Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This has been going on for nearly 16 hours now, if not a little longer. This is not a criticism, but you and I have followed this debate from start to finish, without being replaced.
I understand that new speakers may provide further details to help clarify where we stand, but, since the start of my contributions, I have avoided mentioning the questions I wish to put to the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Imbleau and the minister. These questions will be asked during the scheduled meetings; the six hours of meetings will be spread over two or three sessions, if the motion is adopted.
I repeat, for those who have just joined us and are wondering why we have been debating for 16 hours: the government's argument is that the opposition is trying to go fishing, to discredit democratic institutions and to erode public confidence, given that the Ethics Commissioner has already given his opinion.
The fact that the commissioner has examined the situation does not prevent us from summoning him to ask him questions, particularly given that we are currently reviewing the Conflict of Interest Act.
In the matter before us, there are three parties. Firstly, there is the commissioner, as an independent resource, who, I repeat, suggested to us, as part of the review of the act, that we introduce the concept of the appearance of a conflict of interest. This is the source of the motion, amongst other things.
In fact, my understanding is that, from the moment Alto offered a job to the partner of the Minister of Finance, while the latter was spearheading Bill C‑15, which would grant Alto significant powers regarding expropriation and reduce those of the expropriated parties, we are entitled to ask questions of Alto's CEO.