Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, staying with the theme of Hollywood productions, I am thinking of Homer Simpson and the leader of the Conservative Party. When I think of Homer Simpson, I think of the degree to which the leader of the Conservative Party continues to thumb his nose at getting a security clearance. Every leader in the House of Commons has recognized that foreign interference is such a serious issue, yet the leader of the Conservative Party believes that he does not require it, even though there have been allegations that his own leadership was interfered with by foreign interference. Among other issues related to foreign interference, we still have the leader of the Conservative Party refusing to deal with the issue. While the Conservatives are on the issue of character assassination, would the member reflect on the character of his own leader and indicate why he believes his leader does not have to get a security clearance?

Madam Speaker, during the holiday season, we have the opportunity to give a bit of relief to Canadians if all of us of all political parties agree and vote for a tax cut of the GST on a number of products. I believe most Canadians would see that as a positive thing. I find it shocking that the Conservative Party, the leader of the Conservative Party, wants to vote against this motion and continue the filibuster as opposed to actually debating the issue of giving Canadians a tax break. Could my colleague provide her thoughts on how important it is to give Canadians relief?

Madam Speaker, let us follow the line here. The leader of the Conservative Party has dictated to his caucus that they have to say whatever he says. By the way, according to Conservative MPs, they are being watched; if they do not say the right thing, they are in trouble. If they say the right things and they repeat the slogans, they get the gold stars. I am not saying that; Conservative MPs are. When we talk about the GST, the decision has been made. This gets to the flip-flop. We now have the leader of the Conservative Party telling Conservative members of Parliament that the law is they have to say no to their constituents about giving them a holiday on GST products. I find that shameful. At the end of the day, every Conservative is going to stand up and vote no to giving that GST break on numerous commodities to their constituents. They will come up with all sorts of lame excuses as to why they say no. However, before they think about those lame excuses, I will remind them of what Erin O'Toole, the former leader of the Conservative Party, said. He said, “We will remove GST for the month of December on purchases from retail stores to provide immediate relief for cost of living.” This is what the then leader of the Conservative Party said. Interestingly, the current leader of the Conservative Party not only liked the idea but also retweeted Erin O'Toole's tweet. For Conservatives who say they are not on social media, I trust they read their election platform book. If we look on page 51, it talks about a “GST holiday”. On the one hand, the Conservatives are saying it is a bad idea today. On the other, not that long ago, they were telling Canadians that this is what they would do if they were in government. I want members to tell me something: How do we define hypocrisy? One only needs to take a look at this policy or the policy on the price of pollution. The price of pollution was also made reference to earlier today; we had 300-plus Conservative candidates going around to Canadians, just as they did on the GST break. They said that, in December, they were going to give Canadians a GST tax break; by the way, they also supported a price on pollution, which is a carbon tax. The Conservatives supported it. The election came, and we got the Conservatives doing a couple of somersaults or flip-flops on the ideas. Now, all of them say no to the GST break we are trying to provide, which they supported in the last election platform, with their former leader tweeting on the issue. We see that every day. They are going to say no to that; at the same time, they no longer support what they told Canadians in regard to the price on pollution. To add insult to injury, instead of giving that tax break to constituents, they are also going to be cutting the carbon rebates, taking more money out of the pockets of Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that 80% of Canadians have a net gain when it comes to the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax. However, the leader of the Conservative Party has dictated to his minions that they have to say what he is saying; if they do not, they are in trouble. We can ask the member for Abbotsford what happened to him when he went offside after the leader of the Conservative Party said he was going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Where is he nowadays? What role did he play prior to that statement? Conservatives know that if they are not in step with the leader of the Conservative Party, they do not have a place within that Conservative caucus. At the very least, they will be sitting way in the back. There are examples of that.

