Let me go back to Mr. Sabia's comments. I would ask you to read the minutes. I am talking to those who were not here at the time, but who are here today. First, welcome. I go back to that point because we asked the question. That's all I am saying. Go and look at the answer and you will see whether it's something that impels us to make this motion or not. That's all I have to say on this point.
I am going back to point b) once more. I have forgotten where I got to.
So the motion asks for documents related to “all international travel that he has taken since he became Prime Minister”. It asks for a list of “each meeting the Prime Minister attended and every attendee at these meetings”. In addition, it requires “that these documents are to be provided to the committee in both official languages and without redaction within six weeks of the adoption of this motion.”
There's one other point about which I find myself once more asking how relevant it is. Our committee previously invited two people who applied the conflict of interest screen to thePrime Minister. They showed up and answered all the questions they were asked.
Another point is that the Prime Minister should not be informed about the screen being applied before a decision is final. That is important. The Prime Minister himself should not be informed about the screen being applied before a decision is final and made public. This avoids all conflict. That is also important. We really have to remember the commissioner's comments. It's not what I am saying, it's what the commissioner is saying.
I now want to bring my comments to a close.
It can be summed up in one word: redundant. This motion is redundant from start to finish.
I am not just bothered by the fact that the motion is redundant; I am bothered by the amount of detail requested. We have already been given a report. Asking for so many details simply makes the information a little less useful. It loses its relevance. That's not helpful for us. I am no expert in travel arrangements or how productive the work is. But I think it could make all the officials' work slower because we are asking them to come up with a rather major effort in their work day.
It's not just redundant, in my view; it makes me question the objective behind the motion. That's important.
First, I do not know why we are tabling this motion at this time, given that we have the reports in our hands. What message do we want to send to the people listening to us, to Mr. and Ms. Canadian-in-the-street?
Second, while I question the motion for being redundant, I also question the amount of detail requested. I question the manner in which the motion was written, because, in my view, the objective is not transparency. The objective is not really to increase transparency and the public trust. That is certainly not going to happen.
I don't know whether it's because you are looking for clips. I feel that you have had your fair share and we have heard a bunch of things in your clips. We even had a press conference today.
I feel that the government is doing its job now. The Prime Minister had the confidence of the public, and not just in the three most recent by-elections. He has the public's confidence overall, in Quebec or elsewhere. In addition, work is being done. But here we are saying that we do not have complete confidence in that work.
As for the facts that Mr. Barrett used to justify the motion, I found them inappropriate. The experts have clearly told us that we have to be very careful when we are introducing motions, proposing regulations or changes to regulations or legislation, or applying filters. We must not make the subject, the problem or the procedure personal. Mr. Barrett's entire introduction is personal. The experts have told us: Be very careful not to personalize matters by referring to one person, one example, one fact or one incident. The long-term scope of this motion really cannot be based on reasoning that applies to one person.
To conclude, I am not comfortable or in agreement with this motion. I am not comfortable because of the objectives behind the motion. This is not why I became involved in politics. This is not why I stepped up, put my face on campaign signs and had them stuck to posts. This is not why. On the contrary, let me say it again: I am very proud and very happy to be a member of this committee because I find that we examine rules, regulations and legislation in order for the government to have ethical ways of doing things. We should be assuring the public that things are transparent and worthy of their trust, not the opposite. What I am seeing here today is the complete opposite of what I really want to do.
I am going to ask Mr. Barrett a lot of questions about the details he is asking for and about the effort that will be required. Unfortunately, he is asking for something that can only slow down the work of our officials. They do excellent work and we should be thanking them for it. I do not see how this motion will help them at all. Instead, it will adversely affect their effectiveness and efficiency. I feel that we must take that into consideration when we draft motions of this kind.
In conclusion, I have some quick questions for Mr. Barrett.
Was he aware of the February report? As I read his motion, it seems as if we received nothing and that nothing happened.
Are the details we have in the letters and the reports not enough in his eyes? Do they not show transparency and good faith on the part of the government?
When we start writing a motion that we want to introduce with some speed, right after the committee has ended the discussion on another motion, it must be urgent. That's what I want to ask Mr. Barrett about. What is the urgency behind this motion? What did he see that made him decide that we need it? What triggered this in an honourable member of Parliament, whom I respect? Why does he find all this mass of detailed information so urgent?
I find it redundant and too detailed; I find that it is asking for too much. I hope that my colleague Mr. Barrett will take the time to reconsider and to frame his motion better. Given the rapport we have established, I feel that as a responsible person and a respectful MP, he should look again at the motion as drafted. Of course, I am asking him, if possible, to withdraw it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.