Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, when I take a look at the leader of the Conservative Party today, and the issues that we see, I see there is a multi-million dollar game being played. If we look at the time when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when he was found in contempt of Parliament, his then parliamentary secretary is the now leader of the Conservative Party. If we advance that to today, we get to the leader of the Conservative Party believing he does not require a security clearance, unlike every other leader of the House of Commons. If we read the CBC story that came out today, it says, “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.” It goes on to say, “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 says that it is almost as though the leader of the Conservative Party wants to dominate. The question to the member is—

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford respecting the meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the study of Russian interference and disinformation campaigns in Canada on November 5, 2024. The committee reported to the House on November 7, 2024, that the witness at the meeting in question refused to respond to questions posed by members of the committee. The committee expressed its view that the failure to respond to questions constituted contempt. I want to be clear with the House that this particular witness was called before committee for a very serious reason. We believe that the evidence suggests that she has been involved in very odious behaviour on behalf of a foreign government. The government takes the issue of foreign interference very seriously. I submit that this is a unique situation that requires some restraint on the part of the House in considering how we deal with this case. The witness is under indictment in the United States on very serious charges for which she has been advised by her legal counsel to not speak about the material facts of her activities, which are before the courts, for fear of self-incrimination. While the House does have the authority to compel responses from witnesses at committee, this matter is being considered before a court in another country that may not agree that witness testimony is protected under our privileges. It could therefore be used as evidence against her. Our role as parliamentarians is to be thoughtful about the context in which we compel information from witnesses. I submit, due to the extremely unique situation we are in, that before the Speaker pronounces on whether this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege, a thoughtful and balanced study of this matter at the procedure and House affairs committee be undertaken. It would provide members and the Speaker with recommendations on the appropriate manner to handle situations of such a delicate nature. I would like to quote my hon. colleague from the Bloc and thank her for her thoughtful intervention on this issue. The member indicated: However, the Bloc Québécois finds that the reason provided by Ms. Chen to justify her systematic refusal to answer might require an analysis of whether the immunity relating to freedom of speech extended to Canadian defendants applies before a body having jurisdiction in another country, in this case the United States, considering that Ms. Chen is currently being investigated in a criminal matter in that country following allegations. She continued: What we can glean from her testimony, or at least from the little she provided as testimony, is that she was afraid that what she said before a House of Commons of Canada committee could be held against her in the United States. In that case, I think it is important to take that into account. We believe that the case should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We do not believe this matter should displace all other House business at this time. This is a unique set of circumstances where the witness is under an indictment in another country where testimony is not protected by the usual parliamentary privilege that exists in Canada and where the witness is at a real risk of self-incrimination. While we want to get to the bottom of the witness's actions, we believe that at this time it would be premature for the Speaker to find a prima facie breach of privilege and that a reasonable approach, given these circumstances, would be for PROC to undertake a study of its own volition to provide recommendations on how to deal with this unique situation.

Mr. Speaker, the core of the issue is that the matter be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is the vote that needs to take place and that would get rid of the issue. The reason it would go to the procedure and House affairs committee is that a great amount of concern has been raised by the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and other legal experts, who are saying that it would be inappropriate for us to hand unredacted documents directly to the RCMP. That was not necessarily known at the time the original motion was passed. Some people have suggested that it could even potentially be an abuse of power. This brings us back to the original motion. Let us get PROC to make a decision so that we, collectively as a House, do not do something that would potentially be against the charter rights of individuals. Does the member believe that the Liberal government should be listening to the Conservatives on the issue or listening to the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and other legal experts who are telling us not to give the information directly to the RCMP?

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe Conservative members truly understand the consequences of this multi-million dollar game of a filibuster that is being orchestrated by the leader of the Conservative Party. It is going to cost Canadians greatly. There is complete disregard. There is an interesting story today. I think members opposite need to listen to what Conservatives are saying about their own leader, including members of Parliament. I quote: “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.” I have been saying that for weeks now, that the leader of the Conservative Party and this whole multi-million dollar game are all about his personal self-interest. When will Conservative members of Parliament stand up and speak their own minds as opposed to the mind of the leader of the Conservative Party and realize that what they are doing is borderline contempt of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, let me provide a quote from an article written by Steven Chaplin. Steven Chaplin is the former senior legal counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. He is a real expert. Here is what he had to say about this multi-million dollar game of the Conservative leader a couple of weeks ago: 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. He goes on: It is time for the House to admit its overreach before the matter inevitably finds it way to the courts which do have the ability to determine and limit the House’s powers, often beyond what the House may like. That was a quote from a newspaper article. I would encourage the members opposite to read it all. It was an expert who wrote that, but do not be confused by experts. What words of wisdom does the member have to say about these particular quotes from an article by an expert?

Madam Speaker, one of the greatest honours I have had in my lifetime was when I served in the Canadian Forces and I marched with World War II veterans. After the marches, we would often go to the legions. I would see these grown men in tears. They believed in Canada. They fought for our country, and many of their friends had died. When I think of bringing that to the table and of the types of debates we have here on the floor of the House of Commons, I believe that they would believe that, yes, Parliament does have unfettered power. It is an incredible authority that we have as parliamentarians, but it does not give us the right to abuse that power. I would highly recommend that the member read the Hill Times story from October 28, written by Steven Chaplin, and see how that might influence her. I, for one, believe in the freedoms that we often hear about. There are issues I have with the tactics the Conservative opposition party is using. I would think that she would share some of those.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the discussion on this, which we will no doubt be having over the next few hours. I am interested in getting the member's thoughts in regard to Bill S-211, the forced labour bill, which passed and took effect. It does all of us a great service. We know some of the results are very encouraging, and it is a wonderful, significant step forward, given that there was nothing prior to it. Beyond some of the comments he has already put on the record, could the member explain why he is not content with that, or why he wants to see it expanded?

