SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 202 - May/30/23

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/23 11:55:14 a.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Durham.

12 words

Durham

May/30/23 11:55:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing my colleague from Brantford—Brant to finish his speech today. I am rising on a question of privilege concerning efforts and actions by officials and agents of the People's Republic of China to interfere with me as a consequence of actions that I have taken here on the floor of our House of Commons. On Friday, I received a briefing from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, that confirmed several matters to me that I will discuss in a few moments. In the notice I subsequently sent to the Speaker, I indicated that I required yesterday to reflect upon how best to present the information I received. While I recognize that the law of parliamentary privilege affords me absolute freedom of speech here in Parliament, subject only to the rules of the House itself, I also proudly held our late Queen's commission as an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces and have taken several oaths to protect our nation and its secrets. It is because of this background that I have such profound respect for the men and women who swear such oaths to keep our country safe. Whether in the military, in a police service or in one of our security and intelligence agencies, these Canadians are charged with keeping us safe in a dangerous world. With the respect I have for those institutions in mind, I wrestled to find the right balance between satisfying the diverse demands on my conscience and saying what I am about to say today in my question of privilege. In the Speaker's May 8 ruling on a similar but distinct question, at page 14106 of the Debates, where he noted “the gravity of the claims made by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills”, the Speaker favourably cited the words of Mr. Speaker Milliken from May 29, 2008: The Chair has always exercised discretion on this point given the need to balance the need for timeliness with the important responsibility members have of marshalling facts and arguments before raising matters of such import in the House. In my case, it was a matter of not just marshalling the facts, but also giving adequate consideration as to how those facts could be presented in this House in a way that safeguards the sources and methods of our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work within them. As I alluded to a moment ago, the facts of the People's Republic of China's campaign against me are separate and distinct from those that led to the Speaker's important ruling regarding the intimidation campaign orchestrated against the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. In that case, the Globe and Mail newspaper reported on intelligence leaks that indicated an accredited Chinese diplomat was involved in the targeting of this hon. member and his family. This targeting appears to have been ordered following the February 2021 motion brought by that member recognizing the harms perpetrated against the Uyghur population in the Xinjiang region of China as genocide. After the hon. member raised his question of privilege, the government and CSIS acknowledged to him the veracity of the media reports. The facts of my case are distinct, as they relate to an ongoing campaign of foreign interference to target me as both a member of this chamber and leader of the official opposition. Given my respect for the men and women who work for CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment, I will not provide the specific details from my intelligence briefing on the numerous threats identified to me, as I do not want any details to reveal sources or methods of collection. While I have more detail than I am sharing with the House, I want to ensure that the public interest is properly served alongside ensuring that important intelligence gathered can continue unimpeded by appropriate parliamentary review. As an aside, the procedure and House affairs committee could, of course, obtain further details directly from the government under appropriate in camera cautions. That said, I will break down the nature of the threats identified to me by CSIS into four distinct categories of threats. Each of these threats was intended to discredit me, to promote false narratives about my policies and to severely obstruct my work as a member of Parliament and as leader of the official opposition. The numerous examples also demonstrate that there was an orchestrated campaign of foreign interference in the 43rd Parliament and in the 2021 general election. The first category of threat is related to foreign funding, specifically the payment of funds by the Chinese Communist Party through the united front work department, to create specific products of misinformation on me as a member of Parliament and as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. The second category of threat is related to human resources, specifically the use of groups of people working for or aligned with the United Front Work Department in Canada that were organized and directed by a foreign state to amplify misinformation efforts and undermine my work as a member of the chamber and as the leader of a parliamentary caucus. The third category of threat is related to foreign-controlled social media platforms. This category related specifically to the WeChat communications platform and its use to further the aims of the Chinese Communist Party and the United Front Work Department, and their campaign to spread misinformation to undermine and discredit my work in the chamber as the member of Parliament for Durham and as leader of the official opposition. The final category of threat outlined to me is related to voter suppression, specifically that intelligence indicated an active campaign of voter suppression against me, the Conservative Party of Canada and a candidate in one electoral district during the 2021 general election. I must acknowledge at this point that I also believe that my privileges as a member and officer of Parliament were infringed upon by the government's unwillingness or inability to act on intelligence related to foreign interference. The briefing from CSIS confirmed to me what I had suspected for quite some time, which is that my parliamentary caucus and I were the target of a sophisticated misinformation and voter suppression campaign orchestrated by the People's Republic of China before and during the 2021 general election. I also believe that my privileges as a member and as opposition leader were infringed upon by the government's unwillingness to act on intelligence related to foreign interference. The briefing from CSIS confirmed to me what I had suspected for quite some time, that my party, several members of my caucus and I were the targets of a misinformation and voter suppression campaign orchestrated by China before and during the 2021 general election. Not only were the multiple threats against me and members of my parliamentary caucus not raised to me by the government or security agencies during the 43rd Parliament, but these serious threats were also not communicated to us through the security and intelligence threats to elections task force created by the government in the 43rd Parliament to safeguard our election. The context of the final months of proceedings in the chamber in the 43rd Parliament is also important to consider with respect to my privilege. The House, at the time, was seized with four separate document production orders forcing the government to be accountable to the House with respect to what actually happened at the Winnipeg laboratory and the firing of scientists with links to China. I know that you remember the time, Madam Speaker, because the government forced you into federal court over the issue, and forced me, as a member of the chamber and leader of the opposition, to seek intervenor status in that proceeding, which, ultimately, dissolution rendered moot. While denying our privileges as members for disclosure of these documents at the time, the government also denied me and other members of the chamber, including a member of the NDP, knowledge of identified foreign interference threats against us as parliamentarians. This is a matter that should concern all members of the House, regardless of party. