Debates of Oct. 20th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Special committee on anti-corruption

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the committee the government is proposing would be a vehicle for all the kinds of things the member and other members of the House want, if they would put their tactics aside for this purpose.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

We are in the middle of a pandemic and Canada's economy has suffered more than most. In fact, the Canadian government has the biggest deficit in the G20. Out of 20 countries, it is the biggest deficit as a share of GDP. We have the highest unemployment rate in the G7, higher than the rate in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and Japan. It is much higher, in fact. That is why I rise today: to implore the House to get back to the people's work.

The government has basically shut down the finance committee, which is necessary for responding to this economic calamity and Canada's poor economic performance, in order to cover up the release of blacked out WE scandal documents and to prevent questioning of government and other officials about the scandal. Not only did the Prime Minister shut down this place in August for over six weeks, during which Parliament was unable to do its work to fight for the Canadian economy and defend the lives and livelihoods of Canadians, but, when it came back here, it decided to cripple at least three parliamentary committees, namely health, ethics and finance, to prevent them from working on our pandemic response and repairing the enormous economic disadvantage that we face here in Canada.

Concerned with the destruction of small businesses, the loss of jobs and Canada's poor performance at the bottom of the pack, the Conservatives came forward with a non-partisan proposal that would take the WE scandal out of the finance committee and put it in a special stand-alone, investigative committee. Let finance do finance, let health do health and let this special committee examine this file. Let us get back to work for Canadians.

We expected that this would be a unanimous proposition given that the Prime Minister has claimed to be so concerned about the well-being of Canadians in this pandemic and economic shutdown. Instead, the Prime Minister has said the opposite. He said that if we investigate the WE scandal any further, he will bring down his own government and force an election in the middle of the second wave of a pandemic. Wow. By the way, he says he has nothing to hide. In other words, there is no secret, but Liberals are prepared to cause an election to prevent it from coming out. Nobody believes that. Thou doth protest too much, Prime Minister.

If he had nothing to hide, he would not have shut down Parliament in the first place. If there was nothing to hide, he would not be threatening to bring his government down today. If he did, we can only imagine what his campaign slogan would be: “Give me a majority so that no one can investigate me.” That is effectively what he is asking for. In fact, what is ironic about his election threat is that he admits it has nothing to do with any policy agenda. He does not claim that there is some policy action for Canadians he would like to take but cannot because he is in a minority Parliament. He admits that he is able to do everything from a public policy point of view that he wants to do. It is just that he cannot tolerate the thought that one little committee might ask some inconvenient little questions about the affair that saw him and his family receive over half a million dollars from a group and then saw him intervene to give that same group a half a billion dollars.

All we want to do is ask a few little questions about that. We do not want to stand in the way of the government's policy responses. If they are meritorious, they will pass through the House of Commons. We do not want to stand in the way of a single, solitary parliamentary committee. Let them all do their work. Let us take this WE matter, which the Prime Minister finds so agonizingly distracting, and put it in a separate place, a safe space, where everyone can ask some direct questions and use the powers of Parliament to get some direct answers.

For some reason, the thought of being asked these questions sends the Prime Minister into a panic. The thought of the unredacted documents being made public is causing a crisis in the Liberal ranks. They are now threatening to call an election to prevent the truth from coming out.

That is not the behaviour of a Prime Minister who has nothing to hide. It is the behaviour of someone who has deep secrets and wants to stop the truth from coming out. He is prepared to shut down Parliament to stop the truth from coming out. Now he is prepared to call an election in the middle of the second wave of a pandemic just to bury the truth. That is the behaviour of a Prime Minister who has deep secrets to hide.

We can understand why he would be ashamed for all of this to be known. Here is a great social justice warrior who has gone around telling us how much he is concerned about the downtrodden. He tells us he is a big believer in redistributing wealth from those who have to those who have not. That is funny, because he has no problem taking money from charities, money that little kids donated with the expectation it would go to poor people in developing countries, and putting it into his own millionaire pocket.

His family are millionaires. There was an inheritance from his grandfather, who was a petroleum magnate. He made lots of money in the energy business and passed it down. We have a millionaire Prime Minister. One would think if he was such a social justice warrior, he would be giving money to charities and his family would be in a rush to hand that money out to those with less. No, he is the exact opposite of Robin Hood. He steals from the poor to give to the rich, especially to himself. Here again we have an example of that.

