Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 66 to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, these are interesting times. There is no doubt about that in terms of what takes place in Parliament nowadays. We have before us, once again, a concurrence motion. It is a really important issue. It is one of those issues that I would suggest Canadians are very concerned about. Ultimately, no government in the history of Canada has actually invested more real dollars in a sector than the current Prime Minister and government; it has never seen as much cash and other resources flow to it. That is the reality of the situation, whether opposition members want to recognize it or not. I will expand on that at great length shortly, but I also want to provide a comment in terms of where we are as a Parliament. Colleagues will know that we have not had any sort of discussion on legislative bills that are before the House, which are some very important pieces of legislation. Some of it would be direct, and maybe more so indirect, even dealing with the issue that we have before us today. Instead, we have seen different forms of things brought to the floor in order to prevent that discussion or debate from occurring. The best example we can give is the one where the Conservative Party moved a motion that “the government's failure of fully providing documents, as ordered by the House on June 10, 2024, be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.” The reason I mention it is that it is important to realize why, in good part, we are actually debating the report that we are debating today. It is because the Conservatives, in their wisdom or lack thereof, have decided to prevent any sort of debate on a wide spectrum of issues by filibustering their own motion. Since they have been doing that, we have seen members of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party actually bring in concurrence reports. In the past, I was very critical of concurrence reports being brought in, but I can appreciate the frustration of other political entities inside the House. Like me, they have been seeing the Conservatives playing games and denying Canadians the opportunity to hear a lot of positive debate and votes take place on issues that are critically important to them. I find that unfortunate. I hope that, at some point in time, we will be able to acknowledge that there are important issues in concurrence motions. We know that there are actually well over 100 reports out there. We could spend every day from now until September 2025 talking about a concurrence report. Some might be a little more interesting than others. I like this concurrence report in the sense that it is relevant to an issue that Canadians are concerned about. It provides us the opportunity to get some of the things that the federal government is actually doing on the record. The unfortunate reality of it, however, is that it continues to support and allow for the Conservative Party to ultimately filibuster the very simple motion that was put to the House. All members of the House actually want to see the motion voted on, except for the Conservatives, so that we are better able to deal with the important issues that Canadians have to face and deal with. That is why, day in and day out, we are appealing to the Conservative Party to start putting the interests of Canadians ahead of the leadership ambitions of the current leader and the Conservative Party in general here in Ottawa. We hope that, over the next number of days, weeks and whatever it takes, the Conservatives become a bit more sensitized to the issues that Canadians are facing. We hope that they will ultimately work with other political entities in the chamber so that we can have the types of debates it is necessary to have here on the floor of the House of Commons. Having said all that, housing is a very big issue. I recognize that. There is nothing new there. We know that housing has needed to be looked at, not only for this year but also in previous years. We made a bold start on the housing file a number of years ago. When I started off, I said that no other prime minister or government has done more in terms of contributing to the bigger picture of housing in Canada than the current Prime Minister and government. That is a fact. No government has worked as diligently as the current government has with provinces, territories, indigenous communities, every region of the country and the many different stakeholders out there. As a government, we have been very proactive on the housing file. We could contrast what we have done with previous governments. Even better yet, let us contrast the leader of the Conservative Party with the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, on the issue of the housing file. It does not take very much to expand on what the leader of the Conservative Party did. He was actually the housing minister when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. We have had many ministers talk about how enthusiastic the leader of the Conservative Party was with respect to housing when he was the minister of housing. He actually built six houses in Canada. Now, to the best of my knowledge, we have not found any of those six houses, but we are told that that he actually built six houses as minister of housing. That is a pretty impressive background. If we contrast that with what the leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has done, people would get a better understanding and appreciation of who really understands the needs and the housing-related issues as a leader. Yesterday, we were entertained with a Conservative idea. The Conservatives do not have very many of them, but we had one that floated to the top yesterday. It is a rare occurrence. What the Conservatives are saying now is that, if we bought a house for $900,000, we would not have to pay the GST on that house. That is the Conservatives' gift to the housing situation that Canada is facing today. At the same time, the leader of the Conservative Party says that they would also cut back on other federal programs dealing with housing. I found it interesting that the leader of the Conservative Party today said that they are helping homelessness. It raises the following question: How many people in homeless shelters do they think are going to benefit by building a $900,000 home in the next year or so? I suspect that it will not be any of them. I do not quite understand the Conservatives' policy. Maybe the leader of the Conservative Party got the idea when we said we were going to get rid of the GST on purpose-built rentals. Not only was that well received in Canada, but provincial jurisdictions did likewise for the PST. That in itself is going to lead to thousands of units being built across the country. That was a very strong and positive announcement from the Government of Canada, and now the leader of the Conservative Party is saying the Conservatives have a better idea, that they are going to give a break on GST to those buying brand new houses, putting in a cap of a million dollars. How does that deal with affordable housing? I can say right offhand that it deals with it in a very negative way, because while he is talking about this shiny new Conservative program, he will also be cutting programs that are going to build more affordable housing across Canada. Their policy statement does not make any sense, unless there is a theme that he wants to develop, the theme of axing the tax. I saw the motions he made today, moving his arm up and down. I see him do that inside and outside the House when he talks about axing the tax. He believes that he can fool Canadians. That is what this is about. He is trying to give an impression that Canadians are going to benefit because he is going to axe the GST for those building brand new houses. How many Canadians are going to benefit by that major policy announcement, particularly those who need affordable housing, especially when we factor in that he is going to cancel other programs? Interestingly enough, the Conservatives are critical, publicly and here in the House, of the Minister of Housing with regard to the accelerator fund. They say it is one of the programs they are going to axe. If we look at National Newswatch, we become very familiar