Question period is a farce and as such is not really funny.
I plan to do a series on some of the ludicrous questions and answers to highlight where an hour or so of expeniive time our House of Ill Repute excells itself.
#1
From 17th April 2023 taken from Hansard
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals should slap a “not as advertised” label on it every single time the Liberals and the NDP talk about their carbon tax scam. They know for a fact, and it is backed up by the PBO, that, on average, Canadians will pay an extra $1,500. The PBO also proved them wrong and emissions have gone up.
The Liberals claimed they would fix the environment; that was false. They said that Canadians would be better off; that was false. The Liberal minister admitted that they misled Canadians for eight years. One in five Canadians are skipping meals and 1.5 million Canadians are using a food bank in a single month. Let us get real; this is a tax plan. Let us scrap the scam and give Canadians a break.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives’ argument rests upon the premise that the alternative to putting a price on pollution is to do nothing to fight climate change. Every measure that they have put forward would have a greater cost than putting a price on pollution. Look to the court decisions, including those from western Canada, that said putting a price on pollution is the most effective way to make it more affordable for families at the same time.
Perhaps if the price was actually put on pollution instead of gas and diesel it would make more sense and be aimed at the big corporations which pollute whenever they can and with the blessings of this administration.
The side effect of extra fuel costs should be obvious to all but somehow this administration does not get that, as they are fixated on Carbon instead of figuring out why there are less trees and a sick ocean to capture carbon dioxide and release oxygen back in to the atmosphere as has been the way for millennia.
Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I highlight two recent times that catch-and-release has failed victims of intimate partner violence.
In one instance, an alleged abuser allegedly beat and repeatedly breached restraining orders against a partner. The result: multiple bail hearings, and likely, a terrified partner.
In another case, a woman was threatened; firearms were involved. The result: a bail hearing and a terrified partner.
When will the Liberal government end catch-and-release so that vulnerable women will no longer become terrified partners?
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe, and as a government, we are taking action so that they will.
Bill C-75 already reduced the burden of proof in intimate partner violence cases when it came to bail. We are going beyond that. We have met with our provincial and territorial counterparts to bring reform to the bail system.
We recognize that this is something we have to work on with the provinces. Obviously we will take action in areas of our jurisdiction. We will move, and we will find a solution together.
Nothing is obvious with this administration except the dictate of the WEF
(1445)
[Translation]
Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, since this Prime Minister took office eight years ago, our streets have become more and more unsafe. Under the Liberals, violent crime has increased by 32%. In contrast, when the Conservatives were in office, violent crime dropped by 23%.
Criminals are out on the streets instead of in prison because of this Prime Minister’s soft-on-crime policies. Is it too much to ask that this Prime Minister take care of victims rather than criminals?
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe and be safe. We are working with the provinces and territories to reform the bail system. We will work to inject resources into the system to tackle violent crime in our society. Former Supreme Court Justice Michael Moldaver urged us to do more to address the issue of serious crime.
Why only serious crime? Does the rest not matter too? Corporate crime is no longer serious as shown by SNC Lavalin?
How can Canadians ever feel safe if they fear the anti-Canadian people actions of this administration? When a peaceful protest is put down by very violent police/military forces we know we are not safe.
Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, last week a 17-year-old boy was stabbed to death on a bus in Surrey, British Columbia. This was the third stabbing on public transit in B.C. over the last month, happening only two weeks after a 16-year-old boy was stabbed to death at a Toronto subway station. Edmonton is reporting a 53% spike in attacks happening on public transit.
The violent crime surge in this country has reached into every corner. When will the Liberal-NDP coalition finally wake up and end the dangerous catch-and-release policies that are making our streets so unsafe?
Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to remind my colleague that the Minister of Justice and I met with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and we will be moving expeditiously to revisit our bail system.
More than that, our government has invested close to $1 billion to support law enforcement. What did the Conservatives do on each of those occasions? They voted against it. We put $450 million in to stop the illegal flow of guns into this country by reinforcing the CBSA. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.
If they want to take crime seriously, they should support the policies and the investments of the Liberal government.
When the ministers of this administration say they will it really means perhaps, meanwhile how many more people will be stabbed? By the way Mendicino guns do not stab.
Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Trudeau Foundation accepted a gift of $200,000 from an agent for Beijing’s dictatorship, and senior PMO officials were made aware of the gift and where it came from. The Prime Minister‘s chief of staff told committee that the Prime Minister is briefed on everything and nothing is withheld from him.
