Thank you very much, Chair.
This is how I see the order of events in my mind. When we say “in relation to the motion”, the motion we're talking about is the motion that was passed, of course, in a consensus fashion, tabled by me and the New Democratic Party, to look into foreign interference as it relates to the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation. Events that have transpired since then have left it so that we have little recourse to find ways to get to the bottom of foreign interference.
Foreign interference, to me, is the most important aspect of this investigation, Mr. Chair. It's not that we find ways to create an affiliation between the Liberal Party and the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation. That's a partisan interest that I definitely have an appetite to pursue, but of course our job here is to make sure that we get to the bottom of foreign interference. At least, that's how I enter this discussion, with the hope that we'd have support towards that.
Looking at foreign interference in Canada and the fact that we have an example—the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation may be one where foreign interference has taken place by way of donations—it is not unreasonable to suggest that there are other organizations in Canada that are part and parcel of this industry. I say “industry” because, in my perspective—or at least in the media's perspective—it's not only the Liberal Party but also the Conservative Party, maybe even the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois. I think it's incumbent upon us that we take that kind of fairness approach if we're going to be using this kind of power to have the CRA give us documents, the power to secure and second documents of a private organization.
I do accept what Mr. Genuis has said in relation to the unique nature of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, but I also believe that there are unique aspects to other organizations that have found ways around that. For the benefit of a study, should we really be interested as a committee in tackling foreign interference, we would take all available information toward that study, should we have confirmation that the Auditor General, which we do, does not have a mandate to pursue this, or the CRA. As evidenced by our investigation thus far, the CRA has been clear that they have to hold an independent aspect towards this throughout their investigation.
Those things together, Mr. Chair, all of those factors together lead me to the position that we will not get the answers we are seeking in relation to our request for clarity on foreign interference, should we not take the opportunity to expand our investigation.
If we really want to get down to that, why not take the opportunity right now? I understand there could be fear by the Conservatives to expand this, but Mr. McCauley made a credible argument at the very beginning that if the Conservatives were to form government, they would be so happy and open to having this investigation done. Because we're dealing with such an important issue as foreign interference, why would we wait for an election to do that, considering how sensitive this process is?
Since there's been a filibuster here at the table on this pretty much all day, it's my suggestion that, with the 15 minutes we have remaining, Mr. Chair, we try to sort out what kind of possible amendments we can make to this motion that would get to the bottom of what we want to see here, which is foreign interference.
If I could bring the attention of the committee back to how important the study really is to the transparency of how organizations participate in Canada, that would be my objective, but I'm not okay just going down a random witch hunt on one organization if we're not going to get the results that we need on a study on foreign interference.
I'm sure many of my colleagues around the table would see that clearly.