44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2023 10:00AM
- May/30/23 10:17:02 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, given that,
(i) the House called on the government to launch a public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic system, on March 23 and May 8, 2023,
(ii) the government did not heed this call, and instead appointed an independent special rapporteur who has recommended against holding a public inquiry, despite noting significant gaps and leaving many questions either unasked or unanswered,
(iii) serious questions have been raised about the special rapporteur process, the counsel he retained in support of this work, his findings, and his conclusions,
(iv) only a full public inquiry can fully restore the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of our democratic institutions,
the House:
(a) call on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur, and call on the government to urgently establish a public commission of inquiry which would 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, including, but not limited to, the actions of the Chinese, Indian, Iranian and Russian governments,
(iii) asked to present its report and any recommendations in advance of the next dissolution of Parliament or, at the latest, at the fixed election date as set by the Canada Elections Act; and
(b) 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.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is with sadness that I stand here today, when the NDP has to put forward this motion.
The situation around foreign interference is real. It is happening. It is impacting Canadian society. It is impacting us all. It is damaging to our democratic system. It is threatening to some Canadians who are very active in their fight for basic human rights and democracy.
Despite this, the Liberal government does not see the importance of why, in looking into these matters, there should have been a public inquiry right at the outset. Instead, the Prime Minister decided, himself, that the appropriate path forward would be to appoint a special rapporteur.
Now here we are; the special rapporteur has tabled a report, and there are lots of issues with the report and with the entire process. I just want to say on the public record what the NDP is calling for. Our motion essentially calls for these four things: that the independent special rapporteur, the Right Hon. David Johnston, step aside; that the government launch an independent public inquiry on election interference by foreign governments; that the commissioner of the public inquiry be selected with unanimous agreement from the House leaders of all recognized parties; and that a report on the public inquiry be tabled in the House before the next election.
In addition, to get going with this work, the NDP's motion also calls for the House to instruct PROC to report to the House on the terms of reference and a possible commissioner who could lead such a public inquiry. This would allow for the greater pressure that needs to be put on the government in the coming weeks in terms of the need for an inquiry; it would also set the stage to show that this work can and must be done.
Last Friday, I had a classified briefing with CSIS. I was briefed on foreign interference and how I was subjected to it by the Chinese Communist Party. The briefing was very clear in saying that I could not disclose exactly how I was subjected to foreign interference, because that would put in jeopardy the important work the intelligence agency is doing. That is something I obviously would not want to jeopardize. To that end, I am not able or at liberty to share exactly what is happening or how it is happening with regard to my being targeted. However, CSIS made it clear that I am subject to foreign interference and will continue to be a target.
Foreign interference is happening. Whether someone is in support of the Chinese Communist Party, ambivalent about it or opposed to its policies, they could be targeted and subject to foreign interference. We also know that this could happen prior to or during an election, as well as at any period outside of that. We are seeing that unfold.
Some of us are outspoken and have concerns about basic human rights and the genocide of the Uyghurs. Some of us voted in support of the motion in this House in that regard and have concerns about the erosion of the basic law in Hong Kong and the imposition of the national security law, for example. Such people need to be ever vigilant in terms of attempts of foreign-interference actors working to coerce, to co-opt, to reorient, to neutralize or even to try to silence our voices.
Coming out of this briefing, what is clear to me is that the fight for people whose human rights are being violated, who are being silenced and even threatened, is more important than ever. We must do everything we can to protect Canadians' charter rights and our fundamental right of freedom, with the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom for peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and freedom of beliefs. The very essence of what makes us whole as people is to enjoy those freedoms and to protect them for Canadians, and not only for Canadians, but also for people around the globe. This is why we are here. This is the important work that is before us. I am here to say that, despite threats of foreign interference, I will not be deterred from fighting for those rights and fighting for the people who do not enjoy those rights.
