Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat a question that I have had the opportunity to ask on a couple of occasions. The RCMP is in essence saying that it is very much concerned about the process being suggested for gathering information and handing it over to the RCMP. Legitimate concerns have been raised in regard to constitutionality and the potential violation of the Charter of Rights. It seems to me that the Conservatives are completely disregarding that aspect, believing they know more than the RCMP, and have discredited that institution on this important issue. Why?

Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of days, it has been somewhat difficult to listen to all the comments as the Conservatives work with other members of the House to put a serious twist on things. How can they say that, just because we have the parliamentary authority and the decisions we make are so supreme, we are somehow allowed to walk over things like the Charter of Rights? I am not surprised this is coming from the Conservatives, because they also believe in being able to use the notwithstanding clause on a whim. I would suggest that individuals need to be aware of what the Conservatives are asking for. We can simply say that the Conservative Party has taken it upon itself, according to the member for Brantford—Brant, to assist the RCMP. They are going to gather information and provide it to the RCMP directly. I would suggest that this blurs the issue of judicial independence. Time and again, we hear Conservative members stand up and try to give the impression that everything is okay, that we should not worry about it, that they are not going to be walking on any potential issues related to the charter. They say that they have the supreme right because, after all, they are members of Parliament. That is what it is they want to say, loud and clear. I understand the important role we all play as members of Parliament, but I also have a deep respect for the institution of our RCMP. Therefore, when it says that it is very uncomfortable with what is being proposed by the Conservatives, unlike the Conservatives, I listen to that. I think the wording was “extreme discomfort”. When the Auditor General also expresses extreme discomfort with the issue, I listen to that. For those who are asking how it is a charter issue, I am not a lawyer. However, I understand the importance of judicial independence. Furthermore, I suspect that there is a good potential for guilt to be found. I suspect that, when and if this thing goes before a court, we could easily see a defence lawyer challenging how the rights of an individual were breached through the Charter of Rights by the manner in which the RCMP was provided information. It is highly irresponsible to completely close our eyes and deny that. That is what we are seeing from the official opposition. Why? It is because they say that all they are trying to do is assist the RCMP. What a slippery slope that is. What are the Conservatives going to do if they do not like the conclusion of one aspect of the law or the RCMP's conclusion not to lay charges on something? Are they then going to take action and say that they are supreme because they are members of Parliament and that they want the RCMP to lay a charge? I have more confidence in the system and the institution, in the RCMP and even in the work that has been done to date on the issue. Let us think about it. When this issue first came to light, we had the department and the minister responsible and two independent investigations that were done, as well as work by the Auditor General of Canada. I do not know how many hours of debate took place, as well as questioning of all the individuals involved at the standing committee. The Conservatives have a drive to try to keep it alive, even if it means walking over someone's charter rights. Where was this enthusiasm when they were actually in government? That is the nice thing about what is said inside the chamber: It is all recorded. The Conservatives' focus, virtually from day one, has been on character assassination; wherever they can throw the word “corrupt”, they do. I want to remind members opposite of their actual behaviour. I appreciate that a number of the New Democrats actually raised a couple of these points, and I want to reinforce some of these things. Let us think in terms of Conservative government corruption, in just one government: that of Stephen Harper. Many members who are sitting across the way were a part of that government. In fact, the leader of the Conservative Party was a minister. I have a short list of instances of their corruption. There is a much longer list; maybe I will be able to expand on it sometime next week. There is the anti-terrorism scandal by the Conservative Party, the Phoenix scandal and the G8 spending scandal. There is also the gazebo scandal; we had a minister taking money and saying they wanted to build a gazebo. What about that scandal? That is one of the sub—

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer as many questions as members opposite might have. It is interesting; there is a direct link. I suspect some of them might not necessarily know about it, because not all of them were a part of Stephen Harper's government, but they should do a Google search on it or check the encyclopedia. They will find lots of details, and they will see a direct connection to the Conservative Party. There is no direct connection here, I must say, in terms of what they are talking about. We have the ETS scandal. That is a $400-million Conservative scandal. Then, we have the F-35 scandal and the Senate scandal. That scandal went all the way to former prime minister Stephen Harper's office, to the Senate and to the House of Commons. That was a fairly significant scandal, not to mention the Elections Canada scandal—

