- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Brantford—Brant
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $129,861.80
- Government Page
- Jun/13/22 2:52:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians they would expect openness and transparency, but it appears this is not the case with our public safety minister. Words matter. Clarity matters. Repeating extensively inside and outside of the House that law enforcement asked for the act is categorically opposed to the narrative that they asked for the measures contained in the act.
How can Canadians trust the minister when he has repeatedly misled them?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 6:56:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, listening to my friend, his comments are completely off topic, which is par for the course for him. To take a page from the Liberal government that it ought not to take any lessons from the Conservative members who challenge the Liberal government on a daily basis in question period, perhaps he should listen to his own rhetoric. The bottom line is, if he has nothing to hide, why are Liberals consistently doing things to conceal documents that are relevant to this particular study?
Let us look at the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Let us look at the WE scandal or the Winnipeg labs scandal, where they actually had to sue the Speaker of the House. This is the pattern of the government. It is not about accountability. We want to get to the truth. Canadians want to get to the truth.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 6:48:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be one of the members of Parliament who, along with four Senators, are working on the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency. This committee is one of very few that requires all its members and staff to take an oath of secrecy in order to allow them to work with sensitive information and secret documents.
After a couple of meetings, the media started reporting that the Liberal government will nor reveal what information led it to use the Emergencies Act to end the protests this winter, citing cabinet confidentiality in its response to legal challenges. After discussing this issue during the committee meetings, it became obvious that the Liberal members of the committee were not prepared to permit the release of any government documents either.
My Conservative colleague, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, moved a motion that asked to throw light on the security assessments and legal opinions the government relied on when deciding to invoke the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history. Members think that sounds reasonable, right? A committee that has to get to the bottom of the decision chain and find out why the Emergencies Act was invoked and how its powers were used has the right to review all the documents that the government possesses. This is how a democracy works. Unfortunately, not in this country under the rule of the Prime Minister. Most of the witnesses who appeared before our committee did not want to answer our relevant and reasonable questions. They hid behind lawyer-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality.
When I brought this issue to the House of Commons chamber and asked the Minister of Emergency Preparedness what the Prime Minister was hiding this time from Canadians, he repeated the same mantra, “there is certain information, such as lawyer-client privilege, which is respected and well established in the law in this country.” Who is the client here?
My constituents email and call my office daily. They share their concerns related to the study of the declaration of emergency committee. The Prime Minister, who promised to run the government open by default, must respect the public will and produce the documents that led him to believe that our police forces were not able to handle the situation without the invocation of the act. The PM and his government have been weakened by the changing narratives.
To date, the RCMP commissioner, OPP commissioner, and the interim and former Ottawa police chiefs have confirmed that they have never asked the government to invoke the act. The mayor of Gatineau also confirmed that neither she nor the Gatineau police requested the use of the act. These statements directly contradict the statements made by the government, which continues to justify the use of overreaching powers.
Ultimately, the question to put to the government is as follows: Now that we have a study that will prove how misinformed the public was by the government when the Prime Minister decided to use the act for his political benefit, what is the government hiding?
520 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/22 2:37:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the Prime Minister promised to run the most open and accountable government ever. We all remember his sunny ways. With scandal after scandal, and crisis after crisis, he has proven it is just a broken promise.
In the latest saga of the Prime Minister's dizzying mismanagement and misuse of the act, the government is now refusing to hand over to the Federal Court, under the guise of cabinet confidentiality, basic information about what information led to the use of the act. This is not how a real democracy works. What is the Prime Minister hiding this time from Canadians?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:19:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would tell my hon. colleague to speak to the Prime Minister. He is the who created this atmosphere of hostility, division and anger. We talk about hon. members in this House being conciliatory and needing to have open dialogue and discussion. There is none of that. None of that happens with the Prime Minister and his cabinet. That is who the member needs to talk to.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:17:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are many lessons to be learned and I hope we decide that a national inquiry should be undertaken forthwith to look at the obvious levels of failed leadership and the decisions that were made. Most importantly, it comes down to looking at the litany of emergencies, the protests, the demonstrations, the blockades, the world events that have impacted Canada and how effectively police agencies and politicians across this great nation have effectively dealt with that without imposing this draconian piece of legislation that has not been used—
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:16:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was not entirely clear with the member. We are a party of law and order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Larry Brock: Mr. Speaker, listen to the laughter. There is such disrespect for this particular member. I am trying to answer a question, and I have to be bothered by heckling and laughter. It speaks volumes to their character.
In any event, I have made it abundantly clear that we disagreed with some of the tactics used by the organizers of this protest. As a lawyer, I follow and hold sacrosanct our charter rights of protest and assembly. This was a failed leadership exercise by the Prime Minister and, by extension, the former chief of Ottawa Police Service, who has now resigned. He had all the tools necessary under the Criminal Code, provincial statutes, municipal bylaws and court injunctions. Failed—
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:13:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to make it abundantly clear, for the second time, I retract that statement.
