44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2023 10:00AM
- May/30/23 10:37:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is not the first time that the NDP has disagreed with the process that David Johnston has been in, but it certainly is the first time that it has participated in the Conservatives' conspiracy theories and antics to malign his character.
In 2018, we were studying the debates commission, and David Johnston, who was leading that process, appeared before committee. I would like to read a quote of what was said about David Johnston:
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....
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 was said by David Christopherson, a former NDP MP from Hamilton Centre.
How is it that the NDP cannot set aside its partisan interests this time?
180 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 10:38:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what nonsense that is. It is not partisan politics; this is the report that was tabled by Mr. Johnston, and I am raising issues with the report.
I will just go on and raise another issue with the report on the issue around the nomination of the member for Don Valley North. Mr. Johnston notes that irregularities were observed in the member for Don Valley North's nomination in the 2019 election, and that there is well-grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC consulate in Toronto, with which the member maintains relationships. Mr. Johnston noted that there were irregularities and that there were well-grounded suspicions. The Prime Minister was briefed on this, and then the Prime Minister concluded that there should be no action taken. Mr. Johnston noted that this was reasonable. How on earth is that reasonable when there are irregularities—
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 10:40:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are blinded by partisanship, but the key issue here is that they seem to continually forget that it was the NDP, by the way, that first moved the motion to call for a public inquiry at committee and in the House. Here we are again, calling for Mr. Johnston to step down, for a public inquiry and for PROC to undertake this work. We are taking the issue seriously, not being blinded by partisanship, on the importance of why this needs to be done. People should not look only at me, as a person who has been impacted by foreign interference, and at other members of the House, but also at the Canadian public, how it is being impacted, why this work is so important and why this motion is before us.
I call on the Conservatives to support this motion.
148 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 11:09:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the fact that we can disagree on some elements of policy or best ways forward but actually have that debate. It makes democracy stronger, and I think it is what Canadians expect of us.
However, when it comes to Mr. Johnston's report, the point was made that some of this information would be classified and not able to be shared publicly. Also, he has an additional mandate to move forward and to continue this work. Mr. Johnston felt that it would be repetitive.
The fact that there need to be continual conversations and that Canadians need to trust these institutions is something we could all agree with.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:12:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting, because there was actually a vote at the PROC committee about a public inquiry, and the Bloc voted against it. The Bloc members continued to not be consistent in their position, and yet they want to stand here and say that they speak for Canadians with a united voice. They do not even speak with a united position in this place, but that is okay.
The mere suggestion that the report by the Right Honourable David Johnston is a victory for China just goes to show how out of touch and irresponsible the Bloc is. I almost said Conservatives, because essentially there is no difference anymore. It just goes to show that they are more interested in headlines and clips than actually protecting democracy for Quebeckers and all Canadians.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:16:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we hear the Liberals talk a lot about Mr. Johnston's respectability. Canadians respect him. I was one of those people until he accepted the appointment to be a special rapporteur when he was a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which had clearly become part of the foreign interference scandal. He was clearly in a conflict of interest.
Would the member agree that there are probably hundreds, maybe thousands, of other Canadians who are respected who could have accepted that appointment and are not in a conflict of interest?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:16:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there was not a conflict of interest, but leave that to the Conservatives as no conspiracy theory is too grand for them to move forward with in this place.
It should also be noted that the member himself just said he supported and respected the Right Honourable David Johnston up until he took the appointment. Therefore, up until he decided to serve his country, regardless of political leadership, that is what offends the Conservative Party. Its members are offended that a former Conservative Governor General is not partisan enough and puts the service to his country first.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell: Madam Speaker, they can heckle me all they want. It will not silence the fact that they are hypocrites who only turned on David Johnston because he was no longer just a Conservative, but he also wanted to serve his country regardless of political leadership.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:31:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we first called for an independent public inquiry as a result of the allegations of foreign interference in Canadian elections. By “we”, I mean the opposition parties.
According to Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer of Elections Canada, a public inquiry is necessary and essential to reassure Canadians.
I would like to hear what my colleague, the leader of the official opposition, has to say about that, because, after all, Mr. Kingsley is telling us that Mr. Johnston did not even consult Elections Canada senior officials in the course of his investigation.
If foreign interference into elections was the main reason to call for a public inquiry, why did Mr. Johnston's investigation not include Elections Canada? I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on that.
136 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 11:50:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing to see the shameful behaviour of the members opposite when they undertake personal character assassinations of someone as distinguished as David Johnston. It is important to recognize that David Johnston was in fact a Stephen Harper appointment. To get a sense of the integrity of Mr. Johnston, I would suggest they read what Mr. Harper had to say about him. To get an even better sense of that, all they have to do is read what David Christopherson said at the PROC committee. Unfortunately, what we are witnessing is the shameful behaviour of character assassination against a distinguished Canadian. I say shame on the members opposite who are choosing to take this course.
My question to the member is this. Where was the Conservative Party when there was foreign interference being applied here in Canada while Stephen Harper and the Leader of the Conservative Party had the reins of power? It was nowhere.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:51:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, David Johnston sacrificed himself and his reputation to preserve the reputation and career of the Prime Minister. He is not the first friend of the Prime Minister who has sacrificed his reputation to preserve the reputation of the Prime Minister and the government, and he will probably not be the last.
Let us all remember our former attorney general and minister of justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould. Let us remember our former minister of health, Jane Philpott. Let us remember our former minister of finance, Bill Morneau. According to the government, just “random Liberals” are all they are. They were not senior ministers but random Liberals, and to—
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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 1:19:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, I will say it for the third time: I do not want to repeat myself too much, but please read the motion. It is very clear. This would be binding when they instruct the committee. The motion states:
(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.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, with your learned experience as Deputy Speaker of the House, that would be binding on the committee. The committee cannot say it is not going to do that. The committee members cannot say they are not going to follow this instruction. This would be a binding obligation on the procedure and House affairs committee, and so it would be bound by that and obliged to do that.
There is the question of whether the Right Hon. David Johnston would be obliged to resign if Parliament asked him to. Is there a binding obligation on him? I think there is a moral obligation. I have followed his career; I have seen him work with both Conservative and Liberal governments. I believe he is a man of integrity, and if the House of Commons makes the decision in the coming hours to ask him to step down, I believe he will. In that sense, I believe there is a binding moral obligation that would follow the vote on this motion in the House.
258 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 1:49:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has had a track record, since this issue has come up, of minimizing it. Today we hear him competing on who has been worse on foreign interference, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. I think they are in clear competition. That was followed up by what I just heard, which was an award-winning mansplaining to the Bloc member.
The NDP is offering solutions. We are offering solutions. We are the party that put forward the idea to begin with for the need for an independent public inquiry. Today we are putting forward a motion about the appointment of David Johnston and questions around that appointment.
Is the member going to take this seriously? Is he going to take the will of Parliament seriously, and should the will of Parliament decide that David Johnston should exit his post, would he really respect democracy and respect the will of Parliament?
157 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
