Thank you.
I have to tell you that I've been in Parliament for 13 years, and there have been a few times when I have been extraordinarily disappointed. Those generally have not involved a substantive issue but rather parliamentarians' abuse of the process and engaging in disingenuousness. That's exactly what's happened here, and I need to state this for the record. For anybody watching this, I have to say that all of the cant, the misinformation, the feigned outrage and the cynicism that I have seen expressed by the Liberals today is a new low for me.
Let's review what has happened. About a month ago, we put a motion before this committee to determine what the last six meetings of this committee would be, with specific witnesses for each of those meetings. We debated those, we passed them and then what happened? The Liberals filibustered. Do you know why they filibustered? Because they wanted one thing: They wanted to give the chair some flexibility with regard to the order of those meetings, not to change them.
Every single member of this committee, with the exception of perhaps, Mr. Jowhari, who I understand is not on this committee, got notice last week of what the meeting would be. We were to hear from the law clerk and from the Clerk of the Privy Council on the issue of documents. For anybody on this committee to try to, with a straight face, look into a camera and say that they weren't prepared for the meeting today because they weren't aware of what's going to happen is simply disingenuous beyond belief.
I'll tell you something else: For the meeting that was supposed to happen today, which was the result of the motion I spoke of being passed unanimously. Ms. O'Connell voted for it. Mr. Van Bynen voted for it, for what those last meetings would be. The meeting for today, by the way, was scheduled last week. We got notice of it. Late Friday afternoon, Ms. O'Connell put in a motion for a 106(4).
Mr. Chair, I must, for the record, express my extreme displeasure with you. You have not once ever scheduled a 106(4) meeting on the next business day, not once. A Standing Order 106(4) meeting has to be scheduled within a prescribed time. That 106(4) meeting came after the meeting that was supposed to be held today, which was to hear from the law clerk and to hear from the Clerk of the Privy Council, and you took it upon yourself, Mr. Chair, to bump that meeting unilaterally and instead substitute a 106(4) meeting that easily could have been scheduled for tomorrow or Wednesday.
We all know what's going on here, and Canadians should know that Liberals are filibustering this meeting today, and they're doing so to avoid this committee holding the government accountable for their refusal and failure to abide by a House order to produce documents for this committee. Today we were supposed to hear from two witnesses—the Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk—whose job it is to ensure that the supremacy of Parliament's will is carried out.
I have to say that to use long-term care as a political ploy is a new low in politics. For these Liberals to move on the last day of the health committee, before we adjourn for the summer, a motion to study long-term care.... They have had all year to do that. By the way, the conditions in long-term care, the appalling conditions, the ones that Ms. Sidhu quoted, occurred over a year ago. They were reported in the Canadian Armed Forces report that happened in March, April and May of 2020. Not a single Liberal member moved a motion to study long-term care then. That's how much they cared about that issue.
By the way, we don't need more talk. Who are you kidding? Everybody in the country knows about the appalling conditions of long-term care. Everybody in the country knows what needs to be done, and what do the Liberals want to do? Chat. Is that the Liberal answer to these severe deaths in long-term care, let's have four more meetings to talk about it?
The Liberals formed the Government of Canada in this country, and they can do anything they want. They just spent $380 billion, and they can't act on long-term care? If the Liberals were serious about addressing long-term care, they would have done something. They would do something. They wouldn't just talk about it.
By the way, with great respect to my colleague Monsieur Lemire, there are significant issues of jurisdiction, which, by the way, Prime Minister Trudeau trots out extraordinarily selectively. When he doesn't want to vote on dental care or pharmacare or something else, it's an issue of the provinces. He lectures the NDP that we don't understand jurisdiction.
Now the Liberals want to talk about long-term care, which is squarely something that's within provincial jurisdiction. It's not an issue now. That, of course, is because they're using this as a political football. I think that is shocking and disgusting and appalling disrespect to every senior in long-term care in this country that Liberals would use this issue to try to skirt accountability.
You know, a government that's afraid of accountability is a government that's lost its moral compass to govern. A government that's afraid of transparency.... I know why the Liberals are nervous. It's because they know that they're in square violation of an order of the House. The very same contempt that brought down the Harper government over the Afghan detainee issue, which the Liberals voted for, they're now doing today.
