Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I'll address the two points raised by our colleague, Mr. Angus.
Obviously, I can only agree with him. It's unacceptable that our families are being threatened or intimidated in this manner. Unfortunately, I don't think that the committee can do much about it. However, I'm sure that the police could handle a complaint on this matter. I'll always stand with the member in this type of fight. It's unacceptable that the families of parliamentarians are being intimidated or threatened. This covers the first point.
I also agree with the second point made by my colleague. I took the time to look at Mr. Li's responses as well. I may not have looked at them as carefully as he did, but I did notice some major shortcomings. When a person doesn't answer the committee's questions, it's as if they didn't show up to speak when called upon to do so. That's how to address the situation, Mr. Chair.
I suggest that you write to Mr. Li. You must inform him that the committee considers his silence a contempt of Parliament and that we're giving him one last chance to respond. You must repeat the questions that he hasn't answered and give him five days to respond. You must inform him that, if he doesn't respond to each question within five days, the committee will report back to the House and the House will decide how to proceed. In my view, his silence is clearly the equivalent of not showing up when he should have done so. I would agree that strong action should be taken with regard to Mr. Li and that it shouldn't just be an invitation to find out whether he wants to provide further responses. I humbly suggest this way of dealing with the second point.
The Bloc Québécois recommends that the due diligence report be prepared, because we think that it's important. I don't want to argue about this right now, because we can do so later. This goes along with what Mr. Angus wants with respect to Mr. Li's evidence. We must get to the bottom of this matter. We're talking about $43 million for WE Charity to manage almost $1 billion. We have a right to know where the government was putting our money.
That said, I also just want to remind you that I hope that we'll have time to consider the motion that brought us here this morning, pursuant to section 106(4). As we discuss the motion, I'll expand on the arguments concerning this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.