It is more important than ever that Canada and the Canadian government do everything we can to protect our democracy and our cherished fundamental freedoms for all Canadians and people around the globe. I want to send a clear message to everyday Canadians who have families and loved ones in Hong Kong and in China; it is that I know their fear is real and the dangers their families face are real. For that reason, I am saying very clearly that I recommit myself to stand with them, to fight with them and to demand action from the government to protect them.
Canadians deserve answers. They deserve accountability and, yes, they deserve protection. This is not just for members of Parliament, like me, who have privilege in this place, but for everyday Canadians as well. They too are faced with foreign interference. The work that has been done so far is inadequate. Right at the outset, the Prime Minister made a misstep. However, it is not too late; he could make a correction and do what is right to rebuild the confidence of Canadians around this process.
I read Mr. Johnston's report, cover to cover, several times. I did not want to misunderstand or miss the point that had been made. He made a number of recommendations. One of the key recommendations was that he would not recommend a public inquiry. He stated that this would have been the easy thing for him to do. With all due respect, I disagree. I actually think that for Mr. Johnston to say that there needs to be a public inquiry and that there should be one would have been the hard thing for him to do.
I say that because he would be saying to the Prime Minister point-blank that the process the Prime Minister had chosen was categorically wrong. He would be saying that it was the wrong process and that the Prime Minister should not have embarked on it. Moreover, it would indicate that Mr. Johnston himself should perhaps not have accepted that appointment. I understand that it would be a hard thing to do to call out the Prime Minister. We do it every day in this House because it is our job; however, I guess that when one is appointed by the Prime Minister to do a job, it is a much harder path to take, to say that it is the wrong path to take. Mr. Johnston chose the easier way and did not call out the Prime Minister; instead, he said he would carry on the work, even though he should have known that he does not enjoy the confidence of all members of this House. If he did not know, he definitely should know that by now.
In his report, Mr. Johnston notes how important it is to undertake this work so that it is entirely non-partisan, and he says that we need the co-operation of all members of the House. I absolutely agree with that. In my previous speech, I pleaded with members of the House to set aside partisan politics and to engage on the issue. Recognizing the importance of that, Mr. Johnston noted it in his report; however, we are in a situation where, for a variety of reasons, Mr. Johnston does not enjoy the full confidence of every member of this House. The latest of these is the discovery that his legal adviser donated to the Liberal Party.
That surely should have been flagged, as Mr. Johnston was putting together his team, but it was not flagged. The team went on to carry on with this work. The legal adviser was a key member of the team in reviewing the documents from CSIS. How can it be that this went unnoticed? How is it even possible that, now that it is on the public record, there is no further action to be taken after the fact?
The basic principle of the appearance of conflict alone would suffice for someone to say, “I made an error and, therefore, I will now step away.” That did not happen, so now we are in this House and the NDP's motion is calling for Mr. Johnston to step down.
We have to do this work right. It is too important for us not to embark on a proper process, one that every Canadian has confidence in and one that is devoid of partisan politics. Mr. Johnston knows that much of the information he and his team have reviewed from CSIS could not be disclosed because it would put national security in jeopardy. I understand that. I do. I had my briefing. I was also told that there is much information I cannot share. I absolutely understand not wanting to jeopardize national security, but precisely because of that, the person who is looking at these documents needs to be a person whom everyone has their trust in. I am sorry to say that Mr. Johnston does not enjoy that confidence.
That is a reality. No amount of talking will change that. No amount saying that we are going to look forward instead of backward, that we are going to just plough forward and push through, is going to change that. That is now a reality, and the truth is that we must change the situation so that those facts are no longer relevant in moving forward. That is why we must have a public inquiry.
I am going to take a moment to turn to another aspect of the work that Mr. Johnston has provided, and what he stated in his report, which is on the question of who is reviewing the documents from the PMO. It was astounding to me. He noted the communication breakdown and the flaws within the system, and it kind of took my breath away to realize what a fiasco that whole process was, to be sure.
