Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I am not sure we are ready for a little dictator yet. Let me read a quote from the same story: “Seventeen Conservative MPs who pleaded with the government to ensure that cities in their ridings received their share of a federal housing fund were publicly rebuffed by the leader's office.” It goes on to say, “If you stray too far from the message, you get told pretty quickly”. I am sure members opposite know there are individuals within the leader's office watching what they are doing, and saying, “If you are not holding the line, you are in trouble.” That is what the leader of the Conservative Party—

Madam Speaker, what we should be concerned about are the tactics being used by the Conservative Party in trying to take control of standing committees by passing motions in the House that dictate the type of agenda they should have. It is a very serious issue. It is a good example of the way the leader of the Conservative Party likes to have absolute and total control of everything that takes place in Parliament, whether on the floor of the House of Commons or in standing committees. More and more concurrence reports are being sent back to committee, with the Conservatives saying what they want the standing committee to vote on. Then they look for other opposition parties to come onside and say they cannot necessarily disagree, so they send it back to the standing committee. Whatever happened to the ability of standing committees to determine what they would like to study and not have report after report sent back to them because the leader of the Conservative Party has a self-interested political agenda?

Madam Speaker, there are interim and long-term solutions that need to be brought to play, and this is one of them. At the end of the day, my concern, as I responded to the Bloc's question, is that we do not fall prey to what the leader of the Conservative Party wants us to do, which is, I would suggest, to disrespect the potential that our standing committees have by, not once or twice but on numerous occasions, trying to dictate what they should be saying by trying to amplify an issue in the House and then sending it back to committee. All of us, minus a number of Conservatives, I would suggest, are concerned about the environment. A lot of us would love to be able to talk about it, but I would also like to deal with the government's legislative agenda, private members' bills and so forth. Those are critically important. Many important issues are not being debated because of the filibuster by the Conservatives.

Madam Speaker, the member is fairly accurate, except maybe a little exaggerated in terms of parading around the room. However, he is right on; they are actually rewarded. They come into the chamber, they have about a dozen slogans and bumper stickers, they have their favourite four, and we see them. No matter what is being debated, they will say the slogans because they have someone in the back room, that person in the background, with one, two, three stars, oh, four stars. If they talk to us, then minus a star. They are actually evaluated in terms of their performance inside the chamber and, sadly, outside the chamber. They have to be good for the leader.

Madam Speaker, I would question that. I have had the opportunity to speak inside the House on several occasions. I can tell members that, with the possible exception of a point of order where I have to read a detailed thing, I have never been provided speeches. I am not told, “Here, go read this in the chamber.” These are my thoughts and they are generated through my experience and observations of opposition members and listening to what others have to say. We very much have an open concept in our caucus, unlike the Conservatives, apparently, which is very much a closed thing. Everyone is obligated to follow the leader, literally follow the leader, and if they do not do that, they are in a lot of trouble. I say that maybe with a little bit of sarcasm, but it is not just me saying it; Conservative MPs are also saying it and that is really what really takes the cake.

Madam Speaker, as opposed to focusing attention on the concurrence report, I see the tactic of the Conservative opposition is to continue an ongoing filibuster. My question for the member opposite is related to why the Conservatives continue to move concurrence reports and then return reports back to the standing committees, thereby dictating more and more. We see this as a troubling pattern from the leader of the Conservative Party, who wants to send reports back to committees and instruct standing committees what to do. Does the member have any concerns in terms of this power grab by the leader of the Conservative Party in trying to dictate the types of issues that committees are forced to talk about because he, as leader of the Conservative Party, wants that issue discussed and is instructing them to do so?

Madam Speaker, we have a continuation of a multi-million dollar game. That is really what this is all about. It is quite unfortunate that the people paying for this are Canadians in all regions of the country. Why is that? It is because the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is more interested in himself than in Canadians. At a substantial cost, for weeks now, the Conservatives have been playing this game and denying the opportunity to have all other forms of debate, whether it is government legislation or private members' issues. The leader needs to smarten up, do the honourable thing and allow the legislature to continue to work for Canadians, not for the Conservative Party of Canada. When is the member going to give his party's leader a shake and ask him to behave in a more responsible way? Quite frankly, he is in borderline contempt of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that foreign interference is a very serious issue. We can talk about murder. We can talk about extortion. We can talk about political interference. Yesterday, we found out that we had a member of Parliament in the Conservative Party who had, in fact, been in touch, either directly or indirectly, with foreign interference related to the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the same leadership in which the current leader was elected. For weeks, I have been asking and challenging the leader of the official opposition to get the security clearance and he continues to hide. I have been saying he has something in his past that he does not want Canadians to know. This is not just it; there is more to it. However, what we do know is that his leadership is a fraud, quite frankly. We need to have a foreign interference investigation across the way.

