Mr. Chair, I don't think it's turning it into a circus to invite the commissioner here to provide us with an explanation based on information he possesses—namely, legislation the committee is currently reviewing.
With all due respect, I have questions for the commissioner, not only regarding what is, but also regarding what should be. This situation is anything but a circus. With all due respect to the people speaking here, this is an ethics committee, and with the tools at our disposal, our goal is to shed light on a situation and better understand it. That's the purpose of this motion.
I have questions for the Ethics Commissioner; perhaps Mrs. Church does not. I also have questions for Mr. Imbleau, particularly regarding Bill C‑15 and the extraordinary power that Bill C‑15 grants Alto concerning expropriation and those affected by it. It's not a circus when you're someone whose property has been expropriated and you no longer enjoy the protections currently afforded by the Expropriation Act. You will understand that being treated like a circus animal is almost a question of privilege.
The Liberals are filibustering. They oppose the principle that an ethics committee can summon three parties in connection with, at the very least, a perceived conflict of interest, which was even confirmed by the minister's actions. Can we have a slightly more respectful tone? If the Liberals want to continue filibustering because they don't want this committee to have better tools to manage such situations in the future, or to better understand them in the future, I don't know what we're doing here.
The Liberals are currently calling into question the very principle of an ethics committee. What do they have to lose? If everything had been done by the book, they would have demonstrated in under six hours that everything was in order.