Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member opposite, we get the sense she might be a bit nervous in regard to the tax break the government is providing Canadians through the GST. It is almost as if the Conservatives are a little scared. They do not want to vote against it and yet they are being obligated, possibly by their leader, to vote against it. I wonder if the member could give us a clear indication of the Conservative Party with regard to this issue. Will she, as an individual member of Parliament, vote against the tax break? Does she believe the Conservatives will be voting against the tax break that the government is providing to Canadians for two months?

Mr. Speaker, the member brought forward a motion of concurrence and spent most of his time talking about a completely different incident. It is interesting in the sense that we have been witnessing, for the last four or five weeks now, a multi-million dollar game being played by the Conservatives, at a great expense to Canadians. The member once again, and I suspect he might have the record for the most motions for concurrence of a report being brought before the chamber, continues to use this as a mechanism to filibuster and prevent substantive legislation and other issues to come before the House. I am wondering if he could indicate to members how he justifies this self-serving, Conservative leader-driven policy that Conservatives have of abusing the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that over the last number of weeks, Conservatives like to talk about scandals. They have come up with a number of different types of them. However, what they always avoid talking about is the record of their own leader of the Conservative Party, when he in fact sat around the cabinet table, directly involved in scandals himself, let alone being in contempt of Parliament. There are so many other things. There is a booklet I often refer to, Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power. It talks of scandals, corruption and abuse of power. It does not even have the ETS scandal in it. It is a pretty good-sized book, with lots of pages. Would my colleague across the way not agree that behaviour from the past is a good way to reflect on what the leader of the Conservative Party would really be like if he were Prime Minister, given the number of scandals he was directly involved in, such as trying to prevent people from being able to vote?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are so off topic. If the member wants to talk about corruption, all he needs to do is reflect on Stephen Harper; the current leader of the Conservative Party played a pivotal role, whether as parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister or as a member of his cabinet. If he wants to talk about corruption, what about the $3.1 billion for anti-terrorism corruption? What about the $2.2-billion Phoenix scandal; the G8 spending scandal; the ETS scandal; the F-35 scandal; the Senate scandal; and election scandals, as in plural scandals? In fact, I have a booklet here called “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power” that lists the scandals and corruption. There are 70 plus in here, so there is not enough time to quote them all. Why is it that the leader of the Conservative Party has not changed his behaviour and still feels that he can thumb his nose at Canadians? Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not get the security clearance to deal with the serious issue of foreign interference?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know who the leader of the Conservative Party really is. Conservative MPs are the voice of their leader to their constituents. Let us contrast that to Liberals. We take the issues from our constituencies and bring them here to Ottawa. I can give many examples of that. We can talk about the national dental care program, the national school food program or the national pharmacare program. Yesterday, we announced the GST break for the holiday season for Canadians on selected products and services. This is all about supporting Canadians. Come springtime, the 18 million-plus workers of Canada can anticipate a $250 rebate. This is good news. The issue is what the leader of the Conservative Party is going to dictate to his minions about how to vote on that particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, as the House leader indicated yesterday, we have been very clear in the House that the company was not on the list and that indigenous procurement is for indigenous groups. What we see day after day is a gross amount of exaggeration coming from the Conservative ranks. If they really want to do something in Canadians' best interests, they need to look in the mirror and ask themselves this question, referring to the leader of the Conservative Party in particular: What is he hiding that is preventing him from getting a security clearance? Canadians have a right to know. He is hiding something. What is it?