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is a separate and distinct matter from that which my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, raised to you a few weeks ago. The threats identified against me by CSIS did not relate to one single event or one single accredited diplomat; rather, the numerous threats identified to me provide proof of an ongoing campaign of foreign interference, intended not only to disrupt my work as a member but also to critically disrupt my work as the leader of a large parliamentary caucus in a minority Parliament. Threats, disruption and interference of this scale actually violated the privilege of hundreds of members of the House. I stress this distinction because it is my respectful submission that it represents a question that is distinct from the one addressed in an earlier ruling or in the subsequent May 10 order of reference to the procedure and House affairs committee. It is worthy of its own separate finding of a prima facie contempt and committee investigation. Indeed, the situation here might be analogous to a couple of periods in the Speaker's early days as a member of the House. In spring 2005, there were no less than four prima facie cases of privilege, all related to member mailings, which were each referred to the procedure and House affairs committee in an overlapping manner. One of them originated from today's government House leader. Later, in November 2009, there were two prima facie cases of privilege related to members' householder mailings, which were also separately referred to committee again in an overlapping way. In a ruling on May 10, 2005, Speaker Milliken said, at page 5885 of the Debates, words which probably have some echos with the way the issues we are confronting this spring are cropping up. He said the following: As the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills well knows, we have had a number of these kinds of questions of privilege raised in the House recently and quite a number have been sent off to the procedure and House affairs committee, which is actively studying these issues, I believe, as we speak. I am more than happy to permit him to move his motion and send the matter to committee, if he wishes. I am sure the committee will be interested in considering this one along with all the other ones that it is currently dealing with of a similar nature. There do seem to be a lot of these mailings these days. There do seem to be a lot of foreign interference reports these days as well. The House should be seized with each of them individually. As I said, they should trouble all members of the chamber. As members know, I have been a frequent commentator on Canada's foreign policy in the House. Specifically, I have been raising concerns relating to Canada-China relations for many years. Before serving as leader of the opposition, in both the 42nd and 43rd Parliaments, I served as the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the same parliamentary position held now by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. It was in that capacity that I was one of the first voices in the chamber to discourage the use of Huawei technology in Canada's 5G network. I, alongside other colleagues, raised concerns about the approval of sales of several Canadian technology companies without proper security assessments by the government. I, along with others, spoke about the issue of human rights in China and the abuse of the “one country, two systems” agreement in Hong Kong. Like many members of the House on all sides, I met with people from persecuted religious and cultural minorities. In fact, in many ways, my concerns about the government's approach to China culminated in a December 2019 motion to establish the first special committee on Canada-China relations. This retaliatory campaign by a foreign government, targeting my work as a member of Parliament, arose from my participation in these, among other, proceedings of the 42nd and 43rd Parliaments. It is because of this advocacy that I have faced, in response, many years of an orchestrated retaliation campaign run from Beijing. These events occurred not only before and during the 2021 general election, which has been the subject of considerable reporting in the last year, but also prior to this election, and they were in the knowledge or control of the government, which refused to act. In fact, CSIS advised me that I will remain a target of Beijing's influence operations long after I leave the House this summer. These timing aspects should pose no barriers to the Speaker's favourable ruling. Indeed, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes, at page 81, “Instances of contempt in one Parliament may even be punished during another Parliament. This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.” Although some of the actions in this retaliatory campaign of foreign interference were even more present during an election campaign, while Parliament was dissolved, there remained, throughout that time, a clear nexus among the retaliatory campaign in Parliament, parliamentary proceedings and through dissolution and election. The attacks on my privilege began before dissolution, were accelerated during the writ and resumed again afterwards. It shows how insidious this foreign interference has become. In this light, I would draw the Chair's attention to this passage at page 773 of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, fourth edition. It says, “Conduct that seeks to influence members in the performance of their public duties is perfectly proper and permissible. People may even exert pressure on members (for example, by threatening to withdraw support at the next election), unless such an attempt to influence becomes an attempt to intimidate, or there is a threat to do something that is improper in itself.” The right of all members of the House to go about their parliamentary duties free from intimidation, interference or any form of obstruction has been affirmed by a long line of precedents. The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills cited several of those concerning intimidation when presenting his own question of privilege, some of which you also quoted in your ruling on that matter. In the interest of time, I commend those to your consideration, but perhaps the most powerful words are your own, from your May 8 ruling, at page 14107 of the Debates: “The Chair agrees that the matter raised by the member, that is that a foreign entity tried to intervene in the conduct of our proceedings through a retaliatory scheme targeting him and his family, squarely touches upon the privileges and immunities that underpin our collective ability to carry out our parliamentary duties unimpeded. On the face of it, the Chair believes this matter to be serious enough to take priority of debate over all other parliamentary proceedings.” One new aspect that my situation raises is what our authorities consider to be a form of “obstruction”. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 111 and 112, offers this explanation: A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means.... It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation...[and] the intimidation of Members and their staff.... The unjust damaging of a Member’s good name might be seen as constituting an obstruction.... Speaker Fraser, on May 5, 1987, at page 5766 of the Debates, ruled: The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damage of a reputation could constitute such an impediment. The normal course of a member who felt himself or herself to be defamed would be the same as that available to any other citizen: recourse to the courts under the laws of defamation and the possibility of damages to substitute for the harm that may be done. However, should the alleged defamation take place on the floor of the House of Commons, this recourse is not available. Where these campaigns were masterminded by diplomats accredited to Canada, the diplomats enjoy legal immunities under the Vienna Conventions. Therefore, just as in the example cited by Speaker Fraser, ordinary recourse to the courts of law is simply not possible under the circumstances. To be clear, this parliamentary privilege is not being asserted, nor do I seek to assert it, against any Canadian who exercises his or her democratic right to enter into the parliamentary and political debate and to criticize politicians for the stands or policies they take. Joseph Maingot, at page 235 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, articulates the appropriate balance here: ...all interferences with Members' privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege even though they influence the conduct of Members in their parliamentary work. Accordingly, not every action by an outside body that may influence the conduct of a Member of Parliament as such could now be regarded as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and intended to bring pressure on the Member to take or to refrain from taking a particular course. But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a Member in his [or her] parliamentary work may constitute contempt. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with Members' parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case. In investigating a past contempt concerning the prejudicing of a member's reputation, the procedure and House affairs committee explained the heart of the reputational concern succinctly at paragraph 38 of its 51st report tabled in November 2005. It stated, “Members of Parliament are public figures, and their reputations and integrity are among their most valuable assets.” The same committee, when reviewing misleading statements about a member made in one of these ten-percenter cases I mentioned earlier, wrote, in its 38th report tabled in May 2005, as follows: The content of the document, while not complained of by other Members whose constituents received similar mailings, must be considered in relation to [the member for Windsor West]. Under such an analysis, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that it is inaccurate and misleading with respect to him. [The member] noted that he had received complaints from constituents as a result of the mailing. By unjustly damaging his reputation with voters in his riding, it thereby impairs his ability to function as a Member. That last sentence brings me to some important points. First, whether the defamatory or misleading comments were made inside or outside of my riding, they, nonetheless, must be considered in relation to me and to the unjust damaging of my reputation within my riding. Second, at the time, I was the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I was an officer of this House with national responsibilities, which I believe requires the Speaker to consider matters through an additional lens. By unjustly damaging the reputation of the leader of a national party, it has the consequence of impairing his or her ability to function as one of those political officers of this House, but also of indirectly implicating all of my colleagues, whom I was proud to lead as leader of a parliamentary caucus. Third, we must truly understand the goal of Beijing's retaliatory campaign here. The Communist government's ideal outcome is to have its critics pull their punches and turn a blind eye. It is to create, at the end of the day, a chilling effect on our public policy and the debates in this chamber, a chilling effect on our parliamentary democracy. At its heart, Beijing's goal and detailed actions toward the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, myself and other members of this chamber stifle free debate in this House. The special committee on rights and immunities of members explained the importance of freedom of speech in Parliament in its first report tabled in April 1977 as: ...a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents. It is this very principle which the House must uphold, must vindicate and must defend robustly for it is what ensures that we are vibrant democracy, where the people's representatives defend the people's interests, not vested interests. Earlier, I cited an authority for the proposition that the area of parliamentary law of concern here remains fluid in order to allow the House to meet new and novel threats. This novel and expanding situation of foreign interference in our politics seeking to silence the debates of this Parliament must be met and our parliamentary democracy must be defended. It is important for me to raise this issue before I finish my service in the House in the coming weeks. It is also important for me, and all of us collectively, to raise this critical issue for Canadians who might contemplate joining the House and standing for office. We can no longer ignore this interference and the chill effect it will have on free speech and our debates. We owe it to the next generation of members of Parliament from all backgrounds, cultures and experiences to be able to take their place in this chamber to build on our democracy unencumbered by threats, intimidation or pressure. As my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, observed, members of Parliament, and especially opposition members, are certainly not ordinary Canadians who can rely on the government, the executive branch, to discharge its role as defender of the realm. The problem does not lie with our proud, hard-working intelligence agencies; it lies in the blindness to their activities by some figures in this government and in some of the senior offices that advise it. The government has gone from one diversion to another for years to deflect its responsibility in tackling this scourge of foreign interference that has limited the privileges of several members of the House. They are being willfully blind to attacks on our parliamentary democracy. I could go on at length about my views concerning the SITE task force, the panel of five senior civil servants, and review the inaction or incompetence of those structures and how disappointed I was in the report of the special rapporteur, but I acknowledge that might be straying into debate. Besides, the House and the whole country know first-hand my views on the special rapporteur's review process, because when he met with me, the review was largely completed. He did not even seek input from a member who our intelligence agencies knew was being targeted by Beijing. I will simply say that rather than restoring faith in our institutions and democratic process, the perceived conflict of interest of the special rapporteur, the outcome-driven terms of reference he was given and the final report that followed them have actually deepened mistrust and further demonstrated the need for an independent review. The conversation and inquiry do not need to wait until there is a Conservative government elected and it determines to appoint an independent public inquiry. The longer there are delays, the longer there will be embarrassing leaks and headlines that will only continue to erode public trust in our institutions and in our parliamentary democracy. This historic and proud House of Commons has the duty and responsibility to stand up to attacks on the privilege of every single member of this chamber. Inaction to do so amounts to muting the voices sent to Ottawa to defend the interests of their constituents. So, let us do it for all members of this chamber, on all sides of the House, and for the Canadians who might want to join the House in the future. As the defender of our rights and privileges, this effort starts with you, Mr. Speaker. Should you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this amounts to a prima facie case of contempt, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion at that time.

