Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, what a challenge doing the right thing is for members of the Conservative caucus. Here is what the RCMP's Mike Duheme had to say with regard to the political game the Conservative Party is playing: “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” When I raised this issue yesterday, the Conservative game-players said the RCMP was instructed virtually by the PMO to write the letter. What a shame that is. The Conservative Party is now trying to discredit the RCMP. That is how far right the Conservative Party is today: discrediting institutions and doing character assassination. Does the member support her colleagues' comments to discredit the RCMP, particularly the commissioner, on the issue?

Madam Speaker, yesterday, one of the members talked about past behaviour and why it was relevant. I have one report with 70 confirmations of Conservatives' abuses of power, corruption and so forth. I would be happy to name all 70 of them. However, it missed one of the most obvious ones, which was the ETS scandal of Stephen Harper. Why is that important? It is important because the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper was the current Conservative leader. As we fast-forward to today, foreign interference is a very serious issue and he is the only leader who refuses to get the necessary security clearance. The Conservatives talk about hiding, but what is the leader of the Conservative Party hiding from? Is it because something in his past is going to disqualify him? Is that why he is not getting the security clearance? Canadians have a right to know exactly why. Does the member not agree that the Conservative leader needs to come clean on foreign interference?

Madam Speaker, with serious allegations of foreign interference in the leadership race of the Conservative Party, today's leader of the Conservative Party is being questioned about the methods with which he achieved the leadership. Why would the leader of the Conservative Party not take the initiative and get the security clearance that every other leader in the House of Commons has in order to take a look at the allegations and the names? What is the leader of the Conservative Party so afraid of? Is he scared that something in his past is going to deny him the opportunity to get clearance?

Mr. Speaker, the member just used the word “misinformation” and talked about Liberal friends. The individual she is talking about was a political adviser to Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper, and Jim Flaherty. Ms. Verschuren is a major contributor to the Conservative Party of Canada. She has contributed thousands of dollars. Yes, we did appoint her. With hindsight, maybe she should not have been appointed, given what has taken place. Having said that, the games the Conservatives have played over the last three weeks are disgraceful. At the same time, the leader of the official opposition is scared to get a security clearance so he can look at what is happening with foreign interference. Why will the Conservative Party not stop playing this game and get serious about the issues Canadians are having to face? A good starting point would be for the leader of the Conservative Party to get the necessary security clearance so he can see the so-called 11 names.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting watching Conservative after Conservative stand up when they know full well that all this information has been provided. It is nothing more than a game that the Conservative Party is playing. The RCMP has very clearly indicated that it is uncomfortable with the game. What is being asked is to hand information over to the RCMP directly. We are listening to what the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and many other stakeholders are saying. That is what the Government of Canada is actually doing; the Conservatives want to play a game. I will highlight another game regarding the Conservative leader: “[A]ccording to one national security expert”, he is “‘playing with Canadians’ by refusing to get a top-level security clearance and receive classified briefings on foreign interference”. This is a security expert who advised both Liberal and Conservative governments. The games, whether inside or outside the chamber, continue with the Conservatives; they are putting the Conservative Party ahead of the interests of Canadians. Whether it is this game or, more importantly, the game related to interference, very simply, why will the leader of the Conservative Party not go ahead and get a security clearance so that he can actually be informed on the foreign interference file? Why is he playing a game?

