- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Hamilton Centre
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,250.15
- Government Page
- Mar/22/23 6:37:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, early on in this, there was some discussion about how this information was being leaked and the sensitive nature of it, as it is about national security.
However, given the recent revelations, or at least what is being reported on and alleged, and I have to make it clear it is an allegation at this point, could the hon. member share, with his subject matter expertise on ethics, the importance for institutions such as the federal government to have built-in, whistle-blowing protections for civil servants?
Even sometimes in the highest, most sensitive breaches, should they come across thresholds that may breach criminality, whistle-blower protections would be an essential foundation or component of protecting our democracy.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:33:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if there is one person in the House I would trust with that role, it would be the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, because he is a subject matter expert. He has literally written books on ethics. I have the privilege of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, so I am keen to hear his thoughts.
We heard about whether there would be credibility, but I would like to set that aside and ask him to create a distinction between credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public as it relates to public interest and just how deeply concerning this file is, particularly given some of the reports that continue to come out. There are reports that came out today which are deeply concerning.
Can he perhaps expand on how he might feel about the value of a public inquiry that is completely independent, that is given the purview to have access to all the important information rather than taking information in drips and drops as it is coming out in the press today?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:19:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am confused. We heard the hon. member go on at length about the NDP, railing about the NDP and how he is very frustrated.
I can appreciate that. We were able to get done, at his committee, what he could not over weeks of work, which is to get Katie Telford there. The member should be thanking us. Instead, he stands up to deride us.
I am going to ask him the same question I asked the Conservative House leader: If the Conservatives' motion was so important, why did the Leader of the Opposition not even have the courage or the courtesy to Canadians to come in and support their own bill?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:03:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again the member will not answer the question.
The question was this: If the Conservatives' opposition day motion was so important, to get Telford to the ethics committee, which I am on, by the way, and it was because of the NDP that we actually got Telford to PROC, not their useless motion, why can the member not stand up today and explain to all the Canadians who are watching this why the leader of the official opposition could not even be bothered to vote on their own motion?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:59:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we heard the hon. member speak at length, in fact, trying to make his party a going concern in this conversation, when even in its own opposition day motion, which, by the way, turned out to be useless, its own leader did not even vote for it. Could the hon. member please tell all Canadians, with all the bluster the Conservatives have just had over the last week, why, if their opposition day was so important, their own leader did not even decide to show up and vote for it?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:35:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are going to be a lot of questions regarding the mandate of this special rapporteur nobody asked for. When it comes to a public inquiry, we only need to look at what happened after the Emergencies Act. When the Liberal government refused to co-operate with the parliamentary committee, it took the Rouleau commission to get the answers Canadians deserved.
We know this is a very serious issue. Does the hon. member agree that, should the special rapporteur come back and finally call for a public inquiry, he would finally allow that to happen, at that point at least, rather than continue the delays, the filibusters, and all the theatre and shenanigans that the hon. member is used to?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