Blockades are already in violation of the Criminal Code, provincial highway acts and any number of municipal bylaws and court injunctions. This was and still remains the purview of the police. They had all the tools necessary.
The legal authority for the government to invoke this act is currently being challenged by both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation. They argue that the high legal threshold has not been met. They acknowledge that, in the language used by the government, they see no civil liberty violation because the act is still subject to the charter.
The talking points the Liberals extensively use argue that just because a process is supposed to obey the charter, it means that it will. By that logic, the mere fact that the charter exists should mean there will never be charter violations. This is simply not true. The Prime Minister now has carte blanche to do what he wants to, not only to the people who participated in the blockades and the convoy, but also to anyone merely suspected of being involved in sharing supplies. This is a dangerous precedent.
The Prime Minister is normalizing the use of emergency powers. The most disturbing aspect of the act is the broad sweeping banking measures. Banks now have the authority to freeze bank accounts without court order. The Prime Minister now has the broad discretion to seriously mess with the finances of anyone ever suspected of being involved in the protests anywhere in Canada.
Let me conclude with the following: There was no emergency that endangered the lives of Canadians or threatened the sovereignty of Canada. This was political overreach. This was a political emergency, not a national one. The Prime Minister's unjustified invocation of the act is deeply problematic and will have lasting consequences. The public's trust in our democratic and financial institutions has been seriously diminished. Invoking the act proves that the Prime Minister's absolute, unreserved incompetence made such an extreme measure necessary.
350 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:11:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious I offended the delicate ears of my friend opposite. I retract the statement.
18 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:11:20 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is using mixed language. The act is very clear it should only be used in circumstances that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians—
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:02:19 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after practising law for 30 years and being a Crown attorney for the last 18 of them, I decided to dedicate myself to serving the people of the great riding of Brantford—Brant and across Canada.
It is a privilege to rise in the House early today, although I am doing this with a heavy heart. For the first time in our history, the Prime Minister, whose current support is as low as never before, decided to invoke the extreme power to handle the local Ottawa crisis that he escalated by his poor judgment, ineffective leadership, divisive rhetoric and non-science-based decisions.
I want to make this point abundantly clear: I will be voting to revoke the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The constitutionally protected rights of speech and assembly are a cornerstone of our democracy. The right of Canadians' voices to be heard to speak both in support of or in dissent of any policies proclaimed by the Canadian government is sacrosanct. The right to protest peacefully is essential to a democracy.
Obviously, the prolonged blockades in Ottawa and at border crossings were against the law, but the invocation to implement the Emergencies Act was completely unnecessary and, most important, did not meet the extremely high threshold as set out in the act. Our nation has seen countless numbers of disturbances, protests and blockades that all have been resolved without the imposition of this draconian piece of legislation. Critical infrastructure blockades of railways, pipelines, highways and border crossings have been resolved through dialogue, negotiation and effective police intervention. Without the suspension of our civil liberties, we witnessed the events and aftermath of 9/11 and the intentional storming of Centre Block, which resulted in gunfire.
The primary focus of my speech is that this crisis is entirely the result of a vacuum of leadership for this Prime Minister. The leadership traits of effective political leaders include vision, strategic and critical thinking, authenticity, self-awareness, open-mindedness, creativity, flexibility, responsibility and dependability, patience, tenacity and the pursuit of continuous improvement. Had our Prime Minister exhibited a fraction of these qualities, we would all be enjoying the weekend with our families.
Let us take some time to examine the failed leadership of our Prime Minister. At the beginning of the pandemic, he unnecessarily delayed the acquisition of vaccines. He signed a secret deal with China to make vaccines, which the Chinese reneged on. He tried to implement unrestricted spending powers to his cabinet without parliamentary oversight. He has the dishonour of wearing the badge of multiple ethical violations, the most in our history, including the luxury family holiday freebie with the Aga Khan and the aggregation of the rule of law to mitigate charges against SNC-Lavalin for years of illegal and corrupt practices. He also intervened in the funding distribution for his friends at the WE organization.
This is the Prime Minister who proposes to be a feminist. Notwithstanding, he fired two strong women from his cabinet, including the first indigenous justice minister, for having the courage to speak truth to power and call out his bullying, unethical and relentless pressure to interfere in a criminal prosecution. This is the Prime Minister who prorogued Parliament to protected his political interest. Every time, his justification is different, but the goal is the same: to protect his own political career.
This is the Prime Minister who deliberately wore blackface, as an adult, so many times that he cannot remember; a Prime Minister who travelled around the globe and gave away millions in foreign aid in the pursuit of a useless temporary seat on the UN Security Council; a Prime Minister and his ministers who swept under the table several sexual misconduct allegations in the Armed Forces.
