Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, have members heard the phrase “the Conservative hidden agenda”? It is something Canadians really need to be aware of. When it comes to the leader of the Conservative Party, nothing could be further from the truth. He is good at slogans and is great at bumper stickers. Let me give a tangible example of the hidden Conservative agenda. Yesterday, during the debate on the national disability program, I asked this on three separate occasions: Would the Conservatives commit to no cuts on that program? Not one of them, not even their critic, would commit to saying they would not cut the national disability program. These are the types of things the Conservatives are hiding from Canadians, because they know that the Conservative hidden agenda is something Canadians will not support.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative Party's approach, and I am not alone. If we look at what the Auditor General of Canada and the RCMP are saying with respect to the Conservative tactic, and people should really note this, they are extremely uncomfortable. You have caused a great deal of discomfort to those independent offices because of your behaviour here on the floor of the House of Commons—

Madam Speaker, instead of the Conservative Party's playing games at great expense to Canadians, being solely focused on its party's fortune and anything else or trying to filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons, why does it not listen to what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying, which is that the Conservative tactic causes great concern. The concern is justified, as the Conservatives are trying to blur the whole issue of judicial independence. Shame on them.

Madam Speaker, I would note that the member made reference to the Charter of Rights. Yesterday I heard a Conservative member say that parliamentarians should have the right to put people in jail. Conservatives have no credibility when it comes to the issue of the Charter of Rights and protecting judicial independence. They were literally laughable yesterday in terms of their performance on this issue. They should be ashamed of the way they throw to the side the independent office of our RCMP and walk on—

Madam Speaker, I realize that the member across the way is relatively new. Let me give him a bit of a refresher and talk about Conservative corruption. There was the anti-terrorism scandal, the Phoenix scandal and the G8 spending scandal. Do members remember the gazebo scandal, the ETS scandal of $400 million and the F-35 scandal? What about the Senate scandal, not to mention the election scandals? That one is plural because one of the Conservative members actually went to jail. We do not need to be taking lessons from the Conservative Party of Canada on scandals; it led the way.

Madam Speaker, I am not too sure whether the member across the way heard what I said in terms of the Conservative corruption that is out there. This is serious stuff. Where were the Conservatives when this type of corruption was taking place? I talked about the anti-terrorism scandal, and the list goes on. I want to focus on the election scandals because the only parliamentarian I am aware of who was literally taken away in leg irons was the parliamentary secretary to former prime minister Stephen Harper, Dean Del Mastro. Where was the Conservative Party when the Conservative Party demonstrated so much corruption?

Madam Speaker, let me pick up on when the member made reference to disrespect. What I see as disrespect is when the official opposition and the leader of the far-right Conservative Party completely ignore the advice that is being provided by the independent institution of the RCMP and by the independent Auditor General. I think it is irresponsible. It is ridiculous that the leader of the Conservative Party ignores the information. At the same time, when we talk about corruption, talk to me about the individual who walked away in leg irons because of Conservative—

Madam Speaker, when will the Conservative Party actually start respecting the independence of the RCMP? When will they start respecting the independence of the Auditor General? When will they actually start to work for Canadians inside the House of Commons by stopping talking so that we could actually get on to government legislation and do what the motion that they brought forward says, which is to see the motion actually go to the standing committee?

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to answer this question, and I think in fairness what I would like to suggest to the members opposite is that they really do listen to what the RCMP and the Auditor General have to say on the issue. I want to do a comparison, as I have tried to highlight the many different scandals of the Stephen Harper era, in which the leader of the Conservative Party today was a part of the cabinet. I think that they need to start reflecting internally on their behaviour, because not once did they ever make the type of inquiry or demand, rather—

Madam Speaker, it is all about character assassination from the Conservatives. Not once, but twice, the minister in question has actually been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner. Having said that, instead of attacking personalities day in and day out, maybe the Conservative Party should start listening to what Canadians are wanting to deal with. Why is the Conservative Party not being a little bit more forthright on what its hidden agenda is really about? Canadians want to see a dental program, a pharmacare program, a school food program, a child care program and a health program.

Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question. At the end of the day, what is it going to take for the Conservative Party and the leader of that far-right Conservative Party to understand that there is an obligation to be responsible here, in Ottawa, on the floor of the House of Commons? That means allowing debates to occur on the important issues that Canadians are facing today. Instead of focusing their attention on the Conservative Party, they should be focusing their attention on Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I have indicated very clearly that the Ethics Commissioner, an independent officer of the House of Commons, has, not once but twice, cleared the minister. Having said that, my challenge to the Conservative Party across the way is to understand that the Conservative members actually have a responsibility to Canadians that goes beyond serving the Conservative Party of Canada. I would suggest that they are doing a great disservice to Canadians in every region of the country by their behaviour, day in and day out, on the floor of the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, not once but twice, the Ethics Commissioner has cleared the minister. That is the truth. The member makes reference to the truth. This comes from a Conservative member and a Conservative Party that spreads so much misinformation, false facts and fake news, name it, through social media. When are the Conservatives going to start to be honest with Canadians and tell Canadians what their hidden agenda is all about?

Mr. Speaker, we have to ensure that people following the debate understand that the ministers responsible took action. Independent reviews were done once it was found out. We had the Auditor General of Canada taking action, and we have complied with and are working with the Auditor General. At the end of the day, there was a freezing of the new funds that were going to be allocated. These are all tangible things to ensure accountability. In terms of transparency, we had a standing committee that has had all sorts of discussions on it. Today's debate is to send it back to a standing committee. I would ask the member to pick up on the point of why the Conservative Party does not listen to what the RCMP is actually saying, considering that this motion is being brought because of the very real concerns of the RCMP.

Madam Speaker, what is very clear is that for the Conservative Party of Canada, this is nothing but a game. That is the truth. If we listen to what the member opposite is saying, in his conclusions he virtually said that we should call an election. Then he went on about the slogans, the four bumper stickers. The issue here before us is to allow the matter to go to the procedure and house affairs committee. Instead of that, the Conservatives want to filibuster. The issue with respect to the content is this: If we ignore what the RCMP and the Auditor General have said, which is that they are highly concerned about the tactic the Conservative Party is using, then I could understand why they would be pushing for it. There is no justification. Let the standing committee deal with it. Why play the game? The people who are paying the price of this Conservative game are Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I get it. The member does not like the Prime Minister personally. If we listen to what she is talking about, she is using the issue of so-called corruption, or scandals, as a way to express a great deal of frustration towards the Prime Minister. However, I will remind the member that, when we talk about scandals, Stephen Harper and the Conservative government take it by a country mile. I referred to this earlier today. We can talk about the anti-terrorism scandal, the Phoenix scandal, the G8 spending scandal, the ETS scandal, the F-35 scandal, the Senate scandal or the multiple election scandals. These are all things that her holier-than-thou Conservative Party, with Stephen Harper as its leader, was deeply engaged in. Unfortunately, it was not until the last couple of years that Stephen Harper actually came up with the Ethics Commissioner. He was so pathetic when he was Prime Minister that he had to try to justify himself and show that he did have ethics. That is one of the reasons he brought it into place a couple of years before he actually left office; I should say that he was kicked out. Stephen Harper drove the economy, in particular our manufacturing industry, into the economy; many other things motivated Canadians to kick Stephen Harper out of office. Does the member have any thoughts in terms of how unethical the Conservative government was?

