- Member of Parliament
- Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
- Conservative
- Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $91,173.06
- Government Page
- Nov/1/22 3:43:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for the member opposite.
The first part is about the fairness of the app. There are many Canadians in my riding, such as seniors, who do not have Internet, email or access to the app. More importantly, I have an Amish community, which does not use phones, does not have Internet, does not drive and does not vote. They are now facing a quarter of a million dollars in fines as a community. Does the member think that is fair, or is it discriminatory against those Canadians?
As to the second part, he talked about the efficiency of the app, why it cost $54 million and its effectiveness. The Ottawa bureau chief of The Globe and Mail said the day before yesterday that when he was going through customs, where there were huge lineups, he asked about the ArriveCAN app and the long lineups. The border officer laughed and said the app is irrelevant so he should not bother using it. Does the member have anything to say about that?
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 2:11:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in April 2021, I asked the Liberal government what procedures were in place to ensure all Canadians, including those without Internet or phone access, have the necessary information to cross the U.S.-Canada border, request quarantine exemptions for compassionate reasons and more.
I specifically asked on behalf of constituents who are from Amish and Mennonite communities who are dual citizens and constitutionally protected to enter both countries. I would remind the government that the Amish do not have cars, telephones or computers or use the Internet, nor do they use the Canadian universal health care or education systems. However, they do pay property, education and income taxes. They do not vote during public elections.
In February, I asked the government how they were notifying all Canadians about the constantly changing and often confusing travel restrictions or requirements. The written response outlines how changes were shared on the Internet, but it does not answer how this was shared with those Canadians without Internet or television. Members of the Amish community in my riding now face over $250,000 in fines as a community for failure to comply with these Liberal government requirements.
Do the members of the government think this is fair? If not, what are they going to do to rectify the situation?
216 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 1:24:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will read a quote and then ask a quick question of the parliamentary secretary.
“I can’t help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government changed drastically on the eve and during the last election campaign. From a positive and unifying approach, a decision was made to wedge, to divide and to stigmatize.” That was said by the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert back in early February speaking about who decided to politicize getting vaccinated in this country.
The president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees has talked about the fact that back in early March the mandates were a temporary measure, and he has asked the government when it was going to release a plan that explains the rationale and milestones to remove vaccine mandates.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/25/22 1:21:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague for Huron—Bruce will be up shortly to talk to his private member's bill, which is an important private member's bill, and I intend to highlight it through my speech.
It is always an honour to rise in the House and address the concerns of my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
When I first spoke to Bill C-8 at second reading, I talked about the cost of living and inflation, which is a concern that I am hearing about every day from my constituents. They are worried about these record highs in inflation. It has been over 30 years since we have had inflation this high. It is at almost 6%. They are worried about their ability to live with that affordability question, and it does impact rural Canada much more than the rest of Canada, especially our farmers.
I will focus part of my interjection on part 1 of the bill, which talks about the amendments to income tax and income tax regulations, but I will speak specifically to the paragraphs that talk about the new refundable tax credit for eligible businesses and qualifying ventilation expenses made to improve air quality, as well as the second bit on the new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.
Before I do that, I want to again highlight the cost of servicing the incredible amount of spending and debt that we now have as a country. The national debt has doubled in the last six years from about $600 billion to $1.2 trillion. To service that debt is over $24 billion, and that is before interest rates go up. As I mentioned in previous speeches, that is more than the budget for our Canadian Armed Forces. Hopefully, we will, as the government has indicated, see some changes in that budget based on the unfortunate circumstance in Ukraine.
However, the problem with servicing such incredible debt is that it actually puts those social programs that so many Canadians depend upon at risk. As the PBO has outlined, much of the stimulus spending that is included in Bill C-8, approximately $71 billion, is not necessary. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and we need to make decisions to change that. As has been spoken about before, groceries alone are going up over $1,000. Seniors in this country cannot afford that, and low-income Canadians cannot afford that. All of these products and produce are available here in Canada.
I want to go back to the legislation, specifically to the new refundable tax credit for eligible and qualifying businesses for ventilation expenses made to improve air quality. I brought this up before the bill went to committee and talked about the importance of trying to understand why the government chose the date of September 1, 2021, for businesses to qualify for that credit. As I highlighted before, I have businesses in my area that helped deal with, fight and combat the COVID pandemic by turning their facilities into field hospitals, but while they showed that initiative, and they put out thousands of dollars to make those changes to get ahead of the curve at the time, they do not qualify.
