Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're off for another round.
I've heard a lot of things and I'm taking a lot of notes, because it's important to keep up and make sure we don't forget anything, because there are many things being said here, and the Liberals are convinced that their point of view is the right one. Unfortunately, we disagree.
The first thing is that the Liberals say that this is a debate, but they are very much mistaken: It's a monologue. It's Monday evening. We started the meeting at 3:30 p.m., but when I say “we” I mean “them” because we're not saying much. It's now 7:30 p.m. We're beginning our fifth hour. The last time, the meeting lasted 17 hours and 30 minutes. Now, we're starting the fifth hour of Liberal monologue, whose purpose once again is to take as much time as possible.
Mrs. Church, you just spoke for about 15 minutes. Congratulations! That was actually quite short. Your colleague was quite intense, speaking for more than an hour. I guess you won't win the person who talks the longest. Last week, Mr. Sari recited a 25-minute monologue, and he recited another 60-minute monologue this time. Ms. Lapointe gave a 30-minute one. I congratulate her on her 30 minutes. I might have missed a bit of it, but it must have been super interesting. Mr. Saini recited a 25-minute one. I congratulate him. Mrs. Church, you recited a 15-minute one, so things are progressing well.
Once again, I find it very disrespectful to Canadians to take all this time, notably an hour. We don't come here to attend talks, we come here to work for the people so what we're experiencing here is a bit peculiar. The Liberals obviously find themselves very interesting. They applaud one another and smile from ear to ear, looking to see who is doing the most.
They tell us that the motion isn't necessary, because what we're asking for in the motion has apparently already been provided. If it's already been provided, why are they opposing it? Is it only just because we didn't write the motion the right way and they don't like that? They kept asking why we're asking for this information non-stop and said it was already available and easily accessible. If the information is so easily accessible, they should just let the motion carry. Then we can move on and stop wasting our time here. We've spent 20 hours over two weeks listening to monologues.
The Liberal government says that it will build things at a pace that has never been seen before. Honestly, if I look at the way the Liberals use time, I can understand why it's costing the government a fortune, because it's not very efficient.
I will continue reading my notes. I'll try to do it quickly, and not take too much time.
The Liberals say that the Conservatives are trying to prove things that aren't true. The last time we heard that was during the ArriveCAN scandal. We were told it wasn't true. I gave a speech in the House about that today. It appears to have cost taxpayers quite a few million dollars to hire a four-person company operating out of a basement here in Ottawa.
We were told that it wasn't true for the green climate fund either, and yet, it was a scandal.
We were told to stop talking about foreign interference, because it was conspiratorial. However, it was uncovered in a committee like this one.
We were told to stop asking questions about Brookfield and yet people seem to be worried. I guess this is also the kind of thing that should not be revealed to a committee like this, even though it's extremely important for Canadians to know.
The Liberals say that we are there to oppose. In effect, the role of the opposition, which is extremely important and involves being loyal to Canadians, is to ask questions and to make sure that the people who disagree with the Liberals have a voice, can ask questions or at least be able to hear those questions being asked. I can guarantee one thing: When I walk around my riding, people talk to me and tell me that they are very happy to have MPs who come out to meet them, listen to their needs and bring their questions here. That's what I hear.
Obviously, the Liberals don't want to hear that, because it doesn't suit them. We saw it last week, when Mr. Cooper was cut off six times in six minutes because he wasn't saying what the Liberals wanted to hear. That's not the democracy Liberals say they defend so valiantly.
Mrs. Church, you said earlier that Mr. Poilievre had mentioned that Brookfield was engaged in tax avoidance; you presented that as a propaganda tool. However, a witness came here to say that when Brookfield was run by the Prime Minister, it was the largest tax dodger in the country. We're not inventing this. You can check what witnesses have said before the committee. It's all on video. You can go and watch it. However, these are not good witnesses, because they're not Liberal witnesses. They don't like it when witnesses don't say the same things Liberals do. That's the problem we're facing right now and that we see each week.