Mr. Speaker, forced labour is not something new; it has been around for many years. When I listen to the questions and answers, it is a bit much to hear a Conservative talk about forced labour, when Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party did absolutely nothing to deal with it. I will be fair: When Senate Bill S-211 was before us, the Conservatives joined us in passing it. At the very least, Conservatives have done some positive things in working with the government and recognizing the issue of forced labour. It is interesting that we are now having the debate on the issue primarily because of what I have often referred to as a multi-million dollar game the Conservatives are playing. As opposed to other opposition parties participating directly in the filibuster game, they are bringing forward motions for concurrence. I can appreciate the frustration other opposition parties are feeling because day after day for weeks now, the Conservative Party has filibustered, putting the self-interest of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in general ahead of the interests of Canadians. The filibustering prevents us debating things such as the legislative agenda that would assist Canadians in many different ways, whether it is protecting children against the Internet, transferring military court to civilian court on issues of sexual violence, Canadian citizenship or the fall economic statement. These are just part of the government agenda. There is also Private Members' Business and there are opposition day motions. I suggest the current debate would have been a great debate for an opposition day motion. I truly believe that, because at the end of the day, forced labour, as I said, is nothing new, even though Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party ignored it 100% during their tenure. It would have been a great discussion to have, and in the end it would have been great to have a positive resolution to it. We have raised the issue in budgets, as has been pointed out. The motion itself went before the standing committee, and I compliment the efforts of the standing committee with respect to the people it listened to and its coming up with a report, but I would remind members that we have made a commitment to bring forward government legislation that would look at improving Bill S-211. Of course we have to look at why we are having a difficult time getting legislation through the House of Commons, but that is not the fault of the Government of Canada or even the Bloc or the New Democrats. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of the leader of the official opposition. We will continue to look at ways to bring in the legislation that we have committed to. Hopefully there will be the same sense of enthusiasm as with the first Conservative question when we bring in legislation, and there will be a warmth to the idea to allow debate to occur and possibly even to allow legislation to go to committee and ultimately pass through third reading and be given royal assent. What a wonderful idea that would be, but somehow we have to dislodge the leader of the Conservative Party's belief that Parliament is here to serve him and him alone. We need to understand that Parliament is here to serve Canadians first and foremost, and then we will be able to ultimately do more for Canadians. On the issue of forced labour, one does not need to expand on the literally millions of individuals around the world who are affected. In virtually every country, there is forced labour being put into place. We need to recognize, as we have as a government, that the government can play a significant role. There are some people who have absolutely no time for the Senate. I for one see great value in the Senate, and Bill S-211 is a good example of that. When the Senate of Canada passed that legislation through its system, it came to the House of Commons. First reading of the bill took place on May 3, 2022, and second reading was then completed on June 1, 2022. It then went to committee in November 2022. Report stage was completed on March 6, 2023, and third reading was completed on May 3, 2023. Royal assent was given shortly thereafter, and the legislation took effect in January of this year. That is the type of thing that can take place, not only on Senate legislation but also on government legislation. Now that there is a leader of the Conservative Party who puts his interests first and foremost, the primary difference is that legislation is being put on hold more and more often. This is a direct result of his self-interest. There are many pieces of legislation before the House and many that are going to be introduced to the House that deserve the merit not only of debate but also of going through the process and ultimately becoming law. I would suggest that Canada is a better society as a direct result of Bill S-211. Think of the results there have been with Bill S-211. Before the legislation passed through the House with the support of the Liberals and the Conservatives, there was nothing really in place to report forced labour. As a direct result of the bill's getting royal assent and January being the date the legislation came into effect, there have been literally thousands and thousands of businesses or companies that have had to report in on the issue of forced labour in the supply chains. We have now identified that a very high percentage of those that have reported in are raising concerns in regard to forced labour in the supply chain. For the first time, the government actually has a much better sense of the degree to which forced labour is being used here in the Canadian supply chain. The issue of forced labour is something the government takes seriously. When we were having the trade negotiations with the United States, on the one hand the Conservatives were crying and wanting to capitulate and say, “It does not matter; just get an agreement.” That was the Conservative approach to the Donald Trump first trade discussions that were taking place: Capitulate, do whatever it is that the United States wants and just get an agreement signed. We worked very hard on CUSMA. Canada has, I would argue, the very best individual abilities in the world in terms of negotiating trade agreements, and I do not say that lightly. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current government has. We do that because we recognize the true value of trade for Canada. If we want to strengthen Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, we have to focus attention on trade. Through that, working with Canadians and working with the different partners, record numbers of new jobs having been created, virtually double the number of jobs that Stephen Harper created in his nine years of governance. With respect to how the issue has been evolving, we can look at the CUSMA deal and see that within it, we negotiated to prohibit importing goods made by forced labour. Does that mean it is a perfect deal? No one is saying that; there is always room for improvement. When we sit down with President-elect Trump in the future, members can know that we will have Canadian interests in our minds and heart. Unlike the Conservatives, who will advocate to capitulate based on their previous negotiations, we will ensure that the deal is in the best interests of Canadians. We have the record to clearly demonstrate this as a government that has signed off on far more trade agreements not only than Stephen Harper but also more than in the history of Canada. People understand and know how important trade is between Canada and the United States. When we talk about jobs, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of good-quality Canadian jobs that are dependent on successful negotiations, and Canadians need to be aware that it is the current government and Prime Minister that got and signed off on the trade agreement known as CUSMA with the United States. It was the Conservatives who wanted us to capitulate and give the Americans whatever they wanted. It is because of our experience in dealing with trade agreements that we were able to achieve what we received. Within that, we talked about labour. Interestingly, the House will remember one of the most recent trade agreements that we signed off on was the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement update. We will remember that, because the leader of the Conservative Party actually voted against it and instructed his minions to follow suit and vote against it. I withdraw the word “minions” just in case some people are a little offended by it. The Conservatives voted against a trade agreement. What is really interesting is that the very first trade agreement that the Conservatives, from what I can recall, ever voted against was the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement update. We were talking earlier about a question of privilege about the influence that Russia is having. There is a story about how Russian influencers are trying to say all these bad things about our Prime Minister in an attempt to prop up the Conservative Party of Canada. There is an interesting connection there, and we will have to wait and see. I would love to see this issue go to the standing committee. I would love the opportunity to see to what degree we would have interference affecting the Conservative Party going into the next election. However, I digress somewhat. I believe that when we look at where we go from here, whether it is with respect to budgetary measures, legislative measures or dealing with the issue of forced labour, we continue to move forward. That is why the minister has provided assurances, as instructed by the Prime Minister in the form of mandate letters, that we will put into place legislation that will enhance and protect the interests of Canadians. We know the values we have say that we have to look at our supply chains and deal with the forced labour issue. That is something the Government of Canada is prepared to do in a very real and tangible way. That is why we have maintained the commitment that we will, in fact, be bringing in legislation to that effect before the end of the year. I have three minutes to go. That is not enough time. At the end of the day, we could talk about trade, supply lines and related issues like forced labour, for many hours. As a government, more so than the Conservative government ever did, we understand how, by looking at trade and international trade, we can build a stronger and healthier middle class while at the same time dealing with the social issues that Canadians are concerned about. With respect to issues such as forced labour, in particular in areas like mining and manufacturing, as the Prime Minister has clearly shown, we can do both. The numbers show that, through the policies we have put into place that were driven by budgetary and legislative measures, we have built a healthier middle class, especially in these economic times, which can be a challenge for many of the constituents we represent. The nice thing is that things are getting better. Interest rates are going down. Affordability is so much better. The inflation rate is below 2%. We are doing, in comparison with other countries, exceptionally well. However, that does not mean that we cannot do better. That is why we have a Prime Minister, a government and members of the Liberal caucus who continue to persist every day in improving conditions for Canadians. That is where our focus is, unlike the self-serving interests and focus of the Conservative leader and the Conservative caucus today. Having said all that, I move: That this question be now put.