However, considering we are here debating the bill, I do not see the government making those changes, because the Liberals did not make those changes at committee. I would ask why the government is penalizing those small businesses and companies across Canada that did step up to fight COVID-19 and made the necessary changes to make Canadians safer. Why is the government rationalizing and not supporting that? My cynical response is that, if we look at September 1, 2021, I wonder what it was tied to, considering when we had the election this past fall.
The next piece I want to get to is around the Liberal carbon tax, but before I get to that, I want to talk about the green bond framework and the clean jobs training centre, with the caveat that the second one is not clarified yet as I brought it up at committee yesterday. However, my question is this: Why has nuclear energy been excluded from the green bond framework? It is key, and all Canadians should know that nuclear is an essential and important part of getting to a carbon-neutral economy and dealing with climate change.
It is the same thing with the clean jobs training centre. Right now it is not included in supports for getting workers skills training so they can transition to the nuclear industry and we can help get people into jobs that will help reduce our carbon footprint.
I am going to have difficulty getting through my full 10 minutes before I am cut off, but I want to talk about the refundable tax credit and what it would mean to farming businesses. I am actually optimistic that this aspect could provide some support to our agriculture industry and our farmers, especially those who are actively engaged in the management of the day-to-day activities of earning farming income or incurring farming expenses of $25,000 or more. This is a policy that I think would help the farmers in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
I will never stop underlining the importance of our farmers and the essential food they put on the table for not only Canadians, but people around the world. This has been further exacerbated in the last couple months with the war in Ukraine and Russia's terrible actions. Ukraine is the essential breadbasket for Europe, and without food coming out of Ukraine, it is that much more important that we are supporting our Canadian farmers and not making life more expensive for them, because all people around the globe are going to depend upon Canadian agriculture and food. The issue is that, although I am somewhat optimistic and happy to see this refundable tax credit included in Bill C-8, it is only a partial step in the direction we need to go.
In the last Parliament, the Conservatives introduced a private member's bill, which was passed before the House rose, to remove the Liberal carbon tax from our farmers. Unfortunately, because of the unnecessary election last summer called by the Prime Minister, that bill died in the Senate before it could be passed. We need to get that bill passed, along with the new bill of my hon. colleague from Huron—Bruce, which I know will be discussed shortly, because we need to cut the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for our grain dryers and livestock barns. Our farmers are price-takers, not price-makers, and nothing included in Bill C-8 would actually take us to the necessary level. The Liberal plan does not recognize the important role our farmers play in reducing the carbon footprint through carbon sequestration and more in this country.
I will sum up by saying that although there are some aspects in Bill C-8 that I can support, in large part it is not good enough and would actually increase spending for Canadians. I am looking forward to hearing the forthcoming debate on Bill C-234 from the hon. member for Huron—Bruce.
1226 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:24:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, every Canadian should have an opinion on this, and I fully respect their opinions. Maybe they are right that it was necessary. That is their opinion. However, I would push back and say that calling for the act when it was needed to get rid of the existing blockades here in Ottawa is not what we are voting on tonight. We are voting on whether it still needs to be in place, and I am not aware of a single protest or threat in this country that still requires the most restrictive, powerful legislation in this country.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:22:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.
It is a lack of leadership. The whole purpose of the Emergencies Act is to address a case of last resort. We should not be utilizing it without absolute concern and restraint. We need to have the oversight. In fact, that is why we have the the Emergencies Act. It morphed and evolved from the War Measures Act because there was a recognition that we needed the democratic oversight of the House. We have all these tools in place through the parliamentary review committee, which can table and review the revocation within seven days, and we can get to the bottom of all of this. I am personally disappointed that the Prime Minister made this a confidence vote.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:20:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would correct my Liberal colleague. If he goes back and listens to my speech, I never actually made any allegations that there were no justifications or steps. There have been speeches that noted that, but it was not part of my speech.
With respect to the member's comment, if only 263 accounts have been frozen so far and he is saying that is a good sign of restraint, I would agree with him.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:09:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the passionate speech of the member for Cariboo—Prince George. It is always hard to follow him in this House.
