Rebukes By—And For—Parliament
When Canada’s Parliament employs a procedure that it rarely uses, and in a way that it has not done in over 100 years, it raises questions. The procedure is a formal rebuke; being “called before the bar” in the House of Commons is not an honour, nor has anyone, except a few MPs been in this unenviable position, since 1913.
Iain Stewart, president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, was called and recently appeared in the House of Commons to be publicly rebuked for not producing the documents that he had been called upon to give to Parliament—except in greatly redacted form. These documents include details about Canada’s National Microbiology Lab and its possible connection(s) to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. This is important information for MPs to have, and when they did not receive it, they had to take someone to task, so Mr. Stewart was rebuked. But Parliament still does not have the un-redacted documents, and the Liberal government is planning to use the courts, in an unprecedented maneuver, to keep it that way. If that does not make you curious about what is being kept back . . . .
Another formal rebuke was recently given by Parliament to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan; the three opposition parties worked together to get this to happen, and the Prime Minister did not appreciate the gesture. But it appears to have been deserved, as the Defence Minister has not satisfactorily handled sexual misconduct investigations in the Canadian Military, and also lied about his military service record back in 2016. This rebuke is not as serious as Mr. Stewart’s, but perhaps a reality-check for Minister Sajjan.
While Parliament can and does occasionally give rebukes, it should also receive them. The last few days of the most recent session give plenty of reasons for rebuke:
First, a strong majority of MPs passed Bill C-6, including Erin O’Toole and forty-eight other Conservatives who voted with him; this law will not only outlaw conversion therapy, but will criminalize Christian counselling on biblical sexuality, as has been outlined in previous Communiques. It will also criminalize any other counselling—requested or not—regarding sexuality. We must be in prayer that our Senate—or an election—will stop this bill from passing into law.
Second, the Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc teamed up to pass Bill C-10 in the middle of the night! This bill is an attack on freedom of speech as it relates to the internet. Most MPs want the government to have more power to control the information to which you will have access in the future. Once again, the Senate or an election could stop it, but a future Parliament could still bring it back.
Third, and not quite as recently, MPs who voted against Bill C-233, the anti-sex-selective abortion initiative of MP Cathay Wagantall should be rebuked for not being willing to legislate against a practice that most Canadians condemn! While proclaiming themselves to be feminists, these MPs instead showed that they support the killing of baby girls for the “crime” of being female. Notably, Erin O’Toole and thirty-seven other Conservative MPs voted against this bill showing their moral bankruptcy.
Many more rebukes could (and should) be given; the connection of the Liberals with the dollars they throw around as if the money were their own is an ongoing reason to rebuke them—for journalists who care.
The next rebuke to Parliament ought to come from Canadian citizens to their MPs who, in most (not all) cases, are leading our country away from respect for life, promotion of the God-ordained family, and protection of freedom—especially freedom of speech.
How did your MP vote on Bill C-233? Bill C-6? Bill C-10? Is your MP standing for life? Is your MP standing for family? Is your MP standing for freedom? Is he or she standing for what matters to you . . . or for what matters to his or her party, regardless of morality?
If your MP is not standing up for the things you believe in—life, family and freedom, he or she deserves a rebuke . . . from you! Maybe that could be a phone call or letter, but it should also mean facing a candidate in the next election who will stand for these foundational principles.
That is where CHP comes in; CHP stands for Life, Family, and Freedom, and candidates who run under this banner give Canadians the opportunity to take a stand and vote for what they believe in and give a rebuke to candidates and MPs who do not.
Our candidates need your help to stand and defend the rights and values of Canadians. Stand with us and support the ongoing work of CHP!
Share to Gab
Other Commentary by Peter Vogel:
- Le Parti communiste chinois est-il plus pro-vie que les libéraux canadiens?
- Is the Chinese Communist Party More Pro-Life than Canada’s Liberals?
- « Héros » ou robots de la santé?
- Healthcare “Heroes” or Robots?
- Un déficit de cinquante ans pour les Canadiens !?
- A Fifty-Year Deficit for Canadians!?
- Réprimandes par—et pour—le Parlement
- Rebukes By—And For—Parliament
- Police contre gouvernement
- Police vs. Government
- Liberté, Hong Kong, Taiwan… et Canada
- Freedom, Hong Kong, Taiwan … and Canada