Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Bill C-73. I know that at the standing committee on the environment, a motion has been put forth not once but three times to have a prestudy on that piece of legislation. Given what has taken place inside the House of Commons, unfortunately it has not been passed. My understanding is that it is because there is a coalition, which includes the New Democrats and the Conservatives, to prevent a prestudy from taking place. Perhaps the member could provide his thoughts on that issue.

Madam Speaker, we are having this debate today because ultimately there is a question of privilege, which is being filibustered by the member's party, as it has now had well over 100 people stand up to speak to it. Interesting enough, I received an email with a list of many organizations whose members are quite concerned about the fact that we have legislation, Bill C-63, that is on the Order Paper. We have attempted to get the bill debated, but it is not being debated because of the ongoing filibustering by the Conservative Party. Can the member provide her thoughts as to why it is that—

Madam Speaker, with respect to what is taking place today, when there seems to be a will to talk about an issue affecting our environment, it is a very important issue that I hope to be speaking to shortly. Constituents are asking why the Conservatives will not allow for other debates to take place. How would the member respond to her constituents who are genuinely concerned about other topics of debate, not just nuclear energy?

Madam Speaker, there are some people within our communities who are concerned about what appears to be the New Democrats' shifts in policy. One of them is in regard to the price on pollution and backing away from a price on carbon. Another one is just dealing with Bill C-73, which is a very important piece of legislation that is very beneficial to the environment. On at least three occasions, we have tried to get a prestudy done on that legislation. It seems that the NDP members are siding with the Conservatives and it is causing some frustration. Can the member provide some clarity in terms of the NDP position in regard to Bill C-73? Would he be okay with getting into a prestudy? Let us keep in mind what is taking place today and in the last number of weeks in the House in terms of the Conservative filibuster.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member the same question I asked his colleagues. There have been concerns in regard to the NDP's backing away from sound environmental policy. One of them, of course, is related to the carbon tax, the price on pollution, versus the carbon rebate, and the NDP's most recent position on the issue. The second one is in regard to Bill C-73, nature accountability legislation on which we have attempted three times now to get a prestudy done in committee. The member is familiar with the filibustering that has been taking place in the House. Having a prestudy would be a good thing, but again we are just not able to get it through without support from the NDP.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to address this issue in two ways. We all, or at least, the government and a number of other members, recognize the true value of nuclear power and having that discussion. Having said that, I am going to tag on to that after a few opening remarks about what I believe are legitimate concerns of Canadians about what is taking place in the House of Commons. This report we are debating today has been around for a couple of years, but it was a decision made by the Bloc party to bring it forward. I suspect, as we have witnessed more and more concurrence reports being brought to the floor of the House of Commons, it is because members are upset with the Conservative Party and the multi-million dollar game the leader of the Conservative Party is playing. That is the reason we are debating nuclear power today. I will be sharing my time, by the way, with one of my friends from the Bloc. This is a wonderful compromise, I must say. I received a letter from someone who has been mailing a number of members of Parliament. This email was a plea to all members of the House of Commons, and it was signed off by some very impressive groups that are in support of Bill C-63. One might wonder why that is relevant; it is relevant because the Bloc has brought forward a motion. It brought forward that motion because of frustration with the Conservative game being played. As opposed to debating the game, members want to talk about the importance of the nuclear industry here in Canada. If everyone stopped playing the game and we dealt with the concerns Canadians have, like the concerns in the email I have received from a long list of organizations, we would actually talk about what it is they are asking us to deal with, and that is Bill C-63, the online harms act. The lengthy list of organizations includes the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Association of School System Administrators, Children's Healthcare, Canadian Medical Association, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and Empowered Kids Ontario. What Canadians want us to be talking about is issues they know we can actually deal with, legislation that is before the House. Instead of dealing with that, we are talking about nuclear power. Nuclear power is an important issue, I do not question that. What I question is the motivation in the House to change the channel of what we should be dealing with. We should be dealing with issues Canadians want us to deal with, not the desires of the leader of the Conservative Party to become the prime minister or the filibustering the Conservatives do day in and day out. That is something that I believe ultimately does need to be addressed. When I think of the issue of nuclear power, I think it is important for us to recognize that it does have a role to play as an industry. We hear a great deal about the benefits of nuclear power; I do not know to what degree people realize there are actually tens of thousands of Canadians directly employed. We have two provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, where nuclear power plays an important role in their economies and their communities as a whole. Ontario's consumption of nuclear power has increased over the years, as we have seen a shift away from emissions-sourced power generation to nuclear power generation. Ontarians have been a great beneficiary of it. Even though my province and the province of Quebec, which I care very much about, have hydroelectricity in common, and I support green energy sources, there is absolutely nothing wrong in recognizing that nuclear power does have a role here in Canada. We should recognize and support it. When people think of nuclear power, they often think of power stations and that is it, when in fact, we have all sorts of uses for nuclear technology out there and how it is developed. I would encourage members to reflect on health care, whether it is isotopes or how radioactive materials ultimately advance medicine here in Canada, it is an area of technological advancement using science that will do wonderful things in medicine into the future. I recognize many ways that Canada could lead the world. CANDU reactors have been of great benefit not only to Canada, but also outside of Canada, where we have seen other countries look to us to see how we have been successful at generating energy through nuclear power production with these small, modular reactors. We have the technology and the expertise for Canada to play a very strong leading role. It is interesting to see the Bloc and their opposition to it. Bill C-49 was the offshore wind energy legislation, which was huge for Atlantic Canada, and it is green energy. It is something the Prime Minister and the government have put right up front through supporting legislation. Now we have Atlantic provinces that are bringing in, or have brought in, mirror legislation because we have recognized that it is not only better for our environment but also good for the economy and the communities in which we live. It will generate millions, if not billions, of dollars of investment. Whether it is looking to the future of green energy or taking a look at how it has benefited some of our provinces, in particular Ontario and New Brunswick, nuclear power is a major contributor to our economy in a very real and tangible way. It contributes immensely to our GDP, both directly and indirectly. Whether it is members from the Bloc or the Conservatives, especially the Conservatives in their destructive approach to the House, rest assured that the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on the interests of Canadians. That is why I would ask, again, about the concerns to stop the filibuster and let us start dealing with the important legislation that needs to be dealt with, along with other issues.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the idea that Canadians as a whole would not support the government's approach, whether it was the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau or that of the current Prime Minister in dealing with the issue of green energy and, in fact, the important role that nuclear energy plays in our communities today. We are talking about close to 60% of all power in Ontario. That is 16 million-plus people. We are not in a position where we can ignore the need for nuclear energy.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have actually been very focused on how we can support that industry. In fact, we can think about the legislation we passed in regard to net zero by 2050, which the Conservatives voted against, of course. Nuclear energy has to play a role in Canada being able to achieve net zero by 2050. The Prime Minister and the government have consistently shown that we are looking toward sustainable development, caring for the environment and developing a stronger economy. This builds a stronger middle class in Canada, which is good for all of us. At the same time, we continue to work on programs that the Conservatives continue to oppose, such as dental care. I did not even get a chance to talk about foreign interference and ask for the leader of the Conservative Party to do the right thing and get that done.

Madam Speaker, over the past few weeks, the Conservatives have been preventing members of Parliament from doing their job. As former senior legal counsel in the Office of the House of Commons Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel Steven Chaplin wrote in The Hill Times this week: 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’[s] power to order producing documents. He goes on to say: In short, there must be an underlying parliamentary purpose or function to support what amounts to a summons for the production of documents. In this case, an order for departments and agencies to provide documents to the RCMP through the law clerk is completely untethered to any parliamentary business, and therefore lacks any constitutional—or legal—basis, including any basis in parliamentary law. He ends with a stark warning, indicating: 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. The House has been held hostage by the official opposition. There is only one party that is obstructing the work of Parliament; that is the reality. As I have shared many times in the chamber, the government supports the motion the Conservatives themselves moved, in which—