Mr. Speaker, the member said that “it is our duty to defend and uphold our democratic institutions.” Today there is breaking news from the CBC with regard to the Conservative leadership. I would like to quote from the story. It says, “campaign workers were told by representatives of the government of India to stop supporting Brown, not to sell membership cards for him and not to invite him to certain events.” There is a strong connection between the corruption within the Conservative Party and its leadership and the current leader. This is a very serious issue, yet we have the leader of the Conservative Party today refusing to get the security clearance, the only leader in the House of Commons who has refused. I have been accusing him for weeks now of hiding something. I believe this is one of the issues that he has been hiding behind. When the member talks about defending and upholding our democratic institutions, does he not believe that the leader of the official opposition has a responsibility to Canadians to stop hiding, come clean and get the security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the leader of the official opposition continues to hide his past because he is scared to get the security clearance. He is playing a multi-million dollar game at great cost to Canadians because he wants to give the documents to the RCMP, which has said it does not want to receive them in the form of an instruction from the leader of the Conservative Party, but rather that the issue should be sent to the procedure and House affairs committee. The leader of the Conservative Party is a destructive force to democracy in Canada today. On those two policies alone, will the member talk to his leader, explain to his leader that what he is doing is politically good for his self-interest but not in the best interests of Canadians, and that the Leader of the Opposition needs to get the security clearance and stop this multi-million dollar game?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can focus on the borderline contempt that the leader of the Conservative Party has entered into on a number of topics now. In regard to the issue that the Conservatives want to talk about, the government is going to listen to the RCMP and the Auditor General over the self-serving Conservative Party's interest. In regard to the security of Canadians and foreign interference, a very serious issue where we have seen murder, extortion and direct political interference in the leadership race in which he became the leader of the Conservative Party, could the member indicate why the leader of the Conservative Party continues to hide his past in order to prevent getting the security clearance?

Madam Speaker, the government is going to listen to the Auditor General of Canada and the RCMP, not the Conservative Party, on this issue. On the issue of foreign interference, let us be very clear. We are talking about extortion and about Canadians that have been murdered. There have been direct links to foreign interference in the leadership of the Conservative Party. The leader of the Conservative Party chooses not to get the security clearance. Canadians have a right to know what it is that the leader of the Conservative Party is hiding from them. What has happened in his past? Canadians have a right to know. We have found out that the member for Calgary Nose Hill was intimidated by foreign interference to the degree that she literally withdrew from the campaign of the leader of the Conservative Party's opponent. There are all sorts of things that are linked here. Will the hon. member not, at the very least, acknowledge that the honest and honourable thing for the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada to do is to do what every other leader has done and get the security clearance required?

Madam Speaker, the motion that we have before us today is all about having the issue brought over to PROC. No matter what the Conservatives want to say, the motion is about the leader of the Conservative Party and his borderline contempt of Parliament by continuing to filibuster for weeks now. That borderline contempt is directly connected to the issue of foreign interference when we have a cowardly leader of the Conservative Party who is refusing to do the honourable thing and get the security clearance that is required to provide—

