44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2023 01:00PM
- Mar/22/23 5:11:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have said this a number of times: I do not think my position is that far off from that of the NDP. I am just concerned about the fact that the NDP thinks this needs to happen in a public inquiry.
The member and I are both on the PROC committee, or he was on it for a few meetings, and we heard from experts that a public inquiry is not the best venue to do this. He said there were some allegations; fair enough. However, more importantly, we have professionals to look into those allegations. CSIS specifically said it takes information, and when necessary, refers it to the RCMP. The RCMP also said it has no active investigations going on. One does not have to be great at reading between the lines to figure out the reality there.
Why does the member think it has to be a public inquiry? Why can we not use one of the other mechanisms that we already have to do this very important work?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:21:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that this was where the day would go, but I guess we have to be prepared for anything.
I have to hand it to the NDP. They said that they wanted to bring forward their concurrence on this particular report, and they did that. The reality is, for those who do not really understand what is going on, that the Conservatives have an opposition supply day today. However, what has happened because of the fact that they sidelined the NDP yesterday, I guess, is that this is just payback for that. Nonetheless, it is a very important topic. I am glad that we have the opportunity to continue talking about this.
I do not think that my position, personally, is too far from that of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. However, I do take exception with his last comment that the Liberals said that they did not want a public inquiry. I actually was very clear about this.
By the way, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
I was very clear about this at committee. I said in a speech at committee, at the beginning of this, when a public inquiry was first floated, that I actually thought a public inquiry kind of made the most sense. Why not broaden it and allow the public to have that insight?
We heard from the experts who came forward that a public inquiry would not gather any more information than what could be provided at committee. A public inquiry of this nature, which is going to dive into some highly sensitive information and highly sensitive reports, needs to be treated with the classification specifications that surround it.
It is not just in our own domestic interest to ensure that it occurs. It is also in the interest of the relationship that we have with our allies. We share secrets. We share information. They share information with us. If it becomes very apparent to our allies that we are unable to hold information safely, then they are not going to be interested in continuing to work with us. This is what we heard from the experts who came to committee and who talked about why a public inquiry was not the right route.
At the beginning, I started off thinking that, yes, a public inquiry kind of makes the most sense. However, I was very easily persuaded by those experts coming forward to actually see this occur in a different way, in a way that allows for the classification of that information to remain intact. I find it unfortunate that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby would make that comment and say that Liberals are against it. No, Liberals listened to the advice of the experts, and we formed our opinion based on that.
That is the only difference, in my opinion, between my position and that of the NDP. I agree with them. Why not look at all foreign interference? The Conservatives have been very hell-bent on ensuring that the only issue we look at is Chinese interference, but we know that interference comes from other foreign state actors.
Foreign interference in elections is not a new concept. This has become more obvious and more real within the last 10 or 15 years, as people have been able to infiltrate through social media networks to get information out there in different ways and be sinister in ways that may have been a little more difficult in the past. What we have are real threats. I think that Canadians should be concerned, and they are rightfully concerned.
For me, this does not come down to a matter of whether we study foreign interference. I am actually relieved to see so many people interested in this. The previous minister of public safety, in 2020, sent an actual copy of election preparedness and foreign interference to every single member in the House. He sent a physical copy of a report that he put together, specifically talking about China in that. Not a single member in the House stood up. No Conservatives stood up to say they wanted to talk about the report by the previous public safety minister.
In one sense, I am glad that we are having this conversation out in the open and in the public forum. It is important to do that and to get to the bottom of these issues, but it is also really important to study all interference, not just by China, and to do it in the context that respects the classification of the information. We heard from expert after expert, and I do not think there was a single individual who came before PROC, with expertise in understanding how to utilize this information, who said that a public forum would be the best place to have this discussion.
Having said all of that, the government appointed a special expert to specifically look into this: former governor general David Johnston. He was tasked with looking into a number of things, one of which included the best way for Canadians to go forward with this issue to fully understand it. The Prime Minister said, when he announced this, that he will take whatever recommendations come forward from that independent expert.
