House of Commons photo

Track Ted

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is liberal.

Conservative MP for Provencher (Manitoba)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 66% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Privilege October 21st, 2024

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in this House to speak to the important issues of the day. However, in this case, there is a sad irony in that opposition members are not using that privilege to promote or oppose legislation for the betterment of Canadians, but rather are being forced to defend those privileges on behalf of the Canadians we represent and against the stonewalling government across the way.

Last week, the editorial board of The Globe and Mail wrote, “The Liberals' naked disdain for Parliament [and by extension Canadians] is showing”. The Liberal government has such a profound disrespect for Canadians and for the long-held traditions of this place that it is choosing to defy not only the opposition, but the Speaker and, worst of all, Canadians themselves, who want and deserve to know the truth.

There is so much rot at the core of the government. The default toward secrecy and cover-ups, the antipathy toward law enforcement and the pattern of profound disrespect toward the people of Canada are all ingrained traits of the government and the failed and, as we can only be led to believe, corrupt Prime Minister, who has been the catalyst for a culture of cronyism, corruption and cover-ups.

This is nothing new. We are here today, as we have been for the last two weeks, debating the undebatable. The Auditor General has found that Sustainable Development Technology Canada appointed Liberals to run the program, who turned around and gave $400 million of taxpayers' money, the Canadian people's money, to their own companies. The Auditor General found a whopping 186 separate conflicts of interest, and rather than comply with the Speaker's ruling to produce documents related to the massive scam, the Liberals are choosing to hold up the business of the House indefinitely as they scramble to once again cover up their tracks.

This is not the first time the government has been accused of unethical behaviour. I know it is hard to believe, but it is true, and this is not the first time that government members have defied Parliament, defied the Speaker and even stonewalled the police in an attempt to cover up their sordid deeds. In fact, as I was preparing for this speech, when I searching in my emails and typed in the keywords “refusal to hand over documents”, what popped up was not about SDTC, which we are debating today, but another incident from back in 2021, when the government allowed Chinese spies, Beijing-sponsored scientists with ties to the Chinese military and bioweapons program, to access our top clearance national microbiology lab in Winnipeg.

The lead scientist, Dr. Qiu, at the same time as she was working in our top security level 4 lab, was flying back and forth to China for meetings in Beijing and helping Beijing set up its very own level 4 lab in Wuhan. At the time, the former Speaker ruled the government, his own party, to have violated parliamentary privilege and to be in contempt of Parliament when the Liberals refused to produce the documents related to this improper transfer of deadly Ebola and henipavirus samples from Winnipeg to Wuhan.

We still do not know how serious a leak that was because this House, through the Speaker's predecessor, ordered the government to hand over the documents and the government refused. The Liberals sought to cover up the truth of what happened, not on the grounds of national security but for political reasons, because they were trying to protect the Prime Minister, who had failed so spectacularly to keep Canadians safe.

It is the same Prime Minister who refused to hand over documents to the RCMP in yet another case. Back in 2019, it came to light that the Prime Minister had pressured and bullied the former attorney general of Canada to give SNC-Lavalin, which was ironically also facing corruption charges, a sweetheart deal to drop the charges so as not to negatively affect the Liberals' political fortunes in Quebec. She refused and he fired her, kicked her out of cabinet and eventually out of the Liberal Party. Clearly, there is no place for truth-telling and standing on principle in today's Liberal Party, especially when it comes to standing up to the Prime Minister.

The worst part of that affair is that all of the members on the other side who were there, all of the hon. ministers, all backed the Prime Minister. In fact, at the time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, then the minister of tourism, called what Jody Wilson-Raybould had done “fundamentally wrong”. She was telling the truth. How morally backwards does one need to be to look at that situation and say that the former attorney general of Canada, who upheld the law, should be ashamed? The foreign affairs minister has been touted as a future leader of the Liberal Party. She certainly seems to fit into the mould.

Speaking of backwards, members may recall that that same week, we had in this House about 50 young women as part of a delegation from Daughters of the Vote, a youth leadership movement, and they turned their backs to the Prime Minister in protest during his speech to the delegation. Jody Wilson-Raybould and the one woman in cabinet who had the courage of her convictions and the moral clarity to support her, Dr. Jane Philpott, were treated shamefully by their colleagues in the current corrupt government.

To bring it back to the point about the documents we are discussing today, the government was ordered to hand over the documents and refused. In fact, so desperate was it to cover up the misdeeds of the Prime Minister that it not only withheld documents from the House, but withheld documents from the Ethics Commissioner. In his 2019 report, Commissioner Mario Dion wrote, “I was unable to fully discharge [my] investigatory duties”. As we learned, later that year it also refused to turn over documents to the RCMP.

