Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, not only did we have a question period where we had questions dealing with the issue of foreign affairs, but we also had members' statements dealing with foreign affairs. I think it is because Canadians have a right to know why the leader of the Conservative Party continues to refuse to get the security clearance so he can become better informed on the issue of foreign interference. The feeling is that he has something to hide, that there is something in his background preventing him from being able to get that security clearance, and this is a valid concern that continues to be raised. While the Conservatives want to play the game of filibuster, maybe they can do some serious stuff here and give a clear indication of why the leader of the Conservative Party feels he is the only national leader who does not require a security clearance. Canadians have a right to know. Will the member give us some sense, some indication, of why his leader refuses to get that security clearance?

Madam Speaker, this is a Conservative motion that, ultimately, the Conservatives are filibustering in order to deal with any other legislative issues. It is, what I would argue, a contempt of sorts that we are witnessing. Now, today's leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper, the only prime minister in the history of the Commonwealth that has been found in contempt of Parliament. How does it demonstrate leadership when we have a Conservative opposition leader who is virtually in contempt of Parliament again and, at the same time, refusing to get the security clearance on the important issue of foreign interference? Why does the Conservative Party continue to support a leader that puts his party ahead of the nation?

Madam Speaker, the Liberal insider whom the member continues to make reference to was actually an adviser to Stephen Harper and to Jim Flaherty. She donated thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party. The member has the audacity to call the person a Liberal insider and base his whole argument on that in regard to the issue of the Liberal Party. Meanwhile, the real issue is this: Vote and the matter would go to committee and be talked about, or play the Conservative game, disrespect Canadians and filibuster the House of Commons. Why is the Conservative Party putting its personal interests ahead of the interests of the nation?

Madam Speaker, the member started off by talking about the lack of respect for the institution. What we are witnessing from the Conservative Party of Canada every day is just that. I would ultimately argue that it is a form of contempt of Parliament, every day, from the Conservative Party. Canadians should not be surprised because the only prime minister in the history of the British Commonwealth found to be in contempt of Parliament was Stephen Harper. The parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper at the time was none other than the leader of the Conservative Party today. Why does the leader of the Conservative Party believe he can have so much disrespect for the Parliament of Canada? Why does he refuse to get the security clearance to deal with the important issue of foreign interference? When will the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party, specifically, start putting the interests of the nation ahead of his own personal interests and the interests of the Conservative Party?

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are consistently filibustering the interests of Canadians. The leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the only prime minister to ever be held in contempt of Parliament, not only in Canada but the entire Commonwealth. We can see through this current leader of the Conservative Party, and the behaviour that we witnessed for the last three weeks, that he is the one who ultimately needs to be held accountable for his actions of contempt of Parliament, in my opinion.

Madam Speaker, as the Conservatives have continued to play this game, I have raised many other issues. I will pose a question to the member opposite. There is a need for all leaders of the House to recognize the value of getting a security clearance, and concern has been raised about why the Conservative Party leader has chosen not to get a security clearance. Is there something in the Conservative leader's past that he is concerned would disqualify him from getting a security clearance? Does he believe that Canadians have a right to know?

Madam Speaker, the lack of respect for the House of Commons is actually being administered by the Conservative Party of Canada and the leader of the Conservative Party. I am not going to play the game they play of consistently spreading misinformation. The motion should have been voted on, and it should have gone to committee. That is what the Speaker is saying. I am going to go back to the issue of foreign interference and the terrible rationale that the Conservatives use. It is interesting, in regard to the leader of the Conservative Party and his dealings with the issue of foreign interference. Here is what iPolitics says, and I love the headline: “[Leader]'s approach to national security is ‘complete nonsense,’ says expert.... Wesley Wark, who has advised Liberal and Conservative governments on national security, said [the] Tory Leader...is ‘playing with Canadians’ by refusing to get a top-level security clearance and receive classified briefings on foreign interference.” This is a serious issue. Can the member give any indication whatsoever of what it is about the background of the current leader of the Conservative Party that might not allow him to get the security clearance? Is the fear that there is something about his history, his background, that would not allow him to get—

Madam Speaker, the government is being asked to gather information and hand it directly over to the RCMP. However, the RCMP has said that it does not like the Conservative tactic. The Office of the Auditor General of Canada has said that it does not like the tactic. The former law clerk of the House of Commons has said that he does not support the tactic. There is a genuine lack of respect for these institutions that is being driven by the leader of the Conservative Party. However, whether it is those institutions or the issue of the security clearance, members of the Conservative Party caucus collectively put their head in the sand and ignore what Canadians have a right to know. Again, we have experts saying that the leader of the Conservative Party should get the security clearance. Why will those in the Conservative Party not be honest with Canadians and tell us why their leader would not qualify for security clearance, as I am beginning to believe is the real reason?