Mr. Speaker, talking about unethical, how unethical is it for the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada to be the only leader not to get a security clearance? We know of allegations of foreign interference in his own leadership race. We know that there are issues the leader of the Conservative Party should be aware of, but he turns a blind eye to Canadians. Out of pure self-interest, he refuses to get a security clearance. What is in his past? There is something there that he is not sharing with Canadians. What is it? Why will he not get a security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, that question has already been answered. Interestingly enough, the Conservative caucus has guidelines and criteria if someone wants to be a summer intern: They have to get a security clearance. That is such an incredible thing to believe given that the leader of the Conservative Party believes he can put his self-interest ahead of the safety and concerns of Canadians. It does beg this question, and I will repeat it for those who do not understand: What in the leader of the Conservative Party's background is preventing him from getting a security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, I will share with members a Conservative tweet that went out. They should listen very closely: “Apply for the CPC Summer Internship today and be the future of the Conservative Party.” However, they have to get a security clearance. Maybe the leader of the Conservative Party should apply for the internship program, thereby obligating him to get a security clearance. That is how ridiculous this issue is. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not commit today to getting a security clearance? That would put Canadians ahead of himself.

Mr. Speaker, we know how Conservatives are actually treated in the back room. They are all watched very closely by the Conservative leader and report directly. It is interesting that the member ended his speech with slogans. There is a CBC report that should be mandatory reading, quite frankly, for every member of the House: “If the leader invents a new slogan,” Conservative sources say that “we know we'll have to use it”. It goes on to say this: “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....” These things are what Conservative MPs and Conservatives are actually saying, and we just witnessed yet another; we witness it with virtually every one of them who stands up. The reality is that this is nothing more than a multi-million dollar game that the Conservative Party is playing, which is in the self-interest of the leader of the Conservative Party and not in the interest of Canadians. If the Conservatives want to talk about corruption, I have a much longer list of examples of Conservative corruption, and even corruption in which the member's own leader was involved. The Conservatives' actual motion says that we should take the issue and hand it over to the procedure and House affairs committee. When will the Conservatives stop playing this game at the expense of Canadians and allow us to vote on their motion?

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. The Conservatives talk about Liberal insiders, but the chair they are referencing was an adviser to Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, all of whom were Conservatives. She is also a major donor to the Conservative Party, yet they call her a Liberal insider. Like many of the things that they say in the House, it is just not true. The question I have for the member is this: When will the Conservatives recognize that the motion we are talking about is to have the issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee? It is a motion that the Conservative Party introduced. When are they going to allow it to go to a vote?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can indicate whether or not it is offensive and disrespectful for the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada to not get security clearance. If the member looks around, every other opposition party and the government have made it very clear, and all other leaders have the security clearance. However, the leader of the Conservative Party has something that is hidden in his background that he does not want to share with Canadians and, as a result, is refusing to get the security clearance. Does the member feel like the rest of the Conservative caucus? This is maybe where he could get a gold star from the Conservative caucus. Does he feel that the leader of the Conservative Party should get a security clearance? Yes or no, should he or should he not?

Mr. Speaker, through foreign interference, a Canadian was assassinated, many Canadians are being extorted and the leadership of the Conservative Party is being manipulated. Also, China and Russia are spending gobs of money to try to discredit the Prime Minister to the advantage of the Conservative Party. However, the leader of the Conservative Party is saying he does not care and does not want a security clearance. He does not want to know. Does he really not want to know, or is he scared to tell Canadians what in his background is preventing him from getting a security clearance? Why is the member defending the Conservative leader? He is saying it is okay; we do not have to be concerned about foreign interference. Is the member concerned about foreign interference? If he is, he should not be supporting the Conservative leader.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want this to be a trick question, so I will remind the member to be careful in the way he answers it, because the Conservative spies are listening to him. The issue is we have very important votes coming up. One in regard to providing workers in Canada, 18 million plus, $250 come springtime, and we have a tax holiday for the GST on a number of products and services starting on December 15. Will this member be supporting those two measures?

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member might want to check the ethical challenges that the leader of the Conservative Party had while he was in government, when there was a lot more corruption, power hunger and so forth. It continues today when we see the leader of the Conservative Party, I would suggest, being in borderline contempt, in this multi-million dollar game that they continue to play at taxpayers' expense, which is all for his personal self interest as opposed to Canadians' interests. When is the Conservative Party going to recognize that the motion before the House is for this issue to be brought over to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs? The Conservatives have refused to allow that to happen. Rather, they want to filibuster, for weeks and weeks now, at a substantial cost to all Canadians. When does the game stop?

