House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 81% of the vote.
Democratic Reform June 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, why do Liberals not trust average Canadians? Canada has the strongest democracy in the world. An overwhelming majority of Canadians believe that something as important and as vital as the way that we elect our members of Parliament—something that we have done over the last 150 years quite well, by the way—should be decided in a national referendum. Why are the Liberals more committed to backroom deals and secret deals than to giving Canadians a voice through a national referendum?
Democratic Reform June 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, Canadians overwhelmingly agree that we need a national referendum. In fact, almost 14 million Canadians, three-quarters of eligible voters, voted in the last national referendum, which was on the Charlottetown accord in 1992. To equal those numbers, 40,000 Canadians would have to show up in town halls across this country in every constituency in Canada. Why is the minister denying the average Canadians the right to vote in a referendum?
Democratic Reform June 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals finally showed Canadians how they really plan to decide on a new electoral process, and it is the same old Liberal way: behind closed doors.
In typical Liberal fashion, they cooked up a deal that leaves Canadians on the outside looking in. Canadians do not want the future of their democracy decided by secret deals and party insiders. When will the Liberals open the doors to Canadians and agree to hold a national referendum?
Chambers of Commerce in Alberta June 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Camrose and district Chamber of Commerce for winning the 2015-16 Chamber of the Year Award for the under 650 member category.
Since 1908, the Camrose and district chamber has served our local businesses, entrepreneurs, and professionals. Most recently, the Camrose Chamber of Commerce has earned a high profile for its work on policy development with the Alberta Chambers of Commerce and also the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
In my large rural riding, there are other chambers and local organizations, both large and very small. Their members work hard to keep them strong and are able to serve the smallest towns and villages, and even the most remote communities. They host many events that help local businesses. They provide an educational role for our entrepreneurs and build a strong network for local business communities.
I congratulate all members of local chambers of commerce in Battle River—Crowfoot.
Committees of the House June 1st, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the ninth report entitled “Report 4, Information Technology Shared Services, of the Fall 2015 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”; and the10th report entitled “Report 5, Canadian Armed Forces Housing, of the Fall 2015 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to these two reports.
Criminal Code May 31st, 2016
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, the member who gave his speech talked a bit about why the government would have done it. In some ways it may be competence or incompetence. The Liberals pushed this off as long as they could, expecting that they would be able to ramrod it through, and now they are saying they will not make the June 6 deadline. What will they do? That very well may be it.
I thank the hon. member for speaking on palliative care. Why does my colleague who gave the speech believe that the government would not have addressed palliative care initially in the budget, saying that it recognized what was coming and offering its commitment to palliative care?
Through all this debate—
Criminal Code May 31st, 2016
Madam Speaker, when I first polled my constituents, I found that most of them were opposed to doctor-assisted suicide because they had heard stories about Belgium and the Netherlands, and had seen how it was a slippery slope. However, most of them believe that if these are fairly restricted, there are cases where it may be implemented. How do we stop the slippery slope? That is my question for the member.
Most Canadians want to be assured that doctor-assisted dying is limited to competent adult individuals, and the member spoke about that. They would not want those under the age of 18, who might feel depressed or have mental issues, to access assisted dying. As far as vulnerable people, how we confirm their capacity to consent is another concern.
In the last part of the member's speech, he said that he was a Liberal and that he believed in individual rights. Why do we not have in the legislation conscience rights protections for physicians and other medical practitioners who oppose physician-assisted dying? Right now, in Ontario, it is a requirement—
Criminal Code May 30th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I just want to be certain that my vote was recorded as yea, please.
Privilege May 19th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's tone and the way he conducts himself as an hon. member. I do not want to go over what happened yesterday. It happened right here in front of me. We saw what happened. We have talked about what happened, but I want to talk about Motion No. 6 in regard to what we are discussing today.
We have what we call Standing Orders, which are here to protect parliamentarians. They are here to protect democracy within Parliament. The government in a tit-for-tat felt it almost lost a vote, so it came in with Motion No. 6. The motion starts this way, “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order” in other words, those things that protect Parliament, the rules of Parliament. Then it lists 17 things, (a) to (q), that would take away the power of the opposition to hold the government to account.
The Minister of Health said here today that they are here to advance the issues of Canadians, so is the opposition. However, the government has said it knows what is best so it will handcuff the opposition and ramrod through what it thinks the issues of Canadians are.
The first thing the Liberals said is that “on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment until such time as a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary moves a motion for the adjournment of the House”. In other words, we just stay and debate until the Liberals decide, and they will not tell us when. Then at two or three o'clock in the morning, they can simply say that now we are going to go to another debate and the opposition had better get its speakers ready at three or four o'clock in the morning.
That is the kind of government we have here. It is trying to take away all of our powers. Could the member who just spoke stand and tell us how Motion No. 6 is taking away from the decorum in the House, or is it adding to decorum in the House? Is it poking the opposition, poking Parliament, and poking Canadians in the eye as far as us being able to hold the government to account?
Privilege May 19th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, sitting on this side of the House last night when the event took place, never have I ever, in 16 years of being here, witnessed what we saw last night, and never have I stood and supported the NDP on much of anything. However, last night I could not help it. After the initial event, knowing that one of the NDP colleagues had been hurt, I went down to ask the leader of the NDP how badly was she hurt. All of a sudden, again, the Prime Minister tried to make his way through and although I did not hear the profanity and offensive language, others did.
The hon. member spoke about disrespect of this place. Even today, the Prime Minister's speech was very much about the tone of this place and that maybe he just got caught up in it. We have all seen that happen on television in other Parliaments, but we have never really seen a president or a prime minister do that.
Perhaps the member would just go back a bit on Motion No. 6 and tell us why he believes that the government should pull back this offensive way of taking every tool away from all opposition members to do their business here in Parliament. It is one thing to do what we did last night, but it's another thing to take away the tools of Parliament to hold the government to account, and make members get up at three o'clock in the morning to come in here and debate in the silence of the House and in the silence around the country. Would the member tell us why that is, by all parties, offensive?