44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023 11:00AM
- May/8/23 11:12:12 p.m.
- Watch
I am in the chair. This is the same debate we have been having for three days, and I have ruled the member out every time he has stood there and tried to bring it forward. That is not a point of order. It is a good point of debate, but I just want to make sure we have heard it and gotten it in Hansard. We have been over it a number of times, and I am hoping that, when the debate continues, we can maybe stop accusing each other of things and just proceed with the information we have before us.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:12:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, multiple times, probably a dozen times now, Speakers have ruled that the member's point is not a point of order. I have the two words he did say and withdrew. I have them. I was not referring to those, the ones he apologized for. I think he apologized twice on the day, but—
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: What two words?
Hon. Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, he is asking me to say the two words. The words he apologized for saying were said when he referred to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills as being “supposedly affected”. He apologized for those words. I was not going to read those words, but he is heckling me, asking me to read them.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: That is not true. I apologized for—
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:13:31 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:13:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, he is still heckling me right now.
Anyone can watch the tape now. We have another member coming in.
I cannot reference that. I withdraw—
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:13:59 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:14:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about a member entering the chamber, which he should know he should not be doing.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:14:17 p.m.
- Watch
That is close to a point of order, but the member did not specify which member was coming in or out. I think it was a general thing. I saw two members coming in at the same time, so I do not know which one he was referring to.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I cannot reference who is in the chamber and who is not in the chamber. All I know is that as I am speaking tonight I am getting a lot of echoing coming back from the other side.
I will say this. The approach on Thursday was to sow chaos, and not just Thursday, by the way. We have seen this in question period from ministers who were answering as well. The approach on Thursday was to blame the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. There is no question.
The approach today seems to be to throw accusations of politicization. That seems to be the theme of the day. After the approach on Thursday of sowing chaos and blaming the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, the approach today, as we heard the member for Winnipeg North reference multiple times today, was to use the phrase “throwing stones at glass houses”. He over and over again used that phrase of “throwing stones at glass houses”. At one point he actually, when asked about it, attributed the phrase to the legislature in Manitoba. He said that phrase originated in the legislature in Manitoba. That is the approach that was taken there and then we got into a debate. These are almost all of the times that Liberal members have stood up to take part in the debate today. That was the entirety of their argument, to then talk about unparliamentary language.
As we have been having conversation, I think it is fair to say that members, not only in this party but maybe in other parties in the House, have a luck of trust in the Prime Minister and in the government. That is fair to say, right? We can say that. I mean this is something that we hear from our constituents. This is something that more and more Canadians are talking about, a lack of trust in what is said, a lack of trust in the competence of the government to lead during tumultuous times like this. I think that is fair to say.
We have talked about chaos, politicization and trust. There are the accusations thrown out by the government. There are questions about loyalty. Answers are not given to legitimate questions from all parties in the House about what is happening. We asked about holding a public inquiry so that Canadians can get to the bottom of what is actually happening in our democracy with some very important questions.
Ministers during question period stand up and ask how any opposition party could possibly question the loyalty of the Prime Minister. Let me be very clear. No one is questioning the loyalty of the Prime Minister. There are significant questions, very relevant questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister, the competence of the Prime Minister. I think there are very relevant questions about the competence of the entire leadership organization of the party in power right now, based on what we have seen in the last two days of debate on this really important issue.
It is not political to reference facts. It is not political when we take a look at judgment. It is not political in the context of the conversation to quote the Prime Minister himself, so I will do that. A lot of reference has been made, over the course of the debate in the House of Commons, to the 2013 interview that the Prime Minister did. It was an event that he was speaking at. The question he was actually asked at the event was which nation's administration did he most admire. Remember, this is at a time when President Obama was leading the U.S., so the answer to that question could have been “Well, of course, it's the U.S. I have a lot of admiration for President Obama” and then he could have explained why.
In answer to the question, without hesitation, he answered, “there’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime.”
695 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:24:21 p.m.
- Watch
There is a point of order by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:24:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled that if the end result is that the Liberals won three elections, I guess it is all good. The member's heckle was that they won three elections, so it does not matter.
One other common thread in the debate today has been the Liberals going back eight years. I know that the member for Winnipeg North takes issue with anybody rounding up to eight. He says they have only been destroying the country for seven years, but it is into the eighth year right now, and they seem continuously obsessed with Stephen Harper.
The Prime Minister, who was not prime minister at the time, in his answer to the question, “which nation's administration do you most admire”, went on to say, “I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about, of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted”. Even back then, Liberals were obsessed with Stephen Harper.
In referencing this, I wanted to make sure I got the quotes right, so I went back and watched the video of this and the video of a news story at the time. First of all, I wanted to make sure I had the words right, but, secondly, it gave me a bit of an idea of the tone of the day.
It was interesting to read the comments because the comments in this CBC article from 2013 could be comments that are made today as Canadians are watching the debate, as they are watching the actions of the government, as they are questioning the judgment of the Prime Minister. There were several Chinese Canadians who commented in this article in 2013 directly on the Prime Minister's use of words, who was not the prime minister at the time but the then leader of the Liberal Party, in his choice of China as the basic dictatorship that he admires the most. One commented, “Can I use the word 'foolish'?” I think there are a lot of people that this would resonate with today.
There was another comment, which we could hear in every riding in the country: “A Chinese Canadian would say every one of us is the victim of the Chinese dictatorship.” That was said in response to that conversation from 2013. A quote from a man identified as having been imprisoned and tortured was: “My case was only the tip of the iceberg.” These are not new issues. These are issues that go back a long time. These are issues that most of us would be aware of, although it is fair to say that we are more aware of them today. Then there is a final comment I wrote down by someone based on that interview. This could probably apply to all of us in this place. Maybe not all of us, but most of us in this place. The quote is, “It seems to be that he's not well-informed.”
That was the summary of the comments back in 2013 after the Prime Minister made the comment that the nation's administration he most admired was China because its basic dictatorship is allowing it to actually turn its economy around on a dime.
That is the context we come here today with. We are debating late into the night tonight. I believe the House is going to pick this up tomorrow and members of Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the issue tomorrow. I hope that as members debate, they will be able to express their opinions, their thoughts, the thoughts of their constituents and contemplate where we ought to go from here without having a constant parade of Liberals standing up on bogus points of order, as we have seen today. I hope we will be able to move forward and have that conversation.
657 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:24:21 p.m.
- Watch
And then we won three elections.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:24:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe the points of order by the member for Kingston and the Islands were actually valid, some of them, just to clarify that for the record.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:24:34 p.m.
- Watch
When it gets into points of debate and when we are part of the point of debate, it makes it even more difficult sometimes. All I ask is that when members stand on points of order, they are based on the rules and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:24:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pretty confident that none of the points of order were actually rules points of order—
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:25:01 p.m.
- Watch
I believe we have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:25:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. Earlier today, when I raised a similar point, the Speaker who was in the chair at the time agreed, and the member actually ended up changing what he had said.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:25:21 p.m.
- Watch
On the same point of order, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:25:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is actually a different point of order.
The Speaker, prior to question period, made it clear that doing indirectly what we cannot do directly, which is accusing someone of lying or calling someone a liar, is a violation of the rules. The member just got up and said that what had been said by the member was not true. I think he should be forced to apologize and withdraw that comment or be prevented from speaking henceforth.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:25:51 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:25:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am literally stating what happened earlier. If that happens to be contrary to what the member is saying right now, what can I do? I am not saying that he is lying; I am just saying that he is factually incorrect.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
