Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, in listening to my colleague across the way, the first thing that comes across my mind during the character assassination of a number of individuals is that there is a very long list of Conservatives as well. If I had a bit of time, my list could be longer than the member's list. An example of that would be Stephen Harper going to India. Maybe he figured they did not have cars in India. He actually put a car on a plane so he would have a car in India. What was the cost? It was $1 million for a car. Is that a scandal? What about the anti-terrorism scandal, the Phoenix scandal, the G8 spending scandal, the ETS scandal, the F-35 scandal, the Senate scandal, and the multitude of election scandals? All of them were Conservatives. My question is related to the question the New Democratic member posed about the member's colleague. Stephen Harper did the very same thing in not wanting to provide documents that were not redacted. Our argument is a whole lot stronger than what Stephen Harper's was, yet the Conservatives will not even say that was a problem. We know it was, in fact, a scandal. Would the member not agree that the Conservatives, including his leader, who was a good friend of Stephen Harper's and a member of his cabinet, were wrong in denying access to that information, or does that principle not apply when they are in government?

Mr. Speaker, the member's point of order has made the case for me that, if I had a choice to talk about the games the Conservatives are playing, day in and day out, or the St. Lawrence River, I would rather talk about the St. Lawrence River. However, I will expand upon the topic. Just like the St. Lawrence River is important to all of Canada, especially the province of Quebec, the issue of water erosion goes far beyond the St. Lawrence River. I would argue that talking about the shores of our oceans, rivers and lakes, as well as the impact of our commercial, residential or recreational activities along them, would be a wonderful debate to have. I would also argue that the St. Lawrence River is a very important part of our lives. If I were in opposition, I would encourage a debate of that nature. I will give an example. The Red River and the Assiniboine River are two rivers that connect in the city of Winnipeg. To our communities and our cities, our rivers are so very important. Our Red River, our Assiniboine River and our Seine River are some of Winnipeg's greatest assets, but we are, unfortunately, seeing riverbank erosion taking place. There has been a big push, in which I have ultimately argued the opposite of what the member opposite was saying about who has responsibility. I will give a tangible example. In Winnipeg, my suggestion was to have a water authority deal with all aspects of our waterways, including the Red River, the Assiniboine River and the Seine River, because the city of Winnipeg needs those rivers. In many ways, that would help the development of our city. The same principle could apply to the St. Lawrence River, along with the many other rivers that flow through our communities. In Winnipeg, to a certain degree, we have a good starting point, which was put in place a number of years ago, with The Forks and its development. Prior to The Forks development, there was virtually no traffic going down to The Forks, where the Red and the Assiniboine rivers meet. As a direct result of the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government, today, The Forks is Manitoba's number one tourist attraction. I suspect that, if members have been to Winnipeg, chances are they have been to The Forks. That development, including the protection of the shorelines, were investments made by not one level of government, but by all levels of government, as they recognized just how important our rivers are to our communities. We do not have big ships bringing in all sorts of transport and products or exporting products. It is not the economic hub of the St. Lawrence River, but I can tell the member opposite that our waterways are of great importance to the city of Winnipeg. I suspect that, whether we are talking about cities such as Winnipeg or Edmonton, it is an importance issue, just as it is for the St. Lawrence River, in British Columbia, around Vancouver Island in the ocean, and around Halifax. These are all important waterways, not only to the immediate communities, but also to all Canadians. Another example is the port of Churchill in Manitoba. It might not be unanimous among all politicians, but I would definitely like to see more activity taking place in the Port of Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, I see some of my Conservative friends agree with that point, which is a good thing. I hope to see more development, because I understand and I appreciate the value of economics and the benefits to the communities. Let there be no doubt, the St. Lawrence River was the lifeline for generations. As I have pointed out, my ancestors lived close to the St. Lawrence River. If it was not for the St. Lawrence River, who knows if I would even be here because of the role that it played in the development of the province of Quebec, not to mention all of Canada. As members of government, we have recognized the harm that is caused, and that is one of the reasons why we have invested financial resources and have taken some budget and legislative actions, as we have in the past, to recognize and take actions where we can. That means also working with other levels of government. One can get a real understanding and appreciation in the change in attitudes from this government compared to Stephen Harper's government. I suggest to the person who moved the motion to take a look at infrastructure dollars. Contrast the infrastructure dollars spent by this government to previous governments, in particular the Stephen Harper Conservative government. As a government, Liberals have spent more to support Quebec on infrastructure, in all likelihood, than any other government in generations. I would like to think that a good amount of those infrastructure dollars was to support the St. Lawrence River, either directly or indirectly. We are talking a great deal of money. That is why I say there have been budgetary measures, some more direct than others. That is why I would suggest to my colleagues that this is an interesting report to read through. I was provided with some thoughts to share, and I will try to get into that right away. Before doing so, I would suggest to the members opposite that, in debating the issue, there is no reason why we could not have expanded that discussion in the form of an opposition day motion. With an opposition day motion, we would be able to get members to broaden the debate, to ensure that we are not only talking about the St. Lawrence. Members could represent, either directly or indirectly, aspects that need to be discussed. In my case, it would be a long family history that takes me back to the St. Lawrence that piques my interest in this particular river. This is not something that is just in the province of Quebec. As I pointed out, it could be in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. One can ultimately go to the territories, to Churchill and so forth. All of these have an interest in not only what Ottawa is doing, but also how Ottawa can work with other