Mr. Chair, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the fact that we should limit ourselves to remarks that contain relevant information, and I will adhere to this.
I have a comment for my colleague, Mr. Kurek, as well as for the Canadians who are watching us. I wish to reassure them that I am not filibustering. I would also like to reassure them that I am going to seek ways to improve the motion moved by my colleague, Mr. Villemure, who is asking us to duplicate the work of another committee of the House of Commons on essentially the same subject contained in his motion.
Let me begin by informing you that today, I attended a reception organized by the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the Honourable Geoff Regan, for three minutes, and I have with me a compilation of his decisions. Obviously, the decisions taken at the House of Commons do not always apply to committees, but they are very similar to the decisions taken by our committees. One of the principles of the House is not to redo the work that has already been done during the passage of a bill. A similar principle applies to committees, i.e., they should not duplicate the work done by another committee.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member, is already looking at the influence of foreign countries on politics here in Canada. We mustn't duplicate this work, because it is a waste of time for MPs and a waste of House of Commons resources. My question is very simple: what witnesses who haven't already been invited by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons could we summon to our committee on the same subject?
My colleague is refusing to answer this question, why, I do not know. He has enjoyed a long career in ethics. He is a philosopher and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. We get along very well on a personal basis. However, we have to ask him this question, because it is a serious issue.
Imagine if every committee of the House of Commons decided to do so, whether it be the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the Standing Committee on Finance or any other committee. We would be keeping MPs from doing their work and things would grind to a standstill.
But it is precisely at committee that we do our real work as legislators. Everyone thinks that this happens during Question Period. I'm not saying that Question Period is not important, but it is all a bit theatrical: We ask questions to which we don't want any answers, and the answers provided don't fit with the questions.
Mr. Chair, I tip my hat to you as well as to your predecessor, Mr. Kelly. Both of you have chaired the committee since I have been a member, that is to say since the beginning of the current Parliament. We haven't played any political games here. You have always sought to establish a consensus. I congratulate you. That is precisely what we should be doing away from the cameras. I know that our committee meetings are televised, but we don't have the same viewership that the House of Commons enjoys during Question Period.
That's one of the reasons why we should take MPs' work seriously. Our work has to be relevant. We have to be efficient here in committee. I would like to congratulate the chairs once more for encouraging MPs to rise to the challenge, that is to say overcoming partisanship and making sure that we gather information from our witnesses.
During the first round of questions on access to information, which is the subject of our study today, before even taking the opportunity to ask a question, my honourable colleague decided to go back to his motion and a debate which I would qualify as being sterile.
I'm good with numbers, just like the other MPs, and I knew what was going to happen. I therefore told myself that I would vote for the motion so that we can have this debate now and decide what will happen. I don't believe the motion is in the interest of our committee and that the subject is relevant to our mandate. However, I have to accept the fact and the decision that was taken, i.e., that the motion is admissible.
However, I think there are ways of improving the motion and that it would be important to do so, and I will not hesitate to propose an amendment or two in order to improve the motion. I think that one of the biggest weaknesses of the motion that we are talking about is the notion of priority. There's one thing that I'm not convinced of...