SoVote

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

May/9/23 10:02:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today, I have one petition to present. It is a petition on behalf of Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the risk of violence against women, particularly when they are pregnant. Increasingly, the injury or death of preborn children as victims of crime is not established in Canadian law as a risk factor. Folks are calling for Canada, this Parliament, to consider that to be an aggravating circumstance in sentencing under the Criminal Code of Canada. Currently, Canada has no abortion law and this legal void is so extreme that we do not even recognize preborn children as victims of violent crime. Justice requires that an attacker who abuses a pregnant woman and her preborn children be sentenced accordingly and that the sentence should match the crime. The people who have signed this petition are calling on the House of Commons to legislate the abuse of pregnant women and inflicting harm on a preborn child as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing under the Criminal Code.

170 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

May/9/23 12:08:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I too want to add my voice to the conversation we are having here today in this debate on privilege. The issue of a member's vote in this place is really what we are after today. Our ability to vote without influence from other countries is very important. I would note that the vote in question had to do with the recognition of the genocide of the Uyghur people in China. The Beijing government has been focused on repressing the Uyghurs through things such as forced abortion, forced sterilization, re-education camps and concentration camps. Members may have seen the photos of Uyghur folks lined up at the bus terminals and being loaded onto the trains. We have stated often in this place “never again”, and here we are watching “never again” happen again. That vote that took place in the House of Commons was historic. The Canadian Parliament was one of the first parliaments around the world that voted to recognize that. It was something many members had worked fairly hard on, and we had also felt pressure from various corners to ensure that we got that right. What is fascinating is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills voted for that motion while the entire Canadian cabinet did not. That is telling, perhaps, as to the weight of that vote. However, it also raises the question of foreign influence happening here in Canada. What kind of influence is that having on the Canadian cabinet, given the fact that we have discovered now that the government knew for over two years that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' family was being harassed because of this particular vote? What was happening to members of the cabinet in their personal lives and how was that being influenced? That is what this whole debate is about. It is about the privilege of members of Parliament to be able to do their job. Probably one of the most important things we do as members of Parliament is to vote from our seats in this place. That is what we are elected to do. We are elected to take our seats in this place to vote on things. Votes are a moment in time. Votes are a very binary thing. We vote for something; we vote against something. In many cases, when we have a vote, those are weighty moments. Members must consider all the ramifications and impacts of the position they take on that. There is nothing that brings more clarity into a situation than having a binary vote on a particular piece of legislation because that is when we get to find out about who is affected, what the ramifications are and all of these kinds of things. Particularly if people are upset about that vote, we get to hear about it after we cast that vote. Our ability to vote in this place is incredibly important. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has been a stalwart defender of democracy. This may be due in part to his roots, as he comes from Hong Kong, so he has a firm understanding of the relationship with the Beijing government and the world. Just due to the nature of his heritage, the member has some fortitude when it comes to understanding how democracy works, and he has worked very hard in this place to ensure that democracy works better. He has a very good grasp of the history of this place and the history of our mother Parliament over in England. He worked on the Reform Act, which is an act that has empowered individual members of Parliament. That is something that the member has been passionate about. He has argued for increased members' budgets. He has argued for more members of Parliament, so we have more representation for individual Canadians. His allegiance to democracy, parliamentary democracy and the House of Commons is unquestioned. I want to thank him for that. I know his passion and diligence on these democracy issues are so important. That is perhaps the great irony of this particular situation. Of all members of Parliament for this to fall upon, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has impeccable credentials in the defence of democracy. That is why it is so frustrating to see that the government sat on this information for over two years, only for us, as individual members of Parliament, to find out about this through the press. That goes to show why the freedom of the press is so important. This is something the Liberal government has been undermining over the last number of years, just as we have seen with Bill C-11. We see how voices that may disagree with the government may be repressed online. We see that with the funding of journalism across the country. We see this with the subsidization of CBC, how that money influences the reporting that we get. This particular instance shows that the freedom of the press, the ability for the press to be unencumbered by owing the government a favour of any sort, is necessary. We see, with The Globe and Mail and Global News, that if it were not for the work they had done, we would never know about this. We would never know that, for over two years, the government and the Prime Minister sat on the information that a member of the House and his family were being threatened because of a vote that had taken place here. We have heard, over the last couple of days as we have been having this debate, over and over again how the Liberals are trying to spin this, and it is classic gaslighting. My working definition of “gaslighting” is that whatever someone is doing, they accuse their opponents of doing the same. I would like to address a couple of those things. One of the things they say is that the Conservatives did nothing when they were in power. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have done nothing to stop this. They have allowed it. They have watched it grow. They have watched the foreign influence grow in Canada and have done nothing to prevent it over the last number of years. The other thing that is interesting is that, under Stephen Harper, there was a different leader in China. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, there was a different leader. China had a different outlook on the world under the other leader. There has been a significant shift. If someone wants to look it up, they can google “wolf warrior”. The current leader of China, Xi Jinping, has openly stated that China is moving into a wolf warrior pose in the world. Instead of biding its time, which was the previous leader's line, it is looking at being a wolf warrior. They are looking to be dominant in the world. There is no doubt about that. They are much more aggressive. That is a completely different context. I know the member for Winnipeg North will probably stand up to talk about Stephen Harper and the great job Stephen Harper did when he was the prime minister. The point is that, when Stephen Harper was the leader, Canada was seen as a strong player on the international stage. We were convening meetings to take on ISIL. We were a valued partner of the Five Eyes. Australia, the United States and the U.K. looked to Canada to provide a leadership role in many of these discussions. Now we are ignored, sidelined and not trusted by the international community when it comes to dealing with things like China. The Beijing government worked much more carefully. It was much more concerned about what Canada had to say about what it was up to. Today, we have a completely different context. Today, we see the Chinese run roughshod over Canadian values and institutions. They have set up police stations on Canadian sovereign soil. We have seen this over and over again. We just know that a lot of this is about posture. We know that, under Stephen Harper, Canada had a proud posture on the international stage. We had a posture that said we were open for business but that we had rules that everybody had to follow. Canadian sovereignty was something we were very concerned about. In fact, we spent a lot of time mapping the north. The entire search for the Franklin expedition was a mapping exercise to establish Canadian sovereignty in the north. This was a nation-building exercise. It was something that we told the Canadian people about. It was a source of pride for Canadians. However, we also said we needed to establish Canadian sovereignty in the north because of threats from China. Threats from China were something that the Harper government took very seriously. It was something that we went into with both eyes open. We dealt with China, but we said that we knew it was a Communist country and that Communism is not something that is equivocal. We cannot make equivalencies between Communism and democracy, and therefore, the rules of engagement that we deal with when dealing with France, Germany, Holland or the United States are going to be different from those we have when we are dealing with China. Because it operates on a different system, we need to ensure that we deal with China appropriately. To some degree, this comes back to ideas around humanity and whether people are basically good. Maybe it is postmodernism that the government really espouses, with ideas around equivalency, and we just have to basically trust that everybody is good. There are evil actors in the world. There are nefarious actors, and China is one of them. China has not been a force for good in the world over the last number of decades. That is a major difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals have a naive view. They want to equivocate. They want to say that it is a different system, but it is just as good. I would argue that this is not the case and that there are threats and nefarious actors in the world. These are threats and actors that we must take seriously and challenge. We must stand up for democracy and make the arguments for why democracy is better and why the Western systems are better. Those are important things to do, and I do not think it is good enough to say, “You do it your way, and we will do it ours.” I think we should say, “This is the way we do it because it is better, because it is moral and because it is the right way to do things.” I see this postmodern idea that there is no truth, or that the truth is relative, as a failure of the current government. All of these kinds of things have really been worked into it. The other area of gaslighting I see happen through this debate, particularly in questions from the Liberals, is how this is the member's fault and how the member should have known about this. Of course—