Madam Speaker, I have no idea who wrote the member's speech, but with the numerous false accusations or misinformation and the amount of rhetoric that are in it, they will no doubt get a gold star from the Conservative spin doctors. I can tell the House that when the issue first came into being, it was the Liberal government that addressed the issue of “arm's-length”, which means that it is not the government that runs a fund. The government provides the fund, and an arm's-length group administers the program. When the government found that there were serious allegations in this situation, two internal audits were done. The Auditor General has also done a report on it. The standing committee has been looking at it. To try to give the impression that it is all about Liberal insiders and corrupt Liberals is a bunch of, and I will let members fill in the blank. I think it does a disservice to the individuals who are actually listening and believing the type of things that the member was saying on the record. The motion is saying that we should grab everything we have and give it directly to the RCMP, which is very much something new to the House of Commons. We have the power; we can do that, but just because we have the power does not mean we have the right to walk on the charter rights of individuals. Shame on the member.

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for us to recognize that the government has actually developed and put into place a disability program in which individuals with disability are receiving money. This is the first time ever that this has actually been put into place, and the current progressive government has done so on a number of different files. Yes, it is $200. Yes, it would be nice if it were more than that. At the very least, let us acknowledge that this is a significant step forward. I think we could all agree that it has gone from being absolutely non-existent to a program that is providing some support. I see that as a positive first step.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other initiatives that the government has actually taken in a very proactive way to support individuals with disabilities. I am thinking in particular about the enabling accessibility fund, which has done a lot of wonderful work in terms of ensuring more accessibility. I am wondering whether the member could provide her thoughts in regard to why it is important that the federal government not only created the program but also continues to have the program in place because mobility is so critical important to today's society.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to such an important issue. We, as a government, have made significant progress on the issue of people with disabilities. In great part, I attribute that to some of the people who make up the Liberal caucus, who, day in and day out, look at ways to ensure the government is moving forward on this very important file. If we look at some of the actions we have taken as a government, there is a reason to feel confident that it understands and wants to be there for people with disabilities in a very real and tangible way. I had the opportunity to ask a question of the member who moved concurrence in the report, and I will go into some of the recommendations of the report. Before I do that, I want to acknowledge our Minister of Sport, who was the minister responsible for people with disabilities. I can recall a number of years ago, her standing in the chamber during the pandemic and giving a passionate speech about people with disabilities, the challenges they were going through, particularly during the pandemic, and how the government was trying to deal with and provide direct support to those people during that time. It was not an easy task because there was no data bank per se. However, the minister was determined, supported by the government, to come up with that data bank of sorts to ensure the government could give that one time payment. That was the right thing to do. During the pandemic, the Government of Canada understood that it needed to help people. We saw that in a wide spectrum of supports. For the first time, we saw a government that took a segment of society and went even further with respect to supporting it, for a number of different reasons, some of which were referred to by the NDP member who brought forward the concurrence motion. That is why I am some what supportive, in principle, of some of the things she put on the record. In fairness, we need to look at where we are coming from and where we are going to on the issue of people with disabilities. I have been a parliamentarian for well over 30 years. My first experience in dealing with disabilities was before I was a parliamentarian. When I was associated with the Winnipeg North Federal Liberal Association, we went into a downtown Winnipeg block with a gentleman by the name of Gary Montgomery, who had a disability. When we walked into his unit, it had been customized to accommodate his needs. From that moment forward, it gave me some new insight into the issues relating to people with disabilities. I truly believe, as I know my colleagues in the Liberal caucus believe, that mobility is critically important, and moving that forward and dealing with those types of issues is something for which we should all strive. When we talk about the issue of poverty, we know a higher percentage overall of individuals with disabilities are put into that position, and the government can do something. Through the different levels of government, there is a lot of patchwork, but for the first time we saw the single greatest increase in the budget line last year. Over $6 billion were committed to a new national program to support Canadians with disabilities. What really surprises me is the extent to which we are being criticized, that the $6 billion were not enough. We should be looking at some of the comments that have been put on the record with respect to that. First, establishing the fund recognizes the very real need that has been there not just in the last year or two, but virtually since the beginning of Canada's Confederation in 1870 and even prior, where there were extra needs for people with disabilities. For the very first time, we actually have a national program, supported by $6 billion. That is a significant amount of money, and it is money that is well spent. The government has a lot of priorities. I would challenge any member of the House, whether Conservative, New Democrat, Bloc or Green, to show me another government in the last 50 or so years that has been as progressive as this Liberal government has been on a number of different files. Many of those files have a direct benefit for people with disabilities. When the government commits $198 billion over 10 years to our national health care plan, certain sectors of our society will benefit more by having that sense of security. Our disability community is one of those sectors, as are seniors. This government has put a high priority on seniors and people with disabilities. We only need to look at where those investments have been made. That is where we will see the priorities. Health care is a big one. That is number one from my perspective and from the perspective of many of my colleagues within the Liberal caucus. When we think of health care, it also includes the expansion of the dental system. The ones that benefit the most through the dental care program are those individuals with the least amount of money. When New Democratic members talk about individuals who have a disadvantage because of their disability and their ability to get income, not exclusively, but often, those individuals will benefit directly from the dental program. The Conservatives voted against that program. There was one comment from the minister that I thought was cute, and that was that the Conservatives were worse. I am thinking of a bumper sticker, and that is an absolute. Virtually on every topic, we will find the Conservatives are worse. That should be a good motivator for anyone to keep the Conservatives in opposition indefinitely, based on their history and performance in providing supports for people with disabilities, for any initiative from the national government on supporting people with disabilities, and our seniors. We can think of the pharmacare program. Here we are, putting in place the groundwork for a national pharmacare program for people who have diabetes. I would suggest that that is just a starting point, along with free contraception. I like to think that there is great potential for things like shingles, and other issues. These are ways to expand a pharmacare program that would help, in particular, people who have economic challenges for a wide spectrum of reasons. However, we have a Conservative Party that opposes even those types of initiatives, although it likes to say that it supports people with disabilities. With respect to the budgetary measures, I made reference to the $6-billion clause. By the way, the Conservatives voted against that, but there is also the accessibility fund that was created by the government. Are there any guesses to how the leader of the Conservative Party voted on that? It is no surprise: He and his minions voted against it. At the end of the day, these types of programs make a tangible, real difference in the lives of individuals with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I retract it. I can assure the member who stood up on the point of order that I was not talking about individuals, but I retract the comment. I can appreciate that, when truth and facts start to be talked about in the chamber, the Conservatives feel a little uneasy. That is just the way it is. The truth hurts, and at times there are a lot of hurt feelings across the way. That is usually when members—

