Thank you, Chair.
To my colleague's point, it is actually, per the rules of Bosc and Gagnon, my determination whether or not I feel my time that is allocated is being best spent with the minister. As reference, I would point to page 1016 of Bosc and Gagnon, where it states that the questions and discussions at meetings related to the estimates “are generally wide-ranging”, and on page 1078, that there are “no specific rules governing the nature of questions”.
In each of my questions I have put forward very detailed information regarding how this is relevant. Again, to my colleague, I would remind him that the minister does expend a significant amount of resources, public funds, tax funds. This is what we're doing here. We're examining the use of taxpayer funds in supporting MPs and other people in casework.
He does, as I have established in questions with him, have the authority under subsection 24(3) to direct immigration officials to make determinations based on his own will. I feel it's very relevant to understand how much time has been allocated to the friends and associates of a member of Parliament who is currently under investigation by the RCMP, given that the minister has been pictured with one of these people.
I would point out to my colleague opposite the optics on this particular point of order. We have my Liberal colleagues here who voted against putting the minister under oath on this particular thing. That doesn't look particularly wonderful. In fact, Mr. Chair, I would argue that if this is ruled out of order, it looks like the minister and my colleagues opposite have something to hide.
Similarly, I would also observe that the extensive delay that we saw earlier in this meeting, when we had to suspend to determine whether a motion that was clearly in order was in fact in order, would be another example of this.
I'm not sure why my colleagues would not do their job as parliamentarians. They don't hold government positions. Their job is to hold the government to account.
Let me ask these questions because I want to know if there is something wrong here. That means that each and every one of us, and each and every one of our constituents have been held at a disadvantage. Frankly, I would hope that the minister would just say, “Nothing to see here, folks. There are no anomalies.” He'd be happy to post the aggregate data, which isn't confidential, on the number of case inquiries that Mr. Grewal, these various people that I have read, have made to him. Then we can clear this matter up and the public can rest confident that this is in fact, per the review of the supplementary estimates, an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