Mr. Speaker, seriously, I do not know if the member fully understands the process. On a concurrence report, we have a three-hour debate. What we are doing is just kind of advancing it in case anyone stops talking. If people stop talking, then we can actually go to the question on it. I am very comfortable having the full three-hour debate. At the end of the three hours, the question will ultimately be put, and we will have a vote on it tomorrow. Members of the Conservative Party do not need to push the panic button yet. At the end of the day, hopefully, they will get back to their filibuster on the privilege issue. I am sure that they are glad that they do not have to talk purely on privilege and that they can change the topic, while at the same time continuing with their irresponsible, multi-million dollar filibuster. That is ultimately what we have witnessed every day now for many weeks because the leader of the Conservative Party is more interested in himself, his personal advancement and the Conservative Party than the interests of Canadians. We find that very shameful. That is fine, but we will continue to focus on Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the government indicated that it would be doing it in 2024. If the member takes a look at the calendar, he will find that 2024 has not come to an end. Before he passes judgment on that issue, he might want to reflect not only on how members of the Bloc can see government bring in legislation, but how we could actually advance legislation. It is one thing to bring in legislation, but it is another thing to get it to advance through the system. The only way we can advance legislation through the system, because we have a minority government, is to have other political parties that are like-minded and prepared to work hard for all people in all regions. That means that we have to focus some attention on trying to get the leader of the Conservative Party to stop with this day after day of filibustering. I would argue that the leader of the Conservative Party is borderline in contempt of Parliament because of the way he is filibustering and ultimately abusing the rights of all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Bill S-211 and the government working at getting the support from the Conservative Party where we were ultimately able to pass the legislation, I understand the NDP and the Bloc were somewhat uncomfortable with the legislation. There has been a very significant, positive impact from that legislation already to date, and we have seen thousands and thousands of companies that have now reported. We know there is a very high percentage of areas where there is forced labour that needs to be factored in and we believe we will have better legislation introduced before the end of the year. I would remind members of the New Democratic Party that before this administration, absolutely nothing was being done on the issue and it has been a very busy legislative agenda. For the last number of weeks, all we have seen is a great deal of filibustering, preventing legislation from passing any stage by the Conservative Party. We look to our friends within the NDP, who have worked with us in the past, to try to get legislation through. Hopefully, we will get the bill the minister is talking to a first reading, and even get it beyond that. In order to do that, we need to have a partner.

Mr. Speaker, the former prime minister Stephen Harper was the only prime minister in the history of Canada, in fact, in the entire British Commonwealth, to be held in contempt of Parliament. His parliamentary secretary at the time was the leader of the Conservative Party today. Nothing has changed. The leader of the Conservative Party today feels he can borderline be in contempt of this institution by playing this multi-million dollar filibuster game. Outside the chamber, he is the only leader who does not recognize he has a moral responsibility to get security clearance so we can deal with the issue of foreign interference in a better way. Foreign interference is such a serious issue. We have seen people murdered. We have seen all forms of extortion. We have seen political manipulation that goes right to the leaderships of political parties, including the Conservative Party, yet we still have one leader in the House of Commons today, the Conservative leader, who refuses to get the security clearance to become informed. What is the leader of the Conservative Party hiding from Canadians? Why will he not come clean and tell us why he really refuses to get that security clearance?

Madam Speaker, to follow up on the question I posed, the member had indicated to just give the Conservatives what they want. However, the Conservatives want us to grab unredacted documents and hand them directly over to the RCMP. The RCMP has said it does not want that. The Auditor General of Canada has said they do not want that. Other legal experts have said that it should not happen. Does the member believe that we should listen to the Conservative Party or the RCMP, Auditor General and other legal experts? Who would he listen to if he were me?

Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to Bill S-211. Through it, literally thousands of companies have come forward, as obligated by law, to indicate issues concerning the exploitation of labour. We have seen a very high percentage of forced labour being used in the supply chain. As a result, we are bringing in legislation that will hopefully provide more strength to Bill S-211. Does the member opposite believe there is any obligation on the Conservative Party to allow legislation to not only be introduced but also voted on, so it can go to committee and go through the system?

Madam Speaker, I have been talking a lot about Bill S-211 as a good, positive first step. I understand that the NDP voted against that particular private member's bill, which was sponsored through the Senate. The government has committed to bringing in further legislation in terms of first reading before the end of the year. I hope it will address some of the concerns that the member has raised. However, it is one thing for us to introduce legislation. We have other legislation that is actually on the Order Paper, some really good stuff. The NDP is actually supporting a lot of it, whether it is the citizenship or the protecting children over the Internet legislation, yet it all seems to be at a standstill. Could he just provide his thoughts in regard to how he believes we could overcome this?

