Well, I don't know about that, Mr. Kelly. You weren't onscreen. A number of Conservatives have been missing in action tonight, not onscreen—in the kitchen or on the golf course, I don't know where, but not onscreen during the meeting.
I was just trying to make sure that you were briefed on the subamendment. You heard it last time, I know, but a number of days have passed since then and I just wanted to make sure, out of pure respect, that I read it again.
I understand the ruling that's been made here, and I'll continue.
The motion is common sense, Mr. Chair. We know what it stands for. Colleagues in the opposition say they know what it means, so I hope they come to see that it is about common sense. The opposition says they want to review the documents. The motion provides an opportunity for them to compare the documents as presented by the professional public service and those finalized by the parliamentary law clerk. These are the non-partisan, professional public servants whom I've talked about here at length tonight.
We've had other colleagues speak about them at length, and we know that Mr. Poilievre spoke about them, in glowing terms, in fact, in 2014. I won't reread that quotation. I see that perhaps I've somehow offended Mr. Poilievre. I hope not. As I said before, I have nothing against him personally. In 2014, he did put a quote on record about cabinet confidence that I think is quite relevant, but suddenly he has forgotten what he said. Unfortunately, the position he held then does not suit the Conservative partisan narrative that Conservative members, led by him, were so anxious to entrench.
Mr. Chair, let's be clear here, if I can continue my remarks. Let's be clear that this goes above and beyond what the initial motion called for in July.
Mr. Chair, this would also provide all members, including myself, with an opportunity to ask the independent, non-partisan public servants questions about how and why they made the decisions they did, and I would hope that every member of this committee would take an opportunity to get a truer understanding of the role of cabinet confidences and the importance they have in our democratic institutions. They have a long-established tradition, which members of this committee in the opposition have spoken about also in previous iterations of themselves—let's put it that way.
Mr. Chair, I do not pretend that I will be the last person to represent my riding, and it is a privilege every day to represent the people of London North Centre. I am certainly not the first, so I think it is important that we make decisions that respect and respond to the parliamentary institutions, as those who have come before me have certainly done, and as I hope those who follow will do. That means that before we make any decision, we must evaluate the best information, get the best testimony, and be deliberate in our actions.
Based on the actions of the Conservatives in their press conferences—they're very entertaining press conferences, but not much genuine information is being shared in those press conferences—and in their actions here at committee, I understand they have no desire to hear the truth, because the truth does not fit their narrative. I understand that the NDP and the Bloc have pressure to support their opposition colleagues.
We as parliamentarians believe it's imperative that we make sure our decisions stand the test of time. There is partisanship, and partisanship does play a role. Sometimes it can be a positive role, but let's not shirk our duty as parliamentarians, first and foremost.
Let me address why hearing from the professional public servants is critical. As we established last week, the transmittal letters that are critical to explaining these documents—not only to explain the necessary redactions but also to explain the documents generally—have not been uploaded into the public disclosure of these documents.