Madam Speaker, as I have shared many times in this chamber, the government supports the motion that the Conservatives moved, and that they continue to filibuster, to refer the matter to committee. Let us be clear that the Conservatives have decided that they want to grind the House to a halt rather than work for Canadians, which is preventing the House from debating and voting on important business that we would like to get back to, including Bill C-71 relating to citizenship, Bill C-66 on military justice, Bill C-63 concerning online harms, the ways and means motion related to capital gains, and the ways and means motion tabled this week, which contains our plan to require more transparency from charities that use deceptive tactics to push women away from making their own reproductive decisions. In conclusion, while the Conservatives shake their fists saying that they are holding the government to account, what they are showing Canadians is just how reckless they can be in their relentless pursuit of power. We, on this side, will continue to work for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I understand and appreciate that over the years, the Bloc has consistently been pushing the issue in an attempt to move it forward. However, I do believe that the Prime Minister and the government have done a very respectful job at advancing the issue. Part of that advancement is in the consultation we have committed to, which will start in the month of November. Because is a joint responsibility, with both the provinces and the federal government having a role to play, would the member not agree we should in fact be working with the other jurisdictions and with stakeholders before we make a decision? We know that the subject matter is very complex, and it has been difficult at times for it to even get any attention in the House in order to advance it. There is finally a government that has taken tangible action by working with other jurisdictions and listening to what Canadians want.

