Bill C-2 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to reduce the second personal income tax rate from 22% to 20.‍5% and to introduce a new personal marginal tax rate of 33% for taxable income in excess of $200,000. It also amends other provisions of that Act to reflect the new 33% rate. In addition, it amends that Act to reduce the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts from $10,000 to its previous level with indexation ($5,500 for 2016) starting January 1, 2016.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have two quick questions. First of all, on the transparency of financial reporting, I think you were clear that, with these three funds that existed, there was some concern that if people had known how much money was really there, there might have been more claimants come forward. Definitely transparency will be important. I know that when it's removed, like it was in the first sitting of Parliament with Bill C-2.... The financial transparency for indigenous reporting was removed with some negative consequences.

Is there a way of perhaps combining the way the funds are reported, so that they are insurance and uncovered or uninsurable liabilities? Is that a way of reporting with transparency without necessarily dangling a carrot for others?

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

Madam Speaker, the member took the liberty to talk about our budget. He made reference to the middle class, so I want to ask him a question about the middle class.

Given the Conservative policy of tax cuts, which is all they are advocating for nowadays, does the member feel any remorse or regret in regard to voting against Bill C-2, which provided Canada's middle class a tax cut?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an important piece of legislation, legislation that I would have liked, ideally, to have seen pass earlier. I would like to break down my comments into a couple of different sections. First, I want to talk about something that has already been raised by two previous speakers and that is the issue of timing.

It is important that we recognize that a substantive report was provided many years ago, when Stephen Harper was prime minister of Canada, that took a look at the ways we could reinforce public confidence in Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, given some circumstances that were taking place at the time. That report came out with a number of recommendations.

One of those recommendations was the idea of having some form of an independent commission that would be able to address complaints, with respect to the RCMP, and to be able to investigate. I looked up that report, and I thought that it had been from around 2005 or 2006. I understand that it was actually brought to the House in 2006.

Mr. Harper was the prime minister at the time, and he chose not to take any sort of action on it. When the government changed in 2015, we did a considerable amount of work and effort on doing an overall review.

The Department of Justice had a number of pieces of legislation that would have been before them. We have been debating several pieces of legislation, virtually from 2015, on a wide spectrum of that department's responsibilities. This is our third attempt to get the legislation through, dealing with the commission.

I believe that our very first piece of legislation was Bill C-2, which was tax relief for Canada's middle class. Members will recall that this was when we reduced the taxes of Canadians, for the most part. We had the 1% wealthiest get the extra tax, but that was our first major piece of legislation.

From then to today, there has been an extensive legislative agenda. We have had to go through some fairly difficult times. For example, the worldwide pandemic required numerous pieces of legislation.

I do not know how many times I have stood up inside the chamber to talk about Conservative filibustering on government legislation. We have seen that consistently for years now. We take a look at it and we say, well, today, we are talking about Bill C-20, legislation that is significant. Not only does it reflect on a report that was provided back in 2006, but it is also a reflection on several years of consultations with Canada's border control agency. Not only are we talking about the RCMP today but we are also talking about the Canada Border Services Agency.

The CBSA plays a critical role, as does the RCMP, every day, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That whole agency is now being provided the same opportunity that the RCMP with the public and the issues that have been raised with regard to both agencies. I see that as a very strong, powerful piece of legislation that will make a difference.

Earlier I asked about the Bloc's support for this. Its members were fairly clear that they would vote in favour of it. They saw the legislation as a positive and were anxious to see it pass through the House. Then we asked the New Democratic Party about the issue of getting the legislation through the House and the NDP seemed to be just as supportive, recognizing the value of the legislation and the desire to see it pass through the House. Both parties were somewhat critical of the government for not passing it earlier. That is why I highlighted the fact that there was substantial legislation.

If time permitted, I would go into the different types of legislation that the government has had to introduce. There is a finite amount of time that the House actually sits. That is one reason why, with the support of the New Democratic Party, we were successful in being able to extend hours so we could sit beyond six o'clock. If we need to sit until midnight for more debate, we are in that position, thanks to the support from the New Democratic Party. Both political entities have acknowledged that substantive legislation needs to be passed. One way we can ensure there is time for debate is to provide those additional hours, if more hours of debate are required, particularly by the official opposition, prior to passing the legislation.

From questions posed by the Conservatives, I am of the opinion that they also support this legislation.

Once again, we might actually find ourselves in a position where political parties support the legislation. I suspect the Green Party will take a position on it, likely in support. I must congratulate the leader of the the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for taking on that role again.

