Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I take it from the absence of a statement.... I really do feel, actually, that I'm not trying to repeat material suggested by other members but trying to point out that what is happening here
it's that, as I mentioned in French, we are indirectly doing what we cannot do directly.
We are bypassing the rules of the House of Commons.
We should simply allow the Ethics Commissioner to do his work. We need to avoid giving in to the temptation of conducting a witch hunt and trying to find information about individuals who may be linked in some way—which remains to be seen—with us in connection with our work. Let's let the commissioner conduct his investigation. It could prevent an undesirable situation. We should avoid simply looking for potentially prejudicial information and instead have a clear and precise objective.
If there are gaps in the act that governs the work of the Ethics Commissioner, then it is up to us to examine and assess them, do a proper study of them and fill these gaps. That is not what will happen here with this so-called case study. We are using an exception to justify a project and that's not a good idea.
I have confidence in the collective wisdom around this table. We can avoid this situation and avoid damaging our democratic institutions. We must always support these institutions. The people who succeed us—we are all only here temporarily—will see that it is worth the effort to run for office to serve in the House of Commons for the furtherance and continuity of our democracy. I would be concerned if we were to act in any other way.
That concludes my comments, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for your patience.