Madam Speaker, before I get under way, I would like to comment on the member's last statement. He pointed out the Conservative Party's resistance to the issue. I believe it is Bill C-390 that the Bloc is advocating for and advancing, which attempts to deal with the issue. This is the first time I am hearing it on the floor of the House. I would have thought Bloc members would have raised the issue with the leadership teams in the hope that we might be able to work together on Bill C-390 and, at the very least, how it might be incorporated into some of the consultations. There is absolutely no doubt this is a very important issue. Since 2015, when the Supreme Court decided on the issue, it has been a hot topic for parliamentarians on all sides of the House. We have seen a great deal of compassion and emotion, and understandably so. Before I get into the substance of the report, I want to refer to why we find ourselves again talking about this concurrence report. For issues of the day that are really important to caucus strategies, or the desire to have a public discussion, we have what we call opposition days. We need to contrast concurrence reports, including the one today that the Bloc has brought forward, with opposition day motions that are brought forward. We will find there is a stark difference. The Bloc is not alone. It will bring forward a motion or a concurrence report and say how important it is that we debate it, yet it is never given any attention on opposition days, when not only could the concurrence report be debated, but the opposition day motion could instruct an action of some form or another. Why are we debating it today? I would suggest it is because of an action taken a number of weeks ago. We need to ask ourselves why there has been no discussion on Bill C-71, the Citizenship Act, which we started the session with. Everyone but the Conservatives supports that act. There is Bill C-66, where sexual abuses taking place within the military could be shifted over to the civil courts. My understanding is that every political party supports that legislation. There is Bill C-33 regarding rail and marine safety and supply lines, which is very important to Canada's economy. There is Bill C-63, the online harms bill. Last night, members talked about the importance of protecting children from the Internet, and yet the government introduced Bill C-63, the online harms act. We are trying to have debates in the House of Commons on the legislation I just listed. It does not take away from the importance of many other issues, such as the one today regarding MAID. MAID is an important issue, and I know that. We all know that. Yesterday, a concurrence report on housing was debated. Housing is also a very important issue, I do not question that, but we have well over 100 reports in committees at report stage. If we were to deal with every one of those reports, not only would we not have time for government legislation, but we would not have time for opposition days either, not to mention confidence votes. I am okay with that, as long as we get the budget passed through. We have to ask why we are preventing the House of Commons from being able to do the things that are important to Canadians. That can be easily amplified by looking at the behaviour of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives will stand up today and talk about MAID, as well they should; I will too. However, there is no doubt that they are happy to talk about that issue today only because it feeds into their desire to prevent the government from having any sort of debate on legislation, let alone attempting to see legislation pass to committee. The Conservative Party is more concerned about its leader and the Conservative Party agenda than the agenda of Canadians and the types of things we could be doing if the official opposition party would, for example, allow its motion to actually come to a vote. We are debating this concurrence motion because the Conservatives have frustrated the other opposition parties to the degree that we are sick and tired of hearing Conservatives stand up repeatedly, over 100 of them now, on the privilege issue, preventing any and all types of debate. So, as opposed to listening to Conservatives speak on something that is absolutely useless, we are ensuring that at least there is some debate taking place on important issues, such as MAID and housing. Members of all political stripes need to realize the games the Conservatives are playing come at great expense to Canadians. The motion of privilege is to send the issue to PROC. Every member in the House supports that except for the Conservatives, yet it is a Conservative motion. They are filibustering and bringing the House to standstill, unless we are prepared to think outside the box and bring in a motion for concurrence. The concurrence motion, no doubt, is better than listening to the Conservatives continue to repeat speeches. I attempted to address their speeches in great detail weeks ago. It is time we change the channel. It is time the Leader of the Opposition started putting Canadians and the nation's best interests ahead of his own personal interests and the Conservative Party of Canada's interests. We need to start talking about issues that Canadians want to hear about. I was pleased when the member from the Bloc made reference to indications that the Province of Quebec wants to move forward on this issue. My understanding is that the province is even taking substantial actions towards it. Advance requests for MAID have been on the table and been discussed. We need to recognize it is not only Ottawa that plays a role in regard to MAID and its implementation. Our primary role is with the Criminal Code and how we might be able to make changes to it. Members, no matter what region they come from, have to appreciate that Canada is a vast country in which there is an obligation to consult with the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, community