with a number of the members of the Conservative caucus who disagree, at least those who wrote the Minister of Housing, with what the Conservative leader is saying. We got letters from Conservatives asking, in essence, for additional support on the housing file, appealing to the Minister of Housing for support on the initiative in their ridings. I applaud those members. They are doing what they should be doing in advocating for their constituents, even though their leader is advocating to get rid of the program. I find something odd about that. I know of at least five Conservatives who did this, and I understand there are potentially even more, as a number of communities are affected. I sure hope the letter was good. What do the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, the member for Simcoe North, the member for Fundy Royal, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola have in common? I suspect there are more, but here are the five we know of. They all have two things in common. One is that they are all Conservatives, and two, they all want the government program that the leader of the Conservative Party wants to get rid of, as he said in his announcement yesterday. Today, time after time, the leader of the Conservative Party stood in his place and said how good he is because of what so-and-so is saying about his announcement. At the end of the day, the Conservatives need to rethink their housing policy. While they are doing that, they might also want to rethink their price on pollution policy, because they have had a few flip-flops on it. I would suggest that if they wants to do the environment a favour, they should have yet another flip-flop. Shortly after coming into government, we established the national housing strategy. We can think of the affordable housing initiative and the rapid housing initiative too. Through supports of that nature, we were able to repair, renew and see the construction of literally tens of thousands of homes in different regions in Canada. We are providing loans and more to ensure that capital gets off the ground. We can talk about the support for non-profit, low-income housing that has been ongoing. The federal government provides hundreds of millions in subsidies to ensure that people can afford to live in non-profit housing. We have other programs that might not be as direct as one would like to see but are very important. I am thinking of the greener homes program, which provides support to individuals who want to make their homes more energy efficient. That was taken up by thousands of Canadians throughout the country. As a government, we believe in co-op housing and support it in a very tangible way. We want to see more co-op homes being built, because there is a difference between being a resident of a co-op and being a tenant in an apartment block. If I had more time, I would go into that in much greater detail. We also have the housing accelerator fund. There is a fundamental difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. We understand that the federal government has a strong leadership role to play on housing, and we are doing just that. However, we have to work with municipalities, provinces, territories, indigenous communities and the wide spectrum of stakeholders out there, like Habitat for Humanity, which does fantastic work. I suspect it has built more new homes in Winnipeg North, in particular in areas that are more challenged, than any other organization, including government. Stakeholders play a very important role, and we have been there to support them. Whether it is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, we are constantly looking for ways, working with the Minister of Housing and caucus colleagues, to bring up ideas on how we can improve Canada's housing stock and expand it. I remember the housing accelerator fund opportunity. It was great when the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg. He, the premier and the mayor of Winnipeg talked about how, by working together, all three levels of government were going to be able to accomplish so much more. These are the types of things we need to see more of. That is where the challenge is for the members opposite. We have invested. We understand the issue. We know that more work still needs to be done. However, they cannot tell me that any other national government in history, throughout the generations, has done more on the housing file than the Prime Minister and this government. That does not mean things are perfect; it means that we will continue to work for Canadians on this very serious issue. I would appeal in particular to the Conservative Party to stop the games it is playing on the floor of the House of Commons. Let us get to work for Canadians and put our party interests behind the interests of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that I would love to see the standing committee deal with. As for the issue of rent control, I was an MLA for a number of years, and rent control is in provincial jurisdiction. Having said that, I believe there is a role for our standing committees there, especially after yesterday's announcement, when the official opposition said the best way to deal with housing in the country is to give a tax break to people building houses under a million dollars. That is supposed to resolve the homelessness issue. It is supposed to resolve the affordable housing issue. I think we need better educated Conservative members to ensure there is good, sound public policy when it comes to housing. I would recommend that all committee members take a look at what the Conservative Party is talking about. It might cause a few of them to change their mind and backtrack, possibly do a flip-flop, on their most recent announcement. That would definitely be in the best interests of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not standing up for constituents if their leader is running around saying to kill the program, knowing full well that if they were to form government, the program would be a puff of smoke and disappear. That is not advocating for constituents. The member should be taking up the issue she just finished raising. If she believes in the program, she should be expressing that within her caucus. I am glad that she wrote a letter to the minister, but I suggest that she show that letter to the leader of the Conservative Party and tell him to flip-flop on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely know the difference. I was the housing critic in the province of Manitoba, where we had roughly 15,000 to 20,000 fully subsidized units that were based strictly on income. That is why I said that hundreds of millions go toward ongoing support of individuals in non-profit housing and affordable housing in different forms. Whether it is 100% subsidized or there is a 10% subsidy through other mechanisms, we understand that there need to be different forms of housing. I am a very strong advocate of, for example, housing co-ops. There should be all sorts of programs for non-profit organizations. I also think we need to see the different levels of government come to the table to look at how we can build more homes and have them be non-profit houses and units. There is a need there. Thank goodness we started when we did with the national housing strategy a number of years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my friend and colleague did a wonderful job in pointing out the issue. He made reference to five members, and as he was speaking, I thought maybe we should have a production of papers from the Minister of Housing of all the letters he has received from Conservatives asking for support from the housing programs. We might all be surprised. There might be a majority of Conservatives, and if we can get a majority of the Conservatives agreeing with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and her other colleagues, maybe the leader of the Conservative Party would flip-flop on the issue. It would definitely be in the interest of Canadians if the Conservatives did that flip-flop. Should we be asking the Minister of Housing, if we can get unanimous support, to provide all the letters from Conservative members requesting finances? Would I be able to request that as a unanimous consent motion?

