44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2023 10:00AM
- May/30/23 10:47:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise today on this important topic. I found the debate earlier quite interesting. We saw the Conservatives and the NDP fight about who did what first and who is criticizing the government more.
Meanwhile, on this side of the House, we are actually getting to work to make sure that our democratic institutions are protected. While we do that, the opposition parties can stand up to fight about who did what best, whose clip came first and whose motion did what.
I think Canadians expect a government that puts partisanship aside to focus on the real issues that our country is facing. The threat of foreign interference is not a partisan issue. Every single Canadian, regardless of who they vote for or what party they support, should absolutely care about this issue. That should be reflected in the House.
The issue of foreign interference in our democratic institutions is not a new one. In fact, it is not even a unique one for Canada. We have seen instances around the world, such as the 2016 U.S. presidential election. We have seen efforts of foreign interference in France, Australia and New Zealand. All of these countries have been dealing with this issue.
In fact, Canada was warned by CSIS in 2013 about the threat of foreign interference. The then democratic institutions minister, now the opposition leader, did absolutely nothing about it. The leader of the official opposition said in this place that he did not do anything about it because it did not serve his partisan interests at the time. That should indicate to Canadians the absolute basics of where the opposition parties are coming from on this issue.
We now have the report by the right hon. David Johnston, and before members have even had a chance to dive into that report, the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the Bloc have said no. They are going to close their eyes to facts. They do not want to receive the secure national security briefing because they want to be able to continue to still make ignorant claims. They would like to remain blind to the facts. It should not surprise anyone that a party based on conspiracy theories and clickbait would not be a mature and responsible opposition party.
Yesterday, in this very place, the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not want a national security briefing because he did not want to be silenced. That should tell Canadians the level of maturity of the Leader of the Opposition. He is not ready to lead this country. He is barely ready to lead an official opposition of this place.
For somebody to suggest that having a national security briefing silences one on this issue is not only beyond false, but also beyond comprehension. It shows how little he knows about national security matters.
I myself have national security clearance because I was a member of the NSICOP committee, yet I have debated on this issue several times. I am leading the opposition day speech in this place. I have spoken out at PROC. I have asked witnesses serious questions. In fact, in my role in the national defence committee, I brought forward a motion that we study cybersecurity. This was all while having national security briefings, sitting on NSICOP and studying foreign interference, yet I have been able to serve my constituents by raising the issues that matter.
By taking national security seriously and by understanding that one can advocate for stronger democratic institutions, one can still advocate for stronger legislation and mechanisms while also protecting the national security information of this country.
That is what responsible members do. If I can do it, as a member of this government, certainly the Leader of the Opposition should be mature enough to understand the importance of national security while still being able to advocate for stronger mechanisms and measures. The fact that he cannot comprehend how to put the national security of this country first, instead of his partisan attacks, should tell Canadians everything they need to know about the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the Leader of the Opposition and, for that matter, the leader of the Bloc.
When it comes to the issues, I have heard many times in this debate that confidence in Canadians is being eroded. Is that not ironic given the members saying it are the ones who are closing their eyes to the facts? In the right hon. David Johnston's report, he specifically talks about the balance between wanting to make a report that everyday Canadians can read and access with better understand, while at the same time protecting the national security information we all rely on to keep this country safe. He acknowledges that.
David Johnston said that he created an annex to this report with all of the information he based his decisions on. He included this annex for leaders of all recognized parties, members of NSICOP and those with national security clearance that need to have access to it. He specifically said in this report for leaders of the opposition and members of NSICOP to please read this annex, the information that he based his decisions on. He said that they can read it and come forward if they believe that, based on the information, his recommendations were ill-informed or they have taken a different approach.
It is pretty open and transparent to say there is a balance between Canadians needing to understand the positions and the recent media leaks while protecting national security. He then went on to say to everybody who has that national security clearance, such as opposition parties and NSICOP, that all of the information, which he based his recommendations and findings on, is in one easy document, and that, if they disagree with those findings, then they can come forward and say so. However, this will be done while protecting the confidential information collected by the national security community. That is quite reasonable.
In fact, it was an incredibly readable report. I have read many reports of this nature. NSICOP has produced many reports of this nature, and one of the things NSICOP always tries to do in the public version of its reports is to take care and concern in making them as digestible as possible, so any Canadian picking up a report would understand the national security dynamics happening at any given time.
David Johnston suggested to read the information to determine on one's own if one thinks his findings were reasonable, so what happens? The Leader of the Opposition covers his eyes and his ears and says, “No, no, no. I don't want facts and information. I want to be able to stand up here and make fake innuendos, fake accusations and raise some money for my election campaign.” He wants to make personal attacks against the Prime Minister and the right hon. David Johnston.
