Debates of May 1st, 2017

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect that you would not grant me the amount of time it would take to address many of the points the member has put on the record and which I adamantly oppose in the strongest way. The member should be a little more transparent with regard to what is actually taking place here today.

This government is attempting to modernize Parliament. The opposition parties are playing their role. Having said that, members of the opposition have said that this is a matter of privilege. Virtually every member will stand up and say how important privilege is. The member across the way said himself that we should protect the rights of individuals, and I agree. I have always argued that, even when I was on the opposition bench and even today.

Opposition members have said that this is a filibuster. They have admitted that this a filibuster that is going on today on a matter of privilege.

If a matter of privilege is so important, as I believe it is, and if unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct is so very important, is it appropriate to filibuster on such an important issue?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we are doing this. The government is denying us the opportunity to fight for our privilege. You did not allow us to have that vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member is not talking about the Speaker. I will let him correct that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

My colleague has asked why we are taking time to discuss this issue. It is because it is a critical issue. The opportunity for me to represent my constituents is such an important part of what is done in the House. Two of our colleagues were blocked from exercising their right to vote on an important issue. They were blocked not only from their right to vote but from their right to represent their own constituents. The Liberal government thinks that is of so little consequence that it does not want to make it a priority at PROC.

What we are seeing right now is a Liberal government that has disrespect for the traditions and the culture of the House but also for our ability as members of Parliament to represent our constituents. That is why we are fighting as hard as we possibly can to make sure that Canadians understand what is happening here.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the comments by my colleague, especially as they relate to what is happening in Alberta right now, with horrific job losses and the challenges the whole province is facing. Albertans would dearly like the opportunity to work a five-day week now.

I would like my colleague to perhaps narrow in on that, because it relates to privilege and what is happening at PROC, which is why the government does not want this debate to go there.

The Liberals said a few months ago that it was family friendly, but now, because they realize it is not resounding with their constituents, they are calling it “a day in the constituency”.

Could my colleague talk about what the Liberals are doing, how they are doing it, and why the language change? All of a sudden, what was family friendly has become something different, but in my opinion, in the end, it is really just to benefit themselves.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. When this family-friendly, four-day workweek was suggested, Liberals were expecting to be applauded, but what they got was a significant pushback from Canadians. I have constituents who would love to work a four-day workweek or a five-day workweek. They just want to work. That is what we are facing. How do we go back to our constituents, wherever they are in Canada, and say we are working pretty hard, but four days seems to be good enough? We are here working on behalf of taxpayers, and taxpayers expect some very good bang for their buck. They want us to be here, working hard.

I just cannot go home to Alberta, with 125,000 people out of work, and look at them with a straight face and say we are going to start four-day workweeks. I would not be able to look my constituents in the face, or myself in the mirror.

We are here 140 days of the year. I compare myself to those working in the oil sands. They go up north for a couple of weeks at a time and then they come home. They do not go up for four days and come home for a three-day weekend. They go for several weeks at a time and then come home. Why should we be treated any differently from typical Canadian workers who work five-day workweeks?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not think this is one of the more substantive issues before us in terms of standing rules, it is important that we look at the parliamentary calendar from time to time. Every parliament around the world has different sitting times. Provincial legislatures meet far less than the federal Parliament. In my view, we work, at least in my case, seven days a week. Some of the time I am working here in Ottawa and sometimes it is in my constituency.

I do not view the suggestion that we go to four days as a good one, but my reasons are entirely different. If we have four days here in Parliament, even if it is the same number of hours, we will have the increased pressure to be flying to our ridings. That is a good thing to do for work, but it imposes real costs on the taxpayers who pay for all of the flights, and there are greenhouse gas costs. I would like to look at the carbon footprint and the costs of travel in looking at our workweek, so I favour a six-day week in Ottawa, with three or four weeks of committed time here and then three or four weeks in our ridings.

However, I do object if Liberals are suggesting four days here. I do not think they are suggesting that we have three days off to do nothing. We work wherever we are, seven days a week, and I would ask the hon. member if he does not agree with me that when we are in our ridings, we are also working.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I cannot speak for everyone, but I think most of us understand there is no such thing as a five-day workweek in this job.

A lot of it is perception. I think she would agree with me that if we tell Canadians that we are going to be working a four-day workweek here, the vast majority of them are not going to believe us when we say we are working in our constituencies. I work seven days a week a lot of the time. I know many of us in the House do, and I completely understand that. However, I am not going home to Alberta and telling my constituents that I am going to work a four-day workweek and that when I am in my constituency, I am also working every single day. Some get it; some do not.

