Thank you very much.
The first thing I'd like to say in response to Mr. Erskine-Smith is that I don't accept that he speaks for his colleagues on the committee. I take the argument from him. Of course, the NDP would prefer to have a public inquiry. If the argument is that he would prefer we have a public inquiry—as opposed to what's being proposed today—we're happy to accept that any day of the week. Our impression is that's not on offer, at least not so far.
My question for all the other Liberals on the committee who voted against having a public inquiry is why they would vote against this motion. I'm not satisfied by Mr. Erskine-Smith's answer, which is particular to him, that we have the reasons why they will be voting against this motion. I think Canadians deserve to hear why Liberals who are not supportive of a public inquiry are also not supportive of creating other forums for Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott to come forward. We don't yet have that. We should have that before the vote. I invite all five of them to give their own reasons, as Mr. Erskine-Smith has done.
I take it from the position that because the waiver doesn't extend to this committee—if we take that as a reason not to invite the Prime Minister, as this motion does and as Mr. Kent has pointed out that this motion invites the Prime Minister to extend the waiver—the Prime Minister would refuse to co-operate with an independent committee of Parliament. It's from the Prime Minister himself and from his House leader. Often in the House we have heard that they respect the work of parliamentary committees. If a parliamentary committee said that it thought it was appropriate to study this issue and it wanted to hear from these witnesses, the Prime Minister should have no problem extending the waiver, as he did somewhat for the justice committee. I also just don't accept that as an argument. I think it is important that this committee express its desire to get to the bottom of this issue and that it make a request, as this motion would, of the Prime Minister to extend that waiver.
That's part of what we're doing here today. We're not just trying to launch a study of the ethics committee. We're also trying to call on the Prime Minister to extend that waiver out of fairness to Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott who want to be able to tell their story.
I think that's an important point that ought not to get lost. I would hate to think that all of this talk about respecting the work of committees and wanting to allow them to do the work that they see fit was disingenuous in the House. I take, by implication, that this is the position of the Liberals on the committee, if they think that somehow if we call for this study and ask for the extension of the waiver that the Prime Minister wouldn't grant it.
Thank you.