Documents released by Democracy Watch, via an access to information request, show that the Prime Minister's Office refused to hand over documents to the RCMP when investigating the Prime Minister. I am really not sure what is worse here, the fact that the Prime Minister, who so clearly believes he is above the law, stonewalled the RCMP got away with it or the fact that the RCMP, under disastrous former commissioner Brenda Lucki, let him get away with it.

Subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that it is a criminal offence “to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice”. In attempting to get the then attorney general to change her mind by attempting to convince her, the highest-ranking prosecutor in the land, to drop a criminal case for political reasons, it certainly appears that the Prime Minister and his staff were trying to obstruct justice. In fact, if we look at the RCMP report, we can basically paraphrase it as follows: The RCMP did not look at all the evidence because it could not get it because the government would not give it up, but it was probably just as well. That is shocking.

Then we have the ArriveCAN app scam, with an app that should have cost $80,000 ballooning to $60 million. The RCMP again opened criminal investigations into the actions of the Liberal government, 13 separate investigations at last count. There were allegations of identity theft, fraudulent and forged resumes, contractual theft, fraudulent billing, price-fixing and collusion, all with senior bureaucrats in and appointed by the government.

We could talk about WE Charity, with nearly a billion dollars handed over to an organization that paid nearly half a million dollars to the Prime Minister's family and paid for a lavish vacation for the then finance minister. Just on a side note, the then finance minister did repay the money he had been given for the cost of the vacation.

We could talk about how COVID contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars were handed out to Liberal cronies, who got richer while Canadians had to suffer. We all remember the $237 million given to Baylis Medical, run by former Liberal donor and member of Parliament Frank Baylis.

Baylis donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Liberals and did he ever get a return on that investment. There was a $237-million contract to produce 10,000 ventilators, which would normally cost about $13,700. He billed the Canadian government $23,750 a ventilator. If we do the math, that is $100 million over and above a normal profit. There was another $422,000 from the Department of Industry, the same department at the heart of the green slush fund. Frank Baylis has also expressed an interest, in recent days, in running to replace the Prime Minister.

There was also the $84 million given to MCAP, the mortgage brokerage firm that employed the husband of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford. Hundreds of millions of dollars from that period remain unaccounted for.

I just want to pause here and note that the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which brought down the last Liberal government, was a mere $2 million. We know taxes are up, we know costs are up and now we know scandals are up. It is not $2 million this time; it is billions of dollars that we are talking about. I guess Liberal inflation is even affecting scandals. Everything is either broken or more expensive under the Prime Minister.

At the time, even the CBC called the Prime Minister out. We know it has to be bad for the Liberals when the radical ideologues and propagandists at the CBC are willing to bite the hand that feeds them, generously feeds them in the case of the current government, and criticize the government.

On December 7, 2020, an aptly named series called “The Big Spend” started. It stated the Prime Minister's government “won't say who got billions of dollars in aid” and that “While some payments have been revealed, the destination of billions of dollars in aid remains secret.” Then it goes on to note, with some irony, that the Prime Minister ran on a promise of openness and transparency, a promise that he has broken, like so many. Sunny ways and sunshine are the best medication, are they not?

It used to be blackface. Now it is black ink on the scores of documents that the Prime Minister seeks to hide from Parliament, from the authorities and from Canadians. Every time the Liberals and their cronies get caught breaking the rules, they cover it up and refuse to tell Canadians the truth. Here we go again with another scandal, more Liberal cronyism and corruption, another cover-up, more blacked-out documents and more stonewalling.

What happened? The Liberals created a $1-billion slush fund for funding so-called green technology projects and programs. They appointed Liberal insiders to run the program, but instead of helping Canadians, we know they were busy helping themselves. Just as with ArriveCAN and their crony COVID spending, the Liberals were helping Liberals get rich off the backs of struggling Canadians.

Just as with ArriveCAN and SNC-Lavalin, the RCMP is investigating corruption in the government. True to form, as with previous investigations, the Liberals are blocking the RCMP from getting the documents it needs to determine who in the government broke the law.

Like the Prime Minister and five of his ministers before, the Liberals' hand-picked chair of the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund, Annette Verschuren, broke the law. Canada's Ethics Commissioner has ruled that she violated subsection 6(1) and section 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act, finding that her actions “furthered her private interests”. To make matters worse, the Minister of Industry was warned of Verschuren's glaring conflict of interest but allowed her to keep her position until she was forced to resign. She only did this after being exposed for wasting Canadian taxpayers' dollars on projects that benefited her financially.