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that there has not, and that is why I challenged him. He cannot give me a prime minister or government that has done more on the national housing scene than the Prime Minister or the government has done. He might not like that, but the reality is, when we compare the Liberals' performance to that of Thomas Mulcair when he was the leader of the official opposition, the NDP, during the 2015 election, we will find that the Liberal platform outdid the NDP platform on housing. Not only did we outdo it, but we are also actually implementing it. Having said that, we do appreciate the support that we get from the NDP.

Madam Speaker, it is a bit much to hear the member be disrespectful to the RCMP. I will quote a letter from the RCMP about the games or tactics the Conservative Party is using: “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” That is from the commissioner of the RCMP, and the Conservatives say, “Who cares?” They have their political agenda at hand and completely disregard what the RCMP is saying. The member says this is all about political Liberals lining the pockets of Liberals. However, the chairperson was an adviser to Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative; Stephen Harper, a far-right Conservative; and Jim Flaherty, another Conservative. She donates thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party, yet the member calls her a Liberal. The Conservative Party makes absolutely no sense on this issue. It feeds into the incompetence of the leader when he puts the interests of the Conservative Party ahead of the interests of Canadians. Will the member opposite encourage his leader to do the right thing, be respectful, listen to Canadians, put Canadians' interests ahead of the Conservative Party and the leader's interests, and get a security clearance so he is better able to deal with the issue of foreign interference? Will the member give his leader the advice to get a security clearance?

Madam Speaker, ironically, the member said “ducking” and “diving” and that members should answer questions. I asked him a question and he did not even answer it. Let me be more crystal clear for the member. Foreign interference is a very serious issue in Canada. All political leaders except his leader, the leader of the Conservative Party, have gotten their security clearance. There have been recommendations from legal experts, who have said he should be getting a security clearance. Others are saying the rationale the Conservatives are using is absolute nonsense. Will the member stop ducking and diving and actually answer the question that has been posed to him? Why is the leader of the Conservative Party not getting a security clearance? Do not give us a bogus answer that does not fly and has already been discredited.

Madam Speaker, that is just it. Let us have the vote. What the member just read is the motion. It is a Conservative motion, but it is the Conservative Party that is preventing the vote from occurring. The motion is going to pass. The Conservatives should allow the vote and allow us to give them what they want, which is for it to go to committee. That is the issue. That aside, there is another issue I have raised on numerous occasions, yet no one in the Conservative Party has been able to provide an explanation. Canadians have a right to know why the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada will not get the security clearance. Is there something in the background of the leader, something he is scared to tell Canadians about his past? Is it because the leadership convention that he won was influenced by foreign interference? Is it because members of his caucus are affiliated with it? What is it? Why is the Conservative leader so scared to tell Canadians about his past? I believe he has told his caucus members, who are also scared. What are they hiding? Why will they not even answer the question? I believe Canadians are owed the truth.

Madam Speaker, the member may not want to admit this, but he must be aware that the government has actually been moving significantly on the whole issue of the Internet, including how AI has really exploded over the last number of years. Having regulations in place and having legislation in place is important. In fact, the first time I witnessed the Conservatives actually using AI was when they wanted to amend a piece of legislation. I think, by using AI, they came up with 20,000 amendments in committee, which was a record in itself. So, we do know that the research bureau of the Conservative Party does use AI. There is a lot of benefit to using AI, but there are also drawbacks. Does he have any specific concerns in regard to its drawbacks?

Madam Speaker, it is a bit ironic that the Conservatives are expressing concern about legislation, yet they continue to play a game. It has lasted for well over three weeks; they are wasting time on the floor of the House of Commons because they made the decision to put their party and their leader ahead of the interest of Canadians. The example I would use is Bill C-63, which is a bill that deals with intimate images communicated without consent. It also deals with content that sexually victimizes children. The Conservatives are holding up that legislation. They are preventing it from ultimately even going to committee. They are more interested in the leadership of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party's interest than that of Canadians. Can he explain why they do not support that particular bill?

Madam Speaker, the member just said that we cannot afford to neglect legislation about children and protecting children. That is what the member just said, yet for the last many weeks, we have seen the Conservative Party of Canada put the interests of their leader and the Conservative Party ahead of the nation's interests, to the degree to which they will not even allow legislation to be debated, let alone get passed to committee. We have before the House Bill C-63, the online harms act. Why are the Conservatives filibustering to the degree that we cannot debate this bill regarding content and sexually victimized children on the Internet? Are they allowing it to continue to this degree because they want to filibuster?