Mr. Speaker, the last one I mentioned was the election scandal, but there should be an “s” on “scandal” because there was more than one. Remember that one Conservative member of Parliament actually went to jail as a result. That is not to mention the robocalls and the fines the Conservative Party had. There is something that all of them have in common, and that is what I want to try to rope together. Trust me, there is a lot more than what I just said. Let us think about this. There are all the different scandals, but where were the Conservatives and some of the enthusiastic members jumping out of their seats wanting to address this issue when it came to collecting information and handing it directly to the RCMP. Where were the Conservatives' accountability issues back then? I would suggest—

Mr. Speaker, he says there was no criminality. I just finished telling the member opposite that one of the Conservative MPs went to jail. He would not have gone to jail if he were innocent. That was a Conservative scandal. How can the member say there is no criminality? I shake my head sometimes. At the end of the day, we need to understand and appreciate that the Conservatives, while in government, did not believe in accountability when it came to scandals because they constantly buried them. Not only Liberal members will say that; other members will say the same thing. Now there is an issue before us today that the Government of Canada has taken seriously right from the get-go, even before the Conservatives were aware of it. To give the false impression that it is only the Conservatives who are concerned about ensuring there is justice on the issue is a false narrative; it is just not true. On more than one occasion, more than one minister has stood to defend the taxpayer on the issue, saying they will ensure that there will be a consequence for whoever violates and abuses tax dollars. I would like to think that is a given. When the Prime Minister today talks about accountability and transparency, Canadians can feel confident in knowing that the government is not trying to avoid accountability whatsoever. The Liberal Party does believe in the Charter of Rights and in our Constitution. In fact it was the Liberal Party that brought the charter into being. That is the reality of it. It is truly amazing that today the leader of the Conservative Party and other members, including the previous speaker, said we could be doing something other than debating the issue. Of course we could be doing something else, but who has been doing all of the debating? For the last couple of days, the Conservatives have continued to debate the issue. What happens if the Conservatives stop debating it? It means there will be a vote. What will happen when the vote occurs? The issue is likely going to go to the procedure and House affairs committee, where there will be a great deal of discussion on the issue, and where witnesses will appear. That is not really what the Conservatives want.

Mr. Speaker, they want what the member just heckled, and that is to call an election. That is the only thing on the minds of the Conservatives today, not the concerns and issues that Canadians have in the communities we represent, but rather, one focus, and one focus alone. All they want to do is talk about scandal, corruption and character assassination. That is their objective between now and whenever the next election takes place. At the end of the day, if the Conservatives really and truly want to put Canadians ahead of their own political ambitions, we would see this go to committee, but they do not want that. They moved an amendment so that not only can every member speak to it once but they can also do it a second time. This is because the Conservatives want to prevent the House from being able to debate government legislation, which is interesting. They are preventing legislation from being debated, and then say that the House is not functional. Well, gee whiz, that is like standing on a sidewalk, tripping a child who then falls on the sidewalk and then asking, “What are you doing lying on the sidewalk?” Well, the Conservatives have tripped legislation on the sidewalk. It just does not make any sense. If the Conservatives want to work for Canadians, then they should do that. Do not believe that, at the end of the day, everything they are doing is in the best interests of Canadians when, in fact, it is not. It might be in the best interests of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party itself, but they should not try to give false impressions in regards to the interests of Canadians. SDTC is an institution that has been here for more than 20 years. It has done a fantastic job over the years at ensuring that technology in Canada continues to evolve to the degree where, I would suggest, we do not have to be second to any other country. It is because of individuals, like former prime minister Jean Chrétien, who brought this program into existence, and it has made a difference. It has had a very tangible and real impact. Unfortunately, at times, issues come up, which is not new to this government or any other government before it, where there appears to be significant abuse. The question is, what does the government do when it sees it? I would suggest to compare our actions to Stephen Harper's actions, and members will see that we have been forthright in providing information to members and in being there for committee members. However, to ask Liberal members of Parliament to ignore the comments of the RCMP and the Auditor General in terms of the risk factor by bringing in this particular tactic, well, I think we should be concerned. If the Conservatives are genuinely interested in ensuring that there is more accountability on this issue, well then, why not allow it to go to committee? What is the purpose in preventing this from going to committee? At the end of the day, as I indicated, Conservatives have a strong focus on character assassination. One Conservative member stood up in the debate and effectively said, “Well, you know, corruption takes place in a different sense”. We often hear Conservative members, in addressing this issue, talk about other issues, and one of those is in regards to Mark Carney, and we hear what they say about that particular individual. I raised a question on a different issue of a conflict of interest, much like what the Conservative member yesterday said when he made reference to corruption in a different sense. I responded to that particular statement by talking about a young lady, Jenni Byrne, who is a lobbyist and does work with Loblaws. She played a critical role in Stephen Harper's elections. I believe she was the co-chair or manager of the current Conservative leader's leadership bid, and I know that she is deeply involved in the Conservative caucus. I am thinking that, if I were to behave like a Conservative and started putting dots here and dots there, and then pulled them all together, I might think there was something corrupt about this, something that maybe we should be investigating. I am wondering if some of my like-minded colleagues on the other side would see that there could be some value in this. After all, it was Stephen Harper who ultimately saw Loblaw and Shoppers melt into one, and the Conservatives are concerned about affordability. The reduction of competition no doubt had something to do with that. Better yet, in my member's statement today, I talked about allegations of foreign interference. The leader of the Conservative Party should be aware that there are serious allegations that the leadership he won was impacted by foreign interference. Again, let us look at these dots, which the Conservatives like. There might be something there. I think we better pursue the issue of why the leader of the Conservative Party does not get security clearance. I started thinking that maybe it is because he would not get approved if he applied, which would then beg the question of why he would not be approved and if there is something we do not know about. I am sure members can appreciate and understand the point I am getting at, which is that the Conservatives are—