I will touch on this. Mr. Johnston states, “I have found that the narrative that the government failed to act is not a fair conclusion based on the facts.” However, in his report, he does not explain why that is a fair conclusion. He is simply saying to trust him that it is a fair conclusion. In the report, Mr. Johnston cited the communication challenges, and we have to ask this question: Who set up those poor channels of communications? It was the government itself. In the report, Mr. Johnston cites, “If staffers are away, they may not see the binder that day.” He is referring to the binder from CSIS, the intelligence binder. He is saying that the people reviewing this critical, serious information are staffers. Mr. Johnston does not define exactly what a staffer is, but in this universe, when we talk about “staffers”, they are political appointees. Ministers appoint ministerial staff as staffers. The PMO appoints staffers, who are political appointees the PM appoints in his office. That is how we generally understand the term “staffer”.
However, we have to ask why on earth a staffer would be reviewing top secret documents from CSIS. In what universe is that normal? That is not normal. That is not okay. That does not take seriously the work of the intelligence agency. I would argue that it is more than that the government, somehow, is botching the whole communications process. Right from the outset, in undertaking this work, there was no seriousness to this work. When one puts a staffer at the table like this, the staffer's goal is to look for political damage; that is why they are there, but that should not be how serious documents from CSIS on intelligence are taken. They should not be looked at from the point of view of how to address political damage. However, it seems to me that this is the approach, and I have serious problems with that.
The report talks about the infamous leaked memo, which was reported by Global News on February 8. The report highlights it by saying, “National Security Officials Warned [the] Prime Minister...and his Office More Than a Year Before the 2019 Federal Election That Chinese Agents Were ‘assisting Canadian candidates running for political offices’”. This is what was reported by Global News; it is cited as a heading in the report. The report goes on to indicate that “[a]n early draft of the memorandum contained similar but not identical language to that quotation. That draft was significantly revised before the memorandum went to the Prime Minister.” I have to ask whether the rapporteur asked these key questions: Who saw the draft memo? Who was the draft memo prepared for? Who changed it, and why? We do not have any answers to that. The report is completely silent on that. However, I think that it is pertinent information.
2493 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 10:41:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the NDP on the strong stance it has taken today. As my colleague said, the NDP did indeed move a motion calling for an independent public inquiry, but the Bloc started asking questions about this issue three weeks ago. Still, I am happy to see that the New Democrats are on board with the opposition consensus in favour of launching this independent public inquiry at last.
What is happening right now is extremely serious. It undermines public confidence in democracy, and that has major consequences. I really feel for my colleague, who was herself a target of Chinese interference. Of course the Bloc will support this motion.
I do have one question though. Given the significance of the situation, which is literally scandalous, will the NDP bite its tongue yet again to keep the Liberal government in power, even as it grows less and less deserving of Quebeckers' and Canadians confidence? Will the NDP help ensure that the government faces a vote of confidence so the House can decide on its future? I think this is really important and really serious, and I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on that.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 10:43:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for the passion, intelligence and wisdom that she brings to the House with this motion. The member has spoken very eloquently about the impact of foreign interference on Canadians of Chinese, Iranian and Indian origin. The impacts of this foreign interference have ramifications right across the country. The question I want to ask is, quite simply, this: If the Liberal government continues to refuse to hold a public inquiry, though I think that resistance is starting to diminish, what message does that send to Canadians of diverse origins who are concerned about the impacts of foreign governments trying to impact our democratic system?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 10:46:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, David Christopherson talked about David Johnston as an individual who had incredible credentials. Taking the issue seriously, the Prime Minister appointed David Johnston as the special rapporteur and agreed that, if the report said there should be a public inquiry, the Prime Minister would call a public inquiry. David Johnston got the security clearances, looked at all the facts and made some conclusions. This did not meet what the opposition party wanted to be able to see.
Does the NDP still have personal confidence in David Johnston?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:08:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the member in her characterization of the Leader of the Opposition.
