I have to say that I've certainly benefited from taking the time to listen to everybody's arguments. As you know, throughout this process I've been fairly consistent on taking the positions of principle that I think are consistent with our party.
As a party that supported the invocation of the act on its face value, based on public information that was readily available, while respecting the summary that was put in terms of the context, it seems that we always miss the context that there was an armed action in Coutts, one that I think the average objective person would look at as a threat of terror, given its attempted targeting of police. As somebody who has a long history of being critical of the police as an institution, in this particular case I think it's incumbent on us to recognize the seriousness of that moment and what that could have meant across the country.
Now, you'll also recall that throughout the three years, I've been fairly consistent in supporting demands for documents. I believe the public has a right to know, to the best and fullest of its abilities, the same information that the government side has been privy to. I would state, right here on the record, that through this process I think the government has failed to articulate itself in a way that is consistent with the law as it's been explained to us by numerous experts.
But I have to recall the frustration I had, prior to the revelation of the scope of untranslated documents, about us getting to a place where I think we were at 39 of 50 recommendations that we had already voted on. We were already there. Nowhere did I hear Perrin Beatty, who I thought was perhaps one of our most learned experts, say that it's our mandate to be a book report club for Rouleau or any other judicial proceeding. That was not in the spirit or the language of any testimony I heard, and I think we've fallen into that trap.
I think the issue of translation is a serious issue. I commend the senator for taking it through its obvious complaint and appeal processes as it relates to the commissioners and the Privy Council. However, I would agree with Senator Harder that there is a translated version of the Rouleau commission. I can tell you that I don't have the resources to sift through tens of thousands of documents. I don't think any of us do. At this point, I'm willing to accept translated documents as legislated through our Official Languages Act, and I'm ready to move forward.
I also want to honour the spirit of the search for documents and the search for particularly what the threats to security are and what the threshold is. I think that is a material issue that has to be addressed by this committee in order for us to have adequate recommendations that would hopefully modernize this act to contemplate the current social, economic and political context we're in, which certainly wasn't contemplated back when Perrin Beatty drafted this piece of legislation.
MP Romanado, don't sell yourself short. In your short time here, this is a good motion that you've put forward. I think there are concessions there in terms of the witnesses.
Let's be clear: We're offering a revisiting of witnesses in a way that we didn't consider during Rouleau. If we're going to really open all of this back up, then let's hear from the folks who were held captive in the nation's capital here, the residents and all the other people who testified at Rouleau. I don't think that makes sense for Rouleau and I don't think it necessarily makes sense for this report either.
However, what does make sense to me, and I would put this to the movers of the motion, is that if we break this up section by section, I'll tell you right now, in this open session, that I support section (a)(ii), which is your demand for documents. I've always supported that. I think Canadians do have a right to know what the legal thresholds were that the government was using to make this decision. I think that's material to our report, and I think it would help dovetail into the work we've already done on the 39 or so recommendations.
I'm prepared to pick up where we left off. I'm prepared to accept the Mosley decision as an appendix to this as we did with the Rouleau in its translated version. I commend MP Romanado, on the Liberal side, for agreeing to revisit the other folks. Having worked on this for three years, I know Minister Virani is going to be a very learned member, as both a participant of this committee and a new minister. Minister Leblanc is ultimately accountable under his new ministerial mandate. I think that's great.
I'm not interested in opening this back up. I've expressed this offline, and I'm going to say it to the public now. For those who are watching, before you get your fundraising emails, this is not a cover-up. This is a three-year process that needs to come to an end based on a mandate that we have as a committee without any conspiracies. There is lots of time for folks to get their say in these upcoming appeals and civil proceedings.
I would ask that we do find that common ground, and that we break this motion up. That would allow me to support the demand for documents. I think section (b) and MP Romanado's motion are similar enough that I would be prepared to support MP Romanado's motion should it come to the floor next after having supported the demand for documents.
Thank you.