Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, what I appreciate is the fact that the member does not understand. He is wrong. If the member came to the House saying that the standing committee put in the request and the standing committee was refused and that, as a result, Conservatives wanted to be able to push this forward, then he might have some merit to his argument. It is time that he recognized that what they are trying to do is not about what is in the interest of indigenous communities or Canadians as a whole. It is all about a multi-million dollar filibuster because the Conservative leader is more interested in his personal side and the Conservative Party's than Canadians. That is what is so shameful about the tactics that the Conservatives continue to use every day.

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the member opposite's comments, although I do not necessarily agree with all the things he has said. They have caused me to reflect on what we have been able to do to work toward reconciliation in a very tangible way, whether through budgetary measures or legislative measures. Is the member aware of any other federal government that has invested as much as this particular government has? If he is, could he tell me which government has actually done that? I would love to make the contrast. I have a question for the member: Is he at all concerned with the Conservative Party continuing to bring forward amendments to reports that, in essence, send the reports back to committee and provide a list of individuals? Does the member believe that the standing committees should have a little more independence from the Conservatives' outreach?

Madam Speaker, there is so much more that can be done. As a government, we are working to do as much as we can. I have been a parliamentarian for well over 30 years now. I look at what we have been able to accomplish over the last nine years in terms of finances, legislative processes and building relationships, tangible relationships, nation to nation. I would be very much challenged to come up with another federal government that has done as much. I recognize that, yes, a lot more needs to be done, but I do believe, whether in the area of reconciliation, finances or legislation, that we have made significant gains. My question to the member is not about that, but it is about the opposition members. This will be the third concurrence report in a row where they have instructed committees to call witnesses. I am concerned about the parliamentary procedure of using committee reports to get concurrence on the floor of the House as a tool to take away discussions that could be and should be possibly taking place in standing committees. What are his thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, I am thinking in terms of a Conservative commitment to cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank, even though the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not only many projects that are complete but also others that are on the way. It has a wonderful program called the indigenous equity initiative, which works in partnership with indigenous people in many different ways. I am wondering whether the member can explain how the Conservatives have made the determination that they are going to cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and whether he could give a clear indication whether or not they would at the very least, after they have cut the Infrastructure Bank, put in some form of an indigenous equity initiative to replace it.

Madam Speaker, I am sure members have heard the phrase “fake news”. What we have witnessed is fake concern from the Conservative Party on such an important issue for Canadians. Let me explain why in the form of putting forward a question for the member. The member knows that the Conservative Party has had numerous days of opposition. We might be surprised, or maybe not, that it has never, ever used the issue as an opposition day motion. If I am wrong, I would like the member to tell me the day it actually did, or to say that, yes, it came close and maybe even gave some thought to talking about the issue when it has thought about opposition days. Can the member give any sort of sign of hope that the Conservative Party of Canada genuinely cares about indigenous issues, outside of using what it has today, which is nothing but a political manoeuvre as part of the multi-million dollar filibuster? That is what we are witnessing, because I have never seen an opposition day on the issue. Am I wrong? Was there an opposition day from the Conservative Party on the issue of indigenous people?

