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 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 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 1:50:21 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 2:20:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition was minister of elections, perhaps that was his approach and why he did not do anything to fight foreign interference that was ongoing in our elections and has been for decades.
He chose to cover his ears and not listen to intelligence officials, and now he is not letting the facts get in the way of base partisan attacks. He is choosing to not get briefed on the actual facts of the matter, so that he can continue to attack our democracy, to attack other political parties and to attack esteemed individuals like our former governor general.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:27:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who is concerned about legitimacy and facts, refuses to be briefed on the secret and confidential information that CSIS has compiled on the matter.
He also refuses to accept the facts, to accept reality, so he can carry on with these debates and partisan attacks in the House.
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:35:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what was truly exposed for all to see was the Leader of the Opposition's credibility when he refused the government's offer to grant him access to highly sensitive information.
He decided he would rather play partisan politics on an issue as critical as protecting our democratic institutions from foreign interference than get the facts so he could speak publicly and coherently based on the facts, instead of simply spouting partisan accusations.
This is what was exposed. My colleague must be a little disappointed in his leader.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:40:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are telling us that an inquiry would not be effective because there are too many national security issues. However, they launched a commission of inquiry into Maher Arar. They tell us that they have taken concrete measures to ensure the integrity of the electoral system. Since then, at least three opposition members have been threatened. They are telling us not to be partisan, but they are not respecting the will of the majority of elected representatives. None of their arguments make sense.
Why are they refusing to call an independent public inquiry?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:40:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since forming government in 2015, we have taken the threat of foreign interference seriously.
We were the first government to put in place a suite of non-partisan measures precisely to strengthen our ability to respond to interference in our democratic institutions and also to inform parliamentarians about threats to democratic institutions and what the government is doing to counter them. I think the member will be happy if she talks to her colleagues who sit on these parliamentary committees.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 5:18:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not often say this, but I will thank the member for his question. I actually think it was somewhat thoughtful. There are numerous constituents who really do care about this issue. It is absolutely true. I live in a part of the world where there are a lot of folks who are fighting for this because we have weather stations that tell people who are either on the water or flying if it is safe to do so, and a lot of them are not working. Because of this, there is a greater increase of risk for them and for the well-being of their business, so we are definitely working on things like that.
Housing is a big issue, as is the opioid overdose crisis. All of these things are really important, but it does not mean this is not also important, because people need to trust in our systems and we are seeing it is broken. As parliamentarians, our job is to identify where the problem is and provide a solution. I am hoping we get out of the partisan rhetoric and really get into dealing with this issue in a way that is mindful. I hope the colleague will join us in that.
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 5:22:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I was waiting for was the Right Honourable David Johnston to do his job, but what happened to the process was that we just saw more and more issues come forward. To me, this is not about partisan politics; it is about the fact that Canadians have lost faith. I do not know that Canadians had lost faith with him in the beginning, so we allowed him to do his process. Unfortunately, we have gotten to a place where we have heard people on either side blaming about who did what, but the reality is that we are not seeing the work that we need to.
In the media, I actually said that we would wait to see what the report brought forward, as I believed in it very clearly. If we had any concerns at that point, we would continue the work that we felt was important, which was toward a public inquiry. It was our leader who asked for it first. It was our party that brought forward the motion.
The committee will continue this work until the work is done.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
