Debates of Oct. 29th, 2024

International Trade

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Decision No 1/2024 of the Joint Committee established by the Agreement Between Canada and the European Community on Trade in Wines and Spirit Drinks of 4 April 2024 amending Annexes I, III(a), III(b), IV(a) and VI of the Agreement between Canada and the European Community on Trade in Wines and Spirit Drinks”, adopted at Ottawa and Brussels on April 4, 2024.

Canadian Heritage

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, be concurred in.

It will be interesting to talk today about the concurrence motion coming out of the heritage committee. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I have been on the heritage committee for years now, but last month I asked my constituents of Saskatoon—Grasswood for their views on the public broadcaster, the CBC. It was in response to the CBC paying out bonuses that added up to over $18 million, which were approved by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Privy Council. Of that sum, $3.3 million went directly to CBC executives. Forty-five executives had their hands in the pocket of that $3.3 million, and it averaged out to $73,000 each for one year in bonuses. I could not believe the number. I see that even some Liberals are shaking their heads. They cannot believe that number either just for the executives.

I asked in a mail-out what we should do going forward with the CBC. Should we do nothing or keep it as is? Should we keep the CBC but make some changes, or simply defund it? Defunding the CBC has been the narrative of this party for months, if not a year and a half now, and for very good reason. I had literally hundreds of responses. It was probably the best response I have had in the nine years I have been a member of Parliament. Some 86.5% were in support of overhauling or even defunding the entire operation of the CBC.

CBC CEO Catherine Tait admitted recently, about two weeks ago, that Canadians want to defund the CBC entirely. She was caught off guard that Canadians were talking about defunding her operation. She said that maybe she should have responded sooner to the public's outcry on how the corporation is compensated by the federal government.

In its corporate plan summary, tabled in the House of Commons, the CBC said viewers are leaving television, especially young people. They are going to streaming devices and have been doing so for many years. That is certainly not a surprise. However, a big surprise to me was the ad revenue. It has dropped another 9.6% in the last 12 months, which is a concern. I think trust in the CBC News organization, as we have seen across this country, has also dropped.

Here we have trust, viewership and revenue dropping, but what did not drop? The bonuses did not drop, surprise, surprise. In the last year, $18 million was handed out, and when Ms. Tait came before the heritage committee for the third time, she talked about the key performance indicators, better known as KPIs. She said that those determine the bonus structure. Amazingly, despite viewership, revenue and trust dropping, the bonuses remained. Why? Well, the CBC honchos, in their wisdom, decided to lower the key standards from a year ago so they could justify the rich bonuses. Only CBC executives would huddle up and determine that despite everything going down, they needed to protect their bonuses. They agreed to this and the Liberals bought in, agreeing to $18 million for the top-up.

Since 2018, CBC viewership has collapsed nearly 50% and the CBC has failed to meet 79% of its key performance targets. Did I mention that the executives who got these bonuses were the same ones responsible a little over a year ago for cutting 800 jobs? These cuts amounted to about 10% of the entire workforce of CBC/Radio-Canada. The federal government, as we know, compensates the CBC. It gives the CBC about $1.3 billion a year, so the public broadcaster, to me, already has a head start over the private broadcasters in this country.

It does not stop there. It is even worse, believe it or not. The CBC was given millions in last year's fall economic statement. It was 21 million gift dollars last year, and another $21 million this year. On top of that, it generates about $400 million in ads, even though, as I just talked about, ad revenue is going down. Canadians need to understand that their government is choosing to give more than $1.3 billion to a company that already makes $400 million in advertising. Canadians are tired of their money being spent on bonuses for absolutely dismal performance.

I questioned CBC/Radio-Canada's CEO at the Canadian heritage committee. Hundreds wrote in to us and others and took to social media to express their dismay about the arrogance and entitlement at a time when so many are hurting in this country. It is astonishing. One person said, “These elites live in their own bubble, protected from us by their entitlements and their social status. They simply do not care what we think, and are shocked that we would speak up against them. It is time to clean out the corrupt federal bureaucracy the Liberals have built.”

Broadcasters need to have accountability and fairness for people to have trust in them. How can Canadians possibly have any faith in an institution that rewards its executives after cutting hundreds of jobs in the last year? Canadians are tired of seeing their taxpayer funds mismanaged by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. It is no wonder nobody trusts the government anymore with their money.

