Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.
Not to brag but to let members know where I was coming from, I already had the opportunity to say, during another question of privilege last week, that I taught ethics for 30 years. I have some political experience from two legislatures. I fail to understand the situation that we find ourselves in today.
Parliamentary committees are not supposed to be a leisure activity for members who are looking to spend their time. Working on parliamentary committees is our job. We are paid to participate and to do thorough, serious work.
I have already had the opportunity to say in the House that job number one of a member is to hold the government to account. Many questions have been asked about the situation that we find ourselves in today. I could call my speech “Finding Randy”, like the game that we played as children. However, it is pretty serious to see a government—I think that it is typical of a government on its last legs—not being able to respect the institutions and the institution, trying to get around the rules and not respecting the requests of the House and the committees. This is a matter of transparency.
I am sure that if my colleagues on the other side of the House were on my side, they would be saying the same thing I am saying. In fact, for many of my constituents, blue or red is the same thing. They have become cynical. They would rather look at the sky and vote light blue because they find it more inspiring. However, what they have noticed in the history of this Parliament is that when members change side, they start cutting corners and stop being reasonable.
Quite simply, the committee is asking for documents and for its order to be followed, and the Liberals are acting as if they do not get it. That is a serious problem, because if democracy cannot happen inside Parliament—some may think I am naive, but I believe in parliamentary democracy—and it does not happen through representatives of the people like us, it is bound to happen on the street. When it does, the law of the jungle prevails. Quite often, contempt for democratic institutions leads to totalitarian regimes. We see that in some countries. When a leader somewhere decides to take over a national government and to impose untested values, people do not acquire a democratic mindset.
I do not understand the government's attitude. With regard to the Sustainable Development Technology Canada scandal, we have just heard a ruling on a question of privilege where the government does not want to provide the reports and documents in a transparent manner so that we can make up our minds. Now, once again, things are getting out of hand at committee.
I get the impression that members on the other side of the House do not take our committees seriously. That is what I have seen. I have seen unanimous motions and reports tabled in the House and then shelved.
Then, the government wants voters to believe in the work that we do here, to believe in us, to continue to not be cynical and to continue to say that they have dedicated representatives who do their job and who meet their expectations. I think that we are far from that.
I see the members opposite hanging their heads and I understand that. I would be ashamed to have to endure such situations over and over again. This is a situation in which a serious ethical error has been made. Regardless of the government stripe, we cannot put up with a lack of transparency. We cannot allow the government to prevent MPs from doing their job of holding the government to account by calling into question potential conflicts of interest. That seems to go without saying. One day, we will see the members opposite sitting on this side of the House. They will be ranting and raving and saying the same thing as me. Likely, the members on this side—