Members made a commitment when they came here. When I ran in the election, I understood that I was going to be in Ottawa 145 days of the year and that when members are here, they are expected to work. That I knew coming into it. We still have 220 days in the rest of the year to be working with our constituents.

My colleague brought up a great point about looking at the calendar. Maybe that is an option, but that is something we should do together, as a whole, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We should not have it imposed upon us by the Liberal government. If there are opportunities for us to rework the calendar, to be here for two weeks and home a week or to have other options, that is something we could discuss together, but it should not be imposed by one party on the other 300-and-some members.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here most Fridays, if not virtually all Fridays, but I can say that less than half of the members quite often are here. We should not try to give Canadians the impression that for that half day, 338 members of Parliament are here. I would be happy if I saw 150. We have to be careful with regard to that issue.

It is also important for us to recognize the privilege issue that we are debating, which is unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. The government supports the subamendments. Getting to a vote is what everyone wants to happen. We all want this to go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but some Conservatives say they will filibuster. Why filibuster and prevent it from going to PROC?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to the member's first point on Fridays, we are expected to be here on Fridays. Many of us are here on Fridays. Again, as I said, a lot of it is perception.

We understand in this House that not everybody is doing a 40-hour workweek. When we go home to our constituency, we know that a lot of us are working. However, I cannot speak for everybody. I do not intend to speak for everybody.

On the second part of the question, we want this to go to the procedure and House affairs committee. Our issue is that we want it to be a priority at the committee. The Liberal government is saying that it will not be a priority. It wants to continue to ram through these changes to the Standing Orders. That is what this is about.

We want to make sure that the privileges of individual members of Parliament are a top priority.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today in order to talk about a matter of vital importance to Canadians from coast to coast. I stand to talk with regard to parliamentary privilege.

The fact that I just said a conversation with regard to privilege is absolutely essential to Canadians is probably causing a lot of eye-rolling to those outside of this chamber, because why would we talk about privilege and say that it is vital? Privilege has a negative connotation that often goes with it, after all. The truth is that I do not blame those who might roll their eyes at this, but I would like to explain further why this is so important.

Typically the word “privilege” is bad. It means that some individuals have preferential access or freedoms that others do not have. For example, last week the Prime Minister revealed that his brother was let off the hook with regard to marijuana charges because of the connections of his father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. That is a negative privilege.

I believe that most Canadians would agree that this is unacceptable. It is elitist at best, and fraudulent at worst. Another example of negative privilege is the fact that the Prime Minister took a free vacation on a private Caribbean island owned by a billionaire who lobbies the government for money from time to time. It seems rather provocative.

However, despite these negative instances where one's privilege has clearly been misused, there is also a very positive connotation that comes with the word “privilege”, particularly “parliamentary privilege”.

Members of Parliament are granted privileges, not in the sense of favouritism or elitism, but because of the responsibility that we carry. There are certain privileges or responsibilities that we are granted. For me, it is to represent the 115,000 people who live in my Lethbridge riding. When I use the term “privilege”, I am talking about parliamentary rules and traditions that protect democracy and empower us as members of Parliament to do to the job we were elected to do, and to do it faithfully, fairly, and justly. Parliamentary privilege has less to do with me and far more, in fact everything, to do with the Canadian public.

Today's debate was initiated because one of my colleagues who was on her way to vote in this chamber a number of weeks ago—and, of course, to vote in this chamber is her parliamentary privilege—was stopped by the Prime Minister's security detail and blocked from being able to enter the House.

Members know that this is absolute nonsense. It is a member's privilege to move and to speak freely in this place. It is not only her right, but it is actually her obligation. It is the very thing that her constituents sent her here to do. As voting is one of the primary ways that we represent our constituents back home, it is of vital importance that we have access to this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you agree, because you found enough merit within our claims to permit the motion that is before us today to allow debate. Shamefully, the government's initial response to the Speaker's ruling was to move unprecedented closure in order to shut down said debate. The Liberals did not want to hear that a mistake was made and that parliamentary privilege was breached.

The Speaker has never had to rule on such an issue before, because never has such dictatorial action been taken by the party in power. There is admiration for China's dictatorship, and then there is outright implementation. In this, we have witnessed the Liberals do just that.

Right now, as I speak in this House, colleagues of mine are filibustering the Liberals' outrageous plan to so-called “modernize” the House of Commons. What is meant by that is threefold. The Liberals would like to stop sitting in the House of Commons on Fridays. They would like to move us to a four-day workweek. The second thing they want to do is have the Prime Minister, who is already absent about 66% of the time, be further absent, by only coming in for one hour a week to discuss the issues that are in front of this nation. The third thing that I will bring up is that the Liberals would like to shut down the opportunity for free-flow debates. Instead, they would like to put time restrictions in place that would forcefully shut down discussion with regard to the issues that face Canadians.