advocates, health care professionals and Canadians. There is an obligation to do that, especially around the type of legislation the member of the Bloc is trying to change. I was hoping to get a second question from the member, because he made reference to Bill C-390. I am not familiar with its background. It is probably completely related to the advance requests for MAID. The member, in his question to me, could maybe expand on what exactly the bill is proposing. I would ask, in regard to it, to what degree the member has done his homework. Doing the homework means going outside the province of Quebec. All provinces have something to say about the issue. Many people who were born in Quebec live in other jurisdictions, just as many people who were born in other parts of the country now call Quebec home. We have an obligation to not take legislation dealing with issues like MAID lightly. Just because one jurisdiction is advancing it more quickly than another jurisdiction, or because one jurisdiction is demanding it, it does not necessarily mean Ottawa can buy into it at the snap of its fingers. That is not to take anything away from Quebec. On a number of fronts, Quebec has led the nation. I could talk about issues like $10-a-day child care, a national program that the Prime Minister and government, with solid support from the Liberal caucus, have advanced and put into place, and every province has now agreed to it. The MAID file is a good example where Quebec is probably leading, in pushing the envelope, more than any other province, as it did with child care. Other jurisdictions take a look at other aspects. Health care, today, is a national program that was implemented by a national Liberal government, but the idea that predated it came from Tommy Douglas. Its practical implementation was demonstrated in the province of Saskatchewan. As a government, we continue to support health care in a very real and tangible way. By contrast, we can take a look at the Conservatives on health care and the concerns we have in terms of a threat to health care. We have invested $198 billion in health care. That ensures future generations can feel comfortable in knowing the federal government will continue to play a strong role in health care. Why is that relevant to the debate today? For many of the individuals who are, ultimately, recipients of MAID, it is an issue of long-term care, hospice care. When my grandmother passed away in the 1990s, in St. Boniface Hospital, it was a very difficult situation. We would have loved to have had hospice care provided for her, but it did not happen. That does not take anything away from the fantastic work that health care workers provide in our system, but there she sat in a hospital setting, which was questionable in terms of dying with dignity. Health care and long-term care matter. With respect to my father's passing, it was Riverview and it was a totally different atmosphere because it provided hospice care. Health care matters when we talk about MAID. What the Government of Canada is bringing forward is recognition that we cannot change things overnight, but at least we are moving forward. Back in 2015, when the Supreme Court made a decision, former prime minister Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing in terms of dealing with the issue of MAID, and the current leader of the Conservative Party was a major player during that whole Stephen Harper era. It put us into a position where, virtually immediately after the federal election, we had to take action, and we did. I remember vividly when members of Parliament shared stories in Centre Block. I remember the emotions. I remember many of my colleagues sitting on the committee that listened to Canadians from across the country with respect to the issue. We all talked to constituents and conveyed their thoughts in Ottawa. We were able to bring in and pass legislation, the first ever for Canada, that dealt with the issue. In 2021, we actually updated the legislation that dealt with persons whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. We are making changes, but it has to be done in a fashion that is fair, reasonable and responsible. We want to hear from Canadians. We want to hear what the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, stakeholders, doctors, nurses, those who are providing that direct care and the families have to say. This is a very personal decision that people have to make at very difficult times in their lives. We should not be taking it for granted in any fashion whatsoever. That is the reason, once again, we have another special joint standing committee that hopefully will be starting its work in November, with the idea of doing something tangible over six or eight weeks, whatever it takes, so it can bring something back to the House to deal with advance requests for MAID. That seems to be the focal point of what the Bloc is talking about today. I want to come back to some of my other comments in regard to the government's recognition of the importance of the issue of MAID. We have done that since 2015. We continue to recognize it and work with Canadians and the many different stakeholders, and we are committed to continuing to do that. It is unfortunate that because of the games being played by the leader of the Conservative Party and by members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the government is not able to continue to have important legislation debated, legislation like the Citizenship Act, the issue of military court to civil court with respect to sexual abuse, online harms act and the rail and marine safety act. All of these are so important. I am asking the Conservative Party of Canada to stop focusing on its leader's best interests and to start thinking of Canadians' best interests. I am asking it to stop the filibuster and allow legislation, at the very least, to get to committee so Canadians can have their say.