Speaking of that, what kind of charity spends a half million dollars to pay an ultrarich and politically powerful family, or takes a multimillionaire who used to run a billion-dollar company on a $41,000 all expenses paid vacation, when those little school kids thought they were raising pennies, quarters and loonies to help the world's less fortunate? Do members think any of them were told the money would be used to pay off the Prime Minister's millionaire family, or to take the multi-millionaire former finance minister and his family on luxurious vacations? Of course not.

This is not just an example of corruption but of gross personal hypocrisy. That is why the Prime Minister would prefer that we all just stop talking about it, and not just prefer. He is willing to shut down the function of government in the middle of a pandemic to force an end to this conversation. Where does that stop? Will it hereafter set a precedent that whenever a scandal gets too close to the Prime Minister he can simply put an end to Parliament and call an election, effectively banning opposition members from asking questions about how he used public funds to reimburse those who have paid his family? Is that the precedent we now set?

Are we really going to devolve to a point where a prime minister is a king and he slams his fist, says he has heard enough, wants no more questions, wants all investigations to cease and if they do not he will bring the whole place tumbling down? That is the precedent the Prime Minister seeks to create, but we will not be deterred. We were elected to hold the government to account, and we will do exactly that.

We will get to the bottom of this scandal. We will further propose key measures to ensure that no prime minister is able to enrich himself at the public expense the way the current Prime Minister has, and that accountability is once again the law of the land.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, in pursuing this matter, as a member of the opposition, I certainly agree that we want to get to the bottom of matters that are being covered up, but this motion smacks of the flavour of the day with the WE Charity scandal. I am much more concerned with the obstruction of justice in the matter of the SNC-Lavalin question, in which our former minister of justice was pushed to do things that were potentially an obstruction of justice. That does require a deeper investigation.

Does the hon. member for Carleton not agree with me that it would be more impressive if the official opposition stuck to matters that were potentially criminal, as opposed to those that seem to be chasing headlines?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member puts me in a very difficult dilemma: Which scandal do we choose from?

We had an obstruction of justice case where the Liberals threw the attorney general out because she would not help a corporate criminal get off charges. She had the courage to stand her ground and take that political demotion in order to preserve her principles. Yes, I do believe that it is a legitimate matter, and I ask other Liberal members to have the courage of the former attorney general.

In the world's broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech, and I enjoyed the answer he just gave the House even more.

The Liberals are accusing us of partisanship, but what I am seeing is an opposition that is able to work together to ensure that a motion is acceptable to everyone and that we shed light on something that must be done. If we had not done the work on the sponsorship scandal, we never would have found out what was going on. Luckily, we did do the work. The same goes for the scandals under the Harper government and all the governments that have come through this House.

My question for my hon. colleague is the following. At the end of the day, does he believe that all the opposition parties will vote in favour of this motion?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

First, I would merely like to say that I was quoting a poem by Henry Longfellow. I did not write it myself. I want to be honest and cite the author.

With respect to the motion, I am certain that all opposition members who support government accountability will vote “yes”, but, if there are any opposition members who support corruption and want to form a de facto coalition, I imagine that they will vote “no”.

I find it interesting that the member for Timmins—James Bay is still in the House of Commons boasting that he wants to hold the government to account. Rumour has it that the member will be voting for corruption and cover-ups. I find that very ironic.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I am constantly inspired by my friendly colleague in the House, because, honestly, his humour and theatrics are truly inspiring. If I am here as long as he has been, I hope that I can emulate his theatrics in the House effectively.

Since we are walking down the path of history, I also have some prose in mind: He who has no sin should cast the first stone.

I was not in the House and, frankly, I was not paying attention to politics, but I do recall a time when there was a certain vanity video published by public servants, a misuse of public funds. Actually, one of the reasons I got involved in politics was that the former administration had a slew of allegations with regard to that, including being the only PM to be found in contempt of Parliament.

I do not want to be found in contempt of Parliament so I will not go on much longer, but I would ask my friendly colleague opposite from Carleton if he thinks we have spent too much helping Canadians over the last eight or nine months at the most difficult time in the history of the world, and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member was cut off before he could ask his question. He asked where we could have spent less money. To start, I would not have given $200 million to a casino chain. There is an obvious answer.

I thank the member for his kind words about theatrics. The whole world is a stage, as Shakespeare said. His role on this stage is to defend the Crown in its crimes against the people, and here he is.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of a motion put forward by the official opposition to establish a special committee to look into questionable COVID spending on the part of the Liberal government.

In a lot of ways, this should be a routine matter. This is hardly unprecedented in terms of establishing a special committee. There was, after all, the Accountability Act committee. In this Parliament, there is the Canada-China committee. In the last Parliament, I served as the vice-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. These are all committees that were established to look specifically at certain issues.

