SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council

Michael Cooper

  • 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
Context: House Hansard - 274 - Feb/2/24
Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)
  • Feb/2/24 12:00:31 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, that is nonsense. Not only had the minister's predecessor been informed of self dealing on the part of the Liberal-appointed Chair, but the minister sent officials to attend each green slush fund board meeting, in which board members funnelled more than $20 million taxpayer dollars to their own companies. The minister claims he had no idea. Either the minister is grossly incompetent or he is misleading Canadians. Which is it?
74 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 178 - Apr/17/23
Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)
  • Apr/17/23 2:50:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff told committee that the Prime Minister reads everything. We know that the Prime Minister received a February 2020 memo that, according to Global News, alerted him of an election interference network by Beijing involving at least 11 candidates and the clandestine transfer of funds. The Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed he knows nothing about this. However, given that he reads everything, we now know that this is not true. Why is the Prime Minister misleading Canadians? What does he have to hide?
91 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 159 - Feb/13/23
Mr. Michael Cooper
  • Feb/13/23 12:53:36 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-39 
Mr. Speaker, I am not misleading anyone. If anyone is misleading, it is the parliamentary secretary, with the greatest of respect to him. I am not having it both ways. He mis-characterized what I said with respect to the expert panel. I said that the expert panel acknowledged what other experts who appeared before the committee acknowledged, which is that irremediability is difficult if not impossible to determine. Then, the expert panel washed its hands of coming up with recommendations on how this could be implemented safely. It offered no objective criteria. It said it could be done on a case-by-case basis. My point with respect to the expert panel is how flawed of a report it was. The government's own expert panel said to go ahead with this, but if we read the fine print, it provided plenty of reasons why the government should not go ahead with it, not by not extending it, but by scrapping it altogether.
164 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border