Information & Ethics Committee on May 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're resuming committee business. When we left off, I had Mr. Barrett and Mr. Kurek, and I see Mr. Bains' hand is up as well, so we start with Mr. Barrett.

Go ahead, sir.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm reading page 154:

If, in the opinion of the Chair, the issue raised relates to privilege (or if an appeal should overturn a Chair's decision that it does not touch on privilege), the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House. The Chair will entertain a motion which will form the text of the report.... The motion is debatable and amendable, and will have priority of consideration in the committee.

Therefore, Mr. Parm Bains gets the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let me just clarify that, Mr. Fisher, on your point of order.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I am going to suspend for a couple of minutes just to clarify this, and we'll go from there.

I'm suspending.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're back in public. I appreciate the time allowing me to....

Mr. Fisher raised a point of order. I consulted with the clerk on chapter 3, page 154 of the book and, in fact, I rule the point of order in order.

I go to Mr. Bains, and I'm going to follow that with Mr. Barrett and Mr. Kurek. Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move a motion:

That the committee report to the House that, on May 23, during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the member for Steveston—Richmond East was the subject of false and defamatory statements made by the member for Brantford—Brant which constituted a breach of the member's privilege; and that the committee recommend that the member for Brantford—Brant stand before the House and apologize and retract any and all defamatory statements made about the member for Steveston—Richmond East.

That will be emailed, along with the French translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Has that come through yet, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

Yes. I will distribute it in a second.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, so we're going to distribute it in a second.

The motion on the question of privilege is in order. It is subject to debate. It is amendable, so that members are aware.

I'm gathering a speaking list right now. Mr. Barrett is first, Mr. Kurek is second and Monsieur Villemure is third to speak on the motion. I'm going to wait until it's in the hands of members of the committee so that they can see it.

Is it in there now, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

I sent it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, so it should be in your inboxes.

I'm going to suspend for a minute until everybody has it in their hands. I want to make sure you have the motion.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're back in session. I appreciate everyone's patience. We wanted to make sure the motion was put in the hands of committee members. It's now been distributed in both official languages.

Mr. Bains moved a motion related to a question of privilege. I go to Mr. Bains to start. Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that the motion has been received, I have some brief comments.

Ultimately, what took place was Mr. Brock, the member for Brantford—Brant, making some claims against me. These were untrue. It is clear that Mr. Chiu has been to this committee on a number of occasions and had many opportunities in the media to make these claims against me prior. It appears he's obviously changed his tune, for whatever reason. That's why I found it necessary to clarify these facts and bring them forward to this committee.

Now, if we look at why, I was simply trying to move a motion forward on another issue, one about closing loopholes, the ethical use of our budget and members using House of Commons funds to do the job we do. I was closing loopholes and looking at abuses. I was bringing forward something that had been in the news, which we found: Conservative members using House of Commons funds for a convention that was partisan and abusing their—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Hang on.

Mr. Bains, we're dealing with relevance to the issue here.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Right.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're talking about a question of privilege related to the motion. What you're speaking about has no relevance to the issue at hand. Please stick to the issue at hand.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Okay. I was just bringing forward why I found that I was attacked. I wanted to shed light on why we are where we are.

With respect to this motion and why my privilege was denied me, I was not allowed to do my job, and it was simply because of the issue I raised. Now where we are is Mr. Brock is making references to statements that I did not make.

At this time, I believe the issue of Mr. Brock's claims against me needs to be brought forward to the House. Justice Hogue's findings clearly indicated there was no bad faith. The member opposite engaged in misleading dialogue. It was intended to intimidate me, damage my reputation and impede me in my role as a member of Parliament doing my job.

For that reason, I believe this motion should move forward and go to the House. As stated in the motion, Mr. Brock should be made to apologize.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

On the motion, I have Mr. Barrett, followed by Mr. Kurek.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

What we often see from this NDP-Liberal government is that they try to take every opportunity to avoid accountability and reasonable and fair criticism of their failures.

On Mr. Bains' motion, in his preamble or his justification, I didn't hear the falsehood that he said was made against him, nor evidence that anything that was said or repeated by my colleague was incorrect. This is the pattern.

The irony, of course, is that Mr. Bains and the NDP-Liberal government are saying that it's intimidation. If they hope to move a motion and someone else moves a motion that speaks to a different issue that's critical of them, that's intimidation.

They've put forward a motion, without any evidence, to attempt to censure an opposition MP, but that's not intimidation.

