Thanks, Chair.
That was an interesting set of interventions we just saw. We're more than 25 hours into filibustering at this session of the committee, and we've heard reference back to the previous session, at length, about motions that were introduced and motions that were defeated. We heard from one of the previous speakers that the committee, when it comes to dealing with ethical matters, ought to only review the work of the Ethics Commissioner, but when a motion was put forward to have the Ethics Commissioner come and present his report, the “Trudeau II Report”, which was the second finding that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had broken ethics laws, the Liberal members of this committee voted against that happening. Now when we have a motion in front of us to take a look at a number of ethical issues, including the Canada student service grant administration and the awarding of that contribution agreement, they don't want to vote on that motion either.
I heard from one of the previous speakers great disappointment that there isn't an opportunity to deal with the agenda items they would like to put forward. We can deal with more than one thing at a time. The committee can work concurrently on two studies, but over a six-week period we've had dozens of hours of filibustering to prevent the opportunity for those other issues to come forward. If the committee viewed that those issues ought to be studied, those studies could happen concurrently with whatever else this committee decided. Eventually, this motion ought to come to a vote. When it does, if a study is the will of the committee, then that could happen. Perhaps other studies could happen concurrently, but nothing else will happen until the filibuster ends, until the cover-up is brought to an end. We've seen all of the tactics and all of the strategies on full display.
Interestingly, at the start of the meeting we heard something new, that Speakers' Spotlight has destroyed all of the records of speaking engagements for the individuals named in the motion, the Prime Minister and his spouse, for any period outside of seven years. Now, interestingly, this committee ordered those documents, and actually more documents, but it included those documents, in the previous session. Speakers' Spotlight requested an extension. They needed more time to assemble the documents. The committee granted them all of the time they requested. On the eve that those documents were to be released to the committee, and on the day that illegally redacted documents were released to the finance committee, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament. He shut down the House and locked out committees.
Speakers' Spotlight communicated with the committee clerk once this session started and even said that the documents were ready to go. We've just now heard that many of those documents have been destroyed.
I want to draw to the committee's attention a letter from the government House leader, Pablo Rodriguez. That letter is dated October 19, 2020. In that letter, on the second page, in the fourth paragraph, he states the following:
As a demonstration of transparency, the Prime Minister has asked that I proactively share exhaustive information with you about events organized through Speakers' Spotlight, for which the Prime Minister was a guest speaker. Speakers' Spotlight has confirmed the accuracy of the events and fees listed.
I'll stop quoting the letter there.
It's very interesting to me that Speakers' Spotlight was able to confirm the accuracy of those events and fees listed if any of them appeared outside of that seven-year period we're currently in now. I'm curious about that.
I think it's all the more important now, with the conflicting testimony that Mr. Angus spoke about, the contradictions we have seen and the disinformation campaign that we're seeing from the WE organization, the likes of which I don't believe have ever been seen in Canadian politics—and now this. Now there is this major discrepancy.
This motion we have does call for a member of that organization to testify at the committee, and I think that's important. Canadians need these answers.
What we have seen with dozens of hours of filibustering is the continuation of a cover-up, something else of a magnitude that has not been seen before. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shut down the House, issued documents ordered by a committee that were redacted against the committee's orders, and then had parliamentary secretaries out in the news media saying no, the law clerk redacted those documents, that it was not PCO or other government officials. The law clerk had to write a letter to clear his own name, to say “No, ladies and gentlemen, these documents came to me redacted, against the committee's order.” It was highly inappropriate and highly unusual.
Then we have come to this committee, where we have seen the same thing as at the finance committee and at other committees where government members are filibustering. They talk about wanting to get to work for Canadians and the importance of these other motions, but it's disingenuous at best to say that these other items are important if they are not willing to vote on the motion.
A previous speaker expressed frustration and disappointment that motions hadn't been moved by government members. Government members need to be reminded that they do not hold a majority in this committee or in this House, and the odds are against them on the order in which those members will be recognized.
On this issue, they can't just crush the questions the way we saw with the SNC-Lavalin scandal, which saw the Prime Minister found guilty of breaking ethics laws for a second time. This time they can't just shut down the committee. We have already seen Parliament and committees shut down, but now we're back. They were willing to force an election over this in the House, but here at committee they are just willing to give up any other work that this committee would do. That's their choice.
I can tell you that I'm ready for this item to come to a vote today. I have polled my Conservative colleagues on this committee, and they tell me they are ready for this to come to a vote today. I expect that if you canvassed other opposition members, you might find a similar willingness for it to come to a vote today, but the arguments we're hearing from the government are that we should be doing something else. Because they might not be next recognized when business is considered and their motion might be put in front of the committee, they are going to, as the saying goes, cut off their nose to spite their face. They are going to filibuster all work of this committee because they didn't get their way to this point.
Well, these are the realities of a minority Parliament. Canadians revoked the majority mandate of these Liberals for reasons, such as the Prime Minister twice being found guilty of breaking ethics laws. Will it happen a third time? We shall see.
Today this committee has a motion that is in order in front of it. The ruling of the chair on the admissibility of this motion has been upheld. While we heard multiple unofficial challenges against the chair and an undermining of the chair prior to my taking the floor, here we are. It's up to these Liberals to decide if they are going to continue the cover-up or if they are going to stand against corruption and stand for accountability.
Chair, I would invite you to ask members of the committee if they are prepared to bring this to a vote.
In that spirit of collaboration that Mr. Angus spoke about, I would not seek the floor in advance of Mr. Dong from the Liberal Party if he wanted to put his motion forward. In spite of the fact that he wanted to hijack this debate, I would be happy to debate his motion next.
Perhaps those studies can happen concurrently. There's the olive branch. Do you want to do two things at once? Let's do them. Today's the day.
That offer, of course, is an offer for a limited time only. Today I'm happy to move forward concurrently with multiple items for this committee, but I get the feeling, Chair, that this isn't about collaboration and it's not about doing other work. It's about a cover-up.
Canadians deserve the truth, Chair. Let's see if members of the Liberal Party have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to vote on this motion.