Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The only person not in favour of holding an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of foreign election interference by the regime in Beijing is the Prime Minister. He chose the car, the driver and the destination for determining whether an independent public inquiry was needed. As though by chance, his driver of choice, the special rapporteur, as he called him, was his ski and cottage buddy, not to mention a member of the Pierre-Elliott Trudeau Foundation. The special rapporteur came to the same conclusion as the Prime Minister. Now there are two people who don't think a national independent inquiry into Beijing's interference is needed. Conversely, all members of the opposition parties in the House of Commons, so the majority of members, voted in favour of a motion calling for a public inquiry. On top of that, a survey has revealed that 75% of Canadians are in favour of a public inquiry.
For two months now, the newspaper revelations have kept coming, exposing startling facts, most of which have turned out to be true. Now we are finding out that the independent public inquiry Parliament is calling for is not going to happen, because the Prime Minister opted to take the recommendation of the driver he himself chose to drive the car—the car that was supposed to arrive at a recommendation regarding a national independent public inquiry into Beijing's interference.
That is why the committee absolutely must hear from Mr. Johnston. He needs to answer the committee's questions so we can get to the truth. We need to understand the process that led him to his decision and, above all, the reason why his recommendations disregard the fact that the majority of parliamentarians are demanding a national public inquiry into Beijing's interference.