Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will be curious to see what my colleagues think of this letter. I appreciate your intervention and your making sure that everybody has a copy. I don't believe that would prevent me from referring to the letter right now.
It's dated December 4, so it's very current. This is on letterhead for the Honourable Michael Chong, our colleague for whom the question is before this committee.
The Honourable Bardish Chagger
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6
Dear Chair Chagger,
I understand a motion was introduced at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which, if adopted, would order the production of documents relating to the question of privilege on the intimidation campaign against me orchestrated by a People's Republic of China consular official in Toronto, Mr. Wei Zhao.
It has come to my attention that the Committee is debating an amendment to paragraph e) of the motion that, if adopted, would have the effect of limiting the information in the documents the committee would order.
It is imperative the Committee obtain all the information related to the intimidation campaign against me in order to fully understand what transpired within the Government of Canada that allowed this campaign to go on for two years without the Government informing me. Without such information, the Committee will not be able to fully understand what took place and will not be able to make recommendations to the House to prevent future occurrences to me or other members. The privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons and its members would be weakened as a result.
Section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes the privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons and its members, which have endured for more than one hundred and fifty years since Confederation. They have endured because successive generations of parliamentarians have jealously guarded any diminishment of these privileges, immunities, and powers, which are essential to members in their discharge of their duty to represent their constituents.
Therefore, I believe the amendment should be rejected and the main motion adopted in order to obtain the information needed for the Committee to come to conclusions and make recommendations.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would convey my views on this question of privilege to members of the Committee by way of this letter.
Sincerely,
Michael Chong
That is with his signature, and it's been copied to the vice-chairs of this committee.
Madam Chair, the subject of the study and investigation himself, one of our colleagues and a member, has eloquently and articulately made the same points that Conservative members at least, as well as others at this table, have made, that we do have a duty and responsibility and the authority to request the production of these documents, and that power is granted to us through the Constitution. The parliamentary law clerk has said that it would not be a problem for their office to deal with both redacted and unredacted documents so that we could have the fulsome information we need in order to report proper findings as a result of this investigation that we've all put so much time and effort into. It would be a shame now to say after all of that work and all of that effort that's been done that we're going to leave some stones unturned and some business unfinished just for a matter of political expediency.
With that, Madam Chair, I would urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and to restore the integrity of the original motion calling for the law clerk to see unredacted and redacted documents and to then provide this committee with the information it should have.
Thank you.