We heard, in the most bizarre terms at the last meeting, a Liberal member say that simply referencing the behaviour of another MP is inciting hate. That same MP, in the seven days before, tweeted out the name of every Conservative member of this committee, looking to engage social media users to reach out to those MPs.

Members of Parliament must be accountable to Canadians. To have the NDP-Liberal government try to take a situation like this....

Let's just be very black and white. Mr. Brock was recognized by the chair of the committee; he had the floor and he appropriately moved a motion. The allegation by Mr. Bains is that it's intimidation. It's an attempt to try to silence him from doing his job.

This is obviously an attempt by Mr. Bains.... It's a vexatious motion to try to silence someone who's rightly critical of the government.

A great example of the situation we're facing in this country this week and the lack of seriousness by parties in the House with respect to foreign interference is that we had the government put forward a bill to finally take some steps to address foreign interference in our democratic institutions in our last election, like has been alleged in Steveston—Richmond East, which is Mr. Bains' riding. The official opposition put forward a motion in the House to fast-track the bill, so that it could be passed because we've heard from security officials that it's going to take them up to a year and a half to fully implement the provisions of this bill. The NDP withheld consent. They blocked the expeditious passage of legislation to address foreign interference in our democracy.

There are a lot of big questions about the motivations of members of parties with respect to serious issues. It seems like an attempt to control the narrative on what's okay to talk about on foreign interference and what's not okay to talk about on foreign interference.

How can we, as parliamentarians, talk about foreign interference in our elections if we can't talk about allegations of interference in our election in specific ridings?

How can we do that? How can we hear testimony from witnesses on foreign interference when they allege there were attempts to interfere in their election by foreign state actors? That person comes and testifies. Then a member repeats those allegations. The individual who's a beneficiary of those alleged actions then says, “Well, you're attempting to intimidate me by talking about the evidence we heard on a study the committee asked to have.”

I would note that this is now the second meeting where the published notice of meeting has in camera consideration of a draft report listed, and the committee is not dealing with that. Interestingly, that study is also critical of government departments. We see this time and again. There are attempts to block scrutiny of the government put on them by the official opposition. It's in the name. Our job is to be the check against the balance of power. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, we see how we have a government that is the least transparent in history.

They use every tool to try to silence their critics. Every time there's criticism of the government, there's an attempt to deflect it. The government spends $1.3 million on so-called affordability retreats. “Oh, well, we don't want to talk about that. Let's talk about people who talked about evidence at committee instead.”

This coalition government, which is presiding over a cost of living crisis, is refusing to expeditiously pass legislation to combat foreign interference. It fights tooth and nail to block scrutiny of ministers like Minister Boissonnault and his business associates Mr. Anderson and Ms. Poon, who are supposed to be here Tuesday. Well, we haven't gotten through the business of this committee at the last two meetings. I have a suspicion there's an attempt to block the work of members who are scrutinizing Minister Boissonnault's actions. That's the tactic we're seeing from the NDP-Liberal government.

It's interesting that the request is for an apology. I don't need to ask Mr. Brock if that ask was made to him discreetly and in good faith by members opposite before they jumped up on the soapbox, because I know they didn't. It isn't an attempt to solicit an apology. It's an attempt to silence criticism of a corrupt government and of a Prime Minister twice found guilty of breaking ethics laws. Criticism of the government is being deflected by tactics like the ones we saw at the last meeting, which descended into, I believe, intentional chaos through members of the NDP-Liberal government.

We know it is a fact that there was a misinformation campaign targeting the riding of Steveston—Richmond East. Well, who was the intended beneficiary of that?

These questions are huge. We have a commission looking into these questions, not because the member for Brantford—Brant was looking to silence the member for Steveston—Richmond East. It's because this is a matter of national concern that has also alarmed our international allies. The global community is watching.

We used to be asked to go and monitor elections in other countries. What's happening in this country compromises our ability to be a beacon of democracy elsewhere if we don't take it seriously, but we see intimidation attempts by the government to try to silence critics and to try to silence parliamentary opposition.

Are we able to talk about the Chinese Canadians and Uyghurs who are terrorized by the CCP? Are we allowed to share their experience, or is that an attempt to silence a government that has been alleged to be the beneficiary of foreign interference by the Communist dictatorship in Beijing?

Some of their members might have been elected because of it; therefore, their members could be intimidated by that discussion, so we can't talk about it. It's preposterous. It's preposterous.

We've seen a warm hand, well beyond a wink and a nudge, for the dictatorship in Beijing by Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau even said he admired their basic dictatorship. Those are his words, not mine.

