44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2023 10:00AM
- May/9/23 10:05:23 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today that calls upon members of Parliament in the House of Commons to undertake a serious and comprehensive review of the current transit system of Canadian citizens' money in this country, with the aim of putting in place more stringent procedures, protocols and safeguards to protect seniors, in particular from losing their lifetime savings and wealth to fraud.
We recognize there is a growing retiring population in Canada. Increasingly, they are becoming the target of fraud, given that they have built up wealth over a lifetime to help support their retirement years, and are vulnerable due to lack of controls and protections through the transmission of money within the Canadian banking system. Seniors are seeing the savings they have built up over years removed.
This is about consumer awareness and what we can do, as parliamentarians, to protect seniors' retirement.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:06:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:26:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if we listened to the Conservatives' questions during question period, or to their speeches over the last 24 hours, with all indications that they would like to continue to debate this issue, it is very clear that this is a political issue for the Conservative Party. It is an issue through which they want to attack the Prime Minister. They have been very clear. The Prime Minister found out last week; they know that, yet they continue to espouse misinformation.
My question to the member is this: Is there not any sort of conscience on the other side, when the Conservatives continuously want to espouse misinformation and continue to want to ramp up this issue to politicize it? Why are they doing it?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:35:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could reflect about the number of years that foreign interference has been an issue, even while Steven Harper was the prime minister and today's leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democracy. Those individuals did absolutely nothing; they did zero in terms of dealing with this particular issue.
The Prime Minister has done numerous things. When he actually found out about this specific case, just a week ago, he took immediate action. The Conservatives may disagree, but based on the speeches that I have been hearing over the last number of hours, this debate is more about character assassination of the Prime Minister than it is about defending rights.
What hits one affects us all, and the Conservatives are doing a disservice to the issue by ramping it up politically. Does the member not believe that the Conservatives need to turn the page, dial it down and ensure that we deal with the issue?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:47:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to the spreading of misinformation. Last Thursday, I was heckled by a member who said that I had said the Prime Minister and the member in question had the same briefing.
I stood up and I said, and I quote from Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, it was never my intention to say that the Prime Minister and the member had the same briefing. If that is in fact what I said, I would apologize for saying that it was the same briefing.
No matter what we tell the Conservatives, they have their certain spin. It is about character assassination. As we continue with the debate, as they continue to want to ramp up the politicization, it is more about the character assassination of the Prime Minister than it is about the issue.
When will the Conservative Party depoliticize this and allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to deal with the issue?
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:48:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What I was reflecting on in my question was the issue that the member did get a general briefing, as other members—
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:02:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when I was sitting in the opposition benches, Stephen Harper went to China and brought back a commitment for panda bears. What he did not tell us is that he actually signed off on a secretive trade deal.
The member might want to reflect on that, given his comments about trade—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:02:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when it comes to foreign interference, it is really important to recognize, as I have, that foreign interference has been taking place for many years, even when Stephen Harper was there. Stephen Harper was aware of it.
How does the member justify the secretive trade agreement or Stephen Harper doing nothing? The Prime Minister found out about this last week for the very first time. Within a week, that diplomat was asked to leave the country.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:28:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what has become abundantly clear in the hours of debate we have had thus far is the fact the Prime Minister found out about this just last week, and a number of measures were taken, including the expulsion of a diplomat within a week. Those are the facts. The member might want to speculate, hypothesize and all these other weird things, but those are the facts.
The Conservatives continue to want to dial up the issue because they want to focus on character assassination more than they want to deal with an issue of substance.
One member affects all members. This is an issue that will be discussed at committee. The question is this. There were 49 members of Parliament in 2022, a couple of dozen provincial legislators and even some local councillors. Does the member not believe that the best way to deal with this is to put politics aside and let the committees do what they need to do?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:58:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at times, we can witness that the coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc is doing quite well. It is kind of like the blue and the light blue. It is interesting.
I went through premiers Gary Doer, Greg Selinger, Gary Filmon and, of course, former prime minister Stephen Harper, all in opposition. I am very comfortable with what we have been able to accomplish.
I would challenge the member. He has a different view of the last eight years. I could talk about the tax break to the middle class; the GIS lifting hundred of thousands, going to millions, of people out of poverty; and the historic number of trade agreements signed off by the government. Shall we talk about COVID and about the nine million Canadians who benefited from CERB? What about the wage subsidy program? Shall we talk about post-COVID? We can talk about child care. We can talk about the health care agreements. We can talk about the Volkswagen deal. It is endless.
