Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, one member says it is made up. This reinforces the attitude we heard yesterday, that CBC has no credibility from the Conservative Party's perspective. Canadians would disagree, especially if we factor in that it is not only CBC. CBC 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. 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. When we talk about Radio One and the French language, this is why the people of Quebec, and in fact the people of all of Canada, should be concerned. We should remember that this is a pet peeve of the leader of the Conservative Party. It is a personal, vindictive attitude that he has toward CBC, and he wants it defunded. Here is what Conservatives are actually saying about their leader: “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.” This is not me saying it and it is not CBC; it is reliable, numerous sources that have been canvassed in regard to the Conservatives and Conservative members of Parliament. That is why I say that public policy at the national level matters. The French language today is spoken more than it ever has been, and it is because of a national government. It was a government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau that had a vision of Canada, and we are realizing the results of that vision today. This is why I wanted to be able to address it by using me as an example. If only the policy would have been in place during the 1950s and going into the 1960s, I suspect I would be addressing the House in French as opposed to in English right now. I would suggest that this is why we need to be aware of the fact of what is behind the motivation and the hidden agenda of the far-right Conservative Party today. That is something I would like to encourage all Canadians to get an understanding of: who it is that the leader of the Conservative Party is. We often talk about the cuts, and those cuts can easily be substantiated in terms of the allegations that are coming from this side, and not only from Liberals. We also see them from members of the Bloc, as well as the Greens and the New Democrats, all of whom are expressing concerns about the types of cuts the Conservative Party of Canada is actually talking about. I said I wanted to speak a bit about the motivation, because that is a very important aspect of why we are actually using this particular concurrence report for debate today. Look at the report itself. It is not very complicated; it is pretty straightforward. This is what the Conservative Party wanted to debate today: “That the committee report to the House its deep condemnation of the CBC using a Paris-based audio studio to record a podcast, choosing it over a Quebecois-based recording studio to avoid the Quebec accent.” I share the concern that is being expressed in the report. I would like to think that all members would share in that concern, but it begs the question of why the Conservative Party would move this particular motion today. There are literally hundreds of motions on the tabling of reports that could in fact be brought forward, yet the Conservatives singled it out as the one they wanted to debate today. We should ask ourselves why it is doing that. I cannot recall the Conservative Party ever, in years, using an opposition day motion to talk about the French language. If it is such an important issue, why has it not done that? It has not once that I can recall; if I am wrong, members can please stand up and let me know. I suspect I am not. Maybe 10 or 12 years ago it might have; I do not know 100%. I found out just 30 minutes ago that the Conservatives have decided to talk about this particular issue, so do not try to be misled, and I say this whether to the people of Quebec or Canadians as a whole who have a passion and care about French language and want to ensure its preservation, promotion and growth. These things are not going to come from the Conservative Party of Canada; they are going to come from a continuation of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the type of policies that we have brought forward as a Liberal government. I very much want to see the Conservative Party actually take a look at how they are playing such a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons. It is truly amazing. In fairness to the Conservative members, I can appreciate, based on the story, that they do not really have much of a choice. They have to follow what the leader tells them to do, and there are a number of quotes I can use. Tomorrow is caucus day, so the Conservatives need to start holding their own leader to account. What are we at now? It is six weeks and counting of the Conservative filibuster. The Conservatives try to pass the blame. They say to do this and do that and then we will be able to do government business. That is just not true. The filibuster is a multi-million dollar game in order to support the self-interest of the Conservative leader. That is what this is all about, and at the end of the day, I would suggest that we need to recognize that this is the very same leader who orchestrated Stephen Harper's being found in contempt of Parliament. The game we are witnessing day in and day out from the Conservative Party today is not only a massive waste of financial resources but it is also preventing substantive debates from being able to occur. The leader of the Conservative Party is putting his personal interests ahead of the interests of Canadians, and that needs to stop. I would like to introduce an amendment. I move that the motion be subamended by deleting all the words after the words “so as to recommend that the government” and substituting the following: “expresses its deep concern for the Conservative Party of Canada's threat to cut all funding to CBC and Radio-Canada, which would leave millions of Canadians living in official language minority communities without reliable news coverage in their language of choice.” It is a good amendment and I hope all members will be voting for it. We will be watching the Conservatives in particular.

Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that we have Conservatives who truly want to believe that they are in a better position to negotiate a trade agreement; in fact, they were the first to capitulate in the last go-round with President-elect Trump. As much as the member opposite tries to give the false impression that Canada is broken, when it comes to foreign investment, where people are placing their money, Canada was number one in the G7 and number three in the world on a per capita basis. The Liberal government has generated over double the number of jobs that Stephen Harper did in the same time span. That was attributed, in good part, to the record number of free trade agreements that the government has signed off on, far outnumbering the trade agreements with the Conservatives. Why should Canadians believe that the Conservatives have a chance at negotiating a fair deal for Canadians when they have demonstrated capitulation?

Madam Speaker, Canadians in all regions of the country are very much aware that the leader of the Conservative Party does not like the CBC, and I would suggest that is in all regions and includes Radio-Canada. However, we have had no clear indications about that from the Conservatives, other than their machete-holding leader wanting to cut wherever he sees fit, one of those cuts being to broadcasting. On the one hand, the Conservatives are trying to say they are defenders of the French language, but on the other hand, the CBC, and in particular Radio-Canada in the province of Quebec, is going to be cut by the Conservatives. I am wondering how members of the Conservative Party can justify the type of discussions they want to have today, which are based on their genuine lack of respect for CBC Canada, period. Canadians know that; that is the Conservative agenda. Can the member expand on why the Conservatives do not feel that Radio-Canada has a role to play?

Madam Speaker, that is why I read the very short motion that came out of it. It raises a great deal of concern. I am offended by the fact. I want to go back to the article that I think has really upset a number of Conservatives, because what has now become public is the attitude taken by the leader of the Conservative Party on how he chooses to punish people. What is interesting is another quote, and hopefully I will get more opportunities, which states, “Some elected officials feel they come to caucus ‘to be told what to do and what to think’”. I suspect they have been instructed what to think and say even on the CBC file.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost I believe that as a Liberal Party institution, the Liberal Party understands, appreciates and values the many contributions made in the different jurisdictions across Canada. However, I would emphasize that in the province of Quebec, protecting the French language and ensuring that there is a culture and a heritage that is truly unique in Quebec is not only supported but enhanced. I have had the opportunity to witness many things the national government has done. With respect to the manner in which the member stands and speaks in the House, I truly wish I would have been raised with the language. I have attempted to learn it. For me it is a bit more of a challenge; I realize I am turning 63. I do know the odd word. Having said that, it does not take away from how strongly and passionately I believe in the importance of the French language and the French culture and heritage factor that Quebec shares not only throughout our great nation but also, I would suggest, with the world. That is one of the reasons I call into question the issue of Paris.

Madam Speaker, I believe in the CBC, both TV and radio, and how, more and more, the CBC is moving to the Internet. I see that as a very strong, positive thing. I believe the federal government needs to continue to support it. At the very least, regarding board members, all individuals appointed to boards at the federal level need to reflect on the service they should be providing and act accordingly for any form of performance bonuses, end of story. It is as simple as that. On funding our national media, I believe it is absolutely critical for CBC TV and radio.

Madam Speaker, one may be unilingual, bilingual or speak numerous languages, but for all intents and purposes, French and English are our two official languages. Members should be able to speak whichever one they choose to and not be discriminated against in any way whatsoever for doing so. As I have indicated before, I truly wish that I was able to deliver some speeches in French, but it is a capability issue for me. I speak English because that is, quite frankly, my only option.

Madam Speaker, I will always argue that we should have a special focus on Quebec French and its unique accent. It is one of the things that adds to the very character and heritage of the province of Quebec, and one of its many contributions. When we think of the province of Quebec, we should not be limiting our thoughts to the French language because the province of Quebec contributes so much more to Canada's well-being, beyond the beautiful French Quebec language.

Madam Speaker, I agree with much of what the Bloc member has said. Like him, I am genuinely concerned about what the leader of the Conservative Party is attempting to do by bringing forward this motion. As members are aware, I moved a subamendment. I wanted to get the Conservatives on the record. It states that the House “expresses its deep concern for the Conservative Party of Canada's threat to cut all funding to CBC and Radio-Canada, which would leave millions of Canadians living in official language minority communities without reliable news coverage in their language of choice.” We cannot help but notice that they were kind of edgy and that they really did not want to have a vote that would incorporate that sort of position. Could my colleague provide his thoughts with respect to getting the Conservatives to, at the very least, acknowledge that CBC and Radio-Canada have such an important role in our communities?