I appreciate that by quoting someone else's words in context I might hear that I've jeopardized the Prime Minister's parliamentary privilege by being critical. That's my job, and that's our job. Talking about what happens here is our job.

It's not as if we haven't seen examples from the government before in which they've tried to do exactly what they're doing right now. Justin Trudeau is guilty of contravening sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act, and when we attempt to address these issues at this committee, we have seen extraordinary filibusters, extraordinary, weeks on end.

The Prime Minister was further found guilty of contravening section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act for politically interfering in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. That's a company that was charged with fraud and corruption for bribing Libyan officials of the Gadhafi regime. There were $48 million in bribes, defrauding Libyan organizations out of $130 million.

When we've attempted to scrutinize why there weren't criminal sanctions when we've seen the evidence that the RCMP had a decision tree, for example, in the case of Trudeau Report 1, and it showed that for the Prime Minister to have been able to take a trip to billionaire island—the first time he had a series of findings of guilt against him for breaking the Conflict of Interest Act—the only question in the RCMP decision tree on whether or not there was a reasonable prospect of convicting him for fraud on government for accepting a gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from an individual who was the beneficiary of millions of dollars in grants from the government.... The only outstanding question was whether or not the Prime Minister had received permission in writing from the head of the branch of government for which he worked.

The Prime Minister admitted in the House that he had not, in fact, satisfied that criterion. By the RCMP's own analysis, there was a reasonable prospect of conviction against Justin Trudeau for the relevant Criminal Code offences. We had the RCMP commissioner at the table and we had the cover-up coalition move to adjourn the meeting.

Is that not a breach of the privileges of members of the official opposition, who are trying to do their job?

The commissioner of the RCMP was sitting at the table, and they adjourned the meeting. Proper notice was given for the meeting. The meeting was set in accordance with and complying with all of the Standing Orders and usual practices of the House of Commons.

Does that not rise to the same level as being in a meeting, discussing evidence that was given about matters that are before the committee?

I've heard great umbrage being taken by members of the NDP-Liberal government when we talk about them covering up corruption by their government. “You can't say that,” they claim. If you do say it, my goodness, they're going to try to make sure that people don't hear about it. Shut down the meetings.

I think it was two weeks ago that we had the law clerk and an officer of Parliament sitting in the room, ready to give testimony, but it wasn't going to be flattering to the government. What happened? The meeting was adjourned.

This is a pattern we see, just like in this motion from Mr. Bains. Anything that resembles criticism of the government or that doesn't match their narrative is not acceptable.

The official opposition isn't going to be deterred by the efforts of this coalition. We have to hold it to account. We must expose this government when it fails Canadians. I put it that way, “when it fails Canadians,” as it has in so many instances.

We've addressed at this committee.... This is another example of tactics like the one we're seeing in this motion being used to block criticism of the government and its members, including members of the executive, with their $60-million arrive scam.

The transparency that we look to apply is met with fierce opposition from the government. We were told in 2022, “There's nothing to see here. It all worked fine, but we can't tell you who did the work, and we won't tell you how much it cost.”

Every Liberal member of Parliament and every member of cabinet voted against having the Auditor General investigate.

Wait a second. Is that the same standard Mr. Bains is looking to set with this motion?

Is disagreeing with the government a violation of the privilege of the members of Parliament who voted for the Auditor General to look into what has been demonstrated to be a massive scandal for the Trudeau government?

We see grifters who are skimming 30% on contracts worth tens of millions of dollars but adding no value to that work. Had the government had its way and not allowed us to do our work and not allowed us to engage the parliamentary tools that are available to us, like the Office of the Auditor General, like the Office of the Procurement Ombud, then we wouldn't have the information that we have about how broken the systems have become after nine years of Justin Trudeau and his NDP-Liberal government.

We're asking questions and putting forward motions like Mr. Brock put forward appropriately at the meeting, a motion that was in order. I don't have a copy of the blues in front of me to read back, as evidence, Mr. Brock's statements from that meeting, but I'll be interested to hear from the mover of the motion, Mr. Bains. Where's the lie? That's what I want to hear. I'm interested to hear, and I would have expected that in his litigation of this question, in his explanation of the necessity of this when we're not dealing with the business of the committee, we might hear what it was that Mr. Brock said that wasn't true.

My further question, should Mr. Bains choose to entertain the question, would be this. What efforts did he take? If he's looking for an apology, instead of spending hours of committee time to solicit an apology, did he ask for one? Was he denied and then looked to escalate it?

