Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to being able to address this particular concurrence motion. Having said that, I am very disappointed, as I have pointed out, that the Conservative Party has made the decision to spend literally millions of Canadian tax dollars all in the name of a filibuster to prevent Canadians from being able to receive legislation, whether government legislation or private members' legislation, and to see a full economic statement, among many other things. It is all because of a self-serving leader who sees his job as trying to demonstrate that the Parliament of Canada is dysfunctional. The only thing that is dysfunctional is the Conservative Party of Canada. My question is: Why is the member agreeing to participate in the role that the leader of the Conservative Party has put upon himself and to continue the endless filibuster?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to the concurrence motion. I would tell the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston not to worry as my feelings are not hurt. At the end of the day, it is somewhat ironic that the Conservative Party would move a motion expressing concern about the lakes in Canada. Canada literally has millions of lakes. When I was in opposition, one of the most bizarre budgetary measures that Stephen Harper took when the current leader of the Conservative Party was either parliamentary secretary to the then prime minister or sat around the cabinet table, was a decision to cut the funding to the Experimental Lakes Area. Anyone with knowledge, even the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston opposite in the Conservative Party, should be able to recognize the hypocrisy here. On the one hand, they are expressing concern in regard to what is taking place in the lakes. They are saying there should be more work done with respect to some of the studies and actions being taken, yet the leader of the Conservative Party today directly participated in the budget cuts for the ELA programs. It is truly amazing. It is almost as if the Conservatives completely forgot about their actions a number of years ago. Not only were Canadians upset about it, but it actually had an effect around the world. People could not understand how the leader of the Conservative Party would dump the programs in the Experimental Lakes Area, which was worked out of Kenora. We also had scientists in the city of Winnipeg who were dealing with it. A few dozen scientists were all looking at areas such as acid rain, which used to be important to the Conservative Party, but it does not necessarily care about it anymore. They talked about toxic metals, climate change, mercury pollution and all the other types of things that we find in our lakes that we should all be concerned about. This is the type of work that was being done through the ELA programs for decades. It made it through Progressive Conservatives like Brian Mulroney and through Liberal governments. It only stopped when it hit the government of Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party, who had the so-called internal wisdom between the two of them to decide it was time to cut the budget, throw the science out the window and let the lakes go whatever way it is the lakes would go. It was truly amazing. Now the Conservatives bring forward a motion for concurrence that says that we are not doing justice to the issue of lakes and it makes reference to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The commission, no doubt, does fabulous work. There are representatives of both Canada and the United States on it. It is advanced in the Liberal caucus and by others who talk so much about our Great Lakes. We have a very strong and powerful advocate for our Great Lakes in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I find it strange that we now have a far-right Conservative Party that has now taken an interest in science and lakes. That is an absolute joke. The leader of the Conservative Party demonstrated very clearly what he thought about our lakes in Canada when the Conservatives made the decision to fire and get rid of dozens of scientists who were looking at ways to ensure that we have not only healthier lakes in Canada but also a globally strong footprint through the ELA and the programs it was providing. I introduced petitions on the issue when I was in third-party status with the Liberal Party. Therefore, for the Conservatives to try to pretend that they are concerned with this issue at this moment in time is a stretch. I asked questions of the two presenters on it, and we found out why they have really brought forward this concurrence report. I want to get to the motivation behind their choosing this particular report. It was not to try to convince Canadians that they are concerned about the many lakes in Canada. It is far from that. I recall the two questions that I asked of both the member who introduced the concurrence motion and the member who followed the person who introduced the motion. Both are Conservative members who have been given their marching orders by the self-serving Conservative caucus, led by the leader of the Conservative caucus, who has one objective this session. That is to play a destructive force here on Parliament Hill to prevent legislation from passing, whether it is government legislation or private members' legislation, because the leader of the Conservative Party is more interested in himself and the Conservative Party than he is in Canadians. I posed the question, and what kind of response did I get from the two speakers earlier? Well, we got an admission. The first member said that I was right. It is not necessarily about the concurrence motion. He said that the heart of the concurrence motion is accountability, and accountability is really what this is all about. Then the member went into talking about how we need to directly hand the documents over to the RCMP and that would be accountability. That was the response that I got from the individual who moved the motion. Then, the second member reiterated the issue of accountability with respect to the motion. He said that we might not be here for this particular report. This is a mechanism by which they can stick to their guns to say to produce the documents and that, if we were to just produce the documents, well, then they would not have to do this. I want to spend some time on those members' answers to the question because that is the motivation and the reason we are debating this issue. Obviously, they really did not think through the issue at hand, which is the concurrence report. When I heard it, the first thing that came to my mind was the hypocrisy of the leader of the Conservative Party because he participated in the cutting of the Experimental Lakes Area program. Had the members thought it through, they would have realized that and saved their leader some embarrassment. I would like to think, but that is not what they were thinking. They are more focused on the grander scheme of the multi-million dollar filibuster here on the floor of the House of Commons, which has been taking place for the last nine weeks. In the words of members of the Conservative Party who spoke today in response to my question, it is, for them, about accountability and the government needing to provide the papers. If we were to provide the papers, they would stop this self-serving Conservative game. Let me address that point. To be very clear, it is very much not about Canadians but rather the self-interest of the leader of the Conservative Party. That is number one. As my colleague says, it is always about that when it comes to what is taking place here and outside the chamber. Secondly, this self-serving Conservative mentality is actually hurting Canadians. As Conservatives try to go out and about, not only inside the chamber but outside the chamber, they like to say that Parliament is dysfunctional. Parliament is not dysfunctional; the Conservative Party of Canada is dysfunctional. It has gone so far to the right that it is a dysfunctional party that does not reflect anywhere near the interests of average Canadians. We saw this when they stood up one by one and voted against giving a sales tax break to Canadians during the holiday season, even though they campaigned on it in the last federal election. In the last federal election, every one of them campaigned on giving a holiday GST tax break. The leader of the Conservative Party actually tweeted on the issue. However, when the time came to stand up and make their votes count, they voted against giving a holiday tax break from the GST on a wide variety of commodities. Shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is. I look at this session and the trickery, as one member said, of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. When the Conservative member gave me the answer that it was about accountability and to produce the papers and the game would stop, that is not true. Let us talk about the multi-million dollar game. What the Conservatives are saying is that we are supposed to take unredacted documents and give them directly over to the RCMP. Why? The Conservatives say there was a motion passed many months ago saying that we had to do this. Well—