First, I want to thank my constituents. I can honestly say, for all MPs in the House, that in the last two weeks we have likely received more correspondence than in any other two-week period in the last number of years on a number of these issues, and it has been a trying two years. I want to thank my constituents because they have made it crystal clear that they do not support the invocation and the continued use of the Emergencies Act. There has been a balanced feedback on this one, but the majority have clearly indicated in my riding that they do not support the Liberal government's decision.
I want to make it crystal clear that I will always support the democratic right of Canadians to protest. I am on the record, before this convoy ever arrived here in Ottawa, saying that I will always support, no matter what the issue is on the political spectrum, the right of Canadians to democratically protest. However, I am on the record saying that I will never support people breaking the law. I do belong to the party of law and order, and I am on the record stating that I will never support anyone breaking the law. That includes blockades and anything else.
I am going to focus on my Liberal colleagues and the NDP for my speech, because I think I know how the majority of the Conservative and Bloc members are going to vote, based on the indication now that this is possibly a confidence vote. Maybe my words will be for nought, but I want to get into the crux of the issue that I think we are really voting on tonight, and that is the continuation of the invocation of the Emergencies Act: not the history or why the government did it, but why we still need it going forward.
There have been some great speeches in the House already that clearly outline why people on both sides think that the government was justified or not justified in bringing it forward, but I want to focus on the question of why we need it going forward and, lacking that, the question of trust.
I will just cover the justification briefly. I have read all the tabled documents that were provided to us as members of Parliament and the stuff that has been put out in the public sphere to read. I have tried to either read or listen to every speech given by a Liberal member, but specifically the Liberal cabinet, the members of the Liberal government, because they are the ones who should be speaking more than the rest of us in the House during this debate, trying to convince us why they are implementing arguably the most draconian, powerful piece of legislation that exists in our federal laws. I do not think there is anything more powerful than the Emergencies Act when it comes to putting it into place and actually curtailing some of the freedoms that exist in this great country.
What are the justifications that have been tabled so far? If members read through the proclamation, they will see that it really hits two key points: It talks about the freezing of financial assets, and it talks about tow trucks. I have been involved in dealing with national crises, not necessarily here in Canada but around the world. I understand, maybe more than most, what serious national security threats are, and I have never felt personally that anything that has occurred across Canada over the last three weeks, dealing with the blockades or the convoy here in Ottawa, has met that threshold. Members should not take my word for it. There have been experts out there. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills laid out in his speech, a few hours earlier, clear logic that the government has failed to meet the legal requirements to invoke the act, but it chose to do it anyway.
Let us make the assumption that the justification was valid for bringing in the invocation, that it did somehow meet the national emergency threshold. Was this because the cabinet, as has been hinted at, had access to additional intelligence or information that warranted this? How did the government communicate that to Canadians, but also to the rest of us here in the House of Commons, with this important vote coming? Did the government reach out and ask to share that information?
There are many of us in this House who have the appropriate security clearance, top secret security clearance, who are former members of the Privy Council. All that aside, we could quickly and quite easily read a number of members from all parties in the House into the necessary security classification and provide that intelligence or information, because lacking that, the Prime Minister is really just asking us to trust him. I will get back to the question of trust in a couple of minutes.
As the Liberal member for Beaches—East York laid out in his speech just a couple of hours ago, and as I have already hinted at, the vote tonight is really about why the Emergencies Act and all these restrictive measures are still required. I feel personally that a responsible government, even one that felt it was justified in using this very powerful piece of legislation, would have revoked these measures as soon as all the illegal blockades disappeared. Why has the Liberal government not done this?
I listened yesterday as the Minister of Emergency Preparedness was asked a direct question on national media as to why the Emergencies Act is still needed going forward when everything has been resolved. His response was that there is still work to be done. I stepped out of the chamber this morning to listen to the Prime Minister in his press conference. It was the first question he was asked, and then he was asked again by a reporter to give one specific example. His answer was about tow trucks.
We are in a national emergency because somehow we need tow trucks to move I do not know what. I have been driving in and out every day over the last two weeks here to Parliament. There were lots of vehicles illegally blockading the roads that needed to be towed out, and they are all gone. I had no issues coming in to Parliament Hill this morning.
What disturbed me and disappointed me as well during that press conference was that the Prime Minister was asked a couple of other very easy questions, such as what lessons he learned from the last few weeks, and his response was that the country is angry. I do not know if that is learning much of anything. He was asked if he has any regrets. A sign of a good leader is recognizing that one is not perfect. I know I have made plenty of mistakes throughout my military career, and I am sure even as a politician in the last couple of years. The key to learning from them is to actually recognize when we have made a mistake. That is when we learn the most, and we should have regrets if we did not do things to the best of our abilities.