Madam Speaker, to start, before I expand on it, I will make very clear that as of June 25, 2024, the capital gains inclusion rate increased from one-half to two-thirds on capital gains realized annually above $250,000 by individuals and on capital gains realized by corporations and most types of trusts. We are talking about a quarter of a million dollars annually. It does not surprise me that the Conservative Party does not recognize the value of that and does not expect a bit more from those who have that sort of profit, but it is not appropriate to say it is not fair. When the Liberals came back in 2015, we put a special tax on the wealthiest 1% in Canada, and the Conservatives opposed that. At the end of the day, we have supported Canada's middle class in a very tangible and real way. I would go back to the time we decreased taxes for Canada's middle class. Again, the Conservatives voted against that. We brought in programs to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it, and we have looked at ways we can support others. The member makes reference to inflation, but Canada, in comparison to virtually every other industrialized country, has done exceptionally well there. It does not mean that we sit back. We have not done that. We have recognized that we need to support Canadians, even though our economy, in many ways, is doing better than those of other countries around the world. We have done that through things such as the grocery rebate. Members of the Conservative caucus often reference seniors. We have supported seniors in very tangible ways, whether with the substantial increase to the GIS a number of years ago or with an increase for those 75 and over. In many ways, the government has been there to support Canadians, and we will continue to look for ways to do that. With a bigger, holistic approach when dealing with the economy, we have now seen interest rates drop in Canada, the first of the G7 countries. Inflation rates are now under control. I suggest the member take a look at the world environment, whether during the economic slowdown or the pandemic. No country was exempt from them. We all had to play a role. The Government of Canada, working with Canadians and other jurisdictions, like the provinces, the territories and indigenous leaders, has been able to minimize the negative impacts of what has been happening around the world. Yes, there are some areas where we need to increase revenue, but this is a fair way of doing it. The Liberals obviously disagree with the Conservatives, but when we first came out with the announcement, the Conservatives sat on their hands and said nothing. It took them a while to decide on the position they were going to take. As it took them a while to adopt their position, I suggest they go back to the drawing board on it.

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of very quick facts. Only 0.13% of Canadians with an average income of $1.42 million are expected to pay more tax on their capital gains in any given year. Also, the current 50% inclusion rate can lead to unfair circumstances, where a millionaire can pay a lower marginal rate on capital gains than a nurse pays on salary. People need to reflect on that. If my memory serves me correctly, Brian Mulroney had a higher percentage than what we are proposing. The member might want to fact-check that. I am relying purely on my memory.

Madam Speaker, I am going to get to the question right away, but first I want to wish people a happy Diwali. Diwali is celebrated in every region of the country. It is a part of our Canadian heritage. It is about good over evil, light over darkness, knowledge versus ignorance. I think Canadians, whatever their background, should get out there and celebrate Diwali. Having said that, I appreciate the member's comments. Obviously, I do not agree with the member's comments, because what he has been tasked with doing is what I classify as a character assassination, where a Conservative member goes out of their way to take down an individual. Often we see it of ministers. Now we even see it of potential future politicians. Mark Carney has, in fact, contributed as a public servant in many ways, not only here in Canada but also in the U.K. As governor of the Bank of Canada, he was at the forefront of public policy. I find it very disturbing when Conservatives are so focused on tearing people down without legitimate justification. The equivalent would be my taking four minutes to be critical of Jenni Byrne, for example. Jenni Byrne is very cozy with the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative caucus. She is a lobbyist. One of the firms her company lobbies for is Loblaw. Canadians are concerned about food inflation and that Loblaw might have been gouging consumers, yet that individual is in the inner circle of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. I would suggest she is probably closer to the leader, in different ways, than most Conservative members of Parliament. She carries a great deal of influence. As I said, I do not want to spend my full four minutes talking about that. Rather, I want to talk about some things we have witnessed over the last number of years, as there have been challenges in the economy. We look to individuals like Tiff Macklem, the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, the same governor the leader of the Conservative Party says we should be firing and the same governor who dismisses him completely. Because of that leadership and the administration of public policy, from Ottawa and other jurisdictions, today we have an inflation rate of less than 2%. We are on target. Interest rates are going down. I realize that goes against what the Conservatives want to do, which is to assassinate characters. Mr. Macklem is probably one of those individuals. At one point, the Conservative leader was critical of him. He has backed off a bit, to his credit. We have a lot of people who have done so much for our country. We should—

Madam Speaker, I am sure members noticed that the member indicated it is not about character assassination and then right away went into “carbon tax Carney”. That is the slogan, because the Conservatives are very good at creating slogans. I do not know whether they use AI or what they do to come up with their slogans, but at the end of the day, all one needs to do is read the member's comments that he has put on the record or the many comments that his colleagues have put on the record. The character assassination is not only of this particular individual, who does not sit in the chamber. There is also a great deal of focus even on the Prime Minister. I knew that the Conservatives started character assassination with the leader of the Liberal Party even before he was Prime Minister. Even before he was actually the leader of the Liberal Party, they were going after his character in a very negative way. They have spent millions—

Madam Speaker, I am going to have to call the member. She just finished saying that, of course, the leader of the Conservative Party was advised on the policy he announced yesterday by anti-poverty advocates. We can think about that for a moment. How many homeless Canadians are going to benefit by purchasing a brand new house next year? How many anti-poverty advocates are really endorsing this particular announcement that people should not have to pay GST if they are going to spend $900,000 on a brand new house? By the way, the Conservatives would also be deleting all the other housing programs that are, in fact, supporting non-profit housing. It does not make any sense.