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the comment made by the member's seatmate when he said that the leader of the Conservative Party had a higher security clearance than me. That is a very good question. I would like to be able to show my security credentials to the House, and I would be prepared to table that, as long as it can be acquired. I do not have a problem with that. I am wondering if the leader of the Conservative Party would. If it would make the leader of the Conservative Party happy, and he gets that security clearance and wants me to get the very same one, I am in for it. I, too, will get that security clearance. However, I really do think, and members can stop to think about this for a moment, that the leader of the Conservative Party might not want to get the security clearance because of his past. I think we should maybe look into his past and find out whether it would be approved and that is the only reason he does not want to apply—

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, there was a genuine attempt to provide the documents that have been requested. My understanding is the official opposition, in particular, has real issues in regard to areas where the documents have been redacted. It does not feel it got all the information required, because they want to help or “assist the RCMP”, even though it is not asking for that assistance, in making sure it gets more information. I would suggest that we have more faith in the institutions than we have currently witnessed, whether it is the standing committee, the internal investigations, the department or the Auditor General of Canada. It is having confidence in that system, as opposed to trying to vote in favour of a motion that ultimately could be in violation of the Charter of Rights, which is something we would not know until it ultimately gets to the court process where a potential defence witness could say that his or her charter rights have been violated.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and that is why I made reference to the slippery slope. At the end of the day, the leadership within the Conservative Party is taking a position that ultimately says to disregard the concerns that the RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada have, and that it is more important to tie this issue to a scandal and somehow connect it to the Liberal Party, in particular, the Prime Minister. That is what they are more concerned about, not the Charter of Rights. It just has not dawned on the Conservatives. They just do not understand. Individuals should be concerned, especially when Conservatives, provinces and others are so willing to use things like the notwithstanding clause within the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to when Centre Block had a jail in the basement and if Parliament did not like the results of the individual appearing before the House of Commons, that person would go to jail. Then, he brought up Mr. Firth and he said that Mr. Firth came to the bar and then he walked away. He clearly implied in his statements that he believes Mr. Firth should have been put into jail. That is what he was implying—

Madam Speaker, he says, “yes", and we get a Conservative member applauding from behind him. That is the slippery slope. The Conservatives feel not only that they can give any information to the RCMP, but also that they can just throw anyone that they want in jail, even though there was no criminality found as of today. Does the member believe that Mr. Firth should have the rights provided to him under the Charter of Rights?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that what the Conservatives are asking for specifically is that information be gathered and then be provided directly to the RCMP. There are very serious issues related to our Constitution and our charter, to such a degree that the RCMP and the Auditor General have expressed extreme discomfort with regard to what the Conservative Party is attempting to do. Does the member not at least care enough to address those points in his comments?

