Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, I knew this was going to happen; it was predictable. Right now, they are finding every possible way to disregard the majority of members of the House of Commons and all the witnesses who have appeared. They all said they were in favour of a foreign agent registry, and the list will be long. Everyone said they were in favour of an independent, public inquiry. We are not saying this because we want to. We have the proof, here and now, that things are being mixed up, as though a leader has to comply with a requirement issued by a committee. There is talk of impartiality, but we clearly need to review that concept, from a political point of view. We want to protect our democracy, and to do that we must to use impartial methods.
I hope people recognize that the respectable and honourable Mr. Johnston, who was not chosen by all parliamentarians, has already been deemed to be impartial. He was chosen by the Prime Minister. That was the first request we wanted to make. They did not listen to us. Nothing was done. They wanted to retain control over the whole process. Now we are being told that all the leaders should read the classified information, but they will feel muzzled. They will only have the right to say whether they agree or not, nothing more.
We will give them the right to speak. Are they experts on the subject? I think asking the question is the same as answering it. What we need is expertise, a judge, someone with all the expertise and, above all, real impartiality. We cannot set aside all the factors before us in view of the close ties of the special rapporteur, appointed by none other than the Prime Minister. Actually, I understand once again. I did not understand enough in the WE Charity saga, which is similar to what is happening, that is, getting to the bottom of it without actually shedding any light. Moreover, the witnesses who appeared said the same thing.
I was not here in March for the 24‑hour filibuster. We even heard about the sensitivity of providing information during an independent and public inquiry. The Globe and Mail reported that even a lawyer heading up the commission of inquiry into the Maher Arar affair stated that the Johnston report raises serious questions about intelligence services, interaction, communications. In his opinion, an independent and public inquiry is needed.
I know we have staff until 8 p.m. tonight. I know how it works now. I can no longer say that I am the new kid on the block. Honestly, I think this game we are witnessing is unacceptable, all in the name of democracy. Perhaps there are other tools in your tool box, but we will get there in the end. This subamendment that imposes a requirement on the party leaders, but is written as a recommendation, is utter nonsense.
I am very disappointed by what is happening at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs right now. It seems that partisan politics and parliamentary games are ultimately more important than integrity, real integrity, and democracy. It does not bother me to say so, because I say it all the time: we do not aspire to be in power; we want to get some clarity in order to correct the situation. To do that, we will need experts and an independent, public inquiry.
The Leader of the Bloc Québécois has shown good will. He received an invitation from Mr. Johnston and he accepted it. Now it is up to him to decide whether he wants to consult a classified document without expertise or impartiality, but with concrete action, because this is a trap that will muzzle people, as many of my colleagues have said.
I am keen to hear from the other parties. I did not really think it would come to this. Those are my initial thoughts in the heat of the moment.