Thank you, Chair.
I was flabbergasted by some of Ms. Khalid's opening comments. She described our inquiries in this regard as being like “a fishing expedition”. If this is like fishing, it's like going to a barrel that's full of fish and grabbing fish out of it. The volume of corruption is evident. There's no question that there were violations of basic norms around conflict of interest here. Using idioms that suggest that this is a sort of speculative investigation is pretty outrageous. It seems like the member is trying to deny some of the basic conclusions of the Auditor General's report.
I did have a specific comment on the amendment, in that Ms. Khalid seems to be taking issue with the motion. Yes, it was a Conservative motion, but it was passed by a majority of the House of Commons in June regarding requesting documents. That motion used the unfettered powers of the House of Commons to send for documents. This is a clearly well-established constitutional principle. I'm happy to talk about that motion and the work that Conservatives are doing, with the support, in this case, of all opposition parties, to get to the bottom of the corruption we've seen in this government.
Look, I think I can offer a subamendment that will help us discuss this in a more fruitful way. We should have the law clerk in, because the law clerk works for us—