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said the word “but”. If I did say the word “but”, I am so sorry. I ask the Conservatives to please forgive me. The bottom line is that, at the end of the day, the Government of Canada looks at the issues that are before us and develops programs, whether through legislative measures or budgetary measures, that make a real difference in all regions of Canada. When we focus in on an issue, such as that being proposed in the concurrence motion today, which is the issue of disabilities, I would challenge any member of the House to demonstrate a government, whether it is at the provincial level, and there are a lot of provincial governments out there, or a national level, that has done more and invested more in the interests of people with disabilities in the last 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where he gets Jim Flaherty as one of the individuals. Maybe the member can explain in his question why he believes that Jim Flaherty has done more. I was here when Jim Flaherty was Minister of Finance. Maybe if we did a quick Hansard search we would find that it is very lacking in showing support for the disability community. That is the reality. I will wait for the question. Maybe the member will come back with some specific quotes from Jim Flaherty using the word “disability”. I will not hold my breath. As I was saying, members can take a look at the initiatives. We are not only focused on yesterday, but also on today and the types of initiatives we are taking. I made reference to the enabling accessibility fund, which is broken into a few sections. Let me just give members a sense of the types of things that it deals with. It deals with purchasing para hockey sleds; building raised garden beds in community gardens; providing accessible beach mats and beach wheelchairs; purchasing voice recognition software; building ramps, accessible doors and accessible washrooms; installing screen reader devices and hearing loop systems; constructing a universally designed office; and creating an accessible playground. When we talk about the EAF, members can think about the benefits of a program of this nature. By the way, the Conservatives voted against this stuff. Anyway, that is beside the point. Members can think in terms of some of the things that have been dealt with, such as ramps, accessible doors, accessible washrooms and elevators. I was at a facility a while back where they were able to put in an elevator, in part, because of the federal support to do that to assist people with disabilities and elders. There are also pool lifts, multi-sensor rooms and stations, accessible playgrounds, accessible parking, accessible—