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to assume the member never heard the answers that were given by the Conservatives when they said to me, in response to questions about the report, that it was all about accountability and the fact that all we have to do is produce the papers. All I am doing is indicating why it is not as simple as the members opposite say it is for us to produce the papers. If the member were listening, he would have heard how abysmal Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party were on the ELA programs that they cut. Hopefully I will get a little extra time to be able to provide further comment on that. I appreciate the interruption, but it was not necessary—

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the love coming from that particular member. I am happy to sit on the side, if he would like to continue the discussions. I suspect he is pleased when I am speaking because, 99% of the time, it is about facts. We can contrast that to what he hears within the Conservative caucus, which is a lot of social media spin, not necessarily based on fact. It is quite the opposite of fact. I want to be parliamentary, so I will not go any further than that. Having said that, I was talking about the answers I received to my questions on this particular report. The Conservative members indicated to me that all we have to do is provide the unredacted reports to the RCMP. However, I will explain why that cannot happen. Even though a majority in the House of Commons supported that particular motion to give the documents directly to the RCMP, it needs to be noted that the RCMP, Canada's Auditor General and other legal experts have made something very clear: It would not be good for Parliament to be giving unredacted documents directly to the RCMP. The motion, I would suggest, is in borderline contempt of the Charter of Rights, based on what we hear from the RCMP. We are going to listen to the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and other legal experts, and we will not produce those papers. Then the Speaker made a ruling saying that the issue I just raised needs to be sent to the procedure and House affairs committee. His colleagues also said so; this was how they actually responded in their answer to me. That is what the motion is. It is a Conservative motion, yet the Conservative members are now saying that they are going to put up dozens of speeches or more. I think there have been over 200 speeches on it now. That is even after we factor in the numerous concurrence reports.