On what date did the Prime Minister become aware that the Trudeau Foundation accepted a $200,000 gift from the Communist dictatorship in Beijing?
Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have already made it clear in this House that the Prime Minister, over the last 10 years, has not had any involvement with that foundation.
The member opposite is asserting, and let us go with the heart of what he is asserting, that this government would welcome the interference of a foreign country. That is absolutely absurd. The fact that it would be clapped for is disgusting. Every single member of this House is dedicated to ensuring Canadian democracy. The member opposite, myself and every member has firmed themselves to protect and defend Canadian democracy, and every member of this House will continue to do so.
I am puzzled that you still continue to use the word “democracy” in relation to Canada and our House of Ill Repute, or even Canada generally. We are governed by a couple of alternating partisan parties which have no consideration for anything but their leaders dictates which most likely come from Klaus Schwab who, as every Canadian knows, is not even on a ballot anywhere in the country, even though he claims to own our government and future ones too.
Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, let us just be clear. The Trudeau Foundation is government-funded, and Liberal governments have in the past, and the Liberal government still has the ability to, appointed members to the foundation. It must be a coincidence that after Beijing’s gift to the Trudeau Foundation, the Prime Minister met with the front men who signed the cheque on behalf of the Communist dictatorship and gave them a meeting where they had direct access to influence the Prime Minister.
Why are shady deals and influence opportunities for dictators the priority for the Liberal Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House of Commons, members are protected by privilege. They have the opportunity to say anything they wish. However, when they are swinging their bats aimlessly for partisan advantage, they are attacking not-for-profit or non-partisan foundations, they are attacking organizations like the CBC and they are attacking free and independent media. They seem to have no care whatsoever over what or who they attack for their partisan ends. It is not becoming of this place.
Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L’Érable, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, here are the facts.
The Communist regime in Beijing feels that it can influence the Prime Minister by using its money and front men. Clearly, it is a master at it. Two directors at the Trudeau Foundation are appointed by a minister in the Prime Minister’s cabinet. The Prime Minister himself is still a member of the foundation, according to its most recent annual report. By accepting a contribution from a front man, the foundation directly contravened the Income Tax Regulations.
Will the Minister of National Revenue open an investigation into the use of front men at the Trudeau Foundation?
Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the only interest the other side has is a partisan interest. It is also clear that the goal is to keep playing politics, which certainly does nothing to help our economy or our democracy.
Obviously, each and every one of us here, including myself and those on the other side, are loyal to Canada. Obviously, this is our primary responsibility as members of Parliament. That is why I am here and that is why the members opposite are here.
The CBC is not a faithful mouth piece for their main sponsor? I am sure that Rebel News will be happy to hear that you are now going to stop attacking them and deliberately banning them from everything you do and maybe even talk to them as they are free and independent media.
You claim that under parliamentary privilege you can say what you want in the house, but I do not believe that includes lying as you do when you refer to Canada as a democracy.
And finally for that day as I could not take any more:
Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, based on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, we know the government is abundantly committed to censoring what people can see, post or hear online. However, what we just learned is that the Prime Minister actually got a head start. According to government documents that were tabled in the House of Commons, the Liberals actually pressured social media companies a total of 214 times over the period of 24 months. Talk about heavy-handed. Why is the government so committed to censoring speech?
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we cannot spell conspiracy without “CPC”. It is another day, another conspiracy theory.
Once again, the Conservatives choose to abandon our creators. They stand up for big tech companies and turn their backs on our culture, but we choose to stand up for it. We believe foreign tech giants should do more for our creators. Canadians have the best stories to tell, and this is supporting hundreds of thousands of good-paying j
obs. We will always stand up for creators and artists on this side of the House.
So happy for Rebel News.
If we even spent half the money we have given to Ukraine for our proxy war and rampant corruption there on housing, there would be less homelessness and maybe some of our aboriginal people would be in houses with clean running water.
No, sorry, I just had to add this tidbit:
Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is completely irresponsible to suggest that the government censors Canadians’ questions and comments. What is true is that we will be there to defend families, protect children online and ensure that web giants pay their fair share into the Canada Media Fund. We are there for creators and Canadians, but not for this so-called Conservative mantra of freedom of speech, which is unacceptable.
OOOps that is clearly saying that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms no longer applies to speech – except hate speech by the PM of course.
RIP Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Jeremy
Jeremy Arney's Blog 