However, this isn't about that. This is about looking to create a distraction from his government, which is in crisis. We continue to see examples of that. The billion-dollar green slush fund is another prime example of when, after the government is challenged for its mismanagement of the file, we hear from the minister, who says that as soon as they found out, they took reasonable steps, and they're going to restore governance, and it's all been very reasonable.

The hand-picked Liberal chair and another member are both being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner, because I had to refer the matter to that commissioner's office. Their chair resigned in disgrace. You would think that if the minister had it in hand, he would have taken some steps and fired the chair.

However, every time we raise issues like their billion-dollar green slush fund.... One of the individuals, who voted in the self-dealing way to enrich companies that they had an interest in, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, they appointed to the Infrastructure Bank.

When I asked the infrastructure minister the other day, he said he didn't know about that individual. When I pressed him about whether that individual should be serving on the infrastructure board—the government that claimed it would be the most transparent in history—his deputy leans over to him and says that the individual resigned in April, weeks ago.

I encourage you to take a scan of the Infrastructure Bank's website for that announcement—it's not there. At every turn that there's accountability demanded of this NDP-Liberal government, they take extraordinary steps to make sure they're not held to account.

You'll hear, when we talk about their legacy after nine years, the response is that if we think they're bad, we should have seen the last guys. They still want to talk about a previous government as if the legacy that they've presided over isn't.... They don't own it—they're victims.

We've heard a lot lately that things are pretty bad and that when they find out who's in charge they're really going to give it to them. The call is coming from inside the House, and the opposition—the official opposition at least—put forward motions and proposed measures that are in line with our role to hold them accountable, to hold the NDP-Liberal government accountable, but this motion from Mr. Bains calls for.... It pronounces on falsehoods without saying what they are. I'll reference the text of the motion exactly: “false and defamatory statements”.

It just wants members, on the word of the member for Steveston—Richmond East, on the word of Mr. Bains, to just assume that everything that the Conservative member said was false and misleading and he should apologize for all of it. There's no list. He doesn't itemize what he claims to be false, and he doesn't detail evidence to the contrary. I think that's quite telling.

I think it's quite telling. We further saw at this committee when the trade minister, Minister Ng, had been found guilty of breaking ethics laws, like Justin Trudeau was found guilty of breaking ethics laws, like then minister Bill Morneau was found guilty of breaking ethics laws, like Minister Dominic LeBlanc was found guilty of breaking ethics laws, like Liberal Greg Fergus.... There's a pattern there with Liberals and their inability to follow the ethics guidelines of this place.

We saw opposition from the government, instead of having transparency just addressing the issue head-on. It's been pronounced on by an independent officer of Parliament. They don't want that kind of transparency. They don't want to talk about their trade minister Ng, who gave sweetheart deals worth tens of thousands of dollars to her bestie, but every time we say their names, they say, “Oh my goodness, you can't say our names as if we're responsible for the actions of people outside of this place.”

Let me be crystal clear that when people engage with elected officials, like when you engage with your neighbour—because that's what parliamentarians are, members of a community; we are someone's family; we're somebody's neighbours—I sincerely hope that people don't walk out their front door and scream profanities at their neighbours, and I would expect the same when they're expressing themselves to elected officials.

I won't say that people shouldn't express themselves, because of course our right as Canadians is to do that, but we are part of a society and we need to make sure that we do it in such a way that.... Are we looking for dialogue, or are we simply looking to intimidate someone? I would say that screaming expletives at someone could serve as intimidation, and that's not acceptable, and that's why we have rules in this place. It's so we don't do that.

Putting forward motions that are germane to the issues that our committee is dealing with is not intimidation, though. When we're dealing with questions of foreign interference at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics; when there is national media; when judges are speaking about allegations of election interference in specific ridings; and when the government decides to put a member who is from one of those ridings on a committee that's dealing with that study, should we just not talk about it? “Jeez Louise, we can't talk about Steveston—Richmond East, because the member for Steveston—Richmond East is on the committee. We'll talk about foreign interference that may or may not have affected Steveston—Richmond East after the next election. We'll just hope”—because the NDP doesn't want to see expeditious passage of foreign interference legislation that would help us combat that by foreign state actors, like the dictatorship in Beijing—“that it doesn't reoccur.”

That's absurd. We have an obligation as members to create a space where we can actually do our job without finding ourselves in an area that could be a conflict. If there's that perception of a conflict, or if the individual feels like they might be conflicted and it hits a little too close to home, well, maybe they should come and give witness testimony and not be questioning the witnesses.

