SoVote

May/4/23 12:07:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in reflecting on the situation in Ukraine, including on the future of its people, its culture and survival, and the nature of Ukraine, I have been extremely moved by the fact that my colleague and the deputy leader of the Green Party, Jonathan Pedneault, just went to Ukraine on my behalf and on behalf of the party. He used to work at Human Rights Watch, and he visited with his colleagues from there. He was in Ukraine when the war began, and he went back to see the human rights condition and look at how Canada is helping. Even now, during the war, it is clear that more humanitarian help and more connection are needed to support the people, making sure that our aid reaches the people who need it the most. I thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence for their efforts. We are in this with the people of Ukraine.

159 words

All Topics

Mr. Maninder Sidhu

May/4/23 12:09:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear: President Putin started this war, and he can back away and end it today. This is a critical moment in Russia's illegal war. Russia has not been negotiating in good faith, and we see no indication that Putin has changed his objective. On the contrary, he is preparing for new offences. We cannot accept at face value any Russian claim to seek peace, and Russia's actions contradict such claims. A peace on Russia's terms would be neither just nor sustainable. That is why Ukraine needs our support more than ever. The brave people of Ukraine have inspired us all with their courage, resilience and commitment to fighting for their country and their very existence. Canada will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people, to strongly condemn the Kremlin's brutal actions and to provide multi-faceted support, including economic, humanitarian, military, stabilization and development assistance.

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

May/4/23 12:10:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on March 28 of this year, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner announced in a Twitter post the appointment of an interim Ethics Commissioner. What Canadians might not have known from that post was that the person appointed was the sister-in-law of a Liberal cabinet minister, but not just any cabinet minister. When red flags went up about that appointment, I raised my concern and that of many Canadians when I posed a question on March 31. At that time, I stated in this House: ...we should all remember clam scam, when the then fisheries minister was found guilty of an ethics breach for awarding a $24-million licence to a company to be ran by his wife's cousin. Now the Liberals have appointed the same cabinet minister's sister-in-law as the Ethics Commissioner. Really? Can they only find family and insiders willing to work for them, or is this another attempt to censor disclosure of their ongoing ethics issues? Which is it? The parliamentary secretary responded but did not answer the question. Instead, he danced around it like there was nothing wrong. After six ethics violations, the Liberals attempted to appoint a family member to the Ethics Commissioner’s office to cover for them. Now, as days go by, we are seeing more evidence of why they may have attempted to ensure their friends and family were controlling the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, as more questions of the government’s ethics, or lack thereof, continue to emerge. On Monday, the world learned that the government failed to inform a sitting member of Parliament that it knew of yet more evidence that the Communist regime in Beijing is actively attempting to meddle in our democracy. The government knew about it and chose to do nothing. This is something that should make all Canadians question the Liberal-NDP government’s version of ethics. It is unacceptable that the government has known that an MP and his family had been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing for two years and did not inform the member about the threats posed to his family. Chinese Canadians across the country deserve to know that the government takes their safety and security seriously, yet Canada still has not shut down Beijing’s police stations operating within Canada and has failed to protect members of the community from harassment and intimidation. Is this because the government has no ethical compass? I will ask this again: Can the Liberals and their NDP partners only find family and insiders willing to work with them, or was this another attempt to censor disclosure of their ongoing ethics breaches? Which is it?

458 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/4/23 12:13:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it incredibly rich that the member would take the time to requote his question and then gloss over the answer he received, not bothering to even read it into the record, so I will do that for him now. The response given was, “Madam Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recused himself from all deliberations and decisions related to the appointment of the interim Ethics Commissioner.” The member suggested that this was just dancing around answering the question. To me, that sounds like a pretty direct answer to the question. However, what is even more important is to reflect on the fact that the individual who was appointed had a 10-year record in senior roles within the Ethics Commissioner's office, which began when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. The truth is that the characterization being sought by the member and the Conservatives on this issue, like on so many other issues related to it, undermines the office and undermines the integrity of the work it does. Quite frankly, I find it very concerning that time after time, the Conservatives get up and do the exact same thing. However, it is exactly on brand for what they do.

206 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

May/4/23 12:14:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member tried to say that the question had been answered, but it had not. The question really was this: Can the government only find family and insiders willing to work with it or is this another attempt to censor disclosure of its ongoing ethics breaches? Which is it? That question still has not been answered, not by the parliamentary secretary when he answered, nor tonight by this member. After six ethics breaches that these government members have been found guilty of, they still do not realize how important ethics are to Canadians. They should have faith that members who have been elected to represent this country do have an ethics compass, which the government and these members seem to have lost somewhere along the way. Again, will they actually answer the question? Is it family and friends only or he does not—

146 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/4/23 12:16:05 a.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 12:16:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what an extremely rhetorical question. That is just based on the trumped-up conspiracy theories that the Conservatives like to put before this House on a daily basis. The manner in which individuals are selected and appointed is through a process and through processes that ensure they meet the qualifications. I hope that that properly addresses his extremely rhetorical question. Not at all, except it does—

69 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/4/23 12:16:49 a.m.
Watch

I think we are done. The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 12:17 a.m.)

46 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 190