1883 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the other area where we are seeing some significant gaslighting is where the government says that it is the member's fault and the member should have known about this. This is an interesting thing about victim blaming. We see the government accuse others of doing this all the time, and here we are seeing that once again. The government's newest line is that it did not know; it only found out on Monday, just the other day. However, there seems to be a lot of evidence that it knew about this over two years ago. That does not include all the other troubles we have with foreign interference in this country. The Trudeau Foundation is embroiled in a whole host of scandals now around taking Chinese money. When the government was kind of embarrassed about its coziness with the Beijing government and Chinese influence in Canada, it appointed a special rapporteur. This position does not have any legal standing in Canada; nonetheless, it has appointed this person. One would think that if one were trying to allay Canadians' fears around this foreign interference issue, one would find somebody with no connections to the Beijing government and no relationship to the people who are being accused of not doing anything about it. However, here we are with the director of the Trudeau Foundation being appointed as the special rapporteur. That organization has taken money from the Beijing government or their emissaries. We have seen all kinds of confusion around who took the money and how it was organized. The Prime Minister's brother was the one who facilitated a donation. Then we see that this organization's annual report names the Prime Minister as a member. Now, he says he is unaffiliated and has not had contact with it for over 10 years, but his name is still in the annual report. He is still part of the Trudeau Foundation. That is the reality, whether the Prime Minister wants to admit it or not. He can say that he is currently uninvolved in the operations of the organization, but when he leaves this place, he will be able to be a part of its directorship. If he says that funds donated to that organization today could not be disbursed in the future, what does he take Canadians for? Today, donations are being made to the Trudeau Foundation; despite saying he is unaffiliated to it at the moment, the Prime Minister has connections to this organization. It is obvious that even if it were true that he is unaffiliated, which it is not, he will be reaffiliated in the future. He will be back on the governance board doing the same things, and he will have whatever kind of money has been donated to the Trudeau Foundation at his disposal once again. We have also seen over and over that the Liberals' claim to success is about how much money they spend. The Liberals accuse the past Conservative government of not doing anything and then go on to state how much they have increased funding for whatever the situation is. The Liberals accuse Conservatives of not having done something compared with how much more money they are spending on a particular thing. Again, this is another place where the Liberals will say that they have spent more money on this, which is an interesting way of ranking things. If we can get something and not have to spend money on it, that would seem to be a good win. We will not have to spend money on it if we can have national security because of our posture in the world and because we speak softly and carry a big stick. We will not have to spend money if we have no foreign interference because, rhetorically and by our posture, we signal to the world that Canada is not open to foreign interference. These are things that will happen naturally and organically. We will prevent foreign interference by our posture and by our rhetoric, and we will not have to spend money. However, the Liberals will come and tell us how much money they are spending on initiative X, Y or Z as a point of proof that they are doing more. I just want to reject that whole premise outright. The amount of money that is spent dealing with a particular thing does not necessarily correlate to taking action on that thing. I just want to restate once again that Canada is not for sale. Canada is a sovereign nation. The Canadian government should do all that it can to prevent foreign influence in our democracy and ensure that Canadian democracy is upheld wherever it is under threat.