4174 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/23 12:24:20 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for his statement. I believe there are a couple of interventions. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

23 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/23 12:24:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the member for Durham. I would like to review the blues, and I reserve the right for the NDP to intervene on this question of privilege without delay.

35 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/23 12:24:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we will do likewise and review what the member has stated and get back to the Speaker in due time.

22 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/23 12:25:00 p.m.
Watch

Of course, we ask that members come back as soon as possible so that we can review this quickly and come back to the House as soon as possible. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

38 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/30/23 12:25:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it has been a while. We will get into the debate again. I will start by reminding members that all the Chinese diaspora groups advocating for human rights in Canada and Quebec demand a public inquiry into Beijing's interference. Mehmet Tohti, representing the Uyghur nation in Canada, Hong Kong pro-democracy dissidents, Falun Gong practitioners, and supporters of independence for Tibet, all of whom were already experiencing Chinese intimidation tactics on Canadian soil long before this scandal broke, slammed the Liberals' actions in The Globe and Mail just this weekend. These groups also called for an independent public inquiry. For the Liberals not to listen to the opposition is one thing, but for them to not listen to these people is, in my view, a sign of total disrespect to the first victims of this interference on Canadian and Quebec soil. I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. We need to talk about one thing: The government needs to stop using the excuse of security surrounding Chinese interference to avoid an independent public inquiry. Just yesterday in the House, I was referring to the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was tortured in Syria. There were so many security issues in his case, yet a public and independent inquiry was held into this matter. Moreover, this inquiry was initiated by a Liberal government. The Liberals are able to initiate such an inquiry when they want to, so we wonder why they do not want to in this case. There are so many other examples of commissions where there were security issues. I am thinking of the Charbonneau commission in Quebec. There were security and secrecy issues. There was the Rouleau commission. It is possible to set up these independent public inquiries even if there are security issues. What this tells me is that the Liberal government is trying to bury the current Chinese interference crisis. Above all, it is trying to bury its inexplicable inaction, when it has known for many years that China was trying to interfere in our democratic process. The Prime Minister must have known that there was Chinese interference in the last two elections. Nonetheless, he decided to hide this from the public by creating the position of special rapporteur and handing it to David Johnston, who will be discussed at length today. This is the same David Johnston who seems to be in a blatant conflict of interest over the whole issue and has recommended against holding a public inquiry. Any law professor would confirm that an apparent conflict of interest is no different from an actual conflict of interest. All this is happening despite the crisis of confidence in Canada's democratic system. It will therefore come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois supports the motion moved by our New Democrat colleague calling on David Johnson “to step aside from his role as special rapporteur” and calling on the government “to urgently establish a public commission of inquiry”. Here is what the motion calls for regarding the public inquiry. It should be: (i) led by an individual selected with unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House, (ii) granted the power to review all aspects of foreign interference from all states... (b) [It should] instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. The Prime Minister can talk up David Johnston's many qualities all he wants, but the fact remains that he is a family friend. Not surprisingly, he was a member of the Trudeau Foundation. Worse still, he apparently has such close ties to China that the very democratic Xi Jinping called him an old friend of China. With friends like that, I would be very careful. Despite all of that, the Minister of Public Safety said yesterday in the House that it was important to “invite...everyone to have an open and transparent conversation about creating new tools to defend our democratic institutions”. I agree with him. Let us talk about democracy. We will talk about democracy. Everything we do today in this debate is based on the concept of democracy. I must digress briefly, before coming back to democracy. I do not know whether my colleagues are familiar with the Airbus scandal, so I will quickly refresh everyone's memories. In 1988, under a government led by former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Airbus had been awarded a procurement contract for 34 aircraft for Air Canada at a cost of $1.8 billion Canadian. At the time, Air Canada was wholly owned by the government. According to Democracy Watch, good old Mr. Johnston was also tapped by none other than former prime minister Stephen Harper to help Mr. Mulroney, who was accused of taking bribes. After being appointed by the Harper government, Mr. Johnston gave the public inquiry such a narrow mandate that it could not examine the contracts awarded to Airbus and the corruption surrounding them, including the cash given to Mr. Mulroney. Nonetheless, he is the one the Liberals asked to investigate Chinese interference. They really know how to pick them. We are talking about $300,000 in cash from a criminal, Schreiber, in what is now known as the Airbus scandal. They are all the same. When it comes down to choosing between Liberals and Conservatives, we choose the worst. We were talking about democracy. Mr. Johnston's preliminary report has been lambasted by the public as a whole, by a large number of media outlets, by politicians, and yet he does not recommend a public inquiry, despite his finding that China is trying to interfere in Canadian politics. Since I was elected to the House in 2019, I have repeatedly seen the minority Liberal government, which, we must remember, was elected by less than a third of Canadian voters, fail to respect the democratic choices of the House. Here is a good example. In 2020, a majority of the House voted in favour of a motion calling for the number of weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits to be increased from 15 to 50. I have seen nothing come of it. The government does not respect the elected members of the House, a majority of whom voted in favour of that motion. The House has twice voted in favour of an independent public inquiry into Chinese interference, and both times, the Liberal government refused, even though an inquiry has been requested by over two-thirds of the population and over 68% of the population represented by the opposition members. That is democracy. I would like to ask a question. How can the Liberal government talk about democracy and claim to defend democracy when it does not respect democracy in its own Parliament? The worst part of all this is that, after tabling his highly criticized report, Mr. Johnston went even further by repeating the government line that the problem was the media and politicians, who he felt had done a bad job. While we listen to these inane statements, the Prime Minister is trying to stall for time. With numerous members of the Chinese diaspora speaking out about being harassed and coerced by the Chinese government, there is little doubt that the known facts are just the tip of the iceberg. Here is what I find even more interesting in this matter. According to Mr. Johnston, the member for Don Valley North is not guilty of endangering the lives of the two Michaels. Mr. Johnston therefore cites that member as part of his argument against launching an independent inquiry. That member may rejoin the Liberal caucus, as the Prime Minister has said he is open to the idea. Even so, that member, the person most affected by this matter, voted in favour of an independent public inquiry. This is madness. I feel like I have stepped into some kind of bizarro world. It is clear that the public has good reason to be cynical about democracy in Canada nowadays. Everyone knows the government is trying to buy time. Meanwhile, certain communities are suffering. As I said at the beginning of my speech, every human rights group in Canada and Quebec from the Chinese diaspora is calling for a public inquiry into Beijing's interference. That includes Uyghurs, Hongkongers, Tibetans, Taiwanese, entire communities that are being robbed of their culture and traditions. It includes men, women and children who are experiencing violence and persecution. It includes members of those communities who are here in Quebec and Canada and who fear for their safety, who fear for the safety of their loved ones, who are the main victims of this interference in our elections. They are calling for an independent public inquiry. Will the government listen to them? Will it show these people some respect? How can it possibly ignore them? I put that question to the House yesterday, and I was told there would be reassurance. Does anyone really think those people feel reassured? If they did, would they all have told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Johnston's report signalled a sad day for Canadian democracy? Not listening to us is one thing, but not listening to the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, the Taiwanese and the Hongkongers is another. It shows utter insensitivity toward these people. I am here to say that I stand with them. We will support them. We want the same thing they do.

