Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all the previous speakers for their comments here.
I'm struggling with this, I have to say. We're in a constituency week. Of course, I'm happy to meet. However, in this particular circumstance, it seems to me....
I have read the Right Honourable David Johnston's report, which I think is very measured and impartial. It has done a thorough analysis and looked at detailed intelligence and documentation. He has interviewed all of the appropriate people. He has built in, I think, a double-check and verification of his conclusions through NSICOP and NSIRA.
There's this feeling I have that there's this attempt to suggest that Mr. Johnston has not been forthcoming or willing to appear before our committee.
The very fact that the wording of this motion calls for a summons when Mr. Johnston has already expressed a willingness to come to our committee is not a good-faith attempt at getting to the bottom of this. It actually demonstrates, to the contrary, an attempt to politicize a person who, again, is in good standing and has an impeccable reputation, and I say this with no partisan interest at all. He's a person who has been an upstanding Canadian citizen, who has served this country, who is well educated and who has served at the highest level as the Governor General appointed by Stephen Harper.
It just seems to me there's no length to which the opposition will not go to tarnish an individual's reputation who, to me, does not deserve it in any way. I think it's appalling that this is what we're here to discuss.
On one hand, we have an individual who has done independent work and done it well. I think the opposition doesn't like the conclusions in the report. Therefore, they're trying to create the misperception that somehow he isn't forthcoming and willing to come to our committee, which is quite the opposite of the truth. It seems strange to me that we're here debating a motion that wants to summons somebody who's willing to come to this committee.
On top of it, you have individuals here saying they want to get to the truth, yet their party leaders will not even get briefed, from a national security perspective, on the intelligence that underpins all of the conclusions Mr. Johnston has come to.
To me, it's hard to take the debate here in good faith. Quite frankly, it makes me angry. When I hear people say, “Well, we had to change our schedules and cancel meetings in our riding, etc.,” I say, “Yes, but you are the ones who called this meeting.”
I believe that if we were here for a good reason and for a good-faith attempt at getting to the truth, we're all up to that work. We've all expressed an interest in doing that. However, this is not that, in my view. This is not that. If that were the case, I think the party leaders—certainly the Bloc leader and the Conservative leader—would both be willing to get the top secret security clearance they need to review the appropriate documents and see for themselves exactly what the facts are in this particular matter, and within context.
I think what David Johnston wrote in his report was very clear in his conclusion that much of the intelligence, the largely false allegations or “misconstrued” information that's circulated in the media—“misconstrued” was his word, by the way—has been taken out of context. That's a serious problem. I think we run that risk any time we think we're going to air bits of information that are gained through our intelligence agencies in public, and do so in a limited manner.
I think opposition parties want a public inquiry. When you look at what Mr. Johnston has reported back, I think even he, in his report, suggested that he came into the position of the special rapporteur thinking that's exactly where he would land, calling for a public inquiry. However, through his various reviews of documents and interviews, he came to a very rational conclusion—which I would say has been supported by almost every national security and intelligence expert that we've heard from in this committee—which was that you can't air all of this stuff in public. You just can't. Doing so would compromise human lives and national security.
I don't know why the opposition parties keep pushing for that. I suppose it's only to create another misperception out there that somehow the government has something to hide, which again is quite contrary to the truth. In fact, our government from day one has expressed a willingness and very active involvement in combatting foreign election interference. I've traced that in our committee debates over and over again, and I feel as though maybe I can continue to do that if I need to.
However, it's unfortunate that there's no acknowledgement of the actual facts and the actions that our government has taken. No one is saying they couldn't be improved upon. I think the public hearings that Mr. Johnston has proposed are focused on the greatest policy areas and directions and that there can be lively debate and efforts to improve the government's response to foreign election interference. I think there's acknowledgement that there are communications challenges within the machinery of government and that there can be lots of improvement made there.
That again seems to coincide with all of the other things we've heard time and time again. It coincides with the very real and evolving threat and the complexity of combatting it, which is ever-increasing. I think that communication and coordination and how intelligence becomes evidence and how it becomes actionable is really part and parcel of what we're up against here. Mr. Johnston has done a good job of outlining why an open and democratic society like Canada is more vulnerable to these different threats. I think we all take that very seriously here. I just think there's an attempt to say essentially that multiple parties here aren't forthcoming in terms of the truth, which is not the case.
First of all, I really don't think a summons is necessary at all. I don't know why this special rapporteur, who is doing this work, would need to be summoned to our committee when he has already expressed a willingness to come. Let's just be honest. Let's get to the heart of this. Why would we need to summon him? I would love someone to tell me. I'll evoke the “Simms protocol” if someone tells me why, in good faith, someone who is already willing to come to our committee needs to be summoned.
Can anyone tell me that?
Why don't we amend this motion? I'll propose an amendment. Let me read it into the record.
I move:
That, in relation to its study of foreign election—
