SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 169 - Mar/20/23

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Mar/20/23 5:51:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I appreciate the enthusiasm from members opposite to hear from me on this important opposition day motion. The motion is to have the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify at a parliamentary committee on what she knew and when she knew it with respect to the foreign interference efforts by the Communist dictatorship in Beijing on our elections, specifically in 2019 and 2021. We have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to investigate matters like this in our committees. The procedure and House affairs committee had undertaken a study specifically on this issue. The ethics committee also initiated a set of hearings on foreign interference. That process was under way before we heard all the explosive details that we are now privy to. At the procedure and House affairs committee, the government is engaged in a full-blown filibuster cover-up. It has been going on for nearly 24 hours, and anyone who has watched it has been subjected to anything but dealing with the substantive matter. Canadians have reached out to me. I have heard from them, and they are looking for answers. We know the Prime Minister's chief of staff was named by members of our intelligence community as having received the information with respect to foreign interference attempts. However, that is a departure from what we have heard from the Prime Minister as to what he knew and what individuals in his office knew. Therefore, it is important that we hear from this key witness. Filibustering, obstructing and engaging in cover-ups are parts of a pattern for the Liberal government. We have seen it time and time again, notably with the SNC-Lavalin scandal. At that time, The Globe and Mail made allegations with respect to the Prime Minister's attempts to interfere in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. Interestingly, the Prime Minister said the allegations were false. It was later confirmed by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, that the Prime Minister had, in fact, been found guilty of breaking the Act for his interference in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. This was confirmed in the Trudeau II Report. We saw the same obstruction with the investigation into the WE Charity debacle, where the government tried to give $912 million, nearly a billion dollars, to friends of the Prime Minister. It did this instead of actually delivering on services and supports to Canadians at a time when they needed it most. This is the Liberals' pattern, and so we are not surprised to see that first they deny, then they deflect and then they try to cover it up. We are witnessing the cover-up as it unfolds. On the matter of why Mrs. Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, will not come to committee, the Liberals have said she cannot come because we have ministerial accountability. Therefore, that staff member should not come, and it should be the minister who comes. However, the minister is the Prime Minister. In the 24-hour filibuster that we have endured, we have not heard an amendment proposing that the Prime Minister come to committee. What we know is that the chief of staff has come to committee twice before. This was on the WE Charity scandal and the hearings on the sexual misconduct in the military at the defence committee. We know the chief of staff can come to committee, and Canadians can judge for themselves the quality of the appearances by Ms. Telford. She is a professional, and she is able to handle herself well at committee. We would imagine the same would happen again. What is different this time? What information is the Prime Minister's chief of staff unable to share with Canadians that would be so damaging to the government that it is pulling out all the stops, up to and including potentially declaring an opposition day motion a matter of confidence in the government so that it can strong-arm the fourth party in the House into supporting it? That is the big question that we are faced with. We know that the Liberal government is going to obstruct and to continue its cover-up. What we do not know is what the Liberals' coalition partners in the NDP are prepared to do. Are they going to provide that transparency for Canadians on a matter that speaks to the fundamental, foundational principles of our democracy, that it is Canadians at the ballot box who decide the makeup of Canada's Parliament? Or are we about to witness a cover-up of state actors, in this case the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, putting their thumb on the scale to try to elect preferred candidates to engineer an outcome? In this case, there were reports that they were looking for the return of a minority Liberal government. Frankly, that a diplomat from another country would make that claim on Canadian soil should precipitate a response from the government, and that response should be to expel the diplomat, to kick them out. When someone is bragging about interfering in our democracy, we do not need to substantiate the claim first. They do not get to pass “go” and collect $200. They are declared persona non grata, PNG, and off they go, back to the dictatorship in Beijing. We have not seen that kind of action in the face of incredibly concerning reports in The Globe and Mail and in Global News, with intelligence sources who have laid out for us what we need to be looking at. The response from the government is that now it says it is taking it seriously. However, the Liberals' actions do not demonstrate that they have been serious about it up to this point. The Prime Minister is hedging his bets. He has named an individual who has the ability, we are told, to advise the Prime Minister on whether he should or could have a public inquiry. However, the Prime Minister describes the individual he chose as his adviser as a close personal and family friend and as a member of the Beijing-funded Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which returned a contribution of $200,000, that we know about, back to the dictatorship in Beijing. Are they telling me that with 38 million people in this country, the Prime Minister could not find someone whom he does not call a close personal friend and who does not sit on his family's foundation? Canadians deserve to have transparency and they need to have confidence in the process that is set up. An open, transparent public inquiry is what opposition parties are looking for, and having the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who is named in these intelligence reports, testify at committee is essential. We know the government is going to vote against the motion, and I know I am going to get a question from the fourth party. In that question, I hope to hear from them that they are planning to vote in favour of having Ms. Telford testify at committee and vote to end this Liberal cover-up.

