Mr. Speaker, I will just ask that my time should reflect more than four minutes left on the clock, because I know that for five and a half full minutes I have talked exactly about this motion and did start to build the case for an additional 30 seconds. The point by the member for Kingston and the Islands is disingenuous at best.
What I am demonstrating is that the government, led by the Prime Minister who is named in those two reports, has a pattern of disregarding the rule of law. The Liberals believe that the rules do not apply to them. This is certainly germane to the subject of them defying an order of the House, and that is obviously why you, Mr. Speaker, found the prima facie case of privilege that we are debating this evening to be decided by this place.
As I was saying, in the Trudeau II Report tabled by the Ethics Commissioner, the Prime Minister was found guilty of contravening section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act, again seeing him disregarding the rule of law as the government did in this case with the PHAC documents. That, of course, was when he attempted to politically interfere in the prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin.
Twice in a four-year term, that Prime Minister was found guilty of breaking ethics laws. In that same term, we saw a pattern of law-breaking in which the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada was found guilty of contravening sections 6 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act. We saw that same pattern with former finance minister Bill Morneau. He was found guilty of breaking the Ethics Act twice: first with his failure to disclose his directorship in a numbered company and his forgotten French villa, but also contravening sections 6, 7 and 21 of the act with respect to the WE scandal.
It goes on and on. The Liberal government went so far as to shut down Parliament to avoid scrutiny, again, when parliamentarians were looking to—