- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
- Jun/12/23 2:38:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, David Johnston was trapped. From day one, the mandate he received from the Prime Minister went against the will of the public and the House. Now that he has honourably stepped down, the government is signalling openness and is asking us to suggest candidates to lead an inquiry. The Bloc will collaborate, but first the government needs to clarify what kind of inquiry it is talking about.
Is it talking about a public and independent commission of inquiry, or is it talking about restricted hearings with no power or independence? In other words, does the government want the names of potential commissioners, or does it want the names of people it can trap like Mr. Johnston?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 3:06:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the committee on Chinese interference, David Johnston confirmed that he based his report on incomplete information. He did not even take the time to talk to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada or the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
He did not do the necessary work, yet he concluded that there is no need for a public inquiry.
Mr. Johnston himself demonstrated that his report lacks rigour and that his conclusions on the public inquiry must be called into question. He himself discredited his report and disqualified himself from any involvement as a result of that work.
Will the Prime Minister finally thank him and ask him to step aside?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 2:43:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what does Mr. Johnston recommend in lieu of the independent public inquiry that everyone is calling for? Mr. Johnston recommends himself. That is what he is offering us. Mr. Johnston is substituting himself for an inquiry, despite the fact that the House is asking him to step aside. He wants to hold his own hearings that will in no way be independent. David Johnston is the man who dismissed the idea of a public inquiry on the basis of information that he refuses to disclose. David Johnston wants to control what might be discussed in public at his own hearings. It may be less expensive, it may take less time, but it will be less clear.
Is there anyone who would claim that this is not smoke and mirrors?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 2:41:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during this morning's committee meeting investigating Chinese interference, David Johnston explained why he believes a public inquiry had to be avoided. His reason? In his opinion, an inquiry would be expensive and time-consuming.
Does anyone know what else is expensive and time-consuming? That would be the three months of work in progress since February that we have spent calling for an independent public inquiry, which is supported by everyone except the Liberals and their special rapporteur. The Liberals' resistance to shedding light on this matter is the expensive waste of time. It is damaging public confidence. When can we expect an independent public inquiry?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 11:26:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us get back to the basics when it comes to Chinese interference. The problem is China's actions and the fact that the Johnston report prevents us from dealing with them because, as a result of that report, there will be no inquiry into the Chinese police stations, the election candidates supported by China, the intimidation of the Chinese diaspora or the threats against elected officials. In the years I spent working as an ethicist, I lived by this adage: “Any action that needs darkness to succeed is probably more unethical than an action that can stand the light.” In this case, there is a lot of darkness. Let us shine a light on what is happening by holding an independent public inquiry.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 12:50:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I really appreciate his concern and wisdom.
I would say that, right now, there is one person, that is, Mr. Johnston, who is saying that he has seen something, but that he cannot talk about it. I am not sure that having three other people also tell us that they have seen something but cannot talk about it will restore public confidence.
My intervention is based on the need to restore trust. I do not think that Mr. Johnston's suggested method is the only one; there could have been others. Also, I do not think this is the best way, and I would like to hear about others. As we know, in essence, I am asking for Mr. Johnston's recusal, as is my colleague. I am not about to start following his recommendations, either.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 1:34:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.
The appointment of a rapporteur who has ties to the Prime Minister will not in any way protect the Prime Minister from himself.
As an ethicist, I think this decision is a huge red flag. I believe that in this situation, we must make it possible for people to once again trust the government, and that is not possible with these perceived ties—which are not just perceived, they are actually real.
I am not questioning Mr. Johnston's competence. I am saying that, in these circumstances, this appointment is unacceptable.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