Madam Speaker, I would withdraw the word “cowardly”. The bottom line is that the leader of the Conservative Party has a moral obligation to Canadians to get that security clearance. Could the member give a clear indication as to why the leader of the official opposition refuses to do what every other leader does and get the security clearance so he can become better informed on foreign interference?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to try to explain, as best as I can, why we are having this debate this afternoon. It is quite unfortunate, but the Conservatives have been focused on character assassination, even back 10 years ago when the leader of the Liberal Party was first elected as leader. Absolutely nothing has changed over the last 10-plus years. They identify an individual and then attack the very character of that person. In the many years that I have known the member from Edmonton Centre, I never had him come up to me in any fashion whatsoever to try to give any sort of an impression that he was indigenous himself. I really look at a lot of the things the Conservatives do as ways to try to discredit individuals inside the chamber. Quite frankly, it is at a very great cost. I often say, which Hansard will clearly demonstrate, that over the years, the Conservative Party has focused on destroying the characters of elected officials in the House of Commons. Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister and a government that continue to be focused on Canadians. While Conservatives try to sidestep important issues and bring in character assassinations, as a government, we have been focused on Canadians to ensure they are a part of the solution in building a stronger, healthier economy. We are focusing in on Canada's middle class, and those aspiring to be a part of it, while focusing on ensuring that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. That has been the government's focus for years. The type of response we get from members of the Conservative Party is for them to consistently attack individuals. There might be the odd one that steps up to the plate to say something that is a little bit more constructive, but that is discouraged in the Conservative caucus. There are Conservative MPs on the other side who have made it very clear that they do not have a choice. There are people in the Conservative leader's office who actually follow members, who stalk them to see what they are saying. That made national news last week with a story about the degree to which Conservative MPs are being stalked within their own caucus. They get stars if they do something right, and they get some of those stars taken away if they do something wrong. For example, if they talk to Liberal members of Parliament, that is a bad thing, according to the Conservative caucus and their new rules. If Conservative members want to get a star, well, they can maybe attack the character of someone, just like what we are witnessing today. By far, the best way to get those simple stars is to repeat the slogans. Today, we can see how many times members stood up to say their slogans. That is because it is encouraged. They are told that they will get stars if they do that. There are Conservative members who are talking about how freedom within the caucus has become scarcer as a direct result of their leader. If they want to talk about character assassination, I would like to share some thoughts about that with regarding the leader of the Conservative Party that Canadians should be aware of. This multi-million dollar, self-serving game the Conservatives are playing today, and have been playing for the last six weeks on the floor of the House of Commons, has not only a substantive financial cost, but also a very negative impact on the legislative agenda. We would have seen legislation to protect children from online predators, legislation to protect sexually abused women and others within the Canadian forces by taking their cases out of military court and putting them into civilian courts and legislation to deal with Canada's supply lines. We could have talked about the fall economic statement, not to mention private members' bills, opposition day motions and all forms of legislation that could have been debated, but we are not. Why is that? It is because the Conservative leadership has made the decision to filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons. We talk about character assassination, and we are witnessing the attack by the Conservatives toward the former minister, the member for Edmonton Centre. I would suggest that the one orchestrating it is the leader of the Conservative Party, who needs to look in the mirror. After all, he is the one in borderline contempt of Parliament with the multi-million dollar game he is orchestrating on the floor of the House of Commons. That is what is happening today. We are seeing a political game because the Conservative Party believes that they know better. They know better that unredacted documents should be given to the RCMP without any hesitation. That is what the leader of the Conservative Party believes, even though the RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada both say no. The Conservatives are going to take into consideration, as a part of their filibuster, a serious issue of indigenous businesses and opportunities and use it to attack the character of a member of Parliament. However, I would suggest that we need to start reflecting more on the attitudes and the types of things the leader of the Conservative Party is doing because it is purely self-serving and not in Canada's best interest. Here is a leader who is solely focused on preventing healthy debate in the chamber. My colleague posed a question earlier about the foreign interference issue. Again, it is rooted right back with the leader of the Conservative Party. When the Conservatives criticize the member for Edmonton Centre, members can listen to the complaints and the issues regarding the leader of the Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker, the degree to which we are witnessing the leader of the Conservative Party being borderline in contempt of Parliament is truly amazing. We do not want to provide the information unredacted, as the Conservative Party of Canada has asked, directly over to the RCMP for good reason: The RCMP does not want it. We are listening to the RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada. However, in borderline contempt, the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get a security clearance. Today, what did we find out? There is a direct link between the leadership of the Conservative Party and foreign interference. The leader of the Conservative Party still says no, he does not want to get the security clearance. Can the member clearly indicate to the people of Brampton and all Canadians why the leader of the Conservative Party is the only leader in the House of Commons who continues to thumb his nose at Canadians and not get the security clearance?

Madam Speaker, the member might be sensitive to the issue. I am being completely relevant. The reason for the debate today is to have information transferred to the procedure and House affairs committee. I believe the leader of the Conservative Party is in borderline contempt of Parliament by forcing members of the Conservative Party to speak up. In terms of talking about his character, that is what my question was about. There have been hundreds of questions related to this. The member is wrong to try to limit my freedom of speech in the House by not allowing me to talk about an issue that Canadians are concerned about.

