44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 20, 2023 11:00AM
- Mar/20/23 1:58:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the NDP House leader's speech, and I am interested in the motion and debate that will take place on what they are going to put forward tomorrow.
Today, we are talking about the Conservative opposition day motion, and that is to have the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, testify at committee on what she knew, when she knew it and whether the Prime Minister was briefed on that.
My question is very clear, it will not take much time and we will be able to get to the next item on the rubric at 2 p.m., right on time, because he can answer yes or no. Will the NDP members be propping up a corrupt government, or will they be on the side of Canadians and voting for the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify, yes or no?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:38:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the official opposition brings one interest to this place, and that is the interest of Canadians to find out what the Prime Minister knew about foreign interference by the government in Beijing in our elections in 2019 and 2021.
However, the NDP, a party that twice voted to send Conservative staff to committee when we were in government, and that twice voted for Katie Telford to go to committee when their coalition partners were in government, are now unwilling or unable to send her this time. Is it a condition of the supply and confidence deal between these coalition partners that the NDP not send Katie Telford to committee?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:39:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what we have received is horrific partisanship from the government House leader and the Liberals. They appointed a family friend of the Prime Minister, a board member on the Beijing-funded Trudeau Foundation, to advise the Prime Minister on whether he maybe should, probably, might, could have a public inquiry.
We are looking for a public inquiry for Canadians, and we are looking for the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify at committee.
Why will the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners not allow the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, to testify?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:19:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In reviewing Hansard from June 6, 2006, I wanted to draw to the government House leader's attention, and I believe he would like the opportunity to respond, comments that he made alleging that corruption and fraud had been committed by another member.
I am looking to see, based on his comments made in question period today, in response to the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, if he would like to withdraw his assertion and perhaps offer an apology.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:51:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I appreciate the enthusiasm from members opposite to hear from me on this important opposition day motion. The motion is to have the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify at a parliamentary committee on what she knew and when she knew it with respect to the foreign interference efforts by the Communist dictatorship in Beijing on our elections, specifically in 2019 and 2021.
We have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to investigate matters like this in our committees. The procedure and House affairs committee had undertaken a study specifically on this issue. The ethics committee also initiated a set of hearings on foreign interference. That process was under way before we heard all the explosive details that we are now privy to.
At the procedure and House affairs committee, the government is engaged in a full-blown filibuster cover-up. It has been going on for nearly 24 hours, and anyone who has watched it has been subjected to anything but dealing with the substantive matter. Canadians have reached out to me. I have heard from them, and they are looking for answers.
We know the Prime Minister's chief of staff was named by members of our intelligence community as having received the information with respect to foreign interference attempts. However, that is a departure from what we have heard from the Prime Minister as to what he knew and what individuals in his office knew. Therefore, it is important that we hear from this key witness.
Filibustering, obstructing and engaging in cover-ups are parts of a pattern for the Liberal government. We have seen it time and time again, notably with the SNC-Lavalin scandal. At that time, The Globe and Mail made allegations with respect to the Prime Minister's attempts to interfere in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. Interestingly, the Prime Minister said the allegations were false. It was later confirmed by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, that the Prime Minister had, in fact, been found guilty of breaking the Act for his interference in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. This was confirmed in the Trudeau II Report.
We saw the same obstruction with the investigation into the WE Charity debacle, where the government tried to give $912 million, nearly a billion dollars, to friends of the Prime Minister. It did this instead of actually delivering on services and supports to Canadians at a time when they needed it most. This is the Liberals' pattern, and so we are not surprised to see that first they deny, then they deflect and then they try to cover it up. We are witnessing the cover-up as it unfolds.
On the matter of why Mrs. Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, will not come to committee, the Liberals have said she cannot come because we have ministerial accountability. Therefore, that staff member should not come, and it should be the minister who comes. However, the minister is the Prime Minister. In the 24-hour filibuster that we have endured, we have not heard an amendment proposing that the Prime Minister come to committee. What we know is that the chief of staff has come to committee twice before. This was on the WE Charity scandal and the hearings on the sexual misconduct in the military at the defence committee.
