- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Conservative
- St. Albert—Edmonton
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $119,185.60
- Government Page
- May/28/24 12:40:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say shame on the parliamentary secretary. That is utter nonsense, even for him.
This motion arises from a prima facie question of privilege, a ruling of the Deputy Speaker, and the parliamentary secretary has demonstrated contempt for the Deputy Speaker by dismissing the seriousness of that matter, which has been ruled upon. Consequently, the motion has been brought forward. However, there is a broader context to the motion, and it is that this is not just one transgression, but part of a pattern of repeated transgressions of partisanship by the Speaker. It is why he needs to resign, and he needs to resign today.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:37:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan is absolutely right. There is no connection. It is just an effort by the Liberals to sow confusion and smear the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, all the while failing to address the issue at hand, which is the pattern of repeated partisanship displayed by the Speaker of the House. The reason they are so defensive of the Speaker is that the Speaker is a partisan Liberal who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is prepared to take direction from the Prime Minister's Office. However, that is a whole other issue.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:35:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, once again, the member for Windsor West has demonstrated that he is a member of the government caucus defending the partisan Liberal Speaker of this House by conflating unrelated matters relating to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is not the Speaker of the House. It is more smoke and mirrors.
If the member wants to talk about consistency, I would remind him of the position that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the NDP House leader, took with regard to the Speaker on the very question of the Speaker's partisanship. He said, “This cannot happen moving forward.” However, this has happened at least three more times since then. Two incidents happened beforehand but were reported after the fact, and now this incident. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby also said that if there was “any derogation from that”, the NDP would vote “non-confidence”. They have an opportunity to do so now, but again—
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:33:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I concur with the member for Thérèse-De Blainville that the Speaker's actions at this point are indefensible. It is part of a repeated pattern in which he has exercised a lack of judgment, blinded by his long-standing partisanship. The Speaker is a partisan, pure and simple. He is a partisan Liberal, and he has been unable to separate his partisan positions, his partisan views, when discharging the high office that he holds as the Speaker of the House. In the circumstances, it is why he needs to resign.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:32:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle merely attended an event. This is very different from the current Speaker of the House, who posted an overtly partisan message about the Liberal Party and expressly attacked the Leader of the Opposition. It is just more smoke and mirrors from the member for Kingston and the Islands.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:30:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe the fundraiser the member for Kingston and the Islands is referring to was one the former Speaker attended but did not promote on social media and did not make remarks about. I do not even believe he was introduced, so it is a very different set of circumstances.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:09:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, here we are again dealing with, for the second time in less than six months, a prima facie question of privilege from a ruling of the Deputy Speaker, arising from the partisan conduct of the Speaker of the House. This is truly unprecedented. When I spoke in December 2023 to the initial prima facie question of privilege, I never would have imagined that, in just a matter of months, I would be on my feet again with the Speaker's having engaged in a very similar transgression of engaging in partisan activities.
It is of fundamental importance that, in discharging the duties and responsibilities of Speaker, the Speaker not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial. If follows, therefore, that the Speaker must refrain from partisan activities and engaging in partisan commentary both in the chamber and outside the chamber. As the leading procedural authority for this place, Bosc and Gagnon states, at pages 323 and 324, on this matter:
When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House....
In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity....
Aside from the excerpt, I wish to elaborate on why a Speaker must be non-partisan, be seen to be non-partisan and avoid partisan activities. That is because the Speaker is, first and foremost, the Speaker of the House of Commons. He or she is the Speaker of the entire House and for all honourable members of the House, entrusted with significant powers and authority to rule not only on matters of procedure but also on matters that go to the heart of the rights and privileges of each hon. member of the august chamber.
The Speaker is like a referee or a judge. The Speaker's rulings are final. There is no appeal. As such, in order for Speakers to fulfill their responsibilities, they must retain the respect and confidence of members. In order to do so, the Speaker must rise above day-to-day partisanship.
I will add a few caveats to that. Each Speaker, generally, has arrived in this place after running for a political party. However, when they become the Speaker, they are expected to not engage in partisan activity, notwithstanding the fact that they would have had a partisan background; other than that, they continue to serve as a Liberal or Conservative MP, but not in sit in the Conservative or Liberal caucus or any political party's caucus. There is some limited flexibility for a Speaker, if they are running for re-election at election time, to run under their party's banner.