I suspect we have legislation before the chamber that will receive unanimous support of getting it to committee. It would be wonderful to get a sense from the official opposition as to when it would like to see this legislation go to committee. In other words, how many speakers will the Conservatives be putting up? For example, if they are going to put up more than three or four speakers, maybe they should look to the government and suggest we sit additional hours in an evening, so we can get the legislation passed and get it to committee.

It seems to me that the desire is there to see the legislation pass to the committee. There are more government bills on the horizon on which we would like to have debate. When I hear that all members are supporting the legislation, my concern is that the Conservatives might double down, insisting they put up speakers until the government brings in time allocation. The leader of the Green Party will be in opposition to that time allocation and we will have to bring in other parties to support it in order to get the Conservatives to pass the legislation and allow the bill to ultimately go to committee.

We should try to avoid all that. If it is not resolved today, I would encourage the opposition House leader, in particular, to let the government House leader know how many actual speakers the Conservatives anticipate, so we can get it into committee. Literally thousands of people are being directly or indirectly impacted. I would argue that all Canadians are, in one way or another, affected by it.

With respect to the cost expenditure, we are talking about well over $100 million over five years, but the trade-off with the cost factor is building what is absolutely essential when it comes to law enforcement, whether it for our borders or anywhere in between. Public confidence in our border agency and RCMP is absolutely critical. This is one way we can reinforce the many things that need to be done related to the fine work that both CBSA and RCMP agents do for us seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

In listening to the comments from members, I want to provide a general thought with respect to bad apples versus the vast majority. For the vast majority in both agencies, we continue to receive the best service that is humanly possible.

I do not have a problem in comparing our national institutions, in particular, the RCMP, to any other law enforcement agency anywhere in the world. Its members are constantly called upon from other countries and from within Canada to perform in many ways, whether it is training and assistance in countries like Ukraine and many others throughout the world to the absolutely fantastic work they do in Canada.

The same principle applies to the majority of those who work at the Canada Border Services Agency, and I recognize their phenomenal effort. It is very delicate work, as some members have implied. It is almost like a border agent is a semi-god of sorts when someone comes into Canada. That individual is completely dependent on that border agent to make a decision that is favourable to the nation and that decision could ultimately prevent the person from coming into Canada.

The bad apples cause a great deal of issues for both agencies, and we often will see that take place. After all, it is the incident that the public will react to through media reporting which reflects negatively on the institution. For example, when an RCMP officer takes an action that reflects negatively on the entire force, that gets amplified, whether through social media or mainstream media. That is when the seeds of doubt or questionable behaviour are planted in the minds of many, and justifiably so. However, it is because of those bad apples in particular that we need this legislation.

This is why it is so important to recognize the finances to support the public complaints and review commission. That is money well spent.

The public complaints and review commission will have the ability to review and investigate the conduct and level of service of an RCMP officer or a border control agent when an has been issue raised. That is the essence of the legislation. It will allow the chair of the commission to initiate some form of a disciplinary action where it is deemed warranted. Again, that type of action is necessary. At the beginning, when I talked about the time frame, I put it in the form of a question. There has been a lot of time since the report, but the essence of the legislation is far beyond what was recommended back when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.

The vote of confidence that is established when the commissioner provides a recommendation on a behaviour that has taken place is what provides that confidence. Through that recommendation, we will receive an annual report. That annual report will highlight the many different things with which the commission has had the opportunity to deal.

I recognize the importance of the makeup of the commission. I suspect, given some of the suggestions or ideas from the opposition party, we will likely see some healthy debate on this at the standing committee. Given the department's interest and level of time commitment to the legislation, I believe the government is open to suggestions, and I would encourage members to bring those ideas to committee.

I understand there are concerns, particularly related to a number of issues of the day. The Conservatives have raised issues like illegal guns crossing the borders. When we think of the Canada Border Services Agency, it is important to note that it deals with issues such as arrests, detentions, removals, human trafficking, customs, trade, immigration and illegal firearms. The Conservatives are quick to criticize the government on that issue.

I suggest that the Conservatives might not want to bring that issue up during questions and answers. If they do, I will talk about the tens of millions of dollars in cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency that the Conservatives put in place, which reduced the number of border services officers and that enhanced the opportunities for illegal trafficking of guns and weapons coming into the country. I will remind them of their responsibilities to the issue and their lack of commitment and support of Canada Border Services Agency before. Maybe they could come up with a different question, but I will not tell them what they have to ask.

I hope, as I explained in depth why it is important, that the legislation passes.

Motion in relation to Senate amendments

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to give a little ad at the beginning of my speech. Tomorrow is an important day. June 12 is Philippines Independence Day. I want to invite all members from all sides of the House to come out after their caucus meetings and walk across the street from West Block to SJAM to participate in the Filipino heritage event.