jurisdictions to be able to make a difference. I would think that would be a more productive debate because, as the member himself has made clear, this is a debate that took place well over a year and a half ago. There is the report, and there is a lot of material that I was provided with that I have not been able to get to. One of the things I should comment on is the voluntary speed reductions, just to show that I actually did get some information, because I do appreciate what it is that the member is trying to get across. That is why I made reference to the sense of co-operation. In 1988, there was a joint initiative between the governments of Canada and Quebec, so the two governments, to create the St. Lawrence action plan, which “aims to conserve, restore, protect, and enhance the St. Lawrence ecosystem.” It has all sorts of initiatives. The government's response to the committee report also reads: However, should the effectiveness of the voluntary measures diminish, there exist legislative powers under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001- namely the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations and Navigation Safety Regulations, 2020 - which could provide a means of imposing regulatory requirements in areas of the St. Lawrence to address outstanding issues or concerns. In that joint committee, they took a look at speed reductions. When we take a look at it from a volunteer perspective, it was 90%-plus higher with the people or the commercial vessels that were actually obeying or following that. However, we still have other regulations and laws that are now in place, as recent as 2020, to ensure that, if there are additional things we could do, at least we would be open to it, and we have laws in place and regulations that can be supported. I think there is all sorts of reasons to be optimistic. The issue is whether we can get the different levels of government to work together so we can ensure the recreational, commercial and residential activities are all being given fair treatment, debate and discussion in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence has been a critical issue for the government for many years. We have had studies at committee, and there have been a number of budgetary and legislative actions dealing with the St. Lawrence, at least in part. This is a report that the member admits has been sitting on the Order Paper for 18 months. I cannot recall offhand, and I have been here for quite a few question periods, whether the Bloc has ever raised this issue in the form of a question during question period; the member can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe he has ever stood up and asked such a question. Why has the Bloc made the determination today to use this particular concurrence report? I guess it takes us off the Conservative filibustering, but I am curious as to what rationale was used 18 months ago when this report was tabled.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak on the St. Lawrence River and just how important that river has been, not only for us today, as a nation, but also for tomorrow and the days before. I think of the history of Canada and the important role the St. Lawrence River played to our overall development as a nation. My ancestors came from that whole area of the St. Lawrence River, and many of them would have been on the St. Lawrence and witnessed, even back then, issues related to the shoreline. The point is that, whether it is my ancestors who lived close to the St. Lawrence River and used the St. Lawrence river or today, there have always been concerns in regard to the shoreline. However, I think that the overall support in the general direction of how the St. Lawrence has contributed to Canada being the nation it is today is overwhelmingly positive. We have seen economic development and community development that has been to the great benefit of all. It is interesting that the member opposite said that this is completely a federal responsibility, yet if we take a look at part of his argument, it was that commercial vessels are using the St. Lawrence. He referenced speed as one of those issues that causes a problem, and the wakes are a problem. I acknowledge that, but one of the actions that was taken by the government a while back was to recognize that the province and Ottawa needed to work together, and that is why they put together a committee of both provincial and federal reps. I will go into a little more detail on that shortly. I wanted to pick up a bit in terms of why this is, and that is why I posed the question I did to the member. This has been an issue for a long time, as I have talked about. I do not question that at all, but the report itself was tabled almost a year and a half ago. If we take a look at the Order Paper, what we will see is pages and pages of reports that have been brought to the standing committees. If one wanted to, they could stand up every day for the rest of the session until the next election and bring forward concurrence requests. I question whether that is the most valuable use of the time here on the floor of the House of Commons. It takes nothing away from how important this issue is for all of Canada, because it is a trading corridor. Products that come in through the St. Lawrence are distributed throughout the country. All of Canada benefits if we have a healthy St. Lawrence River, so I do not question the importance of the subject matter. I am surprised, as the member made reference, that he has raised it in question period. I do not know how I would have missed that, because there are not very many question periods I have missed over the years. I will have to wait and see, but I am glad he raised the issue during question period, and hopefully he will continue to do so, because it is an important issue. That is one of the reasons there is such a detailed response to the report from the department, and I am going to talk about that response, but before I do that, the question I had posed to the member was this: “Why today?” Since we have been back in session, I think it is fair to say that there has been marginal time on government legislation. Initially, the Conservative Party would go into the Order Paper, look through the pages and pages of reports, and start taking out concurrence reports in order for the government not to be able to talk about legislation. Now, if we were not talking about the report today, we would be talking about the privilege issue that was raised by the Conservative Party. Yesterday, I posed a question, and I think it is a legitimate question, in terms of the St. Lawrence and the many issues in the reports that are on the Order Paper. Yes, they are important issues, and there are many ways they can be dealt with, but is there a concentrated effort to prevent legislation from being debated? Whether it is the Citizenship Act that the Bloc, NDP and Liberal members support and the Conservatives oppose, or the military court that every member inside this House supports, the legislative agenda is being held up. I am debating whether or not it is actually a privilege issue, which is supposed to be supreme in terms of the order of debates. However, it is being utilized as a tool of obstruction and not the privilege itself. If I had a choice of talking about what the member is raising with the St. Lawrence River—