Mr. Speaker, that does not take away from the behaviour we have seen from the leader of the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we have a Conservative motion on the floor indicating that the Conservatives would like to push the issue at hand to the procedure and House affairs committee. I would suggest that is the right way to deal with the issue. In fact, all members of all political parties except for the Conservatives, who have proposed the motion, want the motion to be accepted so the matter can go to the procedure and House affairs committee. The Conservatives have not only moved a motion, but moved an amendment to the motion and a subamendment. Then after they had 100 members speak to the subamendment, they allowed the subamendment to drop and moved another subamendment. The purpose of this is to paralyze the House, as they continue to stand up for speech after speech while not necessarily being relevant to the motion. Rather, they focus on what I would suggest is the ongoing issue of character assassination. They started with the Prime Minister back when he was elected leader of the Liberal Party when we were the third party inside this chamber, and nothing has changed. The Conservatives today are saying they want unredacted information, and they believe they have an entitlement to it because they say that a majority of members of the House argued for that and voted in favour of it. There are two quotes that I would like to bring forward to the Conservative Party, particularly the leader of the Conservative Party. First and foremost, what the Conservative Party is asking for is inappropriate. It is a Conservative game. It is a multi-million dollar political game that serves the personal interests of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party as a whole. The Conservatives are asking us to give out unredacted documents from a collection, handing them not only to opposition members but directly to the RCMP. This is what the RCMP commissioner has said regarding that: “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” The Conservative Party does not give a darn about that. The Conservatives do not care about charter protections. They are not listening to what the RCMP is saying, and the RCMP is not alone. The Auditor General has also been critical of the tactic being used by the Conservative Party. The former law clerk is critical of the tactic being used by the Conservative Party as well. The Conservative Party is saying to wait a minute; it wants people to believe the Conservative Party over the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and other professionals and experts out there. The Conservatives know full well that we are not going to do that, as well we should not. That is why the Speaker's ruling tells us to send this matter to committee and allow the committee to review it. However, the Conservatives do not like that, and that is where, in my opinion, they are borderline in contempt of Parliament. I would articulate that to whomever. The Conservative Party is saying that they are not going to allow the House to deal with any issue until this matter has been resolved to their liking. I would like to quote a story from The Hill Times. We have a one-week break, and I would like every Conservative member, because we are going to hear from another 100 of them no doubt, to say they read The Hill Times story from October 31 that Steven Chaplin wrote and say they disagree with that individual. If they are not prepared to say that, then they should look at themselves in a mirror and recognize the reality of the type of abuse the leader of the Conservative Party has been putting into the House of Commons for weeks now. I will not read the whole article, but for those following the debate, Steven Chaplin is the former senior legal counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. He is someone who truly understands this. He is apolitical. I could not even identify him on the street or the sidewalk. Here is what he says as an expert: “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”. He wrote this story last week. The article goes on, and here is what members really need to appreciate. A member could think of themselves as a parliamentarian first, believing that serving their constituents is the most important role they have to play, but they should also recognize they are a parliamentarian. Every parliamentarian of the House of Commons needs to listen carefully to this statement. Again, this comes from Steven Chaplin: “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 is a warning to all parliamentarians about the abuse of power that the leader of the Conservative Party is imposing on his Conservative caucus, which none of them is taking seriously based on the discussions and debates we are hearing. I am not surprised that the leader of the Conservative Party continues to push this issue. I am not surprised because we see that in his history and his pattern of behaviour. Stephen Harper was the only prime minister in Canada in the British Commonwealth to be held in contempt of Parliament. Guess who his parliamentary secretary was. It was none other than the leader of the Conservative Party. The leader of the Conservative Party is the only leader in the House of Commons without a security clearance. Leaders of the Bloc, the Greens and the NDP, as well as the Prime Minister, all have a security clearance. Outside the Hill, there is a serious concern in regard to foreign interference. We have seen the killing and murdering of individuals and extortion. We have seen the influencing of parliamentarians, both past and present, of different political parties. That means the Conservatives also. We have seen serious allegations that the leadership convention in which the Conservative leader was elected had foreign interference. Every leader in the House of Commons today is saying they recognize the seriousness of this, and they got the security clearance necessary to be informed by Canada's agencies, including the RCMP, about the personalities and information that are vital to know as a leader, except for one. The only leader who refuses to get a security clearance is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Does that surprise people? It should, actually. Yes, the Conservative leader was the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister who was held in contempt. Yes, he continues to play an abuse of power on the floor of the House of Commons, which is ultimately leading to challenges for all of us as parliamentarians. Yes, he has been manipulating the floor and concurrence reports to take control over standing committees in the last week. We have witnessed that on at least two occasions. Now, we even get Conservatives who stand up on points of order to try to censor the types of things I am saying in the House, because they do not like to hear the truth. The truth is that the leader of the Conservative Party owes it to Canadians to get that security clearance, and if he is not going to get that security clearance, then he had better tell Canadians why not and tell Canadians what he is hiding. I believe that he is hiding something from Canadians, and that is the reason he does not want to get that security clearance, yet Canadians have a right to know. What is it about the Conservative leader's past, or is it strictly in regard to the leadership? Is it some of the Conservatives? Is he one of the Conservatives dealing with foreign interference? Instead, he says, “I am not going to get it. I will wait until we are after the next election”. It is highly irresponsible. I go back in terms of the motion itself, because the leader of the Conservative Party has chosen to play this multi-million dollar game. As a direct result of his behaviour, we are not able to deal with important issues that are affecting Canadians throughout the country. The leader of the Conservative Party has made the decision to put his self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party of Canada ahead of Canadians, and that is the reality. I think collectively the Conservatives need to start listening to what the experts are saying, in terms of what their expectation is as an opposition party, not just as Conservatives, and think of their roles as parliamentarians. They should recognize the abuse that we are witnessing every day, for weeks, and start holding their own leader accountable to their own caucus, if not all Canadians. If the Conservatives are not prepared to do that, at the very least, let us get the leader sharing with Canadians why he refuses to get security clearance and why he has chosen to be held, from my perspective, in borderline contempt of the House of Commons by not allowing work on issues like the Citizenship Act; the military court and the civilian court for sexual complaints, which would be dealt with through Bill C-66; the online harms act to protect our children; the rail and marine safety legislation to support supply lines; or the fall fiscal statement. All of these are being put off to the side because of the self-interest of one individual who is the leader of the Conservative Party. I think he needs to get off the rock, recognize that the House can work, start co-operating and stop the filibuster.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Conservative Party is denying my privilege to address the House of Commons. I cannot cite specific quotes, but I can assure you, whether it is in Beauchesne's or the Standing Orders, that you will find that all members have the right to speak in the House of Commons. I have only been able to speak for five minutes, and a number of Conservatives have interrupted my train of thought for the purpose of disrupting what I am saying. I should be allowed to start from the beginning because they are consistently playing a game. It is disrespectful to our House rules.

