Thank you.
I think Mr. Brock and Mrs. Kusie have just reaffirmed why it's inappropriate to have this witness at this point. There are a number of allegations that have been made, a number of attempts to discredit various individuals consistently and a number of efforts taken to sound as if we're.... It's a lynching that seems to be happening in this room. That is inappropriate, given the investigation under way.
The RCMP have been provided with the information needed to do their own investigation as they see fit. To the point made, the Auditor General will come out on Monday with her report as well. When it comes to the truth, or the myth of truth.... This seems to have been rampant around this room over the last five or six months as we've talked about ArriveCAN. It doesn't sound like we're trying to cover anything up. We're actually having open discussions about it and encouraging those discussions because we, too, want to ensure that the activities of government are done appropriately.
To that end, Mr. Brock referenced the fact that people were getting paid for work they did not do. Well, that's not what the ombudsman said. The ombudsman said that no one was paid for work that was not done, regardless of baiting and switching. There were a number of references made to that. By the way, this is a practice that was also evident throughout the Conservatives' time in government and throughout industry and other sectors of the economy and the world. They take on contracts and move those contracts to do other work as they deem relevant. No one got paid for work they did not do. We'll make that very clear. The ombudsman made that clear, as well.
Then there's Kristian Firth. The member opposite talked about this terrible engagement that's been happening recently. Well, that, too, is not true. The fact of the matter is that Kristian Firth is someone who dealt in procurement under the Conservative regime as well, under a different name. That's been ongoing for some time.
As I said, the deliberations and release of confidentiality that Mr. Brock admitted to in his speaking engagement bring light to the fact that we have to take a pause and protect the interests. It seems as if people are tampering because they have some kind of authority or knowledge, or they have decided they want to do something beyond what they're doing in the House. They want to go further. That's certainly your prerogative. However, when you put at risk the deliberations and the investigation.... Now you're trying to discredit the investigator and witnesses. If you discredit the investigator, we're never going to get to the conclusion.
Thankfully, we are going to have a conclusion. Thankfully, there are a number of people who have all the facts. There are individuals who are reviewing this thing in its entirety. They're not looking at one point in time. They're sure not taking a political lens to it, being partisan about the issue or trying to get political points, video points, clicks on their Facebook or whatever it is they're doing. We need to take action to protect the integrity of the investigation and the results that come from it.
This is why we need to ensure there's some neutrality in the approach taken. This committee is not being at all neutral. They're predetermining and presupposing the issue. That is, in my opinion, wrong. To the point made, I'm no lawyer, but, man, I think I understand that, when you're trying to deal with a situation, protect people's rights and represent all Canadians in the House, you have to take some appropriate measures to ensure no one is prejudiced by some of the actions being taken.
When you look at some of the issues in regard to other governments and other levels.... Oh my gosh, there is a long list of allegations and misguided measures taken by all governments. I'm not going to go into the greenbelt issues, the licence plates or matters relating to other issues. What we need to do is ensure we uncover any wrongdoing, protect those who are engaged and make certain that those who have done wrong are held accountable and exposed. That is important.
The precedent we worry about here, which Mrs. Kusie is talking about, is a precedent of actually dissuading witnesses from appearing, acting as though we're lynching everybody who comes into this place and putting people at risk.
The matter is that we've been doing this for five to six months; we have a number of witnesses who have appeared before us, and we've taken countless amounts of information. The investigators and those who are taking the precautions, including the RCMP and others, are, from what I understand, very concerned with the confidentiality measures, the obstruction that has taken place and the integrity of the investigation, which is put at risk.
I think we wait now until we have the results of those investigations. It doesn't seem effective, what we are doing here, so let's move on to other matters of consequence, like the Canada Post motion, like other things that I know are relevant and that people want to see. We want to see results.
We want to see a resolution to this issue, and that's not obstructing you: You're obstructing. I think the members opposite are actually making it worse.
Let these investigators do their job effectively.
I will support the move to release Mr. Lafleur from this kangaroo court for today and ensure that we not proceed until we get proper results.
That's it, Mr. Chair.