My colleague Mr. Paul-Hus has clearly explained the reason why I do not want to get involved in these games.
For almost a year, I have watched you, one by one, in the House of Commons, attack the mother and brother of the Prime Minister even before the Ethics Commissioner's investigation and report were finished. You have continued to attack the Prime Minister's family.
There are rules in politics. You do not attack politicians' families; you leave them out of all that. Unfortunately, you are acting like the Reform Party of Canada, which I watched in action for a very long time during the 1990s.
Because the Ethics Commissioner did not find in your favour, you are continuing your attacks. The Commissioner has made his decision; he cleared the Prime Minister and said he had done nothing wrong, but you are going to keep bringing the Prime Minister's family into it.
Do you think we are boneheads?
I see your game; you have put your cards on the table. I can see them very clearly. That is what I object to. At some point, the process has to be followed. If there are issues or you want to raise questions, I urge you to write to the Procurement Ombudsman. He is responsible for verifying whether there has been a breach in contracts for less than $25,000. He has appeared before this committee. I encourage you to write to him. That way, we will get non-partisan information and we will not need to go through two or three months of political mudslinging aimed at a politician's family.
That is what I object to. I can see in your game, and I object to it. I am going to object to it until we are finished with it, because it makes no sense. At some point, the process has to be followed. We have to agree, at least, to have values and to respect one another.
I agree with my colleague Mr. Kusmierzcyk. Mr. McCaulley has given no reason why he wants to examine this information. What does he suspect?
You are going to raise questions and say that another document has been redacted, despite the fact that you made a request. I would ask Mr. McCaulley a question. Is he asking for unredacted documents? Can he at least include provisions that protect personal information? He seems to have the document already, because he says there is no personal information. He seems to be able to read despite the redacting.
I put the question to my colleagues: is this what is really important at this time? What do you suspect? What reason do you have for making a motion like that, if not to attack the Prime Miniser's family again, even if you were completely wrong on the question of the contract with WE?
I see that Mr. McCaulley and several of my colleagues want to speak. I am going to yield the floor to them.