Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm not sure whether this point was raised, but if you could read off the list of speakers from time to time, it would be a good way to let those who wish to participate in the debate know where they are on the list. It's just a friendly suggestion.
I listened closely to what the honourable member from the Conservative Party, Mr. Kurek, had to say, and I read his motion carefully.
Madam Chair, this is a bit unusual, but I hope you'll agree with me. The honourable member called this a very simple motion. Unfortunately, I would say it's not that simple.
In the last comment made at Friday's meeting, the honourable member Mr. Garrison showed quite easily that this motion was not, in fact, simple, using himself as an example. He has numerous cousins and a number of brothers and sisters. Are we going to ask all of them to provide documentation to the committee? The third paragraph of the motion reads as follows:
Additionally, the letter should require that all Members of Cabinet disclose whether they, their families or their relatives have connections to WE, ME to WE Corporation….
Madam Chair, what does “their families or their relatives” mean? I imagine it means myself and my children, but does it include my parents, my brothers and sisters? Does it include my cousins, my relatives or the families of my spouse, my children, my grandchildren and my parents? Where does it stop? Frankly, it's not a simple motion, and that's the least I can say about it.
I see that the honourable member would like to respond. Madam Chair, through you, I'd like to ask him a question, if I may.
Does my honourable colleague believe this motion, which seeks to produce documents from my family members, my relatives, will in fact get the information he's seeking from the interested parties in an effort to get an understanding of who has been involved with this organization? If so, in what form should they produce these documents? That's a question I have for my colleague. I hope, in his opportunity to speak, when we're further down the speaking list, he will respond to that question. That would be very helpful to me in my consideration of whether or not to support this motion.
This just bears witness to the idea that it sounds simple but it gets really complicated. I sound a bit like a broken record—and I'm trying to keep everything innovative here; I'm not trying to run down the clock—but I have to ask all of my honourable colleagues around the table what we want. When I look at this motion, which is like the motion that was passed last week, I wonder: Do we really want a situation where members of Parliament are investigating other members of Parliament?
I really believe this is something that we should let the Ethics Commissioner do. We can encourage the Ethics Commissioner. We can call the Ethics Commissioner here.
We can ask him questions. We can ask him about the scope of his investigation. We can encourage him to explore certain solutions. We can ask him to dig deeper during the investigation he deems appropriate to set up, as he sees fit. We can make numerous suggestions, but we should let the commissioner do his job.
If, at his discretion, the commissioner deems it appropriate to probe further, he will. Since we are trying to obtain all this information, not just from the Prime Minister and his family, from Bill Morneau and his family, from Katie Telford and from Seamus O'Regan, but also from all members of cabinet, their families or their relatives, why not ask every member of Parliament? Why not ask everyone in this great country of ours? Where will it all end?
That's what worries me. I hope that gives the committee some food for thought. We can arrive at a motion that isn't as broad and open-ended as this one, but only if it is the committee's will to adopt the motion. I still maintain that the best decision is not to make one. Allow me to explain. What I mean is not to make this decision. Let's let the commissioner define the scope of the investigation. We can invite him to appear before the committee, and we can encourage him to pursue certain avenues, but it is his responsibility to conduct the investigation. If not, if we cross this line, where will it end?
Madam Chair, unfortunately, those questions have never been answered, at least not to my satisfaction. If we continue down this path, we can do the same for any other matter. We can look into anything to keep asking questions in an effort to gain a partisan advantage. That is not what this committee is for. I could argue that this doesn't fall within the committee's area of responsibility. I'm afraid that we're going to start something that will never end.
Just before I wrap up, I do, however, want to applaud the decision the committee made last week. Once a poor decision has been made, all we can do is try our best. The committee decided to limit the study by specifying that the information be reviewed in camera.
That way, given what we've embarked on, here, this fishing expedition, we can minimize the risk of doing harm to people who have practically nothing to do with politics, other than having a politician in their family or having connections to one. As I said, a close look at this motion and the definition it sets out reveals far-reaching implications.
Madam Chair, I will leave it there, and I sincerely hope that my fellow members will think about what I said.
Thank you.