44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2023 01:00PM
- Mar/22/23 2:29:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, although no one knows just how many there are, many Chinese nationals who are under the Prime Minister's solemn responsibility and whom Canada let in, are being forced under threat to return to China. We can imagine what is waiting for them upon their return.
Our main ally is coming to Ottawa tomorrow. Is that not just one more reason to establish that the Prime Minister cannot choose who will lead the inquiry or establish that the inquiry does not need to be public?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 2:30:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since the start, I have been very clear that it was not up to me to launch a public inquiry, because it may not be the best thing to do. That is why we decided to turn to an expert, someone who is absolutely unimpeachable, to make that determination and establish the best way forward.
That is why the former governor general will determine whether there will be a public inquiry or not, and what the parameters of that public inquiry would be. In the meantime, he is encouraging and assuring that the various committees are doing their job to set the record straight and restore the confidence of Canadians.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 2:43:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says we should not be partisan. That is rich, coming from him.
If that is how he feels, why do so many members in the House get the feeling that he is willing to do anything and everything to avoid an independent public inquiry? A public inquiry is urgently needed, and it should not be conducted by a family friend.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 2:44:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my point is that the work must be done for everyone in the House and for all of our constituents. I am not convinced that that is going to happen. All opposition parties in the House want an independent public inquiry.
At a time when all eyes in the U.S. are about to be on Ottawa, which tolerates interference and looks like it has something to hide, who is being partisan here?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:11:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have said this a number of times: I do not think my position is that far off from that of the NDP. I am just concerned about the fact that the NDP thinks this needs to happen in a public inquiry.
The member and I are both on the PROC committee, or he was on it for a few meetings, and we heard from experts that a public inquiry is not the best venue to do this. He said there were some allegations; fair enough. However, more importantly, we have professionals to look into those allegations. CSIS specifically said it takes information, and when necessary, refers it to the RCMP. The RCMP also said it has no active investigations going on. One does not have to be great at reading between the lines to figure out the reality there.
Why does the member think it has to be a public inquiry? Why can we not use one of the other mechanisms that we already have to do this very important work?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:14:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is something unusual going on here. We keep hearing that this is not a partisan issue. Every party is non-partisan here, as everyone knows. None of the parties are partisan.
I find it rather strange that my NDP colleagues are bringing this up now. The Bloc Québécois quickly announced that it is in favour of a public inquiry. Why are they moving this motion this evening? I think that their main goal is not to embarrass the government, but rather to embarrass the Conservative Party on its opposition day.
Our NDP colleague had the gall to say that he was doing this in a non-partisan way. I am not the Conservatives' biggest fan, but members of the House owe each other a modicum of respect. We usually respect the other opposition parties' opposition days.
I do not see why the NDP is bringing this up today. Are they hoping to redeem themselves after yesterday, when they voted against our Conservative colleagues' motion calling for a public inquiry? I do not know. I am not saying that their intentions are bad, but that is the feeling I am getting. We will hear what they have to say about that.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:20:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to stand here today in the House. I would like to say hello to the citizens of Trois‑Rivières.
For weeks now, we have been talking about China's interference, and for weeks, most of us have agreed that we need an independent public inquiry. I think we all agree on that, with the exception of a few indomitable Gauls. Usually we are the indomitable Gauls.
What is at stake here is the public interest. There is no room for partisanship; partisanship is for elections. We need to act in the public interest. I must admit that what I am seeing is that the government is more interested in praising the leak than acting in the public interest.
Those who work in ethics always try to determine the right thing to do, so long as the intent is to do good. This is a serious question that requires introspection and a certain distance from the issue. It involves being willing to discuss the issue in question. In ethics, one tries to determine what should be done in the circumstances. Our anglophone friends talk about doing the right thing, whereas in French we talk about ce que nous devons faire pour bien faire. Whoever wants to do that needs guidelines.
Right now, I am unaware of any laws respecting foreign interference, so we cannot say that we will enforce the law. However, we will have to do something, since the current legal vacuum needs to be filled. In order to determine what to do, we need to determine what happened.
In the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I am a member, we recently raised many questions concerning foreign interference. We are talking about foreign interference from China, but we could also be talking about Russia, Iraq or any number of other countries. I would especially like to mention a question I asked a few witnesses the other day. I asked them whether the current government was familiar with China, and the answer was a resounding “no”. I asked them whether the current government understood China, Russia or Iraq, and the answer was “no”. It is hard to stop a leak when we do not know that there is a leak. In this case, we need to start by recognizing that there is a leak.
Half-heartedly, feeling threatened, the Prime Minister recognized that perhaps it might be time to act. The decision was then made to appoint someone who would bear the title of rapporteur. European legislation often refers to rapporteurs. A rapporteur examines a situation, drafts a short summary and provides that summary. Unlike what is currently being alleged, the rapporteur will not decide whether there will be a public inquiry or not. The rapporteur will simply report facts. The person to whom the rapporteur reports those facts will decide what will happen. The rapporteur is being called independent. I will not question Mr. Johnston's résumé, obviously, but I will clearly question his proximity to the Trudeau family, with the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation—
529 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:33:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if there is one person in the House I would trust with that role, it would be the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, because he is a subject matter expert. He has literally written books on ethics. I have the privilege of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, so I am keen to hear his thoughts.
We heard about whether there would be credibility, but I would like to set that aside and ask him to create a distinction between credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public as it relates to public interest and just how deeply concerning this file is, particularly given some of the reports that continue to come out. There are reports that came out today which are deeply concerning.
Can he perhaps expand on how he might feel about the value of a public inquiry that is completely independent, that is given the purview to have access to all the important information rather than taking information in drips and drops as it is coming out in the press today?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:34:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who sits with me on the the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as he mentioned. I have to say that he always considers the public interest, which is remarkable. I will therefore consider his question carefully.
The question was whether credibility or legitimacy is at stake here. In terms of credibility, Mr. Johnston's reputation is impeccable. However, the relationship between Mr. Johnston and the other interests is not. It is somewhat obscure or murky.
In a matter as important as foreign interference, where information is being revealed in dribs and drabs every day, there is nothing better than to be lily white. One has to be beyond reproach, and that has nothing to do with credibility. It is something else. Therefore, I hope that we will have an independent and impeccable inquiry.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 7:26:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us play the facts game.
The facts are that New Democrats were the first to call for a national public inquiry. That is a fact. As a matter of fact, we are debating that right now. The members of this House have an opportunity to join New Democrats and ensure that there will be a national public inquiry into foreign interference.
One more fact is that Conservatives are playing defence for terrible oligarch regimes like Russia, which they do not want included in a public inquiry. Why did the Leader of the Opposition fail to even show up for his own opposition day motion, which called for some of the things they are talking about now? I want to know why the Conservatives are blocking our attempt to ensure that there will be a transparent public inquiry into this work. We need to see this inquiry expanded to all—
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
