Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand my colleague's accusations. This proves just how much he has absolutely no interest in what really happened at Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
His motion has already been moved, and accusations have already been made. In some respects, we don't have a problem with the intent of the motion. However, the preamble is unacceptable.
In fact, it would be like me telling the chair that I wanted to invite the members of the Conservative Party, because they weren't being honest with Canadian taxpayers; they took part in partisan activities using Canadian taxpayers' money; they took part in caucus meetings while they were at a partisan meeting held in Quebec City, for example. We have ample evidence. The chair ruled on this motion as being out of order. I don't want to make accusations, but I would like to know how to get to the truth. I know that a number of accusations have been made against Mr. Guilbeault, particularly by Mr. Cooper and Mr. Perkins, but I don't agree with them.
Andrée‑Lise Méthot testified before the committee, and she was accompanied by her lawyer. She warned them that they had the privilege of having the protection of Parliament and that she could not sue them for things they had said. That's why they're repeating it here, and I understand that.
Furthermore, as you know very well, Mr. Chair, I won't be running in the next election, but I respect the people. I'm prepared to repeat everything I say here outside the House of Commons and on Wellington Street, without the protection of Parliament. However, my colleagues don't have the courage to do the same thing. They didn't, and I understand that.
They always talk about Mr. Guilbeault, and the fact that certain actions made him suddenly richer. We heard from the CEO, who explained to us that she manages assets, whether they are worth $1 or $100 million. If the asset is worth $1 and the return on investment is worth $100 million, that's one thing, but if you manage $600 million and the assets don't generate any money, that's something else. I think my colleagues on the other side of the table don't understand finance. I invite them to go back to university and take a basic accounting course. That way, they would understand how things work.
Whether the value of an asset is $2 or $1 billion, the return on investment is always what matters, but my colleagues are confusing these two things. They've never had the courage to say outside what they're saying here. They just have the courage to say it while they have the protection of parliamentary privilege. They never had the courage to say it outside the committee room. I invite them to say the same thing on Wellington Street, on Sparks Street or on Bank Street, because—