44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 10, 2024 11:00AM
- Jun/10/24 1:00:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks here today. I want to remind him of a couple of things.
The NSICOP report was very clear. The allegations refer to MPs from multiple parties being involved, either wittingly or unwittingly. When I listened to the member's remarks, he suggested, in a way, that the members would be entirely on the Liberal benches. I would caution him by saying that they were from multiple parties; he could be talking about some of his own colleagues.
The important point is that we need to be able to have some type of process here because of the way this has come to light. I hope the member will encourage the hon. leader of the official opposition to actually take a security briefing so that he can see the report.
The member talked about the different thresholds of culpability. The report talked about people working with foreign governments wittingly and knowingly versus individuals or MPs who might not have even necessarily known they were being targeted. Those are two different levels of evidence.
How does the member square the idea of putting names of people out in the public who might not necessarily be culpable? Reputational harm might be caused to the member in question.
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 1:02:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something the member for Kings—Hants talked about, which is the continued reluctance of the Conservative Party leader to get a security briefing.
If we look at the NSICOP report, paragraphs 72 and 73 talk about the People's Republic of China and India directly interfering in the Conservative leadership process. If I were a Conservative Party leader, I would be treating that with a five-alarm fire response.
The NDP leader is going to get a briefing on these names. We all know that, in this place, party leaders have incredible control over their caucuses. They can control who gets to sit in the caucus and who gets to run again.
Why the continued reluctance of the Conservative Party leader to get the briefing so he can take action in case there are compromised MPs in his own caucus?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 1:03:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party does not have the authority to expel a member of caucus. That is a caucus decision. What could the Leader of the Opposition do based on a security briefing? In fact, it might impede his ability to act.
What we need is not more secrecy; we need transparency. We need a process so the MPs who wittingly collaborated with foreign states are identified and named, and Conservatives have provided a very reasonable process for that to take place. It is disappointing that the Liberals across the way have not seen fit to endorse that road map.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 1:43:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in the early part of my speech, on May 30, 2023, it was the NDP that put forward the motion that expressed our distrust with the special rapporteur because of his close ties with the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada. It was that very same motion that established the need for a public inquiry. We actually achieved both those things, because the week after our motion was passed, no thanks to the Liberals but thanks to the Bloc Québécois for its support, David Johnston stepped down as the special rapporteur, and on September 7, 2023, we had the public inquiry set up. Therefore, we have been using our influence with the government, because we did achieve two notable things.
However, I am very much looking forward to the fact that our leader is going to receive the briefing necessary to understand which MPs are implicated in this mess. All party leaders in this place need to have that briefing. They need to understand if members of their own caucus are compromised so that they can take the appropriate actions to ensure that those individuals do not show up on a ballot come the next election.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 1:47:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very good speech on what is happening here and how we have to address this, but he has one dichotomy in that speech, which is the role of His Majesty's loyal opposition in that, declaring that the leader of the Conservative Party should get that briefing. However, later in his speech, he talked about the parliamentary role that we have to play as His Majesty's loyal opposition in holding the government to account. His proposition that the leader of my party gets that briefing puts my leader on the side of not being able to voice exactly what has happened there, like the members of NSICOP to which he also referred.
Could the member please note that dichotomy, that we have to be here in Parliament serving our parliamentary role, and we cannot be silenced by being part of an agreement to not disclose what happens in that realm?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 1:48:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will agree with my colleague that it is a challenge. We have an existing statute coming up with parliamentary privilege, but that should not preclude his leader from getting the briefing necessary.
As I said in my speech, I was speaking with the director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, David Vigneault, at committee last week. He said that it was the opinion of the intelligence community that all leaders get briefed on this very serious issue.
We may not be able to speak about it, but there are actions that party leaders can take within their own caucuses. Eventually we are going to find a path forward where we get to know these names, but I do not believe that the Conservatives' current arguments precluding their leader from getting this briefing holds much water. I would urge the member to speak to his leader on getting the briefing. We need to rise above partisanship right now and get to the bottom of this, and that starts with every leader getting the briefing necessary to get the names.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 4:54:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the government is incompetent or complacent toward the interference confronting us.
Had it not been for the work of The Globe and Mail journalists, Parliament never would have been alerted to China's scheming in Canada. We would never have known that Chinese police stations were operating in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. We would never have known that Liberal nomination candidates were elected thanks to and with the support of China. We would never have learned that messages attacking the Conservative Party and the former member for Durham were sent to members of the Chinese diaspora in Canada through platforms such as WeChat. Without the work of journalists, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs never would have known that CSIS memos and briefings intended for the minister were not all being read, nor would I have learned in committee that if the person responsible was on vacation or off sick, the memo would be destroyed. We learned all these things in committee. We also would not have learned that the national security of a G7 country was being so grossly neglected by the federal government. We would never have known that this postnational Liberal Party ideal of excessive multiculturalism, a veritable doctrine for the Prime Minister, extended to a chronic lack of patriotism, so much so that Canada lags behind all other countries in terms of defending its strategic interests. I never could have received the CSIS briefing that I personally requested.
The government chose to brush off the interference files. The federal government demonstrated negligence with its extreme slowness. Yes, all western countries need to tackle this problem. Some, like Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, have even passed legislation to fight it.
Quebeckers and all Canadians have a right to know the extent to which some members are being manipulated, by whom and why. This is a matter of safeguarding democracy.
327 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 6:59:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said that he was thinking about the opportunity of such a briefing. At one time, it was seen as a trap. Agreeing to this security briefing means getting the information and the names. However, those who obtain the names are not allowed to disclose them, not allowed to talk about it and not allowed to act on this information. We are effectively being shut down. I think that the NDP leader received the security briefing, but so what? Do we know anything? The answer is no.
To me, I think that the leaders should calmly and seriously think about receiving this briefing, making their decisions and, legally, take the necessary measures within their party. However, that is no substitute for the Hogue commission, which has to get to the bottom of things and report publicly on what it can.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
