2019-05-27

Proposed Changes to the Standing Orders[Stage Direction]
(Motion No. 231. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)
 April 11, 2019—Mr. Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard)—Changes to the Standing Orders 

The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
As members know, in order for a motion to be considered to be before the House it must first be found to be in order, then moved and seconded and, finally, the Speaker proposes it to the House. 
In proposing it to the House, the Speaker would normally read the motion in its entirety, unless, of course, the House gives its permission to dispense.
In this case, Motion No. 231, standing in the name of the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, is particularly long. The time it would take to read the motion would exceed the one-hour period allocated to private members' business and deprive members of the opportunity to debate this issue today.
Rather than reading the motion in its entirety when proposing it to the House, the Chair could simply refer to it by its number, Motion No. 231. The House can then proceed directly to the consideration of the motion so that members are afforded the full time allotted to debate on this item.
For reference purposes, the text of Motion No. 231 can be found on the Order Paper and Notice Paper under private members' business, and copies of the motion can be obtained from a table officer.
At this time, I would therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to dispense with the reading of the entirety of the motion. Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard is not present to move the order as announced on today's Notice Paper. Accordingly, the motion will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Accordingly, the House will remain suspended until noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:06 a.m.)
[Stage Direction]
(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

Government Orders
Extension of Sitting HoursHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):  moved:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 21, 2019: 
 (a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place; 
 (b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday, provided that, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred; 
 (c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division in relation to any government order requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2019, or at any time on Friday, June 21, 2019, shall be deferred; 
 (d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2); 
 (e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday; 
 (f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday; 
 (g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b); 
 (h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7); 
 (i) when one or several deferred recorded divisions occur on a bill at report stage, a motion, “That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass”, may be made in the same sitting; 
 (j) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m., except by a Minister of the Crown; 
 (k) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.; 
 (l) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, (i) all remaining motions to concur in the Votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the question deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (ii) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker will be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage; 
 (m) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 31st sitting day after the interruption; and 
 (n) Members not seeking re-election to the 43rd Parliament may be permitted to make statements, on Tuesday, June 4, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members’ Business for not more than three hours, and that, for the duration of the statements, (i) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, (ii) after three hours or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall return to Government Orders. 
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30, which allows for the extension of the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.
I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30. This motion would allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment. There is a clear and recent precedent for this extension of hours to give the House more time to do its important work. It occurred last year at this time and also the year before that. As well, in the previous Parliament, the hours of the House were extended in June 2014. 
Four years ago, our government came forward with an ambitious mandate that promised real change. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government has introduced legislation that has improved the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. However, we have more work to do.
So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 82 government bills, and 65 of those have received royal assent. The facts are clear. This Parliament has been productive. We have a strong record of accomplishment. It is a long list, so I will cite just a few of our accomplishments.
Bill C-2 made good on our promise to lower taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. There are nine million Canadians who have benefited from this middle-class tax cut. This tax cut has been good for Canadians and their families. It has been good for the economy and good for Canada, and its results have been better than advertised. On our side, we are proud of this legislation. We have always said that we were on the side of hard-working, middle-class Canadians, and this legislation is proof of exactly that.
As well, thanks to our budgetary legislation, low-income families with children are better off today. We introduced the biggest social policy innovation in more than a generation through the creation of the tax-free Canada child benefit. The CCB puts cash into the pockets of nine out of 10 families and has lifted nearly 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.
Early in this Parliament, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada, we passed medical assistance in dying legislation, which carefully balanced the rights of those seeking medical assistance in dying while ensuring protection of the most vulnerable in our society.
Also of note, we repealed the previous government's law that allowed citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. We also restored the rights of Canadians abroad to vote in Canadian elections.
We added gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, passing Bill C-65 has helped make workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from harassment and sexual violence.
We promised to give the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer the powers, resources and independence to properly do its job. We delivered on that commitment through legislation, and the PBO now rigorously examines the country's finances in an independent and non-partisan manner.
Through Bill C-45, we ended the failed approach to cannabis by legalizing it and strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis, as part of our plan to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the pockets of organized crime. Along with that, Bill C-46 has strengthened laws to deter and punish people who drive while impaired, both from alcohol and/or drugs.
These are just some examples of the work we have accomplished on behalf of Canadians.
We are now heading into the final weeks of this session of Parliament, and there is more work to do. Four years ago, Canadians sent us here with a responsibility to work hard on their behalf, to discuss important matters of public policy, to debate legislation and to vote on that legislation.
The motion to allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House is timely, and clearly it is necessary. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make even more progress.
Passage of this motion would give all members exactly what they often ask for: more time for debate. I know every member wants to deliver for their communities and this motion will help with exactly that. We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks and we have the opportunity to add time to get more done.
I would like to highlight a few of the bills that our government will seek to advance.
I will start with Bill C-97, which would implement budget 2017. This budget implementation act is about making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy. That means helping more Canadians find an affordable home, and get training so that they have the skills necessary to obtain good, well-paying jobs. It is also about making it easier for seniors to retire with confidence.
Another important bill is Bill C-92, which would affirm and recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. The bill would require all providers of indigenous child and family services to adhere to certain principles, namely the best interests of the child, family unity and cultural continuity. This co-drafted legislation would transfer the jurisdiction of child and family services delivery to indigenous communities. This is historic legislation that is long overdue.
We have another important opportunity for us as parliamentarians, which is to pass Bill C-93, the act that deals with pardons as they relate to simple possession of cannabis. As I mentioned, last year we upheld our commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. It is time to give people who were convicted of simple possession a straightforward way to clear their names. We know it is mostly young people from the poorest of communities who have been targeted and hence are being left behind. This bill would create an expedited pardon process, with no application fee or waiting period, for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Canadians who have held criminal records in the past for simple possession of cannabis should be able to meaningfully participate in their communities, get good and stable jobs and become the contributing members of our society that they endeavour to be.
Meanwhile, there is another important bill before the House that we believe needs progress. Bill C-88 is an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This legislation only impacts the Northwest Territories, and its territorial government is asking us to act. This legislation protects Canada's natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous people and supports a strong natural resources sector. This bill will move the country ahead with a process that promotes reconciliation with indigenous peoples and creates certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.
Earlier this month, our government introduced Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. This bill would create civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would provide citizens with an independent review body to address complaints about the CBSA, just as they now have complaint mechanisms in place for the RCMP. Let me remind members that it was our government that brought forward Bill C-22 that established the national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians, which has tabled its first annual report to Parliament. We are committed to ensuring that our country's border services are worthy of the trust of Canadians, and Bill C-98 is a significant step towards strengthening that accountability.
We have taken a new approach. We, as a government, have consulted with Canadians when it comes to our legislation. We have seen committees call witnesses and suggest amendments that often times improve legislation, and we, as a government, have accepted those changes. We were able to accomplish this work because we gave the committees more resources and we encouraged Liberal members to do their work.
Likewise, currently there are two bills that have returned to the House with amendments from the Senate. I look forward to members turning their attention to these bills as well. One of those bills is Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Our goal is to make accessibility both a reality and a priority across federal jurisdictions so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can participate and be included in society as contributing members. Bill C-81 would help us to reach that goal by taking a proactive approach to getting ahead of systemic discrimination. The purpose of this bill is to make Canada barrier free, starting in areas under federal jurisdiction. This bill, if passed by Parliament, will represent the most significant legislation for the rights of persons with disabilities in over 30 years, and for once it will focus on their abilities.
The other bill we have received from the Senate is Bill C-58, which would make the first significant reforms to the Access to Information Act since it was enacted in 1982. With this bill, our government is raising the bar on openness and transparency by revitalizing access to information. The bill would give more power to the Information Commissioner and would provide for proactive disclosure of information.
There are also a number of other bills before the Senate. We have respect for the upper chamber. It is becoming less partisan thanks to the changes our Prime Minister has made to the appointment process, and we respect the work that senators do in reviewing legislation as a complementary chamber.
Already the Senate has proposed amendments to many bills, and the House has in many instances agreed with many of those changes. As we look toward the final few weeks, it is wise to give the House greater flexibility, and that is exactly why supporting this motion makes sense. This extension motion will help to provide the House with the time it needs to consider these matters. 
There are now just 20 days left in the parliamentary calendar before the summer adjournment, and I would like to thank all MPs and their teams for their contributions to the House over the past four years. Members in the House have advanced legislation that has had a greater impact for the betterment of Canadians. That is why over 800,000 Canadians are better off today than they were three years ago when we took office. 
We saw that with the lowering of the small business tax rate to 9%, small businesses have been able to grow through innovation and trade. We see that Canadians have created over one million jobs, the majority of which are full-time, good-paying jobs that Canadians deserve. These are jobs that were created by Canadians for Canadians.
That is why I would also like to stress that while it is necessary for us to have honest and vibrant deliberations on the motion, Canadians are looking for us all to work collaboratively and constructively in their best interests. That is exactly why extending the hours will provide the opportunity for more members to be part of the debates that represent the voices of their constituents in this place, so that we continue to advance good legislation that benefits even more Canadians.
It has been great to do the work that we have been doing, but we look forward to doing even more.
Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions, although I understand in some ways why the government is extending hours. I know we did it as well when we were in government. However, what I have noticed is that the government is consistently endeavouring to take away the tools that the opposition has to hold it to account. I have noticed in the motion that there are some tools that the Liberals are trying to limit and take away, which I have concerns with.