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that the member, who is an active participant with Stephen Harper, and I have emphasized just how close his current leader was with Stephen Harper, wants to talk about being absent. The Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, and the Conservatives have absolutely nothing to say at all. They are not bringing in any legislation let alone any committees of the House of Commons to deal with the issue. They want to bury it. Canadians who understand and appreciate the importance of MAID should be aware that one cannot trust the Conservative Party, especially under the far-right Conservative-Reform leader it has today. They should be fearful of the things that we will witness if it becomes government.

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat interesting that the member believes there are individuals in the House who have a full and comprehensive understanding of all private members' bills on the Order Paper. I suspect that she has knowledge of maybe 50% of them. That is being exceptionally generous. If I am wrong, she can stand up on a point of order and tell me that I am wrong. The reality is that I found out about this debate just over an hour ago. For members to say that I do not know Bill C-390 and to diminish the importance of the issue at hand, which the House has to talk about, does a disservice to all parliamentarians. If the Bloc members genuinely want to have a healthy, strong debate on Bill C-390, at the very least, they could have raised it on an opposition day. They could have raised the issue weeks or months ago and said that they would like to have that debate.

Madam Speaker, from day one, the government has understood the depth of the issue and how important it is to Canadians. As I indicated in my comments, this is very much a personal issue, with great difficulties surrounding the decision-making process. The government has brought in legislation, it has updated the legislation and it has had special joint committees in the past. There is another one coming up in November, which will provide a report in January. The federal government has the responsibility to do proper consultation despite what the Bloc and NDP might try to portray.