Madam Speaker, I am wondering what the member thinks about how the Conservative Party has targeted not only the CBC, but at times and quite often CTV. One of the best illustrations I can think of off-hand is the Conservatives' lack of willingness to participate in political panels. The last time I participated in a CBC and CTV panel, there was a New Democratic representative, but the Conservatives do not feel they want to contribute. Rather, they discredit the mainstream media in favour of supporting social media, which is in essence spreading a great deal of misinformation through what many would suggest, including me, are further-right organizations that have a vested interest in propping up the Conservative Party or spreading misinformation. Could the member provide his thoughts on that? It is not a healthy situation for our democracy, especially when we think of defunding the CBC, which the leader of the Conservative Party is talking about doing.

Mr. Speaker, the motion asks to have the issue go before PROC. That is what the member should be talking about. What he chose to talk about instead is a motion in which the House says that it wants documents collected, unredacted, and sent directly to the RCMP. The Conservatives are upset because we are listening to what the RCMP is saying. We are listening to what the Auditor General of Canada is saying and other legal experts. The Conservatives have overreached here. That is the bottom line. Let me quote a law expert, referring to the multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives are playing at great expense in many ways. Here is a quote from Steven Chaplin, former legal counsel: It is time for the House of Commons to admit it was wrong, and to move on. There has now been three weeks of debate on a questionable matter of privilege based on the misuse of the House’ power to order producing documents.... Why should we listen to the self-serving leader of the Conservative Party over the RCMP, the Auditor General and other legal counsel?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member expresses the future of Radio-Canada, that we should not be taking it for granted. If the Conservatives defund CBC, as they have said they would, that would follow. At the very least, Canadians need to be aware that this is a very serious issue, if we believe in public broadcasting and the independence of journalists. Doing investigative reporting and other reporting, something to counter social media, for example, is absolutely critical for our democracy. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members who speak should qualify their introductory remarks by indicating very clearly that the leader of the Conservative Party, for many years, has wanted to defund the CBC. Let us be very clear on that point. We can take a look at a recent CBC news article, where Conservatives, referring to the leader of the Conservative Party, are saying, “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.” However, his vision is to get rid of the CBC. From my perspective, institutions such as the CBC, CTV and Global play a very important role in our democratic system. Would the member not recognize that there is value in having a publicly supported CBC?

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I present a petition in regard to international flights. The petitioners are asking for the House of Commons and others, whether they be members of Parliament, private industry, different airlines or levels of government, to take a look at just how important it is to recognize the growth of our Indo-Canadian community and the increased demand for more direct traffic between Canada and India or, at least, Europe. In particular, this petition is with respect to Winnipeg North. The petitioners hope they will see direct flights going from Winnipeg to India.

Mr. Speaker, I would like a clarification of the rules. When members want to get the attention of the Speaker, my understanding is that they are to stand in their place and the Speaker will acknowledge them. The leader of the Conservative Party has been standing in his place for quite a while and has not been recognized. If he is standing on a point of order, in defence of the leader of the Conservative Party, he should be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, just so the member clearly understands, what I am saying is that 10 years from now, if we have a majority Conservative government and that majority government takes action that goes against the Charter of Rights or the Constitution, I will always oppose the abuse of power. That is what we see day in, day out already, and he is only the leader of the Conservative Party. We see the dictatorship-type mentality when he tells his Conservative caucus members that they are being monitored and followed, that reports are going back and that they get a gold star if they say what the Conservative Party wants them to say. Yes, I will call out a Conservative Party any time it abuses power.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to 10 years from now when we might see a Conservative prime minister travelling the country in a horse and buggy. I am sure members can appreciate that, for the Prime Minister, and for any prime minister, there is an obligation to board airplanes. How much longer can we anticipate that the Conservative Party will continue to play this self-serving political game, at a substantial cost, because of the self-serving leader of the Conservative Party? How many more days are we going to see this abuse of authority?

