Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to make another argument for hearing from Mr. Johnston as early as next week.
Madam Chair, you told us that you were preparing the appearances of several witnesses and ministers mentioned in Mr. Johnston's report. Before we hear from people who are going to testify about the Johnston report, I feel we need to talk to Mr. Johnston first. It just makes sense. Mr. Johnston's report is new this week. I don't see how we can continue our study on foreign interference when an important part of this has just been released, namely the special rapporteur's report. We can't wait 14 days. We can't have a full week of testimony on foreign interference by the Beijing regime without first hearing from Mr. Johnston.
You said that you had read an email exchange. I believe you could ask Mr. Johnston to appear as early as next week and he can assure you that he'll be with us for three hours. We don't need to summon him to appear, but we can't continue our work and hear from other witnesses without first hearing Mr. Johnston's version. That's fundamental as we continue our study.
Since we began the study, that is to say since November, the news has been coming in dribs and drabs. It feels like the special rapporteur pulled out a garden hose to share information with us. Before we ask questions of the other witnesses who will be appearing, first we must hear what Mr. Johnston has to say about the information and have him answer the questions we'll surely ask him about the information he says he can't disclose. I humbly urge my colleagues to think about that. Mr. Johnston must be one of the first witnesses we hear from if we want to do our job properly and ask questions of the other witnesses who will be called later on.
My message is for all parliamentarians. I understand that Mr. Johnston has already responded to the request to appear, but that was before he knew we wanted him to appear next week. If he is truly acting in good faith, he will tell us he's prepared to appear next week to talk about his report. I don't see why we would wait 14 days before we hear from him, when a number of witnesses are set to appear next week, based on available resources. If we need to invite them back because Mr. Johnston will have given us other relevant information about these witnesses, we will have done a week of work for nothing.
The next step is to hear from the special rapporteur, because his report raises a lot of questions for members of Parliament and the public. I want to emphasize that we can't afford to wait until June 6 or 9 to hear from Mr. Johnston. We absolutely need to hear from him next week.