I want to add my thoughts in regard to Bill C-59 and I will approach it in two ways. First I will speak to the process that has brought us to the bill before us today and then I will provide thoughts in regard to some of the content of the bill itself.

To say that the issue of security and freedom is a new debate in the House of Commons would be a bit of a stretch. I can recall the debates surrounding Bill C-51 several years ago when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. He brought in that piece of legislation. At the time, the Liberal Party, as the third party, actually supported that legislation.

However, we qualified that support in a very clear way. We indicated throughout the debate that there were some fundamental flaws in Bill C-51, and that if we were to ultimately win in the election of 2015, we intended to bring forward some changes that would rectify some of those fundamental flaws.

I can recall the hours of debate that took place inside the chamber by members of all political parties. I can remember some of the discussions flowing out of the committees at the time. There was a great deal of debate and a great deal of controversy with the legislation. Even while campaigning during the last federal election, it was a topical issue for many people. It dealt with issues of an individual's rights versus having that sense of security. I always made reference to the fact that Liberals understand how important individual rights are. That is one of the reasons I often highlight that we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If we take a look at the original Bill C-51, even though the principles were very admirable and we supported it and voted for it, even though at the time we received some criticism, we made it very clear that we would make changes.

This is the second piece of legislation that has attempted to make good on commitments we made to Canadians in the last election. I really enjoy is being able to stand up in this place and provide comment, especially on legislation that fulfills election commitments, starting with our very first bill, Bill C-2. That is a bill I am very proud of, and I know my caucus colleagues are very proud of that bill. It concerns the tax break for Canada's middle class. There is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-59, the second part of a commitment we made to Canadians in the last federal election, which talks about the issue of public safety and privacy rights. Yet again, we have before us another piece of legislation that ultimately fulfills another commitment we made to Canadians in the last federal election.

I mentioned that I wanted to talk a bit about the process. In bringing forward Bill C-59, I do not think we could come up with a better example of a minister who has really understood the importance of the issue, or who has gone far beyond what any other minister in the Stephen Harper era ever did, in terms of consultation.

Even before the bill was introduced, we received input from thousands of Canadians, whether in person or through the Internet. We also received input from members of Parliament, particularly from many of my Liberal caucus colleagues. We were afforded the opportunity to share with the minister and the caucus some of the issues and concerns that came out of the last election. A great deal of consultation was done. The minister on several occasions indicated that the comprehensive dialogue that took place allowed for a substantial piece of legislation at the first reading stage.

Shortly after that, the bill was sent to committee prior to second reading, which allowed for a more thorough discussion on a wider scope of issues. The bill was debated at report stage and then at third reading. It was sent to the Senate, which has sent back amendments, which is where we are today. That process indicates that we have a government, as the Prime Minister has often indicated, that thinks the roles of our standing committees and the Senate can improve legislation. We have seen many changes throughout this process. This bill is a stronger and healthier piece of legislation than it originally was at its first reading stage.

I wanted to give that bit of background and then do a comparison regarding why the government had to move closure just an hour ago. I want to make it very clear to those individuals who might be following the debate, whether it is on Bill C-59 or other pieces of legislation.

We have an official opposition party that is determined to work with the NDP, and I often refer to it as the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the New Democrats. They work together to try to prevent any legislation from passing. They will do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing. It does not take much to do that. At the end of the day, a few members can cause a great deal of issues to prevent legislation from passing. There is no sense of responsibility coming from the opposition side in regard to working hard for Canadians and recognizing the valuable pieces of legislation that would be for the betterment of our society. In fact, those parties will put up speaker after speaker even on non-controversial legislation, because they have no real interest in passing legislation. If it were up to the Conservative opposition, we would still be debating Bill C-2. The opposition members have many different tools, and they have no qualms about using them. Then—

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber on a wide variety of issues. This evening is special in the sense that we are talking about the budget. When we talk about the budget, we talk about priorities and I am happy to share my thoughts on the government's priorities.

As the member for Winnipeg South pointed out, he and I go back 30 years, both on the provincial and national scene. I have learned to respect many of the things he does, especially on issues surrounding the environment, women's issues and Churchill, Manitoba. These are the types of issues he really digs his teeth into and produces tangible results. I respect the effort he puts in, day in and day out, in serving the constituents of Winnipeg South. Combined, we bring the south end of Winnipeg to the north and the north to the south. As he pointed out, it is friendly Manitoba and it has always been a pleasure to work with him in many capacities.

