That's my point. We hadn't stated the date as to when he was supposed to appear. He was one of the witnesses we wanted to see.
Now we have the statement of fact before us—not before us but before the clerk in both languages prior. If that had become known and then the witness had been called, knowing that the statement of fact was in hand would have been advantageous to the committee members. It would have given us an opportunity to review and to then put forward appropriate questions and understanding.
Furthermore, there were many occasions when those who are presiding over the investigation called for an in camera meeting because of the confidentiality measures, not to make this a public kangaroo court. There are a lot of people here trying to play Perry Mason or maybe Tom Cruise. Regardless, what we have here are witnesses who are being accused of wrongdoing. Those very witnesses are now going through an investigation, which appears to be contrary to what was initially put forward by the opposition.
My worry is that here's a statement of fact that was provided to the clerk. Somehow, another member of the committee has taken it upon himself to approach the witnesses, approach the very individuals we are deliberating over, and the concern many are facing is the obstruction that is being put forward, the confidentiality matters that pertain and which even the chair has explained are highly confidential.
Yet, it's being made public, and questions are being put to you, as the witness. That ensures that we deliberate over the very issue that is meant to be confidential to protect the witnesses and the integrity of the investigation.
There are a couple of main concerns.
One, there seems to be an obstruction that's being taken on the investigation. There seems to be an interference with the witnesses in terms of its transparency. I'm no lawyer, but for those who are, it would seem to me that it's inappropriate for this committee to go on its own to start to talk to witnesses and go after individuals when they're being investigated. Then we have legal responses by those witnesses coming to us, partly because they're being approached by other members, who, by their own admission, have gone over to these two witnesses. That seems completely inappropriate.
Then there are individuals who have access to this confidential information.
Now, they apparently didn't share it with the chair. They didn't share it with their own colleagues. They just decided on their own that they were going to do this in secret. Only at the time of this committee hearing, where you appear before us, having already had a statement of claim in hand by the clerk, not having it shared with the committee members, which would have made it appropriate for us to ask questions of you.... That unilateral decision to call upon you to become a witness, knowing that you have a statement of fact and relevant information that would be appropriate and important for us to know.... Maybe you wouldn't have been called. Maybe you would not have been called to this committee, because we would have seen in that reflection how confidential the matter was and how inappropriate it would be to have a public discussion on this with you. It should have been in camera, as was already suggested many times, by many others, to protect the substance and the integrity of the investigation.
Now you're called back. Now we're being asked to continue the deliberations over these confidential matters, on which lawyers for the witnesses are saying, “Don't do it,” and on which folks from the CBSA and those who are overseeing the investigation are saying, “Be cautious. You're going to compromise the report.” We have the Auditor General doing a review. You've shared information with the RCMP, who are acting on their own. They're not advising you.
They're not coming forward with this issue, and we don't know what deliberations are being had with the witnesses. We do know from reading the statement of fact.... I went through it very thoroughly, and I do see that there was a reaching out to the witnesses. Notwithstanding what was said, the report makes reference to the fact that the witnesses were both sought after to respond, to enable the witness to make affirmations or refute some items, but then they gave a legal response, and rightly so. They got legal representation, as is appropriate. What's not appropriate is for us around this room to play lawyers, to be doing this as a prosecution ring, to be the means by which to put you and others at risk and then compromise the very investigation that's being put forward. Let the people do their job, and then, if we do have an opportunity to have you back, it's appropriate that those other members....
I know, having spoken to them, that not everyone has had an opportunity to review the statement of fact. Not everyone has had an opportunity to see exactly what is in this report.
The fact is that too few members on this committee have had an opportunity to see it, and it has not been shared with staff, as was decided. We need time to come up to speed on what's been said to then ask you the appropriate questions, and to do so not in public, in order to protect the interests of the witnesses and the integrity of the investigation.
That's it, Mr. Chair.