44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 4, 2023 10:00AM
- May/4/23 10:21:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP agrees. There is no question that there needs to be a public inquiry, one that is completely independent and transparent. To that end, my question for the member is this. What does he think is necessary in order to ensure the process is one that all parties could agree to? For example, would the commissioner be chosen with the participation of all leaders in the House to make sure that it is something that we believe will be completely independent?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 10:22:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if a public inquiry is to have any credibility, whoever leads that inquiry must not only be independent but also must be seen to be independent, which is why Conservatives, along with all of the opposition parties, have called on the Liberal government to establish a process whereby the House leaders of all the parties agree and consent to whoever is appointed to lead such an inquiry. First, however, we need an inquiry.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 11:28:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's reasoned voice in this House where the hyperpartisanship has reached through the roof. The matter here is too important to get into that sort of back-and-forth hyperpartisanship. The issue around the significance and importance of an independent inquiry, along with measures that would send a clear message to any country that tries to interfere with our democracy and intimidate Canadians, needs to be taken seriously.
Aside from the public inquiry, which we absolutely agree with, as the NDP was the first to call on the government to put an independent inquiry in place, what is the measure that needs to be in place to send a clear message to all countries that try to undermine out democratic system? What does the member think we need to do to ensure that is put in place?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 11:42:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that question from my colleague. His tone is much more appropriate for today's debate than some of the language we heard earlier from that side of the House. I welcome that.
This matter relates to national security, and if interference has occurred, there must be human beings somewhere behind it. Someone is guilty of this. Yes, something happened, which is why this commission of inquiry is needed.
I would be very surprised to learn that there is no one, anywhere, who has done anything. That is simply what I meant. I am not suggesting for a second that I could identify them myself today. I am not the investigator. However, we need a real investigation, and friends of the government must not be appointed to key positions.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 11:54:23 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to apologize to the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for an unparliamentary comment I made about his question. He is a gentleman, and I enjoy working with him. I apologize and withdraw the comment.
The member for Vancouver East gave a very passionate and strong speech. She brought up an amazing amount of great points that we need to follow up on. I only have one question. How does the member think we should put together an inquiry process that is non-partisan and independent? What is the best way to make sure that it is truly non-partisan and independent?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 11:55:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the member for owning up to the fact that what he said was inappropriate and making that apology. I do appreciate it.
To the question about what would be a completely non-partisan public inquiry, which is absolutely essential, it would be for all the party leaders to come to an agreement on the mandate and who the commissioner is. It has to be completely above board and completely transparent. It needs to pass every single test, because so much rides on it.
If there is a shadow of a doubt being cast anywhere in that process, it undermines all the important work that needs to be done, and people like me will never get out from under it. It is too important for that. Too many people's lives have been put in danger, and too many people have died fighting for democracy for Canada.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:56:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I reflect on the motion the Conservatives have brought before the House today, the only one of the four demands I really see as problematic is that calling for the establishment of the national public inquiry.
When this was first being discussed in the PROC committee, of which I am a sitting member, I actually thought, yes, it made sense to have a national public inquiry to get to the bottom of it. The problem is that, witness after witness who are privy to this sensitive information and understand how information would be provided and where information should and should not be provided, kept telling the committee, time after time that, no, a public inquiry would not be successful because we would be trying to put information in the public domain that cannot be discussed there for national security issues.
Could the member explain why it is that Conservatives, and indeed, the Bloc and the NDP, cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the experts are advising against that course of action?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 1:30:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is just it. After all we have learned in recent days and weeks, my question to the parliamentary secretary is this: At what point is it enough? At what point have we already learned enough information that we do not need to wait for recommendations from a rapporteur? When is the need for an independent public inquiry on foreign interference pretty clear? When do we say that enough is enough?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 1:30:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the former governor general, the hon. Mr. Johnston, in terms of his being able to look at what would be in Canada's best interest and how we can best proceed. If that means we have to be patient and wait an extra few weeks or a couple of months, I am quite prepared to be patient, knowing full well that at the end of the day, it could lead to a public inquiry, if it is deemed necessary.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 2:42:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was informed, as early as 2021, that a member of the opposition was being targeted by threats from China. He did nothing. Today, he is refusing to either confirm or deny the information obtained by The Globe and Mail that China could be targeting other members of Parliament. We are simply asking him to tell us whether there are others and whether they are aware of the situation. That is why the Prime Minister is not to be trusted in the matter of Chinese interference. He has no desire to get to the bottom of things. When will there be an independent commission of public inquiry?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:46:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is very important.
As to whether there should be a public inquiry or not, an individual who is held in very high esteem will be making that determination and the determination on a number of recommendations the government will follow. I look forward to seeing those recommendations.
What we need to ensure is that all Canadians, the almost 40 million of us, have confidence in our electoral system, that there is no election interference and that we understand that in the world we live in, we must deal with foreign actors who do not have the best intentions here in Canada and in other parts of the world.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
