I appreciate Mr. Cooper's explanation. I kind of get it to some degree. However, we have heard testimony here, and it wasn't just from the public safety minister. It was a very thorough explanation the minister gave about where this note had gone and why the computer system or whatnot that it goes to...and the fact that nobody had briefed him on it. The process is that the deputy and those who work for him would see this information. The department would bring this to the attention of the deputy. The deputy would then brief the minister on it. None of that was done in this process.
Whether there was a document out there or not out there, I don't think that's necessarily the question the Conservatives are interested in getting at.
I'm assuming that what you want to get at is that the government did know about this, the public safety minister in particular, you're saying. You're trying to get to a point where you can figure out whether he came here and lied, his deputies lied and all the departments are lying—that everyone is lying—and he was briefed and he knew, and that at that point this document is going to explain that, as to what date he was briefed on and the knowledge he carried. No document is going to do that, yet what we may end up doing in the process of this is risking our security.
As my colleague has said, we have already, through this process, come across times when I think we have put our Five Eyes allies in discomfort. We need to continue to work with them. They expect that Canada is the type of country that takes security very seriously and, therefore, that is why we are a partner in that alliance. If we show our incompetence or our disregard for these things and we become novices in dealing with this type of information, I don't think that's going to be a good look for Canada.
Mr. Cooper, it seems, through the explanation he's given, has already concluded that this is what he's trying to find. I get it. It's like being a scientist: “This is the end result I want to get to and I want to figure out how I get to this end result.” Unless you think the public safety minister was lying here at committee, the deputy was lying and also everyone that has been put in place and appointed by the Conservative government, all of them are lying.... We know that our bureaucrats are independent. Our bureaucrats, many of them, have been put in place by the Conservative Party of Canada.
This is an issue that I have seen re-emerge, whether it's in debate in the House, in inferences that are made or in outright accusations that are made by members of the Conservative Party and by their leader, Mr. Pierre Poilievre, to basically come to a conclusion on their own without any evidence, without wanting to see evidence—ever. We've seen that happen. The leader has done that many times, where he's like: “I don't want a briefing. I don't want to know what's really out there when it comes to foreign interference. I don't want to know whether Canadians are being killed on Canadian soil. I don't want that briefing because I want to be able to just go out there and allege whatever I can.”
I think it is so irresponsible and is childish behaviour, especially from a party that aspires to come back into government. That's not a good look on a party that aspires to come back into government, because what are you showing Canadians? That you would put Canada at risk, that you would alienate our allies? Anything to get a political point...?
That's what we're seeing in the House right now: anything to get a point. Some of it is being miscalculated because you're becoming so blinded by getting those political points that you're not seeing the damage that comes in that way, damage such as the risk to the lives of senators, the risk that can be caused to our assets, which could happen....
I think Mrs. Romanado made a good point. Things that rise to a level that could not be seen by the public should not be coming to this public forum in this committee. This is not the place. We have done a really good job here trying to figure out.... Yes, there are things to correct so that other members are not put in the position that Mr. Chong was put in. Mr. Chong should have been clearly notified and more should have been done to protect him. I think that's something on which we can all agree.
We're not looking to not respond back to Mr. Chong and make sure that improvements are made and that what happened doesn't happen again. We want to get to that place. That's why we want to take a look at and review the report and report back to Parliament on that. However, I'm finding that what we're doing here is just trying to score some political points.
I know Mr. Cooper feels that the whole system is lying, but I do not feel that. I trust our Canadian institutions. I trust our departments to not be lying.