No, actually about four or five. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we are talking about hundreds of speeches coming from Conservatives. That is why the Conservatives are getting bored with that topic. However, they do not want to let it go, so they are bringing in concurrence motions. We can fast-forward to where we are today. We now have a concurrence motion because the Conservatives do not want to respect what the RCMP are saying. They do not even want to respect their very own motion to have it go to PROC; they would rather talk about this. At the end of the day, we would love to see the Conservative Party reflect over the holiday season and have a merry Christmas type of thing. Maybe Conservative members could talk with their leader and say that the election is not until October 2025; there is so much more that we can actually do for Canadians. Let us try to be a bit cheerier. Conservative members could talk to the leader of the Conservative Party to see if we can redirect that far-right Conservative ship just a little. Then we could move on and do some things that would really help Canadians. However, if they do not, not to worry; as a government, we will continue to focus on the interests of Canadians, first and foremost, as we have in the last nine years. Fish are important. When I think of Lake Winnipeg, I think of goldeye, walleye, carp, whitefish, perch and northern pike. Our lakes are very important. We need to do what we can. This is one of the reasons that I was so critical when the Conservatives, including the leader of the Conservative Party, cut the ELA programs. Having said that, I am down to about 30 seconds, so I would move: That this question be now put.

Mr. Speaker, the government has moved it over to Global Affairs, which I think is very encouraging. I do not want to take anything away from the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, which I know has done a great deal of work over the years. Representatives from Canada and the United States sit on it. I think of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and the incredible work he personally has done in advancing the interests of the Great Lakes. I know the Ontario Liberal caucus is very much on top of this issue because it realizes the strength and the benefits of our lakes from an economic point of view and in terms of the environment.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, one of the things I have learned is never necessarily to believe everything we hear coming from the Conservative caucus. Where I would agree is that when I think of the Great Lakes Commission, I think of the individuals who are on the board, but I also think of the many different advocacy groups that surround the Great Lakes. I believe there are many advocates that have been very successful at receiving different forms of support from the federal government. What I would remind my colleague opposite is to reflect on the leader of the Conservative Party in terms of his actions when he cut the Experimental Lakes Area program at a great cost, which no doubt had an impact on the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about a minority government is that the government does work with opposition parties. I would ultimately argue this particular Prime Minister and government, even when we were in the majority days, continued to work with opposition parties. If the member has ideas that he would like to share with the Minister of Finance, other ministers, me or others, I would really encourage him to do so, because there is a great willingness to accommodate opposition where we can and where it makes sense for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up an excellent point. All one needs to do is to take a look at the past behaviour of the leader of the Conservative Party. The leader of the Conservative Party was the point person for former prime minister Stephen Harper on a multitude of different issues, which included the Experimental Lakes Area in which there were significant cuts. Dozens of scientists were actually let go. If we take a look at that past and hear what the bumper stickers of the Conservative Party are today, Canadians need to be concerned in terms of the future of the Fisheries Act, as the member has pointed out. Canadians should be concerned, because all the Conservatives are focused on, as one of my colleagues would say, is “chop, chop, chop”. At the end of the day, that means a lot less protection for our environment and a lot fewer services to Canadians. I would hope that the leader of the Conservative Party would be not as much of a grinch but a bit more loving, over the Christmas season, and maybe revisit some of the far-right policies that he has adopted.

Madam Speaker, let us put it this way: If we went through the hundreds of reports and I were to identify reports that I believe are more important to Canadians, does that mean that the New Democrats do not care about the other reports or the other issues? I can assure the member that there are many different serious issues in concurrence reports. The one before us is an important one, and there are lots of important issues. However, passing legislation, passing a fall economic statement, dealing with private members' business and getting work done for Canadians are also important. That is what—

