Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I take this opportunity to build on what my colleague Mr. Cooper said. We are increasingly seeing, not just in the House but in several committees, including multiple times here at the House and procedural affairs committee, a record of the NDP, frankly, saying one thing but when it comes to a vote doing the opposite.
I want to read into the record.... Actually, I want to give a bit of background to what's happened so far today. Mr. Cooper gave a notice of motion regarding the question of privilege, which was just passed within the last hour or so by the House of Commons and referred to PROC, to study another question of privilege around the issue of foreign interference. This time it is not just one specific member but 18 members of Parliament from many different political parties who are affected by the issue.
Mr. Cooper asked to adjourn the debate that we are currently undertaking—the subamendment that Mr. Cooper has on the amendment by Ms. Mathyssen to Mrs. Romanado's main motion. It seems like the NDP complained, saying it would defeat the motion. For those Canadians who are watching, adjourning debate on a motion does not defeat it. It puts it back in the proverbial parking lot and allows another issue to come forward, particularly the notice of motion that Mr. Cooper has, which the House was just seized with for several hours this morning and last night. The NDP refused to adjourn the debate to allow discussion about the question of privilege and to move forward on the study. Let's make it very clear what happened there.
I want to take a moment. I have the transcripts from last night, particularly of what the NDP was saying on the floor of the House of Commons about the priority and importance of moving forward with this question of privilege and studying it.
The Speaker took the floor last night at about 8.20 p.m. and ruled on the question of privilege raised on April 29, 2024, by the member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I'll fast-forward to different colleagues in the chamber making comments. I will read into the record what NDP House leader Mr. Julian, in one of his first interventions, said in the House of Commons:
...I always listen attentively to my colleague. I think, in this case, it is very clear, as we have seen with Justice Hogue's preliminary report, which points very clearly to some things. There is a real shortcoming in terms of how the government and past governments have dealt with the information around foreign interference. We have seen repeatedly, from the 2019 election and the 2021 election, that information was not communicated to candidates. In this case, addressed in the question of privilege, information was not communicated to members of Parliament.
There is a lack of protocols and a lack of organization, not necessarily around the obtaining of information but in actually communicating that information to people who might be impacted. This may be members of Parliament or, as we saw in election campaigns, candidates. We need to ensure that action is taken to prevent further interference of this type.
To go on, Mr. Julian got up a bit later. I quote from Mr. Julian, the NDP House leader—and it's the NDP deputy House leader who sits on this committee. Mr. Julian said last night:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we see this matter, this question of privilege and the motion before the House of Commons as important. We will therefore support this motion so that it can be adopted as quickly as possible and this whole matter, this question of privilege can be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as quickly as possible.
Then Mr. Julian said a few minutes later—I believe in an exchange, a back and forth—in questions and comments:
There is a systematic pattern of the government erring in how it potentially gets information to candidates during an election or to members of Parliament. That needs to change. That is why we need to refer this to [the] Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come up with protocols and suggestions for actions.
This was just last night.
In response to the Bloc Québécois, in questions and comments, Mr. Julian of the NDP said the following:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is precisely for that reason that the NDP moved the motion that led to the public inquiry....
Further on, he said:
We believe that we should act in the national interest and think first about how [we] do everything we can [do] to prevent foreign interference in our politics, in our democracy and in our elections.
He goes on to further state:
There are many things we can do and it starts tonight with referring the motion to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Then Mr. Lamoureux got up and asked a question or made a comment, and Mr. Julian of the NDP responded:
That is why I suggest to all members tonight that we need to refer this to...PROC...promptly and not take a day or two to talk about it. The time for talk is over. It needs to be referred to PROC for action. That, coupled with the Hogue commission...hopefully [gives] us all the things we need to put in place to fully protect our democracy and any future election.
He continues on again. In response to an exchange with Mrs. Kusie, Mr. Julian asks her a question:
Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member agree with me that this needs to be referred promptly, this evening, to procedure and House affairs to come up with recommendations?
He wasn't done yet. There's more. Mr. Julian had a lot to say, with a lot of passion, about PROC taking this up, beginning deliberations, making recommendations and studying this question of privilege.
Actually, Ms. Ashton took the floor for the NDP a couple of times last night. I'm going to quote what she said. The NDP said this last night on the floor of the House of Commons, even though the NDP blocked Mr. Cooper's motion to get the ball rolling.
Here's what Ms. Ashton said last night in the House of Commons:
Mr. Speaker, given the severity of issues like this, would the member agree to sending the matter to PROC? It is obviously the body that is best equipped to deal with it. Would the member agree that it should be sent to PROC as soon as possible?
Ms. Ashton again took the floor a little while later. She said:
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this issue merits proper examination. At this hour, we have heard from many speakers that this must be taken seriously.
Will the member agree that this should be referred to PROC as soon as possible? Obviously, we gathered here to debate C-59, which has issues of great importance to the citizens we represent. Will the member agree to—
These are her words. This is continuing the quote:
—speeding up the process and moving this to PROC as soon as possible?
Ms. Ashton took the floor again last night as a member of the NDP.