The Liberals fail to see that Canadians are struggling in every aspect of their lives. Their response is that they will give $18 million to the CBC, to their corporate buddies, at a time when a record number of Canadians are heading to food banks. In my city of Saskatoon, there was an outcry yesterday by the Saskatoon Food Bank, which is asking the public for help, as it is running out of the most essential items it gives out.

The Saskatoon Food Bank has seen a 40% increase since 2019, in five short years, yet the CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada believes it is appropriate to ask for millions of dollars in bonuses for executives after letting hundreds go. It is arrogance and is absolute tone-deafness. The CBC was failing to deliver all along on its key performance indicators, so it just changed the indicators. It lowered them from the year before and thought nobody would notice. Well, we noticed, and obviously Canadians have noticed.

The government has no remorse about giving out massive amounts of money, simply handing it out no questions asked. It is handing money over to the public broadcaster rather than supporting small and medium-sized newspapers. That was the issue with Bill C-18, some may recall. It was a bill designed to help the newspaper industry, but telcos and the CBC, the public broadcaster, took it over. They thought they were going to get millions of dollars. It ended up that Google said it would give them under $100 million and they could disburse it, but there we go again. It was the CBC with its hands out; it was right there. The Liberal government is absolutely out of touch and the CBC is out of touch

That leads me to its CEO, Catherine Tait, who was appointed by the government in 2018. Since taking over, viewership, as I mentioned, has been cut in half. What worries me now is that Catherine Tait has not had a bonus in 2022-23—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is a telephone vibrating. I do not know if it is on the member's desk.

As I did yesterday, I want to remind members to please not have their phones on their desk because the mics are on. It interferes with the interpreters. It would be great if that could be respected.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood has 30 seconds.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is what really worries me. As Ms. Tait has less than three months left as CEO of CBC and has not taken any bonuses in the last two years, here is my prediction: She will bolt from the position in January and take two and a half years of bonuses. We will never hear from her again. The public needs a response.

Do members know what? Conservatives are right on this. As common-sense Conservatives, we will clean up the mess created by the heritage minister and the Liberal government. Call the carbon tax election now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservatives are running out of speakers on the question of privilege. About 100-plus Conservatives have stood up on the privilege issue. Because they are possibly running a little shy in terms of something new to say, which we have not heard for weeks, they now stand up and introduce a concurrence motion as opposed to having to debate the privilege motion.

Is the Conservative Party so desperate to find speakers to deal with the privilege issue that it now has to bring in concurrence motions in order to filibuster its filibuster, which has an amendment to an amendment to a motion, a motion they actually support but refuse to allow to come to a vote? How silly is this?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, the issue is the CBC bonuses. I know that the member does not want to talk about the bonuses. I know that he does not want to talk about them because the Liberals paid out $18 million. They have given CBC $1.3 billion. It has been a cash cow for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Privy Council. That is why they do not want to talk about it. They know Canadians are upset; they are lined up at the food bank every day, yet $73,000 is going to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am hoping to appeal to my Conservative colleague's cultural sensibilities.

We know that there are huge dichotomies within CBC/Radio-Canada, particularly when it comes to the French side of the corporation. Radio-Canada is very profitable thanks to its advertising, while CBC has huge revenue problems. However, when it came to cutting jobs, francophones and anglophones were targeted equally.

Does my colleague agree that the government should have been much more thorough in addressing this disparity?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc member is absolutely correct. CBC/Radio-Canada is a very good institution. It has done very good work in this country, especially in the province of Quebec, yet when it started cutting the 800 employees with CBC, the first place it looked was the province of Quebec and CBC/Radio-Canada. The most successful of the operations of CBC is CBC/Radio-Canada.

Where did it start the cuts? It started there instead of talking about television. It does not measure up at all in western Canada in television. The government and the CEO are out of touch. We cannot wait to correct their mistakes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one thing I am concerned about, though, is that the Conservatives continue to talk about defunding the CBC. I agree with reining in the management, the fees and the bonuses; that should have been done a long time ago under several governments.

However, when we look at Marketplace and Go Public, we see that there are issues with Rogers; Air Canada; Porter, most recently with persons with disabilities; McDonald's and E. coli; landlord tactics using artificial intelligence against consumers; sex trafficking by CEOs from Abercrombie & Fitch and Nygard. There are issues with Honda with regard to the fuel pumps; Elon Musk over Tesla and its issues; Boeing, for example, on public safety; allowing the X platform, formerly Twitter, to use artificial intelligence against people; tobacco giants; emission scandals and car companies. It goes on and on.

