Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret, but also hope, that I rise to speak on the question of privilege raised by the member for Malpeque.
I say “regret” because in Canada, in 2013, I believe we should not need to address the issue of a politician publicly grilling a witness appearing as a guest of Parliament on his or her beliefs, memberships or donations. It is not a stretch to name this practice for what it is: a shameful act of McCarthyism that should properly be a relic of an intolerant and undemocratic past.
I say “hope” because the discussion today gives parliamentarians an opportunity to commit themselves to a better future, one with a higher standard of conduct for parliamentarians and with renewed respect for Canadians.
This discussion on a higher standard of conduct has also been raised just this morning by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who stood in this House to talk about the duty parliamentarians have to truly represent and respect their constituents.
No party in this House can say it has an unblemished record and claim to have never questioned witnesses appearing before committees of Parliament about their partisan activities or beliefs, but I believe this in every case has been regrettable and wrong.
Witnesses appear before committees at the invitation of the committees and do Parliament the honour of sharing their experience, expertise and perspectives. It is interchangeably disrespectful and indeed counterproductive to this process to try to discredit those witnesses by making their personal political beliefs or activities a source of attack.
Like the hon. member for Malpeque, I also agree that it is fundamentally irrelevant to the question at hand.
If we endorse processes that make testifying before committee a prying inquiry into matters of personal behaviour, we risk driving away necessary and helpful voices from our deliberations—