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member has put on the record. The question I have for the member is in regard to the military. I served in the Canadian Forces. There is a very close relationship between the military and the RCMP, even though they are completely independent of each other, and even federal civil servants. I am wondering if she is suggesting that we apply the same principles in this situation to other federal employees.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to address what I know is a very important issue. As I have indicated, I had the honour of serving in the Canadian Forces for just over three years. One of the most memorable things I experienced was meeting with and marching with World War II veterans. We learn a lot in the different discussions we have with veterans. Spouses of veterans play an absolutely critical role in providing the types of supports that go far beyond, I would suggest, in many ways, a more typical marriage. There is a profound impact on individuals who have been through war, whether World War II, the war in Afghanistan or other wars Canada has been engaged in over the years. War has a profound impact on soldiers who are returning, and family members often have to make significant sacrifices in order to cater to the needs of that returning soldier. I have a deep amount of respect for the family unit, and in particular the spouses of veterans. Having said that, before I go into details on this, I wanted to take the opportunity to highlight why we are having this particular debate today and maybe express a bit of my frustration. As we are talking about veterans and the Canadian Forces, one of the government bills we introduced quite a while ago for debate would have had a very significant impact on our Canadian Forces and those who are serving today. We talk about survivor benefits and how this impacts women disproportionately by a long shot. The legislation we introduced would have taken issues related to sexual harassment and exploitation out of military courts and put them into civilian courts. That is one aspect of a number of pieces of legislation that the government has been trying to get through. Unfortunately, what we have seen for the last number of weeks, and I think it has been eight or nine weeks now, is a Conservative opposition that has made the decision to play a multi-million dollar game here on the floor of the House of Commons. It has decided to play a very destructive, self-serving game for the leader of the Conservative Party, and it is at a substantial cost. As a direct result, different debates have been taking place. I do not blame the NDP, because if its members did not bring forward this particular concurrence motion, we would likely be debating another Conservative concurrence vote.

Madam Speaker, we're not, because the NDP kind of beat them to it. However, that is a side issue for right now. The point is that the House should be dealing with the substantive measures of legislation actually before the House. Every day, legislation is called upon. The fall economic statement is being presented next Monday as a direct result of the behaviour of the official opposition. For those who want to follow what has taken place, let us go back eight or nine weeks, and one will find that issues of this nature, dealing with benefits for veterans' spouses, are being debated in this fashion, today, because of a motion the Conservative Party brought forward then. That motion, which was actually introduced by the Conservative Party, was to have a report brought to the procedure and House affairs committee. The Conservatives have put up speaker after speaker, and now, I believe that there have been well over 200 speakers on that motion of privilege. In order to change the topic, we have seen different opposition parties bringing forward concurrence reports. The purpose of that, from the Conservative Party's perspective, is just to talk about anything but the privilege issue because Conservative members have run out of things to say repeatedly on the privilege issue. The Bloc and the NDP have brought in concurrence reports because they are tired of listening to the Conservatives talk about the privilege issue and the Conservative concurrence reports. The government has been looking to any opposition party for that change, whether it is the Conservatives, which is not likely, whether it is the Bloc, which is not as likely, or whether it is, possibly, the NDP. The concurrence report brought forward today, dealing with benefits for veterans' spouses, upon the death of veterans, is here—

