- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Barrie—Innisfil
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 69%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $99,360.72
- Government Page
- May/29/24 6:10:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to ask for unanimous consent to table the entirety of what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills proposed in his unanimous consent motion, and not half of it, which is what the member read. I propose to table that. I am seeking unanimous consent.
An hon. member: No.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 6:06:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the point is that when the member started reading the motion, we had no indication of what that motion might be. We do not agree with whatever it is. He gave no indication of what motion he was proposing.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 6:03:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hate to intervene, but I believe the member is misleading the House at this point, because there is no agreement among the parties on the motion that he says he is going to propose. If the member is willing, I would like to propose the unanimous consent motion moved by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but I would caution him not to mislead the House.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 5:57:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I serve with the member for Trois-Rivières on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I can say that he is well respected and hard-working.
I am concerned that this bill will not be passed before the next election. Does the member for Trois-Rivières agree with me, my Conservative colleagues and the members of all but one of the other parties that we need to pass this bill quickly, before the next election?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 5:27:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am just curious. This has been ongoing for a long time, the issue of foreign interference impacting our elections, impacting candidates, influencing elections and influencing candidates. How closely are the Americans monitoring what is going on in this country?
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 6:18:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will answer that question in less than five seconds.
If the member had any respect for this institution and if he had any respect for our democracy, he would cut off the unholy alliance and coalition he has with the Liberals and allow Canadians to call an election so that we can get back to some sense of normalcy in this country.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 6:16:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I agree with many of the things the member said, including the idea of a secret ballot.
However, the circus she is talking about is the product of the Liberal-NDP coalition. That coalition is undemocratic. It is bringing our democracy down.
That is what I am very worried about, to be quite frank.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 6:14:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the first instance, shortly after he was pronounced Speaker, the Speaker engaged in a partisan message to a partisan party convention, the Liberal Party convention. He was in his robes, using Speaker resources. There have been people in this place who have resigned or have been forced to resign, and did the right thing by resigning, for much lesser grievances than that. Therefore, yes, I do believe that the Speaker should have resigned in the first instance.
Now we have additional instances, two more, in fact, of partisan activity by the Speaker. That, to me, speaks more to his character, his lack of judgment and his inability to act in a non-partisan manner while sitting in the chair.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 6:02:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. I am quite looking forward to her intervention on this matter.
It is actually quite incredible to me that we are in this place at this point. I have been listening to the debate today. I have been listening to the government side. I have been listening to what I now call the moderate wing of the Liberal government, which is the NDP, argue that this is somehow a character assassination. In fact, a member of the opposition, who functions in his role as an opposition member, legitimately fulfilled his constitutional obligation by rising in this place and presenting a question of privilege. This was in relation to an advertisement of a partisan event that the Speaker of the House was going to be participating in. The ad was itself a character assassination of the Leader of the Opposition.
When a member brings a question of privilege to the House, it means they feel that their privileges, or the privileges of other members, have been violated. At that point, given all the interventions that occur, the Speaker makes a ruling. In this case, the Speaker was not able to make a ruling, because he was directly implicated in this question of privilege; therefore the Deputy Speaker made a ruling. In it, he said there may have been a violation of members' privileges. That is it. The independence of the speakership was actually effective at that point in determining that a proper question of privilege had, in fact, happened.
As is the right of all members, the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie moved a motion based on the Deputy Speaker's ruling, which is what we are now debating. It is not as though any opposition party, be it the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois or any other party, wrote this ruling. This was a ruling of the independent Deputy Speaker after the Speaker recused himself. That is what we are dealing with today. We are not dealing with a character assassination; to be frank, we are dealing with a question of character.
That question of character relates to the Speaker's ability to act in an independent, non-partisan manner, to act as a referee with respect for all members and their privileges. That is, in fact, what we are dealing with today. In the short period since the Speaker was appointed as such by the House, we have not just dealt with this on one occasion; there have been two other occasions.
I know that colleagues on our side have been talking about those instances. Of course, the most famous one happened in Ontario. It was shortly after the Speaker was appointed that he felt compelled, in his Speaker's robe and using the resources of the Speaker's position, to make a video for the Ontario Liberal Party convention. I recall when I first saw that video. It was a Saturday night. I was sitting there, as a former House leader, looking at this video and thinking, What in God's name is he doing? It was partisan. I recall sending a text to our current House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and I asked him if he had seen it. How could the Speaker have such bad judgment, poor judgment, that he would make such a video for the Ontario Liberal convention? Of course, that was the first time that the question of privilege came up.