Madam Speaker, I know you know that I love being able to contribute in a positive way. Hopefully, the member opposite will understand why I would rather not take advice from the Conservatives. After all, what they are suggesting is that there is nothing wrong with the production of papers and that all we have to do is get the information and hand it directly over to the RCMP. I have a choice. Do I listen to the commissioner of the RCMP or do I listen to the self-serving Conservative Party of Canada? Here is a quote I would like to provide the member opposite from Mike Duheme, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” That is not me, the Liberal Party or the government saying it, but the RCMP commissioner. That was reinforced in different ways by the Auditor General of Canada and by the former law clerk of the House of Commons. This is something the Conservative Party completely ignores, so when the member talks about a lack of respect for the institution, the Conservative members need to look in a mirror. This is no surprise, because he was a part of a government when his leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, that saw the only prime minister to be held in contempt of Parliament. I wonder if the member opposite would share with us why the Conservatives believe they do not have to be responsible because they are in opposition, when I would argue there are some things they could do. They could show some goodwill and get the leader of the Conservative Party to agree to get the security clearance.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about corruption. The most corrupt prime minister that Canada has ever seen is likely Stephen Harper. In fact, he is the only prime minister in the history of Canada who has been found in contempt of Parliament. The leader of the Conservative Party today was his parliamentary secretary. No one was a stronger advocate for Stephen Harper than the leader of the Conservative Party, who sat around the cabinet table. Having said that, nothing has changed. Today, the leader of the Conservative Party, unlike the NDP leader, the Green Party leader and the Bloc leader, says he does not need to get a security clearance. Why should the leader of the Conservative Party not get the security clearance that would enable him to find out what is happening with foreign interference? What is the leader of the Conservative Party hiding?

Mr. Speaker, what is sad is when Conservatives stand up as we just saw and say things, in what I would suggest is a very sincere fashion, that are so misleading in every respect. I just do not believe virtually anything that he has said. That is what is so sad. The Conservative Party has made the decision to filibuster a motion that it supports and that everyone wants to vote on. The Conservatives continue to spread misinformation when, honest to God, it is the Conservative Party that is causing this filibuster. They should get off it, start supporting Canadians and stop supporting the Conservative Party agenda.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite need a reality check. When the leader of the Conservative Party was part of the Conservative government, do members know what the Conservatives did on immigration? I was the critic when they froze the parents and grandparents program, and when that did not resolve the problem, they cancelled it, saying people could not sponsor their moms and dads to come here. When it came to overseas immigrants coming to Canada, the Conservatives hit the delete button, deleting hundreds of thousands of potential people being able to come to Canada because they could not deal with processing times. They should not lecture us on broken immigration systems.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, during S.O. 31s, or at any other time, members are not supposed to be using props. However, members cannot stand up and challenge a person for using a prop. The member for Bow River was in fact using a prop during his S.O. statement, and I believe you should take a look, see what was being used as a prop and either come back or, at the very least, provide a warning.

Mr. Speaker, what we need is accountability to Canadians and to know why the Conservative Party continues to filibuster the business of the House of Commons. Nothing has really changed, because when it comes to the business of the House of Commons, one prime minister, Stephen Harper, is the only prime minister to ever be held in contempt of Parliament. Who was his parliamentary secretary at the time? It was today's leader of the Conservative Party. Today's leader of the Conservative Party still refuses to get the security clearance that is necessary so he can become informed about foreign interference. What is the leader of the Conservative Party hiding? What is he not telling Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the member opposite was saying. I reflect upon myself, personally, and the commitment I have made to my constituents to put them first and foremost in all the things I do. It is one of the reasons I go to my local McDonald's once a week, for hours, just to make sure people know that I am accessible between elections. What the member does not necessarily refer to is that she is basing her argument on the issue of what is before us today, at least in part. She is saying that we should be providing the documents. She was part of a government, when the leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in which there was an actual finding of contempt. He is the only prime minister in the history of Canada who has been found in contempt. I do not recall any Conservatives standing in their place, after this, to demonstrate any sort of remorse whatsoever in the situation—