Madam Speaker, if the member was around a bit more and listened to a lot of the discussions that have been taking place over the last number of weeks, he would know that it is absolutely relevant as the Conservatives are starting to use motions of this nature to attack the actions of members of Parliament. They are trying to say that this is not relevant. After all, I am reflecting on the motivations and the character of the Conservative leader. They will be super sensitive if it is a Conservative who we are talking about, but Liberal members of Parliament are free game. That is their attitude. They try to prevent members from being able to express the reality of what is taking place in the chamber today. I say shame on the member for interrupting what is, in fact, an important statement that needs to be made. Yes, the issue of indigenous businesses is of the utmost importance. In fact, over the weekend, we had a wonderful historical moment in the province of Manitoba. On Portage and Main, on the 20th floor of a building that is now owned by Red River Métis, David Chartrand and the Métis nation signed off on a treaty. We now have the Manitoba Métis national government on treaty. Whether it is signing that important document just this past weekend, or literally the tens of millions of dollars that the Liberals have provided to encourage and support indigenous businesses, we have been there. However, we do not hear that being talked about because it does not fit the Conservatives' narrative. That is why it is important for people who follow the debates that take place in the House of Commons to not be fooled by what the Conservative Party does and has been doing for the last six weeks. People should not think this is about concern over indigenous businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a part of the game that the Conservatives are playing, and that game happens to be a filibuster to prevent the government from doing the business that would support indigenous Canadians, and all Canadians, in many different ways. They then use that to criticize and single out a particular member. I will continue pointing out the hypocrisy that is coming out of the office of the leader of the Conservative Party. As I was pointing out, the member for Kingston and the Islands, the deputy House leader of the government, made it very clear how another member of the House, which is being reported on in national news today, was interfered with through foreign interference. Why is that important to note? It is important because we are talking about the leader of the Conservative Party and his unwillingness to get a security clearance. Members can think about that. He is the only leader in the House of Commons to do that. If someone wants to be an intern for the Conservative Party, they are required to get a security clearance, but not if someone is the leader of the Conservative Party. Today, through the news, we found out that there is a direct link to the leader of the Conservative Party during his leadership campaign, which was interfered with through foreign interference. Do members remember, a year ago, how often we were hearing about the issue of foreign interference? The Conservatives were jumping all over each other to raise the issue, until we caught wind that there were maybe some Conservatives at play and it might not necessarily reflect well on them. How the attitudes quickly changed. When is the last time we saw them stand up in question period and pose a question on foreign interference? I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that the Conservative leader does not want to talk about the issue anymore because of something there that is preventing him from wanting to get the security clearance. The news story today is all about leadership interference. That might be one aspect of it, but I think there is more to it. I think there is more to why the Leader of the Opposition does not want to get the security clearance, and I believe Canadians have a right to know. If members across the way want to use this particular report to reflect on the member for Edmonton Centre, while they stand up and they talk about that, what they should also be doing is reflecting, maybe looking in the mirror and thinking about the leader of the Conservative Party. Should they not be applying the same sort of pressure, the same sort of tactics, maybe even within their own caucus, and call into question why their own leader refuses to get that security clearance? I believe foreign interference is one of those reasons that had a direct impact on his own leadership and one of the reasons why he might even be the leader of the Conservative Party today. I understand that Patrick Brown—

Madam Speaker, no one is surprised that the Conservatives continue this multi-million dollar, self-serving game. They have pulled out yet another concurrence report, and then they are going to send the report back to committee. There is nothing new there. That is the tactic that they have been using now for weeks, and I will get the opportunity to expand on that. However, the question I have for the member is: Why is the Conservative Party so focused on character assassination more than on the needs of Canadians? We have seen this illustrated all of the time. A good example of that would be when that very member decided to vote against giving a GST holiday for taxpayers in Canada even though, as a political entity, the Conservatives like to give the false impression that they want to cut taxes.

Madam Speaker, conservatives laugh. I do not think Patrick Brown was laughing. We have to summon him to committee in order to find the truth. I wonder maybe if we should be summoning him to the bar. That is something the Conservatives like to do. We will have to wait and find out just how open and honest they are with the answers coming from members on that particular committee. I look forward to hearing some of the results. On the motion that we have, there is an amendment to call and demand that the member for Edmonton Centre go before the committee. As Conservatives tell me all the time, we have unfettered rights here on the floor of the House of Commons. Even if it is a majority government, it does not matter because we have unfettered rights and they have to be respected no matter what, according to Conservatives. I am wondering if the member for Calgary Nose Hill should actually be summoned to the very same committee that Patrick Brown is going to be. It would be interesting to hear her thoughts on foreign interference. One day she is supporting Patrick Brown, and then there is a conversation that takes place. Many would suggest that it qualifies as foreign interference. Then the next day, she is no longer supporting Patrick Brown. There is something there. Then a week passes by and she does not go back to supporting him. When I say supporting, I believe she was actually the co-campaign manager or something of that fact. We need to get to the bottom of that. Much like the motion that is being suggested here, I would suggest to all the committee members, as opposed to being instructed by the House of Commons, maybe they should be proactive and ask the member for Calgary Nose Hill to appear before the committee. That would be very helpful. I would encourage the member for Calgary Nose Hill to volunteer. When I read the story, she seemed to be offside with what the others were saying. Where have we heard that before? Is that not the same thing that is happening with the member for Edmonton Centre and other allegations that are being made, where the member for Edmonton Centre does not agree with those allegations?

Madam Speaker, as my colleague points out, we cannot mix Conservatives and Liberals. There are totally different standards. At the end of the day, I think we should be asking the committee to have the member for Calgary Nose Hill come before the same committee, maybe following Patrick Brown, so that we can hear from Patrick Brown how foreign interference was directly involved in the leadership of the Conservative Party, the very same leadership convention in which the current leader was elected. The current leader refuses to get that security clearance. Why? It is because he wants to be naive on the issue. It would be really good to see the two of them sitting there and being held accountable on foreign interference. I suspect that we are not going to get a motion to that effect coming from the Conservative Party, because, after all, transparency only matters when it is Conservatives attacking and using character assassination against Liberals. That is all that matters from the Conservative point of view. There is a responsibility of accountability for the Conservatives too. I will continue to push for that accountability. On a final note, I encourage the leader of the Conservative Party to do the right thing and get the security clearance.