Madam Speaker, the member is half right. At the end of the day, the Carter decision from the Supreme Court of Canada was light in the Conservative mandate. I will give the member that much. Having said that, there was absolutely no indication or approach to try to deal with the issue. At the time, Stephen Harper believed that maybe they would be able to deal with it, maybe they would not be able to deal with it. It was not a priority for the Conservative government. Yes, the member might not have been an elected member of Parliament at the time, but that does not take away from his involvement with Stephen Harper before he was an elected member of Parliament.

Madam Speaker, the member does not know that. Quite frankly, there are hundreds of private members' bills on the Order Paper, and it is not my responsibility to read 300-plus private members' bills. There are all sorts of debates that come up in the House of Commons. Every time we have an issue debated, is the member suggesting that whoever is speaking should actually do private member's bill research to make sure that they reference the person who brought in the private member's bill? The member made reference to the private member's bill in his comment. Out of respect for the member, I made reference to the bill, and I suggested that it might even be a part of the discussion when we have the committee, so I do not know why the Bloc members are so offended. I give my apologies for not knowing the details of all the hundreds of private members' bills, if that is what he is trying to get at. I would challenge any member, with the possible exception of the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, on actually knowing the details of every private member's bill.

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada made a commitment to have a national discussion on the issue, which would incorporate the people of Canada, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, different stakeholders, doctors, health care workers and so forth. I am wondering whether the member can provide his thoughts on the importance of doing that consultation before any form of legislation is actually brought through the House.

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, MAID is deeply personal and complex. For individuals put in the position to have to make these decisions, they are very difficult and very emotional. As parliamentarians, all of us have very passionate opinions on this issue, and at the end of the day, there is an obligation for us to fully participate in consultations through the special standing committee the Government of Canada is advancing. It will be taking place in November and could go eight, 10 or 12 weeks. I am not sure of the exact time frame, but it is a very important process, given the nature of this issue, that will afford stakeholders an opportunity to be engaged on it.

Madam Speaker, I made reference, in a previous question for a Conservative member, to the importance of having a national conversation on the issue of advance requests for MAID. It is a very serious issue. One jurisdiction in Canada has been very proactive on it, the province of Quebec, but we have to be respectful in trying to build a national consensus and must do a consultation. To be quite honest, we need to realize that MAID is a deeply personal and complex issue that touches people in very difficult times. We have to make sure we do it right and get it right. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of working with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and the different stakeholders to make sure we are getting it right.

Madam Speaker, I concur with many of the words the member has spoken, especially when we think of the bigger picture, which is that every Canadian deserves dignity. It is important during this debate that we recognize just how difficult an issue this really is. It touches the hearts and emotions of the people who have to make this very difficult decision. We cannot underestimate just how difficult that decision is. This is one of the reasons that it is important, as the government has said, to start up that conversation with Canadians, including provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, the many different stakeholders, professionals and patients. I hope to hear from a lot of patients, as well as providers, bedside staff and family members. I think that is absolutely critical in continuing to bring in what will hopefully be the best MAID legislation that we have seen.

Madam Speaker, the member highlighted how important the issue is in terms of personal perspective, and I do not think anyone challenges that at all. In the debate on this subject over the last number of years, there have been all sorts of emotions on both sides of the issue. That is healthy for the public debate because I think it is a reflection of what Canadians are feeling on the issue. The challenge I have for the Conservative Party is that even when the Supreme Court decision was made, it was not until the Liberals took government that tangible action actually started. There is now a commitment to have a national conversation on the next step; it is coming up in November and will go through to January. I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts regarding how important it is that we do have that national conversation, because the legislation should reflect Canadian values.

Madam Speaker, I commented on how important the issue was when I spoke to it. Having said that, I also commented on how the Conservative Party was filibustering to prevent debate on a wide spectrum of issues. I want to give the member the opportunity to comment as to why the Conservatives do not want legislation to come forward. If the member does not want to answer, then she can continue with her remarks on this issue, which no doubt is an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, talking about celebrations, 10 years ago today, former Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro was found guilty of violating the Elections Act. He was the leader of the Conservatives' buddy at the time. Del Mastro went on to become the parliamentary secretary to the then prime minister, and another parliamentary secretary at that time, who is now the leader of the Conservative Party, was advanced to become the minister responsible for elections. He tried to deny thousands of Canadians from being able to vote. Why should any Canadian have confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party?

