I would say that the committee itself has responsibility over certain aspects of the story, and I would turn it a little bit to you.
For example, GC Strategies operates essentially as a quasi-lobbyist. I've put in access to information requests to obtain records of the correspondence and communication that those figures had with figures within TBS and other sectors that were responsible for contracting. It's not entirely clear to me why they were not registered as lobbyists when that is essentially the work they were doing.
In addition to that piece, I would say that the access to information aspect of this story is incredibly important. I have outstanding access to information requests that would be directly relevant to the questions the committee is exploring right now.
For example, in July, I put in a request for assessments of privacy, cybersecurity and data breach risks of the ArriveCAN app, including but not limited to studies, reviews, explanations, audits, manuals, bug reports, validation studies and others concerning the security of the app that the CBSA conducted or that third parties conducted for the CBSA.
The CBSA responded by giving me a 90-day extension, which has subsequently elapsed, and they have simply not responded to my request, which is a violation of the Access to Information Act. That seems directly relevant to the scope of the work of this particular meeting.