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for people who might be following the debate to understand why we are debating this today. If the member were to look, the member would see that we get hundreds of reports brought in from standing committees and that there are detailed responses to all of the reports. When the member stands up and asks me to tell him something about the report, if the member would like, if he does not have access to the Internet, I would be more than happy to provide him with the government's response to each and every one of the recommendations. This is part of the issue. These concurrence reports typically mean that a standing committee has done wonderful work investigating a wide spectrum of issues, such as the issue we are talking about today. The reports then come back to the House for the House to concur in. There is already a detailed response. For example, I want to highlight recommendation number three because I think it cuts to the chase. This is after a great amount of discussion and debate in the committee. I am not too sure when this report was brought to the House, but I suspect it was quite a while ago. It is being used as a way to change the topic. However, instead of changing the topic, we should be dealing with government business and with private members' business. I am trying to get the point across that we have witnessed, in the last nine weeks, borderline contempt of Parliament because we are not able to do the things we should be doing to serve all the people of Canada, including the people of Quebec, the people of Manitoba and people from coast to coast to coast. The member asked a very good question. The member who introduced the concurrence report cited example after example of individuals, and we all know there are many people this is affecting. Equally, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are being ignored because we continue to allow the abuse of a matter of privilege, and we are not able to address the issues Canadians expect us to address. If I go to the specific response, for example, on recommendation number three, it says, “That the Government of Canada immediately adopt regulations to make the Optional Survivor Benefit (OSB) available to both common-law spouses and legally married spouses.” If we go through the responses, there are a number of recommendations. I highlighted this one because I thought it was quite interesting to read the response to the report. It states, “The Government of Canada agrees with this recommendation as work is currently underway to amend the regulations under all three of the Federal Pension Plans (CFSA, RCMPSA, PSSA)”. I will stop there because that is the reason I asked the person moving the motion, in regard to talking about the military. I hear a lot of sympathy for the military. I can assure all members of the chamber that I am very sympathetic, being someone who served in the Canadian Forces, and someone who marched on Remembrance Day with World War II veterans and with others. I fully understand the important role that families play. I am very interested to see how this issue can be advanced and can be addressed. However, we should also take into consideration, at the same time, the RCMP. I suggest that the same principles we apply here would also apply to the RCMP. I would argue that if we were to talk to federal civil servants in Canada, we would find a very keen interest in the federal civil service also being able to qualify. I was not a part of the committee when they were having these discussions. I do know that, like many other issues committees deal with, they would come back with a report, and typically, if we were in agreement in trying to move the issue forward, we would concur in it. If we were to debate every report, we would never be able to have a private member's hour and would never be able to have government legislation pass. That is why my comments at the beginning were more so regarding my concern about what is happening on the floor of the House of Commons today. We can now write off this whole fall session as a direct result of that, but we are coming back in the spring. I am hoping that we will see parties, whether it is the Bloc or it is the NDP, recognize that we need to move forward because that is in the best interest of Canadians Let me continue on with that one recommendation because there is detail to it. It states, “The Government of Canada agrees with this recommendation as work is currently underway to amend the regulations under all three of the Federal Pension Plans...to make the Optional Survivor Benefit available to both common-law spouses and legally married spouses.” I was standing up, hoping to get another question, because in some of the examples being raised by the New Democratic Party, she made reference to an individual who was not able to get married because of the pandemic. Common law, from my understanding, still would have applied. We need to ensure that, at the very least, we recognize that, because there is no doubt that it would not have been an issue for that couple in that situation. He was under 60. She did not make it perfectly clear, but it sounded as if they were potentially living as a common-law couple. That was worth noting. This is noted in the government's response: The CFSA, which governs the Canadian Armed Forces Pension Plans, contains provisions that permit a retired member to marry after retirement allowing the spouse to have survivor benefits upon their death, provided that they were married or entered a common law relationship prior to their 60th birthday—an age in line with the compulsory retirement age of a CAF member. That is why I make reference to the whole issue of common law. CAF Veterans who are members of the Regular Force Pension Plan and marry after the age of 60, excluding in common-law marriages, can provide this Optional Survivor Benefit for their new spouse if they apply for the Optional Survivor Benefit within one year of their marriage; and, they agree to reduce their current level of pension in exchange for providing a survivor pension to their new spouse in the event of their death. This means that a portion of the retired members’ pension would be reallocated to fund their spouses’ “survivor benefit.” This option is only revocable upon the death of the spouse or divorce and as noted previously is currently not an option for common-law relationships. In looking at the details of the report, I say this because I am anticipating, unfortunately, that we will continue to see more concurrence reports being brought forward. If there is a response, if the Conservatives really want to be able to contribute to the debate from an opposition perspective, what they should be doing is addressing the actual report that has been brought to the attention of the chamber. If they feel they want to have a debate and a vote on this, then they should be providing some detailed comments in response to the report. I would find that most interesting. I have indicated that for every recommendation in the report, there is a response. I know that the Minister of Veterans Affairs very much approaches things with an open mind. We need to recognize that the issue involves not only Veterans Affairs; two or three departments ultimately have to coordinate any sort of changes. Members should recognize that the government itself, whether it is the Prime Minister, me or my colleagues, is very much sympathetic. In fact, I believe that in the 2019 budget we allocated $150 million. That is a significant amount of money. I know there was some ridicule a bit earlier with respect to that money's not necessarily having been accessed, but it was allocated. The government is in fact interested in pursuing the issue in a positive way. I would suggest that we look at ways, as a Parliament, particularly on the floor of the House of Commons, to somehow get over the privilege issues, stop some of the concurrence motions that are coming and get on to the legislative agenda of the government, private members' bills and so forth. Having said that, I move: That this question be now put.

