Thank you. I am going to try to explore some alternatives.
If this is a developing story and more information comes out beyond an editorial scope, i.e., that there is nefarious funding, dark money involved.... I heard “dining out”, which was interesting to me. If there is some egregious stuff happening at these meetings and it is a developing story, I would be interested to hear evidence. I would not be interested at this time.
I would say to my Conservative friends that if they want to hold this motion and allow this to develop, and should there be an opinion from any of our commissioners on this, should there be any kind of evidence floated anywhere about improprieties at this particular meeting of people, I would be open to it.
At this point we don't have any of that. For that reason, perhaps we have the ability, Mr. Chair, to request a document, a briefing by the minister prior to dragging them forward, something that's an intermediate step, rather than taking up the time and the theatre of having them come in.
Absent of that, as I mentioned before, there is question period for the honourable members from the Conservative side. There are Order Paper questions and other things we can use as tools, but if there is a smoking gun, I would need to see it. If there is not one, then I will not be supporting this.
If they think this is something they want to pursue in earnest and not in the way of political theatre, then I would urge them to maybe hold off on moving it now and allow it to develop. If it goes to a vote now, it fails. I am saying that if there is more to it, I am open to it.