For the Leader of the Opposition to not seek the information is something that I find unbelievable. Each member of this House has the responsibility to get to the details and find out that information. As the member has said, she has been briefed on security information. She is capable of giving a speech in this House of Commons. I agree with some of it and I disagree with other aspects of it, but she is able to do that. She is not muzzled by the fact of having that security information.
What she did just this moment was actually support the NDP motion. She talks about the fact that contradicts Mr. Johnston's primary focus in not having a public inquiry, that factual questions around this sensitive information cannot be discussed in a public inquiry. The other aspect, he says, is that there would be a clear overlap of a public inquiry with the work he has already started doing.
He would heed, I believe, a vote of this House expressing that he must step aside. Would the government heed that vote as well?
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:13:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, given all that we know about MPs being targeted, about Canadians being harassed and intimidated, and about police stations operating in our country, can my hon. colleague explain why the government continues to refuse to hold a public, independent inquiry? What does the government have to hide?
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:32:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.
He consulted the former leader of the Conservative Party, who learned after the meeting that the report had already been written. That is not really true consultation. It seems to me that Mr. Johnston's report was written or at least overseen by the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. Therefore, it was not a real inquiry.
The government is saying that a public inquiry cannot be held on this matter because it would pose a threat to public safety. I would like to quote Loïc Tassé of the Journal de Montréal: “The Johnston report on foreign interference in Canada recommends that a public inquiry into this matter not be held. However, France has been holding a parliamentary inquiry on foreign interference for months.”
The French are capable of conducting a public inquiry. If the French can do so, and if Canadians were able to do so in the Maher Arar case, we can as well. We will do it when I am prime minister.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, because we are the adults in the room, I will not pass a partisan comment about the Liberal government not respecting votes in the House of Commons. I do not think that would be appropriate.
The question the member is asking is what the Right Hon. David Johnston has said about himself. I will refer to his report because it is very clear to me that many Liberals in the House have not read it. As the debate continues, I suggest that they should actually read the report. At page 4, lines 19 to 20, he says, “there would be a clear overlap with the work I have already started doing”. He is referencing a public inquiry. He is saying that the reason we cannot have a public inquiry is because of that overlap.
I believe that if he has sent that signal to us, he will do the honourable thing and heed a vote in this House. How will this vote go? I do not know, and neither does the member. If a majority of members of this House voted to ask him to step down, I believe he would do so.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:17:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Drummond, but a bit less so for the Bloc Québécois strategy of calling into question in a very personal way the Right Hon. David Johnston. Furthermore, the leader of the Bloc refuses to review all the information available. Only the member for Burnaby South is following up. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party are refusing to look at the vital information.
We have already talked about what happens next. I mentioned it in my speech and I will repeat it. I will ask my colleague from Drummond, who I greatly respect, to read the motion. It will be easier for the New Democrats to answer questions, if the questions have not been answered in the motion.
In the motion, we “instruct [it is a mandatory instruction] 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...a commission of inquiry [on foreign interference] and what its terms of reference should include.”
What comes next is already in the motion. I am asking all my colleagues to carefully read it before asking questions, or making comments or speeches in the House.
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:46:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House since 10 o'clock this morning, and all I am hearing is what could be described as “mud-slinging”. To put it another way, it is like a ping-pong match, but things are getting a bit out of hand. I would like to bring a little decorum back to the debate.
That being said, in his speech, the parliamentary secretary spoke at length about Mr. Johnston. This is not about Mr. Johnston and his values. It is about democracy. Even the Chinese diaspora is calling for an independent public commission of inquiry. This would undoubtedly confirm for the government that what the Canadian Security Intelligence Service knows may only be the tip of the iceberg. It would reveal and teach us even more, and would therefore be even more democratic.
This is not about using the inquiry as a political tool, but rather ensuring that it serves democracy. I have a question about democracy. If this NDP motion is adopted, the House will have adopted three motions calling for an independent public inquiry. Will the government finally agree to launch an independent public inquiry this time?
