44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023 11:00AM
- May/8/23 2:39:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for reminding our colleagues in the Conservative Party about that principle. In all candour, the only way that we are going to be able to do the work of defending our institutions is if we rid ourselves of the kind of partisanship and politicization that has been plaguing this subject for weeks.
It should be abundantly clear that if we want to protect our democratic institutions and the people who work in them, including every member in this chamber and their families, then we must do that together. This government has put in place new authorities and transparencies. Let us get behind the cause of defending it so we can have real debates that are rooted in our democratic principles.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:34:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know what he would have had us do when we learned that a member of Parliament had been targeted with threats against his family by a foreign dictatorship. Would he have had us just stay silent? Would he have had us just sit on our hands? Would he have had us praise the Prime Minister for having done absolutely nothing about it? Would he have had us just take the word of the Prime Minister that he knew nothing, despite all the now publicly available evidence?
We did not politicize it. We stood up for a member of Parliament whose family had been targeted. What is politicization is the fact that the Prime Minister has known about this and other interference and did absolutely nothing about it because he thought it was in his electoral interest to keep it going.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:38:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I certainly agree with the member that the level of politicization of these issues has not been helpful in getting to the truth. However, I would also say, which was reflected in my vote earlier and the vote of the New Democrats, as it has been at various times when we have presented motions and voted before for a public inquiry into this matter, that the best way to depoliticize the issue is to have a public inquiry.
I would say further, for those of us who are genuinely concerned about the level of politicization of the issue, that it was frustrating today, right after question period, at which this was the subject of much debate and questions, to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs tweet out during our vote on the motion that the government was expelling the Chinese agent whose actions are in question and who is the subject of the motion.
It feels as though, if the government were really trying to remove political gamesmanship from the issue, the minister would have been here for question period and stood up to inform the House directly of that decision during question period. Pardon me—
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:42:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the member is sharing a little bit of the frustration of when we look across and see the leader of the official opposition, the Conservative Party, on this particular issue, given the fact that foreign interference and influence have been taking place for many years. Even when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for the issue, he, let alone the prime minister at the time, chose to do nothing. That is what I mean about throwing rocks in glass houses and looking in a mirror before they make some of the statements they make inside the House.
At the end of the day, we should try to wind things down in terms of the politicization we have witnessed over the last little while on this issue and resolve it.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, listen, if I had my way, there would be no dinners that are pay to play. There should be no $1,000-a-plate dinners. However, come on. Let us not pretend that the Conservatives do not do the same thing. Let us not pretend there is not fundraising being done on the backs of bills like Bill C-11, and that there is no politicization of them. That is not accurate.
In terms of making sure the government acts seriously, I have to say that I agree with the member on that. It feels to me like the government has had to be dragged to do the right thing, kicking and screaming. We brought the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the foreign affairs committee, and basically she had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the things that are so easy to do, like expel this diplomat. Frankly, this diplomat is not expelled, of course. He has just been listed as persona non grata and is no longer protected. However, for these things the government should be taking action on, it is not. It is not acting fast enough. It is not participating in building a stronger democracy in ways I would like to see.
209 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
