Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to Mr. Boulerice for his subamendment.
I had my hand up to speak to the original amendment that Mr. Fergus put forward, but I can now adapt and speak to the merits of Mr. Boulerice's subamendment as well.
The reason I think this is important is that throughout our discussions on foreign interference, which started quite some time ago, we've heard a lot of talk from the Conservative Party in particular. They have spoken about bathing in sunlight and transparency almost as if it were like their seeking salvation on a Sunday morning.
It was seen as the Holy Grail of what we were all trying to achieve here, and certainly they expounded on that with great passion all throughout the process, but then, when given an opportunity to participate in the Right Honourable David Johnston's work, we saw that all the parties, including the previous Conservative Party leader, Mr. O'Toole, participated. I will quote from page 8 in the English version: “Each of Mr. Singh, Mr. Blanchet and Mr. O'Toole gave their thoughtful perspectives on the threat of foreign interference.”
Mr. Poilievre, the current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, refused to participate at all and, when asked multiple times, it looks as though he didn't even have the dignity to respond to the Right Honourable David Johnston's request, except on Twitter on April 12. This is all documented on page 8 in the Right Honourable David Johnston's report. This says back to me that throughout the process the Conservative Party and its members have been saying that they want sunlight and transparency, yet their leader will not participate in the process to get to the bottom of the issues and allegations that have circulated in the media and the very real concerns that have risen out of those. I find that highly suspicious, as Mr. Cooper would say.
Now what we're seeing on top of it is that not only did they refuse to participate in the process, but they're also.... I think it has happened multiple times now that the Conservative Party leader.... Unfortunately, the Bloc leader has joined the Conservative Party leader in making public statements about not being willing and stressing their unwillingness to have a briefing and to pull back the veil, which they've wanted all this time, to see the intelligence in its whole context and to understand why the Right Honourable David Johnston came to the very rational conclusions that he's come to, based on all of the facts and information.
What they're saying now is that truth is a trap. It's a trap, everybody. We're all trying to trap them by offering the information they've wanted all this time. Now, all of a sudden, it's a trap. We're setting a trap for them because then they won't be able to speak about it publicly. I would say that if you're actually committed to getting to the truth, I mean, how could you possibly claim that the truth is a trap? Truth isn't a trap. It's the thing that you've been seeking all along in this process, and at the very moment that you're able to get access to that, you're saying that you're unwilling to do it.
For me, I call into question the motives behind the Conservative Party members—and now, unfortunately, the Bloc, in joining them—in not really wanting to get to the bottom of this, not being willing to see the truth, not willing to face the truth, and all the while telling us that this is what they desire.
I think that when Mr. Fergus put his amendment forward—which I think is a really strong amendment—it really responds to the section in the Right Honourable David Johnston's report where he talks about the role of opposition leaders. It says:
I recommend the government start immediately the process of working with the Opposition Leaders to obtain the requisite security clearance so they can read and review my full report, including the confidential annex.
The confidential annex provides all of the information that the Right Honourable David Johnston saw and gathered to make the conclusions he made in his first report. I can't imagine actually claiming that you care about these issues, and then not being willing to look at that information and verify whether or not the Right Honourable David Johnston's conclusions are accurate. I don't understand how anyone could legitimately stand up in public and say they care about the truth of these matters but not be willing to actually read and review those intelligence documents in their full context, so that they can formulate their own conclusions and see whether the Right Honourable David Johnston's claims and conclusions are accurate.
The amendment is good. I believe Mr. Boulerice's subamendment makes a lot of sense in that, for individuals who were able to speak about the Right Honourable David Johnston's conclusions....The same conclusions that he's been able to disclose to me should be fair game for anybody else who is reviewing those documents. It does make sense to me.
I would ask for a friendly subamendment, though, just to stay consistent, Mr. Boulerice. It's important to refer to Mr. Johnston as the Right Honourable David Johnston. He's earned that title. He served as our Governor General, and we owe him the respect and honour that title comes with. We should just amend your subamendment, if you would consider it friendly, to ensure we're referring to him properly.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.