the truth, two things need to happen. First, the procedure and House affairs committee, which is seized with a study on Beijing's election interference, must be able to do its work unimpeded. It must do its work without the obstruction that we have seen over the past several weeks, driven by the Liberals but often supported by the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, the NDP. It is important that an independent public inquiry be called. This is a position that Conservatives have consistently supported. Indeed, we strengthened the very weak NDP motion at the procedure and House affairs committee, which I will get into momentarily.
On both of these questions, what is the NDP's track record? Well, it is a pretty pathetic one. At the direction of their boss, the Prime Minister, NDP members joined with Liberal MPs at the procedure and House affairs committee to block the testimony of Katie Telford. They worked with the Liberals not once, not twice, but three times to block Katie Telford from coming to the committee. She is a key witness for getting to the bottom of what the Prime Minister knows and what he failed to do about Beijing's election interference. Again, it is what one would expect of the junior partner of the cover-up coalition.
Then NDP members, no doubt facing public pressure, suddenly flip-flopped and indicated that they were supporting my straightforward motion to have Katie Telford appear at the procedure and House affairs committee. One would think that if they were posturing their support that they would welcome the Conservative motion that was brought forward in the House. However, all of a sudden, they flip-flopped again and voted against that motion.
Now, in fairness to NDP members, they did ultimately support my motion when the Liberals finally ended their filibustering. Still, it took weeks of pressure from the public and Conservatives before they finally did the right thing and supported bringing Telford to committee. However, it must also be noted that they voted against a much stronger motion that Conservatives put forward in the House, which was voted on yesterday. The NDP, the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, sided with the Liberals and voted against a motion that had considerably more teeth than the PROC motion does.
In addition to that, as the junior partner of the cover-up coalition, the NDP has worked with the Liberals to cover up the production of documents at the procedure and House affairs committee, not once but twice. They voted against a Conservative motion proposing that the independent parliamentary inquiry review relevant documents, having regard for national security and other considerations. This independent review would have been instead of giving the government; the PMO; and the Prime Minister, who has so much to answer for, a veto over what is produced to the committee. The NDP voted against that. They joined the Liberals in blocking the production of documents.
The NDP talks a good game about a public inquiry, but the motion they put forward at the procedure and House affairs committee was considerably weak. It would have given the Prime Minister the unilateral power to appoint the commissioner of the inquiry. What Conservatives put forward as an amendment was to say no, that the Prime Minister should not have the only say. If there is to be a public inquiry, as we believe there should be, such an inquiry must be truly independent. Moreover, it must be perceived to be independent. Therefore, our amendment provided that all recognized parties in this House should agree upon the head of the public inquiry to ensure not only the independence of that inquiry but the perception of its independence.
In that regard, Conservatives considerably strengthened the very concurrence motion that this House is debating today. By contrast, the NDP were prepared to let the Prime Minister have a do-over of Rosenberg. There, the Prime Minister appointed a Liberal crony, someone who was the president of the Trudeau Foundation for several years. Not only was he the president of the Trudeau Foundation, but he also actually facilitated a $200,000 donation from a Beijing political operative to the Trudeau Foundation. We said that should not happen again. That individual was appointed to review the 2021 election, completely undermining the credibility of the findings of Rosenberg's report.
Again, there we have it: the NDP members playing games, talking out of both sides of their mouths, flip-flopping and putting forward weak motions at PROC. They say they want a public inquiry, but they were prepared to turn it over to the Prime Minister. What we have is a completely unserious NDP when it comes to getting to the bottom of foreign interference, specifically Beijing's election interference. The NDP has actually spent more time criticizing Conservatives, trying to hold us accountable, than they have the Liberal government. We know, based upon all the reports and the limited documents that have been produced to our committee, that the government has a lot to answer for given that the Liberal Party was a beneficiary or that, at least, Beijing's objective was to assist the Liberal Party.
Why would it take weeks for the NDP to get around to doing what should have happened weeks ago, which is for Telford to come to committee? After all, she is the Prime Minister's top political advisor. She is arguably the second most powerful person in the government, outside of the Prime Minister, and she was intimately involved in both the Liberal Party's 2019 and 2021 election campaigns.
I am glad the cover-up coalition's junior partner finally—
1116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:51:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff is a critical witness to get to the heart of the scandal in terms of what the Prime Minister knows, when he knew about it and why he failed to respond to Beijing's election interference.
If, instead of doing the bidding of the corrupt Prime Minister, the NDP do an about-face to finally stand up for democracy, and the motion passes, will the Prime Minister respect the will of the House or double down on his obstruction and his cover-up?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:49:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, three times, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partner blocked the Prime Minister's chief of staff from testifying about Beijing's election interference. Now, at the direction of the Prime Minister, Liberal MPs have been filibustering my straightforward motion for Telford to appear for nearly 24 hours.
Why have the Liberals gone to such lengths to shield Telford? What does she know that the Prime Minister wants hidden from Canadians?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/7/23 2:52:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister announced yesterday is nothing more than a smokescreen with no transparency. Indeed, the only thing that is transparent is the transparent attempt by the Liberals to cover up what the Prime Minister knows about Beijing's election interference.
Consistent with this, today at committee the Liberals are filibustering to block the Prime Minister's chief of staff from having to testify. Why? What is he so afraid of? What does he have to hide?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:46:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have tried to bring the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify at committee three times. The Liberals, with the support of the NDP, blocked that effort three times, despite scandalous reports that senior PMO officials had been briefed by CSIS about Beijing's interference and did nothing about it.
Is the Prime Minister shielding his chief of staff because he knows his PMO turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:45:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail reported, based upon a review of CSIS documents, that Beijing launched “an orchestrated machine” to help the Liberals in the 2021 election. In the face of these alarming revelations, Canadians deserve answers from the Prime Minister. What they do not deserve is a Prime Minister who obstructs, deflects and hides.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, will he let his chief of staff testify before a committee, or is he going to double down on his cover-up?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
