Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon to my fellow members.
I'd like to provide a recap. The arguments I heard actually support all the reasons why we are here today.
It was said that the safety of our citizens is important and that action is needed. That's what we are doing today: we are taking action.
It was said that we need to make sure we do things democratically. I'd say that's where it all starts, and this is not the first time I've talked about it. On November 7, the door was opened, and we had the opportunity to get to the bottom of all of this. Everything the committee has seen since then illustrates the government's efforts to close the door and not face what could be going on. With every attempt the committee has made, the government has responded by giving every possible reason to avoid shining a light on the issue.
I'm relieved to hear that we have a date for Mr. Johnston's appearance, June 6. Bear in mind, however, the reason we are here today: at the outset, most of the opposition members made clear the importance of choosing an impartial person to examine the issue. Since the government members are as committed to democracy as they claim, they should look at their actions in recent weeks.
It's too bad that we are forced to meet like this today. Less than two hours ago, I was at a soup kitchen with constituents, and they asked me when we were going to meet with Mr. Johnston. I told them that I had to leave to deal with that very thing given the uncertainty around his appearance. They were surprised that the matter still had not been settled. In their eyes, it's clear what happened. People have been hearing about an independent public inquiry for weeks, and that's what they want. They want to know what it's going to take to get one. Well, it takes this—what we're doing here today.
Once bitten, twice shy. Hence, we need some assurances so that certain things don't happen again. Although the special rapporteur has signalled his willingness to co‑operate and accepted our invitation to appear, tentatively on June 6, as parliamentarians, we need assurances of that.
We have obviously been speaking to people since the report came out. They were expecting a rigorous report that would restore their confidence in the system. They were expecting to be told that the government had a duty to hold an independent public inquiry while ensuring the necessary confidentiality. It wouldn't have been the first inquiry, as you well know, but it would have been independent.
It's as though the government wanted to make it look like it was doing something when it decided to put the matter in the hands of a special rapporteur. What it looked like to us was that the government was trying to move things along and find a way to avoid getting to the truth. We will nevertheless persist, because our constituents are telling us they're concerned and asking us to keep pushing.
My sense is that today's meeting is going to end well, since we'll be able to seal the deal on Mr. Johnston's appearance and set some terms.
This is my first comment today, but I want to stress something. If the government truly cares about doing things democratically, it has to listen to the voice of the people and of parliamentarians, and do the right thing.