Madam Speaker, I disagree in many ways with a lot of the misleading information that is put on the record, and the previous speaker is a good example of that. I give my condolences to Stephanie and appreciate the hardship she has experienced. However, I would challenge the member opposite, as I have done with other members. If they really believe what they are saying and want to be genuine to individuals such as Stephanie, why will no Conservative MP step up and discuss the issue we have been debating with me? In this case, I will go to the Niagara University in Ontario and challenge the member; we will invite Stephanie to be in the audience with us. Let us go to the university and talk to a class of individuals who are not political partisans. They can listen to what the member has to say compared with what I have to say to them and allow those students to pass a judgment in terms of a vote. I will make the trip to Niagara University, and let us see if we can generate a classroom, invite Stephanie and listen to the arguments the member makes related to the motion we are talking about today. Will the member opposite do what none of her colleagues has done and accept the challenge?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and address what has been a littering of misinformation on the floor of the House of Commons. Over the last number of weeks, I have witnessed well over 150 Conservative speeches, and it can be fairly depressing at times, with the amount of misinformation they consistently put on the record. One would think there is someone in the back who is telling them what to say, they are so repetitive. It is not easy to throw them off track because they have been instructed by the leader of the Conservative Party on exactly what they have to say. It does not have to be the truth, but they have to say it. Rumour has it that if they actually say it and say it right, they get a gold star, and a number of them get a lot of gold stars. Let us give a reality check on what is actually taking place. We have the leader of the Conservative Party, who I would ultimately argue is in borderline contempt for what is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons, and I do not say that lightly. We can think about it. The leader of the Conservative Party today was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper was the only prime minister, not only in Canada but in the entire British Commonwealth, to be held in contempt of Parliament. Why am I not surprised to see that the current leader is following suit? After all, not only was he Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary, but they were also very close—

