Debates of Oct. 20th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-Corruption

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised an excellent point: If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. There is no reason the government should not be voting in favour of this motion today. In fact, if the Liberals are truly concerned about allowing committees to get back to their important work, if they are truly concerned about making sure that Canadians are served well through the pandemic, then they should allow this special committee to form so that other committees can continue forward with the things they need to concern themselves with regarding the pandemic. We can set up one committee to focus on the WE scandal and allow other committees to focus on the important work that they are doing within the House of Commons. It is that simple.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleague from Lethbridge to use the last few minutes of her time to address the ridiculous position the Liberals have taken in claiming that the government does not have the ability to deal with this one little parliamentary committee and that Parliament does not have the ability to conduct numerous studies at one time. I have asked this before, but I would ask my colleague from Lethbridge to elaborate on what she believes the Liberal government is trying to hide.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when this pandemic first struck and became an issue, one thing the Conservative members pitched to the government was to form a wartime cabinet of sorts. Borrowing what had been done in history, we wanted to bring all the parties to the table, with members to represent them, and have a conversation about the best response to COVID-19. We felt this would serve Canadians well. It would put more minds together, and we could work as a collective for the well-being of the Canadian public. At the end of the day, of course it would be up to the government to make final decisions, to put forward policy and to implement spending, but at least it would give us an understanding of one another's perspective and would enrich the decision-making process. Unfortunately, the Liberals wanted nothing to do with this. They squashed our voices and put us in a corner.

My point is this. We have always been willing to work with the government to serve Canadians well throughout this pandemic, and time and again we have been shut down. Once again we find ourselves happy to work with the Liberals by putting aside this special committee so that other committees can get to work, and once again the Liberals are threatening us.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Western Economic Diversification Canada) and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Canada Water Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

When Parliament was recalled last month, our government presented a strong plan to support Canadians during the global pandemic. Our main focus has been, and continues to be, how to best help and protect Canadians through these very difficult times. The last few months, I think everyone will agree, demonstrated the extraordinary work Parliament can achieve for Canadians when parliamentarians work together. We are now well into October, and our government is working very hard to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect Canadians from the COVID-19 virus. This has been our priority since the start of the pandemic and it continues to be.

Unfortunately, under their new leader, the Conservatives want to play politics and carry on their inquisition, and before I argue why the motion presented by the leader of the official opposition is irresponsible, I want to take a moment to look back.

When it became obvious back in March that COVID-19 was a serious crisis, our government rapidly refocused efforts on providing help as quickly as possible. We took an all-hands-on-deck approach, because we knew that the health and safety of Canadians were at stake. I am sure colleagues on all sides of the House will remember how many emails, phone calls and other communications we received from folks in our communities who needed help, and fast.

When workers told us they had suddenly lost their jobs, we provided the CERB within a matter of weeks, which provided direct income to over 277,000 Manitobans, alone. When seniors said they were having challenges making ends meet due to additional costs, we listened to them. Over 14,000 seniors in my community alone received a tax-free top-up to their OAS and GIS payments. When parents said they were struggling to provide for their children, we immediately provided a top-up to the Canada child benefit. I know that for over 18,000 families in my community who received this benefit, the additional top-up in May meant that they could make it through to the next month. When small businesses came to us and said they were hard hit by the pandemic, we acted very quickly. Over 18,000 businesses in Manitoba received access to the $40,000 CEBA loan, as well as the wage subsidy and other business programs. This financial support meant that local business owners could keep the lights on, pay their employees and support their own families.

Each one of us who fills a seat in the House of Commons came here to fight for the best interests of our communities. I know that the folks in my community are worried about their jobs, their health and the safety of their loved ones. They want to know what parliamentarians are going to do to make sure we get them to the other side of this pandemic. I am not convinced the Conservatives are focused on the pandemic.

We recognized the financial impact of doing what needs to be done, all while knowing that doing less would cost more. That is why we agree that a special House of Commons committee, dedicated to studying COVID-19-related investments, should be established. Adopting the reasonable motion the government House leader put forward on Sunday night would achieve this. This special committee would help to ensure that other standing committees could do their work and focus on the issue that truly matters: COVID-19. Unfortunately, the motion for a special committee, put forward by the leader of the official opposition, would not accomplish this.

