Thank you.
So far I do not think anyone has answered the fundamental question concerning clauses 9 and 10.
I would like to know what happened to clauses 9 and 10 of the bill. I think my question is relevant, regardless of whether Mr. Adler, the government or someone else answers it. When Mr. Adler came to testify before the committee, I remember he asked whether the Office of the Prime Minister, the government or the cabinet had in any way taken part in the preparation of the bill. I know this is a private member's bill, but I asked the question nevertheless. Mr. Adler's answer on the subject was vague.
The government is well aware of the content of bills, whether they are bills prepared by one of its members or bills that it introduces. At some point, for reasons of which we are unaware, the government decided to withdraw these clauses from the bill. It first impugned the independence of agents of Parliament, then suddenly came to the conclusion that was not a good idea. That suggests the government was initially trying to establish a tool it could use to gag agents of Parliament.
At some point, the pressure brought to bear by the commissioners, the opposition, the Canadian public and journalists became so strong that both clauses seemed to be a bad idea. That nevertheless indicates a very negative opinion of the role that agents of Parliament can play in our democracy. I denounce that and do not understand it.
Why did they initially include these clauses in the bill? Why does the government suddenly wish to withdraw them?
I am obviously delighted that these clauses, including clause 10, are being withdrawn from the bill. However, the story behind the events is not clear to the Canadian public or to journalists. I think that
the onus is on the government
and that it must explain the reasons for this reversal and why these clauses were initially included in the bill.
I think that is an important question. It is not a question on the merits of the bill that is being asked solely by the opposition. It is also being asked by journalists and serious people.
Thank you, Madam Chair.