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing that the Conservatives are complaining because I am trying to hold them to account for the types of things that they do on the floor of the House of Commons. He talks about the poor member for Calgary Nose Hill. She says that she is innocent. Think about it. Before we pose the question, give it some thought. What are they doing with the member for Edmonton Centre? Where does this double standard come from, seriously? At the end of the day, they need to understand that it is not only government. There are also opposition responsibilities. I do not see a responsible—

Madam Speaker, I apologize in the sense that, if I only had more time, I would have gotten to a number of things that I had listed. For example, as of November 18, 2024, there have been 2,945 businesses listed on the IBD. Of the 2,945, 111 of them are indigenous businesses that are joint ventures, which is greater than the 3%. In 2022, during the first fiscal year of a 5% target, ISC did a comprehensive review of businesses listed on the IBD, including verifying eligibility and 51% ownership. There were 1,100 listings removed as a result of this review. For me personally, it amplifies the fact that we need to do more diligence on the issue. There is no doubt about that. I was interested in the member's comment regarding a registry. I would like to think there is an obligation on all of us to look at ways to make sure there is more credibility and strength within to ensure procurements are being done in a proper fashion that all of us agree to.

Madam Speaker, working with the NDP has allowed the government, in many ways, to establish common policy initiatives that are helping Canadians and helping to get things done. The GST holiday on a number of different products during the holiday season is an excellent example of how we are able to get something tangible delivered. It is going to allow Canadians to be given a bit of a break during the holiday season. I see that as a very strong, powerful thing.

Madam Speaker, that is the reason the member for Calgary Nose Hill should go before the committee. The member is exactly right. It is whether someone was approached by a foreign diplomat or agent of another government in any fashion who made suggestions, which she seemed to have conveyed to more than one person who was prepared to potentially come forward. That is foreign interference. She should go before the committee.

Madam Speaker, I will not apologize for a government that has been more feminist than any other government in the history of Canada, where we have seen 50%, and at times more, women around the cabinet table. I have no problem, in terms of recognizing the degree to which this government looks at things through a gender lens in dealing with issues such as the budget. I have no problem, in terms of comparing and contrasting the Conservatives' attitudes toward women with the attitudes of this government. It is quite the contrast, and I know many women within the caucus are more than happy to take on the Conservatives on this particular issue.

Madam Speaker, it is not very often that I would agree with many of the words from a member of the Bloc, but in this case I do. In fact I highlighted a very special event that took place in downtown Winnipeg, at Portage and Main, just this past weekend: The Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty was signed off. It is the first time a Métis government is actually being recognized through a treaty. David Chartrand and his government have done a great favour to our entire nation by continuously advocating, for many, many years, for the treaty. It pleases me that as a Government of Canada, after close to 150 years, we have achieved that. If we were to check with David Chartrand or any cabinet member, we would find clear, unanimous support that it is the Métis who define who the Métis are. I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts on the issue.

Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight something I highlighted earlier in the discussion, and that is the Red River Métis treaty. It is an agreement that was achieved and a historic event for the Manitoba Métis government. We are talking about well over 150 years. Through the leadership of President Chartrand and his cabinet, and ongoing discussions with this government, we have the first-ever Métis treaty. I see that as a very strong positive. As for the many calls to action that the federal government is responsible for, well over 80% are well under way and many of them have actually been done. This is a government that has invested in and worked directly with indigenous communities across this country. Could the member cite a government that has done as much as this government has in raising the profile of this important issue?

Mr. Speaker, the member needs to be a little patient. Let me explain why. The motion that the Conservatives have amended calls for the member for Edmonton Centre to go before a standing committee. If the member is patient enough, she will hear that there is merit for the member for Calgary Nose Hill to also go before a committee. We can draw the comparison. The member's speech is absolutely relevant in terms of drawing that comparison. She might not like the comparison—

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the member shares the same concern that I have in regard to how the Conservative Party is bringing forward concurrence motions as a way to filibuster so we are not debating other issues that are of critical importance for all Canadians. The Conservatives always want a report to go back to committee, and they give specific instruction to the committee. We are seeing more and more of that. My concern is that standing committees should be able to determine who comes before the committee for testimony. Does the member have any concerns in terms of how much of a control freak the leader of the Conservative Party is and how much control he wants to have over standing committees?