Rather than focusing on how the government and Parliament can work together to best support Canadians, the Leader of the Opposition put forward a blatantly partisan proposal. Its main objective is to paralyze the government at a time when the entire Government of Canada is focused on keeping Canadians safe and healthy. If this is the Conservatives' priority, one has to wonder if they are taking the pandemic seriously at all.

Their caucus has used uncertified tests. There are stories in the media about them not practising physical distancing in the antechamber. There is even a picture from an event with the Leader of the Opposition wherein people are unmasked, and just days ago he claimed he was immune to COVID-19. We know that is not a fact. It is very disappointing to see this lack of seriousness on their part, and Canadians are watching. Canadians are watching because we are in the midst of a second wave. They want their politicians to be leaders now, but we agree that does not mean that Parliament cannot perform its usual practices of holding the government to account, and that is why we have proposed a reasonable, responsible alternative to the Conservatives' ridiculous motion. There is a reasonable path forward.

The committee would mirror the balance in committees now. The committee would have all the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders. This would free up all the other standing committees that the Conservatives are jamming up with their inquisition. We have also proactively suggested in the motion that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health and other ministers and senior officials would appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit.

The committee would also be given the mandate to take over responsibility for the issue of document redactions related to the July 7, 2020, motion currently before the Standing Committee on Finance. I think most reasonable people would agree that this is a reasonable way forward and that is what Canadians want.

We cannot turn our committees into partisan tools to force private citizens to release personal financial information. Where does this end? My opposition colleagues can continue down this road if they so wish, but I doubt that Canadians will follow.

In conclusion, I think all members would agree that there is so much more work to do. Our government has procured tens of millions of pieces of PPE, secured millions of rapid tests for deployment to the provinces, and is working to revamp and overhaul our aged EI system. This pandemic exposed holes in our social safety net, shining light on the need for reforms and the need to rethink how we protect the most vulnerable in this country. That is what our government is focused on.

We are focused on the path ahead and guiding Canadians through the second wave of COVID-19. We are focused on the challenging economic recovery before us. We have already seen a rebound; however, we know there are tens of thousands of businesses and many Canadians who still need our help. That is where the priorities of Parliament need to lie. Our focus is forward on the problems facing our country and finding the solutions to fix them.

We do not want an election. Canadians do not want an election. We have important legislation before the House, as hon. members will know. I invite my opposition colleagues to get serious and consider the proposal that our government House leader has put forward.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception with a number of things that my colleague from Winnipeg South and parliamentary secretary said. He is saying that the government does not want an election, yet the Liberals are claiming that this is a matter of confidence. The motion clearly states that it is not, in the opinion of the House, a matter of confidence. There is nothing in the parliamentary committee we are suggesting that would stop the work of government, or of carrying on all of its different COVID-19 responses and programs.

The parliamentary secretary says he does not want an election, yet the Liberals are prepared to go down in a ball of flames, in a great ball of glory, over this motion to bring about a committee to look at accountability and transparency. I am looking forward to this coming to an election. I am ready to go and will personally spend time campaigning in Winnipeg South explaining to the constituents in Winnipeg how their Liberal members stood here and covered up this scandal.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman to Winnipeg South to campaign if he wishes. Of course, I am hoping there will not be an election. I have heard the official opposition all day talking about a lack of confidence in the government and now saying why this should not be a confidence motion. I think the Conservatives are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

I want to go back to what the member for Chilliwack—Hope said. The Conservative Party is very famous for its games. We will remember the 36-hour voting marathon, another 20-hour marathon and obstruction at every turn. They want to do this again, and really paralyze Parliament. We are just not going to stand for it.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I should preface my remarks by saying that I feel like the Liberals are ready to trigger an election. When I hear the list of all the programs and all the achievements, it sounds like an election speech. On top of that, Liberal Party financing is guaranteed by the wage subsidy, let's not forget.

