I'm going to start speaking English.
As I was saying—and this was my intervention last week—as a new member on this committee, I understand that discussions were had and information and documents were shared in the previous committee. But I think it is incumbent upon this committee, which has been reconstituted, that the members have all of the information and all possibilities to be able to gain all of the necessary information and documents, so that the motions before us be disposed of with the information we have today.
That said, I also understand—and that's what I understood last week—that the motion presented by my colleague Barrett differs from the one that had been presented in the course of the summer. Though I understand that the majority of it is the same, but for the reasons that are being discussed here in this committee, I think we owe it to ourselves to be able to look very carefully at this motion that has changed.
I'd like to focus on two things: one, the nature of the motion itself; and two—and I'm going to stick to the motion—elements that derive from this motion.
I'd like to point out the following, and I'm going to read again the motion that was submitted by my colleague Barrett:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), an order...[for] the Committee do issue...Speakers’ Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau— including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it— which had been originally ordered to be produced on July 22, 2020, by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, provided that these documents shall be provided to the Clerk of the Committee within 24 hours of the adoption of this motion; and...the documents be reviewed in camera.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak on two very important elements. Why are we going back to October 14, 2008? As a new member of this committee, I have no idea why October 14, 2008 is a chosen target date. We are talking about going back 12 years. As well, why are we making it so general as to name the company, organization, person or entity booking it?
I have colleagues Barrett and Angus, who have, time and time again, said—