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite asked three questions. I know the dates: May 2019, November 2022 and March 2023. It would be interesting to find out when the actual report was tabled. It might have been after March 2023; we will have to get confirmation. I am glad the member realizes it is an issue. I am going to go to the first part of the question. The member talked about hundreds of individuals in his riding who are interested. I can assure him that thousands of his constituents would have been interested in Bill C-63, the online harms act. I understand that the Bloc supports it, as do the NDP and Green members. The government has been trying to get the bill passed, but those darn Conservatives will not let it pass. They can be a mean group of people. They bring up concurrence reports all the time. Now they are using questions of privilege. They are going out of their way to prevent the legislation from passing. What would the member's constituents want? Would they want the legislation passed today, or would they rather have another day of debate on this specific issue? That is why I would encourage the members of the Bloc to look at an opposition day. Let us talk about shorelines but also allow for some of the important legislation, some of which even the Bloc party supports. However, it is participating in supporting the Conservatives by allowing concurrence reports.

Mr. Speaker, I think we always have to be cognizant of the environment around us, which goes beyond our own shorelines, and the agencies that do the monitoring. I do not know all of them, nor would I pretend to know. What I do know is that one of the greatest threats, as highlighted already this morning, is the issue of commercial use of the St. Lawrence River. Speed causes the wakes that are of great concern. That is why the federal government and the Province of Quebec put together a committee. It ultimately led to a reduction in speed, which is administered in a volunteer fashion. I believe that 98% of people are actually following it. That is pretty good, I would suggest. There is still room for improvement, but we will do what we can.