I would remind the House that all the programs created as part of this crisis are not only the product of the current government; they are the product of all the members who stepped up, worked together and even improved the measures brought in. The credit does not belong to the Liberal government alone.

I have two questions. Why was Parliament prorogued on August 18? The answer is that there was no good reason, considering the situation and the crisis we were in. It was for just one reason: to sweep the WE scandal under the rug.

Why does the Liberal Party not want to create this special committee to get to the bottom of the matter? What does it have to hide?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard members on all sides of the House talk about this unprecedented time, a health and economic crisis of really unprecedented proportions.

The member talked about the need for collaboration. We have seen that, but we have really seen it break down with this motion. We have seen a bit of an unholy alliance, if I can say that, with the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservative Party uniting with a very unreasonable motion that will actually prevent us from collaborating and not enable us to get things done for Quebec, Manitoba and the entire country.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this bogus motion.

This morning I got up and took some time to visit with young entrepreneurs because this is Small Business Week. Their business is called Kyan Cuisine. Our government's support was very important to them. Their revenue plunged because of COVID-19. Their products were on supermarket shelves, but, unfortunately, they had to adjust. They got help from a program that got money out the door to community development corporations across the country, including the Prescott-Russell Community Development Corporation, the PRCDC. I want to congratulate John Candie and the PRCDC team in my riding, who are doing excellent work to support our businesses.

They were able to do it with the $20,000 they received, which enabled them to regroup, go digital, create a website and reach new customers. This morning, I was happy to hear that these young entrepreneurs can keep earning a living and meeting a really important need in our community.

About a month and a half ago, the Conservatives had their leadership race and I thought we were going to hear a different tone from them. I thought we were really going to hear a different tone from what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle demonstrated in the House of Commons. However, I can see that the Conservative Party of Canada is dead. I heard the Leader of the Opposition mention he wants to take Canada back. He took the Conservative Party way back, way back to the nineties of the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance. That is what that particular party on the other side of the House has become.

Am I the only one who views this Tory supply motion as wanting to set up a McCarthy House committee that has absolutely no value and no purpose to serve Canadians? It is trying to perhaps go after the Liberals the way the former McCarthy committee tried to go after American values in the U.S. a few decades ago. That particular committee would be a witch hunt. It is a drive-by smear, and that has to stop. Do not take my word for it. Take the words of Kory Teneycke, a former Conservative, who continues to hate Liberals, who wrote a pretty good article about the drive-by smears that the leader of the official opposition and all members of the official opposition are doing on people who said yes to serving Canadians.

When will it be enough for the official opposition? When will it be enough? They will not take the word of the Ethics Commissioner who, by the way, denied the request from the member for Carleton and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. He said that their drive-by smear of the chief of staff and her husband had absolutely no merit. What was put in this motion is the same damn thing. They put the same request in the motion, so tell me how this is not a drive-by smear.

Listening to the official opposition, it is as if there was zero accountability that happened during the summer. Just before we were prorogued, 5,000 documents were provided to the committee. They went through it. They even created a website. Then the Prime Minister appeared before that committee.

Again, do not compare the Prime Minister to the Almighty; compare him to the alternative. All of the members who were sitting in the House almost seven years ago, when they were asked to pass a motion in the House to have the former prime minister appear before a committee, what did those members who are now the official opposition do? They voted against it. That is a true lack of transparency. This side of the House and the Prime Minister believe in transparency and appeared before the committee, something that the Conservatives would have never done in the 10 years in this place they were on this side of the House.

We have the Prime Minister who appeared before the committee. We have multiple ministers who appeared before the committee. We have ADMs, deputy ministers and a bunch of witnesses who appeared before the finance committee, and still to this day it is not enough. Now what we are seeing is that they are proposing this witch hunt committee proposal, which makes absolutely no sense and goes after innocent people who have zero business in this affair. I will not let this happen and I will be voting against this particular motion because it makes absolutely no sense.

We know that, as soon as the WE affair started to make the news, the leader of the Bloc Québécois came out and said that the Prime Minister needed to resign, that there was corruption and that they were sure of it. It was the same thing for the leader of the official opposition. He said that the Prime Minister needed to resign and there was corruption happening.