Having said all of that, I would like to pick up on a couple of points. The overriding issue for me has always been to demonstrate that, as a government, we have been very effective in a relatively short period of time. The budget is all about priorities and ensuring the economy and the social fabric continue to move forward. When I say the social fabric, I am talking about diversity. One of the most compelling facts is the number of jobs that have been created since we have been in government: one million jobs. That is a significant achievement.

When we talk about those one million jobs, we ask ourselves how that happened. It is because we have a government that is committed to working with Canadians in all regions of our country. We have a government that is committed to working with many different stakeholders, provinces, territories, indigenous people and municipalities, and by working with Canadians, we were able to deliver in a very tangible way.

I referenced something the other day and I want to repeat it. From day one, we have been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and that has been demonstrated from the very first piece of legislation we introduced, which my colleagues will recall was Bill C-2. It is what gave the middle class of Canada a substantial tax cut, putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians.

If we carry that piece of legislation over to the budget of 2016, the very first Liberal budget under this administration, we saw substantial increases to the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty. There were also substantial increases to the Canada child benefit that completely reformed it, which again lifted tens of thousands of children out of poverty. Through those things alone, we invested in Canadians in very real and tangible ways. We put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians in all regions of our country. In Winnipeg North alone, there is $9 million a month for children, every month, in the form of the Canada child benefit.

This is how to support the middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and how to give a helping hand to those who really need it. By doing that, we increased the disposable incomes of Canadians. It meant more money was being spent in our communities in all regions of our country, and by doing that, we created jobs.

Take that into consideration along with the historic investment in Canada's infrastructure. In the most recent budget we have seen an additional allocation for municipal infrastructure investment. That investment in infrastructure means hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in every region of our country, creating more jobs.

Why have we been able to create one million jobs by working with Canadians? Compare what we did in the last three and a half years to the 10 years of misery with the Harper regime. For Canadians who follow the debate on the budget they will see there really is no change in the opposition today. The only change is the incredible amount of influence that Doug Ford has with the Conservative Party. The Premier of Ontario now sits on that small circular table with Stephen Harper and the current Conservative leader.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the government's Bill C-2, which was in fact the cut to the middle income bracket, not to the middle class.

I have had this exchange with the member several times now, probably more than several times over the past few months and year. The government offered a tax cut of over $800 to every member of Parliament in this Chamber. However, people who were earning $45,000 or less got nothing. They got carbon taxes and higher payroll taxes. They actually got less at the end of the month. People who were earning $60,000 a year, which is more than the median income, more than the average income a person would earn in Canada, got about a $260 tax cut.

The member keeps repeating that this was for the middle class, but in fact every member of Parliament received a much higher tax break. That is wrong. That is not the way this is supposed to work. We are not supposed to fill our pockets; we are supposed to help Canadians.

Will the member finally admit that the middle income tax cut was not for the middle class, that it did not achieve any of those goals? In fact, the numbers provided by the CRA show that the extra tax put on the so-called 1% did not generate the revenue the government thought it would, that we lost over $4 billion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the House on the important issues we have to address. What is more important than the national budget? It is one of those measures that we can read a lot into, because it is the way the government establishes its priorities. From day one, this government has been very clear to the House, and through the House to all Canadians, and I would even reverse that by saying that through Canadians, we have been very clear to this House, what the intentions of this government are.

As I have referenced in the past, we have a Prime Minister who constantly challenges members of the Liberal caucus to stay connected with their constituents, the people we represent, and to bring their thoughts and ideas to the floor of the House, the standing committees and the caucus. I really believe that a lot of positive things have happened as a direct result.

Before I get to the core issues, I would like to use the example of pharmacare. On numerous occasions, I have had the opportunity to stand in my place and table petitions dealing with pharmacare. We know how passionate Canadians are about our health care system. It does not matter what region of the country we live in, health care is an important issue. As such, I have always taken it seriously, not only here in the House of Commons but also in the days when I was an MLA.

Under this Prime Minister, for the very first time in decades, we have seen an open mind toward a national pharmacare plan. I would argue that for the first time in decades, we have seen not only members of the government but also some opposition members talking more about a pharmacare plan. Virtually months after the last election, we saw the standing committee put meetings on its agenda to deal with pharmacare, which ultimately led to a report.

We have seen commitments within our budget measures to further the debate and dialogue on pharmacare. We have seen members of Parliament go into their constituencies and work with others.

I am very proud of the fact that my daughter Cindy has been very strong on this file and has been advocating for a national pharmacare plan on the floor of the Manitoba legislature. She recognizes, as I do, that this is an important issue for the residents of Winnipeg's north end and beyond.

If we listen to my caucus colleagues, they will talk about the importance of a national pharmacare plan. I think that embodies some of the things the Prime Minister has talked about, which is that as members of Parliament, it is important that we stay in touch with what our constituencies want and expect.