We are going to lose significant investigative reporting that protects Canadian consumers when the Conservatives defund the CBC. What are they going to do next?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Windsor West and I have worked together on several private members' bills in the House of Commons, but the topic here is the bonuses; there was $18 million handed out last year when the corporation cut over 800 jobs. How arrogant that was. I watched an interview that CEO Catherine Tait did with Arsenault on CBC, and it was astonishing that CBC's CEO had little remorse for the 800 jobs leaving, but boy did she want to fill her pockets and her executive table, which she has done in the last year.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand in my place to represent the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot and, in particular, to talk about something that is gaining momentum: the conversation surrounding the mismanagement, the abuse of tax dollars and the unbelievable revelations that $18 million in bonuses were paid out to managers and executives at CBC even when that organization decided it would cut frontline workers right before Christmas.

The eighth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage addressed this very thing and reported back to the House. I will read the motion that we are debating here today. I believe the parliamentary secretary on the other side somewhat acknowledged that Conservatives are far better at getting stuff accomplished than the government is. I think that was what he was admitting in his previous question.

The motion is, “That, given the job cuts announced at CBC/Radio-Canada for the year 2024, it would be inappropriate for the CBC to grant bonuses to executive members.” It is a very simple and straightforward motion, and it cuts to the heart of where there is mismanagement at CBC.

When it comes to the issue at hand, there are well-placed Liberal appointees getting rich from tax dollars. An egregious example is that job cuts were announced just before Christmas. The current president of CBC begged for more money, saying there would be more job cuts if CBC could not get more cash from the government. Unbelievably, CBC, at that same time, was going through the process of approving $18 million in bonuses. We do not have the specifics because the president and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada refuses to disclose what her bonus package was proposed to be.

At committee the other week, the president and CEO also refused to tell Canadians what her severance package would be. Further, she refused to rule out accepting a severance package as her term comes to an end. CBC begged for more money and handed out big bonuses, yet had the audacity to lay off frontline workers. It is because of that sort of arrogance and that sort of attitude by the CEO of CBC, Catherine Tait, that the defund argument has gained momentum.

Maybe Ms. Tait did not understand the ATIP process. For the many Canadians who I am sure are watching this very important debate, I will explain that any Canadian can ask for information from government through what is called an access to information request. There is a simple form online, and I believe it costs five bucks, a simple administrative fee. Someone can ask for information, which is virtually unlimited as long as it does not have to do with issues of privacy or national security, and there are a few other areas that are exempt.

In this case, a reporter asked for information about the communications that the CEO of CBC would have had around defunding. The emails revealed that the CEO admitted there was momentum growing to defund CBC television.

Certainly, when Ms. Tait was confronted with her own words at committee this past week, it was quite interesting to hear her response. Instead of acknowledging what she had said in a private email, she continued to defend her failed record and that of the Liberal government to the tune of $1.3 billion in subsidies each and every year and millions of dollars in bonuses. CBC has falling ad revenue, thus requiring more taxpayer subsidy. At the same time, there are fewer Canadians watching CBC television.

There was a number thrown around at the heritage committee; the CBC talks about 20 million people interacting with its services. Many members of this place have a Facebook page, different social media presences or a website. Of course we all have the content that ends up online through ParlVU and other channels. It does not take that big a social media following to have millions of views over the course of a month. CBC, which includes some of the most expensive broadcasting infrastructure in the history of the country, brags that it has 20 million touch points for Canadians. There are those in this place, by comparison, who probably have a similar reach for some of their content, and it is done in a far less expensive way.

Earlier, my colleague made mention about the key performance indicators, the KPIs. When most folks hear an acronym like KPI, it does not necessarily resonate with them. However, what we found very interesting is that in the last full fiscal year, 2022-23, prior to the one we just completed, CBC fulfilled three out of 14 key performance indicators that were the metrics that CBC itself said would determine whether it was successful in fulfilling its mandate. It is a bit like a student's grading their own paper. Even CBC admitted that it was failing at fulfilling its mandate.