I would like to ask specifically about supply days. We do not have our supply day allotted as yet, but I am hoping that the member will not give us yet another short day. Supply days are very important for the opposition. We only have two of them left before the next election, and the government has said in the motion that it will not be giving our supply days that extended period to be able to take them into the evening. We already know that we will not have the benefit of being able to have a truly full day with the extended hours.
I am wondering if the government House leader could assure me, and I would very much appreciate it being in good faith, that the two supply days we have left will be generous days, not short days like a Wednesday or a Friday.
Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the understanding of the opposition House leader that it is important to extend the hours in the House so that we can have more debate, and I would take that as a signal that perhaps she will be encouraging her colleagues in the Conservative Party to support the motion.
When it comes to opposition days, I have been in this role of government House leader now for almost three years, and the Conservatives and New Democrats know very well that they have on numerous occasions, the majority of times, had longer days. With some of the tactics that the opposition members have chosen to deploy, they have been receiving shortened days because we are not able to advance government legislation, and that will always be the priority.
The point I would like to make, as the opposition leader has alluded to, is that in this place we have long days and short days, but when it comes to the work that Canadians are doing, every day is a long day. Canadians work very hard every single day, and there is no reason that we cannot do the same in this place.
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on that last point, a few years ago we actually took statistics on the evening sessions in the month June. New Democrats, because we come from a very hard-working background and the people who sent us here are hard-working as well, did not miss a single speaking spot, a single shift, to speak on behalf of our constituents. As members will recall, the Liberals and Conservatives between them missed over 200 spots in that same period, which means that over 200 times that a Conservative or Liberal was called to speak in those midnight sessions, not a single Liberal or Conservative member actually got up to speak. We are no strangers to working hard, and we expect the Liberals to actually show up this time and speak on behalf of their constituents, albeit that has not been their record.
My question for my colleague is quite simple. The mandate letter from the Prime Minister suggested two important things: that parliamentarians must have the freedom to do their most important job, which is to represent their constituents and hold the government to account; and that they work with opposition House leaders to examine ways to make the House of Commons more family friendly for members of Parliament. 
However, the motion before us would strip away the tools that opposition members have to keep the government accountable. Why is the government House leader repudiating her mandate letter?
Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, first of all, on the point regarding debating legislation, as a government, we advance legislation that we have been mandated to do by Canadians. These are platform commitments that we committed to deliver. Canadians elected us as government and we would like to advance that legislation.
What often happens is that opposition members feel they do not have enough time to speak. Therefore, yes, on multiple occasions I have asked colleagues to perhaps shorten their speeches, just as my speech was shorter than 20 minutes today, so that other people could utilize that time. Yes, on occasion, we have shared our time with the NDP as well as Conservative members. We have shared our time with the leader of the Green Party, as well as independent members, to ensure that they also have an opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents.
Something we learn early in life is that sharing is caring. It important to ensure that people who want to speak on legislation are able to. It is unfortunate that the NDP does not recognize the importance of allowing and sharing our time so that more members will be able to share on behalf of their constituents and so that we can continue delivering the results we have seen. 
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, there are two pieces of legislation the member mentioned that are particularly important to the most vulnerable individuals in our community, and thus I do not mind extending the hours. She mentioned Bill C-81, which would identify, remove and prevent accessibility barriers and level the playing field especially for those with various disabilities. She also mentioned Bill C-93, the expedited record suspension, and, of course, we know that when it comes to simple possession of cannabis it negatively impacts indigenous individuals and people of colour disproportionally.
 If we extend the hours, what is the likelihood we will get these pieces of legislation passed before the House rises?
Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Whitby for that question, especially when it comes to actually dealing with pieces of legislation that are going to impact people's lives for the better. 
I would like to assure the member that I will use every tool necessary to ensure that we advance this legislation. However, it would be great if opposition members would share the time needed for debate on those pieces of legislation so that we can ensure that everyone who wants to speak on it is able to. There is definitely a difference between members of Parliament standing up and speaking on behalf of their constituents and members of Parliament speaking to advance their party's line. Unfortunately, when we are advancing the party's narrative, we take away from the work we are doing in our constituencies.
 I would agree that Bill C-81 is historic legislation. It has gone to the Senate and we have seen it return with amendments. The minister has considered those amendments, because they would improve the legislation. Therefore, there is no reason that we cannot see this proposed legislation move along quickly. Members will see that the government wants to see it move quickly, and Canadians will be able to see who will block that legislation from happening. Also, when it comes to Bill C-83, once again, we would like to see this proposed legislation move along quickly, and Canadians will also be able to see clearly who blocks that from happening. 
It is clear that the government wants to advance legislation that works for Canadians, but the opposition would rather get in the way of government's advancing legislation at the expense of Canadians, and that is really unfortunate.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference to there being 20 sitting days left. Could she provide her thoughts regarding these 20 important days that Canadians expect we will work on while we are here in Ottawa?
Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I know the member is in the House quite a bit debating every piece of legislation, fighting for his constituents in Winnipeg and all surrounding areas. I know that people in Waterloo often comment on that member's remarks, and they realize that our communities, though diverse and different, are very similar.
 When we are advancing legislation, we are seeing greater impacts on our families. That is exactly what we want to continue doing, making sure that our communities are better off. We are seeing from the historic infrastructure investments we are making that communities are able to grow and create opportunities.
 We know that with our tax-free Canada child benefit, more and more children are being lifted out of poverty because we are giving the most to the families with children who need the most by asking the wealthiest 1% of Canadians to give a bit more. Though that was challenging at first, we are hearing from Canadians that as a result of people around the wealthiest Canadians being better off, they too are better off. Their communities are flourishing. Their provinces are flourishing. The country is flourishing. That is exactly why Canadians have been able to create a million jobs.
In April, we saw the job numbers come out. Many people thought that the economy was going to flatline and there was no way there could be more growth. However, the numbers came out and Canadians created over 106,000 jobs. It was amazing to see. The majority of the jobs were full-time, well-paying jobs, which means that Canadians are better off.
The work is not done. We need to keep working hard and that is why supporting this motion is very important.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to the government motion that would, among other things, extend the hours we would be sitting in this place until we have completed this Parliament on June 21. It would also take away a lot of the tools we have as the opposition to hold the government to account. 
As we listened to some of the answers by the government House leader, it is no surprise that in the dying days of the scandal ridden, promise breaking, tax raising and very severely ethically challenged disaster of a Liberal government, we are seeing Liberals use disrespectful, draconian and bully-like mannerisms to get their agenda accomplished. 
It was quite interesting and telling when the government House leader was answering questions and referring to a couple of things. First of all, when I asked her about our opposition day and whether she was going to make those days short, she stood and said to my colleague, the House leader for the NDP, as well as to me, that somehow our behaviour earlier in this Parliament was the reason she was going to punish us with shorter days. 
That speaks volumes, and not in a positive way, to the utter lack of respect the Liberals, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the government House leader, have for the work we do in the opposition. We are not doing anything on this side of the House outside of the rules. We are using the rules, mechanisms and the tools we have to hold the government to account. What is the answer from the government to that? It is going to punish the opposition because it can. It is going to punish the opposition by giving us a very short day and not extend our hours of opposition. That answer was very indicative of the attitude of the Liberal government and the Liberal Party in general to this House of Commons and Parliament.
Secondly, when the government House leader was giving answers about debate, she talked about members of Parliament repeating themselves or speaking about partisan issues. She felt that that was when she should tell her members not to speak quite as long and that they should shut down their comments. Are we now in a new day and age when the Liberal House leader will tell duly elected members of Parliament that they should not use all of their time, and that she is going to shut down the opposition as well because she thinks that what we are saying is not relevant and that we are repeating ourselves?
When the Prime Minister appointed the House leader to her position three years ago, a lot of us had concerns because she was a very newly elected MP. She had not been in the House as a backbencher or sat on committees. She had been in her role for I think 70 days or so. She has really done a commendable job in that time with the hand she has been dealt. However, I do believe that with her comments that I mentioned, it is clear that is the message she is getting from the top. That is what she is hearing from the Prime Minister and the people at the top who direct her. She has been told by them to shut the backbenchers down. If members are talking too much on our side, she is to shut them down, as well as do whatever she can to shut down the opposition. 
At the end of the day, the Liberals are in charge and are the bosses, so they are going to tell people what to think and members of Parliament what they can and cannot say. If they are talk too much or for too long, or the Liberals think their remarks are repetitive or partisan, because God forbid, Conservatives act like Conservatives and New Democrats act like NDP, they must be shut down. The Liberals are clearly partisan, but the Liberal belief is that if something does not align with what they think, then it must be dismissed and shut down. We have seen that on a number of occasions.
Sadly, the House leader's comments in the last few minutes regarding opposition days and that she is going to punish us, as well as telling her own members not to speak because it would be repetitive, are absolutely unbelievable and a very sad reflection of what we have seen over the last four years.
Now here we are. We have all returned from another May constituency week to another Liberal motion to extend our sitting hours. I have already acknowledged, and will say for the record, that our previous Conservative government did the same thing in 2013 and 2014. 
In the last election year, 2015, however, we did not have to extend our sitting hours, because we managed the House in an efficient, respectful way. Stephen Harper's government had a well-managed parliamentary agenda. His House leader, my former colleague, the very well-respected Peter Van Loan, would often remind the House of the ambition to have a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament. That is what Canadians enjoyed up until the 2015 election.
