Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On this amendment, we do absolutely operate in good faith. I think we just had a very good session with the Ethics Commissioner on the main estimates. We heard some of his testimony again relating back to the origins of Mr. Barrett's motion and inquiry. We heard from the Ethics Commissioner about the operation of the Prime Minister's screen and set-up.
Again, I think one of our primary objections to this has been that the independent agent of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, who has been charged with oversight for compliance with this act and for providing advice to every parliamentarian and every member of the executive on their personal affairs and how to arrange those affairs in a way that meets the standard or the test of avoiding a conflict of interest under the act, has come forward, yet again tonight, in front of this committee to tell us that in his estimation, on the arrangements pertaining to the Prime Minister's screen and the assets he held prior to assuming office, the current situation is working well.
We have an agreement in place with the Prime Minister's Office, via Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard, who appeared here a number of months ago, to provide us, on a continuing basis, with information pertaining to the Prime Minister's screen. That information has been forthcoming to the committee. The committee has that in their possession.
Additionally, we know that under the conflict of interest regime, if the Prime Minister is ever in a situation where he must recuse himself, that is also transparently disclosed on the conflict of interest website. That's in addition to the transparency surrounding all his assets and all his compliance measures, as it is with every other designated public office holder, member of the government executive and the hundreds of other senior public servants to whom this act applies.
Mr. Chair, in looking at this motion, we understand that our primary objection to the way it was structured, and our objection to paragraph b) in particular, has been that time remains one of the most precious resources we have as a committee, as a Parliament and as a government. I think we've approached this and other motions like it in a very similar fashion, suggesting that it is within the committee's ambit to discuss every motion that's brought forward by a member of the committee, to consider it on its merits and to consider how useful and productive it will be. However, we also have to understand that all of us here could bring forward motions at any given point in time. They're not all going to pass unamended. They're not all going to pass and become business for the committee to study. We have studies that are already awaiting scheduling, and we are two months before the end of our parliamentary term. We will certainly not get through all the business this committee has already set out to dive into over the last number of months.
That is one of the reasons that for a motion like this, we do scrutinize it. We are conscious of the fact that members of the opposition are seeking records, some of which have already been provided and will continue to be provided, and some of which go far beyond the scope of what is reasonable.
Mr. Chair, I propose that we move to a vote on the amendment.