If you recall, a few meetings ago I said I had no problems with looking at this particular matter, even though in my personal opinion I thought that after an Auditor General's Report, after a McCarthy-Tétrault report, after another RCGT report, and 22 meetings later we're still looking at it, I don't know what Canadians think about this, but either we're the most incompetent auditors on earth, or we're actually going to get serious about this.
I'm wondering again how many more meetings after we've already agreed to a plan, and now we're going on this—I know it's hunting season—wild goose chase to have the minister, Monsieur Guilbeault, in front of our committee. Why?
What are the allegations here? If Mr. Perkins knows something that I don't, then provide evidence to this committee because SDTC, as he full well knows, unless he doesn't know the cabinet process, but I know he knows, because he has worked in government before.... He fully understands that cabinet did not make individual decisions on contribution agreements for SDTC. He knows that. He also knows that Minister Guilbeault had nothing to do with that.
I'm here again, trying to be serious if we are to get to the bottom of this. I'm not saying there wasn't any wrongdoing. We know there was, but it's the linkage that they are trying to make with every single minister, or something that has “Liberal”. I notice that they like to repeat “corruption”, “Liberal”, time and time again. They probably get brownie points for that, I suspect, or maybe gold stickers—I don't know—or they are eyeing a cabinet position at some point.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is, can we be serious about this? I will not be supporting a motion that invites Minister Guilbeault based on nothing. Maybe I have some mutual funds that I've declared as a conflict of interest. I don't know if they invest in...what's the company called, Cycle Capital? Maybe I should appear as a witness.
Where are we going with this?
I'm just asking, how many more meetings are we going to have? Are we going to actually be serious about this, or are we going to continue this committee? This committee used to do good work. It used to, and then it got too partisan.
We're looking into things that no longer make any sense. In the four meetings I've been on the committee, not a single member of an opposition party—whether it be the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois or the NDP—has taught me anything I didn't already know.
Members are asking witnesses whether SDTC is going to apologize, knowing that they don't even have all the details of the report. They are waiting for the report. Today's witness was even asked who had briefed her in preparation for her appearance before the committee. Those are the smart questions members want to ask. Frankly, can we be serious and not engage in partisan games?
Now we are talking about inviting Minister Guilbeault, after the committee had already decided to remove his name. That's the problem. I'm new to this committee, and I was told that decision had already been made. Now we may again have to consider inviting Mr. Guilbeault, even though the opposition knows full well that he has nothing to do with this whole thing. All the opposition members want is to be able to say that the minister refused to appear before the committee.
Get serious.