Then there was another incident, in Washington, D.C., where the Speaker travelled on Speaker business and ended up at a partisan event that was videotaped and broadcast on social media. There, he talked about his experiences as a Liberal Party member.
Now, of course, there is the latest incident, talking about the Speaker appearing at a fundraiser. However, within the notice for the fundraiser, there was a partisan attack on the Leader of the Opposition.
It calls into question not only the Speaker's ability to be non-partisan but also, in many ways, his judgment. That is the fundamental issue we are dealing with today. It did not just happen once or twice. It has happened three times at this point. I think the ability of the opposition to function in its constitutional obligation and not have confidence in the Speaker is the root of what this question is all about.
When the Speaker was elected, he promised this chamber and its members that he would act in a non-partisan way, that he would not get in the way of debate and that he would be the referee, which is his role. However, time and time again, we have seen otherwise. This was not only the case in these three incidents but also in rulings and judgments, not the least of which was removing the Leader of the Opposition from the House during question period. That is something that I have not seen in the nine years I have been here. Many members whom I have spoken to, some with a long history in this place, and some with knowledge of history, had not seen anything like that occur before.
I can say that I was here the day when that happened. I was watching the Speaker. We had started off on a Monday. It had been a pretty raucous question period. I know that the Speaker had, at his left hand, the notice of removal. Somebody was going to leave the chamber that day. I am convinced of that, and it happened. We actually had two members that left. One was the member for Lethbridge, and then that was quickly followed up by the Leader of the Opposition. The challenge right now is trust in the ability of the Speaker to conduct himself in this non-partisan way and with impartiality. That really is what this is all about. Again, this prima facie case of privilege that the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie brought up is what we are dealing with today. It was not written or initiated by the opposition; it is something that was initiated by the Speaker of the House.
I can say that I do a lot of events; we all do. There is a vetting process that goes on for any event that I attend by my staff to make sure that I am not using House of Commons resources and that those events that I am attending are, in fact, proper events. There is no convincing me that someone in the Speaker's office or the Speaker himself did not know what was on that invitation.
Finally, I would like to finish off with what I perceive as a decline in our democracy. I see an erosion of respect for our institutions. The fact is that the Liberals and the NDP are standing up in this place and seemingly defending the actions of the Speaker, and they have been doing it since this debate started yesterday. This speaks to a lack of respect for this institution.
If anyone had any honour or integrity at all, they could see the chaos this is creating. The fact is that their decisions and their lack of judgment, impartiality and non-partisanship is causing such disruption in this place. This speaks to a decline in our democracy and a lack of respect for our institutions.
The first time the Speaker conducted himself in this way, when he made that video for the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, I said that he should have to resign. I believe that was the appropriate time for him to resign. Now we have two other instances where the Speaker has shown this lack of judgment and lack of impartiality.
As far as I am concerned, there is no other option. Almost half of the House believes that the Speaker has acted in a way that is unbecoming in terms of his role as Speaker and that he does, in fact, need to resign.
I appreciate what the Bloc tried to do before, which was to bring a unanimous consent motion to have a secret ballot when this vote occurs. I believe there are still people within the Liberal Party, and perhaps some within the NDP, who conduct themselves with honour. They see the actions of the Speaker and how that is causing a lack of respect for this place. If a secret ballot were held, I believe that some of those members, other than the ones who are going to stand up as they ask their questions, would actually want to see the Speaker removed, as the motion states.
1454 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:06:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Main Estimates 2024-25: Vote 1 under Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Vote 1 under Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Vote 1 under Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, Votes 1 and 5 under Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada.”
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:19:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting conversation about modular homes. They are being built in a way right now that far exceeds any normal building standards. They are an option for the housing crisis in this country. The challenge with modular home builders right now is that, although they could scale up and actually build two or three times more than what they are building right now, they have a problem with cash flow. Oftentimes, they are required to pay out the development, which causes problems in terms of their ability to put these modular homes on developed spaces.