Madam Speaker, talk about being misleading. The member is full of something that I cannot say because it would be unparliamentary. The member tried to give a false impression that the government has done nothing, but what would he say about the passing of Bill S-211? As a direct result of that legislation, not hundreds but thousands of companies are now registered, raising the profile of the issue so that we can bring forward legislation before the end of the year. Contrast that to Stephen Harper, the member's idol. He did zip, nothing. Oh, I am sorry. Harper's government signed a secret trade agreement with China. I wonder if the member has the intestinal fortitude to apologize for misleading the House.

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the discussion on Bill S-211 because it was legislation for which both the government and the Conservatives saw merit in passing. Today, we see many fruits from that. We are talking about thousands of companies that have now reported in because of that legislation. Through that, we have a very good sense of the degree of the depth of the issue. As a result, the discussions that preceded the writing of the bill that we will be seeing before the end of the year were well informed. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the important role Bill S-211 played in helping Canadians better understand the situation and that there are going to be ramifications.

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the member opposite, but what we have witnessed in the past is that he has a number of petitions to present. As other members would like to present petitions, it would be kind of the member to let them do so. We can always go back to the member, but I understand there are other members who want to present petitions. I say this for what it is worth. In the past, the member has been very generous by allowing other members to table their petitions before he does his because he typically has a series of petitions.

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition signed by many constituents and others dealing with the growth of the Indo-Canadian community, which has been absolutely wonderful to see. However, one of the direct results of that is the demand to have international flights, not only from that community but other communities, which would see more international flights taking place between Canada and Europe, and in this case to India. Ultimately, the petitioners would love to see a flight going directly from the city of Winnipeg to New Delhi.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order due to the lack of respect that I have been witnessing. You had indicated to members that they should show respect. The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake loudly heckled, saying that you, Mr. Speaker, needed to show respect. I clearly heard that, and it is very disrespectful for members to be doing that and reflecting on you as Speaker. Whether we agree or disagree, it is disrespectful. I believe the member should apologize, not to you but to the House.

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the member's defence. He is saying we found out too late that what the Conservatives are asking for goes against what the RCMP and Canada's Auditor General want and what other legal experts are saying, that we should do it anyway and who cares what they say. Steven Chaplin, former senior legal counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, said, “It is time for the House to admit its overreach before the matter inevitably finds it way to the courts which do have the ability to determine and limit the House’s powers, often beyond what the House may like.” Whether the member likes it or not, Conservatives are borderline in contempt of Parliament by continuing on this issue. That is something all Canadians should be concerned with. It is not too late to listen to what the RCMP, the Auditor General and other law experts are saying. When will the Conservatives start to listen to those experts as opposed to the leader of the self-serving Conservative Party?

Madam Speaker, what the member does not say is that the Speaker was also very clear that the matter should go to the procedure and House affairs committee. I find this all a bit hypocritical if we look at the many scandals and the corruption of Stephen Harper. I want to go to a booklet and quote from it. It states, “For refusing to disclose information on the costing of programs to Parliament, which Parliament was entitled to receive, the Harper government became the first in Canadian history to be found in contempt of Parliament.” Gee whiz, he was found in contempt of Parliament for not giving information. Can members guess who his parliamentary secretary was? It was none other than the current leader of the Conservative Party. The difference is that we are listening to the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and other legal experts, who say that what the Conservatives are doing is not right. Who am I to listen to? Is it the Conservative Party or the experts? Well, excuse me, I am going to listen to the experts. I am not going to follow the recommendations and this multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives are playing. What ever happened to Stephen Harper on the contempt charge?

Mr. Speaker, the multi-million dollar game continues as members of the Conservative Party want to send a very strong message to Canadians: They are more interested in the interests of the leader of the Conservative Party than anyone else's. They are not listening to what Canadians are saying and continue to play a multi-million dollar game. I say shame on the Conservatives. If they wanted to contribute something positive and change the dial, one thing they could consider doing is recognizing that the leader of the official opposition still refuses to get a security clearance to deal with the issue of international foreign interference. My constituents still want to know why the leader of the Conservative Party does not want to get a security clearance. What is he hiding? Is there something in his past that he does not want to tell Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, just to put things into a bit of context here, ever since day one, even when the Prime Minister was leader of the third party, the Conservative Party has been focused on character assassination. Now let us fast-forward to what we have today. The Ethics Commissioner has cleared the minister in question not once, not twice, but on three occasions. Why should any Canadian believe the Conservative character assassination we have witnessed in the last 10-plus years over what the Ethics Commissioner is saying?

Mr. Speaker, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Conservative Party wants to keep playing this multi-million dollar game, and that is what it is. It is all about the self-interest of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party of Canada, which wants to prevent the House of Commons from being able to debate issues that Canadians are genuinely concerned about and a number of pieces of legislation that are before us. I would repeat the question I had asked the member opposite, and I think members opposite should listen very carefully. This is the tactic of the Conservatives, even when they were in government, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and their current leader was a member of the cabinet and the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister. The way they attempt to win an election is to label things as corrupt and to attack personalities, and no personality has been harder hit by the Conservative Party than the Prime Minister's. They do it not only inside the chamber but also outside the chamber, and they have no reservations whatsoever in terms of misleading Canadians. We can look at the question I asked the member opposite. Not once, not twice, but three times the independent office of the Ethics Commissioner has cleared the minister in question, yet the Conservative Party does not recognize that. It does not recognize the independence of the office, because what trumps the commissioner is the political, self-serving agenda of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in general. That is why we have seen individual former prime ministers reflect very negatively on the Conservative Party. The late Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell and others have been critical of the Conservative Party of Canada today because it has lost its moral compass in dealing with issues of a progressive nature as it focuses solely on misleading through social media, and virtually attempting to paralyze the House of Commons. There are no opposition days, no government business, legislation or private members' bills being discussed, because the Conservative Party is completely preoccupied with this multi-million dollar game. This is a continuation, just like another privilege issue we are debating. The Conservatives brought forward another privilege issue, which we have before us today. They said to stop the debate on the amendment to the amendment to a motion that they introduced, which all of us wanted to support, but it did not fit their agenda because they did not want it to come to an actual vote. They did not want the debate to go to the standing committee. Instead, they want to use the motion as a way to blackmail members of Parliament and to filibuster what should be taking place on the floor of the House of Commons. It is disrespectful to Canadians. It is absolutely a waste of tax dollars, and I would suggest that, ironically, it is borderline in contempt of Parliament, the manner in which the Conservatives continue to play this multi-million dollar game. The best way to describe it, in terms of the abuse, is to look at the motion we are debating today. The essence of it is that a member of the community is called to the bar and has to answer questions. Is there anyone opposing that? However, like the other motion of privilege, which is still going to be debated this afternoon, it stops the government from bringing anything else forward.