On top of this, the Auditor General found that over $330 million in taxpayer money was paid out in 186 cases where there was a conflict of interest, with Liberal-appointed directors funnelling money to companies they owned, including Verschuren's. There was $59 million given to ineligible projects that never should have been awarded any money at all. This is no small scandal. This is a big deal.

When this came to light, the Conservatives took action. Our job is to hold the government accountable, and that is what we are seeking to do with this privilege motion and this debate.

Back in June, all parties, with the exception of the Liberals, voted in favour of a motion requiring the government to produce documents related to the mass corruption at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It should be noted that the Liberals do not deny any of these allegations, and that makes this so much worse. It actually admits to the wrongdoing, but it is still engaging in a cover-up. The House, the majority of the members of Parliament, who are the people's democratically elected representatives, demanded on behalf of Canadians that these documents be turned over. Rather than comply, the government handed over redacted documents, or in some cases, refused to produce documents entirely.

The rules of parliamentary privilege are clear: The House has the authority, with its very broad powers, to request whatever documents it wants. It is up to the House to determine if those requests have been met to its satisfaction. The House has determined that they have not, so we sit here, day after day, asserting the moral right of the House on behalf of the Canadians who sent us here, including those who sent the government here and whom the government has abandoned. They are the Canadians whose money and trust it has treated with such carelessness and disdain. We demand answers, and we demand accountability.

Another scandal, which is criminal in nature, is the $400 million in conflicts of interest. There we have the same model, with the same players and refrains of denial and distraction from the government benches. It is just sad. The saddest part of all is that we will probably be here again. I am not sure if it will be the $10-billion conflict of interest they are setting up with Mark Carney, or on a much smaller scale, maybe the real Randy will finally stand up. Maybe the Prime Minister will finally tell us the truth about China. I do not know. What I do know is that, as long as the Liberals are in power, we will be back here again soon, doing something very similar to what we are doing right now.

The latest scandal has paralyzed the House of Commons from being able to deal with the issues that families are facing in Canada, including right here in Ottawa, like the cost of living, food inflation and the crime and chaos that are rampant in our streets. We know that everything is up. My constituents in Provencher know it. They talk to me about how their taxes are up. They talk to me about how the costs of everything they have to buy are up. They talk to me about how crime is up, especially rural crime. Then they add on, “And I think the Liberals' time is up, too.” I cannot disagree with them. I also think the Liberals have exceeded their shelf life and their best-before date has come and gone, if there ever even was one.

As a result of the Liberals' entitled attitude towards accountability, we have crime and chaos in government. It is not so much the gravity of what they have done as much as the artlessness and the utter brazenness, along with the regularity of and the apathy towards their misdeeds, that has even the most jaded Canadians scratching their heads in disbelief. What started as a simple flouting of ethics rules for the Prime Minister with his taxpayer-funded vacation to a lobbyist's private island, for which he received the dubious distinction of being the only sitting prime minister in Canadian history to be found guilty of violating ethics laws, quickly unfolded into a pattern of cronyism, corruption, cover-ups and ethical violations for the Prime Minister, his ministers and others in government. That is unprecedented in the history of Canadian politics.

There is a saying, and I read it again just recently, that anyone who can be trusted with a little, will be trusted with a lot. We have seen that over and over again in the Liberal government. We want to trust it because we, as members of Parliament, know how important trust is. We expect our constituents to place their trust in us to bring their cares and concerns to Parliament, to vigorously debate, to defend them and their rights, and to uphold the integrity of this place. We do that day after day. Our constituents expect that of us. We know that the trust they have in us is not something that we can take for granted because trust can be broken. When trust is broken, it is very difficult to repair. If we can be trusted in the little things, these big things that we are talking about would not even be an issue because we know that trust would carry on, even for the big things.

We know that after nine years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, not worth the crime and not worth the corruption. Only common-sense Conservatives are standing up for Canadian families, and only Conservatives would end the Liberal culture of cronyism, cover-up and corruption. The Liberals must end their cover-up and hand over the documents to the RCMP so that Parliament can get back to working for the Canadians who sent us here.

Canadian Farmers October 21st, 2024

Mr. Speaker, it is harvest, a time of thanksgiving for tens of thousands of farmers across Canada, including in my home province of Manitoba. Despite the Liberal-NDP plan to quadruple the carbon tax on these hard-working individuals, Conservatives wish to express our gratitude to farmers.

Manitoba's 20,000 farmers are renowned worldwide as consistent and reliable suppliers of safe, high-quality grains, oilseeds, livestock and agri-food products. This reputation will continue to thrive despite the Liberal-NDP effort to make them less competitive globally by quadrupling the carbon tax. In 2023, Manitoba's crop sector achieved a record $6.6 billion in revenue, with this year anticipated to be higher. Across Canada, the agriculture and agri-food system employs 2.3 million people and contributes $150 billion to GDP.