Mr. Speaker, we are not playing the game that the Conservatives want to play. The Conservatives want to put the Conservative Party first and foremost. We want to put the concerns of Canadians first and foremost. They are giving the false impression that the government is preventing legislation from being debated when it is the Conservatives who refuse to allow a vote on a motion that they put on the floor. It is the Conservative Party of Canada, the far right, that discredits the RCMP, does not listen to what the RCMP says, does not listen to what the Auditor General of Canada has said and does not listen to what the former deputy law clerk has said. They have their game to play and who gives a damn about Canadians. That is attitude we see the from Conservatives day in and day out. When is the Conservative Party of Canada going to start caring about Canadians as opposed to its personal self-interests?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint the member opposite, because he does raise a very interesting issue. However, before we get into the actual question, it should be noted for all the Conservative members who are speaking that the only prime minister in the history of Canada to be held in contempt of Parliament was no other than Stephen Harper. Guess who his parliamentary secretary was. It was the current leader of the Conservative Party, the great defender of the contempt back then. Nothing has changed if we think about it. Now, the leader of the Conservative Party feels that it is okay and that he does not need to get a security clearance. He is the only leader in the House of Commons who figures that he does not need to get it. The member opposite is saying that, well, he should not get it; after all, it is not in his best interest to do it. I will read what Wesley Wark said in an article. However, before the member is critical of this individual, he was an adviser to both Conservative and Liberal governments. The article reads: “Conservative Leader...is “playing with Canadians” by refusing to get a top-level security clearance and receive classified briefings on foreign interference, according to one national security expert.” I am wondering if the member might want to retract some of his comments and give advice to his leader to do the honourable thing, to do what the leaders of the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, and the Prime Minister have done and get the security clearance.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member is aware that the individual the Conservatives consistently bring up as a Liberal-friendly appointment was actually a Conservative adviser to Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, all Conservatives. Not only that, but she donated literally thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party and yet they want to call her a Liberal insider giving Liberal grants. That might have been the case in the days of Stephen Harper, and the way he treated appointments and so forth. That is not the way that has been taken here. When the government found out about the information, it took swift action to shut the thing down and actually ensure that we could continue moving forward in getting to the bottom of the issue. Why does the Conservative Party continue to mislead Canadians, speech after speech, when Conservatives know it is just not true?

Madam Speaker, false facts and misinformation are all we hear coming from the Conservative benches. If we go to the last question, the member said we appointed a Liberal as the chair. The chair the member is referring to was an adviser to Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney, both Conservatives, and Jim Flaherty, who is another Conservative, and contributes thousands and thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party. However, that does not matter; the facts do not matter. For the Conservatives, this is nothing more than a cheap political game they play at a great cost. Tens of thousands of dollars have been wasted because of this game. However, it is not the only game. Here is another game. To quote iPolitics, the Conservative leader is “‘playing with Canadians’ by refusing to get a top-level security clearance and receive classified briefings on foreign interference, according to one national security expert.” Again, this is a national expert who advises both Liberal and Conservative governments. It is nothing but games. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not do the honourable thing and get a security clearance so that he can at least be in tune with foreign interference?

Madam Speaker, this is how this actually rolled out. The member entered the House and made the comment himself that he had said no to the NDP request to have all leaders of the House of Commons get the security clearance. He was very proud to say that he had said no. Then, in his answer to the question of my colleague, he said that my colleague had said no first. No, he did not, and that is not the way it worked out. After the member said no to the NDP, we heard another motion, brought forward by his own political party, stating that the Liberals should release the names. There is a short answer to this. If the leader were to get the security clearance that every other leader in the House of Commons has, then he could get the names. However, he has chosen not to do that. What is it that Canadians do not know about the history or the background of the leader of the Conservative Party that is causing him to not get the clearance? Did he do something illegal? Is that the reason he is not getting the clearance?

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that in speech after speech, we hear a great deal of misinformation being spread. Let me give an example. The member said that the government has paralyzed the House of Commons. The motion itself says that we should take the issue to the procedure and House affairs committee. Every member who has spoken knows that. The only reason we are still debating it today is because Conservative after Conservative chooses to stand up, even though it is their motion. It is a Conservative motion that it go to committee. The Conservatives feel that it should continue to be debated endlessly. As a result, we are not able to debate government agenda items that deal with citizenship, victims of sexual assault, online harms and so much more. How can members opposite justify their actions when they are filibustering their very own motion?

Madam Speaker, the member has acknowledged that they are filibustering it, because they want the government to produce unredacted documents. We have provided thousands and thousands of sheets of paper. The motion they are talking about is to take those papers, get them unredacted and hand them over to the RCMP. Now, the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and the former deputy law clerk have said they do not support this tactic. The Conservative Party is playing a game. It is as simple as that. The member knows that. Why should the Liberal government take the Conservative side over what the RCMP, the Auditor General and the former deputy law clerk are saying? Why would we believe the Conservative Party, and play their silly game?

