- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $99,486.97
- Government Page
- Dec/7/22 3:08:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have seen $52 billion in new inflationary spending and $500 billion in deficits in just two years. Yesterday the Auditor General reported that $32 billion in overpayments and suspicious payments just went out the door. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said that if Liberal spending had been less, inflation would have been lower, and today interest rates went up by another half a per cent.
The Prime Minister's big spending is now hurting Canadians. Will he stop the spending, stop the waste and get inflation under control finally?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 4:18:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has been on my mind is whether any other countries around the world have something like the ArriveCAN app. I checked. At least among our peers in the G20, not a single one has an app like this, not Germany, South Korea, India, the U.K., South Africa or Japan. I will not name them all, but there are 20 of them.
The exception is Canada. We have this app that cost $54 million, an app that Canadians did not need and cannot afford. Could my hon. colleague comment on the fact that we spent $54 million on something that was apparently not necessary in the eyes of our G20 peers?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/22 2:15:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Motion No. 45, brought forward by my colleague from Etobicoke North. The motion asks for the following:
That:
(a) the House recognize that (i) seniors deserve a dignified retirement free from financial worry, (ii) many seniors are worried about their retirement savings running out, (iii) many seniors are concerned about being able to live independently in their own homes; and
(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates, and registered retirement income funds, and report its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months of the adoption of this motion.
My riding of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley in Manitoba is home to many seniors. Seniors helped build this country and our communities. I have always said that they need to be treated with the respect they are due for building our communities while raising their families. We all stand on their shoulders in this place.
I stay in touch with many seniors I represent, because I value their experience and their wisdom. Not a day goes by that I do not receive an important email or phone call from seniors I represent who are concerned about their finances. Many are on fixed incomes from their retirement pensions. They are worried about rampant inflation, which has been directly caused by the massive, out-of-control quantitative easing program instituted by the Bank of Canada.
Even the Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, acknowledged that he and his lieutenants misjudged the strength of inflation at the start of the year, and pledged to act “as forcefully as needed” to make up for the mistake. During testimony at the Senate banking committee on April 27, he said that we are coming “out of the deepest recession we've ever had, but...we got a lot of things right and we got some things wrong, and we are adjusting.” Inflation eats away at pension income because price inflation makes everything more expensive. It erodes the basic fixed income of every senior. The bank's main responsibility was to keep inflation at 2%, but now inflation is at almost 7% because of the bank's mismanagement of this issue, as admitted by the governor.
I note that the motion is also concerned about interest rates. As a result of the bank's mismanagement of inflation, it has been forced to raise interest rates. The bank now uses higher interest rates as a tool to curb inflation. Higher interest rates are great if people have savings, but if they are still paying a mortgage or a car loan, which many seniors do, this just compounds the problem. Any discussion of this matter should in fact include a discussion of how to protect seniors against inflation eroding their incomes. In my view, this motion is very timely. Seniors on fixed incomes have been hurt by the bank's mistakes and now have to make difficult decisions around what foods they can afford, or whether they can afford to visit their grandchildren or buy them presents.
On top of this, to add insult to injury, instead of providing an adequate income for Canadian seniors, by any identifiable metric the government has done just the opposite. It promised to help seniors and Canadians suffering during the deadliest pandemic the globe has seen in a century. In order to facilitate this, the government implemented COVID-related financial relief. Despite warnings from its own ministerial officials, the government sat on its laurels and allowed this benefit, which was taxable, to decimate tens of thousands of vulnerable, low-income seniors this past year by clawing back their GIS. Only after months of advocacy by my Conservative colleagues did the Minister of Seniors finally take action to fix her government's mistake by introducing Bill C-12 and issuing a one-time payment to affected seniors. Better late than never, as they say.
While I am happy to support the motion, I just cannot help but feel that this will be just another study collecting dust on the shelf in the minister's office. The fact of the matter is that these issues have already been studied many times. Seniors do not want or need another study. They want action now, not a year from now or after yet another study. Seniors want action right now, not 12 months from now or three or four years from now. We have a number of studies that are either done or in the process of being done, and recommendations to follow up on. The HUMA committee is currently studying the effects of COVID-19 on seniors. This study covers much of the same ground as what this motion calls for. There will be a large overlap between the information the committee has already gathered and what the member's motion hopes to achieve.
