Madam Speaker, I am going to digress a bit from what we have been hearing for the past two weeks, which has been a bit of mud-slinging. I would invite my colleagues to regain the dignity we must show as we perform our duties.
I appreciated the speech by my colleague, with whom I have had the opportunity to speak on several occasions. It is always pleasant, and we all know how much he loves his lake.
My question is this. We know that money was used, let us say, by the fund to support a company whose owner was the chair of the board that decided whether or not to grant money. We know that. We also know that, to turn over evidence to the RCMP, for example, or the police, a search warrant is not required. If I find evidence somewhere and it could be related to a crime, I do not need to wait for the RCMP to get a search warrant.
Let us get back to the fundamental issue. Aside from the fact that the government refuses to comply with our question of privilege and assure us that the rest of the money was used properly, is the real problem here that public funds must no longer be managed by bodies that are not accountable to the House of Commons?