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most bizarre points of order I have heard on relevancy. We are talking about the funding and support for people with disabilities, and I am talking about money that is going towards people with disabilities and what it is doing for them. That point of order makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The member from the Green Party might not like to hear it, but these are the types of financial supports that are going to people with disabilities that are actually making a difference for them. I would suggest that we should be looking at not only the disability program, which is providing much-needed funds, but also the other types of funding the government has to support people with disabilities. To imagine some world where that is not associated with each other is just absolutely bizarre because—

Mr. Speaker, we can take a look at the type of funding and the legislative actions, virtually from the very beginning, back in 2015, when we saw tax measures to support Canadians, including those for individuals with disabilities, all the way up to the budget in which we announced the creation of the disability program. It was the first-ever national program. That is a program that is helping Canadians with disabilities. I believe that we would love to be able to see that program continue to grow. One of the concerns we have is with the Conservative Party and its sense of commitment to the national disability program because, when it talks about fixing the budget, that was a $6-billion commitment that was in the budget line. Can we have the Conservative Party members stand in their places for questions and comments to make a commitment that they, in no way, will take away from the national program that we created and put into place? I think we need to recognize that the Conservatives have an issue with wanting to cut government expenditures. I would like to hear from them on their commitment to leave this program alone. Will they do that? I know they get the opportunity to ask me some questions, and I hope that, prior to asking those questions, they will make that commitment. With those few words, I am happy to take questions.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in that I like to believe that all of us want to support our disability community. All of us want to do that. However, let us remember, prior to the member standing up asking a question, I asked that the Conservative member make a commitment that the finances that we have committed will in no way will be cut by the Conservatives. He is a Conservative, and we did not get that commitment. I was here when Minister Flaherty was the minister of finance. They can be a strong advocate for disabilities, but at the end of the day, what did Stephen Harper actually do? That is why I challenge the Conservatives when they try to give the impression that the Government of Canada is not moving forward on the issue. The Conservative government did not do anything. I was asking for tangible—

Mr. Speaker, not to discredit those organizations, but there are many different organizations out there doing a phenomenal job advocating for people with disabilities. I applaud their efforts. I really and genuinely do. I would expect that they would continue to lobby whatever government is in office. However, to draw a conclusion about what the federal government did by creating a national program and to say it is a bad program does a disservice to it. In fact, it is the first time we have seen a national program for this. No other line item in the budget had such a substantial increase. Does that mean we cannot grow the program? A good number of us would like to see the program expand. There is no doubt about that. Everything has to come in time, I would suggest. We will continue to work with the members of the disability community.

Mr. Speaker, I think of the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities and the many other non-profit organizations throughout Manitoba, and they are not just limited to Manitoba, obviously. We could talk about the different advocacy groups in every region of the country and the absolutely incredible work they do in representing people with disabilities. I would want and encourage them to continue the excellent advocacy they have been doing for people with disabilities, not only to the federal government but also to provincial governments, municipal governments and other stakeholders. It is not the case that only Ottawa deals with individuals with disabilities. Ottawa needs to step up to the plate. That is exactly what we have done. We have stepped up to the plate in a very real and tangible way. We are not backing away from the plate.

Mr. Speaker, this government does not violate individuals with a disability any more than I have seen in 20-plus years of New Democratic governments in the province of Manitoba. They have done a disgraceful job in things such as housing. The member opposite likes to take the holy road, believing everything she says is at a high moral standard. However, I would challenge the New Democrats on a number of fronts that have actually worked against individuals in dealing with the issue of poverty. They do not get a gold star for their performance in helping the people who need help. I have lived it, when driving to the Manitoba legislature, for virtually 20 years, through the north end of Winnipeg and the inner city when the New Democrats were the majority government. I saw the disgraceful job they did at protecting the interests of the poor.

