44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023 11:00AM
- 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
- May/8/23 11:26:08 p.m.
- Watch
We are definitely getting into a grey area.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:26:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hope is that tomorrow, when people have had some more time maybe on the government side to think about what we are debating today, we will see some Liberal speakers stand up and share their own thoughts and share what they are hearing from constituents on the specifics of the motion.
Again, I will remind the House that we had the motion today, and the Liberals voted against it. The Liberals voted against creating a foreign agent registry, establishing a national public inquiry, closing down the People's Republic of China-run police stations operating in Canada and expelling all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible. They voted against that today.
Now we are discussing something very specific to the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills: “That the prima facie contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.” I hope that when it comes to the debate on that issue tomorrow, we will get a chance to hear what Liberal members of Parliament think about this violation of parliamentary privilege.
I will remind Liberal members, all members of the House and Canadians that when we are talking about parliamentary privilege, when we are talking about the privileges of a member being contravened in the way we are talking about here, we are not just talking about a member of Parliament from one political party, or even members of Parliament from all political parties. When the privileges of members of Parliament are contravened in that way, we are talking about the roots of our democracy. We are talking about the ability of that particular member of Parliament to serve his constituents.
We can all, obviously, understand the importance of our constituents and our ability to serve democracy, serve our country, by coming here and debating important issues like this on behalf of our constituents. For doing that, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was clearly threatened and intimidated and had his family threatened and intimidated. I would hope that all members of the House, regardless of party affiliation, can understand that, come to the House and debate that passionately, and hopefully vote in favour of ensuring that this gets a proper hearing at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
404 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:29:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in response to my heckle, the member indicated how he is not well informed about what has been happening in this House. As a matter of fact, I did not just remove a couple of words; I actually went on to explain what I had said and how I understood it was a misrepresentation of what had actually happened, and then I apologized to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all Conservatives and the Speaker. This was all on a point that had been raised by the whip for the Conservatives. Then, today, when answering a question of mine, she actually got up and thanked me for doing that unreservedly. So it seems like everybody can accept it except this member, who keeps getting up and saying it over and over again.
Nonetheless, my question for him is this. If we are to give all members in this House the benefit of the doubt when they say something and to accept their word for it, as I think he would agree, why do we not lend that same luxury to the member for Papineau, who comes before this House and says that he just learned of this last Monday? Why does Conservative after Conservative get up—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor right now, just so the member knows.
Why does Conservative after Conservative continue to get up and insist that the government has known about this for two years, when that is just not the case?
259 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:30:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am just curious if the Liberals are done chirping over there. Okay—
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:30:57 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is rising on a point of order.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:31:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this was a matter brought up by the Speaker at multiple times. The hon. member was standing and staring at the hon. member, trying to intimidate him, just as he is doing right now. One is supposed to sit when other members have the floor. The other members are supposed to sit, and this is unacceptable.
This is something that we have heard from the Speaker, and I hope that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:31:26 p.m.
- Watch
I want to speak to the point of order. It is correct that the Speaker has brought it to our attention that many people will just stay standing. We would rather that they sit down, so as not to intimidate the member they are asking a question of or receiving a question from.
The parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:31:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary is addressing you and talking directly to you about the point of order, we are getting Conservatives members yelling at us to sit down.
I think you would agree that it is extremely unparliamentary for the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to do that, and to say that, while somebody is addressing you.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:32:08 p.m.
- Watch
I am standing, so let us follow that rule for tonight.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would really like to get the next member started, but we need to finish up these questions and comments.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order. We are done. Order.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has the floor.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
