I just wanted to say that this is a unique situation. There really is no playbook for this. At least, I haven't seen it. I think that's why we're trying to work our way through this carefully.
We're trying to weigh the privilege—which is absolute—of members of Parliament to call witnesses. We're trying to weigh that privilege against our legitimate concern for the health of the witnesses. We're trying to find our way here.
The severity of those health concerns—specifically mental health concerns—that have been brought forward by the witnesses has been reported in The Globe and Mail. I think there is a deep concern among members of Parliament, and rightfully so, whenever someone brings forward mental health concerns. As members of Parliament, we are rightfully concerned with the mental health of folks, including when they walk through the doors of OGGO committee. We have to take that seriously, especially if someone has gone out of their way to communicate those mental health concerns directly with the committee. I don't think that we can simply dismiss that out of hand, nor can we attribute to it certain motivations or try to impugn certain motivations for that.
That's what I'm struggling with. We've heard from a lot of witnesses here. I want to hear from Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony. I absolutely do. I think every member of this committee wants to do that.
Again, look at the past. We've shown that we have not been shy about calling witnesses to testify here or to produce papers. You name it; we've supported it.
There's a balance here that we're trying to strike.
It's important to also highlight that the patience and accommodation of this committee is not absolute. No one should be under any impression that we want to extend this courtesy and sensitivity infinitely or far out into the future. We do not. The patience and understanding of this committee has its limits. I don't believe we've reached those limits yet, for two reasons, I would say.
I do believe that the motion in front of us, as my colleague, MP Vignola, has pointed out, is a nuclear button. I believe that it misses a few important steps. I think some of it was alluded to by my colleague previously.
That step included, for example, requesting that the witnesses substantiate the expression of mental health or health concerns that they have. I think this is a reasonable request. I think it's fair to ask, for example, that there is substantiation with medical documentation or a letter of some sort that speaks to that. That is true of the other witnesses who have asked for consideration based on health concerns and health issues.
We absolutely want to make sure that the issue of health or mental health is not used as an excuse to not appear before committee. We're very sensitive to that. We want to make sure that privilege is not abused. Again, having validation, confirmation and substantiation from a health care official is a vital step that I think we have not taken to date. I think it's one that is in our purview to ask for.
I do feel that we should put aside this amendment. We should put aside the original motion for now and, in its place, ask for substantiation and confirmation from health care professionals. At least we would have that documentation on record and in our pockets to be able to inform our decision on what our next steps will be.
I want to reassure the folks who are watching at home that this committee is being very careful with this. We've had meetings and discussions about this issue of how to proceed.
Again, we don't have a playbook on this. This is so unique. We want to make sure that we are able to move forward, that we are able to continue to get the hundreds of thousands of documents we're asking for and that we continue to bring witnesses here who are shedding light on this issue to make sure that we speak with facts not with fiction, as I've always highlighted. We want to make sure that this is what guides our conversations.
There is a balance that needs to be struck here. We're trying to take the need of this committee to get that information and hear the testimony, and balance it with the very real sensitivity with regard to someone who has stated clearly that they are not in a healthy space, that they are in a dark space, as has been reported in The Globe and Mail. I think we need to take that into serious consideration.
At the same time, I think what's really important to keep in mind, as well, is that we do have two ongoing investigations. We have one that we are certain about, and one where, obviously, we don't have a clear line of sight because, again, the RCMP doesn't exactly telegraph its investigation or the contents or direction of its investigation—and rightfully so. It doesn't want to undermine the integrity of the investigation, and it wants to make sure that it is a fulsome investigation that is able to proceed without any tampering, any obstruction and any sort of outside influence.
Again, possibly there's an RCMP investigation. We don't exactly know the entire scope of it, nor will we know the entire scope, because the RCMP is an independent organization. There is no political direction of the RCMP, and that's a good thing.
At the same time, we heard testimony from Mr. Lafleur that the CBSA is also conducting an investigation and that the CBSA has moved from what was a preliminary investigation, a preliminary study, to now a full study because there is evidence that is substantial enough to warrant a full investigation, which is taking place right now. We heard from President O'Gorman that this is taking place, confirming that the CBSA is indeed bringing this forward.
Obviously, the first element that we need to weigh is the health of the individual, but the second element is the integrity of the two investigations that are now taking place. There was some real concern that was vocalized, not just by the Liberal members of the OGGO committee but also by the opposition members, about making sure that we don't do anything here that compromises the integrity and effectiveness of both the RCMP and the CBSA investigations.
We've seen concerns with information being shared from the preliminary evidence of facts—part of which was made public even though it was a confidential document—before this committee actually determined that we wanted to share that information with committee members. I think that's really important because making sure that all of us have the information that we need in a timely fashion is important in terms of our own ability to question the witnesses and be prepared to question the witnesses.
Again, a perfect example of that was quite recently when we, as committee members, didn't have all the information in our hands.
The study, the preliminary study of facts, was not distributed to this committee. All of us were not in a position to ask the important questions of the CBSA executive director for procurement or integrity all the questions that we wanted to ask.
Process matters. I would state that process absolutely matters in this case, in how we go about studying the ArriveCAN app. We have to make sure that the process is also fair. Again, fundamentally here, we want to make sure that we are not in any way influencing the independent investigation by the RCMP. We've already heard about the tremendous, concerning gaps in the procurement process, the lack of documentation that the AG had so thoroughly outlined. There was the lack of documentation, and some of the checks and balances that were blatantly missing. We know that the process needs improvement and strengthening.
We want to make sure that we don't impact the independent investigation of the RCMP because they are digging deeper. They are looking at not just process issues, which is what the AG has found and what the procurement ombudsman has found, and what the CBSA integrity director is finding. It's not just about process, but it goes to something a lot more serious than that. We want to get to the bottom of it. We do not want to impact in any way the RCMP looking at the serious allegations.
Again, we have to be careful here. We want to balance the committee's absolute power and privilege to call anyone we want, to summon anyone we want to produce papers. Over the last five months we have done that. But we need to balance it in terms of protecting the independence of the RCMP investigation and the CBSA investigation, while at the same time, again, demonstrating concern for the health and well-being of individual witnesses.
At the same time, we've had meetings and discussions amongst ourselves. We want to make sure that, again, the issue of health and especially mental health is not being used as an excuse to avoid coming here to testify. Again, that's a very delicate balance here because we don't want to impugn any motives or assign any motives to those folks. I think it's important for us to take that into consideration.
I would say as well, when I look at the original motion.... I know we're speaking to the amendment here, but what the amendment here doesn't address—