Madam Speaker, the member across the way gets a lot of gold stars. According to the CBC article, this is what Conservative MPs are saying: “If the leader invents a new slogan, ‘we know we'll have to use it’”. The good news is, “‘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.’” The member said a lot of slogans there. 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. I want to compliment the member opposite because he repeated a lot of the bumper stickers and the slogans. Does he also believe that he has to report to the leader? Is it okay for the Conservative members to be followed and stalked by staff and others who report to the leader of the Conservative Party?

Madam Speaker, we just heard what the leader of the Conservative Party has instructed his Conservative caucus to talk about: crime in our communities. It is consistent with much of the misleading information that the Conservative Party puts on social media virtually every day. The bill the member is so critical of, the bail bill, is a bill the Conservative Party voted in favour of. It is the very same bail bill that provinces in all regions of the country supported. I am wondering if the member can reflect on whether the Conservative Party today, because it might have flip-flopped on this, still supports the bail reform legislation that was brought forward by the government not that long ago, the bail reform bill that she herself voted in favour of.

Madam Speaker, I rise today not necessarily surprised. I somewhat anticipated the Conservative Party's being consistent with its ongoing weeks and weeks of the multi-million dollar game the leader of the Conservative Party has chosen to play because of his personal self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party. Conservatives are not concerned whatsoever with what is happening to the real lives of people in our communities throughout the nation. I find that disrespectful. Ultimately, no matter how the Conservative Party performs inside the House of Commons, I can assure people following the debate that whether it is the Prime Minister or any other member of the Liberal caucus, we will continue to be focused on Canadians, understanding and appreciating the issues that are so vitally important. Whether it is on issues surrounding affordability, on issues surrounding the legislation we are trying to bring through to protect children from online harm, or looking at ways in which we can shift responsibilities from military courts to civilian courts in order to protect the interests of sexually abused individuals, the government's focus will continue to be on advancing the interests of Canadians. Having said that, it is very disappointing that the Conservatives have chosen to raise this particular report and then, after moving the motion, have moved an amendment that ultimately would have the report take priority over a very serious issue that the leader of the Conservative Party has been going out of his way to avoid. The leader of the Conservative Party says he wants accountability; however, that accountability applies only to every other political entity and definitely not to the leader of the Conservative Party. Members would know full well that the public safety committee is attempting to deal with the issue of foreign interference, raising two countries in particular: India and Russia. The Conservative Party, under the instruction of the leader of the Conservative Party, is doing what it can to prevent that debate from taking place. Conservatives do not want the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to be dealing with the issue of foreign interference. It is a very serious issue; we think of an individual Canadian having been murdered in Canada, extortion taking place in communities in Canada and political interference taking place in Canada, including in the leadership of the Conservative Party. In the leadership that the leader of the Conservative Party won, there are serious allegations of foreign interference. There are all sorts of very serious issues in which the Conservative Party does not want accountability. This is highlighted in the leader of the Conservative Party. He is the only leader of the House of Commons today who continues to refuse to get the security clearance necessary in order to protect not his party quite frankly, even that would be good, but the interests of Canadians. He is putting his interests ahead of the interests of Canadians when it comes to foreign interference. The question is why. What is the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular the leader of the Conservative Party, so scared of? What is the background of the leader of the Conservative Party? Is there something there that Canadians need to know? Is the reason he has chosen not to get the security clearance that he knows he is not going to be able to get the clearance? The reason the Conservative Party is trying to give to fool Canadians is absolutely bogus; there is no merit to it whatsoever. Today, we now have a motion to amend, to make the public safety committee a priority, to stop the debate on the issue. They do not want us to be talking about international foreign interference. What is driving the leader of the Conservative Party to refuse to get that security clearance? I should say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington. I can tell members that it is very upsetting to see the way the Conservative Party, over the last number of weeks, has conducted itself. People should not be surprised because Stephen Harper was the individual who was found to be in contempt of Parliament, and the leader of the Conservative Party was his parliamentary secretary. We know that Stephen Harper was his mentor in many ways. Today, we see the leader of the Conservative Party instructing the Conservative Party, the official opposition, to not only filibuster the House but also prevent a very important debate from taking place at the public safety committee. Recently there was a story that was published on CBC. I would like to quote from it because it is important for Canadians to understand the degree to which the leader of the Conservative Party loves to have control. It 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. That is the type of control we are seeing today. Here is one of the comments in the article from a Conservative: “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 should be mandatory reading for all Canadians who want to understand the type of leader the leader of the Conservative Party is. He talks about freedom, but we have the example of how he has punished Conservative MPs in tangible ways for advocating for things, such as housing, in their own communities. MPs in the Conservative Party do not bring issues to the leader. It is the other way around. The leader of the Conservative Party has it backward. The purpose of an MP is not to communicate messages from their leader. It is the opposite. We are supposed to be taking the pulse of our communities and bringing it to the attention of our leader. This story, which was updated on November 20, is worth the read because it gives us a sense of who the leader of the Conservative Party really is. He needs to stop the filibuster. He needs to have more accountability for what is taking place. I would challenge the leader of the Conservative Party to have a debate on this issue in detail and not just have the slogans and the bumper stickers, which he is exceptionally well known for. Rather, let us get into the substance. Let us see the leader of the Conservative Party get the security clearance, and if he is not going to get the security clearance, he should tell Canadians why. What is in his background that he is hiding from Canadians? That is what it is. He needs to come clean with Canadians, stop playing this political game of personal self-interest and start dealing with the interests of Canadians. He needs to allow the House and the committees to do the fine work that we know can be done in serving all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, we all know that is not true. Members can just read the story I referenced. Here is another quote from it: “Some elected officials feel they come to caucus ‘to be told what to do and what to think’”. If Conservative MPs do not say the slogans, they are in trouble. They are obligated within their caucus. There are members of the caucus staff who monitor the things MPs do. If they talk to me nicely outside of the chamber, they can get in trouble. The Conservative leader says not to talk to MPs unless they are in their own political party. This is the mentality of a tight ship and a bubble of one. Stephen Harper had a tight bubble, but this is a bubble of one. I encourage members to read the article. There is a lot of merit to it. It is what Conservatives are saying about their own leader.