Madam Speaker, the report goes on. Again, these are not the views of the CBC. After reading the entire story, we see there is fair criticism across the board. It points out facts and a great deal of misinformation. That misinformation is what the Conservatives are thriving on, and that is why we are seeing an attack once again, today, on the CBC. The report continues: ...Fadden said those threat reduction measures are meant to inform politicians when they may themselves be targeted and wouldn't be used to share classified information with the leader of a party. Interestingly enough, it goes on here: “You can't give classified information to people if they don't have security clearances. Can you muck around on the margins and try and get people to think differently? Yes, but that's not what we're talking about,” he said. This is an expert. The leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservatives have been calling on the Prime Minister “to release the names of allegedly compromised parliamentarians. They repeated that demand on Wednesday.” How many times have we heard that demand here in the form of formal speeches and through heckling? We hear them make that demand constantly. Here is what the professionals, the individuals in the know, have to say: But law enforcement and national security agencies have been clear on this point: sharing any classified information is a crime. Every time we hear Conservatives demand that we tell them the 11 names, number one, I do not know the 11 names, but if I did, it would be a crime to tell them. Again, I go back to the story: “Anyone who reveals classified information is subject to the law equally and obviously, in this case, those names are classified at this time and to reveal them publicly would be a criminal offence,” RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn told MPs on the public accounts committee in June. I am very disappointed in how the Conservative Party has played a very strong, destructive role. I remind them that they also have an obligation. As they focus their attention purely on what is in the best interest of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party, we will remain focused on Canadians and their interests, on providing programs and supports, and supporting our economy, knowing full well that we need to build on our infrastructure, support Canada's middle class and encourage an economy that works for all Canadians. We are starting to see the signs of that when we get interest rates coming down, the inflation rate finally under control and on target, and the creation of jobs. Hope is there; 2025 is going to be a good year for Canadians. We will continue to work for Canadians, first and foremost. That is the right thing to do, as opposed to looking at ways to filibuster. That is what today's motion on the CBC is all about. It is not about the issue. Conservatives are using it as a mechanism to prevent the House of Commons from being able to have debates, to pass legislation and to look at issues affecting Canadians on a day in, day out basis. No matter how obstructive Conservatives are, I can assure members opposite that the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on Canadians. Having said that, I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: The 8th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for further consideration, provided that it be an instruction to the committee to study the consequences of defunding the CBC and Radio-Canada, including the effects on smaller communities, as promised by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservatives are running out of speakers on the question of privilege. About 100-plus Conservatives have stood up on the privilege issue. Because they are possibly running a little shy in terms of something new to say, which we have not heard for weeks, they now stand up and introduce a concurrence motion as opposed to having to debate the privilege motion. Is the Conservative Party so desperate to find speakers to deal with the privilege issue that it now has to bring in concurrence motions in order to filibuster its filibuster, which has an amendment to an amendment to a motion, a motion they actually support but refuse to allow to come to a vote? How silly is this?

Madam Speaker, I will get the opportunity to address the chamber on a wide variety of issues reflecting on the CBC, but I have a specific question for the member. The member for Lethbridge had a shell-shock moment when she was questioned about CBC/Radio-Canada; she really did not know what to say. She came back with the response that she kind of supports the leader of the Conservative Party. We are a little unclear. Can the member opposite provide a 100% guarantee that the Conservatives will not touch CBC/Radio-Canada? Will he provide that commitment now?

