Thanks, Chair.
I'm not sure how many meetings the members of the Liberal Party are going to want to drag this motion out over. It's very clear that they believe that because they get their say, they're going to get their way. They were very happy, when they had a majority, to impose their majority on parliamentarians, but now that they're in a minority, we have a situation in which a majority of members of the House of Commons voted to have witnesses appear at this committee. There was an order of the House issued, and then this committee received correspondence from two ministers saying that they instructed people not to come to committee.
We've heard the quotes from those letters. It's very clear in the letter from the government House leader and from the Minister for Middle-Class Prosperity that instruction had been given.
We've heard about ministerial accountability. These ministers are responsible for their staff. They're responsible for giving that instruction.
Frankly, it's crystal clear in the letters. From Ms. Fortier's letter dated March 30:
Mr Amitpal Singh has been instructed to not appear before the committee.
In the letter from the government House leader, it's very clear again:
Mr. Rick Theis, Director of Policy to the Prime Minister, has been instructed to not appear before the committee.
Those are directions given by ministers. The motion we're dealing with today lays that out very clearly.
If members of the Liberal Party are not happy with the motion, they of course get their say in the meetings, but then they have to vote. It has to come to a vote. I appreciate that that can be inconvenient. We keep hearing that this is the result of a fishing expedition. This is a report back to the House. Blocking that vote from happening is not only delaying all of the other work from happening; it's part of an effort to cover up corruption in the Liberal government. That's very clear.
We heard that the Liberals don't understand why we're dealing with this in May—