Let me suggest to members that it is one of the important issues on which I hope to see some tangible results in the coming days, weeks, months and, with the approval of my constituents, years. It is an issue I want the residents of Winnipeg North to understand. I will continue to advocate for it until we have some form of national pharmacare plan we can all be proud of, a plan that will complement the national Canada health care system we have.

Having said that, I want to talk about day one. I sat in the opposition benches a number of years ago when our current Prime Minister was elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I thought it was significant that the day he made the announcement that he was interested in putting his name into the leadership race, he highlighted the importance of Canada's middle class. Nothing has changed. The then leadership candidate, who then became the leader of the Liberal Party and is now Canada's Prime Minister, has consistently indicated that Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it are the first priority of this government and the Liberal Party.

He made that pledge in the last federal election. I believe that if we look at the budgetary measures we have taken since day one of getting into government, we will find example after example of what we have done as the government to further the interests of Canada's middle class.

If we look back at the beginning, and Bill C-2, we will see the tax cut for Canada's middle class. At the same time, we recognized the sense of tax fairness, and we saw a government that put an extra tax on Canada's one per cent, the wealthiest Canadians. The revenue generated from that, in good part, went to pay for the tax break for Canada's middle class.

I am very proud of the fact that we have seen a government that also wants to do what it can to deal with issues such as poverty. That is why we saw the enhancement of the tax-free Canada child benefit program, literally lifting tens of thousands of children, going into hundreds of thousands, out of poverty. Then we saw the guaranteed income supplement, which also lifted tens of thousands of Canadians out of poverty.

I want to combine the three of them and use it as a tangible example of this point. We took money and put it into the pockets of Canadians in every region of our country. We supported the middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, those who needed that helping hand, and we put money to work. I say that because if we invest in our middle class, we are really investing in Canada. The hundreds of millions, going into billions of dollars annually that we invested in Canadians ultimately assisted us in providing tangible results. It increased disposable income and, I would argue, helped create the one million jobs this government, working in co-operation with other stakeholders, has been able to generate in every region of this country.

In so many ways, we are the envy of the world because of the economic policies we have put in place. We have put money in the pockets of Canadians by investing in infrastructure. Even with this most recent budget, we are giving tens of millions of dollars. In the city of Winnipeg, just over $35 million is going into municipal infrastructure, creating jobs, building our country and investing in Canadians. That is what this government has been all about over the last three and a half years.

We have seen tangible results. This is why I am very happy and quite content. The summer is quickly approaching. We only have another 12 or 13 days left in this sitting. I look forward to a summer where we can reach out and tell Canadians what has been taking place in the last three and a half years.

Come October, when people do the comparisons, they will recognize and appreciate all the work we have been able to accomplish, working with Canadians day in and day out, working hard and delivering.

Energy Costs

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat interesting listening to the Conservatives. We have heard them, not only today but in previous weeks and months, talk about the tax on tax, as if Stephen Harper never did it. One would think the Conservative Party never had a tax on tax.

Every week, Canadians from coast to coast to coast were paying a tax on a tax that Stephen Harper was very supportive of. When people put gas in their vehicle, there is a provincial and federal levy, and then there is the GST. My understanding is that the GST is a tax that is applied onto a tax. Yet, the Conservative Party is so offended by taxes on taxes, as if it has never happened before.

Why did Stephen Harper not deal with the tax on tax? What happened then to the oomph of the Conservative Party today, saying that a tax on a tax is bad? The Conservative Party is probably the one that came up with the idea of a tax on a tax. It was actually the Progressive Conservative Party in Alberta that first came up with the idea of a price on pollution in North America. That is the reality of it.

The Conservatives are really good at opposition, and I have said this before: I hope we keep them in opposition for many years. However, we really need to reflect on some of the speeches that Conservatives give in the House. They are truly amazing. We hear all about the balanced budget stuff. Conservatives try to give the impression that the Conservative Party is good at managing budgets. Seriously.

Stephen Harper took a multi-billion dollar surplus and turned it into a multi-billion dollar deficit even before there was a recession. That is the honest to God truth. That is the reality. Stephen Harper had deficit after deficit, and I would have to say it was for eight or nine years. He accumulated over $150 billion in deficits, and yet Conservatives try to give us advice on deficits.

By the way, as we know, the current leader just flip-flopped on his deficit projections. Now a Conservative government would take five years to get rid of the deficit. I can appreciate that, if we take a look at what Liberals have been able to do in the last little while because of many of the budgetary measures we have taken. We have seen the generation of over a million new jobs in Canada in the last three and a half years, because of some of the changes we have made.