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the member up on a serious gesture, and hopefully she will accept it. Ideally, I would love to have the member come to Winnipeg North and have a discussion on this issue in front of a grade 9 class, whether it is at Maples Collegiate, Sisler High School, R. B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School. If she is prepared to do that, I would love to be able to provide the same reciprocal response and go to one of her constituency high schools, where we could have a discussion on the issue that we have been debating over the last number of weeks. Is she confident enough in her position that she would take me up on that challenge?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to Canadians following that to indicate that, from the government's perspective, the Conservative Party is the one that is actually playing games, at a great expense. The Conservatives have chosen not to allow a vote on the motion that everyone else wants to vote on. Rather, they want to filibuster their own motion because they do not want it to go to committee, even though that was the ruling of the Chair. Having said that, the member talked about nothing new. I could talk about Harper's corruption and how the current Conservative leader was directly involved with abuses of powers and so forth, including contempt of Parliament. My question to the member is related to a very important issue of foreign interference. All of the leaders in the House of Commons today have the necessary security clearance, except for the leader of the Conservative Party, who refuses. Is it because there are serious allegations of foreign interference in the leadership race that he won? This is a very serious issue. Is it because there are other names among the Conservative parliamentarians that are there that he does not want to know about? Instead, he chirps from his seat, “Give us the names”, knowing full well that we cannot provide those names. What is the Conservative Party leader hiding from Canadians that he is so scared of getting the security clearance? Why not?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Conservatives stand up to provide comment on the report. What do they say? They want to get rid of Sport Canada. Why am I not surprised? When we talk about Conservatives, all they want to do is take things apart, cut, cut, cut. There was the ministerial response to the report. Has the hon. member actually read the ministerial response and if the answer to that is yes, is there any aspect of that ministerial response that he supports?

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member; the Conservatives would take action on this file if they were in government. The first question the Conservative Party asked on this issue was about how it would get rid of Sport Canada. I should not say that came as a surprise, because I am used to the Conservatives talking about cuts, whether it is about cutting the CBC or cutting the dental program. They have those big scissors and they are prepared to do all the cutting their little hearts desire. However, I was surprised by how eager the member's colleague was to get on the record that the Conservatives would cut Sport Canada. Does the member support his colleague's comment that the Conservatives would cut Sport Canada?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this very important issue. There is no doubt that the standing committee did a fabulous job of gathering information. I would especially like to give a shout-out to those individuals who shared their personal stories. I am sure that if we were to canvass members who listened to those personal stories, we would find that members in all political parties would express a great deal of gratitude to the witnesses for having the courage to share their stories. By going to the standing committee, they shared their stories with all Canadians. In my book, that would have taken a great deal of courage. For this reason, I would like to acknowledge those presenters who went before the committee. I want to emphasize that this has been a very important priority for this government. When we think of sports and the abuse that has taken place, this is not new, unfortunately. It has been there for many years. I can assure people that the government's priority has been the safety of kids. We take this very seriously. It is one of the reasons why we were very pleased to see the standing committee deal with this important issue. Even the presentations we have had thus far have been really encouraging, at least in some ways, not as encouraging in others. I will be sharing my time, Madam Speaker, with one of my colleagues from the Bloc. Let us look at a number of the comments that were put on the record today. I thought the parliamentary secretary, the member for Milton, did a fabulous job explaining, to anyone following the debate, the types of actions the government has taken. He also shared with us his personal experience. He is someone who can relate, at least in good part, with individuals who are most affected. He has a depth of knowledge that very few people in the chamber would have, and I would encourage others look at what he had to say. I was disappointed in the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood's thoughts in regard to the issue. We are trying to come up with some ideas with respect to how we can improve the system, and he summarized the Conservative Party's position by saying that we should get rid of Sport Canada. That is the far-right attitude we often see from the Conservative Party. Cutting something does not make things better. I had the opportunity to ask another Conservative member if he supported that and he did not deny it. I am led to believe that is what a Conservative government would do. We have a contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the way we would approach public policy. It is one that is based on marginalized government, where it cuts where it can, versus a government that cares about people and the role that government can play to support Canadians. We see that when we get speeches like the ones we heard earlier and in the questions on those speeches. Here is what the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood said in his response to a question from the Bloc member, “disband it altogether.” In the background, I can hear some members from the Conservative lobby saying, “Hear, hear.” Canadians can hear them. When the election comes, we will ensure that Canadians know how sharp the knife is in the Conservative Party, that the leader of the Conservative Party yields two machetes, like a samurai, cutting everything he can see so he can fix the budget. We just heard another statement about something they are going to fix, but at what cost? As a government, our primary concern is the safety of kids. What is the alternative? What is the Conservative Party going to do to deal with this issue? First and foremost, I would like to think the Conservatives recognize the seriousness of the issue. Instead of just talking about cuts, what are they going to do to deal with the issue? I understand that Stephen Harper did nothing, and the leader of the Conservative Party was one of his minions back then. However, at the end of the day, the issue does not disappear. Through organizations, we are able to build upon it, whether it is through regulations or codes of ethics. The government has done that to ensure our athletes, both today and into the future, are in fact being protected. The report deals with the issue of how we can best provide support to our children. We can answer that by reading what the minister has provided to the House, responding to the issues listed in the report that we are debating. The minister gave about an 12-13 page response. I would highly recommend that members read the response. I want to pick up on another point. As the House deals with concurrence reports, it does give us a break from the Conservative game and why the leader of the Conservative Party does not want to get the security clearance, unlike every other leader in the House of Commons, because he does not have an interest in foreign interference and its impact within the Conservative Party. I believe there is a reason, and it might have something to do with Conservative leader's past. We are getting a break from talking about that issue, whether it is concurrence reports or the hours and hours of debate by the Conservatives on a bogus issue, which is their motion that ultimately asks for the issue to go to procedure and House affairs committee. The Conservatives do not want to allow it to go to committee. The Conservatives are actually talking out their own motion. With the sort of behaviour we have witnessed over the last few weeks, they are denying the government the opportunity to bring forward its legislative agenda that deals with things such as the inappropriate use of the Internet, and I am talking about the harms to children, to reforms of our military court system being transferred to the civil side to changes to our Citizenship Act. My plea to the Conservative Party is to start thinking about Canadians first as opposed to the Conservative Party. Hopefully this report will pass.