What does the Bloc do? As my hon. colleague says, it is “blue light”, and it just follows suit. Then the NDP, with this motion, calls for the removal of the special rapporteur based on his report. Its leader has at least agreed to read the annex and get that national security briefing. However, before that has been done, to my knowledge, or at least before the leader of the NDP has made any assessment on the information the right hon. David Johnston used to come to the conclusions he did, and before NDP members have had a chance to really look at it to see if all the information is relevant, they say that they do not support the report. They do so without reading the basis of the recommendations.
When it comes to national security, there is a lot more context and information required than just a few media leaks. Therefore, for any responsible government to refuse to read the national security documentation in the briefings, to refuse to wait and, even for for those who have agreed to read it but refuse to actually digest it, look at it or consider it and just throw the report out, is nothing more than partisan games with Canadians' national security and with our democratic institutions. Therefore, if anybody is suggesting that confidence is being eroded, I would suggest it is by the irresponsible behaviour of our opposition parties in not actually doing the work, considering the information and making informed decisions, which is something that, regardless of party, I think every Canadian would expect their MP to be able to do.
I have talked about why I find the opposition parties irresponsible and, in particular, why I find the Leader of the Opposition not only irresponsible but also incredibly immature and unfit to lead, even a party, in this place. However, I want to also talk about some of the things we have done since 2015 because, as I started with in my speech, this is not new.
The opposition party, as the previous Conservative government, knew about foreign interference in 2013. Let me just say, too, that this is this not new, and it is never going to be over. There is no silver bullet any government could implement to say that foreign interference is no longer an issue. A serious democracy is going to always have to be diligent to the foreign forces that would love to destabilize the democracy that Canadians have fought so hard for. Therefore, the important piece of dealing with our democratic institutions is to put the partisanship aside and continually work on how to adapt and change with the changing nature of the threat. However, again, we cannot even have those types of debates in this place because we are too busy hearing partisan and personal attacks from the opposition members, who should be bringing forward recommendations and suggestions to move forward on legislation or mechanisms that would strengthen democratic institutions. Because we cannot get past personal attacks, the government is going to keep working based on experts and those who have come forward making recommendations, and based on looking at other countries and some of the work that they have done.
Some of the things that we have done since 2015 include creating NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which gives national security clearance to representatives from recognized parties in the House, as well as national security briefings and documents. It is a committee that I mentioned I sat on, and it was an extremely professional and serious committee that has not only produced excellent reports for Canada but also has been recognized globally for the work it has done.
We created NSIRA, which is a review of our national security community. We have also established the critical election incident public protocol, and we have created the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, often referred to as SITE.
We have established rapid response mechanisms during elections. We have also had Bill C-59 and Bill C-76, and we have created the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. That is all since 2015.
While opposition parties say that we do not take this seriously, we have right here eight examples that I have listed. I would be curious as to whether, at any point during the day, the Conservative Party will be able to name even one example of something that it did in 10 years to deal with the threats to national security and to strengthen our democratic institutions. I will wait patiently through the debate today to see if that happens.
In addition to that, I would be very curious to see whether the members opposite come forward with serious policy and a serious policy debate.
We have the Johnston report, which makes very clear recommendations, as well as criticisms, with respect to how information is being reported to those who need it. Every government needs to seriously look at and constantly review these matters. I think there has been a strong indication that we are not only taking it seriously, but that we will implement changes to make sure that, moving forward, we are constantly improving our democratic institutions and our processes, and that we are making sure that democracy is protected for Canadians. We do not own these spaces, as this is the House of Commons of Canadians, and it is our job collectively to ensure that we continue to maintain the democratic institutions in this place.
I have spoken at length about the seriousness of these issues, the fact that they are not new, and that in 2013 we had a government that did not take them seriously at all. We are now implementing several of the recommendations, as well as implementing mechanisms to constantly strengthen our democratic institutions.
I want to speak again to this, because we are going to hear personal attacks all day today on the Right Honourable David Johnston. We have already seen him referred to as a ski buddy, a neighbour, a friend, and I think it is quite interesting that Conservatives would refer to him in that way.
I would like to read a quote with respect to Mr. Johnston, which states:
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.
That was not the current Prime Minister, but the previous prime minister, Prime Minister Harper, who said that about David Johnston. Therefore, it is disappointing that the Conservatives use personal attacks to undermine not only his credibility, but his lifelong achievements, dedication to this country and public service. To erode all of that by saying he is just a ski buddy and that is how he was selected is an absolute insult to this place and to the people who serve their country. It is all being done for nothing more than partisan gain. He was good enough for Conservatives to make him the governor general. He was good enough for the former prime minister to speak of him in that way. His reputation and credibility have only come into question now that Conservatives are not getting their political way.
