Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I, too, do not wish to speak for too long, because like others, I would like to get to a vote quickly. That said, I would nonetheless like to go over certain comments that were made today. I think it is useful to do so once in a while in order to re‑centre the debate.
I have been hearing something today that has raised questions in my mind. We have been told that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the NSICOP, is the best forum for this type of work. I get the impression that some people are trying to oppose the work of the NSICOP, which would entail an independent public inquiry, with that of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons. But there is no need to oppose all three entities, or even others, because their work can be complementary.
We are currently holding a debate to determine if we should invite Katie Telford to testify so that we may hear what she knew and what she did with the information that she had. Today, some people have rightly said that this will not be the first time that Ms. Telford has been called on to testify before a committee. She has indeed testified before the Standing Committee on National Defence during its study on sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, which dealt with the allegations made against Jonathan Vance, amongst other things.
We would do well to remember that at the time, Ms. Telford stated that she had not advised the Prime Minister that she had received certain information. Since my Liberal colleagues are talking about cabinet confidentiality, the following question comes to mind: How can we have cabinet confidentiality if the Prime Minister is not aware of the situation? That certainly raises questions and is a compelling reason to summon Ms. Telford as a witness.
So what has happened is that either the Prime Minister was aware of the situation and the measures that he took were wrong, which would bring up the issue of cabinet confidentiality, or that the Prime Minister was not aware, which raises questions about internal governance. In both cases, we have to find out what happened, so that we can change our way of doing things in the future. That would actually be the goal of any testimony heard through a public inquiry.
The aim is to reveal any problems with the decision-making process that cropped up in the past in order to avoid such a situation coming up again, and by that same token, increase Canadians' confidence in democratic institutions.
Unfortunately, as we see now, we have to get information through the media in order for anything to actually happen. We have seen this recently on the issue of Chinese police stations. The more information we receive about these police stations, the more the various levels of government take measures to ensure that any funding for these police stations is cut off.
It is in our interest to understand what has happened. In that way, we will be compelled to take certain measures. The impression that we are getting now is that if everything falls under cabinet confidentiality, no measures will be taken. This seems to have been the case during the 2019 and 2021 elections, according to the information that we have that still needs to be validated.
A lot of people have spoken about partisanship this evening. We have been told that the opposition is playing political games. Personally, I think that is the opposite is true. I would like to underscore the position of the Conservatives. I do not always agree with what they do and how they do it. Their approach is perhaps a tad more aggressive than mine, but at the end of the day, it's a question of preference.
It is nonetheless important to note that the Conservatives are seeking to hold a public inquiry. I will just say in passing that we have heard many opinions on a public inquiry. I will remind you all that the committee has already voted on this issue and we don't have to revisit it. The Conservatives voted in favour of a public inquiry even though the media has reported that certain Conservative candidates may well have gained an advantage because of foreign interference. The Conservatives are therefore ready to discover what happened in the past, even if it will hurt them. By the same token, they have accepted a friendly amendment requiring that their campaign director also be summoned to testify. If that does not show a lack of partisanship, I do not know what does.
In this context, the only ones who seem to be guilty of partisanship are the Liberals. By digging their heels in, they are running the risk of sullying their reputation further. Canadians' confidence in democratic institutions and the Liberal Party will be weakened. I get the impression that the Liberals are shooting themselves in the foot by drawing out proceedings.
We could now vote on the intent of the motion, which is simple: either to invite or not invite Katie Telford. Some people are saying that three hours would be too long. I would ask them to amend the motion so as to reduce the length of time, instead of simply saying that we shouldn't invite her. Otherwise, we get the impression that that is what is really intended. If ever we decide that three hours is too much time, we should suggest another timeframe.
We can debate the intent rather than talk about all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with summoning the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Let's just get on with it and make a decision as quickly as possible for the benefit of Canadians and more importantly, the democratic institutions that we are supposed to represent.
I've had my say. I will let the next person speak.