- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Brantford—Brant
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $129,861.80
- Government Page
- Oct/18/23 6:00:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is really rich to listen to the parliamentary secretary talk about avoiding answering questions. They do that every day in the House. That is the bottom line. Something is rotten here. The Prime Minister is hiding something.
Will the member recommend to his leader, the Prime Minister, that he cooperate with the RCMP and waive all cabinet confidentiality?
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 5:59:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as a politician, I am profoundly disappointed. As a Canadian and a taxpayer, I am profoundly disappointed. As a former prosecutor, I think it stinks.
As said in Shakespeare's play Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” There is something rotten in the government.
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 5:57:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc friend for the question, but it defeats the purpose by which we agreed to call the emergency meeting. It was agreed upon by all political parties, and although the Bloc did not vote to shut down the committee, the issue is that Canadians deserve to know the truth.
Canadians deserve to hear directly from the Auditor General the circumstances behind how she is now going to be expanding her investigation in light of the RCMP investigation. There were so many other relevant areas and questions to put to the Auditor General that were denied by the Liberal-NDP coalition.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 5:56:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the answer is obvious, and it is because of the Liberals' political gains. Whenever it gets too hot or too close to the real truth, they just shut down committees and debates and prorogue Parliament. They have an arsenal of tools that prevent Canadians from seeing the light with respect to the rot in the government.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 5:44:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good citizens and residents of my riding of Brantford—Brant.
My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon expressed his disappointment and said that it is a sad day for Canadians. It is a profoundly sad day. In terms of my involvement in this particular study, I was brought on fairly late to the game to participate in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts meeting, because its members wanted more questions asked in probing the RCMP investigation into this matter.
Before I get into the substantive part of my speech, it is important to start by reflecting on what the government telegraphed to Canadians in 2015. It telegraphed that it would be the most open, transparent and accountable government this country has ever seen.
What has happened over the last eight years? After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He and his government—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Larry Brock: Madam Speaker, my friends can laugh all they want, but this is the sad reality. These are the facts. There has been scandal after scandal. There have been ethical breaches. The Prime Minister is the only prime minister in Canadian history who has been found guilty of ethical breaches not once but twice. It is not only him but also several ministers and other members of the government. We had the WE Charity, Aga Khan and SNC-Lavalin scandals, and the list goes on.
Over a year ago, it was discovered that this app, which was so essential to the government to keep Canadians safe, was a complete joke. It was highly ineffective, it was not scientific and, to make matters worse, it cost the Canadian taxpayers $54 million. We did not hear a peep from the government or the Prime Minister with respect to that price tag until it was revealed to Canadians in this House.
What did we hear from the Prime Minister? He said he thought that cost was “highly illogical” and reflected “inefficient” practices. He, in essence, conducted his own review. The Auditor General is certainly looking into this, as well as the RCMP now. His review showed that, even given the vast size of the public service, the government could not find individuals among its own consultants to create this app. The public service increased exponentially by the Liberal government, particularly during COVID and beyond. More importantly to the current investigation by the RCMP, the app was contracted for by a very small software company in Montreal, Quebec, known as Botler.
No, the government could not do it itself. It had to hire consultants. It has been revealed that there were three such consultants. I am going to name them, because it is important for Canadians to know what the individuals of these companies have done in terms of fleecing Canadian taxpayers. The three companies are GCStrategies, Dalian Enterprises and Coradix. The latter two essentially involve the same directors and CEOs.
There are three companies with a grand total of maybe six or seven employees, and they were hired by the current massive government to do the work it should be doing itself in finding individuals to perform the work. The companies do that at a substantial premium, anywhere from 30% to 40%. When Canadian taxpayers take a look at the situation, they are saying to themselves that they are already paying their taxes for the public service. They ask why they need to waste further money to have the government find software engineers in this country.
I applaud the bravery of this small software company known as Botler, because it spoke the truth. I want to quote a couple of passages, as reported in The Globe and Mail, that said, “they understand that speaking out could mean their federal funding will dry up and they are taking a big risk without knowing how it will turn out.” One of the directors said, “the issue is wider than Botler.”
This is something that affects every single Canadian, every single taxpayer dollar that is taken from very hard-working Canadians who are already struggling financially, which is given and spent through contractors, through improper means. I think that Canadians have a right to know what is going on with their hard-earned money.
When I attended, about a week and a half ago, committee during a constituency break week, it was revealed by the Auditor General, the same Auditor General who oversees all public spending and reports to this House, that she had no clue, no idea, that the RCMP were investigating criminality with respect to the contracting of the ArriveCAN app and other such apps.
When I asked her if the government had notified her in advance of her learning about this particular investigation, her answer was no. She was profoundly “disappointed”, her word, in the actions of this government, in not notifying her of a very relevant and essential part of her investigation.
It is not just, perhaps, ethical issues or improper awarding of contracts. There is now a criminal element to it. I brought to her attention that, according to Botler, this was not just misconduct at the highest level of the senior bureaucracy in this government but that it involved criminality, theft, forgery and fraud.
When prosecuted, people will be going to prison for two-plus years for fraudulently fleecing the Canadian taxpayer.
This is why not only is my colleague profoundly disappointed, but I am sick over this.
This is the government that is not accountable. This is the government that is not transparent. After that damning evidence came out, what did the Liberal-NDP coalition do? It shut down the committee. This was a two-hour meeting agreed to by every member of public accounts and it shut it down.
It says the reason was that the Auditor General could not share any further information. That was the furthest from the truth. Members of the Conservative team on that committee were just getting started. We had many more probing questions.
They are hiding something and Canadians have a right to know that. That is why I am putting on the record this criminality on behalf of this government.
That is why I rose today in the House and asked the question: will this government and will this Prime Minister co-operate with the RCMP or will he continue to hide behind cabinet confidentiality?
The motion would be amended as follows, by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:
the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, March 20, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on International Trade with instruction that it amend the same to include reference to;
(a) the $54 million hard-earned Canadian tax dollars wasted on the application,
(b) the inaccurate evidence government officials provided during the committee's investigation,
(c) the serious allegations of fraudulent contract practices that are cause for grave concern,
(d) the statement made by the RCMP that they are investigating criminality in the contracts that were awarded, and
accordingly, it recommends that the Auditor General of Canada update Canadians on where the money went.
1231 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 3:32:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, no one is above the law, and that includes the Prime Minister. After eight years, he is the only one in Canadian history who has been found guilty of breaking not one, but two, ethics laws and now, with the arrive scam app, the RCMP is investigating criminality in the highest echelons of the government.
What was the Prime Minister's response? He shut down debate, and he shut down committees. Now he is hiding behind cabinet confidence. He is not worth the cost. Under dark clouds of suspicion, will the Prime Minister cooperate with the now several RCMP investigations?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 3:13:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the government's ongoing corruption, we have yet another scandal. We have had conflicts of interest, nepotism and abuse of power. Now we have allegations of criminality around the contracting practices in the top offices of the government.
The $54-million price tag for the arrive scam app is just the tip of the iceberg. Last week, the NDP-Liberal coalition voted to shut down the testimony of the Auditor General's review of this scandal.
Why?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/22 3:12:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the 83-year-old father of my constituent was deported from Canada because of the government's draconian mandates. He arrived in Canada, and despite being doubly vaccinated, one of the vaccines he had was not approved. He co-operated and got the Pfizer shot. That did not help. After being held three days, he was sent back to Venezuela to return after a two-week quarantine. This involved unnecessary stress, extra expenses and zero common sense.
Will the minister apologize for the appalling treatment of this family?
90 words
All Topics
- 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
