I am going to try to not drag out the debate. Indeed, the members of the committee and the other people who came here are wasting their time. This party promised to practise politics differently in the 2006 electoral campaign; so much for that.
Mr. Poilievre stated that if we defeat his amendment, it is because we have things to hide. I am not going to play “my dad is stronger than your dad”, nor “I can spit further than you can”; I have passed that age. These are childish games kids' arguments. I am not saying that is what I think of the member, but deep down inside, I think this is immaturity. Let's not play these games and let us try to show some maturity.
There is a motion before us. We can vote against it, but regarding your amendment, we are not going to go back in time indefinitely, as I said yesterday. My NDP colleague referred to John A. Macdonald from the beginning of our history. We are not going to talk about Sinclair Stevens, either. There are a lot of factors. This party promised to do politics differently so it should stop these dilatory tactics and techniques and we should get to the meat of the issue. That is what I am asking you to do in good faith and with good will. I would like to know whether we are going to lose another hour and three minutes here. If that is the case, let's get organized and waste our time in a joyful and enthusiastic way; let's have fun.
However, I must say that this committee is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. The next session is going to get off on the wrong foot. If you are looking for someone to rock the boat, trust me, I am your man. I am not making threats. And to prove that I am not making threats, I am going to go ahead and do that. When you promise to do something and you do not do it, but say things simply to provoke fear, that is a threat. But I am going to do what I say. I am telling you ahead of time, Mr. Chairman, you are going to find your next mandate difficult if you are reconfirmed as chair after the prorogation, if there is one. Indeed, the prorogation is not official yet, since we are sitting, and that may be what will save this government's bacon with regard to starting this week's debate. I call upon the good will and good faith of my colleagues. Personally I am going to vote against Mr. Poilievre's amendment because its purpose is to fundamentally alter the motion that is before us.
Allegations were been made, and Elections Canada refused to refund certain expenses. If my Conservative colleagues want us to study Mr. Poilievre's motion when we return—if the prorogation does not take place and if this study has already been undertaken—we will have no problem with that whatsoever. We the members of the Bloc Québécois have absolutely nothing to hide. If our colleagues want us to do that, we are quite willing. However, we are not going to obscure the issue as the Conservatives are trying to do, that would be the best way of losing our way. The issue gets broaded, the problem is obscured, and we are no longer focusing on the matter that brought us together here; we have been wasting our time for two days, quite precisely.