What does it all mean going forward, when we still see the government continuing to support the emergency measures? Does this mean the Liberals just want to go after those Canadians who maybe happened to donate to their local neighbour, the truck driver, who might have even been fully vaccinated? I know I had constituents in my riding who came here for the protests fully vaccinated. One of my best friends, who I did not even realize had come, drove here with his wife and kids from British Columbia, protested completely legally and then went home. He drove all the way back. He did not blockade anything. He did not do anything. Because people made a $20 donation, are they at risk? Is that why we still need these measures going forward? I had constituents reaching out to me this morning saying they are pulling all their money out of the bank and putting it all in their mattress or whatever, because they do not trust the government.
If these risks still exist, I do encourage the government to take the necessary steps to reach out and share those, because I think it is safe to say the Prime Minister has broken the trust. Canadians no longer trust him, so regardless of where we are on this issue, let us work together to build that trust. I am asking the Liberal government to share that information and make it available. If the Liberals really feel there is a threat out there that still needs to be addressed, they should bring it forward.
In conclusion, as lawyers and Liberal MPs from Louis-Hébert and Beaches—East York just stated in their speeches in the last few hours, the threshold has not been met. The only reason they are voting tonight in favour of this is that the Prime Minister would rather have a federal election than accept that maybe he did not make the right decision.
Tonight I will be voting to revoke the Emergencies Act.
1583 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:21:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question for the minister is very simple. He talked about the still ongoing illegal blockades. Could he just provide one instance in Canada, ongoing right now, of a current illegal blockade and why the Emergencies Act is still required going forward?
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:25:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the tone of her speech. We are here to have debate and discourse, not necessarily to agree but to get to the root of the issues.
The real point I want to get to is this. Does the member believe there is still justification for this act? She hinted at some of her concerns. The Emergencies Act is by far the most draconian and powerful piece of legislation the federal government has, so we cannot use it just to protect against a potential threat; it is there to deal with a national emergency that we are dealing with right now. I would like her comments on whether she thinks it is justified to still have this act in place now.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:19:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, has the member heard anything from the Liberal government to date that would justify the invocation of the act in the first place? More importantly, now that these illegal blockades have been dealt with, does it still require the act to be in existence?
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for standing up for seniors and emphasizing the urgency of the situation. I also like how he stressed the importance of communicating the changes in the program.
Can he elaborate on the importance of this, particularly for older people who might have limited internet access?
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 11:58:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have just two quick questions for my colleagues. Both are from constituents.
One is from a female police officer in my riding who got her first vaccine, but unfortunately had an adverse reaction and is scared. Now she is mad at the Prime Minister, who is calling her a misogynist and racist for having health concerns.
The second question is from a fully vaccinated health professional in my riding who is seeing other countries around the world with less vaccination uptake that are opening up and lowering their federal equivalent mandates and restrictions. They want to know when the federal government is going to lift the restrictions here in Canada.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/21 12:52:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am interested to know if the leader of the NDP shares my disappointment that the speech fails to mention agriculture at all, considering the important role farmers and the agricultural industry play in this pandemic and our recovery. It also fails to mention our military, and to recognize the incredible work our Canadian Armed Forces have been doing in support of Canadians in need throughout the pandemic.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/26/21 12:21:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents, who are calling on the Government of Canada to recognize that the country of Barbados has suffered from COVID-19 like the rest of the world, but unlike most developed countries has limited access to vaccines and has a shortfall. At the time of the signing of this petition, less than 50% of the country of Barbados had been vaccinated.
As such, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to increase the number of COVID-19 vaccines being donated to Barbados to at least 100,000 doses.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 3:27:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as this is the first time I am speaking in the House, I want to thank my constituents for putting me back here for the second time.
I have a couple of really quick yes-or-no questions for the member opposite that I am confident he will actually answer, unlike maybe his colleague from Winnipeg North. First, would he say that it would be preferable for the rhetoric in the House to be toned down, yes or no? Second, would he agree that it is a lot easier to build relationships in person than it is through a hybrid Parliament?
Finally, I have a comment. The member should talk to the member for Winnipeg North. He spoke yesterday during this debate about extending the motion past the June timeline.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
