Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank Mr. Johnston for extending his stay with us for another round.
Just in following up on that last line of questioning, on the difference between a public inquiry and the current process that is under way, I think a lot of folks are forgetting the fact that a public inquiry is actually named by an order in council, which is cabinet. Therefore, the same argument that it would not be independent could be said for a public inquiry, because at the end of the day it would be cabinet deciding the terms of reference and so on.
We know, Mr. Johnston, that you've done the work of interviewing various people with respect to foreign interference. You've looked at the documentation. You've written a report. You will be conducting interviews and public hearings, which of course could include going in camera for those who, out of fear, may not want to testify. That would be the same situation in a public inquiry situation. If they're afraid to testify before you in a public hearing, it could be the same thing for a public inquiry. The difference doesn't make sense. You've offered that some meetings could be held in camera for those who would like to testify for any concerns they may have.
Given that the next scheduled election is October 20, 2025, the goal of course should be that we want to make sure the systems we have in place are as strong as they can be to detect, deter and counter any foreign interference in our next election, if we're looking at “forward-facing”. You've already addressed some of the issues we've seen with respect to communications problems. What would you recommend, in addition, that this committee could suggest we do to make sure that, in a forward-facing goal, we protect our democracy? Is there something this committee could be doing to assist, to make sure we are ready for the next election?