Madam Speaker, I am here advocating for my constituents, who see a great benefit of having a GST tax break on numerous products during the holiday season. I would like to think that every member, no matter what political party they are from, would recognize the value of giving their constituents a break and, therefore, vote in favour of the legislation. That is the responsible thing to do. The Conservatives—

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. It was an interesting question period today, to say the very least. As we understand, the Conservative caucus, led by its mighty leader, has done yet another flip-flop, one of great consequence, I would suggest. I want to take the opportunity to explain why we are here and why I say we have seen a flip-flop. The reason there is a need for this motion is that the Conservatives have determined they want to enter an area that I would suggest is borderline contempt of Parliament, ultimately preventing the government from dealing with a wide spectrum of issues that would have a positive impact on Canadians. That is a direct result of their multi-million dollar game for the personal benefit of the leader of the Conservative Party. The motion that we are debating is necessary for supporting Canadians. The recent announcement made by the Prime Minister deals in part with the issue of affordability, recognizing, with the holiday season approaching, that the appropriate action to take is to support Canadians with a GST tax holiday on numerous products. Ultimately, every member of the House should vote in favour of that. It would be a very powerful, collective message that every member could take to their constituents. I believe it is a wonderful idea. In fact, I have had the opportunity to express my thoughts on this issue for the last number of days. An interesting fact came up today, and it is important to note it for people following the debate. Especially through social media, the leader of the Conservative Party has downplayed the tax break's significance and is very critical of what we are doing by providing it. The leader of the Conservative Party has made up his mind, and that is a powerful thing for the Conservative caucus, because as members will recall, what made national news last week was the manner in which he has absolute and total control over Conservative members of Parliament. We can read what members of Parliament and Conservatives are saying about their leader. Let me recite a few of the statements. One is from a headline, which starts off by saying, “[the leader of the Conservative Party]'s office maintains tight control over what Conservative MPs say and do”. I will quote from the article, and keep in mind that these are Conservative MPs who are saying this—

Madam Speaker, my feelings are not hurt, because I realize that this particular member likes to call quorum when I am speaking. I do not think he likes hearing the truth. He needs to understand that members of the Conservative caucus are out there speaking. They are talking about a leader that goes around Canada saying that he is going to make Canada a free place, but that does not apply to the Conservative caucus. Here is the story. Here is what Conservative members are saying: “After two years of Pierre Poilievre as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.” The man who—

Madam Speaker, I apologize. The story says, “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.” It goes on, “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.” It goes on extensively. One of my favourite quotes from a Conservative MP shows what Conservatives are saying about their leader: “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself”. It goes on: “The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.” That is the leader of the Conservative—

Madam Speaker, virtually from day one the government has been supportive of our small businesses, going through the pandemic to today. I would encourage members to look at their communities, the restaurants and many other companies that would have a direct economic benefit by this policy. Most important, our constituents, the people who we represent, would be given a bit of a break by our providing this GST break on numerous products at a time like December, because it is the holiday season and purchasing takes place, and January, which is a very difficult time of the year for many people. This is a wonderful thing to do. All of us should be voting unanimously for this legislation. It is disappointing that the Conservatives have abandoned their support of this policy, because they did support it at one time. It was a good idea then, and it is a good idea today.

Madam Speaker, here we are again with private members' hour, which there are very few of nowadays because of what is taking place. I will get to that, but I want to emphasize that this particular private member's bill takes a step backward when it comes to the environment. All political parties, with the exception of the Conservative Party, recognize that our environment matters. Canadians are concerned about our environment, contrary to what the Conservatives might believe. However, interestingly, this is not the first time we have a private member's bill that would not do very much for the environment. When we look at the Conservative Party's approach to the environment, the highlight, as the member opposite just made reference to, is, as he said, to axe the tax. However, the theme behind axing the tax is to attack the price on pollution, and it is a common thing the Conservatives say inside the chamber. There is a reason they do that. Members may recall that, last week, it made national news that Conservative MPs were complaining and providing comment in regard to their “freedom leader no more”, as we found out that the leader of the Conservative Party not only watches very closely what his MPs are saying and doing, but also rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour. I say that because the member opposite just spoke about axing the tax, which is one of their slogans. What do the Conservatives have to say about slogans? I will quote directly from a news article that made headlines yesterday. Here is what Conservative MPs had to say: “If the leader invents a new slogan, ‘we know we'll have to use it’”. Reading further down in the story, it says, again coming from Conservatives, “‘If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded,’ said a Conservative source. ‘You are celebrated in front of the entire caucus for being a good cheerleader.’” If one is in the Conservative caucus, one gets celebrated for repeating the leader of the Conservative Party's slogans. That is why we often hear them saying “axe the tax” and the other slogans, the bumper stickers.