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily know the details. What I can say is that I made reference to the amount of money the Government of Canada is investing in infrastructure, which is second to virtually no other government in the last 40, 50 or 60 years. Part of that infrastructure investment looks to the provinces to identify priority areas. I would be very surprised if we did not see some of the money flowing through provinces or municipalities that ultimately are there to, either directly or indirectly, support the issue that the member raised. Even the investments in bridges can be an indirect benefit for the St. Lawrence River, as an example.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had made reference in my main comments to the Fraser River and, whether it is the Fraser River or the St. Lawrence River, how important the rivers are. I truly believe that Canadians as a whole understand the importance of our riverways. When we look at what the public's expectations are, and that bar continues to rise, I think that technology is going to play a very important role. The member is accurate in her assessment in terms of the degree to which a propeller and its construction can make a difference, let alone the engines and propulsion systems that are put into place, all of which can make a significant positive impact. That is why I would suggest that we do need to have a broader discussion on the issue. Quite frankly, the best place to have that discussion, at least in great detail, is likely in a standing committee. I would encourage members who are truly interested in the commercial, residential and recreational use of our riverways to see that it would be a wonderful study for a standing committee.

Mr. Speaker, this may be a bit off topic, but definitely relevant to the speech the member just gave. He indicated that Stephen Harper increased health care costs. I have heard a number of Conservatives say that. That is somewhat misleading, because it was Paul Martin's government that got the health care accord, which secured 6% increases for a 10-year period of time. The Harper government just happened to take the reins of power after the health care accord was signed, which is why we have record-high health care payments today. It was not because of Harper. In fact, when the health care accord expired, the first thing he did was to reduce the percentage increase, I think from 6% to 3%. The member can confirm that, but I am sure that is fairly accurate. Would the member not agree that there is a great deal of benefit with these significant-sized ports, such as employment opportunities and so forth?

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what the member just indicated, whether it is the Fraser River on the west coast, the Saskatchewan River on the Prairies, the Red River, the Assiniboine River or the St. Lawrence River, with regard to the shorelines, where the federal government can step up to the plate, it should and it has. It is important for other jurisdictions to also step up to the plate because of the economic benefits, recreational benefits and residential benefits. We would have a healthier river system if, in fact, we had co-operation. I would not want to advocate that the provinces play no role. That seems to be what the Bloc is doing today

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to talk about the importance of the issue at hand, and I brought up one issue that was a bit of a surprise, which is how long the report has been sitting and waiting. It was tabled 18 months ago, and the Bloc decided to bring it forward today. I thought it was interesting that, when I put that to one of the member's colleagues, I was told the report was tabled in April 2023 and that March was the last time the Bloc asked a question on the issue. With the importance the Bloc has given it, why has it not been raised since the tabling of the report, which was a year and a half ago?

Madam Speaker, this government has invested literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars into Canada's infrastructure. These are far greater amounts than any other previous government in the last 40 years or so. Infrastructure dollars means Ottawa working with provinces, much like Ottawa is working with the Province of Quebec, through a committee. I know the member does not like committees, but there is a Quebec government and Canadian government committee looking at the issue we are talking about today. However, working with other levels of government and providing infrastructure dollars is one way monies can be allocated. To try to give the false impression that there is no direct or indirect funding for the protection of our shorelines is misleading. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the Canadian government working with the Quebec government in dealing with this issue.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure that I table yet another petition reflecting on the desire of many of my constituents to see additional international flights, in particular going from Winnipeg to New Delhi or to Europe. With the growth of our Indo-Canadian community and many others, we have seen an increased demand for travelling abroad. The petitioners are hoping the federal government will encourage the future growth of international flights, which could be done in many different ways. However, at the very least, let us discuss and raise the issue on the floor of the House of Commons. That is what they are hoping to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, at the very least, I always find my colleague's speeches interesting. They are not necessarily factual, but they are interesting. The question I have for her is related to her opening statement, which was trying to purport the facts. For example, she indicated that we have SDTC, an organization that went awry, which is actually at arm's-length from the government, I must add. She gave the impression that the government did nothing, which is just not true. There were two internal investigations. The board has been replaced, and we have a freeze on new funding. That is action. Why should we walk over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to solve an appetite of the Conservative Party in its desire for an election, when we have the RCMP and the Auditor General expressing concern as to the Conservative tactic the Conservatives are using today?

