With the greatest of respect, sir, you were informed. You were informed on August 17, two days into the writ period. You, as the national security and intelligence adviser and as a member of the panel of five, were informed of foreign activities targeting Canadian citizens, targeting Canadian parliamentarians. You were informed, sir.
You can't say that because you weren't informed in the capacity of the CEIPP. You were informed as the national security and intelligence adviser. That's the fact that's troubling to me. Two days into the writ period, the PCO saw fit to provide you with a nine-page memo on foreign interference in Canadian elections, and you did not twig to that fact or deal with it through the critical election incident public protocol. I find it simply astonishing that someone in your position.... You say that you're not a career public servant, but, sir, you've been in the most senior ranks of government for over a decade, so you can't hide behind the fact that you're not a career public servant. Frankly, in listening to the testimony today, I fear that you've watched Yes, Minister and taken that as a training guide rather than as a comedy. I'm reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby, who said that clarification isn't meant to provide clarity. “It is [meant] to put oneself 'in' the clear.” That is what we're seeing here.
You mentioned that there was a follow-up piece. You asked for a follow-up piece. On what date did you ask for that follow-up piece?