- 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
- Mar/19/24 9:37:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is a privilege to rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Canada's 18th Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.
At the outset, I would like to extend my condolences to his wife, Mila, as well as to his children, his grandchildren and the entire Mulroney family.
Although I did not have the privilege of personally knowing Brian Mulroney, I have always admired and appreciated the tremendous statesmanship and leadership he provided during the nine years he served as our prime minister. To understand the many achievements and accomplishments of Brian Mulroney, it is important to understand that, when he was elected in 1984 with the second largest majority government in Canadian history, save for John Diefenbaker's landslide win in 1958, he inherited very difficult circumstances. They were difficult economic circumstances, with double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and interest rates that were north of 20%. It was also a difficult fiscal situation, with the fiscal cupboard being bare.
Notwithstanding those challenges, he got to work to implement many bold policies, some of which were controversial, many of which were transformational and, with the benefit of history, have proven to have been for the benefit of Canada on the whole.
It should be further noted that, when Brian Mulroney was first elected, the unity of the country was very much imperiled. There was great division across the land. It was Brian Mulroney who spoke about bringing Quebec back into the constitutional fold with honour and enthusiasm.
Although he, in the end, did not succeed, he must be credited for the tremendous leadership and courage he demonstrated, at considerable political cost to himself and his party, but it was for the betterment of strengthening the unity of Canada. That was his objective, and he brought Canadians together. He brought Albertans and Quebeckers together in 1984, and again in 1988, when he made history by being the only Conservative to win a back-to-back majority government, save for Sir John A. Macdonald.
When Brian Mulroney was elected in 1984, speaking as an Alberta MP, Alberta was reeling. Alberta had been devastated as a result of the national energy program, which had devastated Alberta's economy and had driven many Albertans to unemployment and bankruptcy.
Brian Mulroney recognized the difficulty Alberta faced, and his government moved expeditiously, in difficult circumstances, to abolish the national energy program, as well as the petroleum and gas revenue tax, the PGRT, which was a punitive tax. However, it was not just in the context of energy policy that Alberta benefited from Brian Mulroney. His government also abolished the Foreign Investment Review Agency, a board whose decisions often imperiled the flow of investment to Alberta and the west.
Brian Mulroney negotiated the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which was a win for Canada, but which was very much in Alberta's economic interest. Indeed, free trade continues to be in Alberta's economic interest. While Brian Mulroney was not always popular in Alberta, he demonstrated, or history has demonstrated, rather, that Brian Mulroney consistently had Albertans' backs. He delivered for Alberta.
While much has been spoken this evening about some of his obvious important achievements, including negotiating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the acid rain treaty with the United States, standing up to apartheid and strengthening our most important bilateral relationship, that being with the United States, there are other areas he deserves great credit for that he often has not received credit for.
One example is that it was the Mulroney government that restored fiscal responsibility to Ottawa. When Brian Mulroney was elected, he inherited a deficit that, in today's terms, would be approaching $100 billion. That is a large deficit even by the current Liberal government's standards. It has exceeded deficits on that scale, but I digress.
The Mulroney government faced a bloated federal government and program spending that was being increased on an unsustainable basis annually. Does that sound familiar? The Mulroney government responded by initiating policies to reduce the size and scope of government to get spending under control. Indeed, on an incremental and responsible but significant basis, annual program spending growth was substantially reduced in the neighbourhood of 70%. Consequently, what was a very large operating deficit turned into an operating surplus. In short, the Mulroney government fixed Canada's budget.
It is true that Jean Chrétien did inherit a deficit from the Mulroney government, but it was because of the costs associated with servicing that debt, debt that had been accumulated by the previous Trudeau government and not the Conservative Mulroney government.
Of course, Brian Mulroney's government deserves significant credit for contributing in a major way to building Canada's modern economy through the policy of free trade, yes, but also through a series of free market policies, including a comprehensive program around privatization, deregulation and tax reform. Together, these policies contributed over the long term to growth and prosperity and to the enhancement of Canada's competitiveness.
I could go on with a long list of the many other achievements of Brian Mulroney and his government over nine years, but time does not allow it. However, what these achievements I have highlighted and my colleagues have highlighted over this evening demonstrate is that Brian Mulroney was a transformative prime minister. He was a consequential prime minister. He will go down as one Canada's greatest prime ministers, and Canada is better off because of his leadership.
923 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/23 11:35:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The conflicts are everywhere. The rapporteur is a family friend of the Prime Minister. He is a member of the Beijing-financed and compromised Trudeau Foundation. He hired a team of Liberals to draft and defend the conclusions of his report, and now this.
How many conflicts with this rapporteur is the Prime Minister willing to ignore? When will he fire him and finally call an independent public inquiry?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 2:35:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, his loyalty should be to the people of Canada and the elected members of this place, not to the Prime Minister.