Mr. Speaker, the ask is very simple coming from the Conservative Party. It is to get the documents to the RCMP. The member's professional background, I would have thought, would have raised some flags about the Charter of Rights. Also, we have the RCMP and the Auditor General indicating that they are not comfortable, extremely not comfortable, with the tactic that is being used. What the member does not make reference to is the internal audit that was done, the audit by the Auditor General and the questioning put forward in standing committees. Rather, in its preoccupation with hunger for power, the Conservative Party is prepared to do whatever it takes, even if it is overriding the charter. Is the member not concerned at all about the behaviour of the Conservative Party with respect to that?

Mr. Speaker, it is important to be very clear that the Conservative Party is blurring the issue of judicial independence. In fact, in the last question I asked, the member for Brantford—Brant said that the Conservatives are assisting the RCMP. That is how they justify summoning this information and then giving it directly to the RCMP. One could say that we are on a slippery slope. Are we next going to assist the RCMP by suggesting they arrest someone, or assist the justice system by saying we should put someone in jail? What a slippery slope the Conservative Party is on with this affront to the Canadian Charter of Rights. The only parliamentarian I am aware of who went to jail was Conservative Dean Del Mastro, the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper. Is that where they are getting their constitutional directions from?

Mr. Speaker, the member for Brantford—Brant said that what we are doing is assisting the RCMP. The question I have for the member opposite is this: How many times did the Conservative Party assist the RCMP when it came to the Conservative corruption in dealing with anti-terrorism, as was pointed out, as well as the Phoenix scandal, the G8 spending scandal, the ETS scandal, the F-35 scandal and the Senate scandal? These were all Conservative scandals, and I know I am probably missing another 30 or 40. Let us talk about today. The member referred to foreign interference. What about the foreign interference in the Conservative leadership that enabled the current leader of the Conservative Party? Should we get the RCMP some documents or, as the member for Brantford—Brant said, should we be assisting it in dealing with that corruption in the Conservative leadership?

Mr. Speaker, with respect to SDTC in itself, I think it is important to recognize that when the allegations were made and the department was made aware of them, significant actions were taken, like the freezing of new funding to the separate independent inquiries, not one but two of them. The government has already been clear on the position of supporting what the Auditor General has said. There have been numerous meetings at standing committees about it, yet what we find ourselves in is something that is causing the Auditor General and the RCMP to feel uncomfortable, because the Conservative Party wants to be the data collection agency for the RCMP and have the information gathered and just handed over to the RCMP. The whole issue of the independence of our judiciary system is being called into question. Does the member not have any concern whatsoever with that fact?

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments about corruption in a different sense, and he was talking about Mark Carney. I want to do a bit of a shift here and talk about Jenni Byrne. There is a foreign interference allegation against the leader of the Conservative Party. Did Jenni Byrne not co-manage or manage his leadership campaign? Did Jenni Byrne not lobby with Loblaw? When did Loblaw acquire Shoppers Drug Mart? I am wondering if there is something that might be there, and if we should follow the Conservative lead, ignore the Constitution, just ask for all the information we can get, advance it to the RCMP and say we want it to take this information because there are a lot of concerns about foreign interference and we believe the leader of the Conservative Party is corrupt.

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to go back and forth for the full 10 minutes and would give the member leave to do so. Having said that, I do not think the member really understands what the Conservative Party is asking. The government understands what has taken place and the need to freeze funding, replace the board and have the two internal audits. We recognize that the Auditor General has good recommendations, which we support. We will ensure there is a consequence for those actions. The issue at hand is the motion, which says the Conservative Party of Canada believes that it should gather information through the privileges of the House and then submit it directly to the RCMP. Many legal experts would challenge the Conservative Party on that idea. At the end of the day, it could have charter and constitutional impacts, and all the Conservatives will say is to name them. The Conservatives have lawyers within their own caucus who should have a sense of what they are doing. The provincial auditor and the RCMP have felt uncomfortable with this. Why does the Conservative Party not feel uncomfortable with it?

Madam Speaker, could the member explain to me what appears to be the lack of confidence the Conservative Party has in the RCMP institution? Does he believe that the RCMP does not have the ability to do what it has been asked to do in terms of investigation of authorities and working with the independence of our judicial system so that the Conservatives feel obligated to go out and get information and direct it using their privileges as parliamentarians and give that information directly to the RCMP? Does he not have confidence in the RCMP?

