Thank you.
On the subamendment, I would agree with my colleague on her assessment of paragraph (c). The reason why Dr. Oates was included in the original motion is that Dr. Oates is referenced in an article from, I believe, November 2021, where she speaks about an unnamed senator essentially assisting her organization, people who were affiliated with her organization, with documentation, which is the subject of this. I think it would have been material to know if she had received some of these documents from the senator, because that does say that the process was circumvented for some groups and not for others.
I understand her hesitance, though, in not wanting to be here. On the other hand, in that article, I will point out to my colleague and put on the record that she is cited as saying that—it was either her or someone else in the article—they knew this senator went too far. It bothers me that we potentially had people who were probably very well intentioned and do great work right now working on a process that they may have had suspicions was not legitimate. That's not how we do business in Canada. We should be working to change policy, not circumvent policy, even in the toughest of situations, because that's how we keep processes fair and equitable for everyone.
I do have to take issue with my colleague's suggestion for point (d), and I want her to listen why. I refer her attention, through you, Chair, to an article published by The Globe and Mail on February 17, 2023. The headline of the article is “Sajjan unclear on whether top adviser told him he was sharing Canadian government travel documents with senator”. This article refers to Mr. George Young. Mr. George Young is at the centre of this entire matter. This is the former defence minister's former chief of staff.
This entire article talks about how Minister Sajjan couldn't recall or maybe recalled giving this person a potential document. I'm going to read from the article for my colleague, through you, Chair. This is from an interaction that Mr. Sajjan had with the reporter:
Mr. Sajjan further confused the matter on Thursday. In a brief interview with The Globe, he dodged 10 different questions about whether he knew Mr. Young provided what are called visa facilitation letters to Ms. McPhedran.
I would argue that Mr. Young is material to the committee's study of this matter, given that Minister Sajjan has already had a long interaction with the press wherein he has tried to obfuscate on whether or not he knew or had given permission to Mr. Young for the use of these facilitation letters. I would also point out to my colleague that Mr. Young has used the excuse that he might be invited to this committee as a rationale for not commenting to the press or providing further public comment on this matter.
For me, the most important person out of anybody to attend this committee hearing.... Frankly, the two people are Senator McPhedran and then George Young, as our first starting place, because my understanding, based on everything that has come out in the press and on my understanding of the files, is that Mr. Young is at the heart of this. We need to know whether or not the former minister of defence authorized a workaround process through his chief of staff. If, in the media, Minister Sajjan is already dancing around the issue, then it behooves us as a committee to have Mr. Young here to give his side of the story.
I would argue that any attempts to delete Mr. Young from this, I would say.... I don't want to ascribe motive to my colleague, but I would look to her to seek to amend her motion again to include Mr. Young. Any concerns otherwise, I would say, are trying to perhaps gloss over or perhaps brush the involvement of Mr. Young under the rug, given that there are several media articles, including the one I cited from the Globe, wherein Mr. Sajjan already danced around the press on what he knew when. I just want to get to the bottom of this so that this doesn't happen again.
We're looking at major humanitarian crises around the world right now. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again right now, so that other people aren't impacted by that.
I wish she had separated her subamendment out. I can't support it without having Mr. Young here. I think what will happen without that is that we'll have these ministers maybe come or maybe not, and they will dance around the issue. I'm sure Senator McPhedran will come, though. That will be interesting, but not having Mr. Young here will actually materially change the committee's ability to investigate this matter and I would ask her to consider that.