Madam Speaker, the truth might hurt the members opposite, but it is about time they stopped listening to the spin and the Conservative misinformation that comes out of the back rooms. They spread it throughout the country, and it is really quite unfortunate because it has the type of impact we witnessed in a letter quoted by the member for King—Vaughan earlier. I hope the member follows through and takes me up on that challenge. She said she would have a public debate with me at Niagara University in Ontario and I hope that actually takes place this year. It is absolutely atrocious, the amount of misinformation that consistently comes out of the Conservative Party. They spread misinformation primarily on social media and they do not have a problem saying it. They say as soon as we produce the papers they will stop talking and allow the House to go on to different issues. The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada introduced a motion. The motion was that the issue be given to the procedure and House affairs committee. They have put up over 150 speakers. Everyone wants to vote on the motion, but the Conservatives do not want that. They do not even want to have their own motion voted on. They move an amendment, they move an amendment to the amendment, and they run out of speakers so they drop that amendment, and then they move another amendment to the amendment to the motion. It is nothing but a political game. The leader of the Conservative Party—

Madam Speaker, I want to go over what we are actually supposed to be talking about and why the leader of the Conservative Party has decided to be in what I have said is borderline contempt of the House of Commons regarding the rules and procedures, and how he is attempting to hold for ransom all members of the chamber because of his personal interests. Let me expand on it. The Conservative Party, after a ruling from the Speaker, moved a motion that the—

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the Conservatives are very sensitive on this issue. At the end of the day, everything I am saying I feel very comfortable in justifying. If they stop interrupting, they will find out why one can easily draw the conclusion that what we have witnessed on the floor of the House of Commons today and for the last number of weeks is borderline contempt. I have listened to over 150 Conservative speeches littered with all forms of misinformation that is spread through social media. Then when it comes to hearing a little truth, they have an allergic reaction to it and feel they can stand up on points of order to disrupt what I am saying. I would encourage them to leave the chamber if they are not comfortable with what is being said. I recommend, as I did last week, that we understand what the Conservatives are being asked to do by the leader of the Conservative Party. They are being told that they should oppose the government and, however they can do it, raise scandals. That is what their agenda really is. It has in good part—

Mr. Speaker, the member starts off by providing misinformation. She said this is about providing unredacted information; that is not what it is about. The motion is about referring the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee. The Conservative Party is twisting it to talk about that issue because they want to talk about scandals. It is not just one; they will talk about several. I would love for 150 Liberal MPs at some point in time to be able to stand up and talk about Stephen Harper, the current leader and the scandals they were involved in. I have a booklet entitled, “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power”. There is a list here of 70 scandals and instances of corruption, and it does not even talk about the ETS scandal, which is a $400-million scandal.

Mr. Speaker, I support the idea of us passing the motion. By passing the motion, the issue the member is referring to will go to standing committee, then members of the standing committee can ask why the RCMP believe that the documents should not be unredacted. People who are following the debate should understand there are literally thousands of pages of information already provided. Do we believe the RCMP is being genuine when it says we should not provide it unredacted? The Speaker's ruling is that discussion, that debate should be taking place in the procedure and House affairs committee. That is what the motion is saying: push the debate to the procedure and House affairs committee. If this chamber had to deal with all the committee business, we would never be able to do anything. No government could do anything. That is why we have standing committees.

