Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that clarification as well.
The point I was attempting to make is that now the governing Liberals, supported by the New Democrats, seem to realize that Conservatives are not going to back down, that we are going to do the job that Canadians sent us here to do, and that we are going to do it passionately. Quite frankly— and I can't speak for everybody—when it comes to the passion I bring to the job, it is exactly the passion I believe my constituents expect me to bring to the job. They want me to defend their interests, whether that be the energy industry, which I will talk about extensively—not in the context of this committee, but I have and will continue to do so—including oil and gas; the agricultural sector, because I'm not only proud to be from a farming family but also so very proud of the area that I represent, which provides so much food to the world; or the institutions of Parliament and the need for that strong democracy that I believe all Canadians and, I would hope, all parliamentarians want.
However, there has been a clear and concerted effort, it seems. Certainly, this is the trend, and I would invite members from the government to explain their actions if it is not, in fact, the case. I would hope that they would be on the speaking list to be able to do that. What we see is that when it comes to the oversight committees that I've referenced, there seems to be this effort to bog them down with anything but the issues of actually providing oversight.
I'll expand on one example that I believe is very prescient, and that is when we had the Information Commissioner at a meeting scheduled over the last break week. I know that it's not always convenient. I had a series of different obligations back in the constituency, but when that meeting was scheduled, I was pleased to be able to join it. Now, I did join virtually, as is an option under the rules that Parliament has passed allowing for virtual participation. There were some Conservative members here in person, but I was able to join from one of my constituency offices.
Instead of being able to do the work that had been outlined for that, it should not have been a surprise to anyone that it was shut down after the first round of questions for the Information Commissioner, the independent officer of Parliament who is tasked with making sure that Canadians' quasi-constitutional right of accessing information is upheld. What I would suggest is that this was not only an egregious act by the government, supported by the NDP. We see now that when they're not getting their way, it's almost like they're simply going to throw tantrums. As a result, we see the sorts of tactics that we have here.
What I hope, and with further discussion.... Just to enlighten members of this committee, I will say that I think part of the reason expansive discussion on this is required is that, as in the case of a debate on privilege in the House of Commons, the debate on this matters a great deal. Certainly, my hope would be that there is context, which I'm providing. Whether it be the historical context or whether it be the contemporary political context, it is key to ensuring...including the highlighting of the false claim that Mr. Bains made about firearms in the context of the explanation that he initially made with regard to why he was moving that.
On page 112 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, there is a quote from Speaker Fraser that was made in 1987:
The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions.
I will get back to that word “impede” in a minute, because that word, the impeding of the ability for a member to fulfill their duties and functions—this motion is attempting to do that.... This motion is attempting to impede.
Now, I understand that it may be uncomfortable for some members of this committee. Quite frankly, the opposition should make a government uncomfortable, regardless of which party is in government. That's the point, and I would hope that there would be widespread agreement about that. Asking the tough questions is okay, and it should in fact be encouraged.
The quote from Speaker Fraser continues:
It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment.
What I would suggest is that when we're asking these tough questions in debate, it is fair game, but to then try to use parliamentary procedure, the Standing Orders, which permit a committee to function...the fact that a member would attempt to use the heavy hand of the majority of a committee—or attempt to, anyway—to silence a member is, I would suggest, a push that ultimately would impede a member from being able to fulfill his duties. I would hope that not all Liberals would be on this page.
I would hope that there are those who would even appreciate the work the opposition does. I would hope that's the case, anyway. When it comes to my deep respect for democracy and our institutions, like Pierre Poilievre said to President Biden, in Canada “opposition is an act of loyalty”. That can and should be emphasized again.
We can ask those tough questions, whether that be here in this committee or in the House of Commons, Mr. Chair, and I would suggest that it goes beyond this. We are protected by privilege in the circumstances—parliamentary discourse and debate—and there has been extensive debate. actually, including court procedures and whatnot that define what some of the limits of that are. I'm sure—in fact, I know—the place for those discussions is at PROC when it comes to the specifics of that. I'm not sure if it went to the Supreme Court, but it certainly went through an extensive court process when it comes to some accusations against previous members.
The point that can—and I believe should—be made is that we have the obligation as members of Parliament. I speak about this often to constituents, and I actually shared this a few weeks ago. I am proud that I've never asked somebody who walks through my constituency door who they voted for. Do you know why that's the case, Mr. Chair? It's because I care deeply about every constituent I serve.
Now, I have very frank conversations with all of my constituents, many of whom I agree with—and from rural Alberta, people will not be surprised that there's often a lot of agreement when it comes to the political issues that Conservatives care a lot about, whether it be issues surrounding many things like firearms, freedoms, energy or agriculture—but I still take great pains.... In fact, I had somebody walk through my constituency office door, a fairly new Canadian who had only been a Canadian for a few years, and I happened to be there.
In a large, rural constituency, sometimes that's just a pure stroke of luck, because I'm often in communities. I represent around 60 different communities. I have two constituency offices. I wish I could have a constituency office in every community, but that's just not feasible. Over that 53,000 square kilometres, I spend a lot of time on the road, travelling between different offices and whatnot.
Chair, when this fairly new Canadian walked through the door, almost with hesitation—they needed help with a concern about a federal government problem—they said: “But I didn't vote for you. Is it okay that I'm here?”
What was so profound in that moment? We had a fairly extensive conversation about the issue. Then we talked about some other things, including what would constitute pretty serious policy differences. That's okay. We had a very frank conversation. I appreciated the conversation. The constituent, as well, appreciated the conversation. My suspicion is that they probably won't vote for me in the next election, and that's okay. That's okay. That's what democracy is about. That's why we have a secret ballot.
But what was encouraging, I hope, for that constituent, was that when they said, “But I didn't vote for you”, my first response was that it was okay: Regardless of who you voted for—you don't need to tell me—I want to serve you. I want to help you. I care about your feedback.
Whether it's replying to correspondence or whether it's conversations I have at town halls, that is a key aspect of what makes our democracy strong. In fact, this is more of a societal conversation that I would suggest needs to be addressed in the context not only of parliamentary process and procedure, in the debates we have here, but also at kitchen tables and in classrooms and whatnot. Disagreement does not equal hatred. I would hope that this opinion is shared by all members of this committee. We can disagree on things; again, it's one of those areas where we should.
In fact, I often share a joke about this. At a town hall I hosted recently, somebody was asking me very specific questions. I was answering, and we disagreed about something. I said, “Good. That's okay. That's part of what democracy is about.” I emphasized how, when it comes down to it, I would imagine that every person in the context of that room in that small town in rural Alberta—probably every single person, even some of the husbands and wives.... Well, certainly husbands and wives; when it comes to areas of disagreement, that would be the case. When it comes to every single issue, you find things that you agree with and you find things that you disagree with.
This brings me to the motion at hand. The plan is that we will have Minister Boissonnault at committee next week, on Tuesday, to answer questions about the conduct of a company that he is a principal of and about the contracts they received. What is concerning about the timing of the issue we have before us—