This House voted non-confidence, and Canadians have no confidence in the so-called special rapporteur because he is in a conflict. He is a lifelong friend of the Prime Minister and a former member of the Beijing-financed Trudeau Foundation. Yesterday, he admitted that he does not work for Canadians; he works for the Prime Minister.
Why will the Prime Minister not acknowledge this blatant conflict of interest and fire his fake rapporteur?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:19:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister's watch, Beijing interfered in two federal elections, set up illegal police stations and targeted the family of a sitting member of Parliament. In a blatant conflict of interest, the Prime Minister appointed a family friend and member of the Beijing-financed Trudeau Foundation to investigate Beijing's interference.
From the start, the report had no credibility, because by the time the Prime Minister's fake rapporteur decided to meet with the former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, the report had already been written. The report has no credibility because its author is not independent, but rather the Prime Minister's Beijing-compromised friend.
If the Prime Minister had any integrity, he would fire his fake rapporteur and call a truly independent public inquiry.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 10:20:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is no coincidence that the Prime Minister appointed Rosenberg, the past president of the Trudeau Foundation, to investigate the 2021 election, an election in which Beijing interfered to assist the Liberals in winning a re-election. It is no coincidence. As far as the appointment of a special rapporteur is concerned, it is no coincidence that he appointed a member of the Trudeau Foundation. A special rapporteur is nothing more than an attempt by the Prime Minister to appoint his friends to provide delays so he can cover up this interference in the hope that it goes away. Guess what? It is not. Canadians are demanding answers and in order to get them we need a public inquiry and we need it now.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 11:44:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is more. The Prime Minister appointed the former president of the Trudeau Foundation to whitewash Beijing's interference in the 2021 election. It was interference to help him get re-elected. Convenient appointments, paid vacations, meetings in his office and Beijing bribes all connect the Prime Minister to the Trudeau Foundation.
When will the Prime Minister and the government stop insulting the intelligence of Canadians and admit that the Prime Minister is closely connected to the foundation that bears his family name?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 11:43:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Trudeau Foundation donors paid for the Prime Minister's luxurious $80,000 Caribbean vacation. The Prime Minister's brother signed off on a $140,000 Beijing bribe to the foundation to buy his influence, and the foundation held a meeting with five deputy ministers in none other than the Prime Minister's own office.
The Prime Minister claims he has nothing to do with the Trudeau Foundation. Is it really so?
73 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 12:10:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to our Conservative motion that, among other things, calls on the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, to testify about Beijing's election interference in 2019 and 2021. After all, Katie Telford, as the Prime Minister's chief of staff, is a critical witness for getting to the heart of this scandal. What does the Prime Minister know, when did he learn about it and what did he do or fail to do about Beijing's election interference?
While this motion is a test for the government, it is also a test for the NDP, because on three occasions at the procedure and House affairs committee, the NDP blocked Katie Telford from appearing before the committee. NDP members have a choice. They can continue to do the bidding of this corrupt Liberal government, propping up this corrupt Prime Minister, or they can work with us to protect the sanctity of the ballot box and the integrity of our elections by working to get the answers that Canadians deserve about Beijing's election interference in not one but two federal elections. We will soon find out what choice they make.
The key question that must be asked is this: What does the Prime Minister have to hide?
Since November, when reports of Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections came to light, the Prime Minister has refused to come clean about what he knows. For two weeks, the Prime Minister was silent. Then the Prime Minister broke his silence in an effort to sow confusion and avoid accountability. The Prime Minister used carefully chosen words to say that he was not briefed about candidates receiving money from China. How convenient that is, because no one was ever saying that candidates received money from China. It is not as if Beijing writes cheques and hands them out to candidates. It is an absurdity.
What is at issue is a campaign of interference by Beijing in two federal elections, and on that issue, the Prime Minister has refused to answer the most basic of questions. He has refused to say how many times he was briefed. He has even refused to acknowledge that he had been briefed, even though it is now well established that the Prime Minister has been frequently briefed about Beijing's election interference. Indeed, the Prime Minister's own national security adviser, when she testified at the procedure and House affairs committee, acknowledged that the Prime Minister had been briefed frequently.
In a desperate attempt to change the channel, the Prime Minister has engaged in pathetic attacks, even going so far as to outrageously claim that those who want to get to the bottom of Beijing's interference, those who dare to hold the Prime Minister to account for Beijing's attack on our democracy, are undermining democracy. It is Beijing interfering in two federal elections that is undermining democracy, and it is a Prime Minister who has turned a blind eye to interference who is undermining democracy.
The Prime Minister has shut down calls for an independent public inquiry. He has ordered Liberal MPs at the procedure and House affairs committee to use every trick in the book to impede the work of the committee to get to the bottom of Beijing's interference. That includes blocking the production of relevant documents and shielding key PMO officials and former and current ministers. This is now culminating in a shameful filibuster that has gone on for four days and nearly 24 hours to shield the Prime Minister's chief of staff from having to come to committee.
