Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I'd like to thank you, Madam Chair, for the answer you just gave. I was actually going to ask the same question as Ms. Blaney. Why did the member go straight for a summons in his motion, when the witness has thus far been very transparent with the committee about his intention to appear after his report is released? His report came out two days ago, and he told you that he was available to meet with the committee on June 6. I imagine that date was chosen after some back and forth between the Right Honourable David Johnston's office, the clerk and you, Madam Chair.
It's very important to ensure that the tone of this debate is respectful. It's a very sensitive issue. The Prime Minister appointed a Canadian I firmly believe has always sought to serve his country, including as governor general. Mr. Johnston is a former president of the University of Waterloo, as you mentioned, Madam Chair. As a proud Quebecker, I would be remiss not to point out that he is also a past president of McGill University. Mr. Johnston was even chosen by the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, then prime minister, to play a role in the prickly inquiry into the dealings of a former prime minister, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. Mr. Harper was of the view that Mr. Johnston was a reputable person with a record of service to his country. The current prime minister, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, was also of the view that Mr. Johnston was someone worthy of being asked to get to the bottom of an issue.
Personally, I think Mr. Johnston did an outstanding job. I read the 53 pages of his report, and I think he took his work very seriously. It's reassuring to hear that he is amenable to the committee's request and has confirmed that he will appear to explain his thinking and the merits of his findings. That illustrates he is still someone who is equal to the task, someone who respects Parliament and Canada's institutions.
I'm sorry to have to say this, but I was disappointed by the responses of the opposition leaders, except for the leader of the NDP. The other two opposition leaders are refusing to act responsibly and take the steps necessary to receive the briefing offered to them by the government in order to examine the issues. These are very important briefings. I realize that the leader of the Bloc Québécois doesn't aspire to become prime minister, but the other two opposition leaders, Mr. Singh and Mr. Poilievre, do want to become prime minister of Canada. Only Mr. Singh, however, is acting responsibly and agreeing to be briefed. He knows that briefings would be a daily happening were he ever to become prime minister. That goes with the job of prime minister.
We are all members, and we all need to fulfill our responsibilities. Our number one priority is ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. We must use every democratic means possible and every tool at our disposal to do that. The members of all political stripes who sit on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, have access to that type of information. Each of us has a responsibility to do everything in our power to obtain all the information our security clearance affords us.
At a very minimum, we must invite Mr. Johnston to come before the committee to share whatever information he is able to disclose publicly and explain his rationale. Members with higher security clearance than I have must do everything in their power to obtain all other information available to them. It's very disappointing, as I said, that two of the opposition leaders haven't done that. It's reassuring to know that at least one opposition leader intends to get the information.
That's all I will say about the motion, Madam Chair. You are the one deciding whether it is in order or not. I assume you've already determined that it is in order. Nevertheless, it is irresponsible to suggest that Mr. Johnston isn't willing to appear before the committee, when he made clear that he was amenable to doing so on June 6. We should take advantage of that opportunity. There is no need to play partisan games and claim that Mr. Johnston is refusing to appear before the committee. He has said clearly that he will.
I will leave it there for now. I'm eager to hear what my fellow members on both sides of the House think.