I think we could be self-sustaining, Mr. Chair.
More seriously, my question is for Mr. Perkins, the author of the motion. We have an officer of Parliament who is responsible for looking after these matters, yet we chose a drive-by shooting, essentially, a drive-by smear, on this particular issue. I know he's not interested in asking Minister Guilbeault questions. There will be a five-minute preamble and a yes-or-no question at some point; I've seen the modus operandi on the other side.
My question is that I don't understand why, if he has evidence or so-called evidence, he wouldn't send that to the Ethics Commissioner. That's why we have an officer of Parliament: to look after these matters in a non-partisan way. If the Ethics Commissioner decides that there was a conflict, then maybe we would entertain the witness list. However, I know for a fact that the Ethics Commissioner probably won't look at the evidence that Mr. Perkins is claiming is evidence. I would strongly encourage him to send a letter to the Ethics Commissioner and perhaps, as my colleague Ms. Khalid proposed, if we do get a response from the Ethics Commissioner, then we could entertain adding more names to the list.
Right now, one of the names is already on the list—Andrée-Lise Méthot—but we're not supporting having Minister Guilbeault here in front of our committee because I don't think it's going to add any value to our committee. I'm sure we are all respectful of each other's time, so let's make sure that the witnesses who come before us are actually adding value to our study.
Thank you.