Corruption is a Criminal Code offence, and if they have evidence, they can submit it to the RCMP. They will do their job. In fact, both parties called the RCMP and to this day we are still waiting for charges. We are still waiting to have people go to jail. For the only member of Parliament who went to jail, it was not a parliamentary committee that decided whether that particular member of Parliament should go to jail; it was the cops. It was a Conservative member of Parliament, and they should be ashamed of that.

I have advice for the Leader of the Opposition and the advice does not necessarily come from me. It comes from health officials across Canada. It is a simple piece of advice to just wear a mask when he cannot physically distances himself. Time and again, and my colleague the parliamentary secretary mentioned a few examples, the Leader of the Opposition was taking pictures without physically distancing. Again, this weekend, we saw him with Mr. Kenney, who is no longer in the Ottawa bubble. Therefore, he should wear a mask. He is the leader of the official opposition and he is supposed to lead by example. If he wants to be Prime Minister one day, he should lead by example.

When folks are talking to me in the riding, they want to know that we are there for them in times of need, especially in times of COVID-19. The wage subsidy has been a great program to support our businesses, as are the allocations that I have mentioned previously with regard to supporting our businesses.

In terms of funding for businesses, the Canada emergency wage subsidy helps our entrepreneurs who need to reinvent themselves and go online. I am thinking about the restaurant industry needing help to get through this second wave we are sadly in the middle of. I was hoping to debate a motion today that would offer a way to help our businesses across Canada. I think it is important to support them in order to help them get through this crisis and ensure their ongoing presence in our urban centres.

I will close by simply saying that I am extremely disappointed in the opposition members. I am not surprised. I have been here for five years, but I have been watching them for more than five years. What was true in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2015 and 2019 is still true today. Opposition members are behaving in the same irresponsible way they always did and are bringing partisanship to a whole new level. It is pure partisanship like in the days of the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance in the 1990s.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to that rambling diatribe about how evil Conservatives are.

At what point did the government become so small under this party that it cannot handle an extra committee, one that is just asking for some documents that the Liberals have filibustered away since Parliament resumed? How can the government be so incompetent that it cannot have a special committee set up and still run all the programs and benefits that go to Canadians? That is what the Liberals are saying. They are saying they cannot do both.

When did the government become so incompetent under the Prime Minister and the member?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great comment, but I completely disagree with the comments he has made. Listening to that particular member talk again, it is as if the government has provided absolutely zero testimony to committees on this particular affair. It is as if the government provided zero documents. They already have 5,000. I will remind the member to look at the website. If he cares so much about the documents that were released and the particular rules that govern the disclosure of those documents, perhaps he should just ask the member for Carleton to educate him on with that disclosure act is.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our Liberal colleague gave a speech in which he was the champion of sidetracking the debate.

He talked about the face covering of the leader of the official opposition. He talked about American McCarthyism. We know it was an absolutely unfounded speech.

From 2017 to 2020, the WE Charity received $120,000 for five contracts with the government and $5.2 million in subsidies and contributions. Is there a justification for giving that much money to an organization that is very close to the Liberal government?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the opposition are making unfounded allegations.

In early July, without even knowing the facts, the leader of the Bloc Québécois accused the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of being corrupt. If we are corrupt, then all they have to do is send their evidence and testimony to the RCMP and let it do its job.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit surreal to watch the Prime Minister threaten an election if there is a committee struck to look into government corruption, all the while maintaining he has nothing to hide. The NDP is committed to ensuring that we have oversight and accountability. The Liberals seem to think filibustering and delaying is somehow going to be able to hide what they are trying to hide from Canadians.

I am curious if the member across the way thinks that threatening to go to an election makes it look like they have nothing to hide.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have lots of respect for my hon. colleague, but again, I am listening to the opposition saying that we on this side of the House have zero accountability. I was on a government operations committee that looked at all procurements during COVID-19, and the House leader has proposed an alternative to look at all COVID-19 spending. Why does the NDP not get on board?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the WE money, this $900 million, did not go to students and to non-profits. It could have gone to the Canada summer jobs program, where students would have been paid at least minimum wage, rather than $10 an hour, which is what the volunteer program did. What happened to that $900 million? How is the government working to help students and non-profits now?