However, even in the context of an election, the Speaker, as has been the practice, has generally refrained from making overtly partisan statements or taking partisan positions, and has generally focused, in the context of a campaign, on local issues and the Speaker's representation as an individual member of Parliament.
With that context about why it is necessary for the Speaker to be non-partisan and to acknowledge the limited caveats to that which exist, as has been the practice, the current Speaker has repeatedly failed to fulfill the standard that is expected of the Speaker to refrain from partisanship and partisan activities. This is not a case of one lapse in judgment, a one-off, but rather is part of a pattern. Indeed, there have been at least six incidents in which the Speaker has engaged in partisan activities or made partisan comments in the eight short months that he has been Speaker, including three times between December 1 and December 5, 2023.
The first incident occurred on December 1, 2023, when the Speaker voluntarily set up an interview with Laura Stone of the Globe and Mail on the topic of the Ontario Liberal leader, John Fraser's, retiring, in which the Speaker heaped praise on the Ontario Liberal leader, a partisan figure, and referred to the Liberal Party of Ontario as “our party”. At the very least, it demonstrated a total lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker to set up an interview with a national newspaper reporter to engage in what amounted to partisan commentary praising a partisan political figure in Ontario.
One could say that maybe that was just a one-off, an error in judgment, but it did not end there. The very next day, a video was played of the Speaker, at the ultrapartisan venue of the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention, providing a partisan message to a partisan political figure, namely the same outgoing Ontario Liberal Party leader, John Fraser. The Speaker in his message spoke about his own years of activism in the Liberal Party and how he worked hand in hand with John Fraser to help get Dalton McGuinty elected.
To make matters worse, the Speaker shot the video from the Speaker's office in the House of Commons, used parliamentary resources to convey a partisan message to be played at a partisan political convention and wore the non-partisan robes of the Speaker, to add insult to injury. As problematic as that was, the message on the video was a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons, played at the Ontario Liberal Convention. When it was reported and when people saw the video, there was general shock that the Speaker had done something that clearly had crossed a line.
However, the Speaker did not have the humility even to acknowledge that he had made a mistake. He dismissed his transgression as merely one of perception. When he came before the procedure and House affairs committee, he did not accept any real responsibility, just like his friend the Prime Minister. He said that it was a big misunderstanding and that the video was intended for a smaller private gathering. I do not suppose it makes it much better that the Speaker would use House of Commons resources conveying a partisan message to be played at a smaller partisan venue of Ontario Liberals, but that is the Speaker's logic. I would say it is illogic.
The Speaker's explanation, by the way, did not add up. The explanation was outright contradicted by other witnesses who came to committee and said that the request had been made from Mr. Fraser's wife to the Speaker's chief of staff, that the video had always been intended to be played at the Ontario Liberal convention and that there was no private, intimate event that occurred or that was ever planned. However, I digress.
As the Speaker was being called out for his partisan activities of shooting a partisan video played at a partisan convention, requiring the House to be seized of a matter of the first prima facie question of privilege, the Speaker, to demonstrate his contempt, while the House was sitting and while it was seized with the matter, took off to Washington, D.C. at taxpayers' expense to hobnob with a bunch of liberal D.C. elites, where the Speaker yet again engaged in partisanship. This was while he was under fire for two partisan transgressions. It is unbelievable.
The Speaker attended a reception for Claus Gramckow, who was retiring from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, a foundation closely connected with the Liberal Party of Canada's sister party in Germany. During the reception, the Speaker talked about his days as a Liberal youth president. The Speaker was essentially thumbing his nose at the House and demonstrating that in his mind the rules and the standards that apply to the Speaker of the House do not apply to him.
It should be noted that the Speaker did not get off scot-free for his transgression. The procedure and House affairs committee, in a report that was adopted by the House, ordered that the Speaker reimburse the House of Commons for any costs associated with the production of the video using House of Commons resources, as well as provide an apology to the House, which the Speaker initially refused to provide.
One would think that, after that, the Speaker might have learned his lesson, but it seems he did not, because we found out shortly afterwards that the Speaker had been engaging in other partisan activities. For example, the Speaker attended a Quebec Liberal Party political reception for the Quebec Liberal MNA for Gatineau. It was then reported in the National Post that within weeks of being elected as Speaker of the House, the Speaker contacted a former Liberal MP to write an op–ed praising him and attacking the official opposition.
