I appreciate the comments made by Madame Fortier. If I may, before I continue, I will respond to her comments.
What I'm speaking of—the culture of corruption in this government—is pertinent to the motion. It's pertinent insofar as showing why, I would submit, there needs to be a carbon tax election, but it's also pertinent to the decision on the part of the Prime Minister, in collaboration with the NDP and the minister, to push back the date of the next election. We're lacking transparency. Essentially, the government tried to sell this bill as one thing when it in fact did another. I would submit that we're talking about a lack of transparency. We're essentially talking about presenting a fake bill to Canadians on the need for an election and the timing of the next election. That is pertinent to this very bill. The bill fixes the date of the next election. The record of this government, including the culture of corruption that the Prime Minister has set, is pertinent. There is, of course, wide latitude in these debates.
Continuing where I left off, I can remember the very powerful testimony of Jody Wilson-Raybould. I can remember how she was treated by Liberal MPs, including the member for Edmonton Centre, Randy Boissonnault. I will have some comments to make about him shortly, but I digress. The SNC-Lavalin scandal really shook public confidence in the Prime Minister and this government. After that, the Prime Minister sat at around 30% to 33% support, in 2019 and going into the 2021 election. Of course, support for this government has now plummeted into the low 20% area, and Canadians are eager to see an election called. That's why I will repeat that I think the government could have moved the election ahead to resolve the issue, or the so-called problem, that they asserted was the basis of pushing the election back. We're quite content to have an election as soon as possible.
Going back to the Prime Minister, this is a Prime Minister who has in his cabinet ministers who violated the Conflict of Interest Act. Dominic LeBlanc, for example, the very minister who introduced this bill, was found by the Ethics Commissioner to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act. Likewise, the Minister of International Trade was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. Bill Morneau was guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. The Liberal member for Hull—Aylmer, while he served as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act.
One must ask how ministers of the Crown who were found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act are still in cabinet. In the normal course of things, I would submit that violating the Conflict of Interest Act is a serious matter and ought to result in the immediate resignation of a minister. Of course, for a Prime Minister who's been found—