Also, back in 2018, a motion moved by the member for Nickel Belt, Motion No. 106, seconded by many House caucus colleagues, asked the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study and report back to the House on important issues such as increasing income security for vulnerable seniors and ensuring quality of life and equality for all seniors via the development of a national seniors strategy, among other things. Seniors are still waiting for that national strategy four years later.
The result of the committee's work was a 142-page report entitled “Advancing Inclusion and Quality of Life for Seniors”, which made 29 recommendations. Many of these recommendations speak directly to the motion we are debating here today, and the government has unsurprisingly failed to act on many of them.
There is not time to review every recommendation in the 10 minutes I am allotted, but one of the areas my hon. friend mentioned in her motion is interest rates and registered retirement income funds. As I said, we on this side agree that affordability for seniors was an issue before COVID and before the recent record increase in inflation and the cost of living under the government's watch. This was caused largely by the mistakes of the Bank of Canada, which it has admitted to.
The very first recommendation of the 2018 report reads, “That Employment and Social Development Canada work with Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency to review and strengthen existing federal income support programs for vulnerable seniors to ensure they provide adequate income.” Four long and difficult years later, seniors know that this recommendation, along with the national strategy, has been ignored.
In addition to the GIS clawback I mentioned earlier in July of last year, the then minister of seniors announced a one-time payment of $500 to seniors aged 75 and over, stating, “Canadian seniors can always count on us to listen, understand their needs and work hard to deliver for them.” However, apparently, the government was unaware that one particularly important need for seniors, especially those on benefits, is to receive timely and accurate tax information.
Once again, the government's incompetence resulted in over 90,000 Canadian seniors receiving the wrong tax information, jeopardizing their ability to file their taxes on time. They now run the risk of once again having their benefits cut off through no fault of their own. That is why our party advocated for the government to extend the deadline for seniors filing their taxes so there would remain zero risk of vulnerable seniors having their benefits taken from them by the government once again.
When it comes to seniors, the government is all talk but little action. Seniors cannot afford to be an afterthought when it is implementing policies and programs designed to help them. We must work together as a House to deliver results. That is why I will be voting in favour of my hon. colleague's motion. I look forward to seeing the findings implemented efficiently, effectively, speedily, and most importantly, not another four years down the road.
1363 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/22 11:55:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my home province of Manitoba, provincial public servants can actually come to work without having to be vaccinated. In Ottawa, if a public servant is not vaccinated, they get the pink slip.
Why should federal public servants be held to a different standard than provincial ones? It is time to be reasonable.
Will the minister show just a little compassion, act like a reasonable person and finally lift mandates on federal public servants?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/22 3:06:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last year the Liberals gave Medicago $173 million in taxpayers' dollars to build a Canadian vaccine manufacturing plant. Now we have learned that tobacco company Philip Morris owns a major stake in Medicago and that the World Health Organization has denied approval for the emergency use of the Covifenz vaccine outside of Canada.
Can the minister please explain this failure of due diligence, and why he wasted $173 million on a vaccine we cannot even donate?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:24:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can only reiterate that the point we are debating today is really a binary one: Has the threshold been met or has it not? We cannot just invoke draconian legislation like the Emergencies Act without that test being met. It is clear that the government has not been able to make the case that the threshold to invoke that legislation has been met. The reality is that existing laws were used to clear the Ambassador Bridge and other checkpoints across the country.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:22:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said as justification for triggering this draconian legislation that it is not “the first, second or third” thing he would do, but when asked what the first, second and third things were that he actually did, he is unable to answer, as are his ministers. It is a very valid question. I do not know how we got from A to Z without reading the rest of the alphabet in between.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:21:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the important things about debate is that we need to stay on point. The real point of debate today is whether or not the threshold has been met for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. That threshold is that these matters “cannot be...dealt with under any other law of Canada.” That threshold simply has not been met. In fact, international affairs professor Leah West at Carleton University said that she does not think the act applies. She said, “I have serious doubts that this definition is met.” When the leader of the NDP speaks about this, it sounds like he would rather go to the dentist than vote for this legislation.