My colleagues and I are committed to standing up and speaking out against this incredibly dictatorial action of the Liberal government, and we are not the only ones. We have as our allies the New Democrats, the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois, and many of the independents within this place as well.

We have been filibustering late into the night for weeks now. One of my colleagues, the member for Calgary Shepard, spoke for 10 hours straight. Why are we so dedicated to the cause? We are taking this action, not because we are excited to forfeit sleep, or to put up with messy hair, or to disgrace ourselves with bad breath and unbrushed teeth, but actually we are committed to filibustering the Liberals' obnoxious plan to shut down the voice of the official opposition in this place and the opposition as a whole because we believe that Canada's democracy must be defended.

We are taking a stand for Canadians, everyday Canadians, for moms, dads, brothers, sisters, labourers, business owners, farmers, scientists, teachers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, and students. We are in this place debating today because we are taking a stand for Canadians from coast to coast.

Without a strong opposition in place to hold the government to account, Canada's system of governance fails its people. The House of Commons, after all, is the people's House. All parties have talked a great deal about how we can best make this House reflective of all Canadians, but what the Liberals appear to be blind to today is the fact that the majority of Canadians did not actually vote for them. In the last election, 60% of Canadians did not check “Liberal” on their ballots. For this House to truly reflect Canada, it must allow the views of the majority of the people in this country, those who did not vote for the Liberals, to have a voice. The way we accomplish that is by allowing the opposition members within this place to have a voice.

Our Westminster form of democracy, which has proven to be the longest standing and most robust in the world's history, was built to resist the tyrannical whims of the head of government. Whether it is our current Prime Minister with his admiration for China, or the merciless kings that once existed, this chamber was designed from its inception to ensure that members of Parliament who represent the people are given the ability to fearlessly debate in the interest of Canadians, regardless of how inconvenient or threatening it might be to the agenda of the government in the present day. This is our democracy. This is what men and women of the past have fought and died for. We are committed to protecting that today.

This House belongs to Canadians, not to the Liberal elite. The fact that the Liberals are trying to make changes that will squash the voice of the opposition and protect the Prime Minister from having to stand in this place and give account for the actions of his government is absolutely ludicrous. The actions of the Liberal government are not against me. They are against the people of this country. They are against Canadians.

The Liberals like to talk about respecting science and evidence-based policy-making; however, their actions tell me a very different story. As any grade 3 student might tell us, the scientific method involves creating a hypothesis and then testing it, and as anyone familiar with the scientific method knows, testing the facts to ensure the hypothesis is correct requires a great deal of debate.

Scientists rigorously dispute one another's findings in order to finally realize or come to the concrete truth. This is why we attach greater weight to peer-reviewed studies than we do to one-offs or independent research. If an idea represents the best approach, it should clearly be defendable in public and should easily stand up to criticism and debate. This is why it is curious, given the Liberals' self-stated love for science, they appear entirely consumed with removing debate and opposition from this place.

The Prime Minister only wants to show up for work in the House of Commons for one hour, one day a week. The Liberals want Fridays off. They believe that a four-day workweek is more than enough. Above all, the Liberals want to remove the opposition's ability to test any of the Liberals' policy ideas through debate and questioning.

By their actions, it is clear that the Liberals who govern this country are worried that their ideas will not hold up to public scrutiny. Given the number of policy reversals, ministerial apologies, as with the many we saw today, and political scandals, as we are also witnessing in the news today, the government certainly does have reason to shut down debate. Liberals do not want us to ask them the tough questions. They do not want to be held accountable for their actions.

Democracy is meant to be an adversarial system. In fact, the Liberals paid lip service to this very fact in their government report calling for the changes we are debating here today. There is reason that the opposition is two-and-a-half sword lengths from the government benches. The testing of ideas and moral character is meant to balance the significant power possessed by the government of the day, which means that it gets a little heated in here sometimes.

The ability of the opposition to test the government's agenda and its motive is what is at stake in the debate we are having today, particularly with the amendments to the motion before us. Because the people of Canada have the final say as to who they choose to lead them, the people are best served by having all of the facts at their disposal, and that is the opposition's responsibility.

A muzzled opposition does not serve Canadians well, or the interests of democracy, or the future of our country. Despite the Trudeau family's obsession with China and Cuba, and any other number of dictatorial socialist states, Canadians have firmly rejected this way of government. Canadians are not interested in a government that sacrifices the ability of the opposition to hold the government members to account and to make them answer for the legislation they are trying to push through at a fast pace without reasonable discussion.

