We must never forget that we are neither investigators nor a court of law. We cannot and must not take the place of an investigator or a court of law. The only thing Mr. Lafleur can tell us about is the process. However, based on what I've read and the discussion following Mr. Lafleur's appearance on Monday, I realize that the questions we're asking might interfere with the investigation process not only within CBSA, but also within RCMP.
Everyone knows how important it is to me to know the truth, do the research and understand things, so that I can contribute perspectives and solutions that are based on—at the risk of trotting out what has become a well-worn expression these days—common sense.
I do agree that we should invite Mr. Lafleur back. That said, we should do so once the internal and RCMP investigations are done, so as not to interfere, even indirectly, with what's happening now. The investigations must be as impartial as possible. The investigators need to be able to get to the bottom of things, and everyone involved in the situation we are currently studying must be targeted and bear the consequences of their actions.
I may have my opinion, but my opinion shouldn't interfere with the current investigations. This isn't a black-and-white thing; it's all shades of grey. I'm certain there's more than one, two or three people involved in this matter, but the investigations must be carried out properly.
What I just said shouldn't even interfere with the investigation, because I'm not an investigator. We're not investigators or a court of law; we're here to find out what went wrong with a process so we can come up with solutions to improve the process and ensure that taxes paid by Quebec and Canadian taxpayers are used in a rational and intelligent manner.
That's why I agree with letting Mr. Lafleur go and inviting him back to testify once all the investigations are done. That way, we can get the whole story. At that point, we can make sure that the process is duly amended and improved and that our fellow citizens' tax dollars won't be wasted. That's our job.
The motion asks that Mr. Lafleur be allowed to leave and come back later, once the investigations are done. That's the approach that makes sense today. It's the right thing to do, even if we don't like it, even if we have 15,000 questions to ask him and even if we want to get to the bottom of things and get every possible answer. All in good time.
Patience is a virtue. We don't all have it, not all the time. We need it now. We also have to take the time. It's not like we only have 10 pages of ArriveCAN documents to read; it's a few thousand pages. I've read 2,000 so far, but I think that's just the tip of the iceberg.
That's my opinion. I agree that we should let Mr. Lafleur leave for now and come back to the committee once the investigations are done.