Madam Speaker, one of the Conservatives said yesterday that it is about behaviour from the past. I heard the member talk about a list of issues that many other Conservatives have actually raised time and time again. Having said that, I was looking at a publication that talks about 70 abuses of power and corruption and uses a lot of negative words about Stephen Harper. In fact he is the only former prime minister in the history of Canada who was deemed to be in contempt of Parliament. Who was his great defender? It was the current leader of the Conservative Party. In fact, he was the parliamentary secretary to the then prime minister when the latter was in contempt. Now the leader of the Conservative Party is refusing to get a security clearance so he can see the 11 names. When will the Conservative Party stop with the games and start dealing with the issues that Canadians want us to be dealing with? When will they allow their motion to pass, by stopping all the talk about it and actually having a vote on it?

Madam Speaker, speaking of corruption, I am wondering if the member can indicate why the Conservative leader continues to refuse to get security clearance? She made reference to 11 MPs. All the leader needs to do is exactly what the leader of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the Green Party and the Prime Minister have done: They have clearance. Others are suggesting that the Conservative leader needs to get clearance. Why not?

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is true to form. There is no one who is better at being able to stay focused on the issue of character assassination, and one does not even have to be an elected politician at times. I find interesting how many times the member tried to get the message out about carbon tax so-and-so, listing off another individual. I know what it is, because I have also seen the email on it. The Conservative Party actually has a fundraising email that is virtually the same as what the member opposite is saying. That is just it; this is all about games, the Conservative Party and character assassination, consistently. The Conservatives always talk about “Liberal-friendly”. Take a look at the issue we have been debating for the last 12 days in the House of Commons. Instead of dealing with issues that Canadians are really concerned about, the Conservatives are more concerned about games. They are concerned about the Conservative Party, and that is it, but not about Canadians and the issues that Canadians have to face. A good example of that is when the Conservatives talk about Liberal appointments, saying that Liberal people benefit, and they criticize Annette Verschuren. Annette was appointed as chair of SDTC, and the Conservatives constantly say she is a Liberal. However, this individual was an adviser to Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney and Jim Flaherty, all Conservatives. She is also an individual who contributed thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party, yet the Conservatives will say that she is a Liberal insider. It does not matter to them; the facts and reality are completely irrelevant. All they want to do is make people look as bad as possible, even if this spreads misinformation, and then try to generate cash through misleading emails to Canadians. I would love to see the Conservatives' email bank. It has got to be a million plus in terms of the number of individuals. How do they get that data mine? Well, they learned stuff from the United States. This is the far right moving into the Conservative Party. It is the MAGA right, and they understand how they can milk the system. That is exactly what the Conservative Party, or the Conservative Reform Party, is all about. However, when it comes to being responsible, forget that. The Leader of the Opposition refuses to get a security clearance so he could actually find out information about foreign interference. Instead, there are members across the way crying out, “tell us the names”, even though they know that it is illegal for us to do so. They still say it. All they have to do is tell the leader of the Conservative Party to join with the leaders of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party, and the Prime Minister, and get the security clearance. If he does that, then he gets to see the 11 names. However, I bet that if he saw the 11 names, he would not share them, because it would be illegal for him to do so and he might have to go to jail. Therefore of course he is not going to do what his minions are telling him to do when they say, “share the names”. To me, that is irresponsible, and I have witnessed it first-hand for years.

Madam Speaker, we cannot make this stuff up. Here is what an iPolitics article said: “[The leader of the Conservative Party]'s approach to national security is 'complete nonsense', says expert.” It states, “Conservative Leader...is 'playing with Canadians' by refusing to get a top-level security clearance and receive classified briefings on foreign interference, according to one national security expert.” We are talking about Wesley Wark. Wesley Wark was a security adviser not only for Liberal governments, but also Conservative governments. On national security issues, the article goes on to say, “the Tory leader is knowingly misleading the public by claiming he doesn’t need the clearance because his chief of staff has received briefings.” How stupid is that, Madam Speaker? I would suggest what really needs to happen is the Conservative Party needs to wake up, do what is right and instruct the leader of the Conservative Party to get that security clearance so he can—

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's reference to the word “dumb”. I will tell him about one of the dumbest things I have heard coming from the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. This is the leader who refuses to get a security clearance so he can be made aware of foreign interference. We know about the many allegations in regard to his leadership, not to mention what we hear about Conservative parliamentarians, yet the leader of the Conservatives is saying, “So what if I am leader? I do not need a security clearance; I prefer to be dumb.” That is what he is saying about this issue. Why is the member's leader scared to get a security clearance? Is it because he has something to hide?