Madam Speaker, I will tell the member what is unacceptable. Are there individuals who could have done a whole lot better? Yes. Am I disappointed that actions with respect to this were not taken as quickly as they might have been? Absolutely. However, what I disagree with wholeheartedly is that when the Conservative Party has an opportunity to say that it supports Sport Canada, it declines to do so. We have had more Conservatives stand in their place and ultimately defend what the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood has said, which is that they will disband Sport Canada. However, we do not have to get rid of Sport Canada because we do not like the actions of a few people. This institution does have a role to play. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for not recognizing that fact.

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, if the member opposite were to read the first couple pages of the letter that was provided by the minister, the answer to his question will be found. It states: ...the Future of Sport in Canada Commission. Canadians deserve a sport framework that upholds our national values of equality, fairness, and inclusivity. I am committed to a system grounded in human rights, where sport participants have access to safe, welcoming, inclusive and accountable sport environments that are free from all forms of maltreatment and serve all participants responsibly. The minister even makes reference to how this committee could have a positive impact on the future potential of a public inquiry. I see that as a positive thing. It is a good, detailed letter.

Madam Speaker, the Future of Sport in Canada Commission should provide a great deal of assurance, as should the amount of advocacy that has taken place. People want a really good understanding of how the government is approaching this issue. All one needs to do is to read what the member for Milton said earlier about his first-hand experience. At the end of the day, I believe we have made significant progress on this file.

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that we are here because the Conservatives moved a motion that would send this issue to a standing committee. Instead of allowing that to be voted upon, now they are filibustering, believing we should just release all the information unredacted to the RCMP directly. The RCMP commissioner said, on that issue, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” Conservatives want us to listen to the Conservative Party over the RCMP. I say no, that would be a stupid thing to do. This is not the first time. We then have another issue that has come up. An article from iPolitics reads: 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’s 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. Why does the Conservative leader not respect what the RCMP is saying about today and the security clearance issue?

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can just expand in regard to the issue of the filibuster. I think it is important that what is being asked is for this report to go to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is what the Speaker's ruling is. The Conservatives, on the other hand, continue to not only filibuster the main motion but also the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment. They are the ones who are actually filibustering and they are trying to get the Liberal government to say no to the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and the former law clerk when it comes to directly collecting documents and handing them directly to the RCMP. That is wrong yet the Conservatives believe it is right. Can the member indicate why they are filibustering?

