- Member of Parliament
- Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs
- Liberal
- Beauséjour
- New Brunswick
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $117,680.95
- Government Page
- Jun/14/23 2:31:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, the letter we received from the Bloc Québécois is an important step towards building a consensus about the right way to move forward. Our colleague put forward the idea of an independent public inquiry. Perhaps he did not hear when I clearly said that it is an option the government is considering.
However, the process for this public inquiry must be properly defined. How will it protect top secret information? What will the time frame be? Who are the right people to lead this process?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 2:30:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I share the interest of all parliamentarians in finding the right process and, as I have said, a public inquiry has never been ruled out. However, it is a matter of finding the right way to do the work in a respectful manner, while taking into account the importance of protecting highly confidential security information, in order to rebuild Canadians' trust.
That is what we are going to do, hopefully with the support of the opposition parties.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 2:41:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by our colleague's comments about the kind of public inquiry that will have to be considered by the government and by the House of Commons.
She specifically identified one of the challenges when it comes to top secret information, which is so classified in order to protect the safety of Canadians and those who work for our security agencies.
Rather than simply repeating the call for an independent public inquiry, it would be helpful to hear exact terms and conditions, specific suggestions on how to protect top secret information, the ideal person to conduct that kind of discussion or public inquiry, and the timelines.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 2:32:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise members that I do not share some of the exaggerated premises of our hon. colleague's questions.
What we have said, and members of the Conservative Party know this well, including the leader of the Conservative Party, who sat in government, is that this was designed and decided to protect national security information from public release. The Conservatives know that. Saying they want a public inquiry right now is not, in fact, a responsible suggestion. They should tell us what the terms of reference would be, how they would protect the national security interests of Canada and who might lead this process—
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 2:31:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we think that a discussion about issues as important as protecting Canadian democratic institutions from unacceptable foreign interference would benefit from all of us lowering the partisan temperature. That is why we believe the decision of Mr. Johnston to leave the special rapporteur role gives all of us an opportunity to discuss what the next steps are in a public process.
The opposition says it wants a public inquiry. What would be the terms of reference of that inquiry? How would they protect necessary national security information in the interests of Canada? What would be the timeline? Those are the conversations we are anxious to have.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 2:27:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the start of question period, that has always been an option.
I know that the Bloc Québécois will never form the government, but the Conservative Party is well aware that a public inquiry involving the most heavily protected national security information cannot proceed irresponsibly.
I think that everyone would benefit from a substantive discussion on how to approach the next steps in the public process and, if a public inquiry is the option chosen, how it will proceed, what its terms of reference will be and what the timeline will look like.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 2:19:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the collaborative tone of the Leader of the Opposition.
From the start, we have always said that a public inquiry was a possibility. Mr. Johnston did not recommend a public inquiry and explained why. It is a difficult decision to make in the circumstances for national security reasons.
However, we look forward to working with the opposition parties to discuss the next steps of a public process, such as the type of potential inquiries, the mandate, the people who could lead this inquiry. We look forward to having these conversations.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