I would suggest that what is common sense when someone is failing is that they would make changes. CBC did make a change; I will admit that, but the change was not to improve what it was doing but to change the way it evaluates how it is doing. Therefore the circumstance is that the student was grading their own paper and acknowledged they failed the first go-around, but instead of making changes to ensure that they stopped failing in the future, they simply changed the metric by which they evaluated their poor performance in the past.

The result comes back to this: cash in the pockets of CBC executives, of which there are 43. When I learned that there were 43 executives at the public broadcaster, I thought that must be a typo. Give me a break. The average of the bonuses was $71,000 for each executive, to the tune of more than $3 million. This is at a time when Canadians are hurting, food bank usage has reached historic levels, home prices have doubled and the cost of everything is becoming unaffordable for regular Canadians. The average Canadian makes less than what a CBC executive would have received in a bonus. How out of touch is that?

To add insult to injury, the president and CEO, the executives and the managers who received bonuses at the CBC went to the frontline staff, before Christmas no less, and told them that their efforts there were not appreciated, that the executives would be keeping their job and their bonus but that the staff would lose theirs. They told them to go home and tell their family that. The arrogance is astounding.

The mismanagement is such a reflection of what we see on the benches of the Liberal cabinet, where members take for themselves but literally put out on the street hard-working men and women, the people who actually do the work while those who claim to make the decisions get rich.

After nine years, there has been failing performance virtually across the spectrum at CBC, as well as lower ad revenue and a lower number of viewers. In fact, with the number of viewers the CBC gets, it is going to have to start changing the key performance indicator for that if it is even able to report it. We see increasingly that Canadians are simply not wanting to watch the content that CBC is producing. That is the simple fact of the matter.

Therefore when it comes down to it, it is time for common sense. It is time to defund the CBC and ensure that bonuses are not paid out to rich executives at the same time as they are cutting frontline workers. We get very political in this place as we are politicians in Parliament, but let me conclude by saying that I hope we can find unity in this place with respect to cancelling bonuses for executives when frontline workers are having their jobs cut.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will get the opportunity to address the chamber on a wide variety of issues reflecting on the CBC, but I have a specific question for the member.

The member for Lethbridge had a shell-shock moment when she was questioned about CBC/Radio-Canada; she really did not know what to say. She came back with the response that she kind of supports the leader of the Conservative Party. We are a little unclear. Can the member opposite provide a 100% guarantee that the Conservatives will not touch CBC/Radio-Canada? Will he provide that commitment now?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, over the last number of days, we have seen chaos in the Liberal ranks. I believe there are 152 Liberal members, although that number is quickly diminishing because they keep losing by-elections. More MPs seem to be resigning all the time, announcing that they will not be running again and whatnot.

There is a very interesting question that the parliamentary secretary needs to answer. Twenty-four members have called for his boss to take a walk in the snow, a walk in the sand or whatever kind of walk it is, to walk out of the doors of this place so that we can restore some semblance of integrity and accountability back to the institution that is Canada's Parliament. This is opposed to a guy that seems to care about nothing more than power and the perks that come along with it.

One question Canadians want an answer to is this: Was the member one of the 24 telling his boss to go take a hike?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, major cuts are affecting a large number of workers, and I should point out that these cuts are mainly targeting the francophone component, which will have serious cultural implications.

However, we learned that, in spite of everything that has been happening, bonuses are still being paid out. In fact, I heard my colleague cite a figure that I find quite absurd. I am not even sure I heard him right. Could he tell us again the average amount of the bonuses received by senior executives?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of numbers, and I will unpack them very quickly. There was a total of $18 million in bonuses paid out to executives, managers and out-of-scope, non-unionized employees. However, when it comes to the specifics around the executives, the average was $71,000 for the 73 executives at CBC.

As the member mentioned, the Liberals like to accuse other parties of being the ones to make cuts, yet they are cutting French-language reporting. The Liberals are making cuts that are devastating cultural organizations across this country.

Those are the numbers. About $3.1 million went to executives. For those 43 executives, the average was about $71,000 each.

The Liberals prefer by far to make cuts to frontline employees and pay out their rich friends. That is shameful.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have yet another day of a full-on attack on the independence of Canadian media.

We saw the Conservative leader attack Global News and The Canadian Press. We saw him go after the Toronto Star. We saw the vicious attack on CTV and, of course, the CBC. All this is happening while questions are raised about why the member cannot get security clearance.