Mr. Speaker, there is a thing called the Conservative hidden agenda. Conservatives do not want to tell Canadians what they can actually expect if there was a Conservative government, because they know that they would lose a lot of support. Let me give us a good example of this. We made a commitment of $6 billion to this first-ever national program for people with disabilities. Is the member prepared to commit? When the Conservatives talk about one of their slogans, that they are going to fix the budget, is she prepared to commit that not one dollar will be taken out of that program? Will she commit to that today?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a question that I have asked a number of the member's colleagues. In particular, the critic was not able to give assurances. Canadians are very much aware that the Conservative Party has what one would classify as a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda is something the Conservatives do not want to share with Canadians, because if Canadians were to find out what their real intentions were, they would not vote for the Conservative Party. Let us use this as an example. Twice now I have asked a very specific question. There is a substantial budget commitment of just over $6 billion to provide funds for this program. The Conservative Party has said it is going to fix the budget. Can the member clearly indicate that not one dollar will be cut by the Conservative Party from this disability benefit?

Mr. Speaker, your province of Nova Scotia and others such as British Columbia, Saskatchewan and my home province of Manitoba, as well as one of the territories, have made it very clear they are not going to have any form of clawback with respect to the national program to ensure that people with disabilities are getting a monthly payment. The question I have for the member is twofold. First, is she aware of the Province of Quebec's position with respect to guaranteeing it will not attempt any sort of clawback of the services it provides? Second, I would be interested in the member's thoughts on how people with disabilities benefit directly because it is a national program, no matter what province they live in today or might move to tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that the Bloc is actually putting its party politics ahead of the interests of people with disabilities in Quebec. I posed the question to the other member in regard to whether she believes that the Province of Quebec should be able to have clawbacks. Instead of making it clear that the Bloc party would not support clawbacks by the Province of Quebec in particular, the member in essence is saying that the Bloc is okay with clawbacks by the Province of Quebec. Will the member make very clear what the Bloc party's position is in regard to the issue of clawbacks? Does the Bloc party support the disability fund that people with disabilities are receiving in the province of Quebec, or does she believe that the Province of Quebec should have the entitlement to claw back some of that money?

Madam Speaker, the Stephen Harper government promised a national disability act and it failed to deliver it. At the end of the day, we will find that Conservatives have a hidden agenda when they talk about fixing the budget. They do not want to tell Canadians what they really would do if they were to take power. If they did that, they know they would lose a lot of support. My question for her is the same question I put to a couple of her colleagues, who did not have the courage to tell Canadians. Will that member guarantee that not one dollar in a reduction will go toward the disability benefit? Is she prepared to give that commitment, unlike her previous colleagues who would not give that commitment?

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member wholeheartedly about one issue: I believe that every member of the House of Commons is, in fact, understanding and sympathetic and wanting to do right by people who have disabilities. I would not exclude anyone from that. Having said that, one issue surrounding the legislation, as well as the rollout of the program throughout the country, is ensuring that provinces do not use any form of clawback that will take away from people with disabilities. A number of provinces have still not given that public commitment; in western Canada, for example, there is the province of Alberta. Could he provide his thoughts in regard to clawbacks?

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the government has this as a signature priority issue. For the very first time ever, we actually have a national program. Over $6 billion was allocated for it. That is the single-largest budget increase on a line. When we talk about $200 a month, and we had a clear indication that this is a good, solid first step, how much money does the member believe we should be providing a month? He inferred it should be $1,000. Does he have a tangible amount that he could provide so we could take that back to get some sort of a cost analysis done?

