Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let's talk about accountability. I'm glad my colleague from the other side raised it. Part of the accountability we have, especially on this committee, is to be responsible for understanding what topics we have in front of us. This is the first time we've had this report, this agenda in front of us today.
I suppose the subcommittee voted to have witnesses appear on the same day. All we have had in preparation for today's meeting is newspaper articles.
Madam Lavallée circulated the one on the topic of our meeting last Thursday, and we had another one from several weeks ago that seemed to instigate this whole series of discussions.
There is nothing more important for this committee than to get to the bottom of the issues at hand here. My hope is that as committee members, we find that the proper protocols of access to information have been followed to the T. But the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have.... I know it's your committee.
The report here says that we'll request a copy of the Department of Foreign Affairs copy of the censored version of the report. You've indicated verbally that that report was supposed to be here today. To this date, I have not received a copy.
I'm also moved to consider the whole topic of the unredacted version. As committee members, how can we properly devote ourselves to this discussion without understanding the context of what raised the issue here, which were two points: first, there were allegations that initially the report was denied, and second, somehow a newspaper has an unredacted version.
How are we, as committee members, supposed to understand the context of our gathering evidence, as the motion says here, to consider the matter? How am I, as a committee member, supposed to consider the matter when I don't have the redacted version of the report?
To be honest, I don't know what procedures would have to be in place for us to see the unredacted version, but are we to rely on the opinions of just the journalists of our world? I mean no offence to journalists; they perform an important role in providing information to the public. But at the end of the day, our responsibilities go beyond that. We have to get to the facts around this particular issue. How are we to understand the context of this report without seeing the differences?
Perhaps I'll put the question to you: procedurally, how is that to happen? I do this in the context of the reason I say all of this. I'm supporting the amendment. I'd like to have the report in front of me, or at least have a day to have a look at it before we go and start hearing witnesses.
Second is that we have the information in front of us that we need to consider. Is there a way we can get the unredacted copy? Is this something the subcommittee considered?