Mr. Speaker, one member across the way said “yay”, but there are other issues, and not just government issues. The Conservatives have opposition day motions, and when they bring them forward, they like to say the motions are confidence motions. However, I think Canadians would love to see an opposition day motion that deals with the housing accelerator fund. We have 17 Conservative members across the way who are scared because the leader of the Conservative Party is saying the party opposes it. The party is going to kill that particular fund. Therefore, we have Conservative MPs who are having a difficult time trying to justify their very existence on such an important issue. We should have a vote on that particular issue, but we cannot do so. The Conservatives know full well that all they have to do is continue to put up speaker after speaker on matters of privilege, and then nothing else can take place on the floor for debate. The housing accelerator fund is providing thousands of housing units, or homes, in every region of our country, but we have the official opposition opposing it. Actually, that is not fair to say. We have the leader of the official opposition saying that the program is bad and needs to be cut. However, a dozen or more Conservative members are saying they like the program. They are writing to the Minister of Housing to say that they want this program to be applied in our communities. We have mayors in different areas of the country saying that this is a good program. However, there is this division within the Conservative Party. In order to avoid that sort of a division, why not continue to talk about privilege? It is a privilege motion for which everyone is saying yes to having the member come before the bar, but the Conservatives have no interest in voting on it. As I have indicated very clearly, it is a fairly straightforward motion that Mr. Anderson be called before the bar to answer questions. If everyone believes that, fine, we will accept that and allow it to come to a vote. However, what is the purpose of the Conservative Party not only continuing to debate the motion but now also actually moving an amendment to the motion, which means that we could see dozens speak to it? What happened on the previous motion? We saw over 100 Conservatives speak to it. Weeks and weeks of potential debate on other issues were left to the wayside and never dealt with, such as Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act; Bill C-66, which would transfer issues related to sexual abuse from military courts to civil courts; Bill C-33, strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, which deals with our supply lines; and Bill C-63, the proposed online harms act to protect children on the Internet. This is not to mention the fall economic statement or the many opposition days that are being lost because the Conservatives are filling the time on issues of privilege, even though the very motions they are bringing forward are ones that we are okay with actually seeing pass. The reason, as I started off by saying, is that it is a multi-million dollar game, and it is all about character assassination. This is why I posed the question to the member opposite: What is the issue? The issue is that we have a minister representing an Edmonton riding, and there have been concerns in regard to some text messaging and how that could have had an impact on the issue at hand. As I have pointed out, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has looked at this issue not once, not twice, but three times and cleared the minister responsible each time. When I posed that particular question to the member, his response was that it is not true. It is true. Members of the Conservative Party know it is true, but they continue to push. Why is that? It is because, as I pointed out in my question, even when the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party in third party, the Conservative Party continued to attack the individual. Nothing has changed. The wonderful thing about Hansard is that everything said inside the chamber is actually recorded and there for people to read. People do not have to believe me; they can just read the Hansards. We can go back to the time when the leader of the Liberal Party was in third party. We will find personal attacks on the leader, especially in member statements. We have witnessed it of other ministers inside the chamber. It is the type of thing where I could enter into that same field, talk about personalities and start to look at the leader of the Conservative Party. I referred to an interesting document. By the way, the relevance of this is in regard to the issue of attacking the character of an individual. It is some sort of a report that was published. The title is “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled”. Actually, not all the evidence is compiled, because there are a number of things I am aware of that are not actually included in this document. However, it is about abuse of power, scandals and corruption. There are 70 of them listed, for anyone who is interested, but one of them that is really interesting is that Stephen Harper was actually found in contempt of Parliament. We can think about that. He is the only prime minister in the British Commonwealth, which includes Canada, to ever be found in contempt of Parliament. Can we guess who his parliamentary secretary was? It was the leader of the Conservative Party. That is one, but I am a little off topic there. I go through this article, and the leader of the Conservative Party's name comes up on more than one occasion. Let us go to page 9, to something called the vanity video; the article reads, “The Globe and Mail revealed that Harper’s chosen Minister for Democratic Reform [the now leader of the Conservative Party] commissioned a team of public servants for overtime work on a Sunday to film him glad-handing constituents.” It goes on, but he was promoting using civil servants and wearing his Conservative Party uniform, and of course, we cannot do that. If the Ethics Commissioner was to look into that, I suspect maybe they would have found some sort of fine or a penalty, or he would have been found offside. However, one of the ones Harper is really well known for is the “Elections bill [that] strips power from Elections Canada”. The story says, “The Fair Elections Act also makes it harder for Canadians to vote as more ID is required. Nationwide protests in which more than 400 academics took part forced [the leader of the Conservative Party] to withdraw some measures in the bill because of their alleged anti-democratic bent.” Anti-democratic: I think there could be some relevancy here. It goes on to say, the “Democratic Reform Minister [the leader of the Conservative Party] accused the Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand of being a power monger and wearing a team jersey.” Here we have the Conservative Party now calling into question the Ethics Commissioner, but when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democratic reform, he labelled the chief of our electoral system, Elections Canada. That is why I do not say it lightly. We have a leader of the Conservative Party who is in borderline contempt, in terms of what we are witnessing in Parliament today. He has no qualms doing that. It is demonstrated. Not only that, but if we take a look at the issue of security clearance, I do not know how many times I have asked the question of Conservative MP after Conservative MP: Why does the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada not get the security clearance so that he can better understand foreign interference? That is a very real issue. We have all sorts of things that are taking place in our community. An individual has been murdered; individuals are being held in many different ways for financial purposes. We have all sorts of interference in political parties, in the leader of the Conservative Party's own leadership. When he was elected as leader, there were issues related to foreign interference and how that influenced the leadership that he ultimately won. The Bloc, the Green, the NDP and the Prime Minister all have the security clearance. He is the only leader who does not. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not do likewise? The arguments he uses are bogus. He knows that. We have experts clearly indicating that the leader of the Conservative Party has nothing to worry about in terms of being able to get the security clearance, from a perspective of being able to listen and talk about the issue of the day. That is not the concern. However, it does raise an issue. What is in the background of the leader of the Conservative Party regarding which, ultimately, he is scared to get that security clearance? I believe there is something there. There is something that the leader of the Conservative Party does not want Canadians to know. I think we should find that out. That is why, whether it is me or other members of the government, we will continue to call upon the leader of the Conservative Party to get that security clearance. Instead of playing this multi-million dollar game, let us start dealing with the issues that are important to Canadians. Let us talk about the fall economic statement and the legislation before the House that the Conservatives do not want to have discussions on. Let us have opposition days and private members' bills. We should allow the chamber to do the work that Canadians want us to do. As the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party in particular, is so focused on them, I can assure people following the debate that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will always continue to be focused on Canadians first and foremost. Unfortunately, we have to participate in this game; however, at the end of the day, we will continue to push a Canadian agenda, an agenda that reflects what we believe Canadians want. That is something we will continue to advocate for. I would ask that, if Conservatives across the way understand the cost of the game they are playing, they stop with the character assassination they began back in 2011. Let us get down to business and do some good things for Canadians. We can do so much more if we start working together. Not only were all the other parties given a responsibility to do some good things inside the chamber, but the Conservative Party was too.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in third party status inside the House of Commons not that long ago, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, I was more concerned about the corruption, abuse of power and so many other things within that particular government. I can tell the member opposite that, as she would know, the sole purpose of the Conservative Party under the current leadership is nothing more than character assassination. That continues to be the case. She tries to say that the Liberal government is corrupt; under that definition, I would hate to think how she would classify Stephen Harper and his government. As I have said, there is a document that, if I had the leave of the House, I would be happy to table. There are 70 things in which Stephen Harper was a serial abuser of power, and all sorts of scandal, corruption and abuse of power. I can tell members that there is even more, because there is stuff that I am aware of that is not in the booklet.