Madam Speaker, one of the encouraging things that has been happening over the last eight or so months is that not only has inflation gone down but interest rates have also gone down. We have also been looking at the overall performance of the economy. We continue to look at ways in which we can invest in and support Canadians. We have programs, such as the dental program, the pharmacare program and the national school food program, that are helping Canadians in a very real and tangible way. At the same time, we are able to keep tabs on inflation and interest rates. When we compare Canada to virtually any other country in the G20, we see that we are doing exceptionally well. However, that does not prevent the government from continuing to look at ways in which we can support Canadians. A good example of that is that we are giving a tax holiday for the GST on a number of products, which, by the way, the member who posed the question voted against, along with the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated, I was in the forces, and I happen to be 62, turning 63, years old. I understand the age factor also. At the end of the day, the member is right. The only thing he is wrong about is the fact that it is not the Liberal Party's priorities; it is Canadian priorities that we should be talking about. What we should be talking about is the type of legislation that is on the books. We should be talking about many of the private members' bills. There are all sorts of things that the House of Commons should actually not only be talking about but also taking action on. That means passing legislation and passing a fall economic statement. There are many different things we could be doing for Canadians, but the Conservative Party and the light-blue Bloc continue to want to filibuster. It does not mean that we are not concerned about the issue at hand; I am concerned about the issue at hand, and we all are. However, there are the issues and priorities that Canadians have, and that is what I will continue to push for.

Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to recommendation 9, and there is actually a response to that recommendation. It is one sentence and two paragraphs, and it goes over to the next page. I would encourage the member to read that particular aspect. What I do take exception to is a member's trying to put words in my mouth. It is not correct to say that I do not care about the issue. I care about the issue. It is the same as if I were to say to the NDP—

Madam Speaker, I respect the comments the member is making. It is one of the reasons we have standing committees, and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs continues on. It might be a good agenda item for that particular committee to look at the $150-million allotment that was given back in 2019, and why it has not been accessed. Maybe there are some things we can be doing to push the file through faster. I have always believed that there are a number of areas within government we can always look at improving. I share many of the member's concerns. It is not to say that the government or Liberal members are not concerned about this issue; I genuinely believe we all are and that it crosses all political parties.

Madam Speaker, I was in opposition when the member's current leader sat at the cabinet table with Stephen Harper. In fact, that leader was Harper's point man on many different issues. One of the issues that came before us at that time when we were in opposition was the fact that the Conservatives were shutting down veterans' offices. I think the total number that they ended up closing down was nine. Obviously, as a government, we have opened nine and maybe even a possible tenth one. I will ask members to not quote me on the tenth one, but I am wondering if the member would agree that maybe there is a little regret within the Conservative benches, maybe not with the leader of the Conservative party, but with other members of the Conservative caucus, that they should not have closed down those veterans' offices.

Madam Speaker, I do not know the answer to this question, and that is why I want to ask this specific question in regard to the province of Quebec. The member made reference to the federal civil service, and I made reference to that earlier too, with the RCMP, and having survivor benefits and how that should also be taken into consideration in regard to our civil service and the RCMP. Can the member provide his thoughts in regard to, let us say, first responders in the province of Quebec or the Quebec civil service? Is he aware of what sorts of survivor benefits there would be in situations of that nature?

Mr. Speaker, the temptation for me is to talk about how frustrating it is to not be able to deal with other legislation, in particular a bill about issues going from military courts into civilian courts for military personnel who have been subjected to sexual abuse. That bill would have been a wonderful thing to talk about today. Having said that, we are spending time talking about our veterans, which is a great issue and something I am exceptionally sympathetic to. The member just mentioned he is quite proud of his record. The leader of the Conservative Party sat around a cabinet table where they actually cut seven veterans' offices across the country. Does he have any regrets in making those cuts?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we listen to Conservatives speak on the whole issue of veterans. I could talk about the veterans' offices that they shut down. There were literally nine of them across the country, but what really intrigues me is the fact that this particular member, along with the leader of the Conservative Party, and in fairness she did not have a choice as she has to follow her leader, actually voted against supports for veterans. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Can the member tell us why she votes against them? On a side point, why did she agree with her leader to shut down nine veterans' offices across the country?