1635 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/23 12:35:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at times we can barely tell the difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc members when it comes to certain issues, and those issues are more and more frequent. It is unfortunate because we have seen a character assassination of an outstanding Canadian. He is someone who was appointed by Stephen Harper, a Conservative prime minister. He has provided a report. Part of that report is an annex and, to receive and read the annex, one has to get a certain security clearance. The leader of the Bloc Party has chosen to say that he wants to be completely ignorant of all those facts. He does not want the briefing. The briefing would explain why the former governor general chose not to recommend a public inquiry. Could the member give a clear indication as to why the Bloc Party, more specifically the leader of the Bloc Party, is refusing to get the clearance necessary to see the documents that led to the recommendations of the former governor general?

170 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/30/23 12:36:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was expecting a more difficult question than that. In the same question, my colleague said that we are like the Conservatives, but he also said that they each used the same person to cover up a scandal. He said in his question that they were the same, that the Liberals were doing the same thing as the Conservatives, that they were using the same person to cover up a scandal. That is something else. I will answer my colleague’s question. If we said no, it is because the people we work with, the victims of Chinese interference, asked us not to do it. They say that we should ask for an independent public inquiry and that the business of getting security clearance and not being able to talk about what was said is a Liberal trap. It is incredible to see how much they are concealing things from Canadians and not even trying to hide it. They say that the annex explains why there will not be an independent public inquiry. We will be able to find out, but we will not be able to talk about it. Canadians will not know, and we will not be able to tell them. That is incredible. I cannot believe that they actually believe what they are saying. Let us get back to what really matters here: These people do not even respect democracy in their own Parliament. How can we believe them when it comes to investigating interference in our own elections?

255 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/30/23 12:38:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I would like for us to take a step back from what is happening right now. In fact, as he said, this is the second time the House is preparing to vote on a motion asking the government for an independent public inquiry. We remind the government that it is a minority government and that the majority of this Parliament is asking for a public inquiry. The majority of the members representing Quebeckers and Canadians are asking for an independent public inquiry. It is the government’s duty to make that happen. I would like my colleague to remind members that this is not an isolated case and that it is not the first time the government has failed to be transparent and disregarded democracy in this country.

142 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/30/23 12:38:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are getting more and more evidence that the government is so full of itself that it thinks it is a majority government and forgets it is only a minority. It does not respect the will of its own Parliament, its own House of Commons. Worse yet, and to my surprise today, the Liberals came in with an arrogant and aggressive attitude. They are treating the motion moved by their NDP friends with arrogance and condescension. In fact, the NDP should stop supporting the government, because it is not right to be spoken to that way. How is it that, when they do not even respect the motions passed by a majority of the House of Commons, they can still come in with an arrogant and egregiously insolent attitude? It is enough to make anyone fall out of their chair. Luckily, our chairs are solid and well made. How long will that be the case? That is a good question.