There is an article from October 23, this past week, in The Globe and Mail. It refers to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills explaining that “security clearances involve a rigorous process that includes...checks on family members, credit and criminal checks and...questions about one's sexual partners or whether they ever used drugs.” That is not a reason that a man can hide from getting a security clearance: so that we do not find out whether his family has been involved in criminal activities.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills goes on to say that the Prime Minister should reach out and just tell the member from Stornoway, so he does not have to expose himself. Simply, what are the Conservatives so afraid of exposing in the member for Stornoway's background?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that this member has such great trust and admiration for the Prime Minister.

The reality is that the Prime Minister does not actually have security clearance. He has it by nature of the position. He did not grant himself security clearance. The Prime Minister is able to declassify the information and release the 11 names; he could do that. Conservatives have made it very clear that we want the information made public so that Canadians can know.

When it comes to the cheap shots that the member often takes in this place, I would simply conclude by saying this: The names should be released so that Canadians can make the choice, as opposed to playing politics, which is what the Prime Minister and the soon-to-be former member for Timmins—James Bay are doing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that, if they have had an opportunity to ask a question, they should wait for the answer, even though they may not like it.

The same goes for those who are not being recognized and are making comments. I would ask them all to wait for the appropriate time to do so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I put it in the form of a question earlier, but this is something that people really need to take a note of: the silliness of the Conservative Party today under the leadership of, I would suggest, a Conservative Reformer who is heavily influenced by the far right. The degree to which the Conservatives want to filibuster is incredible. Let us think about what they are proposing today.

First and foremost, the Conservatives moved a motion weeks ago on a question of privilege, saying that they want an issue to go to the procedure and House affairs committee. Now, after they moved that motion, we quickly found out that all members of the House were actually in favour of it. However, the Conservatives then flip-flopped a little and said no, they wanted to have some members speak to the motion. They then brought in an amendment and put up dozens of speakers. Next, they brought in a subamendment and put up dozens more speakers. This was not done to deal with the issue, but it was all in an attempt to frustrate the House of Commons. The leader of the Conservative Party is more concerned about the Conservative Party than about Canadians and the issues that we are facing, denying a litany of important pieces of legislation and other types of debate dealing with everything from online harms affecting children to courts converting from military to civilian courts, citizenship and so much more. The Conservatives are more interested in themselves and in forgoing what is in the interests of Canadians.

Today, the Conservatives brought in a motion for concurrence in order to be able to filibuster their original filibuster of having an issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee. I find the degree to which the Conservatives are focused on themselves really interesting.

There are lots of reports out there, 100-plus reports, that the Conservatives could call on. Which issue do they decide to pull out to contribute to their filibuster? It is the issue of the CBC. There is nothing new there, in the sense that the Conservative Party, especially under the current leadership, has no time at all for the CBC or CTV. The party's leader has no respect for either of those two media outlets. I suspect it is because the Conservatives do not like it when their behaviour and their actions are reflected in the national news. They would rather rely on misinformation, fake news, social media and the data bank they have of a million-plus emails. They want to take a page out of U.S. politics and spread massive amounts of misinformation. That is how they believe they are going to be successful. The more uninformed Canadians are, the greater the likelihood of the Conservatives' being successful becomes. The more they can promote hatred towards politicians, the more they will be successful. That is the reason the Conservatives want to talk about the CBC today.

It is interesting. The member for Timmins—James Bay actually raised an issue that I want to spend a bit of time talking about. I believe there is a personal vendetta that we are seeing with the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have a hatred for CBC, which is well known and well established. If we look at some of the things that it has been reporting on, that is where we will find why the Conservatives want to talk about the CBC today. The Conservatives have their sights on getting rid of CBC because CBC is informing Canadians about what is happening in a very real sense.

Over the last couple days, I have challenged many members of the Conservative Party on the issue of foreign interference. I do not know how many times, but it has been a lot: dozens of times. I have consistently asked these questions because the answers the Conservatives are giving are completely unrelated to the truth.

Interestingly enough, the CBC had a report on it, and I want to share some things the CBC is actually saying. I would ask members to make the connection as to whether there is any surprise the Conservative Party of Canada, headed by its extreme-right leader, has no time for the CBC and wants to get rid of it. This is the reason we are seeing that.

