44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2023 10:00AM
- May/30/23 2:25:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is starting to become quite isolated. He has few friends left except for Mr. Johnston. All the parties want an independent public inquiry. The former chief electoral officer wants an independent public inquiry. Most analysts are clamouring for an inquiry. Even Morris Rosenberg wants one, but not David Johnston.
Who will the Prime Minister listen to, his friend Rosenberg or his friend Johnston?
68 words
All Topics
- 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 2:26:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the appointment of a former member of the Trudeau Foundation, a family friend and a friend to China was not legitimate. The findings and the report have no legitimacy. Mr. Johnston's obstinacy in designating himself to continue on with this matter is wrong.
If Mr. Johnston refuses to recuse himself, as Parliament may well ask him to do, will the Prime Minister have the dignity and statesmanship to remove him from his role and create an independent commission of public inquiry?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:28:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, David Johnston is an eminent Canadian who has served this government and this country for decades. The reality is he was appointed a number of times by former prime minister Stephen Harper to important responsibilities, including to be governor general of this country. He has undertaken this responsibility and this task of looking at foreign interference and reporting back to Canadians with the seriousness one would expect of him. It is unfortunate the opposition parties are choosing to play politics around this issue instead of actually standing up for—
92 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 2:31:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister will be remembered for silencing Canadians, and he will not silence this opposition.
David Johnston should not be the special rapporteur. There should not be a special rapporteur. There needs to be an independent public inquiry and it needs to happen today. The only thing that could possibly restore trust in this place is a real investigation into political interference and the only people who believe that should not happen are the Liberals.
I want to know from the minister what it will take for him to listen to Canadians being harassed by a dictatorship and listen to the members of this House who were targeted. What will it take for him to end the cover-up?
121 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
- May/30/23 2:48:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are confident that Mr. Johnston has laid a path forward in holding public hearings that will put communities at the centre of a conversation on the way we can fight against foreign interference to protect our democratic institutions. It is encouraging that at least the NDP is prepared to take the briefing. It is simply up to the Conservatives now, if they are serious, to roll up their sleeves, get a seat at the table and take a briefing so we can fight foreign interference together.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:49:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, foreign interference is real. It is happening here in Canada, and the Prime Minister has failed to address it. By refusing to implement an independent public inquiry into foreign interference, the Liberals are hurting people and our democracy.
Their appointed rapporteur David Johnston does not have the confidence of the House. He must go. The Prime Minister needs to listen and do the right thing. Will he remove David Johnston and immediately launch an independent public inquiry?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:17:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the allegations of foreign interference are serious and that the Johnston report actually highlighted some shortcomings. One of those was the fact that there was a clear breakdown in communication between CSIS and the government.
It is absolutely the role of the minister to be proactive in getting information and following up on that information. I would also add that, according to the Johnston report, while the Prime Minister and the ministers were aware of allegations, they were not told what to do. They chose not to pursue it any further.
I think that showed a serious lack of judgment. We expect the government, upon hearing allegations of foreign interference, even if it is not given clear steps that it is recommended to take, to be proactive in asking for follow-ups. It should do its own follow-up to ensure that its systems are strong enough to respond to foreign interference. Therefore, I agree that there are serious mistakes that the government made, as well as shortcomings, and it should be held accountable.
That is why this vote, hopefully, will push for a public inquiry and remove Mr. Johnston from the special rapporteur position.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:18:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP for tabling this motion.
There is something about it that seems a little unusual, a little strange or ambivalent coming from the NDP. A few weeks ago, the NDP openly praised David Johnston's appointment. Its position led me to believe that the NDP supported the work that David Johnston was about to undertake.
Leader, can you explain this position to me?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:19:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have not criticized Mr. Johnston personally, then or now. Our criticism concerns the appearance of bias. It concerns the fact that there are many examples and a large body of evidence showing the appearance of bias, which is detracting from efforts to restore confidence in our system. This appearance of bias is why we are demanding that the government relieve Mr. Johnston of his duties. We are not attacking him personally; we are attacking the appearance of bias, which prevents us from being able to move forward with this special rapporteur.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:19:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this opposition day motion introduced by the NDP. I believe that the manner in which the New Democrats have brought this forward is very unfortunate.