I really think we need to stay on point, and I do not believe the threshold has been met.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:10:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I must ask how someone so irresponsible can be entrusted with such great responsibility.
Our country is more divided than ever before. Over the past two years, we have seen the government divide Canadians for political gain over and over again by pitting one region against the other, pitting east against west, pitting Canadians against each other, eroding trust in our institutions and flouting the rule of law.
The primary responsibility of the Prime Minister is to maintain peace, order and good government. What grade should the Prime Minister get? He gets an F in my book. We do not have peace. We do not have order, and I think all Canadians know the answer to the third question. That is right. It is an F.
The Prime Minister has decided to invoke the Emergencies Act for the first time since its inception 34 years ago. This legislation gives the government unprecedented power and control over the lives of Canadians, and it should only be used in the most exceptional of circumstances. It should not be used where existing laws are sufficient.
The threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act has simply not been met. It is not even close. This is a clear case of government overreach. So far, the Prime Minister and his ministers cannot even articulate a coherent reason.
The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation is such that it:
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
The Emergencies Act is there to address certain types of extreme threats to Canada only when all other existing options will just not work The act is not there to allow the Prime Minister to arbitrarily, and without reason, curtail the rights of all citizens.
The Prime Minister says that the issues that have arisen over the past three weeks cannot be dealt with under existing legislation. Experts disagree, saying that existing Criminal Code provisions are sufficient, and extraordinary powers are an overreach.
Here is an example. The justice minister is justifying the Emergencies Act as needed to compel tow truck drivers to remove illegally parked vehicles, but there is a problem with that. Paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code already gives the police this power. It applies to anyone who:
omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace,
The Criminal Code also already contains other sections that address unlawful assembly, harassment, intimidation and mischief.
Our country has experienced many crises in the last 30 years that were resolved without the need for Emergencies Act overrides. It was not invoked during the 2008 financial crisis. It was not invoked during the Oka crisis in 1990. It was not invoked in the aftermath of the Ottawa shootings that tragically ended the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo in 2014. It was not invoked during 9/11. It was not during invoked in 2020, when rail crossings were being blocked across the country for weeks on end, disrupting supply chains, the delivery of goods and livelihoods.
It has not been invoked to deal with the opioid crisis. Most recently, it was not used during the greatest crisis that this country has faced since the Second World War, which is the COVID pandemic. In fact, it was not even used last week to clear the Ambassador Bridge, the Emerson border crossing or, for that matter, any other crossing. The crossings were clearly cleared peacefully, without violence and under existing laws.
Why invoke the Emergencies Act? Why suspend the rights of all Canadians? Sadly, we do not know why. The Prime Minister will not tell us his reason for this historic and unfettered power grab.
It is clear the the Prime Minister has lost of control of this situation and is desperate to save his political skin. Yes, the sunny ways of 2015 have given way to the dark, cloudy haze of 2022. He has lost control, and we should not be surprised in the slightest.
Here is why. When a government reduces sentences for serious offences, as this government has, when a prime minister tries to cut his friends at SNC-Lavalin a special deal to avoid criminal prosecution, when a government abandons the fundamental adherence to the rule of law, when certain politicians call to defund the police and the Prime Minister does not even immediately and strongly repudiate that terrible idea, what happens? What happens is lawlessness, and that is what has happened here. That is right: lawlessness.
Parliament has been surrounded by trucks that have blockaded the streets of Ottawa, cut off the free flow of traffic, made downtown residents' lives miserable, subjected them to honking noises 24-7, shut down businesses and cost people their livelihoods, all because of the weak policies of the Prime Minister.
As we have seen in Coutts, Windsor, Surrey and even in my home province of Manitoba, law enforcement has been able to peacefully clear border protests through negotiations without resorting to any Emergencies Act provisions. In fact, Manitoba and many other provinces are telling the Prime Minister that this step simply is not necessary and may even inflame the situation.
However, the government is insisting on triggering this draconian legislation that dramatically expands the ability of the state to interfere in the private lives of Canadians, a law that includes requiring banks to freeze an individual's bank account without due process.