Of course, Conservatives, as they are heckling me right now, will say that Mr. Johnston is biased, that he is a family friend and so on. We are talking about David Johnston, who is 81 years old. Now they are laughing about it. We are talking about David Johnston, one of the most highly respected Canadians in this country, who is going to look into this issue. If they want to continue to heckle and run all over his incredible reputation, they can go right ahead, like the former speaker of the House, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle—
988 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:29:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have not been caught with any hashtags or tags associated with my YouTube accounts yet, but I would remind the former speaker that perhaps he should take some lessons from his predecessor, the Hon. Peter Milliken, who was able to sit in that chair much longer than he was.
In any event, the point here and the important thing to consider is that we need to take the politics out of this issue. We saw Conservatives who came forward and spoke on video. I forget the name of the member's riding right now, but he sits on PROC with me. He said, on video, that a member of Parliament is an agent of Beijing. A sitting Conservative member of Parliament said that.
An hon. member: Red Deer—Lacombe.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: It was the member for Red Deer—Lacombe who said that a member of this House is an agent—
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:31:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Timmins—James Bay's pointing that out, but I can assure him that, despite the big game that they talk, there is no Conservative in here who actually threatens me, not successfully anyway.
What I was getting at was that the member for Red Deer—Lacombe actually said that a member of Parliament is an agent of Beijing. He said that in a video, and now they want to laugh and to talk about who is playing politics. Who actually does that? I would like to hear one Conservative who gets up to ask me a question actually address that. I have asked the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, and I have asked multiple times in committee. Nobody will actually address it. The members took the member for Red Deer—Lacombe off the committee, and they did not let him continue to go to the committee, as a result of what he said. That is actually what happened.
Let us get back to this concurrence motion. It is very important that we study this. We have to be careful about the venue in which we do it, and that is the only difference that I have from the NDP on this particular concurrence motion.
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:33:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking for the last 15 minutes, not including interruptions, and I am unaware of the breaking news that this member is referencing. I look forward to looking into it.
We see, once again, the exact same rhetoric that comes from Conservatives. We see the exact same thing the member for Red Deer—Lacombe was trying to do, when he was walking through an airport and was looking like the hero on his way back to Ottawa saying, “I'm on my way to Ottawa to fight for you and deal with the agents of Beijing.” Come on, that is not what this place is supposed to be about. The rhetoric that comes from Conservatives, including that last question, is intentionally trying to mislead Canadians, and I find it extremely unfortunate.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:35:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we certainly did not dismiss the issue. As a matter of fact, the minister, on a number of occasions, said that he was dealing with it. I find it very interesting that the Bloc today is suddenly coming to the defence of the Conservatives. It is like blue and blue lite. Why do they not just get together?
I realize Conservatives do not believe in climate change. They are nowhere near as progressive as Bloc members are on climate change, but maybe if the Bloc got together with the Conservatives it could impart some of that wisdom, as it relates to climate change, to the Conservatives. I think they would actually make a great party if they got together.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:36:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really wish he had listened to my speech, because not only did I say I would accept it, but the Prime Minister also said he would accept it, when he announced this. We have already made it very clear that we will accept any recommendation that comes back from the expert who is looking into this on behalf of Canadians, a former governor general. We will implement what those recommendations are, including if it is a public inquiry.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:37:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in government, they did absolutely nothing, and we have done a number of things since then. We brought in NSICOP. We brought in a special panel that oversees elections. We brought in Bill C-76, which tightens up foreign interference and which they voted against.
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 8:54:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, and in particular the part where he talked about the various other issues that are genuinely impacting the daily lives of individuals throughout our country, such as inflation and the rising cost of food and other items. However, we are standing here talking about an excise tax increase that does not even add one cent per can of beer, as we heard previously.
I am wondering if the member has any insight into why he thinks the Conservatives chose this as their opposition day motion when we could have been talking about some very important issues, some of which the member mentioned.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:11:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
First of all, it is not questions. It is questions and comments. Five minutes of comments should be allowed if the individual is no longer in the House. Standing Order 43(c) says, “Except as provided in Standing Orders 95, 97.1(2)(c)(i) and 126(1)(a), following any 10-minute speech, a period not exceeding five minutes shall be made available...to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.”
What needs to happen is that the Conservatives need to realize that they were outwitted by the NDP today, suck it up, call it a day and move on. Tomorrow is a new day.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 10:17:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just do not understand. Is he saying the accusation is true or that it is true that the member for Milton said it? I think there is a big difference there, and we really want to know and understand.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
