Madam Speaker, when I hear the arguments advanced by the other side and disagree with some of them, I do not attack the character of the individuals. I appreciate the principles and points of law they raise, but I do not feel that same generosity of spirit coming back. It is important to try to rebuild the trust, because that is clearly what is at stake here.
When I also hear them quote articles selectively, it makes me understand why people might be reluctant to go in front of a committee, because their testimony is not being fairly reflected in the debate in the House.
For example, the SNC-Lavalin executive was quoted today. He who said very clearly he never spoke to the Prime Minister. Just as clearly said in the very same article was that “some of the 9,000 Canadian jobs at his company are in jeopardy without a resolution to the company’s ongoing scandal in Ottawa”, that “we're in a place here where it is not just about 9,000 jobs” at SNC-Lavalin, that there is a ricochet effect.
We do not require a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing sometimes. Sometimes those analyses do not have to come through the CEO. They can come through caucus members and they can come through the popular understanding of what this means.
Why does the NDP not quote the full article when it quotes the record? If New Democrats do not intend to quote the full record of these sorts of articles, why would we trust them to quote the full testimony at the hearings?