162 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/30/23 12:40:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise to speak. I want to say hello to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, who talk to me about Chinese interference every weekend. They talked to me about it again recently and asked me what is going to happen with the special rapporteur. We do not really know. Stromae sang, “I'm not alone in feeling all alone”. Mr. Johnston is also all alone. We are here today to discuss the NDP's motion, which we support, even though it does require some clarification. Of course, the House called on the government to launch a public inquiry back in March. Now, the NDP is calling for the special rapporteur to recuse himself. I should really call him the “special raconteur” because he is telling us such a fascinating story. The NDP is also asking that the public inquiry be led by an individual selected with unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House. I am going to voice a concern about that, because unanimous support is a lot to ask. I think it would be better to aim for the support of two-thirds of the House or something like that. Nevertheless, we understand that Mr. Johnston is the only one who thinks he is right. The Canadian, Quebec and U.S. media are all saying that the situation is untenable, but he is digging in his heels. I did not like the tone of the previous debates. Even in the weeks leading up to the analysis of today's motion, we were told that Mr. Johnston is an illustrious individual with unrivalled experience and a vision that has prepared him for this sort of job. All of those things may be true. However, the problem that we have with Mr. Johnston is not his past. It is his present. Right now, he is in an untenable position. He is in a conflict of interest, or, at the very least, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest. In both cases, why do we talk about conflict of interest when it comes to ethics? It is because conflicts of interest can undermine trust, and trust is the cornerstone of democracy. To elect someone is to place one's trust in someone else. In a case like this one, trust was placed in the government, which decided to subcontract a decision to a person who is far from independent. All of this can affect trust and arouse mistrust. We should not be surprised if it eventually leads to distrust. People are tired of seeing this sort of thing. Those who watch question period know that there is a reason it is not called “answer period”. Whenever we ask a question about Mr. Johnston's independence, the reply we get is that he is a model citizen. If my children had answered me that way when they were young, I would have scolded them for it, because that is not a real answer. Foreign interference is nothing new. It has gotten worse over the years. Chinese interference flourished around the world in 2019, but the free trade agreements facilitated economic dependence and exchanges on various research and industrial matters. Interference became more and more common starting in the 1980s. Today, we cannot deny the fact that foreign interference exists. The government's solution was to appoint someone and make up a title for him. In Quebec, the French word “rapporteur” is not a good quality. It is more of a defect. A “rapporteur” is someone who reports on what other people said, and not always in the right way. Nevertheless, they decided to appoint someone. The Prime Minister, who is the only one who can call a public inquiry, because that is his privilege, his power and his responsibility, said no. He decided that he did not want to be caught out and that he would delegate the responsibility to someone else and respect their decision. I am sorry, but Mr. Johnston does not have the right to decide whether or not a public inquiry should be held. That privilege belongs to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can consult his party, and he could have consulted Mr. Johnston. He can consult all he wants, but it is not up to a third party to decide whether an inquiry should be called. That is called responsibility. Honestly, responsibility is something people do not pay enough attention to today. Let me explain the concept. “Responsibility” comes from two Latin words: res and spondere. Res means “thing”, and spondere, which gave us the English word “sponsor”, means “to promise”. This means that someone who is responsible is someone who can make a promise. Logically, one would think that the Prime Minister can make a promise. However, there are three criteria for responsibility. Does the person have authority to act? In this case, the answer is yes. Does the person have sufficient authority to act? The answer is yes. The most important question is, does the person have a desire to act? In this case, I saw no desire to act. The Liberals saw the NDP's motion in March, but they disregarded it. They do not have much more regard for today's opposition motion. Let us get back to Mr. Johnston, all alone in his corner. His reputation, his experience and the fact that he was appointed by Mr. Harper are the arguments coming from across the aisle. They have been repeated ad nauseam, which is a phrase meaning a very long time. That is not the problem. The problem is that there is no trust. I was told I should have trust in Mr. Johnston because he is extraordinarily credible. I will repeat it in the House: Trust is “credibility plus legitimacy”. In this case, we do not have what comes after the “plus”. Mr. Johnston's legitimacy is contested by everyone except Mr. Johnston. My grandfather used to say that when someone feels like they are the only one who is right, there is probably something wrong. He has no legitimacy. It has been said that Mr. Johnston participated to a certain degree in the Trudeau Foundation. It has been said that he sent his children to study in China. We do not know how he paid for that, though, because sending children to study in China is expensive. It has also been said that Mr. Johnston sponsored a Confucius Institute. I am not condemning Mr. Johnston for all this. I am simply saying that it affects his credibility, so much so that he has none left. If there is no trust in the process, then as an ethicist, I would say that the process is useless. The government is delaying a decision because we got a striptease of revelations over time. Every time we almost get somewhere, there is not enough trust. People are asking us why we do not look at the documents. In my opinion, it is a trap. The Liberals want to force us to remain silent. We will not paint ourselves into a corner. Moreover, we do not think we should listen to someone we do not believe is legitimate, period. I now have a question concerning the NDP's motion. As my colleagues know, we will support the motion, but I still have a question for the NDP. If everything in this motion happens, after the adoption of a motion in March, what will happen? The hon. member for Burnaby South will see the documents. The hon. member for Burnaby South will be outraged. What will happen then? Will he get mad? Will he withdraw his support? What is interesting is that withdrawing their support for the deal between the parties does not mean the government will fall, but there will be more tension in the negotiations, and I think that this dimension ought to be added to the motion.

1355 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/23 12:48:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will give a bit of a different approach from that of the member opposite and recognize that foreign interference is something that is not new to Canada. In fact, we have seen it now for well over a decade. When I take a look at what the former administration did, I find that it did nothing. Even when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible, he chose to do nothing on the issue of foreign interference. We have taken a number of actions to date on the issue of foreign interference, and I am wondering if the member could speculate as to what he believes the Conservative government should have been doing, if anything, when the issue was raised with that particular government. Does he believe that this is the only government that has been in a position to deal with the issue?

149 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/30/23 12:49:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we cannot rewrite the past. If the previous Harper government did nothing, quite frankly, that changes nothing with regard to today's foreign interference. That is where we are now. Should the former government have taken measures? Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the member across the way is asking me whether it is a problem that the previous government did nothing. The result we are faced with today is that this is where we stand now and we must act. It is important to take action. In fact, it is necessary, because failing to take action only encourages foreign interference. I am not saying that nothing was done, but it is time to do more.

117 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/30/23 12:50:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Bloc will be supporting our motion. I am a bit perplexed at the Bloc leader's decision to not look at the confidential annex. It seems to me that more information at this point is good. My understanding of the argument against seeing the annex is that it would preclude certain statements or actions based on the information, but those statements and actions are not currently an option for the Bloc leader because he does not know what is in there. It would seem that the leader could both see what is in the annex and push with us for a public inquiry, as they are not mutually exclusive. Could the member expand on why the leader of the Bloc Québécois refuses to look at this additional information?

141 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/30/23 12:50:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I really appreciate his concern and wisdom. I would say that, right now, there is one person, that is, Mr. Johnston, who is saying that he has seen something, but that he cannot talk about it. I am not sure that having three other people also tell us that they have seen something but cannot talk about it will restore public confidence. My intervention is based on the need to restore trust. I do not think that Mr. Johnston's suggested method is the only one; there could have been others. Also, I do not think this is the best way, and I would like to hear about others. As we know, in essence, I am asking for Mr. Johnston's recusal, as is my colleague. I am not about to start following his recommendations, either.