Madam Speaker, I put it in the form of a question earlier, but this is something that people really need to take a note of: the silliness of the Conservative Party today under the leadership of, I would suggest, a Conservative Reformer who is heavily influenced by the far right. The degree to which the Conservatives want to filibuster is incredible. Let us think about what they are proposing today. First and foremost, the Conservatives moved a motion weeks ago on a question of privilege, saying that they want an issue to go to the procedure and House affairs committee. Now, after they moved that motion, we quickly found out that all members of the House were actually in favour of it. However, the Conservatives then flip-flopped a little and said no, they wanted to have some members speak to the motion. They then brought in an amendment and put up dozens of speakers. Next, they brought in a subamendment and put up dozens more speakers. This was not done to deal with the issue, but it was all in an attempt to frustrate the House of Commons. The leader of the Conservative Party is more concerned about the Conservative Party than about Canadians and the issues that we are facing, denying a litany of important pieces of legislation and other types of debate dealing with everything from online harms affecting children to courts converting from military to civilian courts, citizenship and so much more. The Conservatives are more interested in themselves and in forgoing what is in the interests of Canadians. Today, the Conservatives brought in a motion for concurrence in order to be able to filibuster their original filibuster of having an issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee. I find the degree to which the Conservatives are focused on themselves really interesting. There are lots of reports out there, 100-plus reports, that the Conservatives could call on. Which issue do they decide to pull out to contribute to their filibuster? It is the issue of the CBC. There is nothing new there, in the sense that the Conservative Party, especially under the current leadership, has no time at all for the CBC or CTV. The party's leader has no respect for either of those two media outlets. I suspect it is because the Conservatives do not like it when their behaviour and their actions are reflected in the national news. They would rather rely on misinformation, fake news, social media and the data bank they have of a million-plus emails. They want to take a page out of U.S. politics and spread massive amounts of misinformation. That is how they believe they are going to be successful. The more uninformed Canadians are, the greater the likelihood of the Conservatives' being successful becomes. The more they can promote hatred towards politicians, the more they will be successful. That is the reason the Conservatives want to talk about the CBC today. It is interesting. The member for Timmins—James Bay actually raised an issue that I want to spend a bit of time talking about. I believe there is a personal vendetta that we are seeing with the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have a hatred for CBC, which is well known and well established. If we look at some of the things that it has been reporting on, that is where we will find why the Conservatives want to talk about the CBC today. The Conservatives have their sights on getting rid of CBC because CBC is informing Canadians about what is happening in a very real sense. Over the last couple days, I have challenged many members of the Conservative Party on the issue of foreign interference. I do not know how many times, but it has been a lot: dozens of times. I have consistently asked these questions because the answers the Conservatives are giving are completely unrelated to the truth. Interestingly enough, the CBC had a report on it, and I want to share some things the CBC is actually saying. I would ask members to make the connection as to whether there is any surprise the Conservative Party of Canada, headed by its extreme-right leader, has no time for the CBC and wants to get rid of it. This is the reason we are seeing that. Here is a report that came out on CBC that members can check. The headline was “Why won't [the PM] release classified names — and why won't [the leader of the Conservative Party] get a security clearance?” I am going to read some of the details in it, but the issue is very serious. In fact, interestingly, I actually have two reports from the CBC. I will go with the first one here on foreign interference and how much that has been raised inside the House. Canadians are genuinely concerned about foreign interference, whether it is of a highly political nature or in our communities. Yesterday, I made reference to assassinations and extortion taking place. We continue to look at a number of countries. It is not just one country. It is a serious issue. Here is an example that was on CBC not that long ago, and it is in reference to a website that has actually been frozen, I believe by the FBI. The article reads: A website at the heart of an international Russian disinformation operation has produced more than a dozen articles about Canadian politics in an apparent attempt to undermine support for [the Prime Minister of Canada] and boost his chief rival, [the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada]. The website Reliable Recent News has been identified by officials in Europe and the U.S. as a repository for pro-Kremlin articles. This is Russia trying to influence what people think here in Canada. The CBC reported on this. The Conservatives do not like that, of course, because a lot of people watch CBC; they have confidence and trust in the CBC. Why are the Conservatives so much aligned to get rid of the CBC? Let us fast-forward and remember the issue of foreign interference. We have one leader in the House of Commons who is putting his party's interests and himself ahead of the nation, and that is the leader of the Conservative Party. The leaders of the Green Party, NDP and Bloc have all received the security clearance, as has the Prime Minister, obviously. The only one who refuses to get it is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada; he says that if he gets it, he will not be able to speak about the issues. That is one of the concerns that he actually raises. We all know that this is not true, but that is the only thing that the Conservatives can come up with in their attempt to justify putting their party ahead of the nation's interests. The misinformation on this issue is significant. If we look at social media, whether it is from the leader or other members of the Conservative Party, we will find that they are continually and intentionally misleading people through social media and emails. We have one of Canada's most trusted media outlets. What was actually said? What was actually reported? Again, this is not the CBC saying it; this is the CBC reporting it. Who are its sources? Well, they are former CSIS directors, individuals who are in the know. They understand the issues. They are professionals. They are people we should all be respecting. When we talk about CSIS directors or the RCMP, these are institutions that should be respected, not thrown to the side in favour of Conservative propaganda. The CBC article states that in the past, the leader of the Conservative Party “has defended his decision not to receive a national security clearance and get briefed by intelligence agencies by arguing that it would prevent him from speaking freely and criticizing the government on foreign interference issues.” That is the Conservatives' argument, so they state. Richard Fadden, a former CSIS director, “said that wouldn't be the case.” The article goes on: “Just because you have a security clearance doesn't mean you have to become a...monk and never speak,” he said. He also said that [the leader of the Conservative Party] could choose to be briefed only on issues affecting his own party if he wanted to create a buffer ensuring he could criticize the government on foreign interference. In his statement on Wednesday, [the leader of the Conservative Party] said his chief of staff has received classified briefings. “At no time has the government told me or my chief of staff of any current or former Conservative parliamentarian or candidate knowingly participating in foreign interference,” he said. So says the leader of the Conservative Party, because he refuses to get the security clearance. But Elcock said that CSIS would not brief a chief of staff on foreign interference issues pertaining to individual parliamentarians. “What could the chief of staff do with the information?” Elcock said. “[The leader of the Conservative Party] doesn't have a clearance, so the chief of staff can't tell him the information. And the chief of staff has no power to do anything about the MPs or make decisions about the MPs because he's not the leader of the party.” During the inquiry hearing on Wednesday, lawyer Nando De Luca, acting for the Conservative Party, argued that CSIS could use something called a “threat reduction measure” to inform [the leader—

Madam Speaker, the interruption is okay. There is no worry. I believe the Conservatives should feel a bit of hope because of the amendment we have proposed. We are saying that this should be given to the committee, where we could talk about what the Conservative agenda is on the issue of the CBC. I see that as a positive thing. I trust members of the Conservative Party, along with other members, will support this well-thought-out amendment.

Madam Speaker, I do look for ways in which we can improve the system. CBC/Radio-Canada is such a critical part of our identity. As an example, it highlights the uniqueness of the province of Quebec. I am open to having a dialogue about how we can make CBC Television or CBC Radio more efficient to better answer needs into the future. That is why I think this is a good amendment. Hopefully, we will be able to get members from the Bloc to also support it.

