House of Commons photo

Track Michael

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is chair.

Conservative MP for Wellington—Halton Hills (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2021, with 52% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Foreign Affairs May 10th, 2019

Madam Speaker, concerns are being raised about proposed changes to Hong Kong's extradition law. These changes would allow the extradition of anyone in Hong Kong, including 300,000 Canadians living there, to mainland China. We have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. In mainland China, two Canadians are in jail and another two are on death row.

Democracies around the world are under threat. It is even more important at this time that Canada stand for democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Will a minister from the government make a clear, unambiguous statement about these proposed changes to Hong Kong's extradition law?

Dutch Heritage Day April 4th, 2019

Madam Speaker, the story of the Dutch in Canada begins well before Confederation. In fact, it starts in 1614, south of the border in what is New York State. In 1614, Dutch settlers established trading posts at New Amsterdam, which is present-day New York City, and at Fort Orange, which is present-day Albany, New York. They named their new colony New Netherland.

Today, scores of places in present-day New York trace their roots back to Dutch names, places like the Bronx, Brooklyn, Broadway, Harlem, Wall Street, Long Island, Staten Island, Rensselaer, Stuyvesant and many more.

The flag of New York City is a Dutch flag, the Prince's flag, introduced in the 17th century. During the 17th century, thousands of Dutch immigrants moved to the new colony. They settled in present-day New York City, up the Hudson River valley into upstate New York, in present-day New Jersey and in present-day Connecticut.

These Dutch immigrants brought with them ideas that have endured to this very day. They were ideas that laid the foundation for Canadian and American societies, ideas such as diversity, tolerance and religious freedom.

New Netherland, like the Netherlands of the 17th century, was a haven for religious diversity. For example, in 1655 the rule of religious freedom was upheld and full residency was granted to Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews in New Amsterdam. As a result of the Flushing Remonstrance in 1657, full religious freedom was granted to the Quakers. In the 1640s, two religious leaders, both women, took refuge in New Netherland: Anne Hutchinson and the Anabaptist Lady Deborah Moody. A direct line can be traced from that religious freedom in the Dutch colony of New Netherland to the freedom of religion enshrined in the Canadian and American constitutions.

When the Treaty of Westminster transferred the colony from the Dutch to the British Crown in 1674, thousands of Dutch remained as loyal subjects of their new sovereign. New Netherland was renamed the Province of New York and New Amsterdam was renamed New York City.

A century later came the American Revolution. Some of the Dutch sided with the rebels, while others remained loyal to the British. By this time, many of the Dutch had been anglicized, after having been in the new world for some two and a half centuries. After the American Revolution, those loyal to the British fled the 13 colonies and headed north to the Maritimes and to present-day Ontario. They were people like Joseph Ryerson, the father of Egerton Ryerson, the founder of Ontario's public education system.

Subsequent to that first wave of Dutch people fleeing the revolution came many more waves, some from the Netherlands directly and others via the United States, and they have made big contributions to this country. They included people like the painter Cornelius Krieghoff, composer Allard de Ridder, photographer Jason van Bruggen, film director Patricia Rozema, actress Sonja Smits and author Aritha van Herk. Many Dutch Canadians have contributed to government, such as the first Surveyor General of British North America, Samuel Holland. They have contributed to business, as exemplified by Sir William Cornelius Van Horne, the builder of Canada's transcontinental railway. They have contributed to our national pastime, hockey, with players like Joe Nieuwendyk, Trevor Linden and Steve Yzerman.

Today over a million Canadians identify themselves of Dutch origin, and today that story has come full circle: I am one of those million Canadians of Dutch origin.

I am here today because my Dutch mother and her family were liberated by Canadian soldiers 74 years ago this May 5. Some 7,600 Canadians died in the liberation of the Netherlands. They died in the canals, the fields, the little villages and cities of that country. They never came home. Thousands of Canadian war graves dot the Dutch countryside. They died so that my mother and her family could live, and we will never forget.

The motion in front of us today says:

That, in the opinion of the House, in recognition of the sacrifices made by Canadians in the liberation of the Netherlands, as well as the contributions made to Canada by those of Dutch heritage, the government should recognize every May 5 as Dutch Heritage Day to honour this unique bond.

This motion captures the Dutch story on the North American continent and the unique bond that ties the Canadian and Dutch people together. This motion recognizes four centuries of history on this continent and the continued ties that bind our two peoples.