Interestingly, it was the Liberals who ran on an election promise to protect the rights of parliamentarians. They want to protect the rights of parliamentarians by stripping the very privileges that belong to us as the opposition in the House. Unfortunately, we see that this promise is clearly being broken. It is another one to add to the list.

Time and time again, the Liberals have attempted to undermine the House, and thus they undermine the people of Canada. Allow me to illustrate with a few examples how the Liberals attempt to limit my participation in the House would impact my constituents, those who are in Lethbridge. I represent a region within southern Alberta. Our primary industries are agriculture and the retail and public sector services that come with being a regional hub. We have a large university and a community college. Both are located directly in my riding.

If the Liberals are successful in getting their way, this is what is at stake. Their shutdown of my voice would mean that I would lose my ability to fight in this chamber against the changes that the government made with regard to mortgage rules. These are changes that have denied many young people within my riding and others who have aspired to own a home for the first time in their lives, who have saved and saved. They are now stripped of the ability to buy that first home. The Liberals will shut down my voice and prevent me from being able to speak out on behalf of these individuals.

Furthermore, I will lose my ability to fight in this chamber for a generation of young Canadians who are going to be saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal debt because of the reckless spending of the current government. Students who I talk to from coast to coast to coast are scared of what their future looks like. When they talk about their future, they are not talking about 30 or 40 years from now. They are talking about after graduation and wanting to find a job to be able to pay off their student debt, to pay their rent, and to put fuel in their cars. They are talking about the necessities of life, and because of the government, they are going to have a very hard time making ends meet.

Not only that, in the near future their taxes will go up, government services they rely on, such as health care, will be pulled back, and job creators will lose confidence in our market, as many of them already have. They will pull out investments and they will cut back the number of jobs available.

What is more, if the Liberals are successful in ramming through their changes to the Standing Orders, I will lose my ability to effectively stand on behalf of the agricultural producers in my riding. These are the very individuals who help stabilize the economy within the Lethbridge region.

The United States is our greatest competition when it comes to agricultural exports. Feedlots are closing up shop all across Alberta right now. That hugely impacts my area. The carbon tax is making it extremely difficult for them to run an effective business. Combine that with the Liberal imposed ban on the most commonly used pesticide and the Liberal imposed increase to payroll taxes, the farmers are feeling as if they have just been kicked in the gut.

Furthermore, I will lose the ability to fight the Liberals' ending of tax deferral for grain farmers, who will then lose the ability to plan for the next season in order to recover from the bad crop because of the changes that have been imposed.

I will also lose the ability to fight for real solutions to the opioid crisis, which is significant in my region, and includes many people in Lethbridge, their lives, their families, their future.

I will lose the ability to speak to legislation. I will lose the ability to question the Prime Minister, aside from one hour per week, and I will lose the ability to question anyone in government on Fridays.

All in all, the Liberals are threatening to make me nothing more than an ineffective spectator. By doing so, the Liberals are robbing my constituents of their rights to be represented in this place.

The Liberals would like to turn the House into an aristocracy, a place where the Liberal elite represent the Liberal elite. However, my colleagues and I are very committed to representing constituents from coast to coast to coast, ensuring that the voices of Canadians are accurately heard in this place. This debate is about defending those people. They elected us to gather in this place and to make decisions that would benefit their welfare.

To ensure the rights of Canadians are upheld, we must ensure that members of Parliament are protected from the bullying tactics of the government of this present day. A member of the House was denied the ability to represent her constituents at a vote because the Prime Minister felt he was more important than her. That member and her constituents are unlikely to see any justice for this breach. The Liberals are likely to use their majority of seats in the House to defeat the motion.

However, suppose it does pass. It will then be referred to a committee that the Liberals have paralyzed, through their attempts to fundamentally alter the ability of the opposition to do its job. The Liberals are making every attempt they possibly can to silence us, those who are on the side of opposition. They claim they are modernizing Parliament, but since when does modernizing look like a return to an aristocracy.

In the report put forward by the government House leader, the member for Waterloo states:

As society changes, the demands of our institutions change as well. Parliament must adapt to a changing and evolving political landscape and should respond to demands of greater accountability, transparency and relevance.

Since when is greater accountability, transparency, and relevance created or achieved by shutting down debate?

This is nothing more than a Liberal power grab. It is a disdainful motion to shut down the voice of every Canadian who did not vote Liberal in the last election. The debate before us today is not about members of Parliament; it is about the Canadian people. A muzzled opposition does not serve Canadians, or the interest of democracy or the future of our country in any way whatsoever.