Since then, things have changed, and they have changed drastically. That change is where the seeds for today's motion were planted. In came a new Prime Minister in late 2015, heavy on charm and light on substance, as it would turn out. One government, ours, with a track record of delivering, was replaced by a government obsessed with something called “deliverology”. Do members remember those days? I think my colleagues opposite were also kind of interested in what deliverology meant and where it was going to take us. 
Deliverology was like a lot of things from the government. There are a lot of buzzwords. No matter how many buzzwords the failed Liberal government has repeated, it has conjured up pretty well zero results.
Let us go through some of those buzzwords, because they really are interesting to reflect on. Let us look at what was presented to Canadians, what was advertised and what was actually delivered, which was not as advertised. 
Let us begin with the buzzwords “hope” and “hard work”. I am afraid the Liberals put way too much emphasis on a lot of hope and very little emphasis on hard work.
There were some things they worked hard on. The Liberals worked very hard on mastering government by Instagram and Twitter. They worked hard on posturing and, unfortunately, on dividing Canadians. The Liberals worked hard on finding ways to run endless deficits, to the point where it would take decades for the budget to balance itself, as our Prime Minister said. The Liberals have also worked hard on virtue signalling. In fact, they have that one down to an art form.
What about actual hard work and actual accomplishments here in the House of Commons? So far in this Parliament, 48 government bills, other than routine appropriation bills approving spending, have received royal assent, with 17 more passed by the House. Some of these bills were simply matters initiated by us, the previous Conservative government, such as a number of the bills related to the border. Those were bills we initially brought forward.
 There were also free trade agreements, such as with the European Union and the Trans Pacific Partnership, as well as bills on victims' rights in the military justice system. Obviously, we agreed with those bills. We basically brought the government to the one yard line, and it took it across the finish line. The Conservatives know that we did the heavy lifting, but we were in agreement with those bills. Those are among the bills the government passed.
These numbers are also in spite of the government regularly using time allocation and relying on omnibus bills, even though that flies in the face of all the sanctimony the Liberals have thrown our way. Let us remember that. Let us remember that during the 2015 election, the Conservatives were preached at by the then-Liberal candidate, soon to be the Prime Minister, about how Parliament was going to be respected. He was not going to use time allocation. The Liberals would not be using omnibus bills, and they would allow parliamentarians to have their say. Let us remember the sanctimony.
By comparison, when the 41st Parliament drew to a close, a total of 95 government bills, other than appropriation bills, had received royal assent. That was under the Conservative government. 
The contrast gets no better for the Liberals when it comes to private members' bills. Since the 2105 election, 20 private members' bills have received royal assent. At the close of the previous Parliament, 41 private members' bills had become law. That is why the previous Conservative government was able to claim that it had posted the strongest legislative results in a generation. No matter how many midnight sittings the Liberals plan, they simply will not be able to match our record.
I think of all the time the Liberal government has wasted. I think back to a year and a half ago when the Liberal government tried to bring forward changes to the Standing Orders. Those changes would have given us a four-day work week, when the rest of Canadians work all week long. The Liberals wanted us to get Fridays off. The Liberals wanted to make changes so that the Prime Minister would not have to come and answer questions in this place. 
The Liberals wanted to make a number of massive changes, and they fought tooth and nail for them. Thankfully, between the NDP and the Conservatives, we were able to put a halt to that. With the small tools we had that they had not tried to take away, we were able to stop that. 
We have seen, again, the lack of hard work on matters of substance that needed to be completed in the House of Commons on the legislative agenda. It never really happened. That is one buzzword we heard.
Here is another buzzword we were all really interested in. That was “Canada is back”. Do members remember that one? Boy oh boy. That one has not turned out well at all. 
Right now, under the present Prime Minister, Canada has probably fewer friends than ever. The Prime Minister has managed to tick off and offend just about every one of our major friends and allies. It has been shameful to watch. We know that we will have our work cut out for us when the Conservatives win government in October. We will once again restore respectful, principles-based foreign policy on the world stage so that countries around the world know that they can respect us. They will know that we are not just lecturing them. We will have a relationship with our trusted allies, and we will build on those relationships.
The Liberals first talked a big game on peacekeeping, then they stalled and dithered. Then, when the rubber had to hit the road, they put forward a token effort, limited in time and scale, yet quite dangerous and misaligned with Canada's national interests.
In the NAFTA talks, the Prime Minister capitulated and failed to get Canada a better deal. Instead of negotiating, the Liberals focused on opportunistic leaks, photo ops and sound bites. 
The Liberal leader, in the presence of the Japanese Prime Minister, twice mistook him as a representative of China. Do members remember that? That was only a few weeks ago. I am still shocked by that.
Then there was the strident, knee-jerk virtual signalling tweet sparking a diplomatic standoff with Saudi Arabia, with ramifications in a range of areas, including front-line health care in Canada.
Speaking of social media, the Prime Minister's infamous “Welcome to Canada” tweet sparked a massive, unprecedented surge in illegal border crossings into Canada.
In foreign relations, we were told what wonderful doors would open in China for Canada with the arrival of the new Liberal government. Tell that today to canola farmers. Tell that to our pork farmers. Tell that to any number of Canadian businesses, large or small, trying to do business in China. Tell that to individual Canadians who have been harassed by the Chinese government, denied visas, detained and arrested on political grounds.
Of course, there was the Prime Minister's unforgettable trip to India. It was a seven-day trip with half a day of government meetings. Each outfit was more colourful than the last; each development was more embarrassing than the previous one. The Prime Minister spent tens of thousands of dollars flying in a celebrity chef to cook supper, a celebrity chef who happens to be on his hand-picked Senate selection panel.
 However, that was hardly the worst. The Prime Minister invited a convicted attempted murderer to hobnob with him at two receptions, and when that was discovered, the fingers started pointing. Wow. Of all the things that happened in the Liberal government, when we look back at the India trip, it was probably one of the most embarrassing for Canadians, not only because of what their Prime Minister did in India but because of the aftermath and the blame that was levelled. It started with it being a backbencher's fault. The Prime Minister threw one of his own backbenchers under the bus. He does that quite often.
Then it was an Indian government plot, then maybe it was someone else. In the end, Daniel Jean announced his retirement. In no circumstance would the Prime Minister fess up and acknowledge that he had blown it and that his office had blown it with a bad decision and bad judgment.
 God forbid that the Prime Minister would actually apologize for something he did. He will apologize for all kinds of things, but there have been so many opportunities, as we have seen in the last four years, when he has done things that are wrong, when he has done things that are unethical and when he has done things that are on the borderline of illegal. That remains to be seen. He has fired people. He has treated people disrespectfully. He has done things that have shocked and appalled us. 
The India trip was one of those where the Prime Minister could have stood up and said, “I am sorry. I made a mistake. I have issues with bad judgment. I'm trying to learn from my mistakes. All of you are paying for it, but I am human. I err a lot." He should have said that, but no, he did not. Everyone else got the blame.
Saying “Canada is back” really has not panned out very well, has it? It certainly did not help the Liberals advance their agenda here in Parliament.
Let just try another one on for size. How about “Sunny ways, my friends. Sunny ways”? Do members remember that one?
To start with, I think this is one of the things that has disturbed Canadians across the board, even those who voted for the Prime Minister. There were a lot of people, obviously millions of Canadians, who voted for the Prime Minister, believing him, believing his promises, believing that he was a fresh face who was going to do things differently. One of the things that is so frustrating and disappointing is his lack of ability to really embrace diversity. People may wonder how I can say that, because the Prime Minister always says that diversity is our strength. Just like everything with the Prime Minister, he says one thing with his words, but his actions are completely different.
The Prime Minister has very little tolerance for diversity of thought and different opinions. He wants to embrace diversity when it is easy for him and when it might help him score some political points. However, if an individual dares to disagree with him, that is when his real character seems to be exposed.
One of those items became very clear when illegal border crossers started crossing into Canada. There were a lot of concerns. A lot of Canadians, including in my riding, have been doing a wonderful job helping refugees who are coming into this country who need solace, who need protection and who need to be able to be in a country where they can live, worship and raise their families. Canada is welcoming them. We have so many private sponsors and Canadians across the country who are helping them, but there have been concerns raised about people coming across the border illegally. However, the minute these concerns were expressed, the Prime Minister, Prime Minister “Sunny Ways”, began the reckless name-calling, calling people racist, or, as his minister said, “un-Canadian”. It is un-Canadian if someone dares to ask questions of the government.
We will remember the Canada summer jobs attestation, where if one disagreed with the government on matters of conscience, one would not be allowed to have government funding. So much for diversity, again.
We should have seen this from the very early days and early months of this Parliament, when the Prime Minister almost lost a vote, and certainly lost his temper. Everyone will remember, after his legislation to help his friends at Air Canada squeaked through on the Speaker casting a vote, the Liberals proceeded with the draconian and outrageous Motion No. 6. Does everyone remember Motion No. 6? I think we all remember Motion No. 6, an outrageous and scandalous power play to silence the opposition and sideline critics.