The Dutch continue to this day to have tight ties with this country, both across the Atlantic and north and south of the border. I was in Washington several weeks ago and I met with representative Bill Huizenga from western Michigan. He, too, is of Dutch origin, and his wife is a Canadian also of Dutch origin from Brampton, Ontario. They spend every other Christmas with her family in Peel Region. There are thousands of stories like that throughout the country. The Dutch have worked hard to settle the country over many years and have contributed greatly in all facets of our national life.

This country is made up of a diversity of different groups, people from all origins, all religions, all races and all walks of life. That legacy that we have been granted in this country of religious freedom, tolerance and diversity is one of the greatest contributions the Dutch have made to our society and that south of the border.

In the 17th century, it was the Dutch who were a haven for persecuted religious minorities and remained so for many centuries thereafter, whether it was Quakers fleeing the United Kingdom; whether it was Huguenots fleeing the south of France; whether it was independently-minded philosophers, like René Descartes or other thinkers who were at odds with the church doctrine at the time. Those ideas were adopted by the Dutch in their new colony in the new world. They were further continued after the transfer of that colony and subsequently into the American Constitution and so, too, within ours. These ideas infused the way we treated religious minorities on this continent prior to confederation and afterwards.

For all those reasons, I encourage members of the House to support this motion and to recognize the contributions made over many centuries by people from the Netherlands.

Privilege April 3rd, 2019

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to comment on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington concerning the Liberals' breach of the Parliament of Canada Act. This point of privilege concerns a real breach of members' rights.

How do we know that members' rights were breached? On November 5, 2015, section 49 of the Parliament of Canada Act required Liberal MPs to vote four times. These four votes were to have been recorded, just like votes are recorded here in the House of Commons. One of the recorded votes that did not occur was for the rule concerning caucus expulsions.

On March 21, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood confirmed in an article in the Toronto Star, written by Tonda MacCharles, that with respect to the four votes required, “Nothing like that ever happens in caucus”.

This point of privilege is timely, because that confirmation that these recorded votes did not happen was reported on March 21 in the Toronto Star, only three parliamentary days ago.

When the Prime Minister and his leadership team prevented Liberal MPs from exercising their rights under section 49.8, he and his leadership team violated the rights of members in three ways, the Liberal members in particular. First, the Prime Minister deprived members of their right to vote four times in a recorded manner under section 49.8. Second, in depriving members of their right to vote in a recorded manner for those four different rules, the Prime Minister deprived members of the opportunity to adopt the rule in section 49.2 concerning caucus expulsions. In other words, the Prime Minister deprived members of their right to determine a caucus expulsion on a secret ballot vote. Third, in denying members their right to vote and adopt the expulsion rule in section 49.2, the Prime Minister denied members being considered for expulsion the right to a fair process, one that is not ad hoc and arbitrary.

Section 49.2 lays out a clear process for expulsion, and the bar is set very high. First, at least 20% of caucus, in this case some 36 members of Parliament, would have to have written to the caucus chair requesting an expulsion vote. Second, a majority of the entire caucus, not just a majority of members present, would have to have voted in favour of expulsion on a secret ballot vote. In other words, since the Liberal caucus had 179 members, that means that at least 90 Liberal members would have to have voted for expulsion on a secret ballot vote. If only 120 members showed up, 90 votes were still required.

Now, this question is even more relevant in light of the caucus expulsions yesterday of the hon. members for Markham—Stouffville and Vancouver Granville.

Last night, the Prime Minister stated on national television that he had taken the decision to expel the hon. members.

He added that he met with those members “to inform them of my decision.” These words are important for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, to underscore that it should not be the Prime Minister's decision to make. MPs are not accountable to the leader. The leader is accountable to MPs. It is a vital part of the confidence convention of the House. In fact, it is so important that parts of it were taken from unwritten convention into statute law in the last Parliament. The rights of members to hold party leaders and the Prime Minister accountable are so important that the previous Parliament took some of these unwritten constitutional conventions governing party caucuses and enshrined them in the Parliament of Canada Act.

On December 5, 2015, you were called to the chair as our Speaker through a vote in the House. It also means that you, Mr. Speaker, were an active member of the Liberal caucus when the events in question took place on November 5, 2015. With the greatest respect, there could be, at minimum, an appearance of a conflict of interest for the Speaker. Automatically finding a prima facie case of a breach of privilege and sending this matter to the House as a whole for its consideration is one way for you, as Speaker, to have absolution in any potential conflict of interest.