1206 words

Context: House Hansard - 169 - Mar/20/23

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/20/23 6:04:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, acting with a sense of urgency is very important. I agree wholeheartedly. That is why the call for an immediate, transparent public inquiry was made. That is also why the issue was to have already had Ms. Telford testify a week ago, not to continue a filibuster over the course of four weeks and not to then have this supply day used to address this issue as well. It already could have occurred, but the government is intent on covering up what it believes is too damning for Canadians to hear. We should move quickly with it, and all parties in the House, including backbenchers on the government side, should support having the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify at committee.

124 words

Context: House Hansard - 169 - Mar/20/23

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Mar/20/23 6:06:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was a time when a future prime minister said, “It's hard not to feel disappointed in your government when every day there is a new scandal.” When the Prime Minister took power, he proclaimed, “Government and its information must be open by default. Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government to make sure it remains focused on the people it was created to serve – you.” From the floor of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said, “I believe in sunny ways.... I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Openness and transparency is what Canadians expect. That is what we will always stand for.” After eight years, what a fall from grace there has been. Here we are on the floor of the House of Commons with the final speech of the night. However, instead of keeping to the words the current Prime Minister said, there have been 24 hours of filibuster in committee, including 12 hours last Tuesday, where Liberal members, instead of calling the question and doing any sort of study in public, read from books, clapped at each other and joked about the type of coffee they were sipping. They drew the clock out for 12 hours straight, instead of studying something Canadians want answers to. It is important to remember here tonight why we are having this debate. It is not because the Prime Minister and the Liberal government were forthcoming with Canadians. It is because a brave whistle-blower came forward to expose bombshell revelations about the magnitude and extent of the interference attempts by the Communist Party of China. The worst part is not the magnitude and extent of all that interference on Beijing's part, but the bombshell revelations that it was the Prime Minister and those at the PMO who covered up the truth. When they found out about it, they did nothing because it was helping their political interests. When it came to that topic, they swept it under the rug. We owe that whistle-blower a great deal of gratitude as we have the floor asking for more information and testimony from the government. That is why we need to have Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, appear at committee. We get a lot of fake outrage from the other side, from the Liberals, because they say this is unprecedented and having chiefs of staff should not be allowed. However, chiefs of staff from both Conservative and Liberal governments have testified at committee before, especially when scandals brewed out of their offices. Katie Telford has already spoken twice at committee. She testified on the WE scandal and she testified on the sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and what the PMO knew, what it did and, more importantly, what it did not do to resolve that problem. So the question Canadians are asking now is this: Why is it suddenly a problem so she cannot testify? With every passing hour of the filibuster, and with the opposition we have seen from the government in the House here today, the truth must be really bad to hear, which is what we can conclude. If Katie Telford had done everything great, if there were no problem and the PMO acted with full integrity, she should have no problem going to committee to defend her actions. However, the third time we want her to come forward, but now on this national scandal, about what she knew, what the PMO knew, what the Prime Minister knew, as well as when, how, and what they did, suddenly every roadblock goes up. Nobody believes that the Prime Minister was not aware of the magnitude and extent of the election interference by Beijing in the 2019 and 2021 elections. The solutions government members proposed today are to go back behind closed doors with no public inquiry, have a close family friend give advice behind closed doors on what we should or should not do, which he may do or not do. They want to continue to have a secret committee behind closed doors with reports that go directly to the Prime Minister instead of that sunlight we desperately need to see. The Liberals and the PMO have lost the right to take this issue behind closed doors again. When they received the reports from our intelligence agencies about the magnitude and the extent, and because they knew it might hurt them, they avoided it, they swept it under the rug and they did nothing. They covered it up. Tonight, as we wrap up the debate, it is equally important to talk about the issue and the need for support for this motion. We also need to rightfully call out the NDP for its lack of backbone in standing up and in supporting this resolution. The state of the NDP today is very sad to watch. Its members are unable to simply stand up for what is right. They propped up the Liberals originally, and then when the bombshells kept coming from the whistle-blower in the media, they said they supported it. The NDP whip said, “Sadly, what we have seen in this country is a continuous leak from CSIS that tells us that there's something serious that we need to be concerned with. And after that many leaks, I am persuaded that we now have to take a step that I am not necessarily...comfortable with, because it is imperative”. That was just a couple of weeks ago. As the Liberals filibuster and hold up a vote and as we come to the floor and force a vote on this tomorrow, all of a sudden the NPD is wavering again. I want to make a comment to the three million Canadians who voted for the NDP in the last election. No one voted for the NDP to allow this to happen, to cover up time and time again on multiple Liberal scandals. There is outrage and frustration from the millions who placed their faith in the NDP, and for it to suddenly start covering up and defending the Liberals time and time again is shameful. The NDP can file amendments and do different things. A week ago, its members supported having Katie Telford at committee. They supported hearing this at committee, and all of a sudden they are wavering. Do not fall for their games. We can have a public inquiry. We can study other forms of election interference. The reason this— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

1105 words