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order, or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 later this day, no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Madam Speaker, the majority of members of Parliament want this issue to go to PROC. That is the motion we are debating today. The member knows that. However, he wants to talk about a report and a specific motion that was dealt with six months ago or so. That report says we are to give all the documents we have collected directly to the RCMP. The RCMP has said no, it does not want them. It would potentially be against charter rights, something we should be concerned about. Why should the government listen to a Conservative leader who is more interested in his personal self-interest, in advancing the Conservative Party, than in what the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and other legal experts are saying? At times, I would suggest, the leader of the Conservative Party is in borderline contempt of Parliament.

Madam Speaker, I really believe the member is somewhat confused. The motion we are debating, if the Conservatives actually stopped talking, is to have the issue they want to talk about go to the procedure and House affairs committee. Instead of allowing that vote to take place, the leader of the Conservative Party insists we play this multi-million dollar self-serving game at great expense to Canadians so we cannot debate other issues that are critically important to Canadians. Does the member not agree we should follow the Conservative motion, allow it to come to a vote and have the issue go to PROC? That was the ruling of the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite actually used the RCMP as a source to reference in making his speech. Members might allow me to do the same. Regarding the documents that the Conservative Party wants us to give directly to the RCMP, the RCMP commissioner responded, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” That is coming from the RCMP. We also have the Auditor General and other legal experts. Let us realize what the Conservatives are asking the government to do. They are saying to disregard what the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and the other legal experts are saying and, by the way, listen to the all-hailed leader of the Conservative Party, who has a self-interest in this issue. They want us to believe the Conservatives. I refuse to do so. I will listen to the RCMP, the Auditor General and other legal experts. Why will the member not do likewise and reinforce that those are the institutions that we should at least be listening to regarding the motion?

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to say that when the member starts to give a false narrative that somehow the Conservatives are not to blame for this filibuster, I think it is really unfortunate and definitely misleading. Let us be real here. We have had close to 200 speeches delivered by the Conservatives and numerous concurrence reports brought in by the Conservatives, all in an attempt to filibuster the House. The motion we are debating says that the issue needs to be advanced to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is the Speaker's ruling, and that is the motion that was introduced by the Conservatives. The Conservative Party of Canada, in the self-interest of the leader of the Conservative Party, is playing this irresponsible multi-million dollar game. To try to give an impression, in any fashion whatsoever, that it is not the Conservative Party that is to pay for this particular irresponsible behaviour is wrong, outright wrong. Would the member not agree, at least, that it is a Conservative motion that we are actually debating, and that it is the Conservatives who put up speaker after speaker after speaker? It is a false argument to try to express anything otherwise.

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the fact that there has been a filibuster taking place. What she did not talk about is that there are 180 Conservatives who have taken the opportunity to speak. There are maybe three or four Liberals who have actually spoken on the issue. The Conservative Party wants us to believe, listen to and follow the leader of the Conservative Party. The government wants to be able to recognize and follow the advice from the RCMP, the Auditor General and legal experts. The question I have for the member is this: Why should we listen to the Conservatives and their AI-produced speeches, more often than not, unfortunately, along with the propaganda that they are giving, versus the RCMP, the Auditor General and other legal experts?

Madam Speaker, as a general rule, the Conservatives are often found missing in action when it comes to dealing with the issue of trade. Let me give some examples. Today, they had to follow the NDP lead in getting an emergency debate on the issue. Getting down to the nuts and bolts of the issue of trade with the United States, the first thing the Conservatives did the last time, when things got a little bit difficult, was to capitulate. In essence, they said we should give the Americans whatever it took to get an agreement. As a government, we have done this before with President-elect Trump. We will be able to do it again by using a team of experts, who I would suggest are the best trade negotiators in the world, from within our civil service. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts about the quality of the individuals that Canada has to offer in negotiating good trade agreements for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I believe that diversification of trade is critically important to all Canadians, which is one of the reasons we were very anxious, along with Ukraine, to actually have a Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. It was something that was widely respected and applauded, with the exception of the Conservatives of course, both in Canada and in Ukraine, as both countries benefited. However, there is more potential out there. For example, I would like to see more trade relations with Canada and the Philippines, an area in which, in early December, we are going to be spending more time on. I am wondering whether the member can pick up on the importance of diversity, and Canada's diversifying its trading opportunities, because we are very much a trading nation.