Madam Speaker, a number of Conservatives across from me were part of the Stephen Harper government when it made the decision to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67 in order to collect OAS. Could the member clearly indicate that former prime minister Stephen Harper and those Conservative MPs at that time made a bad decision, and that in no way will the Reform-Conservative party raise the age of retirement from 65?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to address the House on such an important issue: our seniors. There are a couple of thoughts that come to mind right away. Having listened to the leader of the Bloc Party, I would encourage him and his caucus to take a look at some of the policy positions they have taken on programs that are having a positive impact on seniors in every region of the country. We saw it in the form of a question in regard to the dental program, as an example, where there are tens of thousands of seniors who have directly benefited by the program, including in the province of Quebec. Let us think also of the potential of a national pharmacare program. It is something I have been a long-time advocate for. One of the biggest benefactors is our seniors. These are initiatives the Government of Canada has taken because it is supporting Canadians in every region through providing good-quality, socially progressive programs. The programs are of great benefit to our seniors. Unfortunately the Bloc has made the decision to vote against the programs. It was interesting that the leader of the Bloc said that he has an agenda or a plan for whenever the election happens. I suggest the leader of the Bloc Party revisit the party's position on these social programs. The federal government does have a role to play; we have seen that in the past. Where did the old age supplement and the guaranteed income supplement come from? What about the CPP and its parallel in the province of Quebec? The government, since the Prime Minister took the reins and put together a cabinet with a solid caucus, brought forward programs and initiatives through the budget to really enhance life for our seniors, to be there at a time in which people are retiring, in which there are medical costs and the ability to work is somewhat more limited. This includes the age 75-plus 10% increase on OAS. The programs and initiatives are not just driven by the Liberal caucus or the Prime Minister. They are the types of issues on which all of us have received a great deal of feedback in our constituencies and have brought here to the House of Commons. I will be splitting my time. I want to look at some of the initiatives the government took in 2015-16. One of the very first was the dramatic increase to the guaranteed income supplement. That particular initiative lifted literally thousands of Canadian seniors, the poorest of them, out of poverty. Opposition members did not support it. We can look from the very beginning to today at the types of things the Liberals have done. Let us think in terms of the pandemic. Stating the obvious, during the pandemic, we gave one-time payments to people receiving OAS and even more, in terms of the size of the payment, to people who were receiving the GIS. Even more than that, we enhanced many of the services that seniors receive through non-profit organizations, again as a way to support our seniors. The party, generally speaking, has been exceptionally forward-thinking in dealing with the seniors of Canada. People ask why we would do it for those aged 75 and above. A few things instantly come to mind. It was an election platform issue. The Liberal Party of Canada, in an election, said that if we were elected into government, we would increase the OAS by 10% for those seniors aged 75 and above. We fulfilled that election platform commitment. That is a positive thing. People ask why we would only do it for those aged 75 plus. Many discussions took place at the grassroots and constituency levels. If we look at the needs of seniors, we find that, as we age and get to 75 plus, our retirement funds, our mobility and our ability to supplement our income are not as great. These are the types of reasons that drove the policy decision that we needed to ensure that those aged 75 plus would in fact receive more money. It was exceptionally well-received. What about the individuals facing retirement? I sat in opposition when Stephen Harper, as the then prime minister, did absolutely nothing for those individuals. In fact, one of his initiatives, when he was in Davos, was to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. One of the first actions we took back in 2015-16 was to reverse that decision, returning the age of retirement to 65 from 67. That was something we did virtually immediately. If we look at the importance of seniors and the issues they are facing, such as health care, they are very concerned. If we look at what is happening in provinces today on issues such as hip and knee replacements, there is a litany of different aspects of health care that are so critically important to seniors. No government and no prime minister has made more of a commitment toward a national health care system than the current Prime Minister and government have, with $198 billion over 10 years. That is not to mention the emphasis we have put on things such as long-term care, hospice care, mental health and the need for pharmacare; we now have legislation for pharmacare. This caucus does not need to be lectured about caring for seniors. We have been caring for our seniors from day one, and we will continue to care for our seniors well into the future. If we look at the many budgetary and legislative measures that we have taken as a government, they clearly demonstrate that our government supports our seniors. We are not alone. There are many other non-profit organizations out there that do fantastic work. For example, I think of the New Horizons for Seniors program, which is throughout all the different communities, as well as the volunteer organizations ensuring that there are all forms of activities for our seniors. The provinces, municipalities and indigenous leaders all play a very important role in being there for our seniors. As a national government, we stepped up to the plate to demonstrate strong leadership with respect to our seniors. I can assure every Canadian who is following this debate, or anyone who is interested, that the current government and Prime Minister are committed to being there for our seniors, as we have been from day one and will be today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, that is a mouthful. I can say that some of the biggest beneficiaries of carbon rebates are, in fact, seniors who are on a fixed income; they receive a rebate four times a year. More than 80% of Canadians receive more money back from the carbon rebate than they actually pay in terms of the carbon tax. The sad reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada knows this, but that does not stop them from going out and telling lies to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for using that word and that expression, but we should keep in mind this point: If we follow what the Conservative Party of Canada is putting out in its social media, it gives the impression that seniors of Canada will benefit from cutting the carbon tax. I would suggest to the hon. members, as would the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that one of the biggest pieces of fake information out there is related to the carbon tax versus the carbon rebate. Seniors actually benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague across the way, as I said in my comments, that the Bloc really need to look internally and take a look at what they are doing on such issues as the dental care program. This program is helping many people, including seniors, in the province of Quebec. Many individuals would also be helped by the pharmacare program. These are the types of programs that are helping seniors. I would encourage my friends—

