House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was board.

Last in Parliament April 2025, as Conservative MP for South Shore—St. Margarets (Nova Scotia)

Lost his last election, in 2025, with 41% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Privilege October 31st, 2024

Mr. Speaker, those who are tuning in may be curious as to why we are debating the wasteful spending of $400 million, a funnelling of $400 million of taxpayer money to the companies of Liberal insiders, appointed by the Prime Minister.

What could we have done? The member for Barrie—Innisfil spoke very eloquently about what could have been done with $400 million of taxpayer money to solve the food and housing crises. As we know, food bank usage has doubled. We know that the carbon tax is a major contributor to food inflation. We know that the food professor, Professor Charlebois, spoke this morning at the industry committee about the impact of these policies on increasing folks' borrowing.

It is a terrible thing that we have to be here because the Liberal government is filibustering and hiding from the taxpayer documents that three parties of the House, the majority of members, have demanded to be turned over. It is parliamentary privilege. It is the ultimate parliamentary privilege. The Liberals have come up with lame excuses. They have given up on their charter arguments, which were dismissed after we pointed out that, like any other business, it is a business that the government owns. When we find potential criminal activity, we turn it over to the police. In addition, the police could do this.

The Liberals have claimed that they are unable to do this. If they could not do it, then why did nine departments turn over unredacted documents? However, the hypocrisy is that 19 have not. The most egregious one is the department of industry, which was responsible for the Liberal green slush fund. It has redacted almost every single document it has sent, and it has many it has yet to send. What is it hiding? We know it is hiding more and more diversions of taxpayer money.

I will tell members why. The Auditor General only sampled a small portion of the transactions, 226 of 420 transactions in that five-year period. We asked the Auditor General if she would audit all of the 420. Do members know what the Auditor General wrote back? The Auditor General said she did not need to because her sample, under accounting standards, is statistically valid for all 420. That means that over $700 million of the $836 million under that period would have gone to Liberal insiders. There has been no scandal bigger than this in terms of a diversion of taxpayer money to insiders of the government in the history of this country if we are talking about $700 million.

These Liberals have no shame. The Liberals are insensitive to the pain of Canadians while over two million people a month are lining up at food banks, a number that is growing every month; while people cannot pay their mortgages and rent; and while we have a carbon tax, which is driving the cost of everything up, that the Liberals intend to quadruple. They care nothing about the pain of Canadians. They care about covering up the funnelling of hundreds of millions of dollars to Liberal insiders' companies while they enrich themselves and Canadians line up in food banks in record numbers. They are having their Marie-Antoinette moment of letting them eat cake. We all know what happened to her. There was also King Charles I, who defied Parliament although Parliament's reign was supreme. Do colleagues know how it was supreme? King Charles I lost his head over the issue of trying to say that the King, who, in this case, is represented by the government, was superior and more important than Parliament.

Why is it that the Liberals are doing this when a majority of Canadians, represented by a majority of MPs in the House, have demanded this? Why would the Prime Minister's personal office, the Privy Council Office, have said to redact the documents and blank them out, contrary to the House, and contrary to the Privacy Act? The Privacy Act says that, if the House wants unredacted documents, it can get them. Why do the Liberals not want to do that? It is because they are covering up for their cronies and their insiders. They are covering up their corruption.

Privilege October 31st, 2024

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to call quorum. I do not see quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

Privilege October 31st, 2024

Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by my colleague's speeches, and I love the work he does on the industry committee. I would like him to comment, though, in keeping with the theme that he was just asked about, on this morning's industry committee. We had the person known as the “food professor” appear, Professor Charlebois from Dalhousie University, from the great province of Nova Scotia, which I know the Deputy Speaker loves dearly.

Professor Charlebois outlined a very shocking stat in his latest report, which is that 46% of Gen Z are emptying their savings or borrowing money to pay for food. That is an astounding number. For millennials who have families and mortgages, that number is 35%, and he said it is growing quite a bit.

What does the member think might have caused that situation?

Privilege October 24th, 2024

Madam Speaker, that was an excellent speech quoting former MP Derek Lee about the purpose and the powers of the House to command documents. In this case, we have a situation where 82% of the money that went out the door, according to the Auditor General, was conflicted, and that was just in a sample. Nineteen government departments have redacted documents, that is, censored them; nine government departments have put them in. It seems the only government departments that redacted them are the ones that actually have the names connected with what was going on, like the industry department and the Privy Council Office.

Can the member please share with the House her thoughts on why nine government departments have complied and why some of the others that are more directly involved have not?

Privilege October 24th, 2024

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, this is not relevant to the subamendment and amendment to the motion that we are debating, which is the privilege motion.

Privilege October 24th, 2024

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion in the debate on this privilege motion about the ruling of the Speaker and the motion going to the procedure committee. Why do we not just let it go there and let the committee determine whether there was a procedure breach? We heard the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader say this many times. In fact, I do not think he or the government understands what the motion says. The motion does not say to refer it to the committee to determine a breach; the Speaker already determined that. The motion is about going to the committee to determine what to do about the government's failure to abide by the motion passed by the House and the reluctance to do that.

Could the member tell me why he thinks the Liberals are trying to divert the purpose of the motion and why they would have an interpretation that is actually different from what the motion would do?

Privilege October 24th, 2024

Madam Speaker, my friend from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame has entertained the House as he always does with a very thoughtful and entertaining speech, and maybe I could also help our friend, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

The member questioned why we just do not let this go to committee, and I would argue that the filibuster is a filibuster by the Liberal government, which is filibustering against releasing the documents the House ordered. I would ask the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame whether he thinks that this delay by the government of releasing documents that are not covered up and are not edited is because it is hiding something.

Privilege October 24th, 2024

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed that insightful speech by the member for Toronto—St. Paul's. Given his extensive business career, and his knowledge and study of this subject, I know he would be aware that the chair of the green slush fund, Annette Verschuren, said, when asked about all the money that went to their own companies, that this is what entrepreneurs do.

Does the member believe these nine directors named as having conflicts of interest by the Auditor General 186 times represent 82% of the green technology space? Was that a coincidence? Do they represent it, or did they get an oversized chunk of that money because of their insider status?

Privilege October 22nd, 2024

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in my colleague's speech, particularly the fact that the Auditor General has only sampled about half of the transactions and found that 82% were conflicted by corrupt Liberals. How bad could the 10,000 pages the government has redacted be that it is hiding them? How much more corruption is there beyond the $400 million?

Privilege October 22nd, 2024

Madam Speaker, I know that the member for New Brunswick Southwest has done a great job as chair of the public accounts committee on these hearings and is more knowledgeable about the situation than most members in this place.

However, I would like to ask him a question, because I think the members had an update. I believe nine government departments have provided unredacted documents, 19 government departments have provided redacted documents and two government departments have refused.

Now if it is okay for nine government departments to produce unredacted documents, why is it not okay for the other 19 government departments to produce unredacted documents? Is it because of what is in them, or is it just because the hypocrisy of the government knows no end?