I enjoyed writing the following note, because it's really what I've noticed since being here, for a year now. Since the Prime Minister came down to earth, he appears to be the great Liberal saviour come to earth to erase the sins committed by the Liberals in the last 10 years. He came down, and now that's all gone away. We have to trust the Liberals, because they're here for the right reasons, and because we're not here for the right reasons. However, these are the same Liberals who were protecting a Prime Minister who said that the budget would balance itself. They're the same, but we have to trust them today, because their leader has changed.
It's strange, because we ask questions, and we rarely get answers. We're told that it's normal not to get the answers, because these are not the right questions.
Today, I gave a speech on the Liberals' motion to bring committees under the Liberals, so that we no longer have a majority and so that we can no longer ask the government questions. What surprised me is that when the government proposed this motion, Radio-Canada, which usually strongly supports the Liberals, described the Prime Minister's government as an authoritarian government, and this action as an abuse of power. It's very odd. It will be my pleasure to share this clip, because apparently we love clips, and I have it at my disposal. However, again, I guess it's not right, because it doesn't reflect what the Liberals think.
I'm glad Mr. Saini mentioned last year's election. We mentioned last year's election. As it happens, the result led to the formation of a minority government. That's what Canadians decided. After that, we know that some cozy little deals were made behind the curtain. However, a minority government is what the Liberals were given. The mandate given by Canadians is to ensure that the parties work together and that neither the Liberals nor the Bloc and the Conservatives follow their plan 100%. We need to work together to move forward for the good of Canadians. Again, the Liberals called this obstruction, because, when we don't say exactly what they want to hear and we ask questions, we are obstructing.
I'll repeat the words of someone who I think the Liberals will recognize. This person said that a healthy parliamentary system relies on the opposition's right to oppose, attack and criticize. Lester B. Pearson, the 14th prime minister of Canada, said that. A Liberal. It's not a Conservative position, but a democratic position to support the right to ask questions. It's not about asking the right questions or the questions that suit Liberals; it's about asking questions. It's a democratic right, and I think it should be a foundation.
The Liberals don't like us asking questions, questioning them or contradicting them. We even heard that contradicting them was bullying, which I don't believe is true at all. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean that it's bullying.
We heard the commissioner, witnesses and experts say that we need more transparency, whether as part of the study on ethics or the study on lobbying. Everyone agrees with the witnesses on this, but when we ask questions for more transparency, it's not okay.
I'm sorry, but when I meet Canadians, they tell me they want transparency. They have questions and they want us to ask them. Often, they ask me why we always intervene after the fact and why the millions of dollars they pay in taxes and income tax came out of their bank accounts to be spent any which way.
A scandal occurs, and then we ask questions. However, Canadians ask us why we always intervene after the fact. The answer is simple: Just look at what is happening here. When we ask questions before a scandal breaks, we're told that it's not right, that they're not the right questions, that we shouldn't ask them, that we're inventing things and opposing for nothing. Then, when the scandal is uncovered, we get an explanation, but not always. It seems to be a Liberal specialty to still avoid disclosing the facts.
Here, we are told to be serious. The Liberals have been monologuing for 20 hours, but we are told that we are the ones with a problem. That's serious. We're talking about clips. I hope that after 20 hours of monologues, they will have a few, because that's clearly what they're looking for. We're not making any, because we're not the ones talking. They are the ones who spoke for 20 hours. I guess they like it.
We are told that oversight is the foundation of democracy, but, if we don't ask the right question, it's not a good foundation. It's the foundation only when it suits them.
I'll give you another very clear example. We submitted a report with 23 recommendations after 10 months of work. During a press conference, the Liberals said they would reject all of them.
You could say things are going well. We want transparency, we want to work, and it's said that the opposition's work is important. Mr. Sari said it earlier: For the Liberals, what we do as the opposition is very important and honourable. We can go back and reread the notes, that's what he said earlier. However, when we say we won't support 20 out of the 23 recommendations, or even all of the recommendations in a committee report, that shows that the opposition is only good in theory, because in practice, it seems the Liberals don't like that at all.
One of the Liberals quotes the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as if he'd said that he fully endorses what they're doing. He himself referred to the appearance of a conflict of interest and said that it should be there. The appearance comes before the conflict itself. In our motion, we're asking for information, but it shouldn't be provided, because transparency isn't acceptable. So once again, we've got a problem. We need to work upstream, not always downstream.