Taken together, the actions of the Prime Minister are not the actions of a transparent prime minister. They are not the actions of a prime minister who is concerned about Beijing's election interference. They are the actions of a prime minister who has something to hide. They are the actions of a prime minister who has engaged in a cover-up.
Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections is not speculative; it is well documented. Even in the limited disclosure given to the procedure and House affairs committee, that interference is evident. For example, a February 21, 2020, daily intelligence brief prepared by the PCO observed that Beijing orchestrated “subtle but effective interference networks” in the 2019 election. It said, “subtle but effective interference networks”, and the Prime Minister received that PCO briefing according to his national security adviser.
During the 2021 election, a September 13, 2021, open data analysis of the rapid response mechanism of Global Affairs Canada observed an online disinformation campaign on the online social media sites of those affiliated with the Beijing regime. It targeted the Conservative Party generally and targeted individual Conservative candidates, including the now defeated Conservative member of Parliament Kenny Chiu. That open data analysis further observed that this disinformation campaign had “grown in considerable scale”.
Then there are the reports from The Globe and Mail and Global News based upon their review of CSIS documents and other security and intelligence documents that reveal a campaign of interference by Beijing. It begs the question: In the face of that interference, what did the Prime Minister do about it? It appears that he did nothing. After all, no arrests have been made, no diplomats have been expelled and the Prime Minister kept Canadians in the dark. Canadians would still be kept in the dark but for whistle-blowers and the work of Global News and The Globe and Mail.
CSIS advised the Prime Minister that, in response to foreign interference, the policy of the government should be one of transparency and sunlight and that such interference should be made known to the public. However, the Prime Minister has done the opposite of this. He kept Canadians in the dark, and now he is trying to bury the truth with a smokescreen, including a so-called special rapporteur, whom he appoints and who reports to him. He turns out to be a family friend and is a member of the Beijing-funded Trudeau Foundation, someone who is hardly independent. It is a secret committee with secret evidence and secret conclusions redacted by the PMO. It is hardly transparency and sunlight.
We put forward this motion because Canadians deserve transparency and sunlight. It is time to end Liberal obstruction. It is time to end the Liberal cover-up. It is time to get answers, and that starts with hearing from the Prime Minister's chief of staff. If the Prime Minister really has nothing to hide, he would support transparency and sunlight. He would support this motion.
1118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 12:10:27 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, given the many reports of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic processes by, or on behalf of, the communist regime in Beijing, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be empowered and instructed to study all aspects of foreign interference in relation to the 2019 and 2021 general elections, including preparations for those elections, and, to assist the committee with this study,
(a) Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, be ordered to appear before the committee as a witness, for three hours on her own, under oath or solemn affirmation, at a date and time, no later than Friday, April 14, 2023, to be fixed by the Chair of the Committee;
(b) the following individuals be invited to appear as witnesses before the committee on dates and times to be fixed by the Chair of the Committee, but no later than Friday, May 19, 2023,
(i) the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, to appear on her own for two hours,
(ii) the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness, to appear on his own for two hours,
(iii) the Minister of Public Safety, to appear on his own for two hours,
(iv) Morris Rosenberg, author of the assessment of the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol for the 2021 general election, to appear on his own for two hours,
(v) Janice Charette, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, to appear on her own for two hours,
(vi) a panel consisting of the 2019 and 2021 national campaign directors for each recognized party in the House,
(vii) a panel consisting of the security-cleared party representatives to the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections during the 2019 and 2021 general elections,
(viii) a panel consisting of the Hon. Ian Shugart, Greta Bossenmaier, Nathalie Drouin, Gina Wilson and Marta Morgan, members of the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol Panel during the 2019 general election,
(ix) James Judd, author of the assessment of the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol for the 2019 general election, to appear on his own,
(x) a panel consisting of David Morrison, François Daigle, Rob Stewart and Marta Morgan, members of the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol Panel during the 2021 general election,
(xi) David Vigneault, Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to appear on his own for two hours,
(xii) John McCall MacBain former Chair of the Board of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation,
(xiii) Élise Comtois, former Executive Director of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation,
(xiv) the Hon. John McCallum, former Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, to appear on his own for one hour,
(xv) Jennifer May, Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, to appear on her own for one hour;
(c) for the purposes of this study, it be an instruction to the committee that,
(i) it hold at least one additional meeting, for a duration of three hours, during each House sitting week concerning this study,
(ii) it hold at least one meeting during the adjournment period beginning Friday, March 31, 2023, if necessary, for the purposes of paragraph (a),
(iii) any proceedings before the committee in relation to any motion concerning non-compliance with paragraph (a) of this order shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the motion shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment;
(d) for the purposes of this study, the committee shall, notwithstanding paragraph (p) of the special order adopted on Thursday, June 23, 2022, have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings; and
(e) the evidence and documentation adduced by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs during the current session in relation to its study of foreign election interference shall be deemed to have been laid upon the table and referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
698 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