Madam Speaker, it is embarrassing; my colleague is right. Now we have this private member's bill. Anyone who follows Parliament would understand that we do not get to debate private members' bills that often. That is because the leader of the Conservative Party is in essence holding the House of Commons hostage. It is unfortunate, even though I do not think that this particular private member's bill is that great. I believe the member might be trying to get a gold star from his leader, because what he is hoping for is that we allow and encourage plastic use in Canada. I remember the days when I was a member of the Manitoba legislature. The thought at the time was that we encourage people to use fewer plastic bags. We tried to amplify that by talking about how long it takes a plastic bag to disintegrate. Members would be amazed by how long it takes. We are talking many years. The thought was that we should bring in private member's legislation to deal with it, to ban the use of plastic bags, as there are alternatives. I believe I even had support from some Progressive Conservatives. There is a huge difference there: Members should not be confused by the current Conservative Reform Party we see opposite. There are Progressive Conservatives in the Conservative caucus today, just not very many of them. It is the progressive-minded ones who are designated to go to the back or leave caucus. However, there are still ideas there that are tangible and will make a difference. We could google plastic bags and the nuisance and damage they cause to the environment. One of the pictures that come to mind right away is plastic bags in trees that stay there endlessly. When the wind picks up, they get carried into the trees and stay there for a long time. These are the types of things that I believe a vast majority of Canadians are very much sympathetic to. What can we do as a population to improve our economy and our environment? When we watch some of the nature shows, especially anything dealing with water, we see how plastics are harming our environment in many different ways. I made reference to plastic bags in trees. Do members remember the old plastic rings that would hold a case of pop together? We see fish that have been strangled by this plastic item. If we look at storms that come in from the coast, especially in some countries, we see literally hundreds of yards of plastic being washed ashore. If we look at the type of plastic we see when the water recedes, it is a very serious issue, as is the amount of plastic waste we see when we drive out to rural communities. We see different levels of government as well as citizens trying to contribute to cleaning it all up through recycling programs. There are initiatives we can all take, including looking at ways we can ban certain single-use plastics. There is so much potential in what we can introduce, and I suspect a vast majority of Canadians would support it. However, I do not know to what degree we would get wide support for legislation that takes away from the value of protecting our environment from plastics. It seems to me that this is what this legislation is advocating for, which is consistent with what we see from the Conservative Party, as I said when I started to talk about the price on pollution. There was a time when individuals like Erin O'Toole and other Progressive Conservatives saw the value in things like a price on pollution and looking at ways to deal with single-use plastics. That is no more under this particular Conservative Reform Party leader. Instead, we see the far right taking control of the leader of the Conservative Party's office, at a substantial cost to good public policy. We have seen examples of that even today as we talk about the Liberals and the New Democrats wanting to give a GST tax holiday to Canadians on many products. We have the New Democrats and the Liberals saying yes to it, but the Conservatives, who said yes during the last election, are saying no today. It is because of the far-right attitude within the Conservative Party. It is more concerned with Conservative self-interest than about—

Madam Speaker, the member said he is going to be voting against a tax break, the GST holiday. I will quote from the Conservative election platform from when he knocked on doors. Under the heading “GST Holiday” it says, “To help families and help our hard-hit retail stores recover, Canada’s Conservatives will implement a month-long GST holiday”. Ours is two months. The leader at the time, Erin O'Toole, tweeted that it was going to be in December, a GST holiday tax break. The current leader of the Conservative Party retweeted that tweet. I am wondering why the Conservatives have had this road to Damascus turnaround, a huge flip-flop. It was a good idea when the Conservatives made it a part of their election platform, but it is a bad idea now because they do not want to help Canadians.

Madam Speaker, really and truly, Conservatives do not have any shame. We can think about what they actually say they are collectively voting against. They said they believe in a GST holiday. They literally campaigned on that. Not only did their former leader tweet it, but their current leader retweeted it. It was a wonderful, beautiful idea when they campaigned on it, and they made a promise to do what we are actually doing. We are fulfilling one of the commitments they made a couple of years ago. It does not make sense. They are now voting against it. I do not know how members of the Conservative Party can justify breaking a promise that they made to Canadians and that we are actually putting into place, let alone the fact that they are telling their constituents that, sorry, they have to listen to their leader because their leader has told them they have to vote against it. That is the real reason. Does the hon. member really believe that Erin O'Toole and his campaign platform were absolutely worthless? Is that what we can anticipate at the next election?

