I actually don't have a big problem with this motion or the substance within it. My concern is the timing. The government has set in place a legitimate process under section 127 of the Public Service Employment Act. Contained within the terms of reference of that investigation is the ability for the investigator to recommend a public inquiry. If that recommendation comes forward, or if we have any reason to believe that the investigation has not been sufficient, I would certainly be prepared to support Mr. Christopherson's motion.
So I would offer him my conditional support for the motion, and I would exercise that support on the condition that the two-month process that is scheduled to end in mid-June run its course, and if it's believed insufficient at that time, I would certainly be willing to vote in favour of the motion.
At the same time, I don't believe now is the occasion to do so, because we haven't actually witnessed this investigation carried out. I've talked to a lot of people involved in this matter who have said they don't want to wait two or three years for a public commission to go ahead, because frankly, they want answers sooner than that. That's my preference as well, to get to the bottom of it quickly rather than to delay, and if we can get to the bottom of it quickly, then that would be superior to waiting.
However, if that doesn't work, I'm happy to support Mr. Christopherson's motion in June. We can easily convene a special meeting of this committee to do so. For now, I'm just going to abstain because I don't object to its content, merely to the conditions under which it's presented. And if those conditions change in a couple of months and it becomes necessary, then he can count on my support at that time.
But he can count on my abstention today.