Madam Speaker, whether it was the issue of banning assault-style firearms, other gun control measures or beefing up supports in different areas to support women in all regions of the country, we have been doing that, and we will continue to do so going forward. There is a great deal of compassion and interest about the issues the member raised, and the minister is open to having that dialogue. If there are ideas to improve the legislation, obviously we would be very interested in doing so. Over the last nine years as a government, both in majority and minority, we have clearly demonstrated our willingness to accept good amendments to legislation that would improve it.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated when I originally answered the question, I have absolute and full confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the fantastic work she has done working with our allied countries and being aware of what is happening around the world. I fully support the actions the government has taken to date. I think it is important that Canada and the government continue to monitor the situation and work with our allied, like-minded countries to ensure we move forward.

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the member opposite's efforts in contributing to this whole issue, and I appreciate that. While I do not necessarily agree with everything, I appreciate many of the things she has put on the record. The question I have for her is related to the Conservative Party using this two-year-old report to try to prevent the public safety committee from studying the issue of Russian and Indian foreign interference. There are all sorts of agenda items that could be before the public safety committee. Based on her experience, no doubt the issue we are talking about today will, in fact, come up with time. On the issue of foreign interference, her leader did get the security clearance and only one leader has not and that leader has now instructed his caucus to prevent this study from taking place by moving the proposed amendment. Could she provide her thoughts on that?