Mr. Speaker, the member said my question was not necessarily relevant because he did not like it. He feels a little uncomfortable. However, when we are talking about accountability, he is talking about paper production. We are talking about information that the leader of the Conservative Party does not want to hear. The leader of the Conservative Party wants to be prime minister of a G8 country, yet he does not want to get the security clearance. Canadians have a right to know why he is so scared of getting the security clearance. Does he have something to hide?

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the member's lack of recognition, so I will ask him for his personal opinion. Does he believe the leader of the Conservative Party should be getting a security clearance, given the fact that every other leader in the House of Commons will? If he does not believe that, will he tell Canadians why the leader of the Conservative Party is scared to get that security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, the only prime minister in Canada's history, let alone that of the British Commonwealth, to be held in contempt of Parliament was Stephen Harper. The greatest advocate for Stephen Harper at that time was none other than the leader of the Conservative Party. Is there any surprise there? The leader of the Conservative Party now says that he does not need to have security clearance and that, at the end of the day, he would prefer to be naive about foreign interference as opposed to understanding the issue. What is in the past history of the current leader of the Conservative Party that disallows him from being able to get his security clearance? Can the member opposite share with Canadians what Pierre Poilievre, or the Conservative leader, is hiding that prevents him from getting security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the issue we are debating today and reflect on it a bit, I would suggest that the Conservative Party needs to go back and look at the only prime minister to date to have been held in contempt of Parliament, who is Stephen Harper. Guess who the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister was at the time. It was none other than the leader of the Conservative Party today, the great defender of that contempt of Parliament. Now the leader of the Conservative Party feels that he does not need to get a security clearance so he can be informed on foreign international interference, a concern Canadians have. I am looking to members opposite, any Conservative, to stand in their place and tell us why their leader will not get a security clearance so he can be informed like every other leader of the House. What is he hiding? What is in his past that Conservatives are not sharing with Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, in this situation, the leader of the Conservative Party says, “I want more information. I want to see the unredacted information.” On the other hand, when it comes to foreign interference, an issue that Canadians are deeply concerned about, he does not want to get his security clearance. What does Wesley Wark, who advised the Liberal and Conservative governments on national security, have to say? He says that the Tory leader “is ‘playing with Canadians’ by refusing to get a top-level security clearance and receive classified briefings on foreign interference.” The leader of the Conservative Party wants it both ways. Why is he choosing to play games with Canadians? What is it in his past that Canadians should be aware of that would prevent him from getting the security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, as the member was reflecting on history, let me remind him of another history. There were 70 abuses of power by Stephen Harper, 31 of them scandals, corruption and contempt. The current leader of the Conservative-Reform party, who was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper, does not even want to get the security clearance necessary to deal with the issue of foreign interference. This is very much a hot topic in Canada. Why does the leader of the Conservative Party refuse to get a security clearance? What in his past might cause it to be denied? Is the member opposite aware of anything that would prevent the leader of the Conservative Party from being able to get a security clearance? Is that why he is not applying for it?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative reformers across the way need to better understand why Stephen Harper was the only Prime Minister in the history of Canada who was found in contempt. Why is that relevant? Think of the character of the current leader of the Conservatives. Their current leader was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister back then. Why would someone not understand why it is important that the leader of the Conservative Party is saying that he does not want to get the security clearance so he can get more information about members of Parliament? Maybe the member can provide her response to this quote by Wesley Wark, who has advised both Liberal and Conservative governments on national security issues, who said that the “Tory leader is knowingly misleading the public by claiming he doesn't need the security clearance because his chief of staff has received briefings.” The leader of the Conservative Party is playing games with Canadians. When is the game going to stop, and when will he be getting that security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, I have had members from the member opposite's ranks today say, “Tell us the names of the 11 MPs dealing with foreign interference.” If he were to get security clearance, the leader of the Conservative Party could go and get the names. However, unlike the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the Green Party, the leader of the NDP and obviously the Prime Minister, he has chosen to be blind on the issue. Can the member justify why the leader of the Conservative Party feels it is appropriate to play games with Canadians on this important issue?