In the midst of the uproar over Motion No. 6, the Prime Minister, as everyone will recall, stormed across the floor of the House, jostled some MPs who were slowing down his day and fiercely elbowed one of my colleagues. It was clear then that this was a prime minister who would have his way when he wanted it. We understood those words just recently with respect to the SNC-Lavalin scandal and how the Prime Minister would ensure he would get his way. We saw this tactic coming, foreshadowed by Motion No. 6.
Then, a year later, the government House leader released the so-called discussion paper, which I alluded to earlier, about standing order changes. It was a naked power grab that her colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee were keen to rush through.
 I also remember the government noting that committees were free to do what they wanted to do. That has become the biggest punchline around this place. Committees are not free to do what they want to do. They are completely directed by the Prime Minister. We saw that at the procedure and House affairs committee regarding the Standing Orders.
This would have eliminated 20% of question periods, would have the Prime Minister show up once a week, would have silenced the opposition at committees and would have created a new time allocation on steroid procedure. Thanks to the efforts of the opposition, the Liberals would back down some six week later on the worst parts of their proposal. That did not represent a very sunny ways type of government.
With respect to name-calling, I want to mention something particularly disturbing. We heard the finance minister call our deputy leader a “neanderthal” because she dared challenge him on some of the policies he was bringing forward. Then the Prime Minister called her an “ambulance chaser”. I think that was during the time when we were asking why in the world Terri-Lynne McClintic was being moved to a healing lodge. At around that time, the Prime Minister called the Conservatives ambulance chasers.
Not only are the Liberals trying to shut us down in what we do in the House of Commons, but they are trying to shut down Canadians through this name-calling. We have been specifically called names by the Prime Minister, again, with no apologies at all. I think the former attorney general has also been victim to the same kind of thing. She has been accused of things, called names, maligned and has not been able to defend herself. She not only has not received an apology from the Prime Minister, but has not been able to defend herself.
This brings to mind somebody else who needs an apology from the Prime Minister. In all honesty, this man more than anybody deserves an apology from the Prime Minister, and it is Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
All of us on this side are used to these kinds of attacks from the Liberals and the Prime Minister, but not Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has served his country with such distinction. Before any charges were even brought against him, the Prime Minister was already saying the issue would go before a court. It looked as if the Prime Minister and the PMO tried to bankrupt him. They accused him of things and put him and his family through such an emotional ordeal. I am sure it affected his family's physical health, financial, mental health and reputation. It is absolutely disgusting to see what the Prime Minister and his minions did to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
I do not like that the Conservatives were called neanderthals and ambulance chasers and that Canadians were called racists and un-Canadian, but above anyone, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman deserves an apology from the Prime Minister. All of us, including those on this side, need to remind the Prime Minister that before he writes up any more apologies to anybody else, for whatever reason he thinks might do him well politically, he needs to apologize to that man, this honourable Canadian. He needs to show the courage that he should have as a prime minister and apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
The actions and this attitude reflected in the Liberals' relationship with Parliament have only served the paralyze the House, not facilitate the passage of an agenda. As I said, so much for sunny ways.
I have given a few examples of all these empty gestures and slogans, but I want to highlight a few of them.
The next one is, “better is always possible”. That was another one from the government. After watching how the Liberal government has approached the criminal justice system, I cannot help but think this. After the Liberals leave office, things will get better for Canadians on a lot of fronts. Better will definitely be possible.
For example, the Prime Minister sees the criminal justice system as a toy. We saw the Prime Minister weigh in and condemn a unanimous jury verdict that he did not like in Saskatchewan. However, that was just small potatoes, as we would learn later.
 As I said, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would be charged with the breach of trust. That was his interference in that case. The charge was not a surprise, of course. The Prime Minister had been musing for months, a year actually, that Mark Norman would end up before the courts. How could he have known that?
 He had demanded an investigation into an embarrassing leak that some members in the Liberal cabinet were looking to do the bidding of well-connected friends. The RCMP had clear signals from the very top that something must be done. Therefore, once before the courts, the government denied the vice-admiral access to the material he needed to defend himself. He was not even allowed access to his own emails. Things kept getting worse and worse for the Liberals. Finally, a well-respected MP, the Prime Minister's former chief whip, announced he would testify against the government. Days later, the charges were withdrawn. 
I refer back to that case because I want to link it to the SNC-Lavalin affair. Even though a lot has been said, again it very much shows the disrespect of the Prime Minister.
 In short, the Prime Minister wanted yet another friendly corporation to enjoy the blessings of its well-groomed Liberal connections. Amendments to the Criminal Code, as members will recall, to let SNC-Lavalin off the hook from a trial for foreign corruption and a ban on government contracts were shoved into a mammoth omnibus budget bill, the very thing Liberals swore off, and whisked through Parliament last spring. However, the Liberals were stumped, even though they got this bill passed. The director of public prosecutions was simply not going to do what the Liberals expected her to do.
 Therefore, the Prime Minister set all kinds of pressure from various angles upon the former attorney general to get her to overrule the Public Prosecution Service, but she was not going to do it. She said no to the Prime Minister. How dare she, but she did. She said no not only to the Prime Minister, she told the finance minister that he and his staff needed to back off. She told the Prime Minister, his chief of staff and the clerk of the Privy Council, as we all heard on that tape, to back off, that they were interfering.
 However, let us remember that the Prime Minister is used to having his way all the time. Some people who feel they are entitled and have never had to go through a hardship in their life and have a lot of privilege are used to getting their way. Clearly, the Prime Minister is one of those. When the former attorney general stood up to him and stood by her respect for the rule of law in Canada, she stood up to political interference in the criminal justice system. For that, she got fired. Sadly, we have not been able to hear her full story because the Prime Minister has not waived that privilege, but we have seen enough that we can connect the dots. We can see that when she was fired as attorney general and moved to Veterans Affairs, that was the reason why.
Thankfully, courageously, all of this has been exposed. Although we still do not have the full truth of what the Prime Minister has done, again it has shown Canadians that the Prime Minister is not at all as advertised. So much for hope and hard work, so much for sunny ways, so much for diversity, so much for tolerance, all of that is a sham under the Prime Minister.
We do hope the Prime Minister will one day lift the gag order. If he will not, the next prime minister probably will, and I think there will be an opportunity for that to happen. Canadians will hear the truth at one point or another.
What happened? Both the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board stood up to the Prime Minister. and not only did they get fired and resign from their positions, they got kicked out of the Liberal caucus in violation of the Reform Act, again in violation of the law. That is a day in the life of the Prime Minister.
How many laws did he break with respect to conflict of interest and ethics? Four. He is the first Prime Minister in the history of Canada to break those laws. Then he broke the rules and the law regarding the Reform Act.
 That entire episode gripped this entire House and paralyzed the government. It was in chaos. I think it had 10 cabinet shuffles in three weeks. The government was in absolute chaos. While there were all kinds of issues going on across the country, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister could only focus on one thing. It lost the clerk of the Privy Council. The principal adviser, Mr. Butts, resigned. It lost a number of cabinet ministers. It was in absolute chaos and shambles. We were gripped with this in the House of Commons as well.
In fact, it is the continuing mismanagement by the government that has brought the need for it to propose government Motion No. 30, which we are debating right now. It is the mismanagement that comes from the very top.
 The Prime Minister is so infatuated with his own image and so focused on being a celebrity that he overlooks the substance and hard work of leading a government. That is a very sad reflection of the government and where we are in the country today. This is a prime minister who does not understand that being a prime minister is not a ceremonial role, not something just for a celebrity, but the top job in the country. It is governing not only the people of the country but the budget, the economy and foreign affairs. All of these aspects of a country like Canada should be at the forefront in the mind of the Prime Minister. Instead, he is focused on his celebrity status and getting on the pages of Vanity Fair or Vogue. Perhaps it is GQ, People or TigerBeat, if it is still a magazine. Imagine Donny Osmond and the Prime Minister on the cover of TigerBeat. He is sadly overlooking the substance and hard work of leading a government.
I have been here for almost 11 years and it really has been quite a privilege. I started as a backbencher. Backbenchers are underrated. They do such tremendous work.
 I was on a committee for a number of years and learned so much about how committees worked. I was then privileged to chair a committee. That also helped me understand the rules of this place. I chaired a committee during a minority parliament. Even more so, when chairing the committee, I had to ensure I was impartial and applied the rules equally to both sides, the government members as well as the opposition, which at that point was a smaller Liberal opposition, the NDP and the Bloc. It was such a privilege to learn and work with colleagues. Then I was privileged to be a parliamentary secretary. In 2013, a number of years later, I became a minister. I believe that experience really helped me become a good minister, and now the opposition House leader.
 Many of us on both sides have worked our way up from being backbench MPs to maybe working on committees and into other offices.
As I watched, I was inspired by the example set by our former prime minister, Stephen Harper, an exact opposite of the current Prime Minister. Stephen Harper knew every file backward and forward. He was not concerned about celebrity status. He wanted to connect with Canadians to know what their concerns were and to govern in a responsible way. He was an example of tireless devotion and hard work on behalf of Canadians.
 The current Prime Minister has not helped his case by building a PMO where everything is reportedly bottlenecked through just one or two staff. We are hearing a lot about that. Even current Liberal MPs are very concerned with what is going on in the PMO and how decisions are being made there. As the House leader just confirmed, she tells her backbenchers whether they should shorten or lengthen their speeches.