When we have an individual come before a committee to allege that the riding they held as an elected member and then lost in an election...and then the individual they lost to is examining their evidence in the meeting, I would just expect that all individuals involved from all parties who ran, including the individual who won in any of those ridings that are in question, would appear as witnesses and wouldn't cross-examine the other individuals who are alleging, in some cases, that members were elected in part because of foreign interference tactics by state actors.

We find ourselves in a situation that I feel could have been avoided. All members, when we have a full complement of the 338 who are elected, or the 343 after the next election, are associate members of all the standing committees of the House. Then we have regular members. I know that people will say “permanent” member. No one is a permanent member. Members can attend any committee meeting, even members who are not from parties who have recognized standing on the committee. Independent members can attend. They just can't vote.

If two associate members, two non-regular members of this standing committee, from the official opposition attend, they are able to sit at the table. They are able to make interventions. They are able to question witnesses. They are able to raise points of order. They are not able to vote unless a substitution has been made to the clerk. If a regular member of the committee is in the room, they can't be substituted in to vote for that member, even if a substitution request has been made to the clerk.

I have not been here for a long time. I've been elected for a little over five years. I was elected in December 2018, but I know the rules. Even the other day I had a Liberal parliamentary secretary challenge that I was able to question one of their ministers. They interrupted my questioning of a minister: “Is he even allowed to be here? Is he allowed to ask questions? I'm counting enough Conservatives at the table. All the regular members are there.”

He can't really be allowed to ask a minister, a cabinet minister, questions. Imagine that Leeds—Grenville sent their man to Ottawa, and he was able to ask a Liberal cabinet minister questions and hold him accountable. Of course I can, and of course we're going to do that.

I heard it from a different parliamentary secretary in the House during debate, who challenged to the Speaker my ability to ask a question that wasn't on the prepared notes that he got from his minister in an adjournment proceeding. It's absurd.

It's absurd that the NDP-Liberal government thinks that the official opposition is going to sit quietly while they run roughshod over our democracy and over Canadians. We were sent here to represent Canadians, to represent our constituents but also to represent the interests of people from across our great country.

After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, a lot of Canadians are frustrated and upset, and a lot of them are lined up at food banks, in record numbers. A lot of them are worried about being able to pay their mortgage or their rent. A lot of them are struggling to access the health care they need. A lot of them are seeing drugs, and disorder on the streets that they couldn't have imagined nine years ago. We're going to come here every single day, and we are going to hold this NDP-Liberal government to account. We are going to challenge them. If they cobble enough votes together with other parties, well, such is democracy.

People will ask: Well, you raised that issue, and you demonstrated at committee or you demonstrated in the House that the government failed or that they broke the rules or, in some cases, broke the law. Well, what's the consequence?

Well, in a democracy the consequences come from voters at the ballot box. Our job is the exposition of corruption and failure after nine years of Justin Trudeau and his NDP-Liberal government. That's what we're going to do. We're going to expose it.

Then in the next election, which is probably going to come a little later than most would hope because the leader of the NDP, Mr. Singh, is really holding out for that pension, Canadians are going to cast their ballots, and they're going to decide. In the meantime, we're going to move motions. We're going to move motions that are germane to the work of the standing committees that we sit on. Sometimes we're going to move motions at standing committees that we're associate members of, even if the parliamentary secretaries don't like it, even if the Prime Minister's Office doesn't like it, because it's our job.

Just like that's our job, we have a motion in front of us from Mr. Bains that makes allegations. I would encourage him to hold up a mirror when he talks about tactics that are attempting to silence people because it looks to me that in fact what he is doing is exactly what he is alleging Mr. Brock has done. It's a vexatious attempt to silence critics of a corrupt government, and Conservatives will not abide it.

Thank you, Chair.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Kurek, you have the floor.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We find ourselves in an interesting position here today. As Mr. Barrett has expanded on in the last number of minutes, we are first....

I believe that this bears highlighting. At a meeting a number of weeks ago, the NDP actually requested that some documents be provided. Those documents had a timeline on them. There is a requirement for the committee to deal with those documents. That timeline has passed, and this committee has not yet had an opportunity to deal with that, although both the meeting today and the meeting this past Tuesday did have committee business, as was listed publicly, in camera.

I am very curious about why we are in the situation we're in when we hear often from Liberals and New Democrats that somehow it is Conservatives who are to blame for everything that is held up in committees and in Parliament. We hear this at length, especially in the House.