It is my hope the Liberals will take seriously the things that have been said here today, and throughout the weeks preceding, and they will change their minds with respect to being dictatorial in nature and shutting debate in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member across the way will not be surprised that I disagree with many of the comments. There are lots of reasons for individuals who would be listening to the debate to understand what we are talking about is a privilege issue of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, which I would argue every member of Parliament believes is of the utmost importance. In fact, the government of the day has been talking of its utmost importance by saying it should go PROC. We have been encouraging for it to go to PROC. I have stood in my place and said that we are voting in favour of the amendment.

Let me read the actual amendment. This is what we will be voting on. At times I wonder whether the members across the way understand what we are voting on. It reads:

and that the Committee make this matter a priority over all other business including its review of the Standing Orders and Procedure of the House and its Committees.

We have heard Conservatives admit that they are actually filibustering a matter of privilege. The member across the way explained why they were filibustering in the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs, but she did not explain why they are filibustering the matter of privilege, which is all about unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct.

She should put the Conservative speaking notes to the side and explain why the Conservative Party has decided to not allow this important vote to take place so that it can go to the procedure and House affairs committee. That is something all members ultimately want to see happen. Could she explain the filibuster? Those are not my words; those are words that members of her own caucus have said on the record.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, counter to his request, I am totally going to use my speaking notes. In fact, all 30 pages of them.

Here is the deal. We are in the House debating today because we have a voice. As opposition we have a voice. Our voice should be heard in this place on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast, because their voices need to be heard. When we allow the Liberals to shut down debate, they are actually silencing the voices of Canadians. They are not only silencing the voices of Canadians today, but they are actually showing disrespect for our past and what has been brought forward with regard to democracy, as well as for our future and where we are going, and the fact that we need to protect democracy.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the question of privilege currently before the House, at the next sitting a minister of the crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from Lethbridge was not here in the 41st Parliament. Regarding the language of dictatorship and association with the People's Republic of China with this government, and as much as I object to the current Liberal government deciding to put forward changes to the Standing Orders that are not achieved by consensus, I wonder if the hon. member is familiar with the following facts. Stephen Harper brought forward a Canada-China investment treaty that binds Canada until the year 2045. It was never allowed to go to the parliamentary committee on trade, was passed by Privy Council in a secret cabinet meeting, and allows state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic of China to bring multi-billion-dollar arbitration cases against Canada in secret.

I wonder if she might want to reconsider the position of someone in a glass house when there are abundant stones.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be like the Liberals to clap for something that is totally irrelevant to the discussion that is before us today.

That is really all I need to say. The question is irrelevant, so I am actually not going to answer it.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to interject here but I would like clarification on the notice that the government House leader presented. I believe she said that the debate would be not further adjourned. Is that correct?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Yes. It is clarified? Very good.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope you can shed light on this. I do not believe it is the option of a member of Parliament to pass judgment on the relevance of a question. It was directly relevant to points made by the member for Lethbridge. She raised the People's Republic of China. She called the current government a dictatorship. She claimed that the previous government under Stephen Harper was not one. I pointed out that the reality of the fact is somewhat to the contrary. She raised all those points. How does she rule on relevance?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid I will have to classify that as debate and not necessarily a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lethbridge brought up some important points during her speech on the need to be heard in the opposition. I notice that the executive branch has managed to shut down all of its backbench already, because all we have heard from today is the House leader. None of the backbenchers are actually standing up for their privilege and their right to be heard. That is an internal matter for the Liberal Party.

I want my colleague from Lethbridge to reaffirm, even though the backbenchers will not have anything to do with this debate and are willing to let their privileges be eroded, why it is important for us as opposition members.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to the hon. member for Lethbridge, I notice that there is some bantering back and forth on both sides. It is very friendly bantering, and I encourage people to cross the floor and talk to each other, but very quietly.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

It is two and a half sword lengths, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member's question is with regard to the backbenchers on the government side and the fact that very few of them have actually participated in this debate. It seems to be only the parliamentary secretary to the House leader who is responding to us. That actually concerns me, because I wonder why the Liberals do not have a voice in this. Why do they not stand in this place and participate in this discussion? It was just acknowledged that it is, in fact, an important discussion, that it is, in fact, an important question of privilege before us. We would think that all members would want to participate in that conversation, that they would want to speak on behalf of their constituents, and that they would want to accurately represent them in this place. After all, that is why we were elected to be in the House of Commons. It is to represent the common people of Canada.