44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 29, 2023 11:00AM
- May/29/23 2:22:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the only person here who is trying to hide the truth seems to be the Leader of the Opposition himself.
The Privy Council Office offered him access to the most sensitive documents that the special rapporteur reviewed in order to reach the conclusions that were made public last week. The Leader of the Opposition refused, because he would rather play petty politics on an issue that affects Canadian democracy.
It should be in the interest of all members of the House of Commons to support measures that will strengthen our democratic institutions.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:24:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one does not need a fake briefing or a “secret” stamp to know what the documents say. They have already been quoted verbatim in the media because of leaks by a seriously distressed security agency that is trying to expose what has gone on behind the scenes.
We now know what is surreal. There are at least two police stations run by Beijing, a foreign dictatorship, in Canada. The minister said they were closed. We have now found out that not only are they open, but they got tax dollars from the government.
Will they shut the police stations and call a public inquiry now?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:25:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what do I think the public servants at CSIS have been doing? I know what they have been doing. They have been picking up the phone and calling the media to blow the whistle on the cover-up on that side of the House of Commons.
They have proved that there are at least two police stations that are still open and that got tax dollars from the government. These are police stations run by Beijing, not Canada.
Will the government finally shut down these police stations and call a public inquiry?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:26:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I refuse to be silenced, unlike members of the government.
Given that the tradition in this place is that opposition members can pose questions to any member of the government, my question is for the leader of the NDP. He has said that he wants a public inquiry. Now is the time for him to prove it.
Will the member leading the NDP state clearly now that either the government calls a public inquiry or he will break off his coalition?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:28:15 p.m.
- Watch
Let us get right to the point, Mr. Speaker. David Johnston's report on Chinese interference is a farce. No one accepts it except the Prime Minister and China, which is having a great laugh.
There is no way we are going to let the Prime Minister get away with not calling a public inquiry.
What would it mean if there were no public inquiry? That would mean no inquiry into the threats against elected officials, no inquiry into the Trudeau Foundation, no inquiry into the intimidation of the Chinese diaspora and no inquiry into the 11 candidates who were funded by China. This charade serves only to protect the Prime Minister.
When will there be an independent public inquiry?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:29:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this report seeks to protect the Prime Minister, not to shed light on Chinese interference. That is why no one has changed their mind about the need for a public inquiry. Quebeckers and Canadians alike are calling for a inquiry. The polls are clear.
This report that is soft on the Prime Minister was written by a man who was selected by the Prime Minister. That is not what the public and the House want.
News flash: The Bloc Québécois will hound the Prime Minister every day until he launches this inquiry.
Does he understand that he will not get away with this that easily?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:33:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am in trouble. I am being investigated, and my company is being investigated, but my colleagues should not worry; it is going to be okay. I have appointed my long-time neighbour and friend to investigate. Wait; sorry, I thought for a moment I was the Prime Minister.
Appointing one's friend to investigate oneself is unethical, absolutely. No one other than the Liberals puts any faith in this old friend's report.
What will it take for the Liberals to finally call a public inquiry?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:35:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a conflict of interest arises when there is an appearance of conflict. Appointing an old friend to investigate oneself is an absolute appearance of conflict. To do that knowingly is completely unethical. Therefore, we get to the point where we have to ask why. Why would someone appoint a friend? What are they hiding? Why would a public inquiry not be called? The question Canadians ask every day now is this: What are they hiding?
I will ask again. What will it take for the Liberals to finally get rid of this conflict of interest report and call a public inquiry?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:45:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the Liberals can organize a public inquiry into events that happened in Syria and that involved the secret services of three countries, but they cannot organize one into Chinese interference in Canada?
Something is missing, and that something is political will. It would take political will to rise above partisan politics and protect our democracy. It would take political will to protect citizens of Chinese origin who are really feeling the sting of the regime's intimidation.
When will the Liberals get their act together and order an independent public inquiry?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:04:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary noted that the government did compare P3s to a public procurement approach for the high-frequency rail project. In the response to my Order Paper question, there is a very brief passing mention of this. It says, “including an assessment against a traditional design-build procurement model”. However, there are no details provided as to the pros and cons of public versus private models of procurement.
Does the parliamentary secretary not agree that the public deserves a detailed comparison between the public-private partnership model her government is so fixated on and the traditional public procurement approach? When it comes to value for money, when it comes to risk and when it comes to the long-term future of passenger rail in Canada, Canadians deserve to know how the government made the decision to go with the big corporations instead of with a public procurement model that puts—
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:56:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, there has been a lot of debate in this place about the extent to which public spending contributes to inflation. I am wondering if the minister believes that all public spending contributes to inflation, or just certain kinds.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