Mr. Speaker, one could easily talk about how the defence spending of the leader of the Conservative Party, while a member of cabinet, was the lowest as a percentage GDP. That is a relatively minor but significant point that I would say to the leader of the Conservative Party. The Deputy Prime Minister, in 10 minutes, talked about a team Canada approach and talked about stakeholders. Let me remind individuals following the debate that the Donald Trump issue is very serious for Canada. We have the experience. We have demonstrated that. When negotiations got tough in the last go-around, the Conservative Party, with its current leader, capitulated and said to just make a deal. We said we were going to make a deal that is in the best interests of Canadians. Now he wants to flip-flop. Why should Canadians have any trust in the Conservative leader regarding trade negotiations with the United States given their importance?

Mr. Speaker, one thing I noticed, and the member might also have noticed it, was the contrast between the speeches delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Conservative leader. The Deputy Prime Minister's speech was more of a discussion and an explanation of a team Canada approach for dealing with the trade negotiations. It is in the best interest of all Canadians that our approach considers all the different sectors, including supply management. I agree with the member opposite; I would have loved to see the filibustering stop. In particular, one issue is that supply management in the Senate is being filibustered by Conservative senators. The Conservative leader seemed to say in his speech, “Not to worry, it is all about me.” He says he will resolve it all, yet he was so quick to capitulate the last time around and did not place Canada first. Could the hon. member provide his thoughts on this contrast?

Mr. Speaker, in the last nine years we have seen many trade agreements signed off on. In fact, no government in the history of Canada has signed off on as many trade agreements with other countries as this government. We have even had a trade agreement signed off with president-elect Trump previously. During the negotiations for that particular agreement, when it really came down and started to get difficult, we had the now leader of the Conservative Party say to capitulate, to just sign it, to get an agreement, because he was panicking. At the time, we said, no, we are going to continue to get the best deal for Canadians. We continued the negotiations. Why should Canadians have any confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party when, the moment he started to panic, he was prepared to capitulate and give whatever it took to the United States? Why should they have any trust or confidence in that leader?

Madam Speaker, the member was here when his leader spoke on this issue, and he talked about military spending. He was very critical of the government today for not hitting the 2% mark. Yet, the member who just spoke was a part of the Harper government. The leader of the Conservative Party was in the Harper government cabinet. The lowest we have had in the last decade was, in fact, when the leader of the Conservative Party was in cabinet, in terms of percentage of the GDP. It actually fell below 1%. That amplifies one of the reasons we just cannot believe what the leader of the Conservative Party is telling Canadians. Listen to what he said in the House and contrast that to what he actually did. How can one believe him?

Madam Speaker, the member spoke in regard to the percentage of the GDP. I can tell the member that, for the last four years in which Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the highest percentage of the GDP was actually lower than our lowest amount of spending as a percentage of the GDP. In fact, the Conservatives were so bad under today's leader of the Conservative Party that they were actually less than 1%. Now, the Conservatives want to come across as if they believe in investing in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is a joke. All one needs to do is take a look at the Conservatives' last four years in government. Does the member not recognize the hypocrisy of the leader of the Conservative Party regarding his position on that issue alone?

Madam Speaker, after listening to many Conservatives talk about the issue of trade, I will note that previously, during round one of trade negotiations with the United States, when there was not that much pressure, we witnessed the Conservatives capitulate. In essence, they said it did not matter and to give the Americans whatever they wanted, doing so to sign off on a trade agreement. The government disagreed and continued to have those discussions, and ultimately we were able to deliver a much more substantive trade agreement with the United States as a result. We did not have to capitulate like the leader of the Conservative Party wanted us to. Why does the hon. member believe that his leader would not do the same thing he did a few years ago and just capitulate, giving whatever the United States wants in order to sign off on an agreement? We have demonstrated that we—

Madam Speaker, no government in the history of Canada has actually signed off on more trade agreements than this government. That is just a fact. Now we are having to do a second Trump trade agreement. The most recent trade agreement was between Canada and Ukraine. The Conservatives voted against it. Every other political party voted in favour of it, and just the Conservatives voted against it. When it came to the last United States trade agreement, they capitulated and wanted to give everything away. Why should Canadians trust the leader of the Conservative Party today, when he finds it so easy to throw away important opportunities for Canadians? I would suggest he is not putting Canada first.

