Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, Mr. Morrison, I want to apologize for what you've been subject to today, particularly in the last few rants.
I can tell you—somebody who occupies himself completely and entirely with the running of an election during a writ period—that it gives me great comfort to know there are people like you who are watching over the democratic process in our country during those times, and I mean that genuinely. We don't have time for that, and the government doesn't have time for that. The most ideal time for a foreign influencer to act upon our democracy would be then, and knowing that there's a panel in place to safeguard that, and act where appropriate, is truly valued by many members of Parliament—I would say a vast majority—despite the way you've been treated today in terms of identifying the quality of your work.
Mr. Morrison, I want to go back to something you said. I reviewed it, and you said:
intelligence rarely paints a full, concrete or actionable picture. Intelligence almost always comes heavily caveated and qualified in ways designed to caution consumers such as me from jumping to conclusions, while at the same time helping us at least to gain a little more awareness.
An example would be a report based on “an uncorroborated source of unknown reliability”. In layman's terms, I would call this a report based on rumour.
What you're basically saying, if I understand you correctly, is that you have multiple reports of intelligence coming across your desk. Some of them could turn out to be quite legitimate and verified based on how you assess the variables and the caveats that go into that, but some of them could be complete nonsense, unreliable and baseless. Is that correct?
