Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate that comment from my honourable colleague. I am making, I believe, a relevant argument, which is, why is this particular motion coming forward at this time and what is it predicated upon? What is the theory?
I actually believe this is an attempt—and I think my colleague Mr. Sorbara said this before me—at a fishing expedition. What I've seen is that the opposition party asked questions, rightfully so, and got testimony and had witnesses come forth. They didn't like what they were hearing, so now they're digging for other information that would somehow essentially smear the Prime Minister and his family.
I get, again, that it's relevant to talk about the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister make this decision or sway decision-making for his own private interests? His wife was volunteering and got her expenses paid. How does that constitute a conflict of interest? There's absolutely no.... It's nonsense. I'm sorry. It's absurd to think that that constitutes a conflict of interest. There's no private interest there.
Furthermore, WE Charity, in terms of its contribution agreement.... Contribution agreements are used all the time by the federal government. They've been used multiple times throughout this pandemic. People keep calling this a sole-source contract, as if this was awarded to WE Charity with no process and no due diligence, which is absolutely false. We've heard this numerous times. So what are we fishing for here?
In philosophy.... I study philosophy, so bear with me here. I know you might fall asleep, but I will try to keep it interesting. The sophists were actually the first lawyers in ancient Greek society, and they were criticized by Plato, Socrates and Aristotle for being masters of rhetorical devices. They were good public speakers. Essentially, they taught other members of the Greek polis, but they were masters at what we call logical fallacies.
In this case, I think we're actually seeing the Conservatives use a logical fallacy that's been around for 2,000 years, so kudos to them. It's called ad hominem, and it's when you can't make an argument that will stand up to the principle of sufficient reason so you attack the person instead. You smear the person's reputation and name and their family.
Is that morally just? Is this motion morally just? We're sitting here debating this in the middle of a global pandemic. We've never seen a global pandemic, not in a hundred years, at least, since the Spanish flu. It's the second wave of the global pandemic. People are dying, and we're debating a motion that has no substance, that is morally bunk as far as I'm concerned, and it's all because the Conservatives didn't find what they were looking for, something that would be enough to make a headline so they can win some votes.
I just feel so strongly and passionately about this, Mr. Chair, because I just don't understand how we can continue to debate this when Canadians want us to be doing meaningful work, and for a government....
Look, there are other ethical theories we can talk about if we want to talk about ethics. Let's talk about leadership and ethical leadership. What I've seen in this pandemic—and I say this in a totally heartfelt and honest true-to-myself way—is true ethical leadership by our Prime Minister and our cabinet. I am proud to be Canadian, and I've been overwhelmed by the fact that our government has stepped up time and time again. We're not perfect. We don't ever claim to be. We always say there's more work to be done.
We designed programs within two or three weeks and launched them to support Canadians, and we refined them. The opposition party and the members within the Liberal caucus were part of that process, and we value that. That's the kind of dialectical process that democracy is founded on, but that's contrary to the sophistry that we're experiencing today. I'm sorry, my friends, but that has a negative connotation.
I don't mean to disregard the arguments that may be in opposition to this, but I really feel this is an attempt to smear the Prime Minister's name and his family, and I don't think it's justified. If I did, I wouldn't be here today. I would not be here.
I would also like to talk about some of the other contribution agreements.
Just think about the $100 million that was given to food security organizations. Did anybody ask for a study on that? Maybe the Conservatives could look into that as well. What about the money that went to the Red Cross, United Way Centraide and Community Foundations of Canada, which was distributed to non-profits and charities across the country? Is that a conflict of interest, too? Is every contribution agreement now under scrutiny, because the government has decided to strategically partner with the charitable sector to deliver a program and a service that Canadians need and rely on? They're better positioned to do so in many cases—in most cases, I would say. Most of the charitable civil society organizations I've worked with would say they are better positioned than government. They would sometimes like government to work with them, enable them, and then get out of the way.
It's just misleading. We're misleading Canadians with this type of production of documents. There's no scandal here. It's a reach.
The other distinction that is really important for this debate is the difference between a perceived and an actual conflict of interest. I brought with me today a document that I'm really proud to have read several times over the years. People I know, professors, have actually published some of these documents. It's The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics. These are probably the most pre-eminent scholars—