Mr. Speaker, as coincidence has it, I, too, have a petition on the very same issue. The petitioners are asking that the leader of the Conservative Party get the security clearance, given the issue of foreign interference. What we have witnessed in Canada is everything from extortion to murder to interference in the leadership of the Conservative Party through foreign interference. We have had Conservative MPs involved in foreign interference. What the petitioners really want to see is the leader of the Conservative Party doing the honourable thing and getting the security clearance.

Madam Speaker, there was a privilege motion just before the member stood up and the Conservatives were saying that the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act has not been met. That is the Conservative Party's conclusion, but Justice Rouleau said in an inquiry that the threshold had been met. The Conservatives say not to believe the judge or the courts, believe the Conservatives. Fast-forward to the motion we are talking about now. The RCMP says that the Conservative strategy of trying to release unredacted documents directly to the RCMP is wrong. The RCMP does not want the information. The Conservatives are saying not to listen to the RCMP, listen to the Conservatives. It seems that the Conservatives are being very self-serving and are completely ignoring things like the RCMP and our judicial independence. Can the member tell us why?

Madam Speaker, I am going to go back to my first question. The member is an experienced parliamentarian. I would suggest that the motion that we are debating says that we take the issue out of the floor of the House of Commons and put it into a committee. The member knows that because it was a Conservative motion. The Conservatives are holding the floor of the House of Commons hostage because they are trying to push their agenda, which goes against what the RCMP is recommending. Does he not agree, as a parliamentarian, that it is a little bit more touchy than he is trying to imply?

Mr. Speaker, the member has lost the point. It was a Conservative idea, albeit for a month as opposed to two months, and it is a GST break at a time that I believe is an appropriate time to do it. Conservatives actually campaigned on it; it was in their Conservative election platform. The leader of the Conservative Party at the time tweeted about it, saying it was a good thing. Now we were able to vote in favour of it, yet they decided to vote against it. I think it is legitimate to ask why the Conservatives have had a change of heart.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member who just made his proclamation that I have been a parliamentarian, both in government and in opposition, at federal and provincial levels for over 30 years. Never before have I witnessed a political party, like the Conservative Party we see today, being borderline in contempt of Parliament, and this has now been going on for weeks going into months. In fact, the current leader of the Conservative Party gained his first-hand experience a number of years ago when his boss, Stephen Harper, was found in contempt of Parliament, and he has learned from that, because that is what we are seeing here: borderline contempt. Fast-forward and we see the leader of the Conservative Party again being borderline in contempt of the need to get security clearance. Patrick Brown has said foreign interference is directly in the Conservative Party. Why does the member believe his leader does not have the courage to get a security clearance? Can he tell us what the leader of the Conservative Party is hiding?

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary is the current leader of the Conservative Party. His was the only government in the Commonwealth to be held in contempt of Parliament. We can close our eyes all we want but that is the truth and the member knows it, whether he wants to admit it or not. The question I have for him is in regard to the security clearance. The leaders of the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party all have the security clearance, and they are not trapped. They are still able to talk. What is the real reason why the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to tell Canadians about his past?

Mr. Speaker, I agree people have to answer for what they have done or what they have not done. There is a need for accountability. The issue that people are concerned about, in part, is the issue of foreign interference. There is murder, extortion and political interference. Even in the leadership of the Conservative Party, we are talking about interference. Conservatives have members in their own caucus facing foreign interference. These are serious allegations, yet the leader of the Conservative Party does not feel that he needs to get a security clearance. Why does the member believe his leader should be exempt from having to get the security clearance when every other leader has done it?

Mr. Speaker, I have a very important petition, signed by many Canadians, asking for the leader of the Conservative Party to get a security clearance. Petitioners highlight the issues of extortion and murder taking place and all forms of foreign interference. They ask that the leader of the Conservative Party take it upon himself to be more responsible and get the security clearance. That is a very important issue, and I suspect petitioners are curious as to why he might not be doing that. Maybe it is that he is hiding something from his past.