The motion calls for two things, one of which the Liberals want to remove with their amendment. First, the motion calls for the publication of the report on conflict of interest filters, the assessment, the minutes and so on. Second, it calls for the publication of travel itineraries. We want to understand where the Prime Minister is travelling and exactly what he's doing. We need to know and understand.
In the past, we didn't ask about food, but new information has emerged. So we're going to look into that, because I think it's important for people to be aware of government spending. We must trust our Prime Minister. He's transparent, and he's there for the right reasons. However, when he went to London, meals on the plane cost $52,000. That's fine. The two-hour trip to Washington cost $21,000. That's fine. The trip to Rome cost $93,780 on food alone; the one to Brussels, $49,000; the one to Mexico, $33,000; and the one to the United Arab Emirates, $159,000. When we table a motion to find out where the Prime Minister is travelling and what's happening, we're told to stop and that we're exaggerating. However, there were total expenditures of $524,000 in less than a year. That's just for meals during the trips. That's fine. Everything is in order. Is it cost-effective? I think people have a right to know. Is it in Canadians' best interests to pay $159,000 for food during the United Arab Emirates trip? I can only imagine the gold-leaf steaks must have been very good for Canadians. That's quite a show of respect. All this is at the taxpayers' expense. By the way, everything is public and can be found on websites. I'm reading from my notes, but these are facts. Unfortunately, the Liberals don't seem to like facts, but these are indeed facts.
So, today, we're once again witnessing the Liberal theatrics aimed at wasting as much time as possible in an attempt to gain I don't know what. Last time, they wasted 17 hours, when in the end, we'll still be able to welcome the minister and ask him questions. It took 17 hours to get there.
We're told that it makes no sense to hold a public debate on this, and that it's irresponsible. Yet spending 20 hours and counting here—and we're sure to continue—is a very responsible way to spend taxpayers' money. We're all here, at the table, with our staff behind us, the chair and the interpreters. That's money well spent, because the Liberals want to tell us their view of how Canada should be run and that the nasty opposition parties don't agree with them and are calling for transparency.
I've been wondering for some time now when transparency became an issue. It struck me earlier, because we heard why we shouldn't be transparent. Transparency is essential at all costs, but sometimes being transparent isn't the right thing to do. So, we heard a justification. A member came here to tell us just how not being transparent is sometimes the right thing to do. Ultimately, for the Liberals, it really does seem to be the right thing to do all too often. We can imagine that, if they justify a lack of transparency as the right thing to do, we won't really be out of the woods for the next three years. Not only do they want to take control of committees, but they're also justifying in front of the cameras that a lack of transparency is the right thing to do. It's understandable why they might not want us asking these questions, and how we might then uncover conflicts of interest.
I'll conclude my remarks, and I hope I haven't gone on too long. I'm on my last page. We've been told here that everything we're asking for will take too many resources, and that meeting our demands would be irresponsible. This coming from the mouths of those who have hired 100,000 public servants and who spend over $20 billion a year on consultants. They're the ones doing this. Not us.
We definitely shouldn't be hiring anyone to make sure there's transparency, because that would be money poorly spent. This is serious. We've often heard “in my opinion”, and I'll get back to that, because that's what I keep saying: Your opinion isn't important. It's the opinion of taxpayers that's important. It's the opinion of citizens, Quebeckers, Canadians; it's the opinion of people who pay taxes that's important. That's who we represent, we're here to serve them.
So your perception isn't what's important. Democracy is what's important. We'll be able to get to a vote, but you won't like the decision. You know that the opposition leads on this committee, but you don't want to. So you're wasting time. That's what's terrible: wasting everyone's time.
I'll end on this, because I think it's very relevant. Earlier, you referred to a well-known line from a speech by the Prime Minister, that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.
Today, we're all at the table. How many hours will it take for transparency to appear on the menu? That's what I'm asking you. Everyone is seated at the table. How many hours do you need for transparency to show up on the menu? I'm looking forward to your answer. By that, I mean less time and more clarity. We have to make progress.
Oh! I have a blank page. I'm done.