Madam Speaker, it was interesting listening to the member talk about Parliament in the fashion he articulated. One of the things that he forgot to talk about is that the only prime minister in the history of not only Canada, but also the entire Commonwealth, to be held in contempt of Parliament is Stephen Harper. The current leader of the Conservative Party was Harper's parliamentary secretary. Let us fast-forward to today. Today we have the leader of the Conservative Party, who feels that he does not need to get a security clearance. After all, his chief of staff has that security clearance. However, he does not understand that, if he is saying to his chief of staff to tell him the names, it would be a criminal offence to do so. The leader of the Conservative Party does not understand that he is abusing the powers of the House. He is abusing the issue of foreign interference. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not do the honourable thing, put the nation's interest ahead of his personal interest and his party's interest, and get the security clearance? While he is at it, he can stop abusing—

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed the member did not want me to share with him all the scandals and corruption and abuse of power that his current leader and Stephen Harper were involved in. Having said that, I do have a quote for him. This comes from iPolitics in regard to the refusal of the leader of the Conservative Party to get the security clearance. It states that the leader of the Conservative Party's “approach to national security is 'complete nonsense,' says expert”. I will follow it up with another quote: “Conservative leader...is 'playing with Canadians' by refusing to get a top-level security clearance and receive classified briefings on foreign interference, according to one national security expert.” This story has a lot of quotes and it does not reflect very positively on the leader of the Conservative Party. The suggestion is that he should put the nation's interests ahead of his personal interests and the interests of the Conservative Party. Would the member not agree? I am more than happy to share the story with the member if he would like the full story because it is a serious issue. The leader of the Conservative Party needs to get the security clearance.

Madam Speaker, I do not know Steven Chaplin; he is a former senior legal counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. To the best of my knowledge, I have never met him. He wrote an interesting story in The Hill Times, and I would recommend every Conservative member read the article. This is what he says: “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.” It goes on: “It is time for the House of Commons to admit it was wrong, and to move on.” He is talking about the production of papers. Whether it is this particular individual or the RCMP, the Conservatives are abusing power. It is no different than the leader of the Conservative Party refusing to get his security clearance. It is time the Conservatives start abiding by the rules, respecting the law, doing the right thing and acting on what is in Canadians' best interest, not the leader of the Conservative Party's best interest.

Madam Speaker, allow me to be crystal clear: The current leader of the Conservative Party is abusing the power of Parliament. This is becoming very well established. He continues to refuse to get the security clearance, which is not in the best interest of Canadians, and it is unacceptable that he is putting his personal interests ahead of the interests of Canadians. The leader of the Conservative Party needs to step up to the plate and do the honourable thing: not only get the security clearance, but also stop the game he is playing. I would argue it is abuse of parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, happy birthday. Rumour has it you are 55 years old, or something like that, today. If I could sing happy birthday, I would. I want to quote Steven Chaplin from a story in The Hill Times. Here is a homework assignment for the Conservative members: to read the article. If they understand the article, they will understand what they are doing wrong and why they should not be supporting the leader of the Conservative Party's initiative. This is the essence of the article: “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.” Steven Chaplin is an individual whom members need to take note of. The leader of the Conservative Party believes he can use his abusive powers to override Parliament, much like when he was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper, who was found in contempt of Parliament. I would suggest something to my Conservative friends across the way, while they ask and beg their leader to do what is right on getting the security clearance and putting Canadians ahead of his own personal leadership in the Conservative Party: Let us put Canadians ahead. Get the security clearance. Let us stop the game and stop the abuse we are seeing on the floor of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, let us be perfectly clear to members of the Conservative Party. I have made reference to a Hill Times story and I highly recommend the member read it. What we are witnessing is nothing but a game to the Conservative Party. It is intentionally being played because the leader of the Conservative Party has put his personal ambitions ahead of the interests of Canadians. We are witnessing an abuse of parliamentary process. There is no doubt about that. It is unfortunate that the Conservative leader not only believes he can abuse the authority of the chamber, but also believes that he does not need to get a security clearance, unlike every other leader here, because he does not want to know. When are Conservative members going to tell their leader to do the honourable thing, put Canadians' interests ahead of the partisan interests of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party, and stop the game?