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party was part of a cabinet with Stephen Harper that made serious, severe cuts to Canada border control. We are talking well over a thousand jobs, millions of dollars, and then they wonder why some of the problems occurred after that butchering of the department by the Conservative Party. Can the member provide his thoughts in regard to why those cuts were made?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue for all Canadians in every region of our country. I thought maybe a good way to start it off would be to talk about the per capita foreign investment that we witnessed in 2023, where we saw that Canada, on a per capita basis, was number one out of all the G7 countries. In fact, if we take a look at all the countries around the world, we actually placed number three. That is important because it speaks volumes about where investors are looking to invest, and Canada is a prime destination for foreign international investment. One of the reasons for that is that they see in Canada an environment that values trade. As I indicated earlier, no government in the history of our nation has signed off on more trade agreements with other countries than this government has. We understand the true value of international trade. And as the weeks and months go on, what we will be seeing is a great deal more discussion about trade between Canada and the United States because of the re-election of Donald Trump to the office of president. That will take effect, as members are very much aware, in January 2025. I would like to emphasize that, when one takes a look at the first round of negotiations, one needs to reflect on the role the Conservatives played in opposition when the trade discussions between Canada and the United States got a little tense. The Conservatives and their leader—

Madam Speaker, with regard to the point of order, I believe the member is fair in his assessment. If the Conservatives truly believed in the issue they wanted to debate this evening as an emergency debate, one would think they would be fully engaged, yet it is the absolute opposite. Having said that, we take the issue seriously, and that is why we need to consider how the Conservatives behaved in the last go-around. I am very concerned about Canadian jobs and the impact of the negotiations on the ultimate renewed trade agreement, which will eventually have to come into being. If the Conservatives were to have their way, they, and in particular this leader, have already demonstrated how quick they are to capitulate and give the Americans whatever they might desire in order to have a signed trade agreement. We have clearly demonstrated, on the other hand, through the last nine years, that we know how to get it done and that we have the civil servants, the political will and the desire to get trade agreements done, and for a very good reason. I can take a look at exports in my home province of Manitoba and talk about things that are maybe not well known, such as pharmaceuticals. Manitoba exports a lot of pharmaceuticals. We can talk about wheat, canola, pork, potatoes, agricultural machinery or our mining industry. Manitoba is a leading bus manufacturer in North America. In fact, I can recall reading press statements about buses being sold to New York and many other states. These are the types of things that generate real, tangible jobs. Manitoba's pork industry is an industry I have talked a great deal about in the past because it is a great example. There are literally thousands of direct jobs for people, from hog farms to processing plants, whether it is HyLife in Neepawa, Maple Leaf in Brandon or in Winnipeg, or others. There are thousands of direct jobs, not to mention thousands of indirect jobs. There were eight million hogs last year. This industry contributes a great deal to the province. What we apply to Manitoba can be applied to every province. Exports matter and they make a difference. They contribute to Canada's middle class in a real and tangible way. The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians back in 2015 to work hard in developing, supporting and increasing Canada's middle class. We did that in a number of different ways, including building a healthier infrastructure by spending record amounts of money, investing in Canadians and ultimately signing off on these trade agreements. We took a trade deficit situation from Stephen Harper and turned it into, on the positive side, a trade surplus. We looked at ways to enhance trading opportunities, which helps build that healthier middle class. There are so many opportunities. Earlier this year, I was with the Minister of Agriculture in Manila, Philippines, where we opened up a trade office. One of the events I attended was at a local grocery store in Manila that had a profile of the many Canadian products on the shelves for sale. It was an impressive number of products. The manager said that Canadian products were in high demand. However, there is so much more potential. We also talked about other aspects of our agricultural industries at the trade office. Early in December, in the next week or so, I will be back in Manila with the Minister of International Trade to look at ways to enhance trade opportunities between Canada and the Philippines, two great nations. There are opportunities for both countries. We cannot underestimate the value of trade between Canada and the U.S. I thought it was very telling how the Deputy Prime Minister started off her comments earlier today when she addressed the House. She said: Canada is the largest export market for the United States in the world. It is larger than China, Japan, the United Kingdom and France combined. It is also the case that the things we sell to the United States are the things it really needs. We sell the United States oil, electricity and critical minerals and metals Canada is essential to the United States' domestic energy supply. Last year, 60% of U.S. crude oil imports originated in Canada, and the energy the United States imports from Canada is more important today than ever, at a time when we see how hungry AI is for energy and how important AI is in the economic vision of the new U.S. administration She went on to talk about team Canada and listening to the different stakeholders. However, what do we get from the leader of the Conservative Party when it is his time to shine on the trade issue? He says the Prime Minister is just having a Zoom meeting, belittling that Zoom meeting. The Prime Minister is actually having a Zoom meeting with the premiers of Canada, the first ministers of the provinces and territories. I see that as a positive thing. It is nice to see one member across the way, even though he is not necessarily a Conservative member. I appreciate members of the Bloc filling some of the seats. Having said that—