It is harvest time and Thanksgiving time, so when we enjoy another meal with family and friends, we should remember the farmer who made it possible. I thank our Canadian farmers.

Business of Supply September 24th, 2024

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member just falsely stated that the Leader of the Opposition is unable to get a security clearance. That is blatantly false.

Business of Supply September 24th, 2024

Madam Speaker, what hypocrisy we have heard from that member and his party when they are criticizing the Liberal government. Over the last three years, they have enabled the government to increase taxes on Canadians at every single juncture, whether through its budgets or the implementation of the carbon tax, which affects the cost of everything. He talked a lot about cuts, but he supported the carbon tax initiation, as well as every single increase since then, with his party through the government. This has increased the cost of housing, the cost of food, the cost of fuel and the cost of energy for every single Canadian.

My question is very simple. Why did that member and his party cut the disposable income of every single Canadian?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 16th, 2024

With regard to the procurement, review and contents of the contract for the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine signed by the former Minister of Public Services and Procurement in 2020: (a) when did the former Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the former Minister of Health and Health Canada initially receive the Pfizer contract; (b) which entities and agencies reviewed the contents of the Pfizer contract and who performed the review in each entity and agency; (c) which entities and agencies approved the final terms of the Pfizer contract and who signed the approval in each entity and agency; (d) did the contract specify whether their product was serialized by the manufacturer; (e) what is the purpose of product serialization by any drug manufacturer; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why not; (g) did the Pfizer contract provide unequivocal confirmation that their product was studied for its (i) efficacy to prevent infection of SARS-CoV-2, (ii) efficacy to prevent serious illness, (iii) efficacy to prevent hospitalization, (iv) efficacy to prevent death, (v) long-term side effects, (vi) ability to stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2, (vii) known adverse effects; (h) did the contract state that the mRNA vaccine was tested for its ability to stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others; (i) with respect to the responses to (g) and (h), when was (i) Dr. Howard Njoo, (ii) Dr. Theresa Tam, (iii) Dr. Supriya Sharma, (iv) Dr. Caroline Quach-Thanh, (v) the Prime Minister, (vi) the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, (vii) the former Minister of Health, (viii) the former Minister of Transport, provided this information; (j) with respect to the responses to (g)(i) to (g)(vii), when was the Office of the Prime Minister informed about the limitations of the vaccine as listed in the Pfizer contract and who informed them; and (k) who approved the communications plan after the contract was received and analyzed in early 2021 that would inform Canadians that the Pfizer product was "safe and effective" and prevented transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to others?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns June 17th, 2024

With regard to the review by Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), or the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, of a pre-print study posted on October 15, 2023 of which six authors are associated with the US Food and Drug Administration that found "a new signal was detected for seizures-convulsions after BNT162b2 (2-4 years) and mRNA1273 COVID-19 vaccinations (2-5 years),": (a) which federal health agency, organization, committee or department(s) or outsourced contracted firm is responsible for reviewing or identifying studies such as the pre-print titled "Safety of Monovalent BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) COVID- 19 Vaccines in US Children Aged six months to 17 years;"; (b) has any federal health agency, organization, committee, department(s) or outsourced contracted firm reviewed or been made aware of the forementioned study or learned about the new safety signal of seizures/convulsions among children following monovalent COVID-19 vaccine; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, has HC or any federal health agency, organization or committee issued any statement to the Canadian public or any communication to the provinces or the medical community to create awareness of this new safety signal; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the statement or communication provided; (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, why not; (f) how many episodes of seizures-convulsions have been reported in children under 17 years in Canadian Adverse Events following Immunization Surveillance System records, from (i) May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2023, (ii) May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2020; (g) what provincial and territory data is the federal government relying upon to monitor risk of seizures and convulsions in this cohort in real time; (h) how far out is the government monitoring this data (e.g. 28 days post-vaccine, up to 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, beyond 12 months post-COVID-19 immunization); (i) what are the Canadian government's threshold values for marking the likelihood of a vaccine serious adverse event as transitioning from an extremely rare, to a rare occurrence, and from a rare to a common occurrence; (j) what is the threshold whereby a safety signal of seizures or convulsions would shut down the mRNA vaccine program in children under the age of 17 years; (k) why are children's seizures-convulsions not listed on HC's webpage denoted to children's side-effects which was last updated on October 27, 2023; (l) with real-time monitoring, what other safety signals has HC, the PHAC or any other federal agency or department discovered post-mRNA vaccine injection for (i) children under age 5 years, (ii) children 6-17 years, (iii) persons 18-25 years, (iv) persons 26-35 years; (m) is HC receiving any data directly from provincial datasets to monitor increased usage of provincial health systems by Canadian children post-vaccination; (n) has any federal health agency or entity such as the Canadian Institute for Health Information or outsourced contractor tracked the number of episodes of myocarditis and pericarditis in young persons under the age of 35, post-vaccination, using billing or ICD-10 data from physicians and hospitals across Canada both before and after the COVID-19 injections had commenced; (o) if the answer to (n) is affirmative, (i) for what period of time post-immunization are they tracked, (ii) is the rate of myocarditis and pericarditis in persons under 35 years following the roll-out of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greater or less than the baseline rates of myocarditis and pericarditis from 2016-2019; (p) if there were deviations from the baseline found in (o)(ii), by how much did this occur and by which method has the determination of any difference, or lack thereof, been made; (q) if the answer to (n) is negative, why is this data not being tracked; and (r) when examining the risk-of-harm to benefit ratio of the COVID-19 mRNA products and when considering the combination of serious adverse events such as seizures-convulsions, myocarditis and pericarditis in young persons, what is the combined threshold of serious adverse events by which mRNA products would no longer be available to (i) children under the age of 5 years, (ii) children 6-17 years old, (iii) persons 18-25 years old, (iv) persons 26-35 years old, and who determines these thresholds, when, and based on what data?