I have spoken a lot about the lack of maturity shown by the Leader of the Opposition. I know my time is wrapping up and I want to conclude by saying this. Canadians deserve opposition parties and parliamentarians who work hard for their constituents. We are not always going to agree, but at the very least this should be a place of adamant debate on policy. When the Conservative members opposite do not like the findings or the opinions of someone they have acknowledged and revered for years and decide to throw him away like he is no longer good enough for this country, it is an absolute shame. It shows how immature and ill-equipped the Leader of the Opposition is and that he should not be taken seriously in this country. He is clearly not ready now, nor probably ever, to lead this country, because he does not take national security seriously, but we will on behalf of Canadians.
2560 words
All Topics
- 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 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:50:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Thomas Mulcair was the leader of the official opposition in the House when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The member can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that Thomas Mulcair ever raised the issue, even though we know foreign interference was taking place then.
The Conservative Party has seen the political optics for calling for a public inquiry and tying it to some sort of scandal. The Bloc has bought into it, but hopefully the NDP will not buy into it because, as the member knows, even when Thomas Mulcair, the leader of the NDP, sat in opposition, he never raised the issue of foreign interference, even though it was happening then. Today we have a government that has taken numerous actions to deal with foreign interference. It seems to me today that the opposition is more prepared to deal with the partisan politics of the issue as opposed to dealing with what is in the best interests of Canadians, including protecting our democratic institutions.
If opposition members were concerned about that in the first place and felt a public inquiry was necessary, why would they not have argued it when it was happening years ago? Why did they not raise the issue years ago? I would suggest it is because there is a new, shiny leader of the Conservative Party who has determined that this could be a good political issue. Other opposition members are buying into it or do not want to be seen as being soft on the issue, when there are other ways this issue could be dealt with that would minimize foreign interference. That is what what I would recommend members to look at doing.
287 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:52:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not usually one to correct the member for Winnipeg North, but he did say that members of the Conservative Party were mad that they lost the last election. I would like to correct him. They lost the last three elections, to be truthful.
The member also mentioned that this was first highlighted when Stephen Harper was prime minister and led the government, and there was nothing really done. The Conservatives were informed of foreign interference and did nothing.
Could the member highlight why he thinks it was the case that they did nothing and did the opposition at the time demand a public inquiry?
108 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 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 2:46:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think most members of the House recognize the scientific reality of climate change and the need to address it, but of course we need to do so in a manner that reflects affordability. That is why we have put in place the heat pump program, the grocery rebate and others.
I must say, though, that I find the positions being taken by the Conservatives to be increasingly bizarre. First, they ran and were elected as MPs on a platform that acknowledged that pricing pollution is the most efficient way to reduce emissions, and now they repudiate their own platform. Now, they criticize the clean fuel regulations, a policy very similar to the renewable fuels regulations that were introduced in 2010 by none other than Stephen Harper.
The Conservatives should start being honest with the Canadian public. The only thing they presently do that is constant is ignore the scientific reality of climate change. They have no plan to build an economy for the future.
167 words
- 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 4:46:14 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
- May/30/23 4:47:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the individual who the Conservatives and Bloc members want to jump all over and be so incredibly critical of delivered a report, stating what can be made public and that there is an annex to it. I really encourage them to get their security clearances so they can see the rest of it.
Now the leaders of the Bloc and the Conservative Party will be saying they have seen enough and know what they want to say, then jump up and start fundraising, and accusing the government and a character assassination of a former governor general, who Stephen Harper appointed. This is the reality of the situation. If nothing else it says to Canadians that this is it, they are not even interested.
The member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, is not even interested in looking at the classified information. It would not prevent him from talking about the rest of the public report. He could go on, just as he is right now, but also having that knowledge. Why would he want to have that knowledge? To properly inform himself to represent Canadians.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 4:50:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when Conservatives say things like, “I do not think anyone has any qualms about David Johnston as he is an exceptional human being and an exceptional Canadian”, or when Conservatives say stuff like, “I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment that Mr. Johnston is an eminent Canadian”, or when Conservatives say things like, “There is no doubt as to the integrity, experience and résumé of Mr. Johnston”, how is anybody supposed to believe, based on those comments, that the Conservatives would have a problem with David Johnston? They do not, and do members know why? It is because their own former prime minister, Stephen Harper, appointed him Governor General.
What the Conservatives do want is to score cheap political points for political gain and fundraising opportunities. That is all they are doing with this. That is what this entire exercise is about. They are smearing an individual's reputation, an individual who has served this country extremely well, and I find it absolutely disgraceful.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
