Madam Speaker, the member says I sound upset. I am a tad bit upset because I want to deal with the issues that Canadians are concerned about first and foremost, as opposed to playing these destructive games that the Conservatives want to play, putting their own political partisan party issues ahead of the interests of Canadians.
I am a bit upset. Why? It is because at the end of the day, we had a Prime Minister and Liberal caucus recognizing that we wanted to build one Canada, a Canada strong. That is why we brought in legislation on that, Bill C-5, which we were able to pass, and I am grateful for that. It took down barriers so we could have more trade within Canada. The leader of the Conservative Party was not elected at that time, but we did get it passed. We were also able to give an income tax break to Canadians, and 22 million Canadians derived a benefit as a direct result.
We have substantial legislation before us. How many times did we have a Conservative MP stand up and talk about the need for bail reform? Bail reform is now in a position to be debated, but we need to get Bill C-3 through because of the superior court's deadline. Canadians want bail reform. The Conservatives say it, but they do not want it to turn into reality because they would rather say the government is dysfunctional. In reality, it is the Conservatives who are dysfunctional. Their priorities are all wrong.
They now bring up that we have a committee report, but it was decided by a standing committee where there is an unholy alliance or coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc because they now make up a majority of the committee, just those two political parties. They have made the decision that they want to continue with the Conservative idea that the best way to get a government to be disliked is to attack the leader, whether it is justified or not. That is their motivation.
Then they say the standing committee has said we need to have this studied; it wants to investigate this issue. That is the Conservatives working with the Bloc. Those two formed a coalition to try to embarrass the government. That is the intent of the motion that was just proposed, not to deal with substantive issues that Canadians are concerned with.
They ask about the conflict of interest and whether we are interested in it. Absolutely, we are interested in the conflict of interest. We are going by the code that the current leader of the Conservative Party supported and defended, which Stephen Harper brought in and which the current Prime Minister respected even before he became a member of Parliament, let alone the Prime Minister of Canada.
Of course we are concerned about it, but it is the Conservatives who continue to believe that the best way to get Canadians upset is to come up with dots and stars all over the place, as if there is a conspiracy here and a given minister is bad. They are very good at the conspiracy stuff, but when it comes to tangible action, that is where they are found wanting.
One member made reference to the credibility of the system. Do I have a story for members on the credibility of the system. Every member of the House, I am sure, is aware of the leader of the Conservative Party's attack on the RCMP, one of Canada's most significant institutions, recognized around the world as a first-class law enforcement agency and security agency that protects the interests of Canadians. It is, in fact, apolitical. What does the leader of the Conservative Party have to say about it? The word he used in regard to management was “despicable”. We then wonder what impact that has.
All sorts of members piled onto that particular issue. They recognize the independence of our conflict of interest office and respect the office. Why do they not demonstrate some form of respect for the RCMP?
Days after the Prime Minister said that, others piled on. I remember the member for Bow River indicated there is “management weakness”.