Madam Speaker, with the support and help of the NDP, we were able to eliminate those oil subsidies the member made reference to, and I think that is a good thing. We can accomplish some great things when NDP and Liberal members work together in a progressive nature. From day one of my being a parliamentarian, I have seen that Liberals consistently support the CBC. At best, the Conservatives flip-flop depending on the leader of the Conservative Party. Sometimes they are quiet, and sometimes they are vocal. Under this far-right Conservative leader, they want to get rid of the CBC. Let there be no doubt, if the Conservative leader were to become prime minister, the CBC would be gone.

Madam Speaker, the minister raises an excellent point. Part of our Canadian heritage is our languages. We have the French language and English language. The impact the Conservatives would have on the French language, not only in the province of Quebec but also, and especially, in other regions of Canada, would be profoundly negative under the current leader of the Conservative Party. In Winnipeg, I think of St. Boniface, Manitoba. We can also talk about St-Pierre-Jolys. So many communities across Canada benefit because of the way the CBC is integrated and has what I would classify as a bilingual factor. It is a part of our identity and our heritage. That is why it is so important that Canadians understand that, under the Conservative Party, the CBC would be gone. The best way to protect the CBC is to ensure that the Conservatives do not form government.

Madam Speaker, there has been a suggestion that I might want to amend the motion, but maybe this would be a good discussion point once it gets to committee. I like to think that progressive parties, whether it is the Greens, the NDP or the Bloc, understand and appreciate the true value of the CBC. It is somewhat ironic that we have the Conservative Party saying, on one hand, that it is going to get rid of the CBC if it is elected in government while, on the other hand, it is advertising on the CBC. The reason why it is advertising on the CBC is that the Conservative Party knows that a lot of people follow and have a lot of respect for the CBC. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there, but the reality is that the Conservative Party has been highly critical of not only the CBC but also CTV. Conservatives tend to shy away from any sort of mainstream, strong, healthy media outlet in favour of social media and the far right in its spreading of misinformation.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member highlighted how our communities have benefited greatly by the presence of CBC/Radio-Canada or CBC in general. Looking at what other progressive nations around the world have, these are jewels that we need to preserve. It does not mean that there is no sense of accountability. We have standing committees in good part to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability. Is the member inclined to support the motion that we put forward?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of foreign interference, not to surprise anyone, because at the end of the day, time and time again the Conservatives are quiet. They come up with bogus rationales. The bottom line is that the leader of the Conservative Party is putting his self-interest and the Conservative Party ahead of the national interest and what is in the best interest of Canadians. He is doing that by refusing to get the security clearance. There are all sorts of issues and concerns in regard to foreign interference. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not get that clearance? Is there something in his background? Could the member clearly give an indication to the House, and through the House to Canadians, why the current leader of the Conservative Party does not want to get the security clearance and could he explain what he might be hiding?

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we recognize that foreign interference is a serious issue. We are not alone; Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand and appreciate how important the issue is. The Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party are putting the leader's self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party of Canada over the interests of Canadians. I find that very shameful. The leader of the Green Party, the leader of the NDP, the leader of the Bloc party and the Prime Minister all have the security clearance. Only the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada has chosen not to get the security clearance. What is it that the Conservative leader is hiding? Is there something in his past that Canadians should know about? I believe that the leader needs to step up and get the security clearance today, or tell Canadians what he is scared of.

Madam Speaker, the member is having flashbacks with respect to the issues with this particular government. I will remind him of when the leader of the Conservative Party was a part of the Conservative government. I have a booklet on abuses of power, scandals and corruption, and I could list off 70-plus scandals, abuses of power and corruption by the Harper government that the current leader was a part of. There was the Senate hush money scandal, contempt of Parliament, refusal to share budget information, granted immunity testimony and so forth. I say that because of how the Conservatives have changed. There is a legitimate reason that we cannot hand the information over to the RCMP, let alone the fact that it has said this would not be appropriate. Suffice it to say that the current leader of the Conservative Party was part of a government in which the then prime minister was held in contempt of Parliament because he refused to produce the types of documents they are calling for now. Why the substantial flip-flop when they could not justify it in their situation? Here we are listening to the RCMP as opposed to the Conservatives. Does the member not see a bit of hypocrisy?

Madam Speaker, this is a very clear issue. The RCMP has said the Conservative game or tactic is not right. The member for Kingston and the Islands asked a very good question about how many cases like this there were when the member was a prosecutor. Will the member answer the question? It is a very simple question. How many cases like this did he try in his extensive career, or any of his colleagues? Can he cite any cases above the number zero? Can he say something or should we assume it is zero? How many cases has he dealt with that were done through a—

Madam Speaker, the member was having some flashbacks, but they were limited to 2015. There is an interesting booklet, “The Evidence Compiled”, on Stephen Harper that includes abuses of power, scandals and corruption. The list is long. There are at least 70: “Senate Hush Money”, “Contempt of Parliament”, “Refusal to Share Budget Info”, “Cabinet Staffers...Immunity from Testimony”, “Falsify Reports and Documents”, “Repeated Duplicity in Afghan Detainees”, “F-35 Fighter Jets” scandal, “Blames Statistics Canada”, lying and all sorts of stuff, if members want to talk about abuse of power. Anyway, that is not what today is about. Today is about having the Conservatives shut up and allow the debate to come to a conclusion so we can actually comply with what the Speaker is suggesting: that the issue be handed over to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It is no surprise the Conservatives want to continue the filibuster, at a great expense. They are serving the Conservative Party as opposed to the interests of Canadians. Why does the Conservative leader consistently do things against the interests of Canadians, even when he was parliamentary secretary to prime minister Stephen Harper when that prime minister was held in contempt? He does this all the time.