I put the suggestion in as soon as the WE scandal broke. I sent letters to ministers saying to put that money into Canada summer jobs. I could spend a couple of million dollars in my riding right away on people who need work and non-profits who need workers. What happened to the money?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it did not get spent.

On the issue of supporting students, the CSSG was just one way that we could have supported students, but obviously we had the student CERB, which helped thousands and thousands of students across Canada.

With regard to the Canada summer jobs program, I will remind each member who stood here in May complaining and asking where the Canada summer jobs program for students was and why it was not being approved fast enough. I would invite the member to look at the non-partisan public servant testimony at committee this summer, in which they provided answers as to why they chose the WE Charity to deliver the CSSG.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

Canadians are rightfully concerned about what is going on in this place right now. This morning they woke up to hear the Prime Minister and the Liberal House leader say that if this continues in Ottawa, they are going to force an election. What is so egregious that the evil opposition parties have come together to do? It is to demand accountability and transparency.

The Prime Minister has effectively said that if parliamentarians support accountability and transparency, then Liberals do not believe they support the government. I can tell the Prime Minister this. Conservatives do not support corruption and, therefore, we do not support his government. However, I believe that Canadians deserve to know what the government has been up to before they are expected to cast their ballots. I believe that very strongly.

The Liberals are heckling me because they do not want Canadians to find out what has gone on. As a matter of fact, I had the privilege of sitting on the ethics committee and before the Prime Minister broke his promise and prorogued Parliament, the ethics committee was hours away from receiving these WE-Trudeau documents. It was hours before he prorogued Parliament. When he prorogued Parliament, it shut down all of the investigations into this matter. It shut down—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has been here long enough to know that we do not name members by their given names, but by their ridings or titles.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary. This came up earlier when this subject happened to be before the House. We must keep in mind that the family name in this case applies to other family members, other than those who happen to be members of the House. I do ask hon. members to be specific when they use that name, perhaps, to ensure it does not apply to hon. members, in this case the Right Hon. Prime Minister.

The hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. That gives me an opportunity to clarify because the Liberal members across the way seem to be somewhat confused. It was the family, not just the Prime Minister, who received a benefit from the WE organization.

As a matter of fact, having had the opportunity to pause and reflect on what exactly went on, we are talking about half a million dollars that flowed to the Prime Minister's family. I hope that clarifies it for the members opposite. If that is helpful, I am happy that I have had the privilege of reminding them.

Not only did the Prime Minister prorogue Parliament to shut down the release of these documents, but since Parliament came back after prorogation was over, the Liberal members of Parliament have been sent to committee after committee after committee to humiliate themselves by filibustering hour after hour after hour to ensure that committees can never go to a vote so these documents come forward.

As a matter of fact, we are in a minority Parliament and that is the right of minority Parliaments, to come together as opposition to demand the documentation the same way the government, if it had a majority, would have the right to resist. The Liberals are using this tool of humiliation. They are humiliating their new members by telling them to go into these committees and read out textbooks and letters they have been sent by ministers.

As a matter of fact, at the ethics committee, Liberal members were sent in there and the parliamentary secretary was sent in there, as well. Of course, that is another broken promise by the Prime Minister. When he was elected, he promised that he would never have parliamentary secretaries sitting on parliamentary committees. He broke that promise. What did the parliamentary secretary read into the record? Instructions from the Liberal House leader as to what the ethics committee should be doing. Can members imagine a situation where the Liberal cabinet is trying to direct parliamentary committees?

Having had prorogation, having humiliated themselves at committee and having the possibility of these documents finally coming forward because the House might rule they should, the Prime Minister is saying they will stop at nothing to ensure these documents never come forward and we will have an election to stall these documents from ever being released.

The Prime Minister is right when he says if opposition members believe in transparency and accountability, then they do not support our government. He is right. We do not support this type of behaviour. This is a democracy and we will continue to fight for it.