The Conservative Party wants to ask about this tax or that tax, but what did it really do when it mattered the most to most Canadians?

The most substantial tax break given in many years by the House of Commons was in Bill C-2. We call it the middle-class tax break, the tax cut for Canada's middle class. Millions of families benefited all across Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars were given to Canadians, to the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

What did the Conservative Party do? The Conservatives voted against it. It is hard to believe that when it comes right down to voting, a Conservative Party that preaches about giving tax breaks voted against our tax cut. In fairness, the Conservatives also voted against a tax increase on Canada's wealthiest 1%, which is consistent with many of the different types of boutique tax credits the Conservatives like to come up with.

I would suggest that the Conservative Party and those deep thinkers within it, and here I am talking about people like Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, the potential leadership contenders in the next go-around, need to sit down with Stephen Harper and the current leader and start revisiting the types of issues they have to try to overcome between now and the next election.

When I go door-knocking and speak to residents of Winnipeg North, I am always happy to share with them the reality of the Conservative Party, and I must say that it can be very discouraging at times.

Criminal Records Act

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

Madam Speaker, earlier today I indicated that we look at the legislation and do a comparison. From day one, I have made numerous references to Bill C-2, which has given the middle-class of Canada a substantial tax break while at the same time increasing the tax level on Canada's 1% wealthiest. Today we are debating Bill C-93, which is in essence going to provide a pardon for simple possession of cannabis. Whether it was day one or today, this is a government that believes we should work hard every day.

Would the member agree, as we look at the next 14 or 15 days of the House's sitting, that we have a responsibility to do what we can to support legislation and see it come to a vote, believing that Canadians will benefit from members of Parliament who are prepared to work all the way to the very last day?

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way, which should come as no surprise. When we take a look at this legislation, much like many other pieces of legislation this government has been introducing virtually from day one, it is yet another piece of legislation that fulfills a campaign commitment that the Liberal Party made in the 2015 election.

However, I guess where we differ from the Conservative Party is that I believe, whether it is Bill C-2, which we brought in on day one of our mandate to give Canada's middle class a tax break while at the same time putting a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, or Bill C-93, which we are debating today and which would allow for a pardon for individuals with convictions for simple possession of cannabis, these are all good, solid, sound pieces of legislation, and I am grateful.

The member is supporting this legislation, I understand. Would the member not agree that we should continue to look at ways in which we can pass legislation for every day that we sit. Would he agree that just because we are in the last 10 or 15 days, we do not have to stop passing legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, we hear members on the opposition benches say that we have 17 or 18 days left to go. From day one, this government introduced Bill C-2 that gave a tax break to Canada's middle class and put an extra tax on the wealthiest 1%. Today, we are debating Bill C-93 that will have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians.

Would the member not agree that the number of sitting days left does not matter, that if we are afforded the opportunity to do good work for Canadians by passing legislation that will make a difference in their lives, we should all support and encourage that?

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of how this government has fulfilled campaign commitments, from the very beginning, when we brought in Bill C-2 to reduce tax rates for Canada's middle class, to this piece of legislation today, Bill C-93, which makes a commitment to pardon individuals for simple possession of cannabis. These are the types of progressive legislative commitments we made in the last federal election.

Would the member opposite not agree that Canadians have an expectation that all members of Parliament will actually work every day, all the way through? That means that for the next 12 to 14 days we should continue to sit and continue to debate important legislation that will have the same type of impact as Bill C-93 does for Canadians, and that is indeed a good thing.

Many of the members opposite seem to feel that maybe we should stop debating legislation. I think that would be bad public policy, given that we can still continue to work hard for Canadians and pass legislation. Would he not agree that we should continue to pass legislation wherever and whenever we can?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-93 this morning. I found it actually quite excessive listening to my New Democrat friends on this issue. As the parliamentary secretary put it, I think it is important that we recognize that the NDP tends to grossly exaggerate its stand on a wide variety of issues. This is a good example of that.

In the last federal election, the New Democrats, under Mr. Mulcair, actually said that they were not in favour of the legalization of cannabis. That was their position. Now the member says that we should not hold them to account for what the NDP said back in the last federal election, but in the same speech, he said that he wants to hold us to account for what we said in the last election.

Let us talk about the cannabis issue. What did the government say back in 2015? The Liberals were very clear, and our leader was very clear, that we were in favour of the legalization of cannabis, because we wanted to protect our young people. We wanted to bring in strong regulations. We wanted to go after criminal activities. That was our justification for making that commitment to Canadians back in 2015. The Conservatives, on the other hand, wanted the status quo.

