I find it very interesting, Mr. Chair, to be lectured by a Conservative member who was sitting in the House of Commons when Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament solely for the purpose of avoiding an election. He's somehow sitting there with a straight face telling Liberal members that proroguing after spending over $300 billion in order to get the gauge of Parliament to determine if we're taking the right course is somehow not a proper use of proroguing Parliament. Meanwhile this member was in the House that whole time, including when Stephen Harper did that and prorogued Parliament to save his own skin, and for no other reason.
I appreciate Mr. Lake's comments. I think he did a very good job of delivering that, in particular advancing his position on it, but hypocrisy is a very interesting thing and we're seeing it on full display right now in this committee from Conservative members.
Going back to Mr. MacGregor's point, the reason I have a difficult time with what he's saying is that the reality of the situation is that it's not department officials who were doing the majority of the redacting. It was specifically the officials, and I will go back to my motion, because we asked specifically for them to come. They are the deputy ministers but also the Law Clerk and the Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Commons. These are not political staff, nor are deputy ministers political staff. These are individuals who have no way to defend themselves.
To suggest, as Mr. MacGregor did, that it's okay to proceed with this parliamentary privilege because of the fact that they're in the department.... It's unfortunate, but it's the same angle the Conservatives are using. That angle is that they need to make sure that they just get as much out there as possible, so that Pierre can go out again and start waving things around and grandstanding, get a 20-second clip that he can share on Twitter for all of his faithful followers to watch. It actually produces nothing in terms of what a parliamentary privilege is intended to produce.
What we're doing here is we're saying is that those who were impacted by this and are being impacted by this motion that's being proposed right now.... Again, the way that we ended on this motion is very interesting in that Mr. Poilievre decided that he would circumvent the order in which motions were already being delivered in committee, but I digress. What we end up with is a motion that holds people in light of breached privileges of members of Parliament, and that's where I think Mr. MacGregor and all members of this committee need to focus. It is the fact that you're not allowing these people to defend themselves.
Mr. MacGregor brings up the point. He asks whether this is the hill we're willing to die on. Well, guess what. If this is a hill that involves saving the careers of individuals who are professionals, who work within the government and who don't have a voice because the system intentionally doesn't provide them a voice because they're non-partisan, then this is a hill that I'll go to. I will defend those people. I will go to the hill for those people, and if Mr. MacGregor chooses that it's not the hill that's he's interested in dying on, then that's entirely his prerogative. However, I think it's worth fighting for those people, worth fighting for them to give their voices so that their voices can be heard, and to give them the opportunity to come forward to committee to explain in detail why and how things were redacted in the way that they were.
I'm sure we're going to find out at the end of the day that there's nothing to this outside of a standard redaction of information that was not relevant to the motion and what was being requested by committee.
I've made the point before that we really need to look for a way to provide an avenue for these people to speak and explain themselves so that we can get all the information out there. The blatant disregard for giving them that opportunity, which is being showcased by members of all opposition parties for that matter, is extremely troubling. I'm willing to fight for those officials to make sure that their voices are heard.
This is a hill that I'm willing to die on, Mr. MacGregor. I'm willing to fight for those people to make sure that their voices can be heard. I respect the fact that you're claiming that you had the prerogative and you were justified in 2017 when you were in this position, but somehow magically we're not justified right now. That's a matter of your opinion, with which I, respectfully, completely, 100% disagree. We need to make sure that our public officials always have the protections and are given the opportunities at all junctures, whenever possible, to explain themselves, especially before you bring them before a motion that basically suggests that they have breached your privilege, which is extremely unfortunate.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I wanted to respond to Mr. MacGregor's comments on that, and of course to Mr. Lake's hypocrisy.