Madam Speaker, Erin O'Toole got it, so did the 337 other Conservative candidates who ran in the last federal election, including that member. Their election platform said they would do the same thing. Their former leader tweeted that he was going to provide this GST break for the holiday season. The leader of the Conservative Party retweeted the idea. Now, the members seem to express concerns about or give excuses for how they have managed to get themselves into that pretzel twist and turn and flip-flop to justify their vote. The bottom line is they say they want to give a tax break to Canadians, and when it comes right down to a vote, they do the same thing they did when it came to giving a break and cutting the taxes for the middle class: they vote against it. Does the member not see the hypocrisy there?

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is that, as we enter the holiday season, the constituents of members of all political parties in the House are concerned about affordability. I truly believe that by passing this legislation, we are sending a positive message to the constituents we all represent during the holiday season. I do not see, even given the concerns the member has raised, why we would not, at the very least, support our constituents in this way. I personally think it is a very strong, powerful, positive message. It shows that we all care, that we can sympathize and that we want to give our constituents that little extra. Why would the member not support that idea in principle?

Mr. Speaker, we are going to unveil the hypocrisy within the Conservative Party. Imagine, the Conservatives know no shame. They actually campaigned in the last election, every one of them, to have a GST tax break for the holiday season. Their leader actually endorsed it by retweeting what Erin O'Toole tweeted. Then, when it comes time to actually vote in favour of a tax cut for Canadians, what are they going to do? Let us wait and see. My money says that they are going to vote against it. How do we define hypocrisy? I say that they need to reflect and look in the mirror on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am disappointed in the Bloc, because what we see is what I would suggest is an unholy alliance between the double blue, where we have the Bloc siding with the Conservatives, not recognizing the true value of giving constituents throughout the country a holiday GST tax break. Giving the impression that her constituents would not support the tax break, I believe, is not fully the truth. At the end of the day, I believe people deserve it. Providing that holiday GST tax break would be a good thing, and we should all be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, we all have an opportunity to do something very positive for our constituents. We know things have been difficult, and we are providing them a significant tax break for the holiday period. As the member said, it is a difficult decision for her. However, at the end of the day, how do we say no to constituents and to providing them a bit of support during the holidays? The member made reference to restaurants. For restaurants and those working in that hospitality industry, it is going to have such a wonderful, positive impact. I think February 15 is the deadline. February 14 is Valentine's Day, and we know that is a busy time. There will be many different benefits. Could the member tell us to what degree it would have been better to see all members of the House support an initiative like this?

Mr. Speaker, the self-serving multi-million dollar political game continues. My question to the member is related to the member's statement about individuals within the Conservative caucus having the power in a democratic system to say something. Here is a news headline: “[The leader of the Conservative Party]'s office maintains tight control over what Conservative MPs say and do.” Conservative MPs are saying this, off the record of course. Referring to the Leader of the Conservative Party, they say, “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself...The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.” Today, we introduced legislation that would give a GST tax holiday to Canadians. The member does not have to speak on behalf of the leader of the Conservative Party because we already know the leader is voting against Bill C-78. My question is, will the member make a commitment to give a tax break to his constituents and vote yes on Bill C-78?

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bay of Quinte, representing the Conservative Party, says it does not matter what the RCMP has to say. This is what the RCMP says about the Conservative idea: “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” The Conservatives' response is that it does not matter what the RCMP has to say; after all, their own self-serving leader wants to endlessly debate this multi-million dollar privilege motion. Who cares about Canadians or the RCMP? Of course it matters what the RCMP has to say. Will the member opposite do the honourable thing and retract that bizarre statement?

Madam Speaker, the motion that members are debating says we are supposed to take the issue and, instead of debating it, send it to PROC. This is a Conservative motion. The moment the Conservatives stop speaking on the motion, it will go to PROC, as the motion suggests. The member opposite should be congratulated. She has just given the 200th Conservative speech in this multi-million dollar filibuster. The Conservatives' arguments are absolutely bogus. The issue should be going to PROC. They are doing a great disservice to Canadians. Does the member support the legislation we introduced today, Bill C-78, to give a GST tax break to Canadians for the holiday season?