Mr. Speaker, this is nothing but a game for the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative caucus. At the end of the day, if the Conservatives stop talking, it passes. The Liberal Party wants to see it go to committee. The Conservatives know that, but the games continue. The only government to be held in contempt of Parliament, in the history of Canada and the Commonwealth, is Stephen Harper's government. When he was prime minister, who was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister? It was none other than the leader of the Conservative Party. Today, we have the leader of the Conservative Party saying he does not even want to get the security clearance. The question is why. What is the history? What does the leader of the Conservative Party have to hide? Why is he not being accountable to the public, to the Canadian people?

Mr. Speaker, do members know that Stephen Harper has been the only prime minister in history to date who has been in contempt of Parliament? Interestingly enough, the leader of the Conservative Party today, the Conservative Reform Party, was his parliamentary secretary at the time. Is it any surprise that he would not want to get the security clearance necessary in order to understand what is happening on foreign interference. It begs this question: What is the history of the leader of the Conservative Party? Does he believe that he is not going to be able to get the security clearance? Is that the reason he does not want it? Canadians have the right to know the leader of the Conservative Party's past. What is he hiding? I want to know, and Canadians want to know, why he will not step up and do something about it. Why will he not do the honourable thing and apply for the security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 4.1(3) of the Lobbying Act and Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed reappointment of Nancy Bélanger as Commissioner of Lobbying for a term of seven years. Pursuant to subsection 54(3) of the Access to Information Act and Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed reappointment of Caroline Maynard as Information Commissioner for a term of seven years. I request that these nominations and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

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, at the conclusion of Oral Questions on Tuesday, October 22, 2024, the House observe a moment of silence for the 10th anniversary of the attack on Parliament Hill, that afterwards, a member of each recognized party, a member of the Green Party, and the Speaker, each be permitted to make a statement to pay tribute for not more than 5 minutes each.

Mr. Speaker, the member drew our attention to past behaviour. We can learn a lot from past behaviour. We should look at Stephen Harper. He was the only prime minister who was held in contempt of Parliament. His parliamentary secretary is the leader of the Conservative Party today. On many of the issues the member talked about, we should look at why Stephen Harper was held in contempt. The current leader of the party was a great defender of that contempt. We see the pattern continue today. The Conservative leader does not believe he needs a security clearance and feels he does not have to be accountable. Does the member have any sense as to why the leader of the Conservative Party today, for example, refuses to get a security clearance? Is it because he would not qualify?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to something one of the member's colleagues talked about, and that is past behaviour. There is an interesting book that lists 70 instances of abuses of power, corruption, just name it, with Stephen Harper. I quickly went through it, but it missed one of the largest ones, the ETS scandal, which was a $400-million scandal. I do not think all the problems with Stephen Harper have been documented. Why is that relevant? It is because the point person for Stephen Harper is today's leader of the Conservative Party. If we reflect on behaviour from the past, members of the Conservative Party need to look in the mirror and start asking questions of the Conservative leader, such as why he does not have the guts to get a security clearance and what he is hiding. Is there something about the leader of the Conservative Party's past that would not allow him to get the security clearance? Is that not a valid question, and should Canadians not have an answer to that?

