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—