I want to reassure my dear colleague: If I’m saying all this, it’s to highlight that it’s in the common interest of all Canadians to defend and protect our political institutions. Canadians have a right to do so. It’s our duty as parliamentarians to set aside our individual interests and make sure we can defend our political institutions from foreign interference.
This is therefore an invitation I’m extending to my colleagues.
I have no problem with maintaining a parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, currently, some colleagues seem unable to set aside their partisan interests. I say that with all due respect for my colleagues. Indeed, commentators in the political world even noted it.
That is why I really like my British Columbian colleague’s idea of asking for a public inquiry. In fact, it could be a way of eliminating partisanship from an inquiry into the sources and extent of political interference in Canada’s democratic institutions.
My colleague from Kingston and the Islands mentioned that one of our colleagues had accused another of being an agent for another country. I just found out about it, and I was disappointed as well. Indeed, that runs counter to the House of Commons Standing Orders. We have no right to sow doubt about another member’s character. All members are honourable members. Saying that someone is serving another country goes well beyond what we expect in terms of an acceptable debate in the House. I hope that colleague will withdraw the tweet or video on social media. If he doesn’t do so publicly, I hope he will at least have the decency to call the member he insulted and apologize privately. Let’s hope so. I’m sure the member is an honourable man. Going off the rails can happen from time to time, but I hope he will apologize.
Recently, I myself apologized to Canadians. I didn’t mince words. My apology was entirely sincere. It’s important to say that anyone can make mistakes, that’s not a problem. What we do afterwards and the way we react to a situation really give the measure of a person’s character.
We have an opportunity here to set aside our partisan interests and act in citizens’ common interest, regardless of their origins and political affiliations. This is a key moment in our history. I hope we will decide to look for the truth rather than defend overly narrow interests.
I’m concerned about another aspect of my colleague Mr. Julian’s amendment.
Excuse me, I think I have the wrong document in front of me. I seem to have lost it, but there was something else in the amendment that drew my concern.
Wait, I think I have the right version of the amendment in electronic format.
Actually, I’m grateful to Mr. Julian for suggesting we look into the possibility that there was foreign interference in our country during the 2011 and 2015 general elections, as well as those in 2019 and 2021. I think it makes sense, especially since we’ve observed a disinformation trend for some time, since the beginning of social media. That’s what national security experts and those who gather national intelligence said when I asked them the question. They said it started well before 2019. It became evident after 2016, but it did indeed exist before then.
The amendment therefore proposes that we look into "efforts by, or on behalf of, foreign governments or other foreign state actors to interfere in the 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021 general election". I think that’s a significant improvement with respect to the main motion proposed by my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.
As for inviting political staff, as I said, it doesn’t reflect the principle of ministerial responsibility, which is part of a long tradition in the British parliamentary system.
I’ve just been informed that I was touching my mic while speaking, so I apologize to the interpreters. I hope I didn’t cause them any problems. I’ll do everything I can to keep my hands in front of me and not play with the mic.
I’d like to seize this opportunity to express, on behalf of all the members here, our deep gratitude to the interpreters and all members of the House of Commons staff. They work tirelessly to support us, not just during this late evening meeting, but every day.
As I said at the beginning, August will mark the 35th anniversary of my move here to the region. I started working at Parliament as a page, and I haven’t left the Hill for 35 years. Every day, I’m very grateful to the Parliamentary Precinct staff, who do their best to make sure members can do their work and serve Canadians well. I congratulate and thank them.
Let’s come back to the subject.
So, I was talking about ministerial responsibility. There’s a part of the amendment that leaves me a little cold. It’s point i in part b), which invites Ms. Katie Telford, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, and Ms. Tausha Michaud, the former official opposition leader’s Chief of Staff, to appear before the committee. Again, there’s some inconsistency.
I’ll quote what Mr. Julian said last week. Unfortunately, I don’t have the French version on hand, but here’s the English version:
I caution on the issue of inviting staff. I wanted to cite a number of people for the record, Madam Chair, if you'll permit me. Around the issue of political staff, as opposed to having ministers being brought forward to testify, I support having ministers come forward to explain what they did and what they knew, and what actions they've taken to ensure that this never happens again.
First, Mr. Julian quoted a former leader of the government in the House:
There is a clear case to be made that the accountability of political staff ought to be satisfied through ministers. Ministers ran for office and accepted the role and responsibility of being a minister. Staff did not.
Mr. Julian quoted the former Albertan Conservative member, Jay Hill, who became leader of the Maverick Party in Alberta, which is demanding independence for that province.
Mr. Julian then quoted a second member:
Mr. Speaker, we believe that cabinet ministers are responsible for what happens in their names and responsible to Parliament. This is called ministerial responsibility and it is one of the oldest traditions here in our country.
We are talking here about the principle of ministerial responsibility.
Mr. Julian then continued to quote the member:
Ministerial accountability is the reason why cabinet ministers answer questions in question period and it is why they appear before committees to answer for their offices.
We hope that all opposition committee chairs will follow the rules and procedures....
He quoted the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, currently the official opposition’s deputy whip in the House of Commons.
Mr. Julian concluded his statement with the following quote, which is really the icing on the cake, in my opinion:
The hon. member knows very well that for hundreds of years, the principle of ministerial accountability has been paramount here in the House and in its committees.
Mr. Julian was quoting the member for Carleton, Mr. Poilievre, when he was a minister in Mr. Harper’s government. He is now leader of the official opposition. I hope he has many years, or even decades, to master the role.
For all those reasons, I take issue with the amendment of point i, part b), in my colleague’s proposal.
We have here an opportunity to make sure we do our job and do it without overlap, duplication or even triple, triple, triple, as conservative members habitually say dozens of times a day in the House of Commons. It makes me wonder if they accumulate points every time they say it.