Madam Speaker, that last point was just a ridiculous red herring that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.
I want to go back to something my colleague from New Brunswick said in response to my question. Why are we here today debating this motion? The government party has a whole bunch of people who sit around the cabinet table. I am not sure how big cabinet has expanded to these days, but a lot of people sitting around the cabinet table were aware of what was going on. They did nothing. Not only did they do nothing; they tried to sweep it under the rug. The whistle-blower had to come to committee to testify because all of his efforts to get the due diligence and the proper oversight and scrutiny fell on deaf ears.
What can be so problematic with complying with a production order if several departments have already complied? Again, and I had hoped that I had pre-emptively addressed this, that is the hypocrisy of the member's position. When many departments have fully complied but many have not, then the argument cannot be made that any compliance with it will somehow taint the process.
At the end of the day, if we go back to that beginning point, had the Liberal government members done their due diligence, they would have said, “Wait a second. These people we appointed to the board were doing something wrong; they were funnelling money into their own companies and they placed themselves in conflict of interest.”
The members of the board had this scheme where one person would leave the room, the rest of them would vote in favour of the funding going to that person, and then that person would come back in the room and do it for their friends. If the Liberals had said, “Whoa, that does not fly. We are calling in the cops; we are handing them all the information”, we would not be here today. However, they did not, because those people on the board making those decisions and funnelling that money were their partisan friends and supporters. That is why we are still debating this motion.