791 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:30:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member will have to forgive me for not believing a lot of what comes across from that side of the floor. There was the WE Charity scandal, the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the question of who stayed in a $6,000-a-night hotel room. We have seen over and over again that the government has not been forthcoming. It has been a distract-and-deflect kind of government. Therefore, we are not going to take the Prime Minister at his word. We are going to continue to investigate this and call for an independent inquiry. We are going to hold the government to account so that we can show Canadians that there is an ethical government-in-waiting ready to take a seat on that side of the House.

133 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:32:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is probably the crux of the situation. Canadians are looking to the government to provide stability, to provide clarity and to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen anymore. A public inquiry that is truly independent and has the ability to follow its nose and to look in the dark corners, if set up correctly, would actually have the opportunity to bring trust back to our Canadian institutions. The member is totally right in that this is bigger than just the individual member. I mentioned this off the top. For me, it is an interesting thing that the entire cabinet did not vote on that particular item, on the same vote that the member's family was threatened over. Therefore, was their vote being influenced? Were their families being threatened, or was there some other part of their personal life that was being used to extort a non-vote on that particular item? This is the one that we know about. What other actions have been happening in this place to—

177 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:35:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, building on the comments from my hon. colleague around the gaslighting that happens in this place, one of the other things that the Liberals bring up all the time is the perceived partisanship of this. Again, it is interesting that they accuse their opponents of doing what they are actually doing. One of the things that is fairly obvious is that the Liberals benefited from the Beijing influence in the previous election, and, therefore, were not interested in dealing with this. It is becoming increasingly obvious that one of the reasons the Prime Minister did not deal with the perceived foreign influence of Beijing is that the Liberals stood to benefit from the influence. Therefore, when they say it is partisan interest that is driving this, that is precisely why they did not do anything.

137 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:37:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, 100% that is a concern for me. This is part of the Liberals' increased Americanization of this place. We get a lot of American politics that comes across the border in our media, so many people would not necessarily know, but, in the United States, the executive branch does not sit in the legislature like it does here in Canada. In Canada, the executive branch is just the Prime Minister and the cabinet, who sit right in our legislature. We have the opportunity to interact with them. We see, increasingly, that the government is less and less interested in participating in the chamber and ensuring that they can be held accountable to everyday Canadians and this place.

119 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Mr. Arnold Viersen

May/9/23 12:39:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the coincidences are piling up, as the member points out, and that is probably not a coincidence. I remember that, way back before 2015, the Prime Minister, at an event, said that he admired the basic dictatorship of China. Little did we know how prophetic that would be.

50 words