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:47:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that the special rapporteur, David Johnston, comes out with the report. A part of the report is an annex. That annex explains and provides justification for the report for not having a public inquiry.
It is really important for Canadians to understand that the Leader of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the Bloc Québécois have made the decision that they do not want to hear the facts on the issue. They do not want to know why the former governor general came to the conclusion that a public inquiry was not warranted. I would suggest that Canadians from coast to coast to coast should be asking the question of why it is that the Conservative and Bloc leaders do not want to know the facts. It seems to me it is because they are more interested in the politics than they are in the facts, and that is somewhat unfortunate.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:52:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the correction. The member is correct that the Conservatives did lose three consecutive elections.
However, it is a bit dangerous to ask me to put myself in the minds of Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party as to why they chose not to call a public inquiry. Back then, I would not have supported it, and I have serious doubts about it today and do not support it. When dealing with international foreign interference, there is a better way of doing it. I believe that, if we are prepared to put party politics to the side and start dealing with issues that Canadians and constituents want us to debate in the House of Commons, everyone would be better off for it.
It is not an issue of avoiding the topic. As I say, this topic has been around for 10 years. If we listen to experts, we will find that it will continue to be around, and that is one of the reasons why it is worth us taking a look at it, and why we have committees that are looking into it. It is to ensure that we can minimize foreign interference. In no way is it acceptable to any parliamentarian, no matter where they sit in the House.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:54:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying I will be splitting my time with the member for Burnaby South.
Let me start by going back to what I think is important. What we have before us today is a motion that sets a way forward for dealing effectively with the real problem of foreign interference in our democracy. Let us go back to what that motion actually says because most of the debate has said nothing about that.
The first thing it does is call on the right hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur. Having issued his interim report, he says that he intends to keep working, but even in that report he says that the fact that he is there is an obstacle to a public inquiry.
Very clearly, I think Parliament will end up calling on him to step aside to make way for the public inquiry New Democrats have been talking about now for weeks. We were the first ones to put forward a motion at PROC, and the first ones to put forward a motion in this House, calling for a full public inquiry.
What is different about the motion this time is that we have specified in the motion that we should have all-party agreement on who should lead that public inquiry so that we maintain the public confidence that, for whatever reasons, the right hon. David Johnston has lost as the special rapporteur. Let us get all-party agreement working through PROC on the person, and let us get all parties working through PROC, the committee of Parliament, on the mandate to review foreign interference from all states, not just China. The last part is, of course, that this report come back before the next election.
That is what it is. It is a clear plan for how we proceed from today, something that I expect we will be voting on tomorrow. We will see where that leads us. This is a difficult problem for Canada because we are an immigrant nation with large diaspora populations from many countries around the world, and inevitably those people keep close relationships, not just with their families but also with their culture and their countries of origin. Many maintain dual citizenship. Obviously, there will be those close relationships, and they are not inappropriate in and of themselves. People want to maintain their culture and their contacts, and many governments promote building those relationships.
What becomes a problem is when that relationship building crosses a line into interference in our democracy. We have clear evidence that that interference has taken place, as I said, not just by China but also by India, Iran and many others. What we need here is a study that shows us both the scope of the problem and how we could effectively respond to it. I do not believe there is any way to get that without the public inquiry.
There is a separate interference concern that I have always held, which is not subject to this motion and not subject to the special rapporteur, and that is the concern about interference of private interests from abroad in Canadian democracy. We had a very serious example of that having taken place with U.S. dollars supporting the convoy that was parked outside the House of Commons, which was calling for the overthrow of the Canadian government. There were more than 51,000 donors, documented, from the United States, giving several million dollars to that attempt to interfere with our democracy. That, unfortunately, is not covered. What we are talking about here is state interference in our democracy, which is a serious problem.
Unfortunately, the report from David Johnston only muddied the waters. From the beginning, this respected Canadian was put in an impossible situation. His report leaves many questions unanswered, including who changed key briefing documents for the Prime Minister, and it leaves some unasked. How could we get a report without even talking to Elections Canada about what happened?