149 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/30/23 12:51:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his speech. I particularly enjoyed how he ended it with something of a question. He wondered what will happen otherwise. He did not say it in quite those words. He said it more clearly. Parents who have raised young children will know that we often have to threaten them to get them to brush their teeth. However, the children eventually figure out that these threats will never be put into execution, and they use that knowledge to manipulate their parents. Today, the NDP has presented an extremely serious motion, written in a serious tone, as the subject at hand warrants. I would like to ask my colleague from Trois-Rivières what answer he is expecting when he asks whether the NDP will continue to support the government despite the indignation it is expressing today. If not, what will happen?

156 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/30/23 12:52:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the idea of “what will happen” is what is missing from their motion. It is very important because, right now, the NDP has real power. It has the option of withdrawing its support for its deal with the government. If it withdrew its support, the government would be forced to act a bit differently. I wish the NDP would tell us today that it is tabling this motion and that, if it does not work, it will withdraw its support for the government.

87 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/30/23 12:53:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House. This is, again, the New Democratic Party showing leadership in the House of Commons, as we did on March 23, with the NDP being the principal party supporting democracy in our country ensuring that we have free and unfettered elections. I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the New Democratic MLAs elected in Alberta last night. It was a complete sweep of Edmonton. There is not a single Conservative MLA now left in the city of Edmonton. It was also a sweep of the majority of the city of Calgary. Calgary is now orange. The majority of the MLAs now representing Calgary in the Alberta legislature are New Democrats. The reality is that, as we know, in a democracy every single vote counts, and 2,500 votes going to the NDP rather than the Conservative Party would have meant an NDP majority government. We certainly congratulate Ms. Smith for her very narrow victory. We also congratulate Rachel Notley for an outstanding breakthrough across Alberta, electing every single MLA in the city of Edmonton and electing most of the MLAs in the city of Calgary. That is the hallmark of a democratic system. That is why we do this work. With the support of Canadians in a free and democratic society, we have the ability to choose our government and choose our representatives. This is absolutely fundamental. That is why the NDP, the member for Burnaby South and the member for Vancouver East, who spoke so eloquently, and I will come back to her comments a little later on, have brought forward this motion today, as we did back on March 23. We put forward the original motion on the public inquiry. Now we are putting in a strengthened motion, and I will come to the details of that in a moment. One might ask why the official opposition is not doing this work. I have no idea. I leave it to the official opposition to explain themselves, and why the NDP has been doing all of the heavy lifting on this issue from day one to ensure that we deal with not only the important issue of Chinese intervention but also the important issue of Russian intervention, which seems to have had such an impact on the so-called convoy movement that caused such misery in downtown Ottawa, cutting thousands of seniors off from their groceries and thousands of people with disabilities off from their medications, and closing down thousands of businesses. All of this, as we know from the National Observer series of articles, was tied to Russian foreign interference. We also know that both Canadians of Indian origin and Canadians of Iranian origin have been targeted by their foreign governments. We are talking about a spectrum of foreign interference. The point of privilege that was raised by the member for Durham was very disturbing. It was about the extent of Chinese foreign interference. We believe we need to get to the bottom of that. That is why we need a public inquiry. We also believe that we need to examine the full extent of foreign interference in our elections, so that when we have an election, such as Alberta did last night, we know it would be free and unfettered, that it would provide results, and that moving forward, Canadians could have confidence in a democratic system that has been subject to the highest possible democratic norms and standards. First, I would like to talk about what is in the NDP motion. My colleague from the Bloc Québécois touched on it earlier, but I would like to talk about what it means. On March 23, the NDP tabled a motion that received the approval of all of the opposition parties and all independent members. They all voted in favour of the NDP's motion on March 23. This gave the special rapporteur and the government an indication and a direction. Today we are proposing that a public inquiry be launched as soon as possible to “fully restore the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of our democratic institutions”. We also want to move on to the next stages to make sure the public inquiry takes place. We are also calling on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role. I will come back to that. The Bloc raised an important question earlier about the possibility of having the House give an instruction. As members know, an opposition motion can give an instruction to the House or a committee. The motion requests that the House: instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. Every member, whether they are a member of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois or they are an independent member, needs to ask themselves the question this week. The NDP have already asked the question and will of course support this motion. Before proceeding to the sacred act of voting, everyone here should ask themselves if they agree with asking the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside and giving this instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In other words, this is about acting like an adult, like the member for Burnaby South has often done in the House of Commons, and taking the next steps to find this person and entrusting them with the mandate of launching a public inquiry. It is extremely important. We are already suggesting what comes next. People are asking what the next step will be. They just need to read the motion. I am saying that to the members who have been asking what will come next. Since this morning, we have been debating a motion that explains what comes next. The NDP does not think like the other parties. We are not questioning Mr. Johnston's credentials. He has had an exemplary career and is a man of integrity. He is someone people trust a lot. However, although the NDP trusts the individual, that does not necessarily mean that we will accept his report and his recommendations when the work is not sound. This work is not sound for two reasons. First, as my colleague, the member from Vancouver East, has already said, the team cannot include a legal adviser who donated to the Liberal Party for years. She donated thousands of dollars. He was a major Liberal Party donor. In our view, entrusting this task to that individual showed a lack of judgment. That does not mean we are questioning the entire career of this very distinguished man, but questions must be raised when this work is assigned to someone who has given so much money to the Liberal Party. I believe the member for Burnaby South has already pointed out that lack of judgment. Then, when we look at the report, we see that it is neither convincing nor sound. It is weak. I know my colleague from Vancouver East spoke about all the other contradictions in the report. According to the rapporteur, one of the main reasons for not holding a public inquiry into such sensitive issues is that the inquiry could not be held in