- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Barrie—Innisfil
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $99,360.72
- Government Page
- Jan/29/24 5:02:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing I find curious every time the member gets up to speak to this is this almost contemptuous nature with which he speaks about members for bringing these issues up. The Bloc Québécois has a right and an obligation to be an opposition party, which it is doing. We are dealing with a concurrence report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that not just investigates what happened with the Speaker but also gives an opportunity for the House to deal with this. We also understand that there is other business of the House that can occur, but in this case, through the whip, the Bloc Québécois wanted to bring this to the House to have this debate, to talk about it more and to find concurrence of the House.
The hon. member can vote either for or against the concurrence report, but the Bloc has the right to use those tools, as every opposition member does, in a way that holds the government to account and, in this case, to find concurrence on a report that came out of committee. Why does he hold so much contempt for this? In fact, I would argue that, when he was in opposition, these very same issues would come up. They would also do concurrence reports on this, so why the difference now compared to when he was in opposition and this contemptuous nature with which he continues to hold this institution and our ability to hold the government to account?
262 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:26:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, I also take my earpiece out, not because it is loud, but because I quite frankly do not want to hear what the other side has to say.
This is an important issue, because it speaks to the confidence the House has in the Speaker to make objective rulings in a non-partisan manner. My expectation, and I am sure that of my colleague in the Bloc, is that the Speaker is to make those rulings in an objective, non-partisan manner, but the activities of partisanship and the continued bad judgment speak to a real problem.
My question is a pointed one. Does the hon. member have confidence in the Speaker to be objective and non-partisan and to act in the manner they should as they take that chair?
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 5:29:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although I want to hear the member for Peace River—Westlock speak to this issue, I move, seconded by the member for Foothills, that:
The member for Battle River—Crowfoot be now heard.
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/22 3:05:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it feels like everything is broken in Canada because of the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. Why should anyone be surprised? It is part of the Liberal playbook not to unite Canadians but to divide them.
The Prime Minister has been very effective at pitting Canadians against each other. Imagine a prime minister calling his own citizens racist, misogynists and extremists for not agreeing to his political ideology or his politics. Canadians are losing their hopes, their dreams and their dignity.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that he is here to serve and unite Canadians, not divide them like he has been doing for the last seven years?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 3:10:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what do Mark Norman, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Darren Campbell all have in common? They spoke truth to power and their reputations were attacked, but not before the Liberals gaslit Canadians about their underhanded role in manipulating the criminal justice system. In Campbell's case, the Prime Minister, the former minister and the RCMP commissioner are staying true to form. They have all lined up a fall guy, but Canadians will not buy it this time.
When will the good guys stop paying the price, and when will the Liberals stop manipulating the criminal justice system to suit their crass political self-interests?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 3:09:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, RCMP Superintendent Campbell is an honest officer with a solid reputation. Former commissioners, deputy commissioners and other RCMP veterans from across Canada are speaking up to defend the man's character.
Campbell's notes show that his team of investigators was under political pressure and interference from Brenda Lucki on behalf of the Prime Minister and the former minister of public safety, but this Ottawa gang has denied it meddled in the most tragic crime in Nova Scotia's history. It is never the crime; it is always the cover-up.
Someone is lying and it is not Campbell. Is it Lucki, the Prime Minister, the former minister or all three?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 3:45:27 p.m.
- Watch
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 3:06:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this culture of deception, deflection, not being accountable, blaming others, entitlement and division has been a culture created by the Prime Minister. He has set the example for others in his cabinet to follow, so it is no surprise to anyone to see the public safety minister using the tactics of his Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister did not hesitate to force out Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott for speaking the truth to his power. Will the Prime Minister for once do the right thing, do the honourable thing, and fire the Minister of Public Safety?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 2:46:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what is critical here is getting to the truth, because the truth is critical for the parliamentary committee investigating the invocation of the act. The truth is also critical for the judicial inquiry charged with investigating the rationale for invoking the act.
What is known is that the truth has been corrupted by the Minister of Public Safety. He knows his words matter. Making false claims in trying to justify invoking the Emergencies Act matters. It matters a lot.
Will the minister do the right thing, the honourable thing, and resign?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 2:45:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on multiple occasions, the Minister of Public Safety said that police forces had requested the Emergencies Act. We now know that was not true. Even worse, the minister doubled down on his false claims on multiple occasions in the House, in committee and in the media. He even sent his deputy minister to committee to try to clean up his mess, saying he was misunderstood.
There is no misunderstanding here. He knows exactly what he did. He misled Canadians and he knows there must be consequences.
