Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We find ourselves in an interesting position here today. As Mr. Barrett has expanded on in the last number of minutes, we are first....
I believe that this bears highlighting. At a meeting a number of weeks ago, the NDP actually requested that some documents be provided. Those documents had a timeline on them. There is a requirement for the committee to deal with those documents. That timeline has passed, and this committee has not yet had an opportunity to deal with that, although both the meeting today and the meeting this past Tuesday did have committee business, as was listed publicly, in camera.
I am very curious about why we are in the situation we're in when we hear often from Liberals and New Democrats that somehow it is Conservatives who are to blame for everything that is held up in committees and in Parliament. We hear this at length, especially in the House.
What I would highlight before I get into the substance of my remarks is that, because of Liberal actions backed up by the NDP, this committee has not had a chance to deal with some of the important business that sits before it, whether that be some information that was related to a request that was made at the end of a committee meeting.... It was about three weeks ago now, if my memory serves me correctly. The deadline was at two weeks. Obviously, that has passed. Because the committee has not had a chance to substantively sit in camera and deal with the business at hand, we still don't have a resolution to that.
Then we have what is talked about in the public declaration, that there was a consideration of a draft report on the federal government's use of technological tools capable of extracting personal data from mobile devices and computers.
Part of the important work the committee does has to do with these reports. We do studies. We move motions that do studies. We call witnesses. Then the committee has a chance, or should have a chance, to go through those reports and edit them. The fine work that our analysts and staff do to help compile these reports.... The committee goes through it, and then that's what.... Often there's disagreement, discussion and very frank conversations, and I actually often share with constituents about how there is....
People often think that the only thing that happens in Parliament is question period. However, there are often frank discussions that take place, and sometimes those are in camera. The report that the committee has put together is what was planned to be dealt with today, as was mentioned in the notice of meeting. However, here we are, debating a motion that I'll get into here in a second.
It's troubling that while the Liberals are quick to complain about anything that doesn't go their way, they forget about who, ultimately, we are here to serve.
What I'll attempt to do—and share with the committee and those who are watching—is highlight how the actions and the place that we have come to today truly are an attempt by the Liberals, with the support of the NDP, to silence critics. That's what it comes down to: an attempt by the government, ultimately, to silence anyone who would dare to ask them tough questions.
I would further suggest that they are attempting to weaponize tools and protections that are meant to ensure that all MPs, not just members of the opposition.... I'll get into more detail on the specifics of what that looks like in our Westminster democratic system if I have the opportunity. However, there are specific tools that are granted to members of Parliament that protect us so that we can ask tough questions.
I would note, specifically when it comes to the topic at hand, which is foreign election interference, there is this thing called “privilege”, and those watching may not be aware of the nuances and the history of what parliamentary privilege is.
There is a long history dating back centuries to what we refer to as the mother of parliaments, at the Palace of Westminster in the United Kingdom, which ensures that parliamentarians—those who are elected to the House of Commons—have protection.
I'm going to read some quotes into the record that specifically speak to why that is significant, but ultimately the Coles Notes version of what is an extensive conversation about why we got to this point is that there had to be an understanding that parliamentarians had to be able to have those tough conversations. At the time, when some of these were called into question, lives were literally on the line. When you look back at some of the big battles that took place in parliamentary history, there were lives on the line about whether or not the king could take the life of a parliamentarian because of a parliamentarian's opposition to something a king was doing. These are questions that had life-or-death consequences.
They were hard-fought to the point that today it allows MPs, both opposition and government, to ask tough questions without fear of reprisal.
What privilege clearly does not do, was not designed to do, should not do and, I would suggest, cannot do is silence critics from being able to ask tough questions. All of us around this table and all 338 members of Parliament who have the honour of occupying and of being temporary tenants in seats in the House of Commons...because we don't own those seats. No, they're owned by the people. We need to take seriously that need to represent them, yet what we have before us is an attempt specifically to silence Mr. Brock, who is very effective.
There is no question. I don't think anybody from any party would suggest that Mr. Brock is anything but effective when it comes to prosecuting important issues, whether that be in his previous career as a Crown prosecutor or whether that be here in Parliament. He does ask tough questions. For anyone who has ever heard or listened to him, he asks tough questions, and, quite frankly, I'm glad he does, because that is why privilege exists.
In fact, page 57 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice describes parliamentary privilege as the following, and this emphasizes the point that I have just attempted to make:
...the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions.
That's key. What we have here is an attempt by a member of the government that was undoubtedly a subject that had come up in the course of discussion. In fact, it was my friend from the Bloc Québécois who, at one point, brought forward a concern to this committee asking whether or not it was an actual conflict—it certainly appeared to be a conflict of interest—that the member for Steveston—Richmond East was sitting at the table. It wasn't Conservatives who brought that forward. I didn't hear the Liberals demand an apology from the Bloc Québécois for suggesting there might be an appearance of a conflict of interest.
