Thank you, Madam Chair.
I listened to our colleague Mr. Green. I share his opinion or frustration with the timelines.
I think we probably all want to get through this report as soon as possible, but there's obviously a problem if we don't all have access to the same evidence.
With regard to the Public Order Emergency Commission, Mr. Green told us that we did not have to report what Commissioner Rouleau said or did not say. I agree. The problem is not with the report of the Public Inquiry into the Public Order Emergency declared in 2022, since that report is available in both official languages and we can all consult it. The problem lies with the evidence.
You'll recall the motion we passed. I don't have the date in front of me, but, if memory serves, it was about a year ago. We had passed a motion indicating that, in order to limit our meeting time and to avoid having to hear from witnesses other than those whose testimony we had already heard, we agreed to use the evidence that had been presented before Commissioner Rouleau. For example, the Prime Minister testified before Commissioner Rouleau. So we were going to look at his testimony and use it for our report.
If we are not able to have all the evidence in both official languages, the other solution is to call in all those witnesses. There is always the possibility of disregarding the motion we passed to allow the evidence submitted before Commissioner Rouleau, but I am not sure that would help us.
It won't help bring the commission's work in line with the Official Languages Act, but that's the commission's or the Privy Council Office's problem; it's not necessarily our problem. If we want to continue our work, we have to hear all this evidence again, which means starting over by summoning the witnesses and requesting the documents. Would that be faster? I'm not sure. The decision we made at the time was to avoid going down that path and to look at the existing evidence.
I remain of the opinion that the decision we made about a year ago was the right one and that using the evidence submitted before the Rouleau Commission is the wiser course, but it must be in both official languages. We're going to have to come up with a solution.
I understand that efforts are being made. Someone suggested we look at the index and decide which documents we want to have translated. Why don't we flip things over, hypothetically. If all that evidence existed in French only, would our anglophone colleagues say that they didn't need all of it and that they would decide what they wanted to have translated? They might say they wanted all the evidence in English, and I think that would be an entirely legitimate request.
Our current situation is the same.