We know the chief of staff can come to committee, and Canadians can judge for themselves the quality of the appearances by Ms. Telford. She is a professional, and she is able to handle herself well at committee. We would imagine the same would happen again.
What is different this time? What information is the Prime Minister's chief of staff unable to share with Canadians that would be so damaging to the government that it is pulling out all the stops, up to and including potentially declaring an opposition day motion a matter of confidence in the government so that it can strong-arm the fourth party in the House into supporting it? That is the big question that we are faced with.
We know that the Liberal government is going to obstruct and to continue its cover-up. What we do not know is what the Liberals' coalition partners in the NDP are prepared to do. Are they going to provide that transparency for Canadians on a matter that speaks to the fundamental, foundational principles of our democracy, that it is Canadians at the ballot box who decide the makeup of Canada's Parliament? Or are we about to witness a cover-up of state actors, in this case the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, putting their thumb on the scale to try to elect preferred candidates to engineer an outcome? In this case, there were reports that they were looking for the return of a minority Liberal government.
Frankly, that a diplomat from another country would make that claim on Canadian soil should precipitate a response from the government, and that response should be to expel the diplomat, to kick them out. When someone is bragging about interfering in our democracy, we do not need to substantiate the claim first. They do not get to pass “go” and collect $200. They are declared persona non grata, PNG, and off they go, back to the dictatorship in Beijing.
We have not seen that kind of action in the face of incredibly concerning reports in The Globe and Mail and in Global News, with intelligence sources who have laid out for us what we need to be looking at. The response from the government is that now it says it is taking it seriously. However, the Liberals' actions do not demonstrate that they have been serious about it up to this point.
The Prime Minister is hedging his bets. He has named an individual who has the ability, we are told, to advise the Prime Minister on whether he should or could have a public inquiry. However, the Prime Minister describes the individual he chose as his adviser as a close personal and family friend and as a member of the Beijing-funded Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which returned a contribution of $200,000, that we know about, back to the dictatorship in Beijing.
Are they telling me that with 38 million people in this country, the Prime Minister could not find someone whom he does not call a close personal friend and who does not sit on his family's foundation? Canadians deserve to have transparency and they need to have confidence in the process that is set up. An open, transparent public inquiry is what opposition parties are looking for, and having the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who is named in these intelligence reports, testify at committee is essential.
We know the government is going to vote against the motion, and I know I am going to get a question from the fourth party. In that question, I hope to hear from them that they are planning to vote in favour of having Ms. Telford testify at committee and vote to end this Liberal cover-up.
1206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 6:02:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem is that Canadians are going to question the appointee because the Prime Minister has said that this individual is a close friend of his. The problem is that the appointee sits on a foundation that has the same name as the Prime Minister.
It is the appearance of the conflict of interest that is going to cause Canadians to doubt the integrity of that process. It taints everything downstream from it.
That is why an independent, transparent public inquiry is important, and that is why we need to hear from Katie Telford at committee.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 6:04:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, acting with a sense of urgency is very important. I agree wholeheartedly.
That is why the call for an immediate, transparent public inquiry was made. That is also why the issue was to have already had Ms. Telford testify a week ago, not to continue a filibuster over the course of four weeks and not to then have this supply day used to address this issue as well. It already could have occurred, but the government is intent on covering up what it believes is too damning for Canadians to hear.
We should move quickly with it, and all parties in the House, including backbenchers on the government side, should support having the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify at committee.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 6:06:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, foreign interference by any country in our democratic institutions is absolutely unacceptable. When we have credible reports about it, as we have seen in this case in The Globe and Mail and in Global News about the communist dictatorship in Beijing, it should call for swift action. We have case-in-point evidence in this case, and that is why we are calling for this motion to be passed and for the Prime Minister's chief of—
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 6:17:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division, please.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