This Prime Minister's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been a moving target, cleverly designed to show empathy and support when it suits his political narrative. In May 2021, he made the definitive statement that he opposed mandatory vaccination laws. He stated, “We're not a country that makes vaccination mandatory”. He also, at that time, opposed vaccine passports, saying that they would be divisive.
This really begs the question: What happened to that Canadian Prime Minister? He studied the polls, which showed growing public anger aimed at the unvaccinated and more calls for harsher measures. We can never accuse this Prime Minister of not taking advantage of a good crisis, so what did he do? He called a completely unnecessary federal election in the middle of a pandemic, at a cost of $610 million.
The Prime Minister's hubris and vanity saw a path to forming a majority government, never mind that he could have spent that money on clean water initiatives, reconciliation projects, mental health initiatives or simply investing in pandemic recovery.
The first few weeks of the election were not kind to the Prime Minister. Unable to clearly articulate a reason for calling the election and slipping badly in the polls, he pivoted to save his political career. He saw an opportunity to create a political wedge and divide Canadians against each other, the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated.
At the start of the pandemic, on March 31, 2020, he tweeted, “While many of us are working from home, there are others who aren’t able to do that - like the truck drivers who are working day and night to make sure our shelves are stocked. So when you can, please #ThankATrucker for everything they’re doing and help them however you can.”
Truckers who were once hailed by the Prime Minister as national heroes are now vilified. He refers to them as a small fringe minority. During the election he used words like “these people”, “anti-vaxxers”, “women haters”, “misogynist”, “racist”, “science deniers” and asked how we could tolerate these people.
Now during the protest he described the truckers and their supporters as domestic terrorists. This is language shared by many in the Liberal government. I was completely stunned when I heard the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park, a lawyer and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, refer to the people outside this building as terrorists and miscreants.
The Prime Minister's unquestionable contempt for these Canadians is pathetic. It is simply conduct unbecoming of a Canadian politician, let alone a prime minister.
When the trucks arrived, they had a legal right to park on the street in front of Parliament. They were directed there by the mayor of Ottawa. They were legally protesting for at least two days and two nights in extreme weather conditions. What did we hear from the Prime Minister or any Liberal ministers? We heard crickets.
The Prime Minister made no effort to de-escalate the situation, neither before his absence or after. We Conservatives were listening to people. We were not afraid of truckers and their supporters. We were walking through the protest to get from one building to another. We read their posters and talked to them. That is why called on the Liberal government to sit at the round table to find solutions that would work for all and for good. The government ignored our initiative.
The Conservatives also tabled a motion asking the government to release a plan to end all federal mandates and restrictions. We asked for a plan after two years of the pandemic, but the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against it. The government does not have a plan and does not plan on having one.
Imposing powers of the Emergencies Act sets a dangerous precedent. It does not lead us to any constructive long-term solutions, plus it was unnecessary, expansive and will further divide the country.
I listened to what the Liberals had to say in justifying their decision to invoke the act. The Prime Minister stated that he had to invoke it because the situation could not be dealt with under any other law in Canada. That is where he is deliberately misleading Canadians.
The act is very clear it should only be used in a circumstance that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians—
1376 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:04:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, will this member speak on behalf of the Prime Minister and condemn what is happening in the B.C. Interior? There were 20 masked men armed with machetes and axes who attacked a group of pipeline workers causing millions of dollars in damage. Is he prepared, on behalf of the Liberal government, to condemn that type of activity?
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:14:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to offer any free legal advice to anyone in the House, particularly a colleague. However, given what she has experienced by way of the message of vitriol on her answering machine, I want to remind my colleague that this is what the Criminal Code of Canada is for. What she describes is intimidation. What she describes is uttering threats. There is no limitation period for those matters. She is free to contact the police and have an investigation commence.
However, the primary focus of my question is about what she and the Liberal government, particularly the Prime Minister, have indicated. Since it was common knowledge that the manifesto called for an overthrow of the Canadian government, why did the Prime Minister wait three weeks to act, instead of consulting with the RCMP and having the organizers charged with treason?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:41:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the finance minister, the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety have all been unable to provide a clear and articulate answer to this pressing question. What is the donation threshold by which a financial institution will freeze an account under the Emergencies Act?
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:05:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate that you are in the Chair, but your predecessor ruled on four occasions, on points of order, that the Liberal members of Parliament, including ministers, who continually talked over my colleagues who were speaking on this very—
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:52:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, given my former career as a Crown attorney for the last 18 years, I want to draw on your reference to Mr. King and his comments directed toward the Prime Minister, which in my view constitute a threat to do grievous bodily harm. Do you not think this would provide the police with ample authority, under the Criminal Code, to lay criminal charges in relation to uttering death threats or anything of that nature, as opposed to imposing of the Emergencies Act?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