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear and put it really simply here. All we have to do is stop the filibuster the Conservatives are doing and allow the matter to go to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is what the motion is asking for, and that is what will in fact happen if the Conservatives allow the vote to occur. After that, we can have the RCMP commissioner come before the committee and we can ask the RCMP commissioner why it is he believes we should not be directly providing the RCMP the documents being requested. It is the RCMP that does not want the documents, it is the Conservatives saying to give them the documents, and it is the RCMP commissioner saying to not do that. It seems to me we should send it to PROC, get the commissioner before PROC, and today, just like we could have three, four weeks ago, we would be able to continue doing House work.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is kind of like, anything that is good news for Canadians is bad news for Conservatives. They want to stay on “Canada is broken,” which is not true. Canada is the best country in the world to call home, but the Conservatives want to stay on that theme, emphasizing one issue, character assassination, whatever it takes to try to make politicians look bad. If the Conservatives want to talk about corruption, they should bring it forward on an opposition day and open the floodgates. I would love to talk about all the corruption of Stephen Harper. I was here, inside the chamber, witnessing a lot of that corruption. Quite frankly, I do not think it would be overly productive. It would be far more productive to deal with the substantial legislation that is going to ultimately, hopefully, pass, because it is for the betterment of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, if the member believes her very last statement, for the sake of argument let us say that the Conservative Party actually trusted the RCMP and the testimony, then why would they not allow it to go to committee and get the RCMP to say that it is fine for a motion on Parliament Hill to gather information unredacted and send it directly to the RCMP? However, that is not what the RCMP members are saying. Let us listen to what the RCMP members are saying. Let them go to committee, and listen to what they have to say. The Conservatives do not respect the office, and they do not respect the RCMP. That is the reason they continue to play this multi-million dollar game.

Madam Speaker, I want to echo many of the positive words that the member opposite has put on the record in regard to service people both past and present who have served our country so well, recognizing the importance of November 11 at 11 o'clock in the morning. Every year, I have had the opportunity to participate in one way or another. We all participate in different ways. On Machray Avenue at McGregor Armoury, a heritage building, the local armoury, there will be a presentation and a moment of silence. I have attended ceremonies at cemeteries. I have even had the opportunity in the Philippines to pay tribute to fallen soldiers of allied forces who were born here in Canada. It is important that we recognize November 11, and I appreciate the member's statements in regard to it. I have had the opportunity to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, and during the 1980s I actually marched with World War II veterans. Therefore I am very sympathetic to the member's argument in regard to how the veterans would see what the government is doing today. I would suggest to the member that I have held myself high, that the government has held itself high and that the individuals with whom I marched would in fact have been very comfortable with it.

Madam Speaker, to be clear, when the government first found out about what was taking place, immediate action was taken. Thousands of pages of documents have been provided. Yes, a number of them are in fact redacted. The Conservative Party is saying it does not want the government to listen to the RCMP or the Auditor General, who are saying it should not be providing the information directly to the RCMP. The Conservatives disagree with the RCMP, the Auditor General and others. We are listening to the experts. The Conservatives are listening to their leader, and their leader is listening to his own personal self-interest. This has, unfortunately, caused the situation we are in today. There was an individual, and yes, she was an adviser to Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney and Jim Flaherty. She donated thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party, and yes, she was the chair of this organization that Conservatives are referring to. Having said that, why does the Conservative Party continue to not want to vote on its own motion, which would deal with the issue by sending it over to PROC?

Madam Speaker, I will take a stab at answering the question of why we are here. We are here because the Conservative leader wants to play a multi-million dollar game, believing he has a right to filibuster to the extent that all other things are pushed to the side. At the end of the day, I would suggest he believes it is okay to abuse the authority of the House of Commons. He believes that as a Parliament, we can ask for anything we want of society, whether we agree or disagree with the RCMP. In this case, the Conservative leader disagrees with the RCMP and wants to override it and claim otherwise. Does the member believe, as his leader believes, that we can completely disregard the RCMP commissioner's opinion on the political game the Conservatives are playing? The RCMP has said it does not want to receive the documents the Conservatives are forcing through by a rule in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, when one talks about the abuse of what takes place inside the chamber, we need to recognize that, again, we are seeing a concurrence report being introduced in favour of not speaking about a matter of privilege. That really tells Canadians the degree to which the Conservative Party is doing nothing more than playing a multi-million dollar game. That is what this is all about. It is an abuse coming from the leader of the Conservative Party, and no one does it better. After all, he was trained under Stephen Harper, who was the only prime minister held in contempt of Parliament in the Commonwealth; the current leader of the party was, in fact, the parliamentary secretary then. This question is not to take away from the issue at hand but more to talk about why his leader continues to abuse the authorities and the rules of this chamber. Can the member explain why the Conservatives continue to play this game of filibuster, at great expense?