Madam Speaker, what we witnessed last night was the Conservative Party voting against giving Canadians, during the holiday season, a tax break on the GST, even though Conservatives campaigned in favour of it. Their very own shiny leader also retweeted the idea of having a holiday tax break on the GST during the holiday season. The only difference was that that theirs was four weeks. Ours is for eight weeks. There is no hypocrisy there, right? They are going to say, “Yes, we are against that, but we are in favour of axing the tax.” What do they mean by “axing the tax”? They are going to be getting rid of the carbon rebate. They do not care about the environment but they are going to get rid of the carbon rebate. A vast majority of Canadians get a net benefit with the carbon rebate. Not only are Conservatives going to take away a tax holiday, but they are also going to be axing the carbon rebate. Then they spread all sorts of misinformation on both of those issues. That is why I say they know no shame. They do not have a problem saying that. Fast-forward to where we are today. Why is the Parliament as dysfunctional as it is? It is not because of the NDP, the Liberals, the Greens and, to a certain degree, the Bloc. It is because of the Conservative Party of Canada. Here is the truth of the matter. Six or seven months ago, there was an order in which, yes, a majority of MPs voted that unredacted documents would be sent directly from the House to the RCMP. The government opposed that. We only have a minority of MPs. We opposed it. Yes, we did, and it is because we did not think it was appropriate to give unredacted documents to the RCMP. The RCMP commissioner has said he does not want those documents. The Auditor General of Canada has said she does not support the documents being given to the RCMP. Other legal experts have said likewise. What happened? The Speaker ruled that the matter should go over to the procedure and House affairs committee. What does the Conservative Party do? Conservatives move a motion that says we are going to have this issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee. It is a Conservative motion. We have now had over 200 speeches from the Conservative Party of Canada on its own motion because Conservatives refuse to allow it to come to a vote. As a direct result of that, which I would suggest is borderline contempt of the House, the Parliament has not been able to do the things it needs to do to support Canadians, to pass substantial legislation, legislation in part that they support. I could focus on the word “hypocrisy” but I will refrain from that because of the limitations on my time. We have a Conservative Party, through its leadership, that is more interested in its self-interest than it is in Canadians. Canadians are paying the price. We have anti-harm legislation to protect children from predators on the Internet, and the Conservatives do not want to debate it. We have legislation converting sexual allegations and charges from military courts to civilian courts. Everyone supports it. Even the Conservative Party supports that one. Conservatives do not want anything to do with it because they want to continue their filibuster. Yesterday we had to get the support of the New Democrats to be able to have a debate on giving tax relief to Canadians. The Conservatives forced us to bring in closure and then they criticized us yesterday for bringing in closure. How silly is that? Should we be surprised? The leader of the Conservative Party today was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper, the only prime minister who has ever been held in contempt of Parliament. His point man was the leader of the Conservative Party today. Does anyone wonder why the leader of the Conservative Party has no problem at all being in borderline contempt on issues that are having such a negative impact on Canadians? The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. This made headline news last week, about the Conservative caucus. The leader preaches to Canadians that we are going to have freedom. In fact, I actually brought a copy. I would like to quote what Conservative MPs are saying about the leader of the Conservative Party. They did not want to release their names, but a lot of Conservatives have gone to the media to express their concerns. The headline is, “[The leader of the Conservative Party]'s office maintains tight control over what Conservative MPs say and do.” Here is the first paragraph: “After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party] as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.” This coming from “the man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada 'the freest country in the world' maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members.” The article continues: Conservative MPs' words and actions are closely scrutinized by the leader's office. Partisanship is encouraged. Fraternizing with elected officials from other parties is a no-no. Those who follow these rules are rewarded. Those who don't often have to suffer consequences. Do people want to know the consequence? They can check with the member for Abbotsford. The article continues with, “Some elected officials feel they come to caucus 'to be told what to do and what to think'”. It also states, “If the leader invents a new slogan, 'we know we'll have to use it'”. The Conservative source said, “If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded,” and, “You are celebrated in front of the entire caucus for being a good cheerleader.” Does anyone wonder why we get Conservative member after member standing up, repeating the slogans and the bumper stickers of the leader of the Conservative Party? They get a gold star for doing so. They think Canadians are stupid. They are a bit thick on substance, but they are a mile long when it comes to slogans. If we want a good sense of that, we can look at the propaganda and the garbage being sent from social feeds, which are consistently misleading. That is the far-right Conservative Party today that is being conducted by the leader's office. Members opposite know this. If a member comes to talk to me on the side, or to other Liberal caucus members, they are being watched. They are not supposed to be talking to us. If they say something that goes against what the party might be thinking and they have achieved gold stars, those gold stars are going to disappear. They need to stick to the script. During the last political panels I was on, both CTV and CBC, there was no Conservative. Why? They do not support mainstream media, because the mainstream media wants to hold them to account for a lot of the silly things that they are saying. It is much like the general attitude of the leader of the Conservative Party. The leader of the Conservative Party believes he is not required to get a secure clearance. We have the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the Greens and the leader of New Democrats all saying foreign interference is a very serious issue in Canada. Individuals have been murdered. There has been extortion. There has been political interference. In fact, there has been political foreign interference in the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, which ultimately saw him elected as the leader. Every other leader in the House has recognized the value of getting a security clearance, but not the leader of the Conservative Party. If one wants to be an intern for the Conservative Party, they are required to get a security clearance, but if one is the leader, forget that. The bogus excuses the Conservatives give as to why he is not getting the security clearance are a bunch of garbage. It begs the question why the leader of the Conservative Party will not get his security clearance. I will tell members why. It is because there is something in his past that he is hiding and does not want Canadians to know about. Canadians have a right to know. What is interesting about foreign interference is this. Do members remember last year at this time? If we think about what the Conservatives were yipping about 12 months ago, they were standing up and talking about foreign interference. However, they piped down awfully quick when they found out that there were Conservatives involved who are directly connected to the leader's office. Let us stop here on that issue. We have to change the channel awfully quickly. Instead of dealing with issues of consequence to Canadians, whether it is the economy or good, substantial policy, the Conservatives continuously vote against them. They try to tell Canadians they care. Here are just some of the things that we have done. We brought in the disability program, the pharmacare program, the child care program, the dental care program and the national school food program. We can talk about the cuts to Canada's middle-class tax brackets. We can talk about the substantial increases to the GIS. We can talk about the 10% increase to those age 75-plus. There has been a litany of things, including the infrastructure dollars we are spending. This is a government that understands that a healthy economy is good for all Canadians. It builds our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. Consistently, the Conservatives are voting against it. In 2023, Canada had more direct foreign investment per capita than any other G7 country. In fact, if we compared Canada to the rest of the world, we were number three. People outside of Canada recognize how wonderful Canada is, whether with respect to going through the pandemic or the worldwide recession. They recognize that our interest rates are going down and that the inflation rate is under control, and are better than the United States. However, we would never know it listening to the Conservatives. Instead, they want to proclaim to the world that Canada is broken. In fact, the biggest cheerleader for the United States supporting its efforts on a trade agreement is the leader of the Conservative Party. Before I move on to that trade agreement, members will remember that the last trade agreement we had was with Ukraine. The Conservative Party is the only political party that voted against that trade agreement with Ukraine. By the way, Russia is one of the foreign influencers that is spending millions to prop up the Conservative Party of Canada, if not directly, indirectly. Is it any wonder that the Conservatives voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade deal? Was it for suspicious reasons, and I am trying to be nice, or was it a red herring? Do we think the Conservative Party is in a good position to negotiate with Donald Trump? Forget that. We have a great team. We have done it before. We have the expertise. The last time around, what did the Conservatives say? They capitulated. They said, “It does not matter what we have to cave on; cave and just sign an agreement.” That is all the Conservatives wanted. We held back and we got a good agreement, and that is one of the reasons that Donald Trump wants to renegotiate. We will go to the table, but we are going to put Canadians first and foremost as we have done for the last nine years. Consistently, what we have witnessed from the opposition is no, no, no.