Will he do the honourable thing, the right thing, and announce his resignation today?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/22 12:02:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it does not give me any pleasure, but I am a rising on a question of privilege concerning an occurrence of misconduct that happened in the House of Commons late Friday afternoon by a member of the Liberal Party.
As it would happen, I had just left the chamber about 10 minutes prior, as I had to hit the road to make an important engagement in Barrie—Innisfil on Friday evening, so I am raising this at my earliest opportunity.
The facts are these: The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake rose on a point of order to inquire whether the Liberal member for Brampton Centre was participating virtually from an inappropriate location. A brief discussion arose, and at its conclusion, the The Assistant Deputy Speaker confirmed this to the House, which is documented at page 4931 of the Debates, when she said, “I have confirmation from the Table that a page has confirmed that there was a member who appeared to be in the washroom.”
I have subsequently been informed that those who witnessed the events saw quite clearly the Liberal MP enter what appeared to be a toilet stall in one of the mens' washrooms located on this very floor of this building. The visible stonework, the wooden door, the stainless steel door hinges and the coat hook on the back of the door, which is part of the long side of the stall, looked quite familiar to all, I am told. Based on the angle, I am informed that it appeared that the camera was mounted on the ledge or ridge on the wall just above the back of the toilet. The member of Parliament was literally using the washroom while participating in a sitting of the House of Commons, the cathedral of Canadian democracy. I cannot believe I actually just said those words.
You might think that this is an unprecedented situation, but sadly and unbelievably, it is not. In fact, there is a recent precedent that is practically identical. The former member for Pontiac Will Amos also used the washroom on camera during a sitting of the House just last May. In his case, he urinated into a coffee cup for all to see.
The Chair ruled on June 7, 2021, at page 8034 of the Debates, that this was a prima facie contempt and invited my colleague, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, to move a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee did not have the opportunity to take up the matter and report its reflections on what was then an unprecedented situation during the two sitting weeks between the ruling and the dissolution of Parliament. In light of Mr. Amos's subsequent retirement, the matter was not pursued further in the current Parliament.
The Chair's words in making last spring's ruling are, I think, equally pertinent today. He said:
The Chair has on many occasions reminded members that virtual sessions are an extension of the proceedings of the House and that their conduct must respect our rules and practices, even if they are participating remotely. I want to reiterate, yet again, the importance of everyone adjusting to the temporary measures put in place in response to the pandemic and exercising continued vigilance to prevent such incidents from recurring. As soon as a member connects to a virtual sitting and opens their camera, they are considered to be, for all intents and purposes, in the House.
There is no dispute about the facts in question, and they constitute a serious breach of the rules of decorum and an affront against the dignity of the House. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, at page 60, “Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House...is referred to as a contempt of the House.”
Frankly, we have now had two years of Zoom meetings in a hybrid Parliament. Surely to God we have figured out when and where to turn our cameras on and off. It is the Liberal Party, the party that keeps shoving hybrid procedures down our throats, that cannot seem to get its act together.
On Friday, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader did not react with the shock and contrition that one might naturally expect in this situation. Instead, he tried to present this as a positive thing when he said:
When people are in their offices, working virtually, sometimes it can be very easy to shy away from the camera to do something else, much like we might shift over a couple of seats. I believe the most important thing is that members have the camera on and are in the room.
I cannot believe that. The most important thing is that the member for Brampton Centre's camera was on and he was in the shot. The room in question was a toilet stall, for crying out loud. The Liberals simply do not get it.
If you ask me, given the blatant disrespect the Liberals have shown Parliament over the past couple of years, from playing games with the resources available for committees to posing grave health risks for our dwindling ranks of simultaneous interpreters, to quite literally urinating in the House, the answer here is to shut down the hybrid parliament and end this remote participation. It is time we all get back here, in our places in this chamber. On top of the disrespect shown to the House, there is also the matter of the potential consequential effects here on Parliament Hill.
Under the Canada Labour Code, each of us is required to have an occupational health and safety officer. My health and safety officer has impressed upon me some very legitimate concerns that, when entering any given washroom in the West Block, parliamentary staff now have to wonder whether any of the MPs they may encounter, Liberal in this case, are carrying an active video camera connected to a live, televised broadcast.
Government Motion No. 11 has already put enough burdens and strain on all the staff of this place, who support the functions of the House. The last thing we need is now to add the stress that their privacy might be compromised by some Liberal MP desperate not to incur the wrath of the chief government whip by not contributing to quorum, at least until 6:30 when Motion No. 11 lets them go have patio drinks down on Sparks Street with their coalition partners in the NDP, while the rest of us are here carrying on the nation's business.
In conclusion, just like last year, there is no dispute about the facts in question. They were, as I said, confirmed by the chair occupant, the Assistant Deputy Speaker, on Friday afternoon. A clearly relevant, precisely on point and well-remembered precedent is on our books. This case, I believe, is open and shut.
