Thank you, Madam Chair.
Given that almost all of us are permanent members, I would like to welcome Ms. Lapointe and Ms. Larouche. I thank them for being here today to support us.
I am going to take the opportunity offered by the fact that we are meeting in public to say I have had time to think about the arguments I made regarding removing point (a) from Mr. Cooper's motion. For the record of this committee, I would like to clarify my arguments on that subject, even if it means repeating myself a little.
Since there are new members here today, I would point out that a question of privilege was raised in May 2023 and that we have had 14 meetings about that question of privilege alone, during which we have met with 35 witnesses from various fields. We have met with members of Parliament, including Mr. Chong, one of the key actors in this matter, and with other individuals. We have also been able to meet with Mr. Blair not just once, but twice, and with Mr. Mendicino, Mr. O'Toole, and the special rapporteur, David Johnston, another of the key actors, I believe. Mr. Johnston testified only once, but he testified for three and a half hours, which is the equivalent of several one-hour appearances. I am naming only the people who testified in connection with this important study.
At the same time, we have also done a study on foreign interference, starting on November 1, 2022, so I think we have looked at the issue from all angles. We have met with a total of 74 witnesses at this committee, some of whom have appeared before us three times. There is even one who testified four times, according to the archives. I was not there.
That means that that all questions have been asked and all the requests have been made to the clerk. We have requested all the documents that the committee had the power to request. It must be understood that a committee does not have a security clearance that allows it to receive all of a government's information. That is understandable. The high security level means that a committee may be independent, but it may not compel the government to give it information that would compromise national security if it were disclosed. It is fine to say that we want to obtain all the reports and all the documents, but that does not mean that we will receive them all.
From the reading and thinking I have done since we parted last time, I am convinced that we have done our due diligence and we are ready to produce a report in order to reach conclusions and make recommendations.
Point (a) of the motion, concerning foreign election interference, says that the committee will:
(a) acknowledge the failure of officials in the Prime Minister's Office and the Liberal Party of Canada to provide relevant information to this Committee that they had indicated they would undertake to provide;
It is directed at specific groups that have not provided documents that had all been requested. We could say it two or three or four or five more times, but the documents requested that could be sent have been provided. I am satisfied that the clerk and the analysts have done their jobs well.
I do not believe that we were now going against everything covered by Mr. Cooper's motion. However, I have the feeling that the Conservatives, once again, are using this motion in order not to finish the report. Once again, they are throwing a wrench in the works to prevent us from finishing our work. The answers we have received may not be the ones the Conservatives wanted, but they are the ones we have been given. Mr. Blair's comments and answers are clear and plain.
Just changing a few words, which we are probably going to propose to you a little later, would facilitate comprehension and we would have a greater chance of reaching an agreement. It should not be dragged out, in my opinion.
I would like to mention, for the newcomers, that a consensus among all parties is imminent, and we will then be able to find a solution and write the report. The clerk and the analysts have worked hard to prepare this report. The report contains a verbatim record of the testimony heard at this committee. I am more than satisfied that this report is ready and that we will be able to achieve our objective and our conclusions.
Regarding point (a) and our recommendations, the thinking I did led me to consider making certain changes. We could simply ask the clerk to communicate with all the witnesses who agreed to provide relevant information to the committee. That entirely includes what I have just said and all the documents that could be sent to a committee. We must use words that exert pressure, for example if we say require all the information. When words that cannot be translated into actions are used, it is hard for us to agree. Obviously, what we want is to achieve our objective. We want to obtain all the documents that can be sent to us, but that can also be used by the analysts to do the report.
We want to end up with a report and recommendations so that we can move on to something else. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has other extremely important matters to deal with. Although I have participated on this committee in the past, I am a newcomer. I joined this committee because I want to make progress on matters and work on issues that are extremely important for the committee.
I think we have explored the question in full. I do not want to go on and on about this, but I want to make the point that ordering the production of certain documents and setting deadlines is not appropriate in this case. We have had the opportunity to hear 74 witnesses, ask them all our questions, receive their reports, and hear their presentations. That all means that we have enough information to move forward.
I maintain that point (a) of the motion should be removed in full. Nonetheless, I am prepared to make compromises. We could say that the committee wants to obtain the relevant information, which would be reasonable, but that the information not received will have to be submitted within two weeks. I do not consider it to be acceptable to require that we obtain all the documents.
With that said, I will allow my colleagues an opportunity to speak to this amendment. I think there are other people who want to do so.
I will be happy to come back and present certain arguments following the recommendations we will perhaps make in respect of this motion.