I am becoming more and more concerned with the willingness of this House to arbitrarily attempt to ruin reputations and smear great Canadians, people who put service above self and people who come and offer themselves to make our country better. I am quickly reminded of the time when, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NDP helped the Bloc and the Conservatives drag the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada before this House, before the bar. It is an archaic tradition in the Westminster parliamentary system that had happened only twice in the history of this Parliament.
For nothing more than cheap political points, the NDP helped the Conservatives and the Bloc drag an individual before the bar, so that they could scold the individual publicly. I see this happening more and more, especially from the Conservatives. I find it alarming when I see our friends from the NDP doing it.
I would like to start by reading some stuff that has been said about Mr. Johnston. Stephen Harper said, “Mr. Johnston has a strong record of public service, a broad base of support and an impressive list of achievements.... He has extensive legal expertise, a comprehensive understanding of government and a deep appreciation of the duties and tasks now before him.” We can also listen to what the member for Calgary Midnapore said at a PROC meeting in March 2019. She said, “There's no doubt as to the integrity and the experience and the resumé of Mr. Johnston.”
At a PROC meeting in November 2018, the member for Perth—Wellington said, “It always begs the question, ‘What about the next appointment?’ I don't think anyone has any qualms about David Johnston—he's an exceptional human being and an exceptional Canadian—but what about next time?” They were anxiously waiting for Mr. Johnston's next appearance on the Canadian stage. That was the member for Perth—Wellington.
I have another comment from the member for Calgary Midnapore from November 6, 2018, at a PROC meeting. She said, “Thank you for being here today. Of course, as a woman, I have tremendous respect for you since you raised four amazing women. Congratulations. I think that's a wonderful accomplishment.” In a November 2020 PROC meeting, the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan said, “I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that Mr. Johnston is an eminent Canadian.”
The member for Sarnia—Lambton recently said, “I am very happy to have been able to speak today about the value of the role of Governor General and to give honour to the many who have served well in that role, such as the Right Hon. David Johnston.” The member for Thornhill, who is the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, simply put out a seven-word tweet on April 17, 2021. She said, “Who misses the Rt. Hon David Johnston?”
Those are words from Conservatives. Conservatives had great things to say about David Johnston. By all their accounts, he was indeed an exceptional Canadian who did exceptional things, until he was suddenly asked to look into something and perhaps form an opinion that did not quite jive with the Conservative way of approaching things and the Conservative narrative.
If we flash forward to today, this is what Conservatives are now suddenly saying about David Johnston: The member for Calgary Forest Lawn said, “Another random Liberal tasked by the Prime Minister to support his corruption and scandals. Nothing to see here folks”.
An hon. member: Good reading.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Thank you, I will continue to read what the Conservatives have been saying.
Madam Speaker, the member for Thornhill, who had that seven-word tweet praising and pining for the days of David Johnston to return, said, “The Prime Minister appoints Trudeau Foundation insider to tell us that we don't need a public inquiry into Beijing's donations to the Trudeau Foundation & their election interference.” Wow, what a change of heart this is from the member for Thornhill.
The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, my neighbouring riding, said, “Trudeau Foundation board member appointed by [the Prime Minister] to report to [the Prime Minister] on if there should be a public inquiry that could be damaging to [the Prime Minister]. This seems fine.” Of course, it was in his sarcastic tone that we are all so used to hearing in this House.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, “[The Prime Minister] names another Trudeau Foundation insider to tell us we don’t need an inquiry into Beijing’s interference.”
The Leader of the Opposition, himself, said in a tweet just days ago, “We see today that his ski buddy, cottage neighbour, family friend and member of the Beijing-financed Trudeau Foundation came out and did exactly what I predicted”.