What I would highlight before I get into the substance of my remarks is that, because of Liberal actions backed up by the NDP, this committee has not had a chance to deal with some of the important business that sits before it, whether that be some information that was related to a request that was made at the end of a committee meeting.... It was about three weeks ago now, if my memory serves me correctly. The deadline was at two weeks. Obviously, that has passed. Because the committee has not had a chance to substantively sit in camera and deal with the business at hand, we still don't have a resolution to that.

Then we have what is talked about in the public declaration, that there was a consideration of a draft report on the federal government's use of technological tools capable of extracting personal data from mobile devices and computers.

Part of the important work the committee does has to do with these reports. We do studies. We move motions that do studies. We call witnesses. Then the committee has a chance, or should have a chance, to go through those reports and edit them. The fine work that our analysts and staff do to help compile these reports.... The committee goes through it, and then that's what.... Often there's disagreement, discussion and very frank conversations, and I actually often share with constituents about how there is....

People often think that the only thing that happens in Parliament is question period. However, there are often frank discussions that take place, and sometimes those are in camera. The report that the committee has put together is what was planned to be dealt with today, as was mentioned in the notice of meeting. However, here we are, debating a motion that I'll get into here in a second.

It's troubling that while the Liberals are quick to complain about anything that doesn't go their way, they forget about who, ultimately, we are here to serve.

What I'll attempt to do—and share with the committee and those who are watching—is highlight how the actions and the place that we have come to today truly are an attempt by the Liberals, with the support of the NDP, to silence critics. That's what it comes down to: an attempt by the government, ultimately, to silence anyone who would dare to ask them tough questions.

I would further suggest that they are attempting to weaponize tools and protections that are meant to ensure that all MPs, not just members of the opposition.... I'll get into more detail on the specifics of what that looks like in our Westminster democratic system if I have the opportunity. However, there are specific tools that are granted to members of Parliament that protect us so that we can ask tough questions.

I would note, specifically when it comes to the topic at hand, which is foreign election interference, there is this thing called “privilege”, and those watching may not be aware of the nuances and the history of what parliamentary privilege is.

There is a long history dating back centuries to what we refer to as the mother of parliaments, at the Palace of Westminster in the United Kingdom, which ensures that parliamentarians—those who are elected to the House of Commons—have protection.

I'm going to read some quotes into the record that specifically speak to why that is significant, but ultimately the Coles Notes version of what is an extensive conversation about why we got to this point is that there had to be an understanding that parliamentarians had to be able to have those tough conversations. At the time, when some of these were called into question, lives were literally on the line. When you look back at some of the big battles that took place in parliamentary history, there were lives on the line about whether or not the king could take the life of a parliamentarian because of a parliamentarian's opposition to something a king was doing. These are questions that had life-or-death consequences.

They were hard-fought to the point that today it allows MPs, both opposition and government, to ask tough questions without fear of reprisal.

What privilege clearly does not do, was not designed to do, should not do and, I would suggest, cannot do is silence critics from being able to ask tough questions. All of us around this table and all 338 members of Parliament who have the honour of occupying and of being temporary tenants in seats in the House of Commons...because we don't own those seats. No, they're owned by the people. We need to take seriously that need to represent them, yet what we have before us is an attempt specifically to silence Mr. Brock, who is very effective.

There is no question. I don't think anybody from any party would suggest that Mr. Brock is anything but effective when it comes to prosecuting important issues, whether that be in his previous career as a Crown prosecutor or whether that be here in Parliament. He does ask tough questions. For anyone who has ever heard or listened to him, he asks tough questions, and, quite frankly, I'm glad he does, because that is why privilege exists.

In fact, page 57 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice describes parliamentary privilege as the following, and this emphasizes the point that I have just attempted to make:

...the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions.

That's key. What we have here is an attempt by a member of the government that was undoubtedly a subject that had come up in the course of discussion. In fact, it was my friend from the Bloc Québécois who, at one point, brought forward a concern to this committee asking whether or not it was an actual conflict—it certainly appeared to be a conflict of interest—that the member for Steveston—Richmond East was sitting at the table. It wasn't Conservatives who brought that forward. I didn't hear the Liberals demand an apology from the Bloc Québécois for suggesting there might be an appearance of a conflict of interest.

I have no doubt that if that member wanted to be a witness at committee to talk about some of those things, I'm quite confident there would have been allowance for him to be able to do that. However, is that what the focus is? No. The focus of this motion is to try to silence the member for Brantford—Brant for being effective at asking tough questions.