The NDP position was very clear. It did not want to legalize cannabis. It wanted to decriminalize cannabis. Reflect on that. I think the NDP is trying to find relevance in society today, because even the Green Party tends to outdo the NDP on the environment file. Many of the positions the NDP is adopting today are going to the Green Party. On this issue, it is following the Liberal Party. That is fine. We do not mind sharing our ideas with our NDP friends.

However, those following this debate should not be fooled by the type of information the New Democrats are providing on this issue. They argue for expungement, because they are grasping. A few years ago, they were not even in favour of the legalization of cannabis. During the 2015 campaign, we made a very strong presentation to Canadians, and Canadians accepted it, and now, through Bill C-45, we actually have cannabis legalized here in Canada.

The Conservatives and the NDP, that unholy alliance, I would argue, at times come together. The last few days, they have been saying, “Here we are with 18 days left to go in this session and the government is wanting to rush things through.” When we were elected, we made a commitment to Canadians to work hard every day. What do they expect us to do, say that with only 18 days left in this session, we are going to stop, as if there is nothing else for us to do?

From day one, with that very first bill, Bill C-2, to reduce taxes for Canada's middle class while at the same time increasing it for Canada's wealthiest 1%, until the last day we sit, this government's intention has been to continue to deliver for Canadians in a real and tangible way.

The legalization of cannabis took us a considerable amount of time. We cannot just bring in legislation and pass it. Legislation of that nature requires a great deal of background work, such as working with the many different stakeholders, provinces and indigenous leaders. We could not bring in this legislation before we even passed the other legislation.

This legislation is before us today because it is good, sound, solid legislation. This is the type of legislation that is going to have a profoundly positive impact on the lives of many Canadians. That is the reason we are debating it today.

Whether there are 16 days, 10 days or five days left does not really matter. At the end of the day, Canadians can know that this government will continue to work every day to advance good, strong social budgetary policies.

For individuals who have been convicted of simple possession of cannabis, this legislation would allow an expedited pardon for that particular conviction. It is as simple as that. This legislation would expedite it and ensure that there was no cost for receiving that pardon.

For those who have an interest in getting a pardon, this government has made it exceptionally easy for them to do. That is why this legislation is important. It is why we challenge all members of the House to support it.

With regard to the expungement argument being brought forward, a pardon is all that is required. It is far more than the NDP was prepared to offer in 2015. When its members say that it should be expungement, they should put an asterisk there to indicate that it is a lot more than what they were prepared to do back in 2015.

I know that the NDP had a change in leadership. I believe that the current leader says that the legalization of heroin and cocaine should be allowed. I believe that could be a potential election platform coming from the NDP. That is what its current leader has talked about in the past. Maybe the NDP might provide some clarity and transparency on that issue. We are glad that the NDP has accepted the idea of the legalization of cannabis.

The NDP had some influence with the Conservatives. Prior to the last election, the Conservative Party was outright against it. I remember the brochures, the propaganda and the myths being created. Even back then, the Conservatives were more focused on being critical of personalities than on substantive policy issues. The Conservatives were against it. They did not want legalization, and I do not believe they even favoured decriminalization. After the election, they started to talk about the decriminalization of cannabis.

A few of them are saying that they started talking about it a bit earlier. In fairness to my Conservative friends, that might be the case. Having said that, who were the biggest benefactors? I argue that it was the gangs and the criminal element that were the biggest benefactors of the Conservative policy on cannabis. Stop and think about that.

Resuming debate

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we had a very good example this morning with the member across the way.

Contrast that to another example where we had legislation which members of the New Democratic Party recognized that they actually liked. I think it was Bill C-37. I could be wrong on that but if members did a quick check of Hansard, they would be able to find out when members of the NDP supported time allocation. They wanted us to pass that legislation. They recognized the value and importance of that legislation. That is not the only time they did that. The NDP members on a couple of occasions have recognized that they like the legislation and want it to pass and have therefore supported our bringing in time allocation.

What we know is that all parties in this House actually support the concept of time allocation, if it is deemed necessary. Even when I sat in opposition, Peter Van Loan would bring in time allocation, and I remember standing in my place and supporting it, because if one is not getting the support and co-operation from opposition parties in particular and from the government at times, one may need to use time allocation. A lot depends on what is happening in the opposition benches.

I know the government House leader continues to want to work with opposition members. If the government House leader asks how many speakers a party would like to put forward on something or how quickly might we be able to get a piece of legislation through, it is not some sort of trap for the opposition parties. It is to allow for more debate on issues which the opposition members would like to have more debate on.

There are bills that are relatively non-controversial, like Bill C-81, which is historical legislation. I am not going to say that members should not be debating the bill, but based on my 30 years of parliamentary experience, when the will is there to see a bill pass, it passes really quickly as opposed to there being a filibuster. Maybe it would have been better to allow Bill C-81 to actually pass today. I would argue that would have been the right thing to do.

