Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my colleague for his remarks. He really spoke to the question in an incredible way.
When I think about this place—and we're currently in the basement of the West Block—I think about the chamber upstairs as being the heart not only of this building but also of our democracy. Every committee in this place has a function that surrounds the room. If that's the case, then the ethics committee might very well be the soul of this place, its conscience.
This is my first time coming here to the ethics committee, and I would observe that what we are seeing here today—this evening now—with this amendment to our motion is a deliberate, concerted effort by Liberal members to prevent Canadians from seeing who is influencing our Prime Minister. While I admire their tenacity and, judging by the length of some of their interventions, their lung capacity, that should truly trouble every single one of us in this place regardless of party.
This is the second time today that I have had reason to look at a Liberal bench and say that just because you can do something, that does not mean you should. I've reviewed the motion put forward by my colleague, and while it is long, it doesn't ask for anything that should attract this level of defensiveness from the Liberals. We are not asking for something exotic. We're asking for some pretty basic stuff: itineraries, travel records, meetings and who was in the room.
As some of my colleagues have made clear, if we were asking for the good stuff, we'd be asking for the menus to find out why we're paying through the nose for airplane food. It is not unreasonable to want to understand whether decisions are, in fact, being made in the public interest or whether access is being shaped by privilege, proximity or power. These are pretty basic, fundamental questions that are asked by ethics committees in parliaments like ours around the world.
The reason it matters so much in this case is quite simple. As with any prime minister, the Prime Minister did not come into office as a blank slate. He came with a vast network of global relationships, with deep ties across finance, investment and policy circles and with a very long list of former colleagues, partners and associates who might want something from him. That in itself is not disqualifying, and every prime minister has to navigate this, but it does raise the bar for transparency; it does not lower it. When someone brings that kind of network into public office, Canadians are entitled to know who still has access, who's getting meetings and who is shaping the conversations that happen behind closed doors.
Instead, what we're seeing in this committee is delay and obstruction, and that sends a message whether you intend it to or not. What it tells Canadians is that there is something about these meetings that cannot withstand public scrutiny. It tells them that the government would rather run out the clock, as we've seen you do today, than simply address the facts. If everything is above board, there should be no fear in disclosure. If decisions are being made impartially, then transparency should be your strongest ally.
Where am I in my notes? There are notes, and the notes have notes, and those notes have notes.
If there is transparency here, then transparency should be your strongest ally, but when the response to a straightforward request is to block, to stall and then to talk it out until the clock runs down, people will draw their own conclusions, and those conclusions may not be kind.
The ethics committee exists for a reason. We are here to protect the integrity of public office. We are here to ensure that power is not used to favour insiders, whether intentionally or through the quiet pull of relationships and familiarity. We're here to give Canadians confidence that their government works for them, not for a well-connected few. You just can't do that in the dark. You can't ask Canadians to trust the system while refusing to show them how it operates, and you can't claim to be upholding ethical standards by actively preventing this committee from examining the facts.
This is not about partisanship, as my colleagues have said over and over again. It's about whether we believe Canadians deserve to see who has the ear of their Prime Minister.
They're going to look at the transcripts, information and videos from today, and they're going to make their own judgments. Blocking that information is not a neutral act. It's a choice to shield power from scrutiny and a choice to put political convenience ahead of public accountability. Frankly, I think we should all treat that as unconscionable. If the government has confidence in its conduct, prove it. Let the record speak. Let Canadians see for themselves.
For everyone watching at home, I want to be clear about what's going to happen tonight. We're going to sit in this committee until we go upstairs to vote in just a few minutes. What that vote is going to do is add another Liberal to this committee. We are then going to come back down here so the Liberals can stop filibustering and just defeat this motion outright with the majority they've given themselves in this room.
Today is a bit of a milestone for me and my colleagues. Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of my being elected to represent the wonderful people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. While I haven't always agreed with my Liberal colleagues, today is the very first day they have truly and deeply disappointed me. In choosing to stack this committee—of all committees—and to make this motion the first one they block with their new Liberal government's new majority, they really do look like “just another Liberal”. The more they engage in keeping information from the opposition's scrutiny, the more it looks, genuinely, as if the real goal is not to protect any legitimate interest but to protect access that cannot be defended in the light.
With that, Mr. Chair, I am going to stop. Thank you.