Do members remember when the Prime Minister, before he was the Prime Minister, used to talk about his ideals, like sunlight being the best disinfectant? I can tell members that it is time for some sunlight on these documents because the infection of Liberal corruption needs to be disinfected. It just gets worse if Liberal members do the dirty work of their Prime Minister and continue to cover it up.

Do members remember when the Prime Minister used to say they would be a government that would be open by default? All of what has gone on since prorogation has been an effort to cover things up, to ensure that things are not open and that Canadians can never see what happened with regard to the scandal.

The Prime Minister keeps saying that there is nothing to see here. In fact, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader of the Liberal Party just said if we do not get what we want, then we are just going to do this one thing, but that is what the Prime Minister is saying. If he does not get his way, he is going to force an election. That is exactly what he is saying.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

According to Beauchesne's, one is not allowed to impute motives. The member just finished indicating something I just did not say, so I would ask him to quote me accurately if he is going to quote me.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That is the impute motives reference. The parliamentary secretary is not incorrect about that. That usually connects up with issues around unparliamentary language, so he is about 70% there in terms of that comment.

I did not hear any unparliamentary language in this case, but I do see what has exchanged here as probably in the category of debate. I do not think that is a point of order.

We will go back to the hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals intend to continue to debate these facts but some things are not debatable, including when this scandal first broke and the WE organization said that it never pays speakers. Then the Prime Minister said to trust him, that all was good here and that we should listen to WE. I recall him saying that we should listen to WE.

Then when the documents started flooding in, we found there were massive contradictions between what the Prime Minister said and contradictions with regard to what WE said. What we found out was that the Liberal finance minister had received a luxury vacation from this charity in the amount of over $40,000. I do not even know what kind of holiday he was having for $40,000. Good for him, I suppose, but what kind of charity offers a multi-millionaire a $40,000 vacation?

My community has been involved in school fundraisers for the WE Charity. If the moms and dads who were collecting bottles in my community to support the WE Charity found out they were financing a $40,000-vacation for a multi-millionaire Liberal finance minister, they would be shocked.

Then we found out that the Prime Minister's family had received around half a million dollars in fees for speaking engagements, whatever it was, as the story continues to change as to why they were paid. All we know is they were paid. Of course, at the same time, WE was producing ads that were glowing of the Prime Minister and ads to promote the Prime Minister.

Now the Liberals say we cannot have a special committee to review all of this. We cannot do that. Why can we not do that? They say it is because it will paralyze Parliament. Let us just remember that no minister, not the Prime Minister, no bureaucrats, sit on committees. It is all just regular members of Parliament, none of whom have ministerial responsibilities, so we can probably have 12 members sit on a committee without paralyzing Parliament.

What is the Liberals' solution, their counter to this proposal? Instead of setting up a special committee that gets documents, they would like to set up a special committee that does not get the documents. That is their solution, and that would ensure we did not paralyze Parliament if we had a different special committee that did not get the documents.

We are going to continue to demand those documents. The Prime Minister has been found guilty of ethics violations time after time. I suspect very shortly it is going to be another time; the first prime minister in Canadian history. The Prime Minister was found guilty of interfering with a litigation with a court case, later firing his Attorney General because she would not go along.

It is interesting that none of those scandals resulted in the Prime Minister threatening an election to make sure that they never came to see the light of day. What is in these documents that he would go to the extraordinary length of proroguing Parliament, embarrassing all of his members who are being sent to committees to filibuster day after day and hour after after hour, or now threatening an election to ensure those documents never get released? I am going to make sure I do everything in my power to make sure those documents are released.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his voice. It was a very passionate speech. Unfortunately, it was full of errors and mistruths.

Having said that, I want to ask the member a question. We are in a minority government. Does the member not realize that the opposition parties also have a responsibility and their actions will have consequences?

If the opposition sticks to the fact that it has no confidence in the government, it will lead to an election. What holds more accountability than an election? We do not want an election, but the actions of the opposition have consequences. Does the opposition have confidence in the government or not?