I have no doubt that if that member wanted to be a witness at committee to talk about some of those things, I'm quite confident there would have been allowance for him to be able to do that. However, is that what the focus is? No. The focus of this motion is to try to silence the member for Brantford—Brant for being effective at asking tough questions.
Did those questions offend somebody? Maybe. Did those questions call into question a member's conduct? Maybe. What I think we need to remember is that we have to be allowed to ask those tough questions.
One thing that I believes bears mentioning is that, over the course of the close to four and a half years that I've had the honour of serving as a member of Parliament for the constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot—a beautiful area of east-central Alberta—I've been able to ask some of those tough questions and to do my best to represent the people who sent me here, understanding full well that it doesn't make everybody happy. I've faced some criticisms at different points in time, as I suggest we all have if we're honest about the role we play.
As a member of the opposition, one of the fundamental roles of that.... In fact, it was Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, when asked by President Biden about what it was to be the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition.... It was an interesting conversation. It was picked up on camera. Mr. Poilievre made mention of the fact that, in Canada, the act of opposition is an act of loyalty. I think that's very profound: Just because we disagree, or we have disagreements, different policy ideas or whatever the case is—you can really fill in the blank—that doesn't mean we aren't passionate about the future of our country.
What has been a troubling trend that we've seen under the Liberals is that, with the support of the NDP, it seems at any cost—which is a troubling metric in and of itself, especially because that's not what Canadians voted for—the Liberals do not want an opposition. They make that clear on a regular basis. Instead, they seem to want only an audience. What's so disconcerting about that is that the very fundamental basis of the institution of which we are all a part, the House of Commons, was built upon that idea that you could have opposition, whether that was eight-plus centuries ago when it was the people wanting to hold the Crown to account and, instead of fighting a battle—which would have seen death and destruction—coming to a point at which they could have arguments; or whether that was one of the many instances throughout the history of our Parliament when we have been able to have disagreements.
Then there are, Chair, times when we do come together. My colleague Mr. Barrett talked about how, when it comes to Bill C-70, which was introduced to substantively address aspects of foreign election interference—it's fitting and very relevant to the topic at hand here—Conservatives were quick to make the suggestion that there was the ability for us to come together and figure out a way to ensure that it is passed so that, prior to the next election, our intelligence apparatus in this country will be prepared to ensure that the integrity of our electoral framework is, in fact, protected.
I know, and I'm sure those watching will often see those highlighted examples when MPs oppose each other, and that's fair. Certainly, my constituents have made it very clear to me that I am to oppose the Liberal agenda—oppose it and do so loudly. In fact, I hear that on a regular basis. However, there are those instances when we do work together. It's not to suggest that it doesn't happen, but what is so important is for that freedom to take place, which leads me into some of the conversation around the idea of privilege.
We have before us a motion that suggests there was a violation of a member's privilege. I'll get into some of the substance of the motion here in a moment, but I just note for Mr. Bains—and maybe he would like to address the reason—that there's actually a factual error in the motion, I believe. It's suggesting that the conversation took place on a day when, I don't believe, there was actually a meeting, May 23. I believe that the committee was previously occupied during that day. I may stand to be corrected on that. I will certainly appreciate it if Mr. Bains has the opportunity, when he is able, to take the floor to address the specifics of that day.
What Mr. Bains is suggesting is that asking tough questions is somehow a violation of his privilege as an MP. I mentioned page 57 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, and its descriptor of parliamentary privilege. I would like to further read from page 88:
Members individually have the responsibility to not abuse their rights and immunities, particularly freedom of speech.
What I would suggest is being highlighted in the debate we're having here is the fact that we have the responsibility, as members of Parliament, to not abuse the privileges, but we also cannot abuse the ability and the idea of privilege to be able to weaponize that sort of thing for the purposes of silencing one's critics. It leads me to the inevitable conclusion that, as I mentioned before, it is not about whether or not that member's rights and privileges were violated but about, I would suggest, that member facing pressure because of the conversation that took place.
Quite frankly, I would say that is a good thing. That's what democracy is supposed to be about. It is meant to be a space where we can ask and have those tough conversations, but here we are, and there is an attempt through a procedural mechanism....
For those watching who might be wondering what a procedural mechanism is, it's using the rules that exist for us to be able to fulfill our functions...using it for something it was not intended to be used for. In this case, the member from Brantford—Brant is a very effective prosecutor in terms of calling out some of the things the government has done wrong. A procedural mechanism is used not for their purpose, for the ability of committees to function properly, and not for the purposes of protecting members' freedom of speech, but rather to narrowly interpret privilege as something to silence an opponent.
