Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I was referring to the honourable member who just asked about the meeting's duration. As I was saying, I disagree with the opinion she expressed when she commented on my fellow member's subamendment and the NDP's amendment to the Liberals' motion. She said that the committee should let Justice Hogue do her job and not respond to her preliminary report.
However, that's not what the House asked for. The House asked for a preliminary report so preparations could be made in the lead-up to the next election. Justice Hogue's report revealed that the Communist regime in Beijing apparently did interfere in the nomination of a candidate, our colleague Han Dong. The Beijing regime's interference seems to have influenced the choice of the candidate who was nominated. Even before he was elected as the member of Parliament, Mr. Dong reportedly benefited from the support of citizens who were brought to the nomination meeting where he was a candidate by representatives of the Communist regime in Beijing so those citizens could vote for him.
The problem is that we are talking about a very Liberal riding, which do exist in certain parts of the country. Out west and in Quebec, we find a lot of very Conservative ridings. When by‑elections are held in those kinds of ridings, the same party usually holds on to the seat. A Liberal riding will stay a Liberal riding. Why does interfering in a nomination process in a context like that matter to a regime interested in influencing a country's electoral system? It's very obvious: choosing the candidate means choosing the member of Parliament. That was addressed in Justice Hogue's report.
However, there was something Justice Hogue's report did not address. We know that Mr. Dong was notified that CSIS was investigating efforts by the Communist regime in Beijing to interfere in his favour in the nomination process in which he was a candidate during the election. It being a very partisan, a very political, issue, Justice Hogue obviously won't delve into that aspect. That means it is up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This committee needs to examine the nomination process as well as how it took place to find out who was told about the investigation and who shared the secret and confidential information with a candidate in order to protect them. Justice Hogue won't address that in her report because it's inside information.
It is nonetheless very important for us. It is important for Canadians to know who broke the law, potentially jeopardizing a CSIS investigation in order to help get a Liberal candidate elected.
That is why my colleague's motion calls for the committee to deal with the issue of foreign interference before beginning a new study. As I mentioned, we were willing to consider the new study Mrs. Romanado had asked for. We were having discussions so we could start holding meetings.
Last evening, when the Speaker of the House agreed, he told our colleague Garnett Genuis that the question of privilege he raised was very relevant, that it did indeed require the House of Commons to hold a debate. Everything stopped. It was instantaneous. The Speaker made his decision and the debate instantly turned to that matter of privilege. The debate lasted all evening and we picked it up this morning. The debate lasted for as long as MPs wanted to talk about it, until a motion was unanimously adopted to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Once people were aware of the motion, my colleague Mr. Cooper immediately asked this committee to interrupt its work in order to address it. It was just as immediate as last evening and this morning.
Unfortunately, government members, with the help of the NDP once again, wanted something else. I do not understand why there was unanimous agreement in the House, but they vote against giving the matter priority here.
I will stop here, Mr. Chair. I am concluding my remarks. I would ask you to put my name at the end of the list again please.