Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to congratulate you for this first meeting. I think we will be increasingly constructive. That is my hope.
I feel compelled to provide an overview so you can all understand where I stand. I will speak slowly for the benefit of the interpreters.
As to the motion on harassment, I think it's important for us to be concerned about this issue, because it is ultimately about safeguarding our democracy. Harassment leads us to censor ourselves. It's exactly like foreign interference. We must keep that in mind.
I would also like to talk about our values. I think the other parties want to preserve Canadian unity. I myself can take the liberty of saying certain things, because I'm not grappling with partisan interests. As you know, we are in favour of what is good for Quebec and we are opposed to what is not.
I would like to raise awareness. You will no doubt recall the 70 meetings we held on foreign interference, more specifically on Beijing. For those who were not here, let me point out that we were able to ensure that there was an independent public inquiry. Then the process was launched.
That takes time. I can well understand that some people want to hear everything that's being said and offered up in dribs and drabs as a result of the proceedings of the Commission on Foreign Interference chaired by Justice Hogue. However, I think we have to respect what we—I'm talking about all the parties here—have managed to achieve. Remember that, during the summer, we adopted the whole process, and we achieved that together.
Obviously, any topic can bring out complementary aspects, but if we feel trust and respect for the Commission on Foreign Interference, we must restrain ourselves. We have to give it a chance and show some respect. I understand that some might be tempted to act in parallel or to meddle in things that are not up to us. I have to tell you, however, that I heartily disagree with that parallel approach. I agree that we would all like things to move more quickly. That is what I wanted to say.
As for our motion on harassment, I am grateful that we took the time to conduct an analysis. I asked myself a lot of questions, and as a result, I have answers before I can even vote or judge anything. Let me explain.
That harassment policy comes up every five years, I think. So it is now being reviewed. The motion to ensure that there is no vacuum when it comes to harassment between members was moved two years ago, I believe. It is very important that this policy and this rule truly reflect our reality. I understand that. It will also have a very positive impact on relations between parliamentarians.
Before we try to adopt anything, however, I'd like us to get some information from the analysts, the Sergeant-at-Arms or the clerk. As suggested by my colleague Ms. Mathyssen, we have to ask ourselves whether it's really here, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that we should be doing this important analysis. As you know, the Board of Internal Economy adopts a lot of regulations.
I don't know if you've spoken to your whips. For my part, I've spoken to my whip, and I have a lot of questions. I'm not wondering about the study as such, but rather about its scope; indeed, it will require six meetings. That's a very broad scope. Basically, we need to know what our weaknesses are so that we can adopt a policy which, I hope, will enable us to change our way of doing things a little. I'm telling you, we're going off the rails.
We're all adults. Last Tuesday, I received a visit from 38 high school students during which I had to answer questions for half an hour. You know what high school students are like; they ask the essential questions, so I had to give them essential answers.
I don't know where you stand on this, but, for my part, I was really ashamed. If our job is to restore confidence and make sure there are no flaws in our democracy, I can tell you that we are going off the rails. That's what's happening. We're right in the middle of it, and it's very embarrassing. Let's not forget that.
Today, I want to say that something is happening in the House. We have to be constructive and efficient. I know that not many people are watching us, but we're being watched all the same. Call your fellow citizens, and they'll ask you where you're going with your skis. I don't know how the interpreters will translate that.
We're being judged. Maybe you like being judged. We are being criticized. People wonder what this institution is all about, what all these slip-ups are. People are faced with concrete difficulties and they wonder what we're doing with their money. We mustn't forget them.
It's normal for partisan strategies to take up space in debates. However, if the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs doesn't act with dignity, respect for democracy and the issues we face, seriously, we'd better stop, go do our homework and come back next session.
Before continuing the discussion on the subamendment, I need some clarification. What has been done? What needs to be done? What do we need to do here in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to achieve the objective of Ms. Romanado's main motion?
I'll stop here, but it felt good to vent my feelings. We often forget to do that.
I can't wait to hear what my colleagues have to say.