SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 257 - Nov/28/23

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Nov/28/23 10:41:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives say they are begging senators. That is not what they are doing. They are actually inciting violence toward senators. I have a news report with me, titled “Canadian Senator Flees Home Amid Safety Concerns Following ‘Wanted Poster’ Incident”. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Can they at least stop heckling me while I talk about something so incredibly serious, Madam Speaker? It is outrageous. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Now they are laughing, Madam Speaker.

88 words

Context: House Hansard - 257 - Nov/28/23

Mr. Dave Epp

Nov/28/23 10:42:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was not heckling the member across the way, so I do not know what he is talking about. Can he please explain?

25 words

Context: House Hansard - 257 - Nov/28/23

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/28/23 10:42:16 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member is not the one he is accusing of heckling. The hon. deputy House leader.

17 words

Context: House Hansard - 257 - Nov/28/23

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Nov/28/23 11:36:27 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, it was rather funny to see my whip “whip” the House leader of the official opposition. What a thing to see. First of all, defending an argument does not mean bullying someone; debating does not mean spreading disinformation; sharing political views is never to be done by pitting people against each other. I say that because I get the impression that, more and more, the danger I have seen lurking in Canadian politics is becoming all too real. It is the use of polarizing strategies like we have seen in the United States. Far too often the purpose is to disinform and intimidate, strategies that replace reflection and democratic dialogue. I get the feeling that is what we are facing today with the Conservatives' motion. Essentially, if people have watched the events of the last few days with Bill C‑234, what the Conservatives are saying is that not only are they not too shy to heckle, but they are moving a motion to show us that they will keep heckling and that is what they want to do. I will not reiterate what my whip said earlier in her speech. Unfortunately, we all know that the leader of the official opposition and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle posted some nasty tweets about two senators to encourage people to intimidate them. My colleague explained it in detail earlier. A Conservative senator had to apologize for saying ridiculous things. We know all that. We are seeing more and more examples of the Conservatives' intimidation and disinformation strategy. It all seems to come down to one thing for the Conservatives: their fixation on the carbon tax. The Conservatives have a passionate love affair with oil, which makes the carbon tax a cardinal sin in their eyes. This is version one million of my opposition day carbon tax speech. This has got to be the millionth time I am giving a speech on this topic. It is the Conservative obsession. It is a constant. Speaking of disinformation, In recent days and weeks, we have seen the Conservatives vigorously defend the notion that the carbon tax applies in Quebec, even during oral question period. There is no credible political player in Quebec who would say the carbon tax applies in Quebec. Furthermore, during oral question period, I recall seeing the member for Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis, brandish a sheet of paper, insisting that the infamous carbon tax existed and that she had an invoice. Afterward, we clearly saw that the invoice referred to the Quebec carbon exchange. There are people in Quebec who would say this kind of behaviour is illegal. The oddest part is that the member for Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis was herself a minister in the Quebec government when the carbon exchange was implemented. This is part of the disinformation, much like the many false ads we have seen, that is, the carbon tax ads that often play in Quebec and that everyone ignores. This is part of this disinformation approach. They scraped the bottom of the barrel this week, when the leader of the official opposition refused to clearly say, when he spoke of a terrorist attack, that he was likely citing one of his favourite media sources, Fox News. He accused CTV and scolded journalists, saying it was their fault, that CTV was confused, not him. He will not even admit to his own mistakes. Not to belabour the point, but let us recall the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, where they used the carbon tax as an excuse, saying they voted against the agreement because of the carbon tax. I believe this only proves that the leader of the official opposition—I will not be overly harsh—is not prime minister material. A good chief and leader usually brings out the best in others. They inspire people to excel and, most importantly, follow one of the basic tenets of politics, which is to never mix lies into political discourse—a truth that should apply to everyone—and to never get careless with the truth. What we have been seeing for the past several weeks is a leader of the official opposition who plays fast and loose with the truth. Then, if anyone disagrees with him and resists his lies, he bullies them. I will say it: People have talked to us about this. Alarm bells are ringing about how the member for Carleton operates, and those warnings are coming from none other than the Quebec Conservatives. Keep in mind that, during the Conservative leadership race, seven out of ten MPs from Quebec did not support Mr. Poilievre, sorry, the leader of the official opposition and MP for Carleton. Why did they not support him? There were some rather puzzling quotes. I am talking, for one, about the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He said that Jean Charest, who was a candidate in that race, was likely the godfather of the Liberal family. He was even ordered to retract his statement. He also described Mr. Charest as one of the most corrupt politicians in Quebec. That said, he preferred to support Mr. Charest over Mr. Poilievre. One wonders why. I—

881 words