I’d like to thank my dear colleague Mr. Perkins for allowing me to pause every three seconds while he interrupts me. I know he doesn’t like to hear it, but the problem is that a witness’s testimony is being called into question. We know full well that Mr. Perkins didn’t question the testimony of that witness when he appeared before the other committee.
Mr. Chair, the RCMP wrote to you and made it clear that the continued attempts to try to manipulate testimony to this committee, as they’re trying to do with Mr. Bains, who already appeared four or five months ago, may have repercussions on its investigation.
So I ask my colleagues, are they serious or not? Three weeks ago, they already wanted an election to be called. I know they’re not serious about this. Mr. Bains came here in good faith. He’s a private citizen who has no connection with SDTC other than the fact that, when he was minister, he signed the contribution agreement. He has, however, never taken part in SDTC’s day-to-day decisions. This is a fact, but one that they refuse to hear. The witness has repeatedly tried to explain that, not only to this committee, but also to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
I don’t know whether it’s because the opposition needed a break over the summer, but no question of privilege was raised, even though Mr. Bains gave the same testimony he is giving here today, with many interruptions from opposition members. It didn’t seem important to raise this question of privilege. My colleague Ms. Khalid defined the problem quite well: It has nothing to do with a question of privilege. It’s simply a matter of giving the official opposition another opportunity to ensure all work at the House grinds to a halt.
I was elected in September 2021 to work here, not to filibuster. I was elected to represent my fellow citizens. Multiple reports have been submitted by the Auditor General and we seem to be at a standstill due to one report. We know full well that there have been other studies by other committees. Right now, we’re wondering whether a witness gave the answers the opposition wanted to hear. It’s not a question of privilege.
This is appalling. If we had done this before June, I could have understood. I fully agree with the official opposition for inviting Mr. Bains to appear before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. However, since all committee members received the letter from the RCMP Commissioner, which we have here today, everyone knows full well that what we’re doing may impact the RCMP investigation.
If we really want to look at this issue, we have to take a different approach. Whether we agree with Mr. Bain’s testimony or not, it’s not up to us to judge. Mr. Bains accepted the order and came to testify before committee, but the opposition members decided to interrupt him because he wasn’t saying what they wanted to hear. They had heard the same thing in June, but since then, the RCMP Commissioner has written to this committee and made it clear to committee members that what they were doing was potentially impacting the RCMP investigation. I have a problem with what the opposition is doing.
This isn’t a banana republic. Wake up.