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the original motion states that the issue should go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and other stakeholders have said that the tactic the Conservatives are using is wrong; it is questionable and it should not be done. It is an abuse of power. All of that is what is being implied. The Conservatives moved the motion to have it go to committee, then when they ran out of speakers, they moved an amendment, and now we are speaking to an amendment to an amendment. Why is that? It is because of what the member is actually talking about: The Conservatives have not put the interest of Canadians in their hearts. What they have put in their hearts is just the Conservative Party of Canada and nothing else.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussion among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order, or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 later this day, no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition Conservatives continually want to play the game, at a great cost to Canadians but to the benefit, I suspect, of the Conservative Party. My question is related to a previous member standing in his place clearly calling into question the letter written by the RCMP commissioner. This is the far right of the Conservative Party coming out. Its members are talking about how the RCMP is discredited now, which is part of this ongoing game they are playing. This all goes to the leadership of the Conservative Party. Can the member explain to Canadians why the leader of the Conservative Party feels no obligation to get a security clearance in order to find out what is happening in foreign affairs as opposed to discrediting the RCMP?

Mr. Speaker, just because a Conservative member says something in the House does not necessarily mean that it is factually accurate, and I will give a tangible example. Many Conservatives stand in their place and talk about a Liberal-leaning board. The member knows, and if he does not then he should know, that the chair of the board was an adviser to Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney and Jim Flaherty, and contributed thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party. Yes, we did appoint her to the board, and there were tangible actions taken. However, all that aside, every Conservative who stands up to talk about the issue tries to give the false impression that this is some corrupt Liberal when they know full well that is not the case. Can the member explain why it is that Conservatives tend to want to exaggerate what might not necessarily be the reality?

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to recognize that literally thousands and thousands of pages have been provided on this issue. We need to appreciate that we have the RCMP, the Auditor General and a former law clerk all expressing concerns in regard to this Conservative political game, where they are handing documents directly from here to the RCMP. We have a choice: Do we listen to the political games of the Conservatives or do we listen to institutions like the RCMP and our Auditor General? I am picking the RCMP.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that this government does not treat the matter as a joke. The Conservatives continue to play a political game at a great cost. We will continue to be focused on Canadians as they continue to be focused on the Conservatives. They should listen to what the RCMP had to say: “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes” and, to underline the words, “Charter protections”. Why will the Conservative Party not listen to what the RCMP and others are saying?

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to read a quote from someone I think Canadians would respect greatly, the former law clerk of the Parliament of Canada. I suggest that he is an individual who is truly independent, and what he says should be taken with very serious consideration no matter what part of the House one sits in. He says, “it is an abuse of its powers for the House to use its power to demand and get documents from the government in order to transfer them to a third party (RCMP) that wouldn't otherwise receive them or to compel the government to give documents to the third party.” Let us listen to what professionals, individuals and independent offices are saying. This is one example, not to mention what the RCMP is saying. Why is the Conservative Party so focused on continuing with the political games as opposed to listening to what these independent agencies are saying?

Mr. Speaker, with the political games of the Conservatives, people need to be aware that a former law clerk is saying the Conservative tactic is an abuse of power. What did the RCMP say? The RCMP said that what is being asked for causes a great deal of concern, and it raised the issue of the charter. The Auditor General of Canada reinforced what the RCMP said. Every time I have asked the Conservatives why Canadians should be listening to them, with their political games, versus independent institutions, none of them have given a straight answer to Canadians. Why should we take the advice of the Conservatives over and above those—

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are being accused of abuse of power. The Conservatives are also ignoring the RCMP, an independent agency and institution. That is what we know. The Conservatives are playing a political game here, and that is unfortunate. They are more concerned about the Conservative Party of Canada than they are about the citizens of Canada. When will they get their priorities right, start focusing on what is in the best interests of Canadians, as opposed to the Conservative Party, and start listening to the RCMP, the Auditor General, the former law clerk and the former deputy commissioner of the RCMP?

Mr. Speaker, I want to read verbatim a couple of very important quotes. The first one is from the RCMP, signed by the commissioner. It states, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” It is talking about the Charter of Rights and the Conservative motion. The next quote is from the former law clerk, again, an independent individual. I would ask the member to really listen to this part. It says, “it is an abuse of its powers for the House to use its power to demand and get documents from the Government in order to transfer them to a third party (RCMP) that wouldn't otherwise receive them or to compel the Government to give documents to the third party”. The Conservative game that we are playing right now says we should get this information directly to the RCMP. We have the RCMP, the Auditor General, the former law clerk and the former deputy commissioner. Who are the advisers of the Conservative Party today?