public. However, public inquiries always deal with sensitive and confidential information. That has been the case for all the public inquiries we have seen. As has been noted many times in the House today, people can distinguish between confidential information that should not be disclosed and information that is in the public domain. We cannot agree with a proposal that we feel is simply wrong. In general, the mandate of a public inquiry is to handle confidential and sensitive information. In my opinion, the biggest reason that the Right Hon. David Johnston raises in his report, that leads to today's motion, is when he states that, “while we could launch a Public Inquiry on the issues I am required to address for my October report under my TOR, there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”. He himself states that his work as a special rapporteur precludes a public inquiry. That overlap means that, as a special rapporteur, his position blocks the possibility of a public inquiry. It is written in black and white. The special rapporteur honestly states that, in his view, the overlap is something that should be taken into consideration. This is exactly why the NDP is asking for a public inquiry. The public is asking for it, Parliament is asking for it, and all parliamentarians, except for those belonging to the Liberal Party, are asking for it. Now we have a special rapporteur who says very clearly that we cannot have this public inquiry if he is still in his position. This is an extremely important aspect. What are we doing with the motion we are tabling? As we did on March 23, we are going to show leadership. It is not the official opposition that is doing this. It is the NDP that is being the adult in the House by showing leadership and setting out the next steps. As a Parliament, we sent this motion and this vote to the special rapporteur. Basically, the special rapporteur says that, because he has already started this job, a public inquiry cannot be held. He says that we cannot keep the information secret. We already know that this claim is wrong. It is clear that we could do both. What he is saying is that if there is to be a public inquiry, he will have to resign. That is where we end up and that is why the NDP has brought forward this motion. The member for Vancouver East was so passionate in talking about the impacts this morning of the lack of a public inquiry and this foreign interference that touches the foreign interference that we saw from Russia in the so-called convoy that caused such misery, in the Chinese foreign interference that the member for Durham just spoke about, the member for Vancouver East has spoken about and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has spoken about. These are of broad concern, like the concerns from the diaspora of Canadians of Indian origin and Canadians of Iranian origin who have seen foreign interference from their governments. We need to move forward on this. The most substantial part of what we are presenting today is not so much the public inquiry. The public inquiry is already something that Canadians are galvanized about and rallied behind. They believe that, as do almost all of the parliamentarians except those from the governing party. We believe that we need to move forward with a public inquiry. Of that there is no doubt, but to do that we have to reference the report that the special rapporteur produced. I want to thank the special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, for his lifelong service to Canada. He has worked, as we know, with Conservative and Liberal governments and has always shown the highest respect for democratic values. Of that we have no doubt. The fact that he issued this report, and now parliamentarians are called to judge that report, is something that he needs to heed. Each member of Parliament, in the coming hours, will weigh how their vote should go on this motion. The first part of the motion reiterates the public inquiry and directs the Prime Minister to put in place a public inquiry. The second really follows what the special rapporteur has so clearly identified in his report. I flagged the French version a little while ago, and now I am going to flag the exact quote within the English version, on page 4, at lines 19 and 20, where he says, “we could launch a Public Inquiry...[but] there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”. What the special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, is saying is that he is an impediment to a public inquiry being held. Therefore, the message parliamentarians will be called upon to decide is this. If the Right Honourable David Johnston heeds a parliamentary vote, which I believe he will as he is an honourable man, and if the majority of parliamentarians vote as the motion very clearly calls for, and I come back to the wording around this, which is that we “call on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur”, knowing his career, his honesty and his integrity from his background, which the NDP has never put into question, I believe if that is the choice that each parliamentarian will make in the coming hours, to call upon him to step down, he will do that. I have no doubt that, because of the integrity he has shown in his background and years of public service, he will respect this parliamentary vote. That is a key element. The NDP, the member for Burnaby South, the member for Vancouver East and the member for North Island—Powell River have all worked extensively on this subject and have already included the next step, which is a referral to the procedure and House affairs committee and, because it is a referral, it would allow for a direction from the House that the committee make it a priority. The committee would then be called upon to work to find out who would be the appropriate person to lead the commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. If the special rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, does what I believe he will do, which is to step down after facing this parliamentary vote, that would send a clear indication that parliamentarians, our democracy and the democratic will of this House have asked him to step down and I believe he will. By doing so, the procedure and House Affairs committee would have already started the work, which would be the next step to finding a consensus on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. Therefore, the NDP motion today is a package that reinforces our democracy and allows a commission of inquiry to report back before the next election. For those who are saying we should have an election now, while at the same time are saying that foreign interference is real, meaningful, has an impact on our elections and that we have to worry about it, that is simply inconsistent, juvenile and petulant talk. We need adults in the room. The member for Burnaby South and the member for Vancouver East, who has sponsored this motion, are showing the adult way through by using our parliamentary tools to put in place the next step, which is a public inquiry. As parliamentarians, each one of us has to decide whether we are asking the Right Honourable David Johnston to resign. That decision the MPs make will start a series of steps that will follow.

2558 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/30/23 1:13:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to say how incredible a Canadian David Johnston is. On the other, they have no problem saying he needs to step aside and get out of the way, because he is not producing the results they want. I found it very interesting that the House leader of the NDP went to great lengths to specifically talk about how much respect he has for David Johnston. He even went on to say that he knew, as a matter of fact, that if David Johnston were asked by this House to step down through this vote, he would comply with that. What if he did not comply with it? Would that mean the NDP would lose faith in and respect for David Johnston? Is that the case? Would the NDP members say they still respect this individual and the contributions he makes? I would like to hear this from my NDP colleague: What would his position be with respect to his feelings about the great integrity of David Johnston if he did not heed the ask of this Parliament?

194 words