Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
To the amendment, I appreciate my Bloc colleague's amendment, because that has been, I think, the conversation of this debate thus far. I'm not speaking with regard to the debate on the amendment, but rather to the debate on the motion. Largely, according to the members of the government and the NDP, it's too broad, so I appreciate that my Bloc colleague would take action to solve the problem.
Certainly I will be supporting it. I think and I believe that it is the role of committees to work together and to come up with solutions when there's disagreement. We can make a collaborative effort to ensure that the job gets done.
I will make a comment. This was prior to being elected. Being a student of politics and passionate about our democratic institutions, when I would hear of friends or family visiting, or now when I invite constituents to come visit in Ottawa, I tell them very clearly, “You need to come and check out question period. It's fun. It's back and forth”, especially since we're from probably the most Conservative riding in the country. There's a lot of fun to be had when it comes to the jabs and whatnot that are traded back and forth in question period, but I always tell them, “Don't simply go to question period if you're not able to stop in for a few minutes and listen to committee”, because that's where a lot of the substantive work of Parliament gets done.
My Bloc colleague put that into action by proposing an amendment, which, if I am to take the members opposite at their word, addresses the concerns they brought forward regarding this motion. I appreciate that, and I plan to support it.
I would make one note, Madam Chair. I've heard numerous times from members opposite that this committee's.... I've heard a lot about the committee mandate. Conveniently, the last paragraph of that mandate is often omitted from the conversations we have had over the last number of weeks, which is unfortunate. We need to look at the mandate in its entirety.
Time and time again we have members opposite suggest that we let the Ethics Commissioner do his job, and then we invite the Ethics Commissioner to the committee. I'm in a hundred per cent agreement with that. However, I was appalled—although that's a strong word—that when we brought forward a motion to do just that back in, I believe, the beginning of February, the members opposite voted against having the Ethics Commissioner come to testify regarding the “Trudeau II Report”.
It is incredibly unfortunate that.... In fact, I look forward to being able to bring up the number of times that the members opposite have simply suggested that it's this committee's job to bring the Ethics Commissioner back to sit in that chair to testify, because that's simply not what happened.
We have an opportunity here to shed light on, to open the doors on, the issues of a scandal that is rocking the confidence that Canadians need to have in their government. Until we can shed light in the darkness, so to speak, I think there are further questions that need to be asked about anybody who wouldn't participate in that process.
I thank the Bloc member for his amendment, and I will certainly support that. Again, I encourage all members to look at this as a solution to the challenges they had with the initial motion. Hopefully, we can, in an expeditious manner, move forward to shed light where light needs to be shed.