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking of the acronym of the former Conservative Party. I apologize. The bottom line is that the Conservative members' just saying something in the chamber does not make it true. People must understand that members of the Conservative Party, whether inside the chamber or on social media, has no qualms in terms of misrepresenting the reality of life and of factual information at times.

Mr. Speaker, one would think that there would be a higher sense of fairness within the amendment, and one only needs to take a look at what took place the last time someone was called to the bar or at what happens in our standing committees. Am I surprised? No. However, I can tell the member opposite that I am anticipating that there will be an amendment to the amendment before us. The Conservatives have demonstrated that their true intentions are not necessarily to see tangible results on their motions but rather to continue to prevent the House from being able to deal with concerns that Canadians have. Conservatives are more preoccupied with the self-interest of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in general than they are with providing any sort of movement forward in getting legislation passed and debating opposition motions and private members' bills. We have seen that clearly demonstrated over the last five weeks or so.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I appreciate the two-part question. On the first part, as I have indicated, Stephen Harper was actually the only prime minister in the history of Canada, and even beyond Canada, throughout the British Commonwealth, who has actually been found in contempt of Parliament. An interesting fact is that the current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was actually Harper's parliamentary secretary at the time. In regard to the housing issue, I believe that if we could stop debating the multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives are playing, maybe we could have an opposition day on the accelerator fund and see whether it would pass the floor of the House of Commons. I believe it would. Rather than talking about the members who still support the program, the real question is about the 18 members who have written to the government saying they indirectly support it. That would be an interesting vote. There is no way the leader of the Conservative Party would allow it to take place.

Mr. Speaker, there should be a little bit of a warning given on TV when there is a bar going across the screen that says that a Conservative is speaking. There should be something in brackets saying that all comments being made are not necessarily true or accurate. At the end of the day, the Conservatives call the current government the most scandalous government in the history of Canada. What a bunch of crap. I am sorry. I withdraw that word—

Mr. Speaker, people will notice something at the very end of the member's speech, which I think speaks volumes. The member gets the gold star because he carried the four election platform issues. He knows the slogans. The Conservatives know the slogans. They have the bumper stickers. They are all ready to go. There is no doubt about that. The member gets the gold star for that and that is the premise as to why they want to speak. No matter what the member tries to say, he wants to go back to the economy. I would love to debate the issue of the economy. I would love to talk about the issue of housing. It would be nice to talk about the fall economic statement or legislation, not to mention the opposition days. Instead of doing that, the Conservatives want to play this multi-million dollar game. The motion is very simple. It is to call an individual before the bar. The Conservatives moved an amendment. They will talk and talk. They will put up 100 speakers. The Liberals might put up two or three. Why is the Conservative Party, besides wanting to get its gold stars, putting up so many speakers? Is it in order to prevent Canadians from being able to witness a House of Commons that is more functional? Are opposition members using their weight to demonstrate that they can paralyze the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is to have Mr. Anderson come before the bar, just in case anyone is following the debate. I suspect all of us ultimately want to get to that vote and see that happen. Since Conservative Party members are so hung up on this whole character assassination, which they have been doing since 2010, I wonder if maybe we should universally apply that and start talking about the leader of the Conservative Party and the numerous scandals he has directly been involved in. That would be an interesting subject for an opposition day type of motion. Specifically, let me raise an issue that is out there and real. The only leader in the House of Commons who refuses to get the security clearance on foreign international interference is, in fact, the leader of the Conservative Party. Would the member not agree that the leader of the Conservative Party really needs to reflect on his motivation for not getting it? I believe it is because there is something in his personal background he does not want to share with Canadians. Would the member not agree that the leader of the Conservative Party should come clean and tell us what it is about his personal background that is preventing him from getting the security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a bad idea. Members will know that the leader of the Conservative Party had another idea and this one is a real winner. Let us talk about the housing accelerator fund. What is the leader of the Conservative Party is going to say? That he is going to kill it. He is going to get rid of that particular program. He needs to start listening to what the Conservatives are actually saying. Let me tell him what they are saying. One said, “If by any chance I attended a municipal housing announcement funded by a Liberal initiative, I would be in a lot of trouble”. Another one said, “It's extremely frustrating”. One Conservative source told Radio-Canada, “MPs are being stopped from helping their cities for partisan reasons.” The leader of the Conservative Party needs to free up his Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives, to get behind the housing accelerator fund, or better yet do a flip-flop and support the program.