Another example, and I already mentioned that, is the government House leader's early appointment. As I said, the hon. member for Waterloo had been here 70-some days when she was appointed as the government House leader. I felt that it sent a message. This is with respect to the House leader. She and I work well together. We certainly disagree, and I am certainly not happy that she is giving us more short opposition days, but as I said earlier, I think she has done the best she could with the hand that was dealt to her.
When the Prime Minister appoints as a House leader an individual who has been here only for 75 days, it tells all of us that he really is not very serious about getting things done. Maybe he thinks her position is just a ceremonial role as well. We certainly have seen her have to carry a lot of very difficult answers and non-answers to questions for the government. She has been put in a position where unfortunately she has lost a lot of credibility. While the Prime Minister is sitting there silently or signing autographs, she is having to defend his trip to billionaire island. While he is sitting in question period staring off into space or thinking about things, she is the one who is standing and answering or not answering very difficult questions. It is sad because I feel that the Prime Minister set her up to fail, and it is very disappointing to see that he has done that. 
I did give a longer speech about this point previously. It was a speech around the Prime Minister's so-called approach to feminism, which I find to be fake. It is a lot of signalling and not true respect for the equality of women, and for us as women in this place being able to be where we are based on merit, based on our ability and our strength, being able to speak truth to power, being able to stand in this place knowing that we got here absolutely on our merit. When the Prime Minister appoints people just because they are women and then does not even respect them and listen to them, as he did with the former attorney general, we have seen time and time again that his approach to feminism is a lot of words and no action.
I am going back to the power of the PMO. I imagine the House leader has had a lot of struggles with the PMO behind the scenes trying to line up a legislative agenda and trying to get departments to hustle and bring their long-overdue proposals to the cabinet table and convert them into bills, and trying to get her colleagues to meet what a coordinated plan requires of them. However, it sounds like she is basically just telling her colleagues what to do. 
News flash for them, that is not the way it happens. In the previous government, not only did we pass many private members' bills, but we had more government MPs vote against the government's position. We had more free votes than any other government. It was really quite remarkable.
I would never betray caucus confidentiality, but I will say this. I think this is a departure for the Liberals and it might be a good thing for them to think about when they are the third party again or maybe opposition after the next election, which remains to be seen, but they may want to allow their caucus members to speak their minds freely and not have to set their agenda ahead of time or allow the Prime Minister and his minions to tell them if they can speak. It is wonderful in caucus to be able to stand and not get permission, but be able to speak to the leader freely. He or she listens, and sometimes decisions are changed. 
That actually happened in our previous government, and it is wonderful to be able to speak freely in our caucus to each other and to our leader. That would be a nice thing. Maybe those who have served under previous leaders like Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin or Michael Ignatieff were able to speak freely, but it does not appear that they are able to do that with the current government. 
It is the Prime Minister's way, or they are out. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more members of Parliament who were Liberals and who, under various circumstances, were disrespected and did not feel welcome anymore in the Liberal caucus. That is very sad to see.
Let us get to the next mess that the Prime Minister has made, and that is in the Senate. It is quite something to see what is happening in the Senate. The Prime Minister has a leader of the government in the Senate whom he tries to disavow. The Prime Minister has, however, done an excellent job appointing ideological fellow travellers to the Senate, though he likes to call them “independent”. At the end of the day, though, when something comes to a vote, the Prime Minister has always been able to count on his so-called independent senators' votes. However, getting there has not always been very pretty. I have to say it is a bit entertaining to watch on this side.
The real litmus test for his so-called independent Senate will be whether it heeds Liberal political imperatives in an election year, follows the spirit of Motion No. 30 and passes all of the Prime Minister's bills in the way that he wants. I guess time will tell.
In the meantime, it means that we have seen a number of Senate amendments to current legislation. Of course, at the end of the day, the Senate has backed down to the government's opinion every single time. It is quite interesting. While there is something generally reassuring about an elected House, even under the thumb of a majority government carrying the day, it has nonetheless meant that the House spends an extra two days or more on every government bill that gets bounced back from the Senate.
 It is also a reflection of the government's lack of consultation with Canadians over many of its pieces of legislation. Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and Bill C-71 are all bills where, had the government just taken a little time to listen to Canadians, had it admitted that maybe it made some mistakes and had it made those adjustments, it might not be seeing the problems it is seeing with the current legislation in the Senate. However, that is what the government is getting.
The Prime Minister's mismanagement of the Senate has directly contributed to the mismanagement of the House of Commons, hence the need for government Motion No. 30. Here is the present scene: a scandal-ridden, disastrous Liberal government flailing about in the dying days of this Parliament in a rush to just do something, to get something done, something other than making pot legal. That is about the only thing the government has done, and it has actually done that pretty poorly. The legalization of cannabis is really the only notable accomplishment of the government to date. Even with that, it turned out to be a disaster.
What does the government have left to do, which it is in such a hurry to achieve? The government has horribly failed in meeting any of its lofty commitments to indigenous peoples. Now it is in a panic to rush through Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, the indigenous languages and indigenous family services legislation, so that it can say, “Look, we have done something.”
There is, of course, yet another omnibus budget bill that it is ramming through the House at this moment. The government will no doubt want to see that piece of legislation and all of its provisions to implement another promise-breaking, deficit budget through Parliament. Rumours have also started to fly that the government will seek to implement, before the election, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, the new NAFTA, where the Liberals capitulated to the American administration on replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement.
On the NAFTA negotiations, the Prime Minister wasted a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a better deal. However, Conservatives worked hard to get tariffs removed, and we recognize how important free trade with the United States is. We will be voting to ratify the deal in Parliament, but the Liberals cannot take this as a licence to abuse Parliament. We are already well into the 11th hour for this Parliament. I can confidently predict that the House will not be a happy place if the implementation legislation is brought forward at the very last minute and then we are called to rush through the bill with little or no scrutiny to make fundamental changes to the world's most important bilateral economic relationship. 
Again, we need the government, at this very late hour, to show some responsibility and let Canadians know, let members know, what it is planning to do with this agreement and with the ratification.
Turning to other priorities the government will seek to advance this spring, we see other economic legislation that is really hurting our economy. The government is the proud owner of a $4.5-billion pipeline, which has not even started to be built. Government members are scrambling to shore up the support of environmental activists, whose votes they heavily courted in 2015 but clearly are losing. Today we are going to be seeing the welcoming of a new member of Parliament from the Green Party. I think when the Liberals talk about an emergency, that is an emergency they are very much seized with, the emergency of their losing their so-called environmentalist vote.
 However, there is some legislation that is really problematic, such as Bill C-88, which is a bill that would restrict pipeline and resource development in Canada's north. Bill C-68 would make negative changes to fisheries laws, which would result in economic activity being hampered. Bill C-48, and it is quite interesting to see what is happening in the Senate with that one, is a symbolic gesture; well, it is more than a gesture, as this bill would ban tanker traffic from part of the B.C. coast, which is where many first nations are calling for greater pipeline development and economic opportunity. At the same time, there is no proposed tanker ban on the east coast, where Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan oil is coming to Canada. 
Of course, there is Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, which would absolutely stop any energy infrastructure development in Canada. We have heard from experts, stakeholders, provinces and first nation groups that Bill C-69 is an absolute disaster for this country. We would not have any more pipelines built. They will be built in other countries. Canada will miss this window of opportunity. Again, the government does not seem to understand the consequences of its actions. However, I understand there have been many amendments by the Senate, up to 200 amendments, so it will be interesting to see if those are overturned by the Liberals, who are hoping to regain their environmentalist votes. 
In Canada, majority government policies are usually assured of being put into place. Therefore, the shadow cast by these bills has, unfortunately, already done a huge amount of damage in our resource sector and in other parts of our country, putting a chill on investment and development long ahead of these bills becoming law. 
Adding to that is the sad, sorry spectacle of the duelling climate emergency motions before the House this month, which is another interesting thing to watch. Before Victoria Day, the New Democrats put forward an opposition day motion declaring a climate emergency, and the Liberals defeated it. Lo and behold, the very next day, the Liberals brought forward their own climate emergency motion, which we debated for just a few hours. Then, the day after, they were on to something else, and the Prime Minister was flying somewhere in his jet. Can members imagine that there is a climate emergency and the Prime Minister gets on his jet and flies away? It is pretty unbelievable. I call that a high-carbon hypocrite. 
Here we are this morning, back from our constituency break. Where is the emergency debate? I do not see it. The government's emergency is worrying about what is happening on its left flank, worrying about the senators and worrying about getting legislation through. However, this morning we have this debate, which is something different still. This afternoon, the Liberals are going to squeeze in another two or three hours on their climate emergency, hoping that some of their environmentalists are listening and they can fool them into thinking they care about the environment, when in fact the only plan the Liberals have for the environment is a tax plan. Who knows? The motion goes back into the parliamentary ether under the who-knows-when category. 
I think this is just a political emergency. As I mentioned, the Green Party won a by-election on Vancouver Island, with the Liberal candidate running fourth, which is really quite something. I think the Liberals are very worried. They have to be worried about what is going on in B.C. The Prime Minister, as I said, scrambled and stuck something in the window to look like he was doing something. It is sort of fun to watch them do this.
I know what the Liberals are going to do. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change actually mentioned it on the weekend. Their approach, according to the minister, is that if they stand in the House and say it loud enough, as well as yell it in question period, Canadians will just believe it. Now we know why the Prime Minister and that minister stand and yell. It is sad to say, but they believe that if they say it loud enough and yell it enough times in this place that Canadians will believe it. That is horrible. It is cynical, disrespectful and shameful. I certainly hope that maybe at their next caucus meeting, some of those Liberals will have the courage to speak up to their boss, the Prime Minister, and maybe a few of their ministers, and tell them that it is about time they respect this place and respect Canadians.