Madam Speaker, it is a bit much to hear the member say that, when we know that there are Conservative MPs who have been very clear in saying, even though they wanted to be anonymous when they were saying it, that the leader of the Conservative Party is “the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself ... The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.” Today, for example, we brought forward legislation, Bill C-78, that is going to give a GST holiday on many products. I am wondering if the member will wait until her leader tells her how to vote on this legislation or if she will vote the way she feels her constituents want her to vote. I believe that would be to vote yes for Bill C-78 to give Canadians a bit of a tax break for the holiday season. Would she not agree that would be good?

Madam Speaker, I have a book that clearly shows 70 actual scandals and abuses of power when the member's leader was involved with Stephen Harper. In fact, this is one I find really interesting: “Harper Found in Contempt of Parliament”. That is while her leader was Harper's parliamentary secretary. There is also, of course, contempt of Parliament. Fast-forward to today, and the Leader of the Conservative Party, as the leader of an opposition party, is in borderline contempt of Parliament because of a multi-million dollar game. That is all we are witnessing from the Conservative Party. When will the current Leader of the Conservative Party start paying more respect to Canadians and stop the multi-million dollar abuse of power and contempt of Parliament?

Madam Speaker, in my first question, I talked about how scandalous the leader of the Conservative Party has been during his time in government. Let me amplify how things have not changed. He is the only leader in the House of Commons who refuses to get the security clearance. There have been people murdered in the streets. We have all sorts of issues regarding foreign interference, and he says that he does not want to get a security clearance. Why is that? The leader of the Conservative Party does not have the courage to come forward and say that there is something in his past that he is hiding, and he does not have the courage to come forward and tell Canadians what it is. Will the member tell and encourage her leader to get that security clearance?

Madam Speaker, I look at it as a holiday tax break from the GST on a number of products, which is a positive thing for Canadians coast to coast to coast. What surprises me is that the Conservative Party's response seems to be not only that they are going to be voting against this legislation but that they also want to get rid of the carbon rebate. That would really hurt the constituents of Winnipeg North, as I suspect it would hurt 80% of Canada's population. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the Conservative Party of Canada, under the leadership of the leader of the Conservative Party, has decided to vote against a tax break for the holiday season on a number of products, a way to assist Canadians in every region of the country. The Conservatives are doubling down. Instead of giving that tax break during the holiday season, they are telling 80% of my constituents, in fact millions of Canadians, that they will also get rid of the carbon rebate, which is going to take more money away from constituents. Why is the leader of the Conservative Party being the grinch of Christmas and not allowing Canadians to at least have some relief during the holiday season?

Madam Speaker, this legislation affords members of Parliament of all political parties a look at how we can give a bit of a tax break by saying that during the holiday season, for two months, Canadians do not have to pay the GST on a number of products. I would have thought members of all political parties would reflect positively on this particular motion. I am a little but not overly surprised that the Conservatives are voting against it. However, listening to the member opposite, it sounds like the Bloc is going to be joining the Conservatives in voting against it. Would the member not recognize that during the holiday season, given what Canadians have had to endure, even though we have done relatively better than virtually any other country in the world, it is a good thing to give them that bit of a break, even if it is just for two months? Why would he not support it?

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed that the Bloc would move such as amendment. I guess their relationship grows closer with the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, this legislation would give a GST tax break to Canadians on a wide variety of products. That would be a wonderful thing to take place for two months during the holiday season. I understand the Conservatives have said that they are going to vote against it. Now we have the Bloc that seems to want to put it off and take the risk of Canadians not receiving this tax break during the holiday season. Why does the Bloc party not want the people of Quebec and all Canadians to receive at least some sort of a holiday relief? Does she not believe the people of Quebec deserve some relief during the holiday season?