Questions on the Order Paper June 17th, 2024

With regard to those fatalities and serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines and tracked by Health Canada (HC) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) did HC or the PHAC or any other federal agency or entity or agency contracted by the federal government detect a safety signal when examining, (i) the VAERS data from the USA, (ii) the EudraVigilance data from Europe, (iii) the Yellow Card data from England; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative for either (i), (ii) or (iii), what are the safety issues and how is the federal government addressing them; (c) what are the respective provincial numbers of vaccine-associated fatal and non­fatal heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular events recorded in Canada's vaccine surveillance program(s), between December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2023; (d) given the data from (c), has HC, the PHAC, or another federal government body such as the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) undertaken the research to determine if there has been an increase in the events described in (c) compared with their baseline values prior to the COVID-19 vaccine roll-outs; (e) what does the temporal association between the fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in (c) and the timing of the mRNA­based vaccine roll-outs (primary series and boosters) show, per age group; (f) has the submission of any provincial health agencies' reports of vaccine-associated fatalities been denied by Canada's vaccine surveillance program(s); (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, how many reports of fatalities were denied by Canada's vaccine surveillance program(s) and for what reasons; (h) how many fatalities and SAEs associated with any drug or medical devices removes that item from the market; (i) how many fatalities and SAEs associated the mRNA-based vaccines will be deemed sufficient, as a threshold safety signal, to shut down the distribution of the mRNA products and what agency has established this benchmark; and (j) in consideration of cumulative reports of fatalities and SAEs during Pfizer's 3-month post-marketing phase, and in Canada and other jurisdictions around the world associated with the mRNA products, why was this vaccination program permitted to continue and who made that decision?

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1 June 17th, 2024

Mr. Speaker, I know there is very little good to talk about in this Bill C-69, this budget implementation act, but it would be nice if the member could use some of his time at least to talk about the actual issue we are debating.

Framework on the Access to and Use of Cash Act June 13th, 2024

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-400, An Act to establish a framework for the continued access to and use of cash in Canada and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise today to table a bill calling for a framework on the access to and the use of cash. Our economy, like all economies, is driven by the exchange of goods and services, or in other words, commerce. Typically, the settlement for that exchange is currency. In a world where commerce is moving at a rapid pace toward plastic, online and digital currencies, many Canadians, including many in my riding of Provencher, are concerned with their ability to access and use cash as currency.

For millions of Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable folks in our population, physical cash is essential to everyday life. Likewise, charities, community organizations and remote communities rely on cash to achieve their worthy goals. Finally, in a world where governments, banks and corporations are increasingly infringing on the privacy rights of Canadians, cash remains the only truly anonymous form of payment.

The bill calls for a national framework to ensure continued access to and use of cash in Canada. It would amend the Currency Act to limit the Minister of Finance's ability to arbitrarily and unilaterally call in bank notes. It would also amend the Bank of Canada Act to ensure that the central bank does not develop or replace hard currency with a digital dollar.

This common-sense legislation would benefit vulnerable Canadians the most, as well as those who work so hard to support them. I hope the House will support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Business of Supply May 30th, 2024

Madam Speaker, I am sure it is, because I did a quick calculation with my calculator—