Here we are debating government Motion No. 30, because the Liberals claim they are working hard to pass legislation. Then we will turn to a virtue signalling motion that will not change one law or do one thing. It is really interesting to see what the Liberal government is doing.
Let us go back to Motion No. 30. Those were my opening remarks, and now I am getting into the real substance of my speech. I appreciate the encouragement. Motion No. 30 before us today calls us to sit until midnight on four days a week, as well as for most votes to take place after question period. These are understandable. We were in government and understand it, but we did not have to do it in 2015. We were able to manage things so efficiently under Peter Van Loan and Stephen Harper that we did not extend into night sittings in the summer of 2015. However, for all the reasons I have pointed out, the Liberals had to.
Some of these measures can be understood by us, as Conservatives, as they are things we have asked the House to do. There is one addition to the motion that is truly a nice one, and I am going to compliment the government on it. There is a provision in this motion to have a couple of evenings that are dedicated to statements by retiring members from all sides. We will have the opportunity to set aside partisanship for a short period of time to hear the farewell speeches by our departing colleagues. That is something we do not always get to enjoy when we have one-off statements made in the midst of one political battle or another. I am really glad to see that provision. There are members on every side of the House who are retiring and not running again for various reasons. In the last Parliament, we set aside a couple of evenings for those members, who could invite their families, friends and staff members. It is a really good thing and I am grateful. I thank the government for putting that provision into this motion.
However, the motion is not perfect. This is where I am going to discuss the parts of the motion that we do not like and believe are a greedy approach on behalf of the Liberals. I have already talked about 2017 and 2018 when the government motion proposed reducing opposition days to opposition half days. We objected then, and we object again. 
This year's motion is very aggressive in some other ways also. The rules normally require report stage votes and third reading debate to occur on separate days. Under government Motion No. 30, that waiting period would be eliminated. Again, this is another way that the government can rush through legislation.
With regard to the way that the previous motion on extended hours worked, there was a one-day delay between a vote on the previous question and a vote on the main motion. That would be eliminated under government Motion No. 30. In previous years, all dilatory motions were banned after 6:30 p.m., but now ministers would be allowed to propose them. The government wants us to sit late every night, yet wants to keep for itself the power to send us home early. 
On the last opposition day in each supply period, we vote on the estimates. That is when we go through the government spending plan line by line and approve the items. Unfortunately for the current government, these have often fallen at times when the government was being particularly arrogant, like in March when the Liberals were insisting on preventing the members for Vancouver Granville and Markham—Stouffville from speaking. Therefore, we did have to hold the government's feet to the fire and we triggered marathon voting, which is one of the very few devices left for us to make our disagreements felt.
Now, government Motion No. 30 would create a backdoor procedural trick to group and apply these votes. That is in an effort to spare the Liberals from standing and voting for their spending proposals, and that is if a voting marathon even happens this spring. Again, this is one of the small tools we have to hold the government to account and draw attention to what the government is doing. The Liberals have taken that away as well. It is shameful. The takeaway from this is that while the Liberals are setting long hours, they want to make light work. Again, it is a lot of hope but very little hard work.
 There is also one small curious difference between this motion and those from the previous years. Normally, when a concurrence debate is interrupted, the government has 10 sitting days to reschedule the conclusion of that debate. Under past motions for extended hours, whether Liberal or Conservative, that 10 days has been increased to 20 days to avoid further extending some House sittings from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. Instead, the government motion proposes 31 sitting sitting days, not 20. It is an interesting little change, nuance, in this motion. Since there are only 20 scheduled sittings days left, that tells me one thing: The Liberal government now recognizes it has mismanaged its agenda so badly that it could be preparing for the House to have a summer sitting. I am wondering if all the Liberal members were aware of that little nugget. Again, it is going to be a matter of our watching this space to see what happens.
Finally, something that is not in the motion also has us concerned. That is the prospect of amendments to the Standing Orders getting rammed through this spring under the cover of midnight sittings. On one hand, there is a private member's motion, Motion No. 231, sponsored by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. It did not come through this morning, but many of us have had a chance to look at that private member's motion and have to wonder if it is not under the direction or the support of the Liberals. The Liberal government did—
Mr. Mel Arnold: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is getting to be quite a rumble. I am sitting quite close to our House leader and trying to listen very closely. This motion is very important. There is getting to be quite a rumble in the surrounding halls here.
 Could we possibly ask you, Mr. Speaker, to quiet things down?
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for his intervention. Members will know that this does occur from time to time when there are guests of members in the perimeter area. We try to pay attention to that. I am mindful that this disruption has more or less just started, and had it gone on a bit longer, we would typically alert our security and other officials to see if we can get that tamped down. I appreciate the hon. member's intervention, and we will go back to the hon. opposition House leader. 
Candice Bergen: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. We hear a lot of noise in this beautiful new place, and that is one of the pitfalls. It is great having people being active in the parliamentary precinct, but it does get to be a little loud. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 
The noise was not heckling from members on the government benches. I say that in case any of the good folks listening to this speech thought that government members were heckling me. They were not. They were listening intently, and I very much appreciate their interest in my speech.
There has been some concern around this private member's bill, and that may be because of the way that the government was going to ram through some of the changes. That will remain to be seen. 
One of the other things we are concerned about is ministerial accountability and the lack thereof. My colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West, has established quite a track record for spotting problems and errors between the budget, the estimates and related tables. This is a result of some of the new Liberal processes. The Liberals brought in changes a year ago, and we at that point indicated concern. However, those concerns were not heeded and we are seeing some of the fallout from that. Thankfully, we have very hard-working members on this side. 
I said that the member for Edmonton West can do the work. I do not know how many hundreds of bureaucrats are in the Department of Finance, and yet one of our members can do the work of one hundred of them when it comes to catching mistakes and errors. We are proud of him and grateful for what he has done.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his review of the 2019 estimates, explained the situation quite well when he said that the government's new approach, which is one of the changes to the Standing Orders, 
 does not fully address the issues raised regarding the changes in the Estimates process. Parliamentarians will still be required to vote on Budget measures which have not gone through the [Treasury Board] submission process prior to the Main Estimates being tabled in the House of Commons. 
 As noted in previous PBO reports, there are often significant differences between the money announced in the Budget versus what is ultimately approved by Treasury Board and presented to Parliament for its review. 
 It is ultimately up to parliamentarians to decide whether these improvements are sufficient to outweigh the drawbacks of incomplete information in order to help the Government expedite the implementation of Budget measures. As highlighted in previous PBO reports, a significant part of Budget implementation delays stem from the Government's own internal processes. Were these to be streamlined, the Government would be able to spend money more quickly without the need for Parliament to forego information. It is unclear what the Government intended to do to address this issue. 
Last year, a single committee was entrusted with studying all new spending measures announced in the budget, but the Liberal majority shut down any effort to have anything resembling meaningful scrutiny. That committee, the government operations committee, has itself not given the green light to continuing the government's bad experiment. Let me quote from page 27 of its 16th report, which was tabled in January:
 Since the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has a mandate to study the process for considering the estimates and supply and the format and content of all estimates documents, among other things, it is best suited to study changes made to the estimates process. The Committee therefore believes that it should study the impact of the new timeline for the tabling of the main estimates before the changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are made permanent 
That is probably the most polite way that one could expect a group of Liberal backbenchers to tell the government publicly to back down from any hasty plans. I would agree with them. The government's experiment on aligning the budget and the estimates requires thorough review. It appears clear to me and to many of us that the experiment has not only failed, but it has made things worse and more complicated.
Members should not be surprised to see a minister sauntering down to the House in the next few weeks urging us to celebrate the government's changes and to make this nonsense permanent. I hope that does not happen.
In conclusion, I want to say that we are very happy to work hard and long hours. We know that is what it takes to get things done for Canadians. 
However, we are not impressed that we are being asked to join the Liberals' desperate scramble to be able to claim that they have accomplished something, rather than having squandered four years in office while surfing on a sense of entitlement, thinking things would just happen for them because, “By goodness, we are so good looking and we are Liberals”, though, by the way, some Conservatives are good looking too. It takes more than good looks and well wishes.
I am trying to get a little smile out of them, but I think I have just hit them too hard. I see the member for Winnipeg North smiling.
We certainly do not agree with a bunch of temporary and permanent procedural changes being slipped in under the guise of a motion calling for longer working hours that would tip the scale in favour of the government going back to possibly changing the Standing Orders.
I will be proposing some changes to government Motion No. 30. If the Liberals will agree to our amendments, we will agree to their motion. It is very simple. I am not overly optimistic. I am looking at the faces of my colleagues across the way, and they are not looking too committed. Am I getting a few nods? No one is committing, but maybe I will read the amendment.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Give it a shot.
Candice Bergen:  That is what I will do, Mr. Speaker. I will read it first, because it is kind of like how the Liberals have governed for four years, with decisions, favours, policies and grants for Liberals and their well-connected insider friends, with all of the advantages going to themselves. Beyond that, the Liberal government is one that will be remembered for hollow buzzwords, empty symbolism and broken promises. The good news for Canadians is that it will not last forever. There are just 20 sitting days left for this Parliament and, if the voters agree, just 20 sitting days left for this failed government.