Did those questions offend somebody? Maybe. Did those questions call into question a member's conduct? Maybe. What I think we need to remember is that we have to be allowed to ask those tough questions.

One thing that I believes bears mentioning is that, over the course of the close to four and a half years that I've had the honour of serving as a member of Parliament for the constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot—a beautiful area of east-central Alberta—I've been able to ask some of those tough questions and to do my best to represent the people who sent me here, understanding full well that it doesn't make everybody happy. I've faced some criticisms at different points in time, as I suggest we all have if we're honest about the role we play.

As a member of the opposition, one of the fundamental roles of that.... In fact, it was Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, when asked by President Biden about what it was to be the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition.... It was an interesting conversation. It was picked up on camera. Mr. Poilievre made mention of the fact that, in Canada, the act of opposition is an act of loyalty. I think that's very profound: Just because we disagree, or we have disagreements, different policy ideas or whatever the case is—you can really fill in the blank—that doesn't mean we aren't passionate about the future of our country.

What has been a troubling trend that we've seen under the Liberals is that, with the support of the NDP, it seems at any cost—which is a troubling metric in and of itself, especially because that's not what Canadians voted for—the Liberals do not want an opposition. They make that clear on a regular basis. Instead, they seem to want only an audience. What's so disconcerting about that is that the very fundamental basis of the institution of which we are all a part, the House of Commons, was built upon that idea that you could have opposition, whether that was eight-plus centuries ago when it was the people wanting to hold the Crown to account and, instead of fighting a battle—which would have seen death and destruction—coming to a point at which they could have arguments; or whether that was one of the many instances throughout the history of our Parliament when we have been able to have disagreements.

Then there are, Chair, times when we do come together. My colleague Mr. Barrett talked about how, when it comes to Bill C-70, which was introduced to substantively address aspects of foreign election interference—it's fitting and very relevant to the topic at hand here—Conservatives were quick to make the suggestion that there was the ability for us to come together and figure out a way to ensure that it is passed so that, prior to the next election, our intelligence apparatus in this country will be prepared to ensure that the integrity of our electoral framework is, in fact, protected.

I know, and I'm sure those watching will often see those highlighted examples when MPs oppose each other, and that's fair. Certainly, my constituents have made it very clear to me that I am to oppose the Liberal agenda—oppose it and do so loudly. In fact, I hear that on a regular basis. However, there are those instances when we do work together. It's not to suggest that it doesn't happen, but what is so important is for that freedom to take place, which leads me into some of the conversation around the idea of privilege.

We have before us a motion that suggests there was a violation of a member's privilege. I'll get into some of the substance of the motion here in a moment, but I just note for Mr. Bains—and maybe he would like to address the reason—that there's actually a factual error in the motion, I believe. It's suggesting that the conversation took place on a day when, I don't believe, there was actually a meeting, May 23. I believe that the committee was previously occupied during that day. I may stand to be corrected on that. I will certainly appreciate it if Mr. Bains has the opportunity, when he is able, to take the floor to address the specifics of that day.

What Mr. Bains is suggesting is that asking tough questions is somehow a violation of his privilege as an MP. I mentioned page 57 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, and its descriptor of parliamentary privilege. I would like to further read from page 88:

Members individually have the responsibility to not abuse their rights and immunities, particularly freedom of speech.

What I would suggest is being highlighted in the debate we're having here is the fact that we have the responsibility, as members of Parliament, to not abuse the privileges, but we also cannot abuse the ability and the idea of privilege to be able to weaponize that sort of thing for the purposes of silencing one's critics. It leads me to the inevitable conclusion that, as I mentioned before, it is not about whether or not that member's rights and privileges were violated but about, I would suggest, that member facing pressure because of the conversation that took place.

Quite frankly, I would say that is a good thing. That's what democracy is supposed to be about. It is meant to be a space where we can ask and have those tough conversations, but here we are, and there is an attempt through a procedural mechanism....

For those watching who might be wondering what a procedural mechanism is, it's using the rules that exist for us to be able to fulfill our functions...using it for something it was not intended to be used for. In this case, the member from Brantford—Brant is a very effective prosecutor in terms of calling out some of the things the government has done wrong. A procedural mechanism is used not for their purpose, for the ability of committees to function properly, and not for the purposes of protecting members' freedom of speech, but rather to narrowly interpret privilege as something to silence an opponent.