Madam Speaker, let us think of the Conservative Party's corruption, and this is just a short list: anti-terrorism scandal, Phoenix scandal, G8 spending scandal, the ETS scandal, the F-35 scandal, the Senate scandal and the election scandals, plural. Members might find this hard to believe, but not once did the Conservatives ever go around collecting all the data and then shift it right from their offices to the RCMP. Instead, they took the approach of burying it as far as they could underground. Conservative Party members believe they are better investigators than the RCMP. They are saying to gather the information and shift it over to the RCMP. Who cares about the Constitution and charter rights? Where was the enthusiasm, when the Conservatives were in government, to get to the bottom of the huge number of scandals, of which I just cited a few?

Madam Speaker, the member is right when he says that Parliament has the supreme authority to make the requests it has. The issue is the Charter of Rights. The Liberal Party, or the Government of Canada, does not believe we should be walking over individuals' rights. We should not, on a whim, be using the notwithstanding clause. Members of the Conservative Party seem to feel they do not have to worry about the Charter of Rights. Why are the Conservatives today putting a fog over judicial independence because of their behaviour? By the way, they are making the Auditor General and the RCMP institution uncomfortable with what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns about foreign interference. The CBC reported over the summer that “A report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) says there were two instance of alleged interference by China in Conservative Party of Canada leadership races.” This begs the question: Why is it that the far-right leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get the security clearance that is necessary?

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about foreign interference. Over the summer, we had an interesting report from CBC, which said that “A report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) says there were two instance of alleged interference by China in Conservative Party of Canada leadership races.” I wonder why the leader of the far-right Conservative Party today does not want to get the security clearance in order to get to the bottom of security issues dealing with foreign interference. It got me thinking whether there was something about the past from the leader of the Conservative Party that he believes will disqualify him from getting the clearance. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party today not get the security clearance so that he can get a better understanding of what the reality of foreign interference is really about?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party believes that it is better at investigations dealing with the bringing forward of criminal charges than our judicial system is, specifically the RCMP, which has expressed extreme discomfort with what the Conservatives are doing. The member is upset because I repeat it. If it is the truth and it is being repeated, one would think it would eventually sink in. What is the Conservative Party doing with respect to the RCMP's thoughts? To use the Conservative member's term, it is flipping them the bird. Quite frankly, where was its attitude on violating the potential charter rights of individuals when it came to the many scandals the Conservative Party had, whether it was the anti-terrorism scandal, the Phoenix scandal, the G8 spending scandal, the ETS scandal, the F-35 scandal, the Senate scandal and the election scandals? The Conservative Party has a pretty shady record. Never did it go around saying that it was going to collect information even if it violated the charter, in order to give assistance to the RCMP. Why is there a change in attitude and a disregard for the RCMP?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. One thing we want to acknowledge, as you have said on numerous occasions, is the importance of words, but along with the importance of words is a demonstration of consistency. I bring this up in the most positive way I can. The leader of the Conservative Party used the word “wacko” and was not told that it was inappropriate, whereas the word “unhinged” was used and you stood up in your place. We suggest that words matter, and we want to follow and abide by what the Speaker is saying.

Madam Speaker, for me personally, my voice, my power as a member of Parliament, is rooted in the constituents I represent. It has always been and will always be this way. The issue, in terms of the stalemate that we are starting to see, has been caused by the Conservative Party's decision to prevent legislation from being debated. If the Conservatives stopped talking, this issue, for example, would go to a standing committee and be thoroughly discussed and debated, with witnesses and everything. However, they realize that, if they allowed that to occur, then the government would be able to bring in legislation. They would have to come up with some other way to filibuster. There should be no doubt that the Conservatives' only concern is about the next election and getting it as soon as possible. Unlike the other two opposition parties, the Bloc and the New Democrats, they are more concerned about their political party than they are about Canadians. The Bloc, the New Democrats and, I would suggest, the Liberals are more concerned about continuing to do the job that we were elected to do, which is to serve Canadians. The way we do that is by having debates on legislation, voting on legislation and so forth.