Madam Speaker, it is really important that people following the debate realize the government has provided documents. The issue is that they have been redacted, as every government before us and every provincial government has done. When governments provide documents, at times we will see redactions. The independent RCMP and the independent Auditor General have expressed serious concerns with the Conservatives' tactic, which could be in violation of the Charter of Rights. It is right for the government to be concerned. Does the member not believe we should be concerned with what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying with regard to the—

Madam Speaker, what I indicated is that the government has provided information. We know that for a fact. We also know that the members opposite, as the member herself has demonstrated, are able to get into those types of details at the standing committee. The motion that is before us today is, in essence, asking for us to send the issue over to PROC, which would then allow a more thorough discussion. By debating it endlessly, all we are doing is supporting the Conservatives' attempt to prevent any form of debate on other government legislation. Does the member believe this is healthy for the House of Commons with respect to chamber debate, given the important legislation that needs to be debated and that I am sure thousands of her constituents would be supportive of?

Madam Speaker, due to time, the NDP House leader missed a number of scandals, but I would like to highlight a couple of others. We could talk about the Senate scandal from the Conservative Party. What about not one but two election scandals? Conservative scandals aside, there is the independent agency of the RCMP and there is the independent agency of the Auditor General, both of which have said that the game the Conservatives are playing today ultimately causes a great deal of concern. It is all tied into issues such as the charter, which is relatively important, I would suggest. Does the member not have any concerns, when the two independent agencies are questioning, at least in part, what the Conservatives are doing?

Madam Speaker, when SDTC messed up and the government was made aware of it, the government took serious actions, everything from replacement of the board to internal reviews. We have had a national auditor. We have had endless hours of debate within standing committee. Also, we have provided assurances that the taxpayer will, in fact, receive accountability on the issue. If we take a look at the motion, what they are saying is they want to grab information, even though we have provided information. The problem the Conservatives have, they say, is that parts of it are redacted. This is just like information from every other government, including Stephen Harper's, that provides redacted documents, but that is not good enough. They want to grab everything, all the details, and hand it directly over to the RCMP. The RCMP as an institution has said that makes it uncomfortable. However, the Conservative Party still believes, for its political gain, that it will push this issue and attach the word “corruption”, even though the chair of the committee was an adviser to Brian Mulroney, to Stephen Harper and also to Jim Flaherty. Does the member not see some possible hypocrisy?

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Thornhill on October 7. We believe that all Canadians have a right to peaceful protest. However, my intervention strictly deals with whether this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. The member cited House of Commons Procedures and Practice, third edition, at page 107, which states, “In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.” The member also cited page 110, which states: Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct—as well as occurrences of physical assault...have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege. Both of these citations refer to members being impeded because members have parliamentary privilege. The situation that the member describes does not involve members and, as such, this does not constitute a question of privilege.

Madam Speaker, like the Conservative opposition, the member makes reference to Liberal insiders. I am not sure if he is aware that the board of SDTC was, at the time, chaired by someone who advised both Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney and provided advice to Jim Flaherty. To say that this is all about Liberal insiders and that is why we are trying to hide something is just not true. The member should at least acknowledge that fact. We have provided information, albeit redacted, just as former prime ministers and many premiers have done when providing information. At times, there is a need to have redactions. What is different here is that the government is being told by the opposition to contradict what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying. They are pushing to get information directly so they can hand it straight over to the RCMP. Even the RCMP is questioning that tactic, yet the member opposite tries to give the false impression that we are trying to hide something. Why will he not be honest with his constituents and tell them that the real reason documents are being held back is the concerns about the Charter of Rights and that this means something to him?

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed. The member has chosen not to make reference at all to what the RCMP and the Auditor General have said. They have expressed concerns with what our colleagues in the Conservative Party are doing in regard to the proposal of having the information gathered and then handed directly over to the RCMP in an unredacted form. They have expressed concern about that tactic. Does the member not see that we should at least listen to what the RCMP and the Auditor General have to say on the issue? As opposed to trying to commit character assassination, why not just allow this issue, as the Speaker has recommended, to be handed over to the procedure and House affairs committee, letting us continue with other House-related business?