Here we have questions about the misuse and abuse of taxpayers' dollars on the part of the government. We have multiple questions on conflicts of interest. We have questions of corruption going to the highest levels in the government, all the way to the PMO.

One would think that, in the interest of transparency and accountability, the government would be eager for such a committee to get to work. As my colleague, the member for Carleton stated, if the government has nothing to hide, then let us proceed. We have a Prime Minister who has famously said that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Why would the Prime Minister not want to let the sun shine in?

Let me just say that at the top of the list is the WE scandal. It started back in late June when it was discovered that an organization called the WE organization had received a half a billion dollar, sole-source contribution agreement. It was known at that time that there were links between the Prime Minister and his wife, and the Kielburger brothers.

The Prime Minister, however, said there was nothing to see. He said he had not benefited from the WE organization. His wife had a podcast, but that was all. It turns out that was not true.

About two weeks later it was revealed that the Prime Minister's brother, mother and spouse had received more than half a million dollars in fees and expenses from none other than the WE organization. The Prime Minister said that he had no choice, that it was the civil service that recommended the WE organization receive this half-a-billion-dollar, sole-source contribution agreement. That turned out not to be true.

Indeed, the more we learn, the more questions arise. For a Prime Minister who said there was no political interference and no political direction, we learned that in addition to the Kielburgers just by coincidence enriching the Prime Minister's family, there had been multiple communications between the Kielburgers and the former minister of finance in the way of three emails and a telephone conversation.

We learned that there were multiple communications between the Kielburgers and officials in former finance minister Bill Morneau's office. Indeed, Michelle Kovacevic, a senior finance official, noted that the PMO was weighing in and that the Kielburgers and the finance minister were besties. However, the Prime Minister said that there was no political interference and he knew nothing. However, as the evidence mounted, the more and more it became clear that the Prime Minister's words were not worth the paper they were written on. The fact is that there was political direction. We know that.

Then we ask why there would be political direction to an organization that had never administered such a program before, that did not have the capacity to administer such a program before, that was in chaos at the time in terms of firing staff and the chair of its board and being in breach of its banking covenants. For an organization that was seemingly the only organization that could possibly administer this program, it is rather interesting that an organization with that kind of a record, which should have been at the bottom of the list, went to the top of the list.

The simple explanation is that there was a quid pro quo. The WE organization benefited the Prime Minister's family and in return it received sole-sourced contracts with the federal government. There were at least five such sole-sourced contracts prior to the big enchilada of the half-a-billion-dollar contribution agreement. That alarmed Canadians, and rightfully so. It raised a lot of questions.

I happened to serve on the finance committee with my colleague, the member for Carleton, who ably led the committee for the official opposition as we sought answers. In the course of those hearings, the government agreed to produce relevant documents. Then what happened? On the very day that 5,000 pages of documents were produced, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. The day that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament was none other than the day prior to which all of these speaking fee documents were to be provided to the ethics committee.

For a government that talks so much about caring for Canadians, about being so preoccupied with addressing the pandemic, the record of the government has been to obstruct, filibuster, shut down Parliament and now even to threaten an election to cover up its own corruption and it is prepared to do so even at the expense of the health, safety and economic vitality of Canadians during this unprecedented crisis. It is an absolute disgrace.

Canadians deserve answers. We need to follow the evidence and that begins by passing this motion.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite served on the assistance in dying joint committee. I had the honour of serving on that committee as well. It was an example of the kind of collaborative work we were able to do in that Parliament. Now we find ourselves having to deal with the issue of medical assistance in dying again, ensuring that it conforms constitutionally with the recent court decision.

My hon. colleague went on at length about how disappointed and disturbed he was with the actions of this government. Does the member opposite and his party have confidence in this government and if not, why do they not want an election?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge my friend, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle. I certainly did appreciate working with her in the last Parliament on the special joint committee.

I do not think it could be said better than the way it was put by the hon. member for Carleton. Let the finance committee, the health committee and the justice committee do their work. We are about to undertake hearings with respect to the physician-assisted dying bill, which is expected to be passed by this Parliament.

However, let the special joint committee follow the evidence to get answers for Canadians, answers that Canadians deserve with respect to hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone out the door, that have raised serious questions about conflicts of interest, corruption and the general incompetence of the government.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague is absolutely right.