That is a leader who has demonstrated an immense amount of focus, when every day, the Conservatives, and now the Bloc, are more concerned about character assassination. As those two political parties focus their attention on the negative, on the Prime Minister, and are spreading misinformation, we will continue to espouse what is important to Canadians.
226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 12:29:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just to pick up on the member's last points, people who are following the debate should be very much aware of the facts. The fact is that, whether the Conservatives want to agree or disagree, the Prime Minister first found out about this just last week. He took immediate action. Within a week, we now have a diplomat being expelled from Canada.
Back on March 12, we talked about establishing a foreign influence transparency registry. On March 15, we put in a special rapporteur, who could well come back suggesting that we have a public inquiry. The Prime Minister says that if that is the recommendation, that is what we will accept. Would the member not acknowledge that the Prime Minister found out for the very first time last week, as he has indicated?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 12:59:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I applaud the member for his comments in recognizing the important role that mothers play in our society. I would echo those words.
However, I am in disagreement with the member on virtually everything else he has said. I would classify it as spreading information that is factually not true. For example, we do know for a fact, and it is a fact, that the Prime Minister found out about this issue just last week. We know for a fact that the Prime Minister has taken a number of actions, and within a week, we have seen a diplomat asked to leave the country over the issue.
Whether it was at the very beginning or where we are today, this government has taken the issue of foreign interference very seriously. Could the member explain to me why the former Conservative government chose to do nothing on the issue?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 1:05:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, maybe the member can explain why it is that the Conservatives intentionally choose to ignore the fact that the Prime Minister did find out last week and, as I indicated, a number of actions were taken virtually immediately, one of which led to a diplomat being expelled from Canada within a week. I would suggest that is action.
Why do the Conservatives continue to want to make this a political issue by spreading misinformation?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 1:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is proving, by the statements he is making, that more and more of his debate is not about the motion. The member is talking about other legislation. He is not talking about the motion at hand. He is either attacking the Prime Minister or talking about issues that are not relevant.
Some hon. members: Debate.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 1:49:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to reinforce the fact that it has been very clear that the Prime Minister first found out about this just last week. I know it upsets a number of people in this chamber, but the fact is that the Prime Minister found out about it just last week. Since then, he has taken a number of direct actions to deal with the issue. Other issues, such as the registry and the public inquiry, could be dealt with by David Johnston, who was a Conservative Stephen Harper appointment. We will wait for that report to come. There is no denying that this government has been proactive on the file.
Does the member not believe, when he talks about the credibility and integrity of individuals, that all members in this chamber are honourable, and if the Prime Minister says he learned about it last week, that is a fact?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 1:58:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been a number of actions that the Prime Minister has actually taken.
This is what I find incredibly offensive. The members in the House are honourable members. There is no member, either the member who has just spoken or another Conservative member, who has given any sort of evidence whatsoever that shows that the Prime Minister is not telling the truth, yet they continue to spread misinformation, which causes more damage than I think members realize.
Would the member not acknowledge that the Prime Minister found out last week and that we have taken virtually immediate action, which ultimately led to a diplomat being expelled from the country?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 4:12:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts on not only how important the legislation is, but also on bringing in closure, as we are doing right now.
Conservatives have made it very clear that they have no intention of passing this legislation, so without bringing time allocation or closure there is no chance we would see it get passed. Indeed, the legislation is a reflection of what Canadians want to see of the government.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 6:45:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have listened to the member for, I believe, over an hour and a half in debate on this particular piece of legislation. It is very clear that the Conservative Party of Canada just does not support the legislation and will do whatever it can in order to prevent its passage. Given that, one has to expect that, if the general feeling of Canadians is that we should be strengthening our laws, the only way we are going to be able to do it is through some form of time allocation or closure. Otherwise, the Conservative Party would never allow the legislation to pass.
Given that, can the member indicate why it is that the Conservative Party will do whatever it can to prevent this legislation from passing?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 7:15:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the issue of perception or misrepresentation, because it does hit home when individual members of Parliament are using social media and other mediums to communicate a message that is not accurate. There are many Canadians, for example, who believe that this is a mechanism to take away hunting guns and impact indigenous communities.
I wonder if the member could reinforce or continue her thoughts in regard to the dangers of spreading that sort of misinformation and the anxiety that many communities and individuals experience as a result.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 7:46:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question.
I always thought that it is a positive thing when a government is prepared to entertain and bring forward amendments, in the sense that this often reflects concerns that have been raised by MPs, other stakeholders or people who make representations at committees.
Would the hon. member not agree that it is a good thing when government listens, brings forward amendments and supports even opposition amendments?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