Madam Speaker, as the member is reflecting on the past, let me get his thoughts on the Conservative anti-terrorism scandal, the Conservative Phoenix pay scandal, the Conservative G8 spending scandal, the Conservative ETS scandal, the Conservative F-35 scandal, the Conservative Senate scandal, the Conservative election scandals, as in two scandals, and why, with all of those Conservative Harper scandals, Stephen Harper never provided unredacted comments. Why is there a double standard? When that member sat with Stephen Harper, he never made those types of demands, yet today he feels we should not only make that demand but then shift it over to the RCMP, thereby blurring judicial independence.

Madam Speaker, there has been accountability and there has also been transparency on the issue. The simple truth of the matter is that since it was found out, we have seen independent investigations internally, two of them; we have seen the Auditor General conduct investigations; we have seen hours and hours at the standing committee; we have seen a replacement of the board; and we have seen the stopping of funding of new monies going in. These are all actions as a result of the government truly caring about what is taking place. Now, the Conservatives have chosen to make a political game out of this, because they want to tie the word “corruption” to it. Hindsight is wonderful, but the chair of the board was an actual adviser to Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, and we appointed her as the chair of the organization. With hindsight, yes, that was a mistake. My question to the member is: Why do we need to disregard the concerns from the RCMP and the Auditor General when they say that the Conservative tactic today causes a great deal of concern?

Mr. Speaker, I have some advice for the member across the way. He says that the truth will make people feel good. Let us talk about the type of garbage the member is talking about. He talks about SDTC and the chair, how corrupt and bad she is, and all that kind of stuff. That is character assassination of the individual. He says that she is nothing more than a Liberal hack, a Liberal appointee. Does the member not realize that Stephen Harper appointed her to the economic advisory council? She also advised Brian Mulroney. I understand there was even one member who said that she actually donated to his party, yet he classifies her as a Liberal hack. Why does the member continue to be so dishonest with Canadians in the comments he says in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but the member opposite is. Having said that, I think of how Annette Verschuren was an appointment of Stephen Harper and an adviser to Brian Mulroney. She was appointed indirectly as the chair of SDTC; she is no longer the chair. If she goes to court, as we all believe that she ultimately will, and we do the work the RCMP has indicated to the House that it is not comfortable with, could we be compromising the trial? In terms of what the Conservatives are calling for, we could collect information inappropriately and hand it over to the RCMP. The defence lawyer for Annette, for example, would be able to cite that, which could cause problems in terms of issues related to the charter. Putting on his lawyer hat, does he believe there is any merit to that whatsoever?

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP, an independent institution in Canada, and the Auditor General, again an independent institution in Canada, are both expressing concerns with the Conservative tactic, which all of us should be sharing. Those in the Conservative Party of Canada are throwing up their hands, saying they do not care about those institutions; they want what they cannot have, even though Stephen Harper never ever provided these types of documents, but they have a right and civil liberties do not matter.

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. 61 to concur in the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

Mr. Speaker, for those who are following the debate, I think it is important to recognize that SDTC was, in fact, an arm's-length organization there to support Canadian industry in a very environmentally friendly way. Annette Verschuren was the chair of that board, and she was someone who was actually appointed to Stephen Harper's economic advisory council during 2008 and was an adviser to Brian Mulroney. There is no doubt that something has gone wrong. That is the reason why the government took swift action upon learning about it, to the degree that two independent audits were done on it. We are supporting the Auditor General. There has been a freeze on the funding. The board has been replaced. The government has taken action on the issue. For the Conservatives to label it as corruption and tie it to the Liberal Party is just wrong. Part of the problem is that the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation to try to get wedge issues at the cost of what I would suggest was an organization, not the board but the organization, that did so much for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the messaging the member is trying to get across. The Parliament of Canada is supreme in many different ways, but that does not justify walking over the Charter of Rights. It does not justify the actions the Conservative Party is taking. The Conservatives are trying to say that the RCMP's opinion does not matter and that the Auditor General of Canada's opinion does not matter. We had a Conservative just the other day stand up and talk about how wonderful it was that we had a jail inside Centre Block at one time, and that Parliament should, in essence, be able to put someone directly from the bar into jail, walking over the Charter of Rights and the idea of innocent until proven guilty. The Conservative appointed by Stephen Harper back in the day, the adviser to Brian Mulroney, ultimately became the chair of the board in question, and there will be a consequence for her, no double about that. However, I am concerned that the Conservative Party, in its games and its quest for an election, is walking all over a person's charter rights and freedoms. I find that disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker, virtually from day one, the Conservatives have done nothing but focus on character assassination, particularly with respect to the Prime Minister. I understand the game the members in the Conservative Party are playing. They talk about Liberal insiders. What they do not say is that Annette Verschuren was an adviser to Brian Mulroney, and she was appointed to a position with Stephen Harper. The Conservatives continue on, but let us just say what it is: It is an arm's-length organization that made very serious mistakes, which caused it to shut down and the board to be replaced. The moment the government found out about it actions were taken to resolve the issue and ensure that taxpayers were being protected. That is the reality. However, the Conservatives want to play—