The role of all members of the House is first and foremost to challenge the government, not to defend the Prime Minister at all costs. The role of a parliamentarian is to ask the government questions and to hold it to account. I agree with him—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I cannot hear the translation. If we could get him to start over again, that would be great.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Could we check translation and ensure it is working?

The interpretation is working now.

The hon. member for Montcalm may continue.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to repeat what I said.

I was saying that my colleague is right. A parliamentarian's primary role is not to defend the Prime Minister, but to hold the government accountable. Regardless of our political persuasion, our duty as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. My colleague is right, and that is what we are debating today.

This opposition day, we are debating whether to create a special committee to examine a scandal, which should already be a given. We have to spend time on this here, when this is something the committees could look into and we have a pandemic to manage.

Could my colleague tell me why he thinks the other side of the House is calling this special committee a partisan tactic, when creating this committee is fully warranted as part of our role as parliamentarians?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member would have to ask the government that question. This is really nothing more than about accountability. It is also about the Prime Minister keeping his word.

When the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, he said that there would be plenty of opportunity to resume hearings for this issue of WE and other government spending to be taken up. When we on this side of the House, and all opposition parties, proceeded to do our jobs by seeking to follow the evidence, we saw three parliamentary committees hijacked. Now the government is trying to hold the House at ransom by threatening an election.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the questions I have with this is the fact that the Conservatives have put put forward a motion to establish a new committee. Could the member talk a bit about how he thinks this committee could work any better, considering that the Liberals have time and again blocked committees already? How would this committee be any different? How would we have answers and not get blocked by the Liberals again?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, very simply, it would start with the co-operation of the NDP, which we have not always seen. It is important that we proceed to get answers and if the government wants to continue to block that committee, then it certainly reflects upon it and Canadians can judge for themselves.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I join the debate today with a certain amount of disappointment that the official opposition is choosing to use today's motion, not to discuss the issues that matter to Canadians during this pandemic but instead to continue a partisan and unnecessary attack on the government. Those members could be using today's debate to promote an issue that would have a real impact on Canadians, but instead they have chosen an unfortunate and confrontational approach that is out of touch with the needs of Canadians.

Unlike the Conservative Party, our government remains focused on the issues that are affecting Canadians across the country, irrespective of their political leanings, just as we have since the beginning of this pandemic. We hope that in the future we will see more of the collaborative approach from opposition parties to adopting and improving measures that will have a clear benefit for Canadians, similar to what we as a Parliament were able to accomplish early during the pandemic.

Canadians today are facing a second wave of COVID-19 and that leaves people worrying about their jobs, the safety of their families and friends, and even just their day-to-day lives. Responding to those needs should be the focus for us as Parliamentarians to support them in their time of need. To that end, I would like to take my time today to look at some of the measures our government introduced to ensure the safety and continued prosperity of Canadians.

When the pandemic first came to Canadian shores, our government worked tirelessly to ensure that Canadians trapped abroad were able to return to the country. I wonder if members recall what those early days and weeks were like, when citizens in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, and I know across the country, had been travelling across various parts of the world.

In our case, a group of school children were in Honduras when the pandemic hit. Lockdowns were happening and countries were closing their borders. We had to work urgently to get those young people back as well as many other travellers. I heard members of other parties say how much they appreciated the work of Global Affairs, the public servants, extra staff and call centres in getting Canadians back safely.

We worked with airlines and foreign governments to find ways to get Canadians home from far-flung regions around the world. It was a challenging and difficult process, but we were able to get the job done with the support of commercial airlines and partners.

In doing so, we had to ensure the safety of Canadians at home and required that those entering Canada had to self-isolate for 14 days upon their return. In the early days of this pandemic, people were wondering if that was necessary. It absolutely was. Today, it is a matter of course. It is well accepted by Canadians in the interest of public health. This policy remains important to this day as we attempt to flatten the curve of the second wave.

Along those same lines, we have continued to follow the best guidance of our doctors and scientists to protect Canadians, and I emphasize that fact. This is not a political or partisan point of view. This meant making some difficult choices along with our provincial and territorial partners, choices that would make it difficult for many Canadians to earn a living, making it a struggle to pay for their groceries, rent and everyday needs through no fault of their own. I say these were choices, but in a sense they were the right things to do.

Having made the difficult but clearly necessary decisions to protect Canadians, we had to implement quick, agile policy to support those who would be most affected.

Knowing full well that the health of Canadians was at stake, our government had to find innovative ways to help all those who were affected. In March, we introduced the Canada emergency response benefit, the CERB. This was unprecedented.

