This motion is a fishing expedition, entirely unnecessary. I would request that we do the same thing we're doing on the other fishing expedition about the light rail issue. We should have the committee demonstrate a bit of discretion.This one is worse—it's a fishing expedition of an extraordinary kind. In the last motion we agreed that this issue would be dealt with in a single committee meeting.
We have a witness list here. Each meeting is a full two hours. In respect of the motion by Madame Faille, I don't see why we couldn't deal with all this at one committee meeting. We could place it under the same limits we set in reference to the other motion by Mr. Holland.
We talked about how we don't want this committee to turn into a circus. According to the other motion, we're going to meet in a committee room such as this, without cameras. If members of this committee actually have a serious and substantive question, they don't want the committee turned on its ear for the sake of partisanship. This was the appropriate action taken on that motion.
With regard to this motion, the central questions asked in the newspaper articles had to do with the appropriateness of the lobbying and the relationship of those involved in the meetings. These questions are straightforward and ought to take only one meeting to answer.
I would suggest that we apply the same restraint we've imposed on Mr. Holland's motion to the present motion. We will have it in one meeting, which would last two hours, so we don't sidetrack committee business. We could have it in one two-hour meeting in a room without cameras. This way we wouldn't get into nonsense and soap opera partisanship. We could show some restraint, which I notice that other committees are not managing to summon. But I think we can do it. We will be making the right call.