Madam Speaker, there is one fundamental flaw when we look at the order and what is being requested of the government. The Conservatives are saying we should collect the documents, unredacted, and hand them directly to the RCMP. The RCMP has said no. The Auditor General has said no. The former law clerk has said no. What the member missed saying is that the only prime minister in the history of Canada to ever be held in contempt of Parliament was Stephen Harper. Who was his parliamentary secretary? It was the leader of the Conservative Party. Nothing has changed. The leader of the Conservative Party today, for example, refuses to get the security clearance so he can be informed about foreign interference. It is a serious issue. On the one hand, Conservatives play games on the floor of the chamber and exaggerate and mislead on many fronts, including many of the statements the member just put on the record; then, on the other hand, they ignore the important issue of foreign interference. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not get his security clearance?

Madam Speaker, to respond to what the member said, the Liberal leader does not need to get the security clearance, even though the NDP leader, the Bloc leader and the Green Party leader already have it. This was in iPolitics, and it is really something: The leader of the Conservative Party's "approach to national security is ‘complete nonsense,’ says expert”. 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—

Madam Speaker, I am not too sure where I was when I was interrupted. This is only about the tenth time I've made reference to it. Anyway, I would suggest to the member opposite that she really think about her answer. When other leaders of political parties and experts are saying that her leader's arguments are absolutely nonsense, it is a reflection on the member's arguments. It makes no sense unless, of course, the leader of the Conservative Party has something to hide, something he is not telling Canadians, something that would not allow him to get the security clearance. I believe that is the case. Why will the leader not do what other leaders have done and get the security clearance? Does he not think the issue is serious enough?

Madam Speaker, while the member was having some flashbacks to the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien eras, he missed the Stephen Harper era. That is an important era because the leader of the Conservative Party today was the parliamentary secretary to and a minister for prime minister Stephen Harper. I have a document that shows over 70 scandals, and it does not include another $400-million scandal that I am aware of, the ETS scandal. Members can look it up with a Google search. The bottom line is that the past behaviour of the current Conservative leader demonstrates very clearly why he continues to thumb his nose at Canadians when it comes to getting the security clearance. It is a very serious issue. Every other leader has gotten the security clearance. He talks about foreign interference. There are serious allegations of foreign interference relating to the Conservative leadership. There are Conservative parliamentarians that we should know about, according to the leader of the Conservative Party. Why does the leader of the Conservative Party not get the security clearance? What has he got to hide? What is in his past that we do not know? Canadians have a right to know.

Madam Speaker, the member started off by talking about trust in Parliament. However, all she needs to do is to look at her own leader, the leader of the Conservative Party today, when he was the parliamentary secretary to then prime minister Stephen Harper. He is the only prime minister in the history of Canada, not to mention the Commonwealth, who was held in contempt of Parliament. Then we will see that the games continue with the leader of the Conservative Party. We have a serious issue of foreign interference, and he is the only leader in the House of Commons who is continually refusing to get the security clearance that is necessary. It begs this question: Why? Is there something that Canadians should know about the leader of the Conservative Party, which he is not telling them, that would disqualify him?

Madam Speaker, I believe I could have given a better answer to the question that was just asked. All one needed to do is take a look at Stephen Harper and page 1 of one document: “PMO Tied to Senate Hush Money Scandal”, “Harper Found in Contempt of Parliament”, “Against Court Order, Refusal to Share Budget [Information]”, “Conservative Cabinet Staffers Granted Immunity from Testimony” and “Conservatives Falsify Reports and Documents”. This is a huge document of abuse of a power—

Madam Speaker, it is a list of a litany of things in which there was abuse of power and corruption. Name it; it is all there, and it is a long list. That was just Stephen Harper. The problem is that when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the current leader of the Conservative Party was his parliamentary secretary and sat around cabinet. I would suggest that what we witness today when he says he does not want to get the security clearance, unlike every other leader in the House of Commons, is a false argument and that he is hiding something. Canadians have a right to know why the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get the national security clearance. Canadians have a right to know that. Why will the Conservatives not come clean? What are they hiding?

Madam Speaker, we actually have released the documents. This motion is about the issue going to the procedure and House affairs committee. The bottom line is that the Conservative Party wants to continue to play games. That is what it is all about. To quote the member, “Past behaviour predicts future behaviour.” I started to list off some scandals, but I have a very long list: “Repeated Duplicity in Afghan Detainees Controversy”; “Repeated Duplicity on Costing of F-35 Fighter Jets”; “Harper Minister Lies, Blames Statistics Canada for Killing Long Form Census”; “Conservative MP Admits He Lied to Parliament”; “Conservative House Leader Admits to Mockery of Question Period”; “Harper Maligns the Supreme Court Chief Justice”. I will continue on as the day goes on. Nothing has changed. The Leader of the Opposition's behaviour is still the same as when he was the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister. Why will he not get the security clearance? Canadians have a right to know. What is the argument that the Conservative Party is advancing to justify its leader not getting the security clearance?