Mr. Speaker, to be very brief, I did not know Bob Sopuck before the by-election in which he was successfully elected. He and I were elected at the same time. He had a very strong personality, a personality that sticks with someone, as did the manner in which he conveyed his thoughts. I always thought of Bob as a great outdoorsman, someone who truly understood the benefits of a healthy environment, whether it is nature, land or water. I had a deep respect for him. I would classify him as a true Conservative, but a Conservative who could really express himself. One would respect the gentleman and his attitude. I want to give my condolences to Caroline and the family. I know Bob will be dearly missed and in the prayers of many of his former constituents and Manitoban families. I was really touched by the member's comments in regard to Bob, and I wanted to take the opportunity to wish his family and friends well, and give them our prayers.

Mr. Speaker, we have been witnessing an ongoing game that the Conservative Party continues to play at significant expense. I would like to provide an example of foreign interference. This is an issue that affects us all. All Canadians are concerned about foreign interference. I care passionately about the Sikh and Indo-Canadian communities and the impact that foreign interference is having on them. There is everything from extortion to assassinations, as well as allegations of the Conservative leadership being manipulated through foreign interference and parliamentarians being involved in it. However, every leader in the House of Commons, except for the Conservative leader, has gotten the security clearance. It is not good for the Conservative Party to put its personal interest ahead of the national interest. Can the member explain why the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get a security clearance when so many Canadians are concerned about international foreign interference in Canada today?

Mr. Speaker, here is where the member is incorrect when he asserts that his leader does not want to be gagged. I ask members to listen to what iPolitics stated: Wesley Wark, who has advised both Liberal and Conservative governments on national security issues, said the Tory leader is knowingly misleading the public by claiming he doesn't need the clearance because his chief of staff has received briefings. “[The leader's] idea that it is sufficient for his chief of staff to be briefed for him and for his chief of staff to share that information with him is complete nonsense,” Wark told iPolitics. No gag would be imposed on the leader of the Conservative Party. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not do the honourable thing, get the security clearance and show Canadians that he is going to put the nation ahead of his party?

Mr. Speaker, I will emphasize that this is nothing more than a political game the Conservatives are playing, at a very expensive cost. I want to pick up on the member's quote when he says, “to do what is right”. That is what we are asking the Conservative leader of Canada to do: to do what is right. To take another quote from the member, he says Canadians deserve it, and he, again, is right. Canadians do deserve to know why the Conservative leader today is refusing to get the security clearance. Why is he putting his political party ahead of the interest of the nation? That is a legitimate question, and we have yet to hear any argument as to why and how the leader of the Conservative party is justifying that behaviour by refusing. The leaders of the Bloc, the Greens and the NDP, as well as, obviously, the Prime Minister, all have that security clearance. What is the Conservative Party scared of? They owe an answer, a credible answer, to Canadians. What is it?

Mr. Speaker, I asked a legitimate question of the member, and he chose to completely ignore it. That does not make the question or the issue disappear. Canadians have a right to know why the Conservative leader of Canada has chosen to put his party ahead of the nation. Can the member across the way explain, from his perspective, why the leader of the Conservative Party is not coming clean with Canadians about getting the security clearance and, if he continues to refuse to do so, to explain the real reason? Is there something in his background that Canadians should know about?

Mr. Speaker, that is still not an answer. Let me move to something a little more relevant in his mind. At the end of the day, the only prime minister in the history of Canada to ever be held in contempt of Parliament was Stephen Harper. The parliamentary secretary at that time is today's leader of the Conservative Party. I could argue that he is once again in contempt of Parliament by not doing what is in the nation's best interest. Why is the leader of the Conservative Party so driven to not get that security clearance? What is it in his past that is preventing him from doing the honourable thing and putting the nation ahead of his political party?

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party today was the parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who was the only prime minister in the Commonwealth who has actually been held in contempt of Parliament. Fast-forward to today, and we have the leader of the Conservative Party continue to filibuster a motion that all other opposition parties and the government want to see come to a vote. This is nothing but a game to the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives know that, but they refuse to focus on the real issues. I have raised the issue of why the leader of the Conservative Party has put his party ahead of the interests of the nation by not getting a security clearance. I am wondering if this member could provide his thoughts as to why the leader of the Conservative Party today refuses to join the other leaders in this chamber in getting a security clearance, so he is better able to deal with the issue of foreign interference. Can he justify that?

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, the member of Parliament who just spoke was a part of the Stephen Harper government. I will remind her that the current leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary to the first Prime Minister in the history of Canada, as well as the Commonwealth, to be found in contempt of Parliament. If we fast-forward to today, we have the current leader of the Conservative Party, I would ultimately argue, once again demonstrating his contempt of Parliament as the Conservatives continue to play this filibustering game. Would the member opposite not agree that, instead of playing this game, we should be dealing with issues such as foreign interference and her leader's continuing refusal to get the security clearance required? He is putting his party and his self-interest ahead of the interests of the nation. Can she explain why?