Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I look forward to addressing a few of the concerns that some of my colleagues have brought forward.
First, before I go into some of the specifics of that, I think it is foundational that members of Parliament, that Canada's Parliament in general, hold Canada's government to account, that MPs, whether it be in the format of question period or in their role as members of a committee, are able to hold their government to account. This is not asking every MP.... It is not asking for a fishing expedition, but rather it's asking for some questions to be answered that are related to a billion dollar decision by members of Canada's government in cabinet.
As members of Parliament, I believe we are entitled to be able to ask the question very simply, “What knowledge was there first, that each member of cabinet require that they disclose whether or not they had knowledge of relationships between the individuals and WE, and a number of the WE entities?" That's a simple yes or no question: Did they have that knowledge or did they not?
When it comes to the question of prior...I think that there was a decision made at a cabinet meeting, and at that time, was there an understanding of the conflicts of interest that existed or not? It's quite simple. When it comes to the end, that's a question, as MPs, that we need to be able to ask those who are tasked with making decisions for the government.
I would put on the record, Madam Chair, that I find it very interesting that a number of concerns with the motion have been brought up. They're well taken; I appreciate that the members opposite would share their concerns. However, I find it troubling that those concerns were not brought up with a suggestion to make a change that would make it more palatable, whether it be adding “to the best of their knowledge”, as Ms. Brière mentioned....
We could be more definitive in terms of a family relationship. I come from a fifth generation in Canada. We were supposed to have a family reunion this summer, and there would have been hundreds of people attending. Now, because of COVID, that's been put on hold.
So that is well taken. However, I find it troubling that they would have cause for concern and yet not bring forward a solution to remediate those concerns in the name of transparency. It's troubling. Certainly my constituents are demanding answers on all of these questions, and I think it is incumbent upon members of Parliament to ensure that we ask them.
Certainly I would be happy to entertain amendments that would assuage some of the concerns that exist. I would hope that if those amendments were made, other members of this committee would consider getting on board with ensuring we can get the information that is required.
There was a comment by Mr. Fergus about looking for partisan advantage. I think back to the first number of meetings we had in this committee, and there was a lot of non-partisan work. I think we had a very constructive dialogue back and forth about the direction of this committee, and yet here we are today discussing a series of issues related to an unprecedented scandal that the government faces. It is incumbent upon all of us to get answers. To me, that's the furthest thing from looking for partisan advantage.
You know, you have the Prime Minister having to apologize and you have a whole bunch of cabinet ministers acknowledging a certain level of involvement, with some apologizing and some not. Further questions continue to be raised on a daily basis. That's not partisan. That's called accountability. That's why we're here as members of Parliament.
The comment was made by Ms. Shanahan about the net being cast wide. That's fair. I appreciate that. So let's define what those family relationships should look like. I would hope that if we could do that, we could come up with a consensus and we could move forward in a way that speaks to the non-partisan objective here, which is getting answers for Canadians. Defining that net is something that certainly I would be happy to entertain.
I know that those comments were echoed by Mr. Angus in relationship to the precedent we set. I agree; especially in the Westminster system that we have, precedent is foundational to the way we conduct ourselves. Transparency and accountability are part of that precedent. Certainly, that's the intent of this motion—to ask the questions and get answers on the relationships that may or may not exist. I think Canadians are generally very understanding when the best attempts and efforts are made to simply get those answers.
With that, I look forward to continuing the debate. I would encourage members to consider that offer, and certainly there's a willingness on my part, to entertain some amendments that would make this more amenable. I quite frankly would look forward to support by all MPs from all parties to ensure that we can get to the objective here, which is accountability for Canadians.
Thank you.