Thank you.
I want to note the use of the word “efficient” while we're simultaneously experiencing a mini filibuster, with the government side debating themselves on the matter. When I look at this, I need to be convinced that there is a smoking gun. I'll say, out of whatever goodwill may be remaining around the table, that from my perspective, if in the first couple of meetings—although I have no interest in maximizing it at two—if within the first two or three meetings, let's say, if I find the evidence does not compel further exploration, I would be open to reducing it from three weeks to two weeks or something like that. However, I will be supporting the motion as it stands now, knowing that the committee has the purview to either extend or conclude, depending on the evidence that's presented.
What I will say, though, is that if we're going to talk about efficiency, then let's show it, right? Let's not filibuster topics where we could just quickly move through the business and get to what needs to be done here. From that perspective, I'm putting it out there to all parties that if we embark on this and it becomes apparent early on that there aren't in fact ethical breaches that would be relevant to the mandate of this committee, then I would be open to concluding the committee or having it referred to other places.
As it stands now, based on what is reported, and having spent some time on procurement and public services on OGGO and on public accounts, I can share with you that I'm concerned with how this is being presented. We've heard it here today, with the implications of donors from both the Liberal and Conservative sides. I thank the member from the Bloc for raising this important issue. I think it's timely. This notion that somehow it's just coming out of the blue suggests that maybe perhaps folks aren't keeping up with the news in Quebec. I know I do: Sometimes I make it, and I certainly watch it.
From that, I just want to put it to all parties that if we get into this—and I quite frankly don't think there's anything there—you may find that I withdraw my support from making it go for four, five or six weeks. If we get the evidence that suggests or demands further exploration, I'm also on for extending it if it so requires, to have more witnesses. Ultimately, with these issues, if there's one point—and they're quite right—that I would concede to my friends on the Liberal side, it's that these exercises erode public trust, and when it erodes public trust, it's not partisan.
Basically, people look at all of us the same way, including parties that may or may not even be involved, so I want to go through it carefully. I'm hopeful that we can explore topics like what it's like to be a whistle-blower within government, what it's like to have procurement that is open and transparent, what the code of conflict looks like, what lobbying looks like—all these things that pertain to the mandate of this committee.
Those are my only remarks for today, and they will be my only remarks. I just want to put everybody on notice.
Thank you.