The Speaker took it upon himself to orchestrate an op-ed attacking the Leader of the Opposition, using a friend to do so because he knew that he could not do so publicly. That is conduct completely unbecoming of a Speaker. It was calculated partisanship by the Speaker, and he hoped that he could do it in a hidden way using his friend, a former Liberal MP. However, he was caught as a result of a report in the National Post.
Now we have the latest transgression by the Speaker, which is that the Speaker's Liberal riding association of Hull—Aylmer organized an event, “A Summer Evening with the [Speaker]”. On its face, if it was simply an event hosted by his riding association and was simply billed as a summer evening with the hon. member, that would not be an issue. It has been the practice for Speakers to attend events in their riding, including events of their local association, and to do so in a way that is not overly partisan. However, that is not what happened in this case.
In fact, what was posted to promote the event was an ultrapartisan message. I think it is important to read that message, which was posted on the Liberal Party website for “A Summer Evening with the [Speaker].” It was an “opportunity to join fellow Liberals and talk about the ways we can continue to build a better future for all Canadians.” On top of that, it says, “While [the Leader of the Opposition] and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety, and pocketbooks, our Liberal team is focused on making life more affordable for Canadians”. It went on.
That is an overtly partisan message, and it is not one, two or three, but six times that the Speaker has crossed the line. It really comes down to this: How many times does this have to happen? It has happened six times in eight months. Enough is enough.
The Speaker has repeatedly fallen below the standard expected of a Speaker, a standard that has been adhered to by his predecessors. I say respectfully that if he truly had an appreciation and respect for the high office that he serves and the authority that it carries over the House, he would do the honourable thing and resign as Speaker of the House. However, seeing as he has not seen fit to do that, it leaves us no other choice, as put forward in this motion, but to vote non-confidence in the Speaker. He has lost the confidence of the official opposition and the Bloc Québécois and has demonstrated a repeated pattern of partisanship.
I urge the passage of this motion, but I hope that it does not come to that. I hope the Speaker finally does the right thing and resigns.
1963 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:02:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/24/24 12:13:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition through which petitioners are calling on Parliament to pass Bill S-281, known as Brian's bill, named in honour of Brian Ilesic, who was brutally murdered at the University of Alberta.
Petitioners are calling for this bill to be passed. It is a bill that seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so that convicted murderers would not be eligible to apply for parole year after year after serving their minimum sentence. Rather, they would only be eligible for a parole hearing at the time of their automatic review, so that victims' families are not retraumatized again and again.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 9:28:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first, paragraph 23 of the RCMP investigation report states that it should be emphasized that the conclusions reached in the report do not translate to the absence of a criminal offence. In other words, the Prime Minister has not been cleared by the RCMP.
Second, paragraph 24 of the report says that if there is additional evidence, the RCMP will reopen the investigation. The reason the RCMP had to close the investigation is that the Prime Minister is hiding behind cabinet documents that go to the heart of whether he obstructed justice.
Is not the real reason the Prime Minister continues to hide behind cabinet confidence that he obstructed justice? He fired Jody Wilson-Raybould because she stood up to his corrupt demands that she interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Is that not what happened?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 9:27:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the very evidence that the Prime Minister has withheld from the RCMP goes to the heart of whether the Prime Minister committed a crime, whether he obstructed justice and whether he fired Jody Wilson-Raybould so that a new attorney general would make a different decision with respect to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. The Prime Minister can waive cabinet confidence tonight.
Again, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, then why has the cover-up continued?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 9:25:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have three observations.
First, members have wide ambit during estimates in the questions posed to the minister. That has been respected this evening until I posed a question relating to the Prime Minister's potential criminality that irked the member for Kingston and the Islands.
Second, the order in council with respect to cabinet confidence indicated that the RCMP went to the Department of Justice first to ask that the order in council and its scope be extended.
Third, the matter of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, and what followed, arises from a decision of the director of public prosecutions that is housed within the minister's department.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 9:23:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP investigation report states that the strongest theory toward obstruction of justice rests on whether the Prime Minister fired Jody Wilson-Raybould so that a new attorney general would make a different decision with respect to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
Again, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, if he is in fact not guilty of obstructing justice, then why will he not waive cabinet confidence and turn over the documents to the RCMP?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 9:22:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time three ways, with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, followed by the member for Langley—Aldergrove.
The RCMP carried out a criminal investigation into whether the Prime Minister obstructed justice when he fired Jody Wilson-Raybould as his attorney general during the SNC-Lavalin scandal. At committee, the RCMP confirmed that this investigation was thwarted after the Prime Minister hid behind cabinet confidence, refusing to turn over documents that were requested by the RCMP.