Now, just imagine for a moment what it would be like if during an election you had a national party leader tell one of his opponents that they can or cannot talk about something. It would be a national scandal. It would be truly a national scandal. We have free, fair and open discourse, because that's what Canadians expect us to be able to have. That is something that needs to be extended to committee.

Now, there have been some accusations made about intent. There have been further suggestions that somehow it is incorrect for members to call out these certain things. I've faced the consequences personally of calling out things that I have deemed to be absolutely egregious, including the conduct of the Prime Minister. In that case, I respected the Speaker's ruling on that matter. While I disagreed, and I stand behind what I said, I understood the consequences of that.

This is where we have come to today. Are we going to set a precedent that suggests that instead of having these tough conversations, we are going to allow for procedural mechanisms to take away the ability for any member of this place to do their work?

I want to highlight something here that I think is often forgotten. We have a principle that is unique to the Westminster system, actually. Those I've had the opportunity to engage with on the matter know that part of the reason I like the Westminster system of Parliament so much is the idea of parliamentary supremacy. It's key, because it ultimately ensures that people have the ultimate say.

Although there's an extensive conversation that could be had about that, I want to park that larger conversation, because it can get fairly philosophical. There are differences of opinions about when and where and how some of the mechanisms that exist have been brought to bear, both in the context of the Canadian circumstances, where we have both written and unwritten aspects of our Constitution, versus the United Kingdom, where it is still largely unwritten in terms of the constitutional frameworks that exist.

I've talked a bit about that here and at other committees in the past, but what is key is that it is members of Parliament who make up a Parliament.

Again, for individuals who might be watching, Mr. Chair, I believe it's worth highlighting something that is often forgotten. We are in the 44th Parliament. “Well,” one might ask, “What is a Parliament?” We often refer to that as a building—in the case of the House of Commons, the chamber with its green floors and question period and the debates and whatnot.

What's interesting, Chair, is the description of it as the place where a group of MPs are able to come together to form that Parliament. Then, out of that, in the case of our tradition—this is tradition and it has become constitutional convention—the party that gets the most seats is able to form the government. The government includes the cabinet, led by the prime minister. The history of that is that the prime minister was the first minister among ministers, and, referring to the Latin history of the word, the first among equals, although that's certainly then something that's been long since abandoned.

What's interesting—and this is an important point that is applicable not simply to members of the opposition. When I describe our democratic system to classes, whether they're in junior high, high school or even some elementary schools, I talk about every Canadian being allowed to have that one ballot on election day. That is an incredible thing. That right we have is an incredible privilege, hard-fought for and won over history.

The fact is that the current Prime Minister, or the leader of a political party, any political party, gets that same number of ballots on election day. Every Canadian gets that one ballot. The power to choose your government is incredible.

When I ask the question about how many ballots you get on election day, some of the conversations that ensue in classrooms about that are interesting, because it is that distribution of authority among the people that is truly fundamental in the way that our democratic system operates.

Now, I would be the first to admit it's not always equitable in terms of the number of individuals per electoral district, and there are always some nuances in the conversation, but fundamentally it comes down to every Canadian getting that one ballot on election day. It's a powerful thing.

I know for you, Chair, that this would be the same thing. You and I and all members of this committee, including staff and technical folks, get to have that one ballot to make a choice about who gets to represent them in the House of Commons.

However, here's the extension of that, and the reason parliamentary supremacy is so key. That one ballot translates, in the case of our current Parliament, into 338 seats.

Another question I ask students, when I have the chance to speak with them, is how many seats the Prime Minister occupies in the House of Commons. Some of the responses I get are interesting, but it comes down to one.

I ask the same about the Leader of the Opposition. They occupy one seat in the House of Commons.

In the case of our current Parliament, there are 338 members of Parliament who sit and make decisions and empower the government to act on their behalf. The opposition plays a key role in that against the government and the governing party. In the case of a minority Parliament or a hung Parliament, as it's often referred to in the United Kingdom, ultimately it comes down to the fact that there are members of Parliament, 338 of them. While we have whips and there are conventions when it comes to voting and voting for confidence measures—in the case of the opposition, we vote non-confidence in the government on a very regular basis—every MP occupies that one seat in the House of Commons, and the power of that, I would suggest, emphasizes the foundational idea of what privilege is in this place and in this specific context around this table.

I'd like to emphasize how fundamental it is that any attempt to silence members of Parliament from being able to ask the tough questions, to silence members of Parliament from being able to represent their constituents, is not simply an attack on the idea of privilege in this place, but rather is an attack on the fundamental tenets of democracy—