Secret in-camera meetings, whether they are of committees or of the recognized caucuses of the House of Commons, should be no shield to prevent the upholding of the rule of law and members' rights. You, Mr. Speaker, are the only person in this land who can defend these rights of members. We have no recourse to the judicial branch of the state. We have no recourse to a place outside the House of Commons. You, sir, are our defender of our rights, and I ask that you find a prima facie case of a breach of privilege.

Democratic Reform April 2nd, 2019

Mr. Speaker, we now have confirmation that the Prime Minister and cabinet undermined the rule of law on November 5, 2015, by preventing Liberal MPs from complying with section 49 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Liberal members were to have voted in a recorded division, just like in the House of Commons, on the secret ballot expulsion rule. By not voting, they acted illegally and broke the law.

Now that illegal act has come back to haunt it, will the government hold off on any caucus expulsions until it has complied with section 49, and will the Attorney General ensure that the government comes into compliance with section 49?

Ethics March 22nd, 2019

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps repeating the refrain that committees are independent of the PMO and masters of their own domain. Therefore, have there been any communications from either the office of the chief government whip or the office of the government House leader and Liberal members of the ethics committee about next Tuesday's meeting?

Privilege March 22nd, 2019

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the member for Perth—Wellington for raising this point of privilege in the House and indicate that I concur with the points he has made and would briefly add to those points, for your benefit, Mr. Speaker.

First, I believe that this matter is timely, because today is the first day of this Parliament that we have confirmation, from the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, that the four recorded votes did not take place in the first meeting of a recognized party in this House of Commons in this Parliament. To be clear, a recorded vote, as required under subsection 49.8(3), has a very specific process to be followed. It is not a show of hands. It is a recorded vote, much the same as we take recorded divisions in this House of Commons.

Finally, the point I want to make is that the patriation reference of 1981 made it clear that constitutional conventions could not be adjudicated by the courts, could not be taken to the courts to defend rights of members of Parliament. It also made it clear that section 18 rights, immunities and privileges, are also to be adjudicated, not in the judicial branch of government, but in this legislative branch of the state of the government.

With the matter in front of us, it is up to this chamber and you, Mr. Speaker, to adjudicate this matter. I hope that you find a prima facie case that privilege has been breached.

Justice March 20th, 2019

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister breached the unwritten constitution. He told the former attorney general he did not want SNC-Lavalin to go to trial. When he did not get what he wanted, he replaced her with a new Attorney General, who he thought would do what he wanted. It is as simple as that.

It is this legislature, its committees and parliamentary parties that are supposed to hold the Prime Minister, the head of the executive branch of government, accountable for a violation of the unwritten constitution. But that has not happened. This House and its committees have not adopted a motion of censor, have not adopted a motion of contempt and have not adopted any other reprimand to the Prime Minister.

Therefore, for members of the House who still have confidence in the Prime Minister, I say this. I respect their decision, but surely, at minimum, we can all agree on the need to uphold our constitutional order. That should be begin with a reprimand of the Prime Minister through a motion that does exactly that.

Points of Order March 19th, 2019

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order as it relates to the upcoming budget speech.

The Minister of Finance made it clear to everybody in the lockup that the budget was embargoed until 4 p.m. It has been long-standing parliamentary convention in this place that the budget is not to be made public before the Minister of Finance makes it public in the House and presents it in the House. It has also been a long-standing convention that the budget is not to be released before North American equity markets close at 4 p.m. eastern standard time.

What happened is that well before 4 p.m., the Minister of Finance table dropped the budget, and then proceeded to go into the public sphere, the public realm, and start commenting about his very own budget, while everybody else was still embargoed and prevented from talking about it until 4 p.m.

I rise on this point of order and ask you, Mr. Speaker, to contemplate the matter, and ask you to rule on this at some future date, about whether or not parliamentary convention was followed and about whether or not breaches of privilege were executed on.

Petitions March 18th, 2019

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents in my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills to the government on the issue of climate change. They ask the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to increase the targets for Canada's greenhouse gas reductions and to charge an annual carbon fee increase to a more aggressive rate.

Committees of the House March 18th, 2019

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would point out for the member opposite that we are not on the original motion as moved by my colleague from Alberta, but rather on the amendment, which would, if adopted, become an order of the House ordering the justice committee to a particular course of action.