Madam Speaker, if the member was around a bit more and listened to a lot of the discussions that have been taking place over the last number of weeks, he would know that it is absolutely relevant as the Conservatives are starting to use motions of this nature to attack the actions of members of Parliament. They are trying to say that this is not relevant.
After all, I am reflecting on the motivations and the character of the Conservative leader. They will be super sensitive if it is a Conservative who we are talking about, but Liberal members of Parliament are free game. That is their attitude. They try to prevent members from being able to express the reality of what is taking place in the chamber today. I say shame on the member for interrupting what is, in fact, an important statement that needs to be made.
Yes, the issue of indigenous businesses is of the utmost importance. In fact, over the weekend, we had a wonderful historical moment in the province of Manitoba. On Portage and Main, on the 20th floor of a building that is now owned by Red River Métis, David Chartrand and the Métis nation signed off on a treaty. We now have the Manitoba Métis national government on treaty.
Whether it is signing that important document just this past weekend, or literally the tens of millions of dollars that the Liberals have provided to encourage and support indigenous businesses, we have been there. However, we do not hear that being talked about because it does not fit the Conservatives' narrative. That is why it is important for people who follow the debates that take place in the House of Commons to not be fooled by what the Conservative Party does and has been doing for the last six weeks.
People should not think this is about concern over indigenous businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a part of the game that the Conservatives are playing, and that game happens to be a filibuster to prevent the government from doing the business that would support indigenous Canadians, and all Canadians, in many different ways. They then use that to criticize and single out a particular member. I will continue pointing out the hypocrisy that is coming out of the office of the leader of the Conservative Party.
As I was pointing out, the member for Kingston and the Islands, the deputy House leader of the government, made it very clear how another member of the House, which is being reported on in national news today, was interfered with through foreign interference. Why is that important to note? It is important because we are talking about the leader of the Conservative Party and his unwillingness to get a security clearance. Members can think about that. He is the only leader in the House of Commons to do that. If someone wants to be an intern for the Conservative Party, they are required to get a security clearance, but not if someone is the leader of the Conservative Party.
Today, through the news, we found out that there is a direct link to the leader of the Conservative Party during his leadership campaign, which was interfered with through foreign interference. Do members remember, a year ago, how often we were hearing about the issue of foreign interference? The Conservatives were jumping all over each other to raise the issue, until we caught wind that there were maybe some Conservatives at play and it might not necessarily reflect well on them.
How the attitudes quickly changed. When is the last time we saw them stand up in question period and pose a question on foreign interference? I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that the Conservative leader does not want to talk about the issue anymore because of something there that is preventing him from wanting to get the security clearance. The news story today is all about leadership interference. That might be one aspect of it, but I think there is more to it. I think there is more to why the Leader of the Opposition does not want to get the security clearance, and I believe Canadians have a right to know.
If members across the way want to use this particular report to reflect on the member for Edmonton Centre, while they stand up and they talk about that, what they should also be doing is reflecting, maybe looking in the mirror and thinking about the leader of the Conservative Party. Should they not be applying the same sort of pressure, the same sort of tactics, maybe even within their own caucus, and call into question why their own leader refuses to get that security clearance?
I believe foreign interference is one of those reasons that had a direct impact on his own leadership and one of the reasons why he might even be the leader of the Conservative Party today. I understand that Patrick Brown—