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the fact that what we are witnessing is very much an expensive multi-million dollar game being spearheaded by the leader of the official opposition to the detriment of the House of Commons' being able to deal with a wide spectrum of issues that are important to Canadians. The Conservatives have brought forward today a concurrence motion that would have the report go back to the committee with the idea of being able to call specific witnesses they have an interest in. The question I have for the member is this: Does he appreciate the fact that it would appear that the Conservatives want to send things back to standing committees in order to give more direction as to what the committees should be doing, as opposed to allowing them to set their agendas and do the things they want to do? In this case, the Conservatives are asking for a specific timeline also.

Madam Speaker, I do not think the member understands that the Conservative Party is manipulating a standing committee, and it is not the first time. The standing committee can choose whatever it wants to talk about, whatever it wants to study, and provide a report. It can determine the individuals it wants to call to committee. What the Conservatives are doing, and it is not the first time, is bringing forward an amendment to instruct a standing committee, as opposed to allowing the standing committee to have some essence. Periodically, it might be of value for the House of Commons to instruct, but my advice to Bloc members is to realize when they are being conned by the Conservative agenda. The Conservatives are trying to slip something through to manipulate a standing committee and dictate who should be going to that standing committee, taking away the independence of it. This is not the first time it has happened in the last week. I do not think that is a coincidence.

Madam Speaker, out of respect for the member, I do not want to marginalize the issue, because it really is an important issue, but the Conservatives are really much more concerned about my previous question. I would ask for the member to provide his thoughts on this. Today, the Conservatives say that they want this report to go to the industry and technology committee. They have a number of speakers whom they want to hear on this, and then the committee has to report back by December 17. The other day, they moved that another standing committee, public accounts, deal with another issue, call someone like Mark Carney before the committee and report back within 21 days. These are two that just popped up in this last week. My concern is that the Conservative Party is using the House to set the agendas of standing committees, when standing committees have the ability to deal with the issues, including the issue that we are talking about today. The standing committee could in fact meet, discuss the issue, have the presenters come forward and set a deadline for itself. Does the member have any concerns that the Conservatives might be manipulating for other political objectives?

Madam Speaker, my apologies for throwing the member off. He made me have a flashback when he made reference to the K–car and the Caravan, two vehicles that really saved Chrysler. Having said that, the member brings up a lot of very interesting points. There are some fees within the banking industry with which I believe we should be, as much as possible, aggressive with our financial institutions. One of the things we do not hear as much about is our credit unions. I have found that the credit unions play a very important role in ensuring that there is at least a bit more competition. I wonder whether my friend could provide his thoughts and comments in regard to credit unions. I personally believe that they play such a vital role in protecting the interests of consumer and in hopefully bringing down actual costs.

Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting process over the last number of weeks. For those who are trying to follow what is taking place, allow me to attempt to summarize it. What they are really witnessing is what I would suggest is a multi-million dollar political game that is being led by the leader of the Conservative Party because he has determined that it is in his self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party of Canada to continue playing this silly, expensive game at a substantial cost. As opposed to participating in this filibuster, what we are actually witnessing is an opposition party that, I would ultimately argue, is in contempt, or nearing contempt, of the House of Commons today. It should not surprise people because the leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary to former prime minister Stephen Harper, who was held in contempt of Parliament, the first prime minister in the history of the Commonwealth and the only one to this very day to have been held in contempt. It speaks volumes, in terms of the character and the personality of the leader of the Conservative Party today. Let us look at what the Conservatives are doing, and I do not say it lightly. In fact, I have recommended that every member of the Conservative caucus read the Hill Times story that was published on October 31. It was written by Steven Chaplin. Steven Chaplin is the former senior legal counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Let me just quote two very important things that should be highlighted because that is why we have the debate that we are having today, and I am going to get into that very shortly. Here is what Steven Chaplin has to say about the multi-million dollar game that the leader of the Conservative Party is playing: It’s 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.... The article goes on, and here is where people really need to understand this point because we get Conservative after Conservative talking, whether about this motion or the matter of privilege that the Conservatives introduced over four weeks ago. The Conservative Party says, “just produce the papers and then the issue will end.” We cannot produce the papers. The Conservatives know that. Here is what Steven Chaplin has to say on the issue, in terms of the game that the Conservatives are playing: It is time for the House to admit its overreach before the matter inevitably finds it[s] way to the courts which do have the ability to determine and limit the House’s powers, often beyond what the House may like. This is not me. This is a professional; someone who understands what is taking place in the House of Commons. It is the leader of the Conservative Party today who is using his opposition powers to prevent important things from taking place in the House because it is his self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party and not the interests of Canadians that are being served by this tactic; not to mention the millions of dollars being thrown away. The deputy House leader, earlier today, talked about legislation. Take a look at what is on the Order Paper and has been on the Order Paper for days now: the Canadian Citizenship Act. Citizenship is important to Canadians. By not passing this legislation, some individuals are being denied their citizenship. There is Bill C-66, the military court reforms, which would take sexual abuse issues out of military courts and put them into the civil courts. Also, we have Bill C-33, on the rail and marine safety issue, which is talking about economic supply lines. If we want to talk about improving the economy, this is one of the things that we should be discussing. My colleague emphasized Bill C-63, the online harms act. We can think of pictures being posted on the Internet without consent from individuals over 18, as well as the harm that is being caused to children. These are the types of substantial issues that we should be talking about and voting on to see them go to committee, but instead, we are playing this game. Fast-forward to today, when we have a motion about banking and banking fees. I can assure members that banking fees are a very serious issue. My constituents are concerned about banking fees, whether they are for using an ATM machine or the monthly charges. There is also the interest that is applied in many different ways. There is a litany of issues with banking fees. I would love the opportunity to talk for 20-plus minutes on that issue. The problem is that this feeds into what the Conservatives are wanting us to do. The Conservatives, and this is coming from the leader of the Conservative's office, are not only saying that they want to take control of what is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons, but also wanting to start dipping more and more into instructing standing committees on what they should be doing. They have the Bloc completely fooled on this. It will be interesting to see who votes in favour of it. Members can think about this: The Conservatives, not once but twice, as Mark Carney was brought up late last week, have brought in an amendment to a concurrence motion to send the report back to committee for it to be further studied while calling for certain witnesses, and they have each had a deadline to get back to the House. However, these standing committees can determine their own agendas and who they want to call before them. They do not have to be instructed by the leader of the Conservative Party on what they should be doing. This is a very disturbing pattern, which we have now seen with two concurrence motions that were brought forward by the Conservative Party. I would argue that, ultimately, the leader of the Conservative Party is not only trying to dictate what we can and cannot talk about on the floor of the House of Commons, but also starting to reach into the different standing committees. He could have just advised, and said, “Well, look, send this back to the committee”. We could also do what we usually do, which is to vote concurrence on a report, so it would go on its way, and just allow the standing committee to do what it wants. However, there is an agenda there. It is a very selfish agenda that is being driven by the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative House leadership team, at a substantial cost. As I said, it is a multi-million dollar game that is being played. The Conservative leader needs to start putting the interests of Canadians ahead of his own self-serving interests and the interests of the Conservative Party. There is a lot more work that we can be doing on the floor of the House of Commons. We need to respect that standing committees do have the ability to do what is being proposed here. We need the leader of the Conservative Party to stop abusing his authority as the leader of the opposition and reflect on when he was a parliamentary secretary and his prime minister was held in contempt of Parliament.

