It's not entirely. It's with the occasional caveats, if I can put it that way.
I guess at this point I would say to my colleagues, with the caveat that was just mentioned, that some rationale as to why the government members are voting against these things would be really helpful for my understanding of where the government is actually headed on access to information, because this was a central part of the conversation leading to their election. If they're going to vote against these things, as the government does in lockstep nearly all the time, perhaps they could explain why. Perhaps they could indulge me and indulge Canadians who are wondering what happened to their promise and principles.
We can go through the process on both, Chair, but the notion of these things, again, is based on the Information Commissioner's testimony. It's based on the ethics committee's report.
I'll not apologize to my Liberal colleagues if this seems repetitious, but if we're not going to base our recommendations on evidence, then what are we basing them on? Instructions from the PMO don't count. What we should be basing our efforts on here is what we heard at the table; otherwise this entire thing was a bad-faith process and a sham with some other intention in place.
I'll move my amendment with support, and if someone from the government benches wants to tell me why it's such a terrible idea, I'd love to hear it.