The fact of the matter is that the governments in the different provinces already have the powers they need to deal with blockades and street protests. This was confirmed last week when the Minister of Emergency Preparedness actually said that police already had all the tools and resources they needed. Why then, a few days later, invoke the Emergencies Act?
This is a prime minister who thought it was a good idea to take an all-expenses-paid trip to the Aga Khan's island, a prime minister who embarrassed Canada by dancing through India with a known terrorist, a prime minister who paid $10 million to Omar Khadr and who gave his friends at WE Charity a $500-million contract in exchange for $500,000 in speaking fees for his family.
This is a prime minister who has been cited, not once but twice, by the Ethics Commissioner for ethics violations; who tried to pressure the first indigenous Attorney General in our history to cut a special deal for his friends at SNC-Lavalin, to go easy on them because of criminal charges they faced; who pretends to be a feminist while removing strong women of colour from his caucus for simply disagreeing with him; who flew to Tofino for a vacation on the very first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, after spending years pretending to care about reconciliation; who personally mocked indigenous protesters for simply wanting clean drinking water; and who spent years dressing up in blackface, so many times he cannot recall how many times he did it.
Now, just last week, in response to a reasonable question, he shamefully said to the hon. member for Thornhill, who is Jewish, that Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas and people who wave Confederate flags. What an insult to the member, to the Jewish community, to the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust, and to the brave Canadians who served in World War II and helped defeat the Nazis.
To make matters worse, he has refused to apologize. Such comments and actions are far, far beneath the office of the Prime Minister.
Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe any illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully. However, the actions of the Prime Minister, of invoking the Emergencies Act, could have the exact opposite effect.
The great American poet Maya Angelou wrote, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Canadians should heed this advice.
I ask again, how can someone so irresponsible be entrusted with such great responsibility as the invocation of the Emergencies Act? The answer is simple: They cannot.
1426 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:34:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the point here comes down to one fundamental issue, which is that the test, or the threshold, for invoking the Emergencies Act requires that situations such as this cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law in Canada.
I heard the member comment a little about that. He said that the Ottawa police could not deal with the situation, but from all accounts and reports, that really came down to a matter of resourcing and not the actual law.
Experts have said that the Criminal Code of Canada specifically provides the powers that the police need to deal with the situation.
In light of that, why does the hon. member think that the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act has been met?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. The symbols and messages of hate that have permeated these demonstrations are very concerning.
To that end, will the member be voting in favour of the bill put forward by my colleague for Saskatoon—Grasswood, which would make Holocaust denial and distortion a criminal offence in Canada?
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/16/21 10:58:16 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member, in her capacity as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism, about the 12,000 independent travel advisers across the country who are suffering because of a lack of supports within Bill C-2. As the member may be aware in her capacity as the parliamentary secretary, many of these travel advisers had their commissions clawed back. They were not earning zero income; they were earning less than zero income and had to pay money back to the airlines. With the latest travel advisory, there will be more cancellations, and my understanding is that they are not eligible under Bill C-2 at this point.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 6:35:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to debate very carefully today and member after member on the government side has stood and said that this motion is about COVID, it is about protecting MPs, protecting the public and that is why we should have a virtual option. However, my problem is that when I read the motion, it does not say that. It does not say that members can Zoom in if they are diagnosed with COVID. It does not say that members can Zoom in if they have been in proximity of someone who has had COVID or has had to self-isolate. It does not say any of those things. It just says that any member can Zoom in for any reason.
I am wondering if the intention is, and I take my colleague at his word, that if members have one of those conditions, if they are diagnosed with COVID, been in proximity or had an alert, that under those circumstances they can Zoom in, and not for any reason?
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 4:08:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise for the first time after being re-elected by the great people of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley. I am happy to be back live and in person in this amazing place.
I have been listening carefully to the speeches today and almost, without exception, everyone supporting the motion is saying that if somebody gets COVID, has been near somebody who has COVID or received an alert that he or she has had a brush with COVID, the member should not be disenfranchised and should be able to participate virtually. There is some logic to that, but the fact is that is not what the motion says at all. The motion says that any member can participate virtually or in-person for any reason.
Does the member not think the motion is simply too broad and if the government is sincere in wanting members to be able to participate virtually because they are ill or might become ill, the motion should simply say that?
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