In closing, I move, seconded by the member for Barrie—Innisfil, that the motion be amended as follows:
 (a) in paragraph (b), by deleting all the words after the words “provided that” and substituting the following: “any recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to amend the Standing Orders or to make changes to the usual practices of the House shall stand deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on Wednesday, October 23, 2019”; (b) in paragraph (e), by adding the following: “provided that any recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to amend the Standing Orders or to make changes to the usual practices of the House shall stand deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business on Wednesday, October 23, 2019”; (c) by deleting paragraphs (i), (k) and (l); and (d) in paragraph (m), by deleting the word “31st” and substituting the following: “20th”. 

Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, in listening to my colleague across the way, at times I could not help but think she is often far from the reality of what has actually taken place in the last number of years. I would say that the Conservative Party is still led by Stephen Harper in many ways, and I must say that it has been heavily influenced by Mr. Ford in Ontario lately. Nothing has really changed. From day one, the Conservative Party has made things personal. Its members attack the Prime Minister. It does not matter what the issues are. Whether it is legislation to cut taxes for Canada's middle class or progressive measures, such as the Canada child benefit, it does not matter. The Conservative Party's simple agenda is to attack the Prime Minister.
My question for the member opposite is related to legislation. We have 20 more sitting days. Canadians want us to work hard. This government will work hard to the very last hour. Would the member opposite not recognize that in order to pass legislation, we need a sense of responsibility from the opposition benches? If we do not, we have to resort to using other tools. The Conservatives, over the last three and a half years, have demonstrated that not only do they want to attack the Prime Minister, they also want to prevent us from passing—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. opposition House leader.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my Manitoba colleague is very troubled by the fact that most of the attention has been on his leader, the Prime Minister. Since the Liberals were elected, we have seen over the last four years that it has been #teamprimeminister. That is what the Liberals have run on. It was the Prime Minister who ran on balancing the budget, electoral reform, and having the most open and transparent government and of being a feminist and open to diversity. These are all things that the Prime Minister said. Guess who had to stand behind him, back him and cheer him all of that time? It was these Liberals, who are now very worried I am sure. They are going into their ridings, knocking on doors and their constituents are saying they are tired of the current Prime Minister, that he has failed and his failures are costing them. They saw what Kathleen Wynne did in Ontario. They do not want that from the current Prime Minister. Therefore, I am not surprised the member is worried.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. It went on a little longer than I expected, but it was all on interesting points. I have two questions for the opposition House leader.
First, the mandate letter given to the government House leader talked about working collaboratively with opposition parties to make the House of Commons more family friendly. Does the opposition House leader feel this is really a repudiation of all of those intents the Prime Minister talked about a few years ago? He talked about how he and the government House leader would work to make this a better and more collaborative place. Does she not feel this is a repudiation of those commitments?
Second, the sad story of the current Liberal government is that despite the fact it talked about working collaboratively and cutting back on the number of closure and bulldozer motions that simply push things through Parliament without proper scrutiny, it is now close to the Harper government's record in terms of the number of closure motions. Does it worry her that the Liberals are now as bad as the former Harper government was?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, that is a trick question. I am not going to fall for it.
I appreciate my hon. colleague's other comments and will quickly address them.
The Prime Minister's initial action, when he stormed across the aisle in the House when he did not get his way, I think, set the tone for his caucus and House leader to bulldoze their way through anything. It has been very disappointing when the House leader has stated, on many occasions, that members of Parliament here might be repeating themselves, so that it is her and the Liberals' job to shut them down, including her own members. I think that shows disrespect. Certainly, we have tried to work collaboratively with her as House leaders, but her attitude that if we do not do what she wants us to do, she is going to punish us is very condescending, patronizing and disrespectful. That attitude has come from the very top. It has come from the Prime Minister. When he talks about being family friendly, it may be family friendly for him and maybe he does not feel he has to be here all the time, but there are many of us who feel very committed that when this place is open, we need to be here at work and we recognize that it does take a lot of people away from their families.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the hon. opposition House leader, regarding the parliamentary calendar and, more specifically, the government's handling of it. 
As she would know, as every member of Parliament who has been in this place even for a few days would recognize, when we look at the parliamentary calendar that is issued yearly, we see that the last two weeks of each session have asterisks beside the dates. That does not mean we might be able to get out of here early. What it means is that the government, if it chooses to, could extend the sitting hours so that we could have further debate and pass legislation.
Back in 2015, we never used extended sitting hours, because our government of the day was able to pass legislation in a timely manner, getting it through before we rose for the summer. This is the first time I can remember that we will have extended sitting hours for four weeks, not just the two weeks that are the norm, but four weeks. In my view, that is because the government is failing in its handling of the parliamentary calendar. More specifically, the government's incompetence has not allowed it to bring forward legislation in a timely fashion, and now it has to rush and play catch-up. Was it the SNC-Lavalin scandal that threw the government off its game? I do not know, but this is certainly the fault of the government.
Could my hon. colleague, my friend, the hon. opposition House leader, expand further upon that?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the government has delivered a lot of broken promises and empty symbolism to Canadians. What we are seeing today with this motion is a culmination of that.
 It is certainly anticipating massive problems from the Senate in response to much of its legislation, because its so-called promise of listening to Canadians is empty and broken. It has mismanaged the House. The member articulated very well how the calendar is set up and the fact that under our previous Conservative government, we managed things effectively. When in government, sometimes time allocation does have to be used, and we did.
 However, we want to highlight the hypocrisy of the Liberal government and its members standing up and sanctimoniously preaching at us the Conservatives and everybody before us who used time allocation, despite the Prime Minister saying he would use neither it nor omnibus bills. He has. He has used draconian measures, and is doing so even now. Even at that, the Prime Minister is having so many problems getting legislation through.
It is kind of like his foreign policy, and this is the problem. How did Margaret Thatcher put it? She said that “Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.” The Prime Minister, even in enacting legislation, could have said that despite his government being a majority one, it would sometimes use time allocation, and here is the agenda and what we are going to do, and the opposition can use its tools. Sure, we would have been going back and forth, but it is the hypocrisy I'm referring to. It is the Prime Minister standing up and saying that he is better than everyone else, that he is sunny ways, that he is tolerant and that he believes in Parliament and he is going to respect backbenchers. It was all fraudulent. None of it was true.
This motion today is clear. It is as clear as the nose on all of our faces. The government is not doing what it said it would do. It is about broken promises, empty rhetoric and empty symbolism.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, again, the member opposite is quite far from reality.
To try to give the impression that the Harper government did not use similar measures to what we are using today is just wrong. It did. The Harper government used these measures to pass legislation.
The Liberal government is focused on Canadians. The Conservative Party is not prepared to work late on the last 20 days of the government. It does not want work late for Canadians.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader just made my point.
The Prime Minister came in, trying to shame us and say that we were a terrible government because we used the tools available. The Liberals are doing exactly what they said they were not going to do, and they are doing it even more, using time allocation and draconian measures. At least the former Conservative government allowed private members to have a say and to have free votes.
Not only are the Liberals using time allocation, and here I guess the Liberals talked to the previous government about how to do it, they are also shutting down debate for members of Parliament and are controlling committees, which we did not do. The former Conservative government did not fire our attorney general because he would not interfere in a criminal case. Who fired its attorney general because she did not interfere in a criminal case? It was the Liberal government.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the member for Vancouver Granville and the member for Markham—Stouffville, who have announced they will be running as independents in the federal election to be held this fall. They stood up to the Prime Minister and for judicial independence and they paid a terrible political price, being banished from the Liberal Party. Both of them are putting the future and the final decision in the hands of the voters of Vancouver Granville and Markham—Stouffville, which is as it should be.
I would like to mention the last time we sat for four weeks in night sessions. The New Democrats are no strangers to hard work. We believe our job is to be here and fight as hard as we can on behalf of our constituents and all Canadians. 
Statistics were kept of the last time we sat for four weeks until midnight. Canadians know there is a rotation. The Liberals get a chance to speak, then the Conservatives, then the New Democrats. Then independents and non-recognized parties occasionally will have their opportunity as well.
The last time we sat late for four weeks, I am proud to say that not a single speaking spot was missed by the New Democrats. Every time it came to the NDP, and that was frequently, the New Democrats rose in the House and spoke on behalf of their constituents and of Canadians.
Sadly, that is not the case with the Liberals and the Conservatives. The last time we sat for four weeks of midnight sittings, the Liberals and the Conservatives failed to show up over 200 times. A Liberal speaker would be called and not a single member of the Liberal caucus rose to speak on behalf of his or her constituents or on behalf of anybody.
I find it a bit rich when the government House leader talks about the Liberals wanting to work harder. The opposition House leader said the same thing, all be it more eloquently. The reality is that this happened 200 times over 20 days. Over that period, or 10 times a day, the Conservatives and the Liberals failed to stand and speak on behalf of their constituents.
 The New Democrats have a record of wanting to work hard and we believe all members of the House of Commons should work equally hard on behalf of their constituents. Therefore, our problem is not the midnight sittings. To the contrary, we have proven over the years that the New Democrats are here to work and work hard, and we will continue to do that.