Here is a report that came out on CBC that members can check. The headline was “Why won't [the PM] release classified names — and why won't [the leader of the Conservative Party] get a security clearance?”

I am going to read some of the details in it, but the issue is very serious. In fact, interestingly, I actually have two reports from the CBC. I will go with the first one here on foreign interference and how much that has been raised inside the House. Canadians are genuinely concerned about foreign interference, whether it is of a highly political nature or in our communities. Yesterday, I made reference to assassinations and extortion taking place. We continue to look at a number of countries. It is not just one country. It is a serious issue.

Here is an example that was on CBC not that long ago, and it is in reference to a website that has actually been frozen, I believe by the FBI. The article reads:

A website at the heart of an international Russian disinformation operation has produced more than a dozen articles about Canadian politics in an apparent attempt to undermine support for [the Prime Minister of Canada] and boost his chief rival, [the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada].

The website Reliable Recent News has been identified by officials in Europe and the U.S. as a repository for pro-Kremlin articles.

This is Russia trying to influence what people think here in Canada. The CBC reported on this. The Conservatives do not like that, of course, because a lot of people watch CBC; they have confidence and trust in the CBC.

Why are the Conservatives so much aligned to get rid of the CBC? Let us fast-forward and remember the issue of foreign interference. We have one leader in the House of Commons who is putting his party's interests and himself ahead of the nation, and that is the leader of the Conservative Party. The leaders of the Green Party, NDP and Bloc have all received the security clearance, as has the Prime Minister, obviously. The only one who refuses to get it is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada; he says that if he gets it, he will not be able to speak about the issues. That is one of the concerns that he actually raises.

We all know that this is not true, but that is the only thing that the Conservatives can come up with in their attempt to justify putting their party ahead of the nation's interests. The misinformation on this issue is significant. If we look at social media, whether it is from the leader or other members of the Conservative Party, we will find that they are continually and intentionally misleading people through social media and emails.

We have one of Canada's most trusted media outlets. What was actually said? What was actually reported? Again, this is not the CBC saying it; this is the CBC reporting it. Who are its sources? Well, they are former CSIS directors, individuals who are in the know. They understand the issues. They are professionals. They are people we should all be respecting. When we talk about CSIS directors or the RCMP, these are institutions that should be respected, not thrown to the side in favour of Conservative propaganda.

The CBC article states that in the past, the leader of the Conservative Party “has defended his decision not to receive a national security clearance and get briefed by intelligence agencies by arguing that it would prevent him from speaking freely and criticizing the government on foreign interference issues.” That is the Conservatives' argument, so they state.

Richard Fadden, a former CSIS director, “said that wouldn't be the case.” The article goes on:

“Just because you have a security clearance doesn't mean you have to become a...monk and never speak,” he said. He also said that [the leader of the Conservative Party] could choose to be briefed only on issues affecting his own party if he wanted to create a buffer ensuring he could criticize the government on foreign interference.

In his statement on Wednesday, [the leader of the Conservative Party] said his chief of staff has received classified briefings.

“At no time has the government told me or my chief of staff of any current or former Conservative parliamentarian or candidate knowingly participating in foreign interference,” he said.

So says the leader of the Conservative Party, because he refuses to get the security clearance.

But Elcock said that CSIS would not brief a chief of staff on foreign interference issues pertaining to individual parliamentarians.

“What could the chief of staff do with the information?” Elcock said. “[The leader of the Conservative Party] doesn't have a clearance, so the chief of staff can't tell him the information. And the chief of staff has no power to do anything about the MPs or make decisions about the MPs because he's not the leader of the party.”

During the inquiry hearing on Wednesday, lawyer Nando De Luca, acting for the Conservative Party, argued that CSIS could use something called a “threat reduction measure” to inform [the leader—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. The member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot is rising on a point of order.

The hon. member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, foreign interference is an extremely important issue. I am just trying to understand how it is connected to the CBC.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We know that a lot of latitude is given to members during discussions. However, the points raised during a debate have to have a connection to the subject of the debate. I am sure that the hon. parliamentary secretary will make a connection to the motion before the House by mentioning certain aspects of it in his speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if there are members who are coming in somewhat late and did not hear the beginning, we are talking about the CBC.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member knows he is not to mention whether someone has been or is in the chamber or anything like that. Is he speaking now on the point of order?