Mr. Speaker, virtually from 2015 and 2016, we took a very open-minded approach in dealing with issues affecting seniors. In a very real and tangible way, we then brought forward different types of programs that advanced and encouraged our seniors, such as the dental care program, the pharmacare program, the enhancement of the GIS, ongoing support during the pandemic and the enhancement of many different non-profit organizations. We continue to look at ways to support seniors. We understand and appreciate their needs, and that is one reason we even continue to look at the things that support our seniors indirectly, not only directly. One thing I should have made quick reference to when I referred to Stephen Harper is the CPP. As a government, we actually worked with the provinces and achieved, for a generation, a change to the CPP. Upon individuals' retirement, they will have even more money coming to them through CPP.

Madam Speaker, since 2015-16, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister have been there in a very real and tangible way. We are the only political party in the chamber that has consistently voted in a progressive nature. I will use this as an example: The Canada disability benefit did not exist until we brought it in, and now the member criticizes it because it is not enough. The point is, it did not exist. We understand and appreciate that we have brought in a multitude of progressive programs. It would be wonderful to be able to give a million dollars to every Canadian. It would be wonderful, but we cannot do that. Would the member not recognize that, in supporting our seniors, there are direct ways and indirect ways to do it? It is something that we have consistently done from 2015 through to today.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is articulating that a senior who is 85 years old should receive the exact same amount of money as a senior who is 65 years old. I appreciate what the member is saying. However, surely to goodness, she would recognize that there is quite a considerable discrepancy between an average 85-year-old compared with an average 65-year-old in terms of medical requirements, retirement savings and so forth. Would she feel there is any obligation? Would she not agree that a truly national pharmacare program and dental program would help seniors?

Mr. Speaker, if the provinces have 100% jurisdiction in regard to health care, maybe the member can explain why it is that no provincial government has taken the Canada Health Act to court. Maybe she can enlighten the House as to why the Canada Health Act is allowed to exist if in fact there is no responsibility of the federal government. It seems to me that the Bloc is uncomfortable with the fact that we have a dental care program that is literally helping 700,000-plus Canadians in every region of the country, including the province of Quebec. What would the member say about those seniors who are receiving this benefit, which helps with their disposable income? Why is she opposing a national dental care program that is helping seniors in Canada, including in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the same point of order, we have to be somewhat cautious with respect to us being able to review Hansard and then come back citing it. My interpretation of what had taken place that day was very similar to what your interpretation was at the time. At times, it is not just the word that is spoken, but also everything else that goes along with that word. The manner in which it is expressed, for example, should also be taken into consideration. It is more so a cautionary note and we have to be careful, for example, saying, “four weeks ago so-and-so said this and now I am coming back to reflect on that.”

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to me that the member opposite has been conspiring, has had all sorts of imaginings that have driven him to be the attack dog on anything with even a hint of corruption, and if it is not corrupt, he will still imply that it is corrupt. The minister he is talking about has not once but twice been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner, yet the member persists in trying to assassinate the character of ministers in this government, whether it is justified or not. I underline the word “not”, because the member continuously, more than any other member in the House, tries to assassinate the character of the individual. Does the member believe the Ethics Commissioner did his job when he cleared the minister whose character the member is now trying to assassinate?

Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservatives believe they need to pursue these types of issues. As much as they want to do that, it is important to recognize that there are many other issues that Canadians face, issues dealing with legislation we are bringing forward, as an example. What does the member across the way envision in terms of the time to discuss this particular motion, as well as yesterday's motion? Some might think the Conservatives are using it as a mechanism to prevent legislation from being discussed.

Mr. Speaker, I would go to the institution, which I have an immense amount of respect for. I think of the standing committees of the House; we have standing committees that meet and do a lot of good work. There is no doubt about that. I suspect that if we did a history of the standing committees, we would find that, unfortunately, witnesses might actually be exaggerating or misleading the committee at times, with respect to the many different issues that are out there. Does the member believe that, whenever an incident of that nature occurs, the most appropriate action is actually to call that individual, whomever he or she may be, to come before the bar of the House of Commons or to continue to pursue the issue through a standing committee? I am not aware of this, and maybe he can let me know: Is the member aware of others who were brought to the bar in previous administrations?

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the potential blurring of the independence of the judiciary and our system here. I am sure the member is aware that we are asking for a collection of information that would then be handed over to the RCMP. That is what is clearly being indicated, which raises a concern about that potential blurring. Could the member provide his thoughts with regard to the fact that the Parliament of Canada has phenomenal power and authority? Does he have such concerns?

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, we recognize that mainstream media is a fundamental pillar to Canada's democracy. We have the leader of the Conservative Party and his puppets talking down mainstream media. This is of great danger, and Canadians deserve a more accountable official opposition. They now say that they are going to boycott CTV and they discredit CBC all the time, two national TV networks, all in favour of spreading their misinformation through social media. I say shame on them for not representing Canadians through our national media outlets. What do they have to hide? It is the Conservative agenda. That is what this is all about. It is misinformation, and it is to the detriment of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the false impression that the member tries to give, there is a blurring of judicial independence here. He needs to recognize that the House of Commons, which has the supreme authority or power, is now saying that it wants to get this information in order to hand it over to the RCMP. Even the Auditor General and the RCMP have issues with the direction the Conservative Party of Canada is taking today. If we were to use the same very principled arguments the member is attempting to get across, can members imagine what would have happened with the Conservative ETS scandal of $400 million, which is, from what I understand, in part still going through the court process? The Conservative Party is directly trying to interfere in a dangerous area and violating the Charter of Rights, amongst other issues.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what we are witnessing is a litany of character assassinations on different fronts. The issue is that the member is not necessarily being relevant to the issue of the production of papers. That is what we are supposed to be debating. We are not supposed to be engaging in the character assassination of everyone who comes to his mind who happens not to be a Conservative.

Mr. Speaker, the extreme discomfort the Conservative Party is causing the Auditor General and the RCMP would potentially compromise them. However, the member says, “It's okay. It's our job”. That is the response he gives. I wonder if he could indicate if it is also the Conservative Party's job to deal with the issue of foreign interference? We found out, earlier this week, that in not one but two Conservative leadership campaigns there was alleged foreign interference. Is it not “our job” to find out and get to the bottom of that? Was his current leader impacted by foreign interference? Is that what killed the leadership ambitions of Erin O'Toole? Should we not do our job and get to the bottom of that too?

Mr. Speaker, it is important to correct some of the misinformation being provided by members opposite. To try to give the false impression that the government does not care about tax dollars is simply wrong. We have had direct ministerial involvement in resolving the issue, and we have not seen resistance at the committee stage, where we have seen even more accountability on the issue. We are working co-operatively with the Auditor General of Canada in regard to this. What we are really dealing with today from the Speaker's ruling is the blurring between parliamentary supremacy and judicial independence. The Conservative Party of Canada believes that it can take any file, get information from it and hand it directly to the police, negating any responsibilities to the charter. Does the member have any issue with taking that kind of responsibility?

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that, over the years, the member really has not changed. His priority has been to amplify the issue of character assassination and he has got it down to a fine art. I give full credit on that account. The issue I have is this: What about the Charter of Rights and our Constitution? Does the member not recognize that what his party is calling for is information to be passed directly from here to the RCMP? We would go out and get the information and then we would hand it directly over to the RCMP. That is, in fact, what Conservatives are asking for. It does not matter what the charter says or if the RCMP or the Auditor General are uncomfortable with the request. Does he not think he should at least have some support outside the Conservative Party, from agencies like the Auditor General and the RCMP?