Madam Speaker, there are many, many different reports, well over 100 reports that the member could actually call up for a concurrence debate. I would ultimately argue that this is just a carry-on of the multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives continue to play to prevent the House from being able to debate legislation, have opposition days and so forth. Can the hon member identify why it is that they have decided, as I believe that it has been on the books for quite a while now, to call up this particular report?

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt about the importance of this issue. What I call into question is the Conservatives' choice to continue to play a game of preventing debate inside the chamber, whether it is on opposition day motions, government legislation or private members' bills. Instead, they are focusing on privileges, and then to give themselves a break, they bring in concurrence reports. Does my colleague across the way not feel any obligation whatsoever to question the leader of the Conservative Party and the self-serving tactic the Conservatives are using on the floor of the House of Commons? It seems to me they are more interested in the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party's ambitions than they are about the concerns of Canadians.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and add some thoughts on an issue that has always been of great importance to the Government of Canada and, in particular, to the Prime Minister. We have talked about the whole issue of reconciliation and how, as a government, we have ensured significant budget commitments over the years, but also legislative actions in a very tangible way. I am going to expand on that shortly. Before I do that, I do not want anyone who might be following this debate to believe that the Conservatives are genuinely concerned about the report itself at all. All one needs to do is take a look at the previous member's comments on the report and then reflect on what was being debated earlier today. I would suggest that the whole concept of character assassination has something in common with this. This is more about a multi-million dollar game the Conservatives have played for many weeks, at a great cost. Substantial legislation is waiting to be debated, both from the government's perspective and from the perspective of private members. However, instead of having that form of debate, the Conservatives continue to bring in concurrence reports to fill time because they are running out of things to say on their privilege motions. Here they have taken a particular issue that has always been important to the government. At the end of the day, I question their motivation for choosing to use this issue as a political game to add to the multi-million dollar filibuster that we have been witnessing for many weeks and, unfortunately, in all likelihood, for many days to come. I look at this from a perspective of lost opportunities and why we need to move on. When I think of the issue at hand, I think of individuals like Cindy Woodhouse. I think of the passing of Mr. Sinclair, an individual, second to no other in Manitoba, who brought forward the debate on indigenous reconciliation for all Canadians and the important role we all have to play, including here in the House. I was at the funeral, as members from all political parties were. When the TRC report came out, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, because it was back in 2015, made the commitment to act on every one of those 94 calls for action. We have seen significant gains. Many have taken the form of legislation that has passed, such as a statutory holiday, indigenous languages and legislation dealing with children. We have also seen significant financial commitments, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400-plus million toward indigenous entrepreneurs and others since 2015 to encourage partnerships. In the 2024 budget, in fact, we committed $350 million to dealing with issues to increase access to capital. I think of my home province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg, and the only way we can hit the potential that our province has in the federation is to see reconciliation work. A part of that is to recognize the entrepreneurs and the workers and how, as a national government, we can contribute to it. One of the first things we took initiative on, for example, was the issue of Freedom Road, something Shoal Lake 40 was asking for for many years. Stephen Harper, throughout those years when the leader of the Conservative Party was a cabinet minister with Stephen Harper, said, “No, the federal government does not support Freedom Road.” It took a change in government. It was not until the current Prime Minister formed the cabinet, and with the support of the national Liberal caucus, that we ultimately saw financing for Freedom Road. Freedom Road has had a profoundly positive impact for Shoal Lake 40. It is not because of Ottawa but more because of the leadership from within the Shoal Lake 40 reserve. These are the people who deserve the credit. What we did as government was recognize the potential and get behind the individual chief and council to ultimately enable it. We have seen other very successful projects at Shoal Lake 40. They are significant projects, all of which, I would suggest, are indigenous led, from the companies to the workers to the quality that we see, including the water treatment facility. For the community's size, it is a world-class facility, which is there today because of indigenous-led companies and the chief and council. We could also talk about the twinning of Highway 17. I look at individuals like Sharon Redsky, who often affords me the opportunity to better understand indigenous issues, especially around children and social enterprises and the potential for charitable groups and indigenous organizations to contribute to reconciliation. These are individuals. I think of Chief Kevin Redsky and the leadership the chief and council provide, and how that is making a difference. We as a government have supported that leadership and those developments. I would suggest that the Conservatives are introducing the report today not because the Conservatives care about the issue. It has more to do with the same sort of subject matter they are talking about with the privilege issue. Let us ask ourselves, have the Conservatives ever, in the last number of years, raised this issue in the form of an opposition day motion? The short answer is no, they have not. The only reason the Conservatives are raising it today is that, in going through the 100-plus reports, they said it was an issue that they could politicize. They could stand up and continue on with the character assassination of a particular minister. That is their motivation. It is not because they are concerned about indigenous issues. I did not witness that in the last speech by the Conservative member. Just last week, I had the opportunity to participate in an organization called Raising the Roof. I understand that it actually originated in the province of Ontario. It is a wonderful group. It ensures that it is building a number of homes for non-profits. It ventured into Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the very first time. There was a substantial federal contribution to it, and I had the opportunity to participate in the announcement. What touched me most in regard to that was the fact that there was a company, Purpose Construction, which is responsible for doing the renovations of a particular home that happens to be in Winnipeg North. It is on Mountain Avenue in what I would classify as the core, traditional, heritage-rich north end of Winnipeg. What would have been a dilapidated two-storey-plus home has now been converted into a wonderful place to call home, not for one, but actually two families. From what I understand, it also has a third area; this is maybe not necessarily for a family, but it could be for someone who is coming in and studying or whatever it might be. We will see that it is for the homeless. There is another organization, Siloam Mission; this is actually the group that is going to be responsible for, from what I can recall, ensuring that there are tenants going into the facility and managing the facility. They are indigenous tenants. However, I will get back to Purpose Construction because it is more than just the federal government that is increasing the number of homes. Purpose Construction is an indigenous company that is taking indigenous workers and allowing them to learn a trade and supporting that. The benefits of this particular facility, or home, that is being built go far beyond just providing another home for a couple of families and others. It is touching the community in a very real way, and it is supporting indigenous-led companies and more. We should keep in mind that the Conservative Party does not support housing initiatives. Most recently, we have seen that with the housing accelerator fund, wherein the federal government is working with other municipalities to ensure that we get more homes built. Many Conservatives are saying that they like that particular program. They are writing to ministers. If there are 18 of them writing, I can only imagine how many others actually support it but are not writing to the Minister of Housing here. I suspect that the housing announcement by the leader of the Conservative Party, which I have labelled as a dud, demonstrates how it is that the Conservative Party treats supporting indigenous communities. I could talk at great length in regard to the housing issue. Let us move on to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Even today, I believe I have heard at least one Conservative member say they want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Conservative Party's official position on the Canada Infrastructure Bank is to get rid of it. If we dig a little deeper, they will give misinformation. They will say that the Canada Infrastructure Bank does not do anything. There are billions of dollars of investments through the Canada Infrastructure Bank that have led to more billions of dollars of investments from other stakeholders. We are talking around $30 billion. The last time I checked, it was getting close to $30 billion. If we check with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we will see that the bank has an indigenous equity initiative that is enabling indigenous leaders to tap in and become partners on infrastructure development. There are projects there. How does the Conservative Party of Canada and its shiny new leader respond to that? They say that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad idea and that they are going to cut it, just as they say they are going to cut the housing accelerator fund. Their policies are very much dictated by the far right in Canada. We know that. The progressive nature that used to be in the Conservative Party has completely evaporated; it is more focused on cuts. If we were to broaden it out to expand beyond indigenous communities and just focus on cuts and why they are so relevant, the Conservative Party tries to give the false impression that it cares about indigenous communities; in fact, we know that it is going to cut indigenous funds that are now flowing.

