OTTAWA — All eyes will be on New Democrats on Tuesday as they decide whether they will support the Conservatives’ motion to compel the prime minister’s chief of staff to testify on alleged Chinese interference in past elections.
Conservatives used their opposition day motion — which provides an opportunity for parties to bring forward a motion of their choice in the House of Commons — on Monday to force a debate on the issue that the Liberals have been fighting for weeks.
Since early March the Liberal members on a Commons committee have been filibustering to prevent a vote on the Conservative motion calling for Katie Telford to testify.
So Monday, the Conservatives brought a similar motion to the entire House.
They say Telford holds the key to understanding what Justin Trudeau knew about reports that Beijing attempted to sway the outcome of some of the races in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections and what he did about it.
While the NDP members of the committee supported the motion, it is less clear if Jagmeet Singh’s entire caucus is willing to back it. The party signed an agreement with the minority Liberal government last year to support them on key bills until 2025 to ensure the government doesn’t fall.
In a rare move, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called out the leader of the NDP during question period, insisting that he has the “deciding vote” on Tuesday.
“So the question for him is will he help his boss, the prime minister, cover up or will he vote for the prime minister’s chief of staff to testify?” he asked.
https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/emergencies-act-20221124.jpg?quality="90&strip=all&w=576 2x" height="750" loading="lazy" src="https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/emergencies-act-20221124.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=288" width="1000"/>
Earlier in the day, Conservative MP and committee member Michael Cooper said that he considers the vote on the motion to not only be a test for the Liberal government, but also for the New Democrats.
“The NDP has a choice,” said Cooper. “They can continue to do the bidding for this corrupt Liberal government, propping up this corrupt prime minister, or they can work with us to protect the sanctity of the ballot box and the integrity of our elections.
“We’ll soon find out what choice they make.”
NDP MPs speaking on the issue Monday did not signal whether they would be supporting the motion or not, rather they focused their questions on the scope of the investigation. They suggested it was not broad enough because it only looks at Chinese interference.
The director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said earlier this month the elections were not compromised.
An NDP official, speaking on background, said that the party is considering all options and will ultimately go with what it thinks is best for Canadians.
The leader of the Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, has already confirmed his caucus would be voting in favour of the motion. He said Bloc MPs agree with the overall goal of the motion and added that it is “essential” that Telford be questioned by MPs on Chinese interference.
If she refuses a summons she could be held in contempt of Parliament.
Conservatives are also calling on a long list of individuals to testify, including senior cabinet ministers Chrystia Freeland, Bill Blair and Marco Mendicino, former top public servant Morris Rosenberg and former national campaign directors for each party in 2019 and 2021.
Government House leader Mark Holland told reporters on Monday that former national campaign directors received the national security briefings during the past elections, and should be the ones speaking on the issue in committee.
He called the Conservatives’ move to have Telford appear at committee “heavily steeped in partisan politics” and accused them of wanting to “play games” with the serious issue of foreign interference.
Holland declined to confirm, however, that the Liberal government is considering making Tuesday’s vote a matter of confidence. If so, it could bring down the government if it failed to pass.
That option would put the NDP in the awkward position of being responsible for plunging the country into an election if they decided to vote against the government.
“I understand the temptation to go to the end of the process when we’re still in the middle of it,” said Holland. “My mind is squarely focused on finding answers right now. I’m saying that we’re in a situation right now where we continue to have these discussions.”
Post a Comment