The waters have been further muddied by the refusal of the Conservative and Bloc leaders to accept a briefing on foreign interference, as though this would somehow silence them, yet we have heard very eloquently today from the member for Durham, the member for Vancouver East and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all of whom have received confidential briefings, yet were able to speak very clearly on the important issue of foreign interference after those briefings.
The last thing I want to say is that I have difficulty understanding the arguments of the Conservatives and the Bloc that the NDP needs to bring the government down over this issue. If we were to bring the government down over this issue, we would go to an election where we have done nothing about foreign interference, where we do not know how big it is or how to respond to it. This motion we have proposed today clearly specifies a public inquiry should report back before the next election, so we would have a chance to counter that foreign interference and not go directly into another election with the same problems that we have seen before.
I hope to see all parties support this motion, but frankly, I do not expect to see the government support it. It has been stonewalling the public inquiry from the beginning.
Where will we be after Parliament votes? I hope this will pass. I hope the special rapporteur will then step aside. The government should then realize there is no point in further stonewalling a public inquiry and will then work with the other parties to get that public inquiry going as soon as possible.
956 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:15:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP talks a big game when it comes to the Liberal government. He loves to criticize the Liberals on Twitter, but in the House, he supports the Liberals every time. The motion today is a good example.
Conservatives have been calling for an independent public inquiry for months. All the while, the NDP has supported the Liberal’s fake rapporteur. Now, all of a sudden, NDP members are making it look like they support our idea of a public inquiry. However, we know that, when push comes to shove, they will protect their Liberal coalition partners and allow them to continue with their cover-up. How do I know? The House already passed a motion, months ago, asking for a public inquiry, which was supported by the NDP. However, the Liberals have ignored this request, and the NDP has done nothing.
If NDP members really want to prove that they support a public inquiry, they must tell their Liberal bosses that they will pull out of their coalition agreement if they do not call one. I challenge the NDP to do the right thing for Canadians and stand up to its Liberal masters.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:18:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, no one believes the Prime Minister's cottage neighbour and member of the Trudeau Foundation, David Johnston, when he tries to cover up the reality of Beijing's interference to support the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister for the past 10 years.
To enhance and restore Canadians' confidence in our democratic system, will the Prime Minister finally fire his friend from the Trudeau Foundation and launch a real public inquiry?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:20:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is really all an act with this guy. What he says is “There's nothing to see here, so why don't you come into a dark room and see it, and then we will commit you to an oath of secrecy so you can walk out and tell Canadians that you can't tell them anything at all.” That is, effectively, what he is saying.
We do not need more people to keep secrets; we need more people telling the truth.
Why will he not launch a public inquiry and do that?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:25:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we asked Mr. Johnston to conduct a detailed analysis of all the facts and all the information compiled by the intelligence services in order to look into the context, to look into the work done by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, and to evaluate whether a public inquiry would help restore public trust. He came to the conclusion that this would not be the best approach.
He will be holding public hearings over the summer to talk about it with Canadians. In his opinion, a public inquiry is unnecessary.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:29:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that the appearance of bias is so strong in this case that Mr. Johnston cannot continue to do his work to restore confidence in the system.
Our motion calls on the Prime Minister to remove Mr. Johnston from his role. It is clear that the allegations of foreign interference are serious.
Will the Prime Minister finally take these allegations seriously and immediately launch a public inquiry?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:35:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this farce has gone on long enough. With the special rapporteur's report, the Prime Minister's shenanigans to avoid launching a public inquiry have been exposed for all to see.
What is really so special about this rapporteur are his ties to the Trudeau Foundation, his reliance on Liberal donors, his status as an old friend of China and, most of all, his close friendship with the Prime Minister's family.
When will the Prime Minister end this charade, fire Mr. Johnston and launch an independent public inquiry?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