I just visited a modular home builder and cash flow is critical, so finding some way of advancing or eliminating the cash flow crisis that exists can actually help build these homes and scale them up in a much greater capacity. However, this budget does not address that.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:11:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will just call for relevance.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:07:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about young people. Young people do not just feel lied to or let down by the Prime Minister; they are actually despondent now. They feel like they do not have any hope. Many of them cannot afford a home. Many of them are living in their parents' homes, and these are kids who are 35 years old.
What would the hon. member say to them?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 10:05:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it certainly sounds like Conservatives are living in this member's head with the constant attacks. I recall when I was House leader and the costly coalition was formed, the unholy alliance between the NDP and the Liberal Party, I referred to that situation as the NDP heading to an abyss of irrelevance. Certainly, if I check out the latest polls, the NDP has not gained any status at all among Canadians. In fact, many Canadians feel like the New Democrats have sold their collective soul to the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. As such, I am wondering how the member can reconcile that, given the status of the party in the polls.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 9:54:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do believe the member is an honourable member, but when he stands up in this place and he says that more Canadians are getting back more from the carbon tax than what they are paying, nobody believes it.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that is not true and that more Canadians are paying more in the carbon tax. In the province of Ontario, it is $600 more. Canadians are paying more for gas and to heat their homes, and businesses are paying more in the carbon tax. How can he stand up here and say that to Canadians when the information out there is contrary to what he says?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 9:36:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I pose my question to the hon. member, I too want to express my sincere condolences on the passing of a Canadian icon and a Canadian treasure this evening, Rex Murphy. The Speaker seems surprised. Obviously, this is news to him.
On the reverse of that, I want to wish Lillian Vaughan, a Barrie—Innisfil resident, a happy 105th birthday today. I know that she is a big supporter of the Barrie Colts. She is at home this evening with Bryan and Jennifer. Happy birthday to Lillian.
Rural Canada is obviously a big part of the member's riding. I wonder if he can talk about the fall economic statement, the latest budget and their impact on rural Canada. I represent half a rural constituency in Innisfil, and I find there is a disproportionate negative impact on rural Canada. I wonder if he could speak about that.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 5:35:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member something. Veterans' issues are noticeably absent in this budget. However, the one issue I have been seized with, and I know the member has been seized with it as well, is having the Persian Gulf War veternas deemed as having wartime status. Only two times in our nation's history have we done that, both for the Korean War veterans and the merchant mariners, all of which was 30 years after service. In this case, we are 30 years after the Persian Gulf War.
The Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs have it within their power, with one fell swoop of a pen, to deem it as wartime service. I wonder if the member is as disappointed as I am that we did not see any of that in this budget.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 5:06:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, clearly the country is in desperate need of infrastructure replacement, and not just from a rail standpoint.
The difficulty I have with the budget, frankly, is that it does not necessarily focus all of its attention on that. I see a lot of debt and a lot of deficit. I see problems for future generations that are going to be caught up in many of the issues that the budget faces, not the least of which is the ability for young people to have hope for their future. They are being weighed down in mountains of debt and deficit as well. We need to control spending.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 5:05:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I fundamentally believe that here in Ottawa, the federal government has a role to play in assisting the provinces.
However, provincial jurisdiction must be respected. Our leader respects provincial jurisdiction and will work with the premiers of every province in order to ensure that we have a confederation that is functioning and united, not divided. The Prime Minister has a tendency to divide us along regional lines, race lines, faith lines, gender lines and the house status of our neighbour, and now, by creating a new class war, he has another reason to divide people.
I believe that if we are going to have a functioning confederacy, we need a prime minister who not only respects provincial jurisdiction but also works with the provinces and provincial leaders.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 5:03:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thought I made a pretty substantive argument as to why, in some cases, the budget was not going to work for Canadians. If the hon. member wants to sit here and hurl insults, it is his prerogative to do so.
The fact is that we do not know. In the absence of seeing any of the contracts that have been signed, either through Stellantis or Volkswagen, the only thing we know is that there are billions of dollars' worth of government subsidies being applied to these plants, on the credit card, by the way, because, again, we are at $1.4 trillion in debt. Just last week, the finance minister announced that she wanted to increase that debt ceiling by another $295 billion to $2.1 trillion.
Why does the government not provide confidence for Canadians and show just where the work is going to come from? All we are hearing right now is that there are a lot of temporary foreign workers, non-Canadians, who are going to be working in the plants. Show us the proof; that is all we ask.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