Therefore, if you agree that this incident amounts to a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move the following motion, “That the prima facie contempt concerning the misconduct of the member for Brampton Centre committed in the presence of the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”
That motion is, in fact, identical to the one the Speaker allowed on June 7, 2021, with, of course, the substitution of the riding name for the offending Liberal member of Parliament.
On the strength of undisputed facts and a clear precedent, I invite you to rule now from the chair, so that the House may pronounce itself on the disappointing and contemptuous conduct of yet another Liberal MP.
1295 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 2:25:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians do care that they are treated equally under the same laws that apply to the powerful and privileged in this country. The criminal brief released by the RCMP made it clear that, if this were a civil servant or any other Canadian, they would be facing serious criminal charges in this case. There are new known facts that warrant a full investigation.
Does the Attorney General believe that the law should be applied equally to all Canadians, including a sitting prime minister, if they commit a criminal offence?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/21 2:58:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would not expect anything less from the Liberals.
Last week, I asked the CRA to investigate a claim that the Liberal member for Calgary Skyview was directing people on how to fraudulently claim the CERB in his riding before he was elected as an MP. According to The Canadian Press, seven in 10 people over 15 in the riding received the CERB, one of the highest percentages in the country. When I asked the minister about this, she said that she takes all claims of CERB fraud seriously, even if it is against a member of the Liberal caucus, and will launch an investigation.
Can the minister inform the House whether she has in fact started an investigation against the member for Calgary Skyview.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/21 3:08:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In relation to the question I asked in question period, I would like to table two documents. One is a transcript from News Talk 770 CHQR's Shaye Ganam's show on September 21, and it is in relation to a discussion the host had about the fraudulent claims of CERB. The second is a letter that I wrote yesterday to the National Leads Centre of the Canada Revenue Agency.
With unanimous consent, I would like to table those.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/21 2:49:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am awfully glad to hear the minister say that there is no tolerance for fraud.
The caller also stated that he had, for that savvy advice, given the member of Calgary Skyview his vote, and he was telling everyone to do the same. Asked by the host what he would do if the CRA came knocking, he said that he would send them straight to his office because it was all his idea, and everybody in Skyview did it, everyone 15 years of age and older.
Does the Prime Minister agree that CERB fraud is a serious issue, and that the possibility of a member of the Liberal caucus directing people to commit fraud requires an investigation?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/21 2:48:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask members to imagine a member of the Liberal caucus being accused of directing his constituents on how to fraudulently claim the CERB. According to a caller on a talk radio show the day after the election, the member had encouraged numerous people to claim CERB when they did not qualify by splitting self-employment income with family members. In fact, in one area of the member's riding, seven in 10 residents over the age of 15 received the CERB, which is one of the highest concentrations in Canada, according to a Canadian Press report.
If this is true, how seriously would the Prime Minister take claims of advising people to commit fraud against one of his MPs?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 1:28:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my hon. colleague stand up in this House. There was an interesting point that he did bring up and that was the issue of false information. During the election campaign, the finance minister and deputy leader of the Liberal Party was found to have engaged in false information on Twitter. In fact, she was marked as having manipulated the media for spreading falsehoods against her political opponents.
I wonder if he has a comment about that.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/21 2:54:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is really a simple answer, and that answer should be “yes”.
Again we see the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister operating on a different set of rules. Jody Wilson-Raybould was booted from caucus for not wanting to interfere in a criminal prosecution, yet by his own admission and compelling video evidence showing the member for Calgary Skyview stealing campaign material and replacing it with false information, he gets to stay in caucus.
I will ask again. Will the member for Calgary Skyview be removed from caucus if he is found guilty?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/21 2:53:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in a radio interview with CBC Calgary on Friday morning, the member for Calgary Skyview suggested he and his team are under investigation by the Commissioner of Canada Elections for stealing campaign literature from Conservative candidate Jag Sahota. His reference to the team being investigated is new information that suggests there was an organized effort on the part of his campaign team to engage in widespread stealing of Sahota's campaign material.
I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. If the member for Calgary Skyview is found guilty, will the Prime Minister remove him from caucus?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/21 3:19:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during the election, the member for Calgary Skyview was caught on a doorbell camera and has been accused of not just removing campaign literature for Conservative candidate Jag Sahota, but replacing it with his own piece that provided wrong information about a polling location. The member is facing a $5,000 fine and up to six months in jail during an investigation that is continuing from the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
Even with the low bar on ethics and conduct set by the Liberals and the Prime Minister over the last six years, does the Prime Minister think that this type of action from a member of his caucus is acceptable?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