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue today is about how the Conservative Party, quite frankly, is using the House's authority to prevent the public safety committee from dealing with foreign interference, in regard to both India and Russia. I find that very shameful. At the end of the day, the leader of the Conservative Party is hiding something. There is something he is not telling Canadians. I would like to see individuals like Patrick Brown appear before the public security committee. I know one of my colleagues has brought forward the suggestion that we have a summons issued for him. Is this one of the reasons the Conservative Party today refuses to allow that standing committee to do the work necessary on foreign interference? Why are the Conservatives interfering, in the interest of their leader, to prevent Canadians from knowing what the Conservative Party is hiding? What in the leader of the Conservative Party's background is causing him not to be able to get the security clearance? What is the Conservative Party so afraid of? Is it that the leadership was influenced, that its own leader was involved in foreign interference?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member has any concerns about the amount of control the leader of the Conservative Party has over his members. We have heard that there are Conservative MPs who are being tracked and followed, with pictures being taken, and this is reported back to the leader. They have to say the slogans that the Conservatives want them to say. Otherwise, they will be punished, if not directly, then indirectly. The Conservatives have a leader who continues to feel that he does not have to get the security clearance, even though it would be in the best interest of Canadians for him to do so. He continues to thumb his nose at Canadians and disrespect members of Parliament. Does the member seriously believe that this is good leadership?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we look at the motion we are debating. The motion says that we should send the issue to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is what we are voting on. In the over 100 speeches delivered by the Conservatives, they are telling the government that we should not listen to what the RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada are recommending to the government. We should stick to the motion, which says to put the issue before the procedure and House affairs committee. Does the member not support the Speaker's recommendation? That is what the Speaker has asked us to do.

Mr. Speaker, the member started off so well. I think he got about five gold stars according to the CBC and the Conservative insiders. Then he started taking a bit of a nosedive because, according to the article on Conservative MPs, if they stray too far from the message, they get told pretty quickly. I do not believe opposing electric vehicles outright or calling them something that they are not is going to do him well. Does the member recognize that what he is supposed to be talking about is a motion being referred to the PROC committee?

Mr. Speaker, I take it from the member's comments that, like many other Conservatives, he does not recognize that climate change is a reality in life. That is fine. That is not what my question is about. What we have before us is a motion to see the issue brought to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is what the Conservatives have moved, and well over 100 continue to play a million-dollar plus political game as they try to twist reality and put a great deal of misinformation not only inside the chamber but also outside the chamber through social media. My question for the member is this. When will the Conservative Party stop with the self-serving interests of the leader of the Conservative Party and start dealing with the interests of Canadians and the issues that they are facing on a daily basis?

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to offend the member, but the motion says that we have to send the issue to the procedure and House affairs committee. The government, as well as all the political parties, is saying, yes, let us send it over, but the Conservatives are putting up speaker after speaker, thereby filibustering. We listen to the lines being used by Conservatives, whether it is on this issue or on the other issues they continue to bring up, such as being Liberal-friendly, but we know that the chair who was appointed was actually a great donor to the Conservative Party. She was a political adviser to Stephen Harper and to Brian Mulroney. Conservatives have actually misled Canadians by making those types of assertions in many different speeches they have given. Would the member not agree?

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to table that highlights foreign interference. It calls into question why the leader of the Conservative Party has chosen not to get the security clearance. It is rooted in concerns regarding everything from assassination to extortion and political interference. It is a very serious petition, and the petitioners imply that the leader of the Conservative Party needs to get the security clearance necessary to become better informed about foreign interference.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the sensitivity of it. All I am doing is conveying a petition that has been signed by many Canadians. They are genuinely concerned that the leader of the Conservative Party has not taken it upon himself to get the security clearance necessary to become better informed in protecting the interests of Canadians. It is a legitimate petition that I would encourage the member opposite to read.