What a bunch of hypocrites they are: the gall, the audacity. I guess I might be able to wrap my head around it if it were different Conservatives who were saying one thing a couple of years ago and now others suddenly taking a new approach, but it is the exact same people. The member for Thornhill, who longed for the days of David Johnston, is now suddenly accusing him of being an insider. I just cannot wrap my head around it.
Well, I can when we look at the way that Conservatives routinely will trample on anybody's reputation and will trample on anything that they absolutely see as being an opportunity to squeeze out a tiny bit of political gain. Of course, the gravy would be the fundraising that they do off that because we know that they use all this for their fundraising purposes, one can only imagine how many times. I would love to have the analytics on how many times David Johnston has been used in fundraising email blasts that come from the Conservatives. I am sure it is way up there.
It looks like the member for Abbotsford is agreeing with me, so I guess they do use him in fundraising.
See, that is what we are talking about here. The Leader of the Opposition has a job to do as His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. He is supposed to hold the government to account and that is completely understandable, completely acceptable and absolutely within the realm of what he is supposed to do. The problem is that he is not interested in that. He is interested only in trying to spread misinformation, and create and exaggerate conspiracies where they do not exist.
What I find to be the most troubling is that he will do this completely at the expense of eminent Canadians who have served our country, such as an individual like David Johnston who was appointed as governor general by Stephen Harper when the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, sat in that government. The Conservatives do not seem to have any regard at all. They have no shame at all in just trampling over top of people if they think they can just get an ounce of political gain out of it.
I am glad that the member for Burnaby South got—
1276 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:34:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, David Christopherson sat on the procedure and House affairs committee. He was in this chamber for a very long time. He was well regarded among my NDP colleagues and indeed probably by everybody in this House. Here is what he had to say when he was before David Johnston at a PROC committee just a couple of years ago: “You are the gold standard of public service and I can't imagine any position for which you wouldn't be eminently qualified to represent Canadians and bring that fairness and values, and your integrity and your intelligence, your experience, to bear.” He went on to say, “I have the highest regard for you, as does my caucus, and if at the end of the day, you end up being the debates commissioner, we as a country would be well served.”
That is David Christopherson, the former NDP member from Hamilton, who made those comments. If he is correct and the NDP feels the way Mr. Christopherson does about David Johnston, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say someone is an eminent Canadian who is overly qualified to do this and whose integrity and intelligence are above everybody else's, and then all of a sudden, when they get a report from him, say they do not like what he said, so it is best that he step aside and we do it a different way. I am very perplexed by it. I cannot understand why the NDP is skating this line, trying to position themselves somewhere between thinking David Johnston is amazing and saying he has to go because they do not like the report he produced.
Members will note that NDP members were not calling for David Johnston to leave a week ago. They only started doing that when he brought out this report. In their eyes, the only difference they could have possibly had between then and now is the fact that this report came out. They do not like what he said in the report, but I will tell my NDP colleagues, as can anybody who sits on the PROC committee and heard the witnesses who came forward, that Mr. Johnston's reasoning for not having a public inquiry jibes exactly with what the head of the RCMP, the head of CSIS and the national security intelligence people said. All of these individuals, who came before committee, told us the exact same thing. He came to the exact same conclusion the experts were telling us in committee.
I am glad to see the member for Burnaby South is willing to accept and receive classified information in order to understand how Mr. Johnston came to these conclusion, but two other parties in this House, which are supposed to be here for the purpose of holding the government accountable, are not even interested in the information that would give them the ability to hold the government accountable.
It should not come as a surprise that I will vote against the opposition day motion. There has been a lot of talk, and I find it very unfortunate that we seem to be on this crusade of trampling over the reputations of Canadians, with a willingness to do whatever is possible for a bit of political gain. Again I am reminded, and I have thought about it several times today, that I was one of the only Liberals sitting in the House of Commons during the pandemic, in this exact same seat, when the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc dragged the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada before the bar just for political gain.
I understand where the NDP is on this. If we want to assess the politics of it, the NDP is just trying to find a difference between themselves and the Liberals. The only way they can really do it is by trying to shift things a bit to say they will call out David Johnston and call for the firing of David Johnston. They dragged the president of PHAC to the bar of the House of Commons, which had only happened prior to that twice in the history of this country. They had no problem doing that.
