SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Dan Mazier

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa
  • Manitoba
  • Voting Attendance: 67%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $138,707.52

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 317 - May/24/24
Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)
  • May/24/24 12:19:28 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order regarding the government's response to my written Question No. 2485, which was published on the Order Paper on March 20, 2024. In my written question, I asked the government about its consultation process for Parks Canada’s detailed impact assessment of the “Management of Zebra Mussels in Clear Lake in Riding Mountain National Park”, which was opened for public comment in February 2024. I asked the government, “Who did Parks Canada directly inform of the Detailed Impact Assessment, and when were each of them notified...?” The government stated, “Parks Canada informed the following groups of the opportunity to publicly comment on the detailed impact assessment”. Included on the list of organizations that Parks Canada claimed to notify was my office, the Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce and Clear Lake Country, a local tourism association. This was a concerning response given that neither my office nor I were informed that Parks Canada had initially launched an opportunity to publicly comment on the detailed impact assessment. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that neither the Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce nor Clear Lake Country were initially informed of the opportunity to publicly comment on the detailed impact assessment for Clear Lake within Riding Mountain National Park, despite being identified as key stakeholders by Parks Canada. In the response, the government claimed that Dameon Wall, external relations manager for the Riding Mountain Field Unit, informed these stakeholders of the initial public comment period on behalf of Parks Canada. However, no records of this exist. This directly contradicts the government's response and indicates that the government provided false information to Parliament. I hope the government will review this response and correct the record at the earliest opportunity.
301 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22
Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)
  • Nov/28/22 1:45:38 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-27 
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned some of the things that are missing in the bill and that it will hopefully get to committee, but there was no mention, as he said, about minors and defining “minor”. My other colleague mentioned today that in the U.S. it is defined as 13 years old, which I found quite surprising. Here in North America we have so many definitions of “minor” that we still do not know what they meant here in Canada when they wrote the laws. There was no mention of seniors, which I mentioned already this morning. Overall, why did the government pick such an ambiguous or bureaucratic way of approaching this legislation and offering clarity versus having the rules and doing it right the first time?
132 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border