Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the amendment by my colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby, a great parliamentarian with years of experience. He is someone I have a lot of respect for.
Like my colleague for Brampton North, I have some reservations. I must say that I find it fascinating to see how quickly positions have changed on the need to invite staff of ministers or of the Prime Minister to appear. It almost gave me whiplash.
I clearly recall, at our last meeting, my colleague from British Columbia speaking very eloquently about ministerial responsibility being an important tradition. The principle is that ministers are responsible for their political staff. We were looking, at the time, at a motion tabled by my dear colleague for St. Albert—Edmonton, which was also aimed at inviting the chief of staff to the Prime Minister to appear. The motion was worded almost exactly the same as the one we are looking at today. The committee rejected that portion of the motion, however, mainly because of the fine and very relevant points made by my colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby, who said that we had to avoid inviting political staff. He quoted Jay Hill, former government leader in the House of Commons for the Conservative Party, and Mr. Poilievre, when he was a minister in Mr. Harper’s government. He had set out a clear argument.
I’m therefore surprised at this sudden change of position. If Mr. Julian has the opportunity to do so, I would like him to take note of my question and tell me the reason for this change of heart, when he was saying just last week that it was not acceptable.
I do like a portion of his amendment, however. For members who do not have the clearance to access top secret documents, it would be useful to have a system similar to the one we had for documents from the Public Health Agency of Canada. I am ready to examine that portion.
We must find a way to ensure that we are not jeopardizing the people working in national security and intelligence while keeping the confidence of our allies who send us intelligence and, most importantly, we must make sure that countries that are not allies do not gain access to these documents and determine where the intelligence comes from, which could jeopardize the brave women and men who serve our country or our allies. Our main objective and our ultimate responsibility as parliamentarians is to protect the interests of Canadians and our great country.
I would like Mr. Julian to clarify something for me. He began his comments by saying that the best solution was to have a national public inquiry into these issues. In that non-partisan inquiry, secret information would be protected and we would get to the bottom of this situation to determine the extent of foreign interference in this country by not only China, but also other countries, like Russia, that are causing us trouble. Not only have these countries interfered in elections, but they have also influenced events such as the occupation of Ottawa. Their actions have also had an impact on people who have been victims of misinformation.
All of this is intended to weaken our democratic institutions. Those countries know that our country's secret ingredient is the fact that everyone has the opportunity and the freedom to express themselves. This is very important. Those countries do not respect freedom of expression, but they take advantage of that freedom to spread misinformation. Through that misinformation, they want to weaken the democratic debate that is going on in Canada and in other democratic countries around the world.
I like the idea of holding a public inquiry. If this committee decides to support my colleague's motion or to make a recommendation to hold a public inquiry, that would be great. However, I want to get clarifications on something. If we get this tool, does that mean that an end will be put to all the studies on this subject that are currently being conducted by our committee, by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, by the non-partisan committee responsible for considering the issue and by the committee on China? After all, there are four parliamentary committees in the House of Commons that are carrying out studies on the same topic. I would like to know if the idea proposed by my colleague—that is, to hold a public inquiry—means that these other inquiries will end. That does not make sense. There is a first duplication and then a second one. It's like my Conservative colleagues like to say: triple, triple, triple the inquiries on the same subject. It doesn't make sense.
I would like to understand my colleague's intent a little better. I hope he will be kind enough to clarify that for me, for everyone around this table and for all Canadians listening to this debate at home.
This is a debate of fundamental importance. We are all concerned about this issue.
Under the best of circumstances, Canada and Parliament have been able to act independently of the petty interests of respective political parties. We have seen that a number of times, including at the beginning of the pandemic. All political parties and all members of Parliament rose to the challenge and rose to the occasion. It touched my heart deeply. We had targeted a common threat, the virus, and everyone did their part to help Canadians. Members of the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party, the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party all did a remarkable job. We were proud to work together, in every province and territory, from coast to coast to coast.
Once again, we are faced with a common threat, one that puts the health, sustainability and integrity of our democratic institutions at risk. These institutions deserve everyone's efforts.
I have been working here on the Hill for a long time. I arrived here in 1988. I remember when Mr. Bouchard left the Conservative caucus to form the Bloc Québécois. I remember very well the debates that took place outside Quebec. People wondered why some were dedicated to breaking up our country and questioned their place in the federal Parliament. Yes, I was a staunch federalist. Yes, I am a staunch Liberal. But I have always defended everyone's right to hold any viewpoint, and I will do so for the rest of my life. It is important. If a person can convince their fellow citizens to vote for them, they deserve their place in Parliament.
I say this because I believe it is much better to have discussions than to resort to violence. Our political institution—