Madam Speaker, they were actually the amendments themselves. Having said that, I can tell members that it is a scary situation when we have a leader of the official opposition abusing his authority to the degree we are witnessing today. It says a lot. Heaven forbid that he will sit in the prime minister's chair, from which he will want to continue his control over standing committees. People need to be aware of that. That is why they put in deadlines. That is why they are dictating who appears before PROC. That is, I would ultimately argue, an issue that we should all be concerned about, and it does not matter which political party one is from. Standing committees should not be mandated and told by the leader of the official opposition what they will do.

Madam Speaker, to put it as clearly as possible, the Conservatives are challenging the government on a false pretense. They are asking us to believe the Conservative Party and disagree with the RCMP of Canada, the Auditor General of Canada and other law experts who have indicated that what is being asked cannot be delivered. We either have to agree with the Conservatives or listen to the experts. We are going to listen to the experts. The other option then is that we need to have an opposition party that comes onside to help us get through the behaviour of the Conservative Party. To date, we have not had that type of support, so we continue to be held hostage to that multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives have chosen to play.

Madam Speaker, the member can believe whatever he would like to believe. He can come to Winnipeg North and say that I should stop talking in the House of Commons. I do not think that is the type of advocacy anyone should be promoting, to encourage people to stop talking. I take this issue very seriously. If the NDP, in particular that member, feels that I am talking too much, that is his problem, not mine.

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motions. First, I move: That, in accordance with subsection 4.1(1) of the Lobbying Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 44 (4th Supplement), and pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), the House approve the reappointment of Nancy Bélanger as Commissioner of Lobbying, for a term of seven years.

Madam Speaker, the member is trying to sidestep the real issue of the motion. The motion is very simple. The Conservative Party is asking that Parliament, the House of Commons, provide unredacted documents directly to the RCMP. The RCMP has said that the game the Conservatives are playing is not right. The Auditor General of Canada has said that what the Conservative Party is doing is not right. We have other professionals who are saying the same thing. We cannot just give the papers over. There are quotes of people saying that there are potential threats to charter issues and yet, the Conservatives close their eyes, believing it is okay to demand it and ultimately mislead Canadians. The government is not going to go against the RCMP and the Auditor General because the Conservatives believe something that is not true. Why should the government of the day believe the Conservative Party ahead of the RCMP and the Auditor General? Do the Conservatives not respect what those independent institutions are saying?

Madam Speaker, let me challenge the member across the way, as he asks members of the Liberal caucus to look in the mirror. I will ask him to look at a story in The Hill Times from October 31 written by Steven Chaplin, a former senior legal counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. It is a reflection on the behaviour taking place. It states, “It is time for the House to admit its overreach before the matter inevitably finds its way to the courts which do have the ability to determine and limit the House’s powers, often beyond what the House may like.” Let there be no doubt that this is a power play by the leader of the Conservative Party, who, I would argue, could be held in contempt because of the methods being used in the chamber, or maybe not him directly but his caucus. At the end of the day, we are being asked to provide unredacted documents directly to the RCMP, which the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and others have said is not appropriate. Who is right, the—

Madam Speaker, I would highly recommend that the member actually read the amendment. Both the questions from my Liberal colleague and the New Democrats were very genuine, and it was interesting how he sidestepped them completely. He is a pretty smart guy. Surely to goodness he recognizes that the leader of the Conservative Party is actually playing a multi-million dollar political game that is purely self-serving to the leader's interests and the interests of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives cannot answer legitimate questions because they know they are wrong. They try to say it is the government, but shame on them because the fault lies within the Conservative Party. Why not just allow the issue to go to committee? That is what the motion is suggesting. The Conservatives, on the other hand, want to play their multi-million dollar silly game when the RCMP, the Auditor General and the Speaker's direct ruling on the matter say that is what should be taking place. Let us have this debate but let us do it in the procedure and House affairs committee.