Madam Speaker, my point is that, whether it is the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister or Liberal MPs in general, we go around and talk about Canada being the best country in the world to call home. We are proud of that fact. Conservative members of Parliament, led by the leader of the Conservative Party, across Canada and in the chamber, proclaim that Canada is broken. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to talk about how Canada has opportunities to continue to grow and to expand our economy to continue to build a healthier middle class in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, where does one start? There is so much misinformation compacted into 20 minutes, and it is echoed in the social media throughout the country by unethical characters. I will not say from which political party, but there are unethical characters who continue through social media to espouse all sorts of misinformation. First and foremost, let me assure the member that Canada is not broken. Canada, in comparison to any other country in the world is the best country to call home, whether the Conservative Party wants to believe that or not. That is up to them. What we are supposed to be debating today is a Conservative motion that would have the issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is the ruling of the Speaker. Conservatives can twist and bend it all they want, but that is the ruling. If we want to talk about cowardice and disclosure of information, just take a look at Stephen Harper and his parliamentary secretary, the current leader of the Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker, to highlight the word “hypocrisy”, members should read what the member across the way just said about freedom. While they are at it, they should read the CBC article that talks about what Conservative MPs from within their own caucus had to say. It states: After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party], many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival. 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 member talks about freedom, but in reality, his leader has said that it does not apply to Conservative members of Parliament. Does he not see any hypocrisy there?

Madam Speaker, I have two quick points. We heard a fairly significant rant about crime, as if under Conservative regimes no crime exists in Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know that, in fact, one of the individuals whom the member was making reference to, McClintic, was reclassified to medium security in 2014, when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister. When we talk about contempt of Parliament, all one needs to know is that the leader of the Conservative Party today was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper, the only prime minister in the entire British Commonwealth held in contempt of Parliament. One of the reasons was that he was not providing information to the Parliament of Canada. With respect to the point that the Conservatives feel that they have this right, yes, they have unfettered rights, but they also are in borderline contempt of Parliament. Giving the documents directly to the RCMP is something that the RCMP does not want and that the Auditor General of Canada and other legal experts have said that we should not be doing, but the Conservatives say we should listen to the Conservative Party. Gee whiz, how tough a decision is that?

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on someone who is an expert in dealing with the issue at hand, and that is Steven Chaplin, who is a former senior legal counsel in the office of the Law Clerk and the parliamentary counsel. In a Hill Times article, he says, “It is time for the House of Commons to admit it was wrong, and to move on. There has now been three weeks”, and now it would be much more than that, “of debate on a questionable matter of privilege based on”, and I really want the member to listen to this part, “the misuse of the House’ power to order producing documents.” There is no doubt we have unfettered power. It does not mean we should be using it in all situations. We should be listening to what the Auditor General of Canada is saying. We should be listening to what the RCMP is saying to parliamentarians. We should not be listening to the self-serving leader of the Conservative Party who is dictating to Conservative members as to what they have to say inside the House in order to be in the good books and get the gold star from the Conservative caucus. When will members recognize that what they are actually doing is in borderline contempt of Parliament?

Madam Speaker, the member focused her attention on scandals. The leader of the Conservative Party, directly and indirectly, when he was part of the Stephen Harper government, was involved in scandals, and I will give a bit of a list. There were the anti-terrorism scandal of $3.1 billion; the Phoenix scandal of $2.2 billion; the G8 spending scandal; the ETS $400-million scandal; the F-35 scandal; the Senate scandal; and elections scandals, plural. He is directly involved in one of those, too, by the way. Then I have “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power”, in which there are scandals, corruption and abuse of power. It is hefty book, with 70 different scandals. Who would the member opposite recommend that her constituents listen to, the RCMP, the Auditor General or the politically motivated, self-serving leader of the Conservative Party, on the issue of giving the documents directly to the RCMP? Do we ignore what the RCMP, the Auditor General and law experts are saying all because she wants to follow her leader?