Madam Speaker, the very nature of the member's speech does not surprise me, and here is why. All one has to do is take a look at what the leader said when he addressed his Conservative caucus just before coming back into session. This is part of what the leader said in his opening remarks to his Conservative members of Parliament: “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high...our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter. Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.” How ridiculous that is. Then we hear speeches of the nature of the one by the member opposite. It was gross exaggeration. I have news for the member and for the Conservative Party of Canada: Canada is not broken; it is still the very best country in the world to call home. Shame on the Conservatives for their attitudes and for how they continue to put their political self-interest ahead of the interests of Canadians. We see it every day, and a good example of it is when we wanted to give Canadians a tax break yesterday. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against a tax break. How will the member opposite and Conservatives justify their vote yesterday to not support tax relief?

Madam Speaker, I understand you have stopped the clock. It is really unfortunate. Yesterday I stood up to speak and I was interrupted on numerous occasions by the Conservatives on points of order. I now get the coalition Bloc doing the same thing. It is disrespectful. I have a lot to share with Canadians through my comments. I would ask the Bloc and the Conservatives to contain themselves and allow truth to be told inside the chamber—

Madam Speaker, the remarks we just were entertained with are quite interesting. It is really important that people understand what the Conservative Party is. It is not the traditional party. People who follow the debate on the economy, on social programming and how it is that Canada is doing, I want them to understand this is not the traditional Conservative Party. This is what Kim Campbell, former prime minister of Canada, has to say about the leadership and direction of the Conservative Party today: “I've never joined the Conservative Party of Canada.” She mentions Joe Clark, another Progressive Conservative prime minister: “I think Joe Clark expressed it that he didn't leave the party, the party left him. It is not the Progressive Conservative Party [today].” We just heard a litany of issues downplaying Canada. As I have indicated, the leader of the Conservative Party and members of his caucus can go around Canada talking about how bad things are and saying Canada is broken. A vast majority of the things they are saying are absolutely not true and definitely misleading, whether it is the leader in the many town halls he has or through their social media or their emails. They send out millions of emails. Canada is not broken. We think of the progressive nature the Conservatives used to have. They talk about poverty and so forth. When it came time to stand up and vote on issues, I listed just a few programs. There is the disability program. It is the first time we are establishing disability payments, the single largest budgetary item from the last budget, where $200 every month will be going to individuals. There is the pharmacare program. Millions of Canadians will benefit from it and it is a good step forward in developing a solid national pharmacare program, what we put into place. There is a child care program, a Canada child benefit program that no longer pays for millionaires and that supports even those parents who have a lower income. I made reference to $10-a-day child care and the expansion of child care spaces. There is a dental care program in which well over a million Canadians have participated. There is a national school food program. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul is talking about children in poverty, yet the Conservatives vote against a national school food program. They know absolutely no shame whatsoever; they really do not. She is criticizing us because of the GST break we are giving Canadians during the holiday season. The Conservatives voted against it last night. I need to remind each and every one of those Conservative members of Parliament that in the last election, they campaigned for it. It was in their election platform that they would give holiday relief in the form of a GST break for the holiday season. They said they would do it. What they voted against yesterday was their own policy. This is something their leader at the time, Erin O'Toole, the one they stabbed in the back because he was too progressive for them, supported. They ditched him, they got their shiny new leader and they reversed their policy on it. I will remind the new leader of the Conservative Party that he supported what he voted against yesterday. They go around and say they are going to axe the tax—