Madam Speaker, like my colleague across the way, I am a bit surprised that today's far right Conservatives have made the decision to vote against this legislation. It would appear as if the Bloc is going to do likewise. This legislation would at the very least, and I know the NDP will want to do more, provide some tax relief from the GST. I want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to pharmacare. Like him, I am very passionate about it. Fortunately, between the Liberals and the New Democrats, we were able to come up with legislation. One of the fears I have is that a future Conservative government would get rid of the pharmacare program, when in fact we should be looking at ways we can expand it, to include things like shingles, for example. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the fear factor of the Conservatives' hidden agenda that would not only not support pharmacare but look at getting rid of it in some form or another.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this very important issue. I want to start by focusing on the issue first, and then I will go into some of the motivations for having this particular debate. I for one am a very big fan of multiculturalism and the fact that Canada is a bilingual nation. With a name like Lamoureux, I can assure members that I have a very strong passion and belief in how important it is that Canada continues to promote and encourage being a bilingual nation. I thought I would give a bit of a reflection on what went wrong with my family in regard to the French language. My ancestors have been in Canada for generations. Many years ago, they went from the province of Quebec to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. During the 1950s, the French language was not very well received in certain parts of the Prairies. In this case, my grandmother on my mom's side, with the last name of Lambert and Pasquis, discouraged my mother from learning French. In fact, she never spoke it at home; my mother was told never to speak French, only English. That was in rural Saskatchewan during the 1950s. My father, in contrast, was raised in a family in which they spoke French fluently. Before living in Winnipeg, my family was in St-Pierre-Jolys in rural Manitoba, which is still a strong French community today, along with St. Boniface. However, because of the disconnect during the 1960s, one would say that women's rights were not as great as they are today, so my mom was the one who raised us. She never spoke French in the household. We never had the opportunity to learn French, which is unfortunate. I would argue that French is spoken in the Prairies today to the degree that it is because of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He believed in Canada as a bilingual nation. Through that belief, we started to see programming in our school and educational systems that promoted and encouraged speaking French. I still remember, in my earlier childhood, when French was not well received, particularly on the Prairies, by a good majority of people. That has changed in such a positive and encouraging way. I would date it back to the 1970s, when we had a solid commitment from the national government, saying that it wanted French spoken across the country. We needed to recognize the uniqueness of the province of Quebec and its culture and heritage, as well as to ensure that French was also spoken outside Quebec. Fast-forwarding to today, I can go into a number of schools in Winnipeg North and see people of Punjabi or Filipino heritage who can speak Punjabi, English and French. It is the same thing when we hear of children who are nine or 10 years old speaking Tagalog, French and English, as well as how popular the French language is as a respected language after one or two generations. It has changed. Today, there are more people speaking French in Canada than ever, and I would suggest that the number will continue to grow. As I said, I will look to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the policy decisions he made back then as the root of this. Policy decisions matter; they make a difference, and that is why I posed the question in regard to CBC and Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada is very unique in the sense of the French language and the promotion thereof, not to mention CBC on the national scene and the important role it has to play. The leader of the Conservative Party, more than any other leader in the House of Commons, has a personal vendetta against CBC. Let us not kid ourselves. I have talked about the Tory, the Conservative-Reform hidden agenda, and we saw it in the question I had posed. We should not believe for a moment that the Conservatives look at Radio-Canada as something they would not make cuts to. When I posed the question previously, the member talked about whether we should be financing and so forth. He did not jump to the defence of Radio-Canada, let alone CBC. Just yesterday, I quoted a CBC story to one of my colleagues. I quoted from a story being reported, and it happened to be CBC's story. It was a very serious quote that I gave to the member opposite. His response to it was that it was CBC, and he sat down. Conservatives do not have any respect for that national newscast. For the Canadians who might be following this debate, the Conservatives actually stopped participating in political panels in regard to CTV. I do not know if they are back at it, but I was attending both CBC and CTV political panels not that long ago, and the Conservatives were nowhere to be found. They look at these institutions with a genuine lack of respect. It is coming from the leader of the Conservative Party. Why is that important? I will go to some quotes. A wonderful story came out in regard to what is happening within the Conservative caucus. Here is how the story started off. Is it any wonder that people should be concerned about the Conservative Party of Canada, particularly the leader, and its attitudes towards the CBC? The story is all about Conservatives and Conservative MPs who are concerned about the leader of the Conservative Party. They are being quoted; they do not want to use their names. If they use their names, they will be punished. This is from a number of sources, not just one or two, but many sources in terms of the making up of this story.