Now, just imagine for a moment what it would be like if during an election you had a national party leader tell one of his opponents that they can or cannot talk about something. It would be a national scandal. It would be truly a national scandal. We have free, fair and open discourse, because that's what Canadians expect us to be able to have. That is something that needs to be extended to committee.
Now, there have been some accusations made about intent. There have been further suggestions that somehow it is incorrect for members to call out these certain things. I've faced the consequences personally of calling out things that I have deemed to be absolutely egregious, including the conduct of the Prime Minister. In that case, I respected the Speaker's ruling on that matter. While I disagreed, and I stand behind what I said, I understood the consequences of that.
This is where we have come to today. Are we going to set a precedent that suggests that instead of having these tough conversations, we are going to allow for procedural mechanisms to take away the ability for any member of this place to do their work?
I want to highlight something here that I think is often forgotten. We have a principle that is unique to the Westminster system, actually. Those I've had the opportunity to engage with on the matter know that part of the reason I like the Westminster system of Parliament so much is the idea of parliamentary supremacy. It's key, because it ultimately ensures that people have the ultimate say.
Although there's an extensive conversation that could be had about that, I want to park that larger conversation, because it can get fairly philosophical. There are differences of opinions about when and where and how some of the mechanisms that exist have been brought to bear, both in the context of the Canadian circumstances, where we have both written and unwritten aspects of our Constitution, versus the United Kingdom, where it is still largely unwritten in terms of the constitutional frameworks that exist.
I've talked a bit about that here and at other committees in the past, but what is key is that it is members of Parliament who make up a Parliament.
Again, for individuals who might be watching, Mr. Chair, I believe it's worth highlighting something that is often forgotten. We are in the 44th Parliament. “Well,” one might ask, “What is a Parliament?” We often refer to that as a building—in the case of the House of Commons, the chamber with its green floors and question period and the debates and whatnot.
What's interesting, Chair, is the description of it as the place where a group of MPs are able to come together to form that Parliament. Then, out of that, in the case of our tradition—this is tradition and it has become constitutional convention—the party that gets the most seats is able to form the government. The government includes the cabinet, led by the prime minister. The history of that is that the prime minister was the first minister among ministers, and, referring to the Latin history of the word, the first among equals, although that's certainly then something that's been long since abandoned.
What's interesting—and this is an important point that is applicable not simply to members of the opposition. When I describe our democratic system to classes, whether they're in junior high, high school or even some elementary schools, I talk about every Canadian being allowed to have that one ballot on election day. That is an incredible thing. That right we have is an incredible privilege, hard-fought for and won over history.
The fact is that the current Prime Minister, or the leader of a political party, any political party, gets that same number of ballots on election day. Every Canadian gets that one ballot. The power to choose your government is incredible.
When I ask the question about how many ballots you get on election day, some of the conversations that ensue in classrooms about that are interesting, because it is that distribution of authority among the people that is truly fundamental in the way that our democratic system operates.
Now, I would be the first to admit it's not always equitable in terms of the number of individuals per electoral district, and there are always some nuances in the conversation, but fundamentally it comes down to every Canadian getting that one ballot on election day. It's a powerful thing.
I know for you, Chair, that this would be the same thing. You and I and all members of this committee, including staff and technical folks, get to have that one ballot to make a choice about who gets to represent them in the House of Commons.
However, here's the extension of that, and the reason parliamentary supremacy is so key. That one ballot translates, in the case of our current Parliament, into 338 seats.
Another question I ask students, when I have the chance to speak with them, is how many seats the Prime Minister occupies in the House of Commons. Some of the responses I get are interesting, but it comes down to one.
I ask the same about the Leader of the Opposition. They occupy one seat in the House of Commons.
In the case of our current Parliament, there are 338 members of Parliament who sit and make decisions and empower the government to act on their behalf. The opposition plays a key role in that against the government and the governing party. In the case of a minority Parliament or a hung Parliament, as it's often referred to in the United Kingdom, ultimately it comes down to the fact that there are members of Parliament, 338 of them. While we have whips and there are conventions when it comes to voting and voting for confidence measures—in the case of the opposition, we vote non-confidence in the government on a very regular basis—every MP occupies that one seat in the House of Commons, and the power of that, I would suggest, emphasizes the foundational idea of what privilege is in this place and in this specific context around this table.
I'd like to emphasize how fundamental it is that any attempt to silence members of Parliament from being able to ask the tough questions, to silence members of Parliament from being able to represent their constituents, is not simply an attack on the idea of privilege in this place, but rather is an attack on the fundamental tenets of democracy—
