Good heavens, I would need many hours to address a lot of the falsehoods that have just been brought up. However, this is their filibuster, not mine, so I'll just touch on a couple of points.
First of all, I would welcome the government's launching any investigation into any of the entities that he mentioned if they are also ones that are named after the father of the current Prime Minister, that perhaps received a $125 million of taxpayers' money, that are implicated in foreign interference or that actually fall under the Federal Accountability Act. However, seeing that not a single other charity in the entire country meets those requirements, I think we should probably just stick to this one.
I have a couple of comments just really quickly.
Yes, the CRA was here, but they did not answer the questions. If you look at what they've actually tabled, we asked very specific questions. For example, who makes the decision to audit charities? The answer that came back was a word salad, basically.
We've seen the CRA prosecuting faith-based charities, apparently just on a whim or perhaps politically based or racism based. The Ontario supreme court made it very clear about Islamophobia being involved in the prosecution of a charity. We asked about that and we did not get any answers. To sit and say that the CRA answered our questions is a complete falsehood, and it's unfortunate that the governing side continues to take their side for political reasons.
On addressing the issue of precedence and that this committee in the past has done this or that, public accounts is a very important committee, and I'm very proud to be part of it. I'm very proud to be working with very dedicated colleagues who are focused on accountability and transparency, but the reality is that I don't believe public accounts has been very successful. One of the files we're looking at has been ongoing since I sat in once in 2018, five years later. This is the issue of the government bureaucrats—or public service, however you wish to call them—doctoring graduation rates of indigenous...and it's still going on.
I remember asking Mr. Ferguson at that meeting, because it was the famous incomprehensible failure report on the Phoenix, but also this. He said it had been going on for a decade. It's 15 years. I'm not willing to be part of a committee that's just going to sign off and say, what a great report, AG, thanks for bringing it up. Let's put it away for five years and dust off the disastrous consequences then. That's not good enough for me, and I don't think it's good enough for my colleagues sitting over here.
While this committee does incredible, valuable work, it's not enough. What's been done in the past is not enough to serve Canadians.
I want to quickly address one last thing. I realize it's politics. I realize it's theatre. It's unfortunate that the government side repeatedly is knowingly and willingly misleading anyone watching, but misleading Canadians when they talk about forcing CRA employees to break the law.... It's very clear that the committee has the power. It's on page 895 of our rules and procedure book. It makes it very clear that Parliament's committees have the right to ask for any documents we wish. There's a set-aside for national security issues, but this clearly is not one of those.
To say that CRA officials would be jailed or would be breaking the law is a falsehood. I respect what the government's trying to do. I respect that it's theatre. I'm sure they're going to get some great Facebook clips they can post up saying that the Conservatives are trying to force our brave public servants into breaking the law. That's not the truth, and we should just end this misleading right now.
Parliamentary committees have the right to call for documents. It's precedent. It's clear. Repeatedly, we have the right. We saw it with the vaccine documents. We had the right to access the vaccine documents. We had the right to call for documents. The public service is not breaking the law by following the law.
I will just leave it at that. Again, it's politics. It's theatrics. The government is going to filibuster and try to protect the Trudeau Foundation, their government and the Prime Minister. That's fine, but please stop the misleading comments about bureaucrats breaking the law, or this or that.
Again, if they wish to put through motions about investigating one charity or another charity, they're welcome to it. That is their business and that is their right as members of Parliament, but again I would ask them to find a single other charity that has received $125 million of taxpayers' money, that has been involved and has received illegal donations linked to Beijing, the Communist Chinese government, the PRC, or another one that has been accused of being involved in thought-influencing the Prime Minister.
I'll leave it at that.
Thanks, Chair.