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada has absolutely no shame. It is unbelievable but true. Conservatives voted against a tax break for the holiday season. Now, this is the real burner on this issue. This is what the Conservatives said in their platform for the last election: “To help families and help our hard-hit retail stores recover, Canada’s Conservatives will implement a month-long GST holiday”. The leader of the Conservative Party then tweeted, “We will remove GST for the month of December”. It is incredible. How do each and every one of them say, on the one hand, that they are going to get rid of it, and then, when it comes time to vote, one by one, they stand in their place and vote against giving a tax break to Canadians? I say shame on each and every one of them. By the way, how do we define hypocrisy?

Madam Speaker, that question has been answered on a number of occasions. However, I want the member to reflect on what happened yesterday and remember that members of the Conservative Party and their leader have been going across Canada, saying they are going to do people a favour; they are going to axe taxes. For the first time, they got a chance to vote on the issue and what did they do? They abandoned their principles, they demonstrated what hypocrites really look like and they voted against a tax break for the holiday season, even though during the last campaign, they campaigned in favour of it. How would you define hypocrisy, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. I would recommend that the member review the Hansard and look at my thoughts on parliamentary reform, dual chambers and the potential of using Fridays, and how we can ensure that every member is afforded an opportunity to address virtually any issue. I think that there is a great deal of merit to it. I am a parliamentarian, first and foremost. Part of my role, as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, is to hold opposition members to account for their behaviour. The member will find that, out of those 300 times the member has cited, as I do not count, what I am doing in part is trying to get the official opposition to be accountable for its irresponsible actions. That is why I highlighted the fact that what we are witnessing is borderline contempt of Parliament. I do not say that lightly. I have been a parliamentarian for close to 35 years; I am not sure as I do not know the actual number. Canadians should be concerned about this type of abuse of power, even when the leader of the Conservative Party is in opposition. My time has run out. I respect that fact and will wait for the next question.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary. He has posed it in two ways. The first one is in regard to the process that we are witnessing. People following the debate need to understand that we are debating a motion that the Conservatives introduced, which takes the issue and says it should be dealt with at PROC, yet they have now put up literally hundreds of speeches, not interventions. The member opposite made reference to me, in terms of interventions. They have actually put up hundreds of speeches on the issue. By doing that, they are preventing the House from being able to deal with a wide spectrum of issues. One of those issues that the members make reference to is the issue of foreign interference. He posed the other question in regard to why it is that the leader of the official opposition has not agreed to get the security clearance. I personally believe that it is because he has something that he is hiding from his past. He is scared that by getting that security clearance, Canadians will find that out. We need to find that out.

Madam Speaker, the member does have to contain himself. Having said that, just so the member really has an understanding, the leaders of the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens all have the security clearance that enables them to deal with the issue of foreign interference. The only leader in the House of Commons who has chosen not to get it is his own leader. It begs the question. Why? I believe that there is something in the past, with respect to the leader of the Conservative Party, that is preventing him from getting that security clearance. The member that he is sitting by will tell us that I have raised about a couple hundred interventions, I think he said. This is nothing new. I have been raising this issue for weeks now. I would encourage the member to listen, in terms of what is taking place and—

Madam Speaker, let us think about it. It was not that long ago when the Conservatives were jumping up and asking about the issue of foreign interference. They were questioning it all the time. All of a sudden, the leadership of the Conservative Party has been interfered with, potentially by foreign interference. By the way, there are now Conservatives who have allegations of foreign interference against them and they have been quickly silenced. Now we wait for the Conservative Party leader to do the honourable thing and get the security clearance so that instead of protecting himself, we can be protecting the interests of Canadians. That does beg the question as to why he is scared to get that security clearance. I believe, and I have been saying this for weeks now, it is because he has something in his past that he wants to hide.