I listened very closely to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan across the way. All he would say is that it will pass in due time and before the next election it will be passed. He indicated his support for it on behalf of the Conservative Party. The member is playing a game and he knows it. If the Conservative Party really wanted to, that bill could have passed and we could have been debating something else right now. We needed to get an indication to help facilitate debate inside the House.

There are many issues that I would like to debate and, in good part, I have been fortunate to have been afforded the opportunity to do that. The NDP House leader talked about an issue which I am very passionate about: pharmacare. That is not an NDP issue, although the NDP tries to claim it as one. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an issue today because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring that we expand our health care system. That is the reason the NDP is talking about it today. It was years ago, when we first came in as government, through a standing committee that the idea started to really flourish.

I participate in a caucus and I have many discussions with my colleagues. We understand the value of it. We understand that we have to work with many different stakeholders. Then the NDP members catch wind of it and all of a sudden they say that they to get out in front of the Liberals on it. That is balderdash.

The NDP does not get credit for something of this nature. If anyone should get the credit, it is Canadians. It is Canadians who have been communicating, whether through the Prime Minister or through members of our caucus, about the importance of pharmacare. That is the reason we have prioritized it. We are looking forward to the report we will be getting toward the end of June.

NDP members talk about housing as if they are leading the file. Who are they kidding? I enjoy listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. He is one of the most able-minded individuals I know, and he understands the issues of housing in Canada.

In the last federal election, the commitment the NDP made with regard to housing pales in comparison to what this government has put into place. I find it somewhat humorous that the NDP has attempted to stake claim to an area in which this government has moved forward.

From day one, whether in regard to budgetary measures or legislative measures, this government and the Prime Minister have been focused on Canada's middle class. Let us talk about our first piece of legislation. Bill C-2 provided a tax cut to Canada's middle class. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going into the pockets of Canadians. At the same time, the legislation allowed for a special increase in tax for Canada's wealthiest 1%. By the way, the Conservatives and the NDP voted against that.

That was a legislative measure. In our very first budget, we committed to a tax-free Canada child benefit program. Again, this is putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of almost nine out of 10 families, although I could not tell members the actual percentage. That initiative literally lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and the Conservatives and NDP voted against it.

That is why I say that from day one, this government, whether through budgetary measures or legislative measures, has been very active at ensuring we continue to move forward. However, in virtually every initiative we have undertaken, and Bill C-81 is more of an exception, opposition parties have fought us.

Let us recall the last federal budget. Before I comment on some of the content of it, do members remember the day of the federal budget? It was not a good day for parliamentarians. The Minister of Finance wanted to address the House and Canada. All sorts of stakeholders were waiting to hear about the budget. Do members remember the behaviour of members of the official opposition? They were yelling and slamming their desks. They did not want the Minister of Finance to be heard. In my 30 years of parliamentary experience, I had never witnessed that sort of inappropriate behaviour coming from the official opposition. It was embarrassing.

The Conservatives are very focused on trying to discredit the person of the Prime Minister. We can hear it in their speeches. It is the personal attacks, whether directed at the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. That is fine. It is the Stephen Harper type of politics, with more and more of Doug Ford's style getting into their caucus and in their policies. It is scary stuff.

One member opposite said that he is going to join our caucus. I believe that could happen sometime soon. If I were to speculate on the Conservative leadership at the end of the year or in 2020, I am thinking it could be Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, maybe the opposition House leader, and I do not know who else.

The bottom line is the Conservatives are so focused on character assassination instead of being a constructive opposition party. That is okay, because as they focus on that negativity, we will continue to focus on Canadians. The results are really showing in a tangible way.

I made reference to the hundreds of thousands of children, and there are also hundreds of thousands of seniors who have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result of this government's actions. In the last three and a half years, we have seen one million new jobs created by working with Canadians. We have seen incredible investments in infrastructure. In the last budget alone, there is a commitment to municipalities. In Winnipeg, I believe it is about 35 million additional dollars. If members were to drive around some of our streets, they would get a better appreciation of why that is such an important investment.

I started off talking about the historical legislation of Bill C-81. We have indigenous legislation that is before the House on language and foster care. These are critically important issues. It is historic legislation. These are two pieces of legislation that we still need to pass. That is why I am here standing in my place saying that we still have 19 days to go. Unlike the Conservatives and the New Democrats, we are prepared to work until the very last day. We are prepared to work late. We have a legislative agenda and we are committed to passing that legislation. We know that this government works for Canadians in every region of our country every day.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.