Madam Speaker, this can end today if the Conservatives stop playing games. What the Conservative Party is asking the federal government to do is ignore what the RCMP is saying, what the Auditor General is saying and what the former law clerk is saying, all independent institutions. The game the Conservatives are playing is very destructive. It is consistent with what I have challenged members opposite to tell Canadians, and it is a continuation of the Conservative leader's refusal to get the security clearance to become informed about foreign interference. Not one Conservative has stood in their place and justified to Canadians why he should be the only leader in the House of Commons who does not need clearance. I believe it is because of his past. What is in the leader of the Conservative Party's past that is preventing him from getting that clearance?

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with a whole lot of what the member is saying. When I think of corruptness, all I needs to do is take a look at the most corrupt prime minister, Stephen Harper. The parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper is the Conservatives' current leader. The pattern of behaviour we have seen since Stephen Harper continues to live on in the current leader. That is the reason he refuses to get a security clearance. I think Canadians have a right to know why that is. Is there something in his past that will not allow him to get a security clearance? The leaders of the New Democrats, the Bloc and the Green Party, all of us, have it but not the leader of the Conservative Party. How does the member opposite or any Conservative defend a leader who refuses to consider the national interests of Canada and does not get a security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, not on one or two occasions, but on three occasions, the Ethics Commissioner has cleared the minister the member is referring to. Let me go to the bigger picture she is talking about with what we have been seeing over the last 12 or 13 sitting days. We have an opposition party that is so outside of reality that it is only focused on its leader and what is in the best interests of the Conservative Party, not what is in the best interests of Canadians. That is what we have witnessed over the last 13 days. The member says we should just provide the documents. What she is really saying is that we should believe the Conservative-Reform party, not listen to what the RCMP is saying and do what Conservatives say. The leader of the Conservative Party continues to put his thumb up to the RCMP, the Auditor General, the former law clerk and others in a total lack of respect to what we are supposed to be doing in the House. It is an abuse of power that we are seeing from the Conservative leader. I say that without reservation because that is the truth, whether the member wants to hear it or not. When the member talks about what is taking place now, in essence she is saying what the Liberal Party should not be listening to. I have a letter from the chief commissioner of the RCMP, which says, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” The letter is indicating that he does not support the tactic the Conservative Party of Canada is using. That is not the only thing that the Conservatives are putting their thumbs up to. I have an article from iPolitics. This is a reflection on the so-called leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada today. The article reads: 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’s 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. The leader of the Conservative Party has absolutely no respect for this institution, let alone other institutions, whether it is the RCMP or the Office of the Auditor General. He has not only demonstrated that in the last number of months, but also demonstrated that when he was the parliamentary secretary to former prime minister Stephen Harper, who was held in contempt of the House of Commons, the first and only prime minister who has been held in contempt of Parliament. The Conservative Party has a lot to learn about the actions it has taken. Its sole focus has been on the Conservative Party and its leader as opposed to what is in the best interests of Canadians. Instead of debating substantive legislation or talking about serious issues in Canada, Conservatives want to filibuster their own motion and prevent it from ultimately passing. It is something that we want to see go to PROC.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I never ever do is take my constituents for granted. I feel very fortunate that on 10 occasions, the people, particularly in the Inkster area, have been very supportive of me. I appreciate that. Having said that, I am not going to be intimidated or blackmailed in any fashion by any Conservative from speaking the truth. Contrary to the lies that we hear from the leader of the Conservative Party on a daily basis coming out of the leader's office. I would suggest that there is a way around this, which is to recognize that we need to see the Conservative Party's emphasis shift to what is in the best interest of Canadians and start allowing the House of Commons, once again, to deal with legislation and other important issues that Canadians want to see take place. I encourage them all to do that.

Mr. Speaker, your ruling was that this issue go before a standing committee. It had nothing to do with the member's misrepresentation of what she says the Speaker's ruling was. The reason why we are here is because of unethical behaviour coming from Conservative members that want to filibuster a Canadian agenda versus a Conservative Party agenda. When will the Conservatives start to put Canadians ahead of their own political agenda?