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that will not happen. The Conservatives are going to cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is helping fund some of these capital projects. They are going to cut it, yet they say they are not going to cut it. They are going to cut the housing accelerator fund. Are they trying to tell me that indigenous communities do not benefit through that fund, that there will not be social enterprises, such as Purpose Construction, that are going to participate in renovations and the building of homes? The Conservative Party needs to reflect and hold its own far-right Conservative leader to account for the careless cuts that it continues to propose all the time, whether the ones I have talked about already or cuts to dental care, pharmacare or child care. That is the Conservative Party today, and it does need to be held to account for that. The Conservatives bring forward motions for concurrence, not because they are interested in the subject matter but because they are trying to show that the House of Commons is dysfunctional. That is the real purpose of what they are doing. If we read the motion, Conservatives want to extend it beyond the chamber to standing committees. This is the third one that I can think of right offhand where they want to send a report, and we have hundreds of them, back to the standing committee. They want to tell the standing committee what it has to do; by the way, they also want it to call x, y and z. Why is that? It is because they want to continue the multi-million dollar game at the expense of Canadians; they are more focused on the interests of the leader of the Conservative Party than they are on Canadians. I say shame on them. They have a responsibility to behave in such a fashion that other agenda items can be debated and passed. I am not just talking government. There is Private Members' Business also. There is a fall economic statement. There is a lot to talk about on the floor of the House of Commons. It is time that the Conservative Party stops its political game and starts thinking about what is in the best interests of Canadians.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that there is absolutely nothing that prevents the standing committee that he is calling for from asking the minister to come before committee. That is not what the issue is. The issue is a filibuster, a multi-million dollar political game in which the leader of the official opposition feels that it is more important to serve his political interests and the Conservative Party's interests than to serve the interests of Canadians. That is the issue. Yes, I give a lot of attention to the leader of the Conservative Party because I do not trust him, nor do Canadians. The more Canadians understand who the far-right leader actually is, the more they are going to move away from him in droves. At the end of the day, this is a leader who believes in cuts. Those cuts are going to hurt. That is why I am concerned.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that I have had the opportunity to know National Chief Cindy Woodhouse for many years. I can say that she is a very outspoken, powerful advocate. One issue she has talked to me about over the years is housing. I know it is a major concern. I believe that we will continue to work with indigenous people, whether it is through the Prime Minister or the Minister of Housing, because we know that the federal government has an important role to play. This is one reason that the current government, more than any other government, has been there from a financial point of view to support housing. Not that long ago, I was talking with David Chartrand, the president of the Red River Métis federation. His approach of wanting to see housing built is being achieved, at least in a small way. I believe he recognizes that the federal government is working with the Métis nation and indigenous people as a whole on the housing file.

Madam Speaker, I have full confidence in our Minister of Foreign Affairs and I appreciate her efforts in working with our allied countries and like-minded countries, whether they are one of the Five Eyes or others, in terms of making sure that we are speaking as one. I would suggest that for more details the member should sit down and talk to her or send her an email, whatever it is that he feels more comfortable with. What I do know is that myself, the Minister of Northern Affairs, and a number of others were at the Murray Sinclair funeral services to recognize a man who has done so much not only for reconciliation in Manitoba but for our entire country. He has left a legacy that we can all reflect on. One of those things is to take a look at the 94 calls to action and how each and every one of us has a role to play, whether someone is an elected member of Parliament, an MLA or anyone else in society.

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have learned over the years about the Atlantic caucus is that its members are a part of a powerful group as a caucus. One of the best examples I could use on the floor is the Atlantic accord. The Atlantic caucus held the Conservatives to account when the Conservatives refused to support the Atlantic accord, much to the disappointment of all Canadians, let alone individuals who live in Atlantic Canada and call it home. True to form, the member raised another important issue about the housing accelerator fund. Remember, we now have the leader of the Conservative Party saying they are going to cut that fund. We also have at least 18 Conservatives saying, whoa, wait a minute. They will not say who they are, but they really like this fund. Can colleagues imagine how many have not written the Minister of Housing talking about the benefits of that program? I suspect we could have 50% or more of the Conservative caucus on this issue. It was a bad idea to oppose the Atlantic accord; it is a bad idea to cut the housing accelerator fund.