This is for political gain. It is for no reason other than that, and I find it shameful. It is one thing to have a debate and an open discussion about the best way forward for this country in light of foreign interference. It is a whole other thing when we start trampling over people's reputations, in particular people who cannot defend themselves in here and people who have served this country with incredible distinction over the years.
790 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:41:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when the member for Perth—Wellington said, “It always begs the question, What about the next appointment? I don't think anyone has any qualms about David Johnston—”
Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Five years ago.
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:41:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member's colleague, a sitting Conservative MP, said, “I don't think anyone has any qualms about David Johnston—he's an exceptional human being and an exceptional Canadian”.
Mr. Jeremy Patzer: In 2018.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: How could that possibly lead anybody to believe that Conservatives would have a problem with David Johnston, when the member for Perth—Wellington is saying that in committee?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:42:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's speech, and I think there is a little bit of confusion about what a conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict of interest is and what it means when such a charge is made.
Nobody is questioning the eminence of David Johnston or his lifetime of service. Many eminent people can have impeccable integrity but can still be caught in a conflict of interest or a potential or perceived conflict of interest simply because of their relationships. Mr. Johnston obviously had a family relationship with the Trudeau family, including skiing with the children of the Trudeau family. He was on the board of directors of the Trudeau Foundation, the same Trudeau Foundation that is implicated in the interference file because of its reception of money from the Chinese government.
Does the member not agree that the optics are such, leaving aside Mr. Johnston's pristine reputation and record, which we do not doubt, that this places him in a perceived conflict of interest? Does he not agree that it would be better for everybody and for Canadians' confidence if we found another eminent Canadian, with the same impeccable credentials but who is not in a perceived conflict of interest, to look into this matter?
216 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:43:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for starters, the member said that nobody is calling into question Mr. Johnston's reputation. Well, members of the NDP may be saying that they are not, but let us not forget that the Conservatives are doing that in full force. They will not miss an opportunity to challenge and to call out his reputation.
The member's question of perception is an excellent point. There is a difference between a conflict of interest and a perception of a conflict of interest, but let us not forget who has created that perception of a conflict of interest. The Conservatives have been doing that, the Bloc Québécois has been doing it, and now, for some reason, we see the NDP joining in on this too. However, nobody has purported and built upon that perception of a conflict of interest, which, in my opinion, does not exist, more than the Conservative Party of Canada has.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:44:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague puts on a pretty lively show. To hear him talk, we should give Mr. Johnston the Nobel Peace Prize, the Oscar for best actor, and the Medal of Bravery, and name him patriot of the year. While we are at it, we should call the Pope and ask him to elevate Mr. Johnston to sainthood. This is so absurd.
Today, we know that Mr. Johnston is a friend of the Trudeau family. That is documented. He himself does not deny it. How can he be objective when it comes to the Prime Minister? It is inconceivable. He co-chaired the “no” committee in 1995. The woman he hired as his legal adviser, whose name escapes me, is a Liberal Party donor, a fact that is well known and documented.
How can my colleague defend such a preposterously biased report? The only way to get to the bottom of this affair is to launch a full, independent commission of public inquiry. That concludes my intervention.
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:46:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is incredibly flattering to have a former entertainer and actor himself refer to me as a very dramatic person. I take that as a compliment, and I appreciate it.
I do not think that former governor general David Johnston has a conflict of interest due to the fact he happened to live on the same street, was a neighbour, or one thing or another. I cannot understand how that would impact how he does his work. It certainly did not impact it in any way that prevented Stephen Harper from appointing him as a governor general. It certainly did not impact it in the manner in which so many Conservatives referred to him as a eminent Conservative, which I read about in my speech.
Getting back to the NDP's previous question, this is what I was talking about, what we are seeing right here, this display. This is where the perception of conflict of interest comes from. It comes from Conservatives and the Bloc getting up and repeatedly saying there is a conflict of interest. Just because they say it does not mean it is true.
190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