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to focus on anything but his responsibility as a parliamentarian. The member is misleading Canadians when he does not tell them directly what is taking place in the House. There is a motion to have this matter go to the procedure and House affairs committee. With regard to the production of documents they are talking about, the RCMP, the Auditor General and other legal experts say this is not a good tactic the Conservatives are using. Conservatives should read The Hill Times story if they want even more detail. What the Conservative Party is doing is a total disgrace. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedure. When are the Conservatives going to smarten up and allow legislation and allow the government to work with other opposition parties so we can get things done for Canadians? They need to stop the game and allow us to get back to business to serve Canadians.

Yes, Madam Speaker, it is a continuation. I will give an example to the member opposite. Let us imagine what we should actually do. The Conservative leader came out yesterday and said he has a brand new, shiny policy. He is going to get rid of the GST on any homes that are being built, as long as they are under $1 million. Now, I wonder where he got that idea from. Did he get it from some individuals who might be in a conflict? He possibly did. Maybe we should get the Ethics Commissioner or the Commissioner of Lobbying to take a look at where that idea originated from. I do not know where it came from. Maybe Canadians should know. Can the member clearly indicate and provide assurances that there is no one who would have provided him that advice who would have been in any form of a conflict whatsoever? I remember when today's Deputy Prime Minister actually came and met with the Liberal caucus, while we were a third party inside the chamber. She talked about Canada's middle class and provided us information and thinking in terms of how we could ultimately enhance and support it. That was of great value. I would like to think that caucuses invite people with different levels of expertise to their meetings. Some might use the expert as an adviser, whether the Prime Minister, another minister or even me, to try to enhance the knowledge on an important issue. There is no need to assassinate the character just because they do not like that particular individual or they believe that individual might be in a conflict position if this star is here and that star is there. We can put on our tin hat, and this is what we think. After all, even though that person is not in the cabinet or a member of caucus, it could be inappropriate. Therefore, they want to try to get some news attention on it and, by the way, come up with a slogan. They have one. There are people in Canada who have a lot to offer. People do not have to be an elected official in order to be able to come to the table and offer good advice. Whether they are a member of Parliament who just has an interest in a topic area, a cabinet minister specializing in one policy area or the Prime Minister of Canada, I would like to think that we have an open mind to those individuals who have a certain level of expertise. I would argue that the Deputy Prime Minister today has more knowledge and ability to understand the issues of Canada's middle class than any other individual that I am aware of. Moreover, I have been aware of quite a few people over the years. She knows her stuff; that is why, at the end of the day, we see a healthier middle class in comparison with other countries. That is one of the reasons I was pleased to see the Deputy Prime Minister make a presentation to the national Liberal caucus at a time when we were in third party status; she could help us look at ways in which we could build sound public policy.

Mr. Speaker, I think people are concerned about the mistakes that the leader of the Conservative Party is making. We could talk about his announcement on housing from yesterday or the security clearance. One that really affects me and I think would upset a lot of Canadians is a more recent decision. When I think of Canada's diversity, I always think of how we have been enriched as a society, through, for example, Diwali, which we are going to be celebrating over the coming days. It is a part of our Canadian heritage in terms of who we are as a nation and as a people. Whether truth over misinformation or light over darkness, the member knows it well, as he is very familiar with Diwali. The leader of the Conservative Party has made the determination that he does not want Conservatives to participate in Diwali. Can he explain why?