Can the minister confirm whether the Prime Minister will finally end the obstruction and turn over the documents so that the RCMP can complete its investigation?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 6:54:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary claimed that the minister addressed the matter. The minister has done no such thing. Indeed, the minister has refused to stand in the House to answer a single question, and when I asked him a question at committee, he misdirected by falsely claiming that it had been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner when the arrangement clearly had not been.
Here are the facts: The minister was being paid by a firm owned by his business partner that was lobbying his own department, and it secured $110 million in federal grants for its client. That smacks of a conflict of interest. Is the parliamentary secretary comfortable to stand in the House to tell Canadians that this is the low ethical bar set by the government?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 6:46:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a straightforward question that the Minister of Employment refuses to answer. How much has the minister been paid by Navis Group since the minister was appointed to cabinet?
The minister's dealings with Navis Group raise serious ethical questions, including whether the minister broke the law by contravening the Conflict of Interest Act.
Navis Group is owned by the minister's business partner. The minister was receiving, and continues to receive, payments from Navis Group. As the minister was receiving these payments, Navis Group was lobbying the minister's own department and managed to secure $110 million in federal contracts for its client. This has all the markings of self-dealing, conflict of interest and corruption.
When the Minister of Employment appeared at committee on the estimates, I asked him about his shady arrangement with Navis Group. The minister effectively said that there was nothing to see here, and that it was all above board. The minister claimed it had been approved by the Ethics Commissioner.
However, the minister's statement at committee was patently false. It was patently false because, in fact, the minister actively concealed from the Ethics Commissioner his connection to Navis Group. More specifically, the minister's disclosure to the Ethics Commissioner conveniently hid behind a numbered company without disclosing that the numbered company was Navis Group. A statement from the Office of the Ethics Commissioner confirms that the Ethics Commissioner was unaware of the minister's connection with Navis Group. Therefore, the Ethics Commissioner was unaware that the company that was paying the minister was simultaneously lobbying the minister's department and successfully securing $110 million in grants for its client.
What we have is a shady deal, a shady arrangement, that the minister actively concealed from the Ethics Commissioner. When the minister got caught, he attempted to misdirect by peddling the falsehood that it had been approved by the Ethics Commissioner, raising additional questions about the minister's fitness for office. Since this scandal broke, the minister has not had the guts to stand in the House once and answer questions. Instead, the minister has been shielded by other ministers in the government who have dodged and deflected on the minister's behalf.
On behalf of Canadian taxpayers, who have footed the $110 million bill to Navis Group, how much did the minister pocket from Navis Group? I just need a number.
406 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:09:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after the Prime Minister got caught turning a blind eye to Beijing's interference in our elections, his government was dragged kicking and screaming into calling a public inquiry. It has now been revealed that the Prime Minister and the cabinet are obstructing the work of the inquiry by refusing to turn over documents to the commissioner.
I have a simple question. Will the Prime Minister end the obstruction and turn over all documents requested by Madam Justice Hogue, unredacted, yes or no?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 3:14:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the ad hoc committee concluded that the Prime Minister went to unprecedented lengths to hide the Winnipeg lab documents from Parliament to protect the government from political embarrassment, in other words, a cover-up.
The cover-up continues. Last week, Liberal and NDP MPs voted to shut down a parliamentary committee to get to the bottom of the cover-up. It is a cover-up of a cover-up by the cover-up coalition.
I have a simple question. What are they hiding?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/24 12:00:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment pocketed money from his business partner, the same business partner who was lobbying the minister's department while securing $110 million in government contracts. Meanwhile, the minister actively hid the shady arrangement from the Ethics Commissioner.
For two weeks, the minister has refused to answer the most basic question, so I will ask it again: How much did the minister pocket?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 11:38:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is an instance that is a part of the pattern of a government that has not taken these threats seriously. The Liberals have turned a blind eye, they have downplayed it and they have been reluctant to take measures to counter foreign interference.
It was only after Madam Justice Hogue's first report was issued, for example, that they finally introduced legislation to introduce, among other things, a foreign influence registry. To be charitable to them, it is ambivalence and it is a lack of seriousness, but it could be much worse than that. It could be that this is, frankly, a government that has, at times, sort of welcomed Beijing's interference and at the very least, for political and other reasons, has been unwilling to stand up to Beijing.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