Madam Speaker, it is clear that this is nothing but a game to the Conservative Party of Canada. They are more interested in having an immediate election than they are in what is in the best interests of Canadians, with political parties working together to do tangible things for Canadians. This is an arm's-length organization. We have already established several independent investigations into the issue, one of which is by an independent officer through the Auditor General of Canada. The RCMP is providing comment in regard to the tactic that is being used by the Conservative Party, which has caused a great deal of concern. Most Canadians see the RCMP as a very respectable institution. To say it is nothing but a political Liberal is just wrong, because Annette Verschuren herself was an adviser to Brian Mulroney and an appointment that Stephen Harper also made at one point. Canadians deserve better from their official opposition. Why does the Conservative Party continue to play this game?

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the order we are debating is to see this issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is actually what we are looking for. The Conservative Party brought in the motion, and all we need to do is have that vote: all agree to a vote on division. We can pass it to the committee. The Conservatives are getting what they want. The issue is whether they are actually violating privileges of other members, because as opposed to allowing that to go through, they, as the member commented, are not going to stop talking until there is unredacted information, something that Harper never provided. Unless we are prepared to do it, they are going to blackmail the House of Commons until that materializes. That seems like it might be a violation of privilege of other members.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to emphasize that SDTC was an arm's length organization. It is very important to recognize that fact. If we take a look at the internal investigations that have been done, we see that two of them were within the department. Then there was the Auditor General. There were then hours and hours at the standing committee. Now the RCMP is looking into it. What we are talking about is redacted information. Every previous prime minister had redacted documents tabled at some point. What is being called for is the blurring of judicial independence, and that has been established through the RCMP's concerns and the Auditor General's concerns. Does the hon. member not recognize those institutions as strong and healthy? Can she address their concerns? Why does she think—

Madam Speaker, right from the very beginning, since the government found out about this, we have been pushing for it. We have been pushing for accountability. We will ensure that there is accountability to the taxpayer, and there is no doubt about that. The question I have for the member is this: The motion that we are debating, or what the Conservatives proposed, is to see this issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee. The only thing that is stopping it from going to that committee is that the Conservatives have now made the determination that they want to blackmail the rest of the members in the chamber to get the unredacted documents. They will not allow this issue to go to committee, even though that is what they wanted. Does the member see that they are being obstructionist to their own obstructionist policies? Is there a fear factor of how they can blackmail the rest of the parliamentarians because of their attitude?

Madam Speaker, there are so many areas that I would love to be able to address. First, let me start off with the so-called Liberal insiders. If the member is not aware he should be aware that the chair of the SDTC, Annette Verschuren, was an adviser to Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. I understand she was a donor to the Conservative Party. She would not be classified as a Liberal insider. If we look at what the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie said, which was that the RCMP cannot get the information so we have to get the information for it, let us think about that for a minute. Are we saying that, with respect to any government agency or bureaucrat out there, if there are any issues whatsoever and we want to get information to the RCMP we just go to the Conservative Party and it will just hand over everything unredacted? Talk about a blur of judicial independence. Conservatives do not care what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying. They are more focused on character assassinations and doing whatever it takes to precipitate an election than they are about Canadians. Shame on them.