The problem with the motion is that it strips away all the tools that opposition members can use to hold the government to account, and this is no small matter. When we look at the mandate letter the Prime Minister provided to the government House leader in 2016, it speaks very clearly to what the government told Canadians it wanted to bring as far as a new spirit in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister wrote in the mandate letter:
 I made a personal commitment to bring new leadership and a new tone to Ottawa. We made a commitment to Canadians to pursue our goals with a renewed sense of collaboration. 
He said further in his mandate letter, which directs the government House leader on how to work with members of the opposition in the House of Commons:
 As Minister, you will be held accountable for our commitment to bring a different style of leadership to government. This will include: close collaboration with your colleagues; meaningful engagement with Opposition Members of Parliament... 
He went on to say:
 Parliamentarians must have the information and the freedom to do their most important jobs: represent their constituents and hold the government to account. It is your job to help empower all Members of Parliament to fulfill these essential responsibilities. . 
The Prime Minister went on to say that the government House leader should be changing the House of Commons Standing Orders to end the improper use of omnibus bills. We have seen some of the most egregious examples of omnibus legislation in our history as a country and our history as a Parliament under the Liberal government, the most recent being the incredibly inappropriate use of trying to gut immigration legislation through the use of an omnibus budget bill.
My colleague, the member for Vancouver East, has spoken eloquently, as have dozens of organizations across the country, about the cutting off the ability of refugees to apply for refugee status in Canada, something that has been applauded by white supremacists and has been derided, quite legitimately, by organizations that are very concerned by the government's incredible shift to the right on this. This should never have been put into omnibus legislation, given that the Prime Minister committed to ending the improper use of omnibus bills. It is just another commitment that has been left by the wayside.
The Prime Minister asked and directed the government House leader, in her mandate letter, to “Work with Opposition House Leaders to examine ways to make the House of Commons more family-friendly for Members of Parliament.” Nothing in the mandate letter that was given to the government House leader is reflected at all in the motion the government has brought forward, which strips the opposition of rights and imposes on the government no obligation whatsoever with respect to how it runs through the next few weeks of Parliament.
We know from history, as I cited earlier with my sad example, that on over 200 occasions, the Liberals and the Conservatives failed to show up to work in the evening up until midnight. Shift workers, nurses, firefighters and police officers show up to work. People who work in plants, as I did on the shop floor, work 12-hour shifts, from midnight to noon. We showed up to work. Canadians show up to work, yet it is sadly the case that more than 200 times, in only 20 sitting days, the Liberals and the Conservatives failed to show up to speak on behalf of their constituents.
In the motion, which strips the opposition of all its rights, there is no obligation at all on the government side to do anything in particular. There is no obligation for the government to accept the many amendments that NDP members and other opposition members provide to improve legislation.
As we saw in the Harper years, on almost a dozen occasions, legislation that was passed after being railroaded through the House of Commons was rejected by the courts. Parliament exists to ensure we get legislation right the first time, not to have to rely on the court system to override egregiously bad legislation that has been pushed through the House of Commons.
However, this is what the Liberal government has done. In complete repudiation of its commitment to be a different government and in complete repudiation of the mandate letter I just cited, the Liberals have rammed through bad legislation that is now moving to the courts as well. Under the Harper government, legislation was rejected a dozen times.
It is a bad practice, yet there is nothing in the motion that obliges the government to listen to witnesses in committee. There is nothing in the motion that obliges the government to entertain the amendments that help to make legislation better. There is nothing that actually improves parliamentary procedure in this place.
That is the fundamental problem and that is why tomorrow, when I have a chance to speak a little more to the motion, I will speak about what the government should have done and how it should have been approaching this, doing so in that spirit of collaboration, which now seems so remote and removed.
Four years later, all of the promises of sunny ways that we heard from the Liberals belong on the trash heap of history. We have had a very mean-spirited government that has tried to railroad the rights of Parliament repeatedly. Ultimately, I think the Liberals will pay a price for this on October 21.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby will have 10 minutes remaining in his time for remarks when the House next gets back to debate on the question that was before the House.

Statements By Members
Rouyn-Noranda HuskiesMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to congratulate the Memorial Cup champions, the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies. They showed their mettle by coming from behind to claim the top prize yesterday in Halifax.
We would also like to congratulate the Mooseheads, who did not go down without a fight.
Let me point out that the final pitted two Quebec Major Junior Hockey League teams against each other, which was a great way to celebrate the league's 50th anniversary.
We would like to congratulate the players, the head coach, Mario Pouliot, and the whole organization. A special shout out to Joël Teasdale: tournament MVP will look pretty good on the young Canadiens prospect's resumé.
The Huskies' glorious Memorial Cup victory is not unexpected considering the team's record-breaking 59-win season in the QMJHL.
Rouyn and Abitibi are basking in their team's triumph, and all of Quebec is proud of its champions. 
Bravo, and thank you.
Tamil CanadiansMr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Saturday, May 18, 2019, was an important day in the Tamil Canadian community. It was the 10th anniversary of the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka. We remember the trauma and loss over the 26 years of war, an armed conflict the United Nations declared a genocide. 
As we recognize the end of this conflict, the Government of Canada believes that the best way forward is through engagement with the Sri Lankan government, with accountability, openness and transparency as the building blocks of peace and stability.
In my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, we have a strong and vibrant Tamil community that I have come to know over the last 20 years. I want to thank the Senior Tamils Society of Peel, the Mississauga Tamil Association, the Canadian Tamil Congress and SOPCA, the Screen of Peel Community Association, for all their hard work and community-building, which adds to the cultural diversity of Mississauga. 
I am looking forward to continuing to work with them now and in well into the future.
TourismMr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, whether it is dining out at Timmy Tom's Pizzeria in Winnipeg, which won this year's World Pizza Championship, planning a round of golf at the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada's Cultural Tourism Award winner Quaaout Lodge and Talking Rock Golf resort, in Chase, B.C., visiting Condé Nast Traveler award winner Quebec City to stroll the old world beauty of Quartier Petit Champlain, browsing Toronto's Lonely Planet hotspot, Kensington Market, or enjoying the Eat the Castle culinary excursion tour at the Fairmont Banff Springs in my own riding of Banff—Airdrie, Canada offers a unique and special tourist experience in each region of the country from one coast to another.
 May 26 to June 2 is tourism week, a time for us all to celebrate the contributions and experiences of Canada's tourism industry.
I urge all Canadians to celebrate by visiting Canada's magnificent sites and taking advantage of all the experiences our wonderful country has to offer.
Business CongratulationsHon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize a franchise that is celebrating its 40th anniversary. Vin Bon is a modem boutique micro-winery that brings the very best of wine culture to communities across this country. Combining elements of the traditional winemaking experience with the emerging craft wine concept, Vin Bon creates a diverse selection of wines and offers customers an opportunity to engage intimately with a historically exclusive lifestyle. As it seeks to bring the winery experience to the people, Vin Bon presents an innovative, versatile concept that treats guests to quality wines, a relaxing atmosphere and a cultural experience like no other. 
I would like to say congratulations to the Locilento family for all their hard work over the last 40 years. They have been a true friend to my family, and I look forward to having a glass of their fine wine together in the future. Congratulations on 40 years in business. I wish them nothing but success in the future.
LabourMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr Speaker, 100 years ago this week, the federal government ordered postal workers participating in the Winnipeg General Strike to return to work and sign anti-union pledges or be fired. Provincial and municipal employees, including the police, were given the same ultimatum. In a show of unity, thousands of strikers gathered at Victoria Park to reject these unfair demands and press forward. 
This past Saturday, just months after the current government legislated postal workers back to work, thousands of Winnipeggers and labour leaders from across the country marched through Winnipeg to commemorate the 1919 strike. Two attempts in this Parliament to recognize the historical significance of the strike have failed to achieve unanimous consent. This disappointing fact is a testament to the ongoing political significance of the strike. 
We live in a time of rising inequality, with political forces that have openly declared war on the right of workers to organize and demand fairness at work. May the legacy of the strike continue to inspire working Canadians as an example of the power we have when we put aside the things that divide us and focus on our common interests in the workplace and at the ballot box. 
Mary SteinhauserMr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize Mary Steinhauser, a fallen Canadian prison classification officer. She was a nurse, social worker and trailblazer in her approach to inmate rehabilitation. In 1975, Mary bravely offered herself as the principal hostage during a prison riot at a federal maximum security penitentiary in New Westminster, British Columbia. She and 14 other officers were held for 41 hours. During a bungled rescue attempt, Mary was fatally shot by a prison guard.
In the words of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, “Mary will be remembered with respect and gratitude for her outstanding courage and fortitude...and for her service in a most difficult and demanding vocation”.
I would like to take this opportunity to honour her memory and thank our corrections personnel, who continue a tradition of selfless service for all Canadians.
PrivacyMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, it is my honour to welcome parliamentarians from Argentina, Chile, Equador, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore and the United Kingdom to Ottawa. They join us here for the second meeting of the International Grand Committee on Big Data, Privacy and Democracy. Together we represent over 440 million citizens, all of us looking for ways to protect the privacy of our citizens in this digital age.
Over the next three days, we will hear from experts about the issues surrounding big data and privacy as well as about how we can work to find solutions to protect the rights of our citizens. Representatives from all major tech companies will also be giving testimony. To that end, I once again urge Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg to respect the will of lawmakers and comply with our subpoena and show up. 
To my international colleagues, welcome to Canada.