As I said, earlier, Canadians needed to replace the income they had lost through no fault of their own. Through this benefit, Canadians who lost their source of income because of the pandemic were able to receive up to $2,000 per month. I know that people in my riding really appreciated that. It meant that ordinary Canadians were able to maintain their purchasing power and keep the economy running at a basic minimum level.

Never before has the government reacted so quickly by implementing this type of program to guarantee that all Canadians received the help that they so desperately needed.

The CERB was essential for those who had lost their jobs, those who had to self-isolate and those who had to care for someone with COVID-19. Every day, my riding office received calls and emails from people who were affected not only by the loss of their job, but also by having to keep their children at home or by the illness itself. This financial support was critical.

We also recognized that the pandemic was having a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups in our society. We announced several measures to help the most vulnerable Canadians cope with the health and socio-economic effects of the pandemic, measures such as support for people experiencing homelessness and for women and children facing violence.

Kids Help Phone experienced a dramatic surge in demand, so we increased our support for that organization. We invested millions of dollars in food banks and other organizations to improve access to food for Canadians in need. In Châteauguay, Saint-Rémi and Mercier in my riding, people were very grateful for that. All these investments gave community organizations the support they needed to provide essential services to vulnerable and needy Canadians.

Together with the provinces and territories, we also announced up to $3 billion to top up the wages of low-income essential workers. These people kept going to work every morning to make sure their neighbours, neighbourhoods and communities could get everything they needed. They showed up for work every day despite the risks associated with COVID-19, and Canadians were able to count on them.

I could speak for another 10 minutes about all the programs we have brought in, but I would just like to mention a few. The Canada emergency wage subsidy was created to allow businesses to retain their employees. The deferral of GST payments essentially amounted to an interest-free short-term loan. We also made close to $25 billion available to banking institutions to provide loans to small businesses in need. Finally, we launched a loan guarantee program for SMEs.

We announced early plans to support Canadian businesses as they scaled up production and retooled their manufacturing to develop made-in-Canada products that would fight against COVID-19. I would like to congratulate all those businesses for the good work they did right from the beginning, including those in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, where farmers, manufacturers and transport companies stepped up the challenge.

The Conservatives are clearly deciding to put themselves before Canadians. This is a cheap political move. This motion is intended to paralyze the government and I do not agree with it at all.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member's statement really did not cover any of what Conservatives want to look at with a special committee. She is making the accusation that Parliament cannot chew gum and walk at the same time, that we cannot actually go about the business of governing as well as holding the government to account and making sure all the documentation related to the WE scandal comes to light.

We talked about Frank Baylis, a former Liberal MP, whose company received a sole-source contract. We know that the government used national security designations to hide the details of that contract.

Canadians have a right to know how their taxpayer money is being spent and whether it is being used to benefit Liberal insiders. Why will the Liberals not let the sun shine in? What else are they trying to hide?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it allows me to say exactly why I do not like this motion. The motion is trying to stop the government from doing its work and delivering the help that Canadians need. Its intention is to paralyze government work. The opposition is condemning public servants without allowing them to explain how they applied the law with respect to the redaction of the documents. We cannot let our committees turn into partisan tools aimed at forcing private citizens to release personal financial information. Where does this end?

I can go on further, and I am sure I will have the opportunity to do so.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is fascinating. We want to know what members think about the motion. Hon. members get 10 minutes to tell us what they think of the motion. That is why we are here today. The hon. member spent nine and a half minutes on the government's so-called successes, when the opposition parties contributed to all the proposals adopted by the House. At the very end, the hon. member spent 30 seconds talking about the motion. This is just another attempt at avoiding the issue.

I would like her to explain how it would paralyze the government if we let all the other committees deal with their business and simply create a special committee to deal with the WE scandal. I want to know how this would paralyze the government.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition member once again for his question.

I am only talking about the motion now because I wanted to use my time to talk about what matters to my constituents, and that is the work we are doing to fight the pandemic.

With respect to the committees, the motion will overwhelm the public service with unreasonable requests. They will have just 24 hours to produce documents, not counting what they manage to provide to committees. That is what I mean by paralyzing committees. This shows absolutely no respect for the work we do here.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on comments that have been made by our colleague now and the member for Winnipeg North, who have indicated that we are acting in a partisan way on this floor and do not represent Canadians. I would like the member to understand that every person on this side of the floor was voted here. We had the majority of votes in this country in the official opposition. Our fellow opposition members are also standing together in unity on this issue, we are certainly hoping and praying today.

The question for the member is this. Why does it become a partisan issue for the member when she does not want to deal with the fact that her government is out of line and is busted?