Debates of May 30th, 2017

Extension of Sitting Hours

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to address the comments to the Chair, and I want to ask the official opposition to refrain from shouting out. They will have an opportunity to ask questions or make comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, between May 3 and May 10, there was a constituency week, or as the Conservatives call it, taking time off not to do any work, because apparently, on Fridays, if we are not in the House, not sitting in this seat right now, we are not working. A call to a constituency is not work. A call to a minister's office to get a problem fixed in our riding is not work. Meeting with stakeholders, that is not work. Unless we are sitting in our chair, we are not fulfilling the obligation of our salary. That is the position opposite, that if we take Friday off to travel to see our constituents, that is not work. If we meet constituents on a Friday, that is not work. Apparently, the members of the party opposite think that if we are not in Parliament, we are on holiday. That is their perception. I disagree with that fundamentally. I work seven days a week, as do most of my colleagues. It is one of the reasons we beat them so easily in the last election.

The issue that then came up was on May 10. They came back and immediately there was a movement to concur in another report. This was the third time in the last three weeks they have done this. It had nothing to do with the actual fundamentals of the report that was being referred back to a committee and agreed to in Parliament. What it was, effectively, was another vote. What do we do? We spend another 40 minutes debating whether a committee should do work. We know that committees are doing work. The only reason they are not doing work is that every time the bells ring, they have to stop.

Right after that, we had “that a member be now heard” for an additional 40 minutes. We had, right after that, the same member of Parliament moving adjournment, because I guess the member they wanted to have heard was not going to be heard, so they thought they would shut down all of the debate. Again, the debate was to not talk about things they do not want to talk about, so they adjourned the debate, because they did not want to talk about something.

The most categorically ridiculous strategy I have ever seen to complain about not being able to talk is to start moving motions of adjournment so nobody can talk, but that is the passive-aggressive behaviour of the opposite party.

We then had another five committees disrupted as a result of those bells ringing, and Canadians who travelled across this country—in my committee all the way from Iqaluit down to Ottawa to talk to us about poverty in the north—were sent back without ever being able to talk to the committee they were brought here for, because one of the Conservatives could not figure out if it was his turn next or her turn next. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

In the end, what we ended up with in this entire spot was 36 hours, six weeks of wasted time. We are moving forward with a motion tonight that will get us to the end of the legislative calendar on some critical legislation. I have no problem supporting closure, and we are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, the Liberals put forward what was affectionately referred as a discussion paper, which was not a discussion paper. It was a manifesto. It was the second time they had done this. It was to fundamentally change the rules of Canadian democracy through things like ensuring that the Prime Minister was only going to come to question period once a week, shutting down Parliament on Fridays, and permanently curtailing debate on certain bills.

The member opposite has put forward a great deal of frustration about his government's inability to move its legislative agenda forward. I am just going to be frank. Contrary to the member's belief, this place does not belong to him or the Liberal government. It belongs to the people of Canada. The people of Canada also voted for an opposition to oppose the government. For us to raise motions in the House of Commons in protest of these changes, as many Canadians want us to do, should not be an affront to his timetable. It is actually part of the function of Parliament.

The member talked about concurrence in the report this morning. Will the member vote in favour of concurring in the report from the electoral reform committee?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is the right of the opposition to oppose. No one is questioning that. No one is putting the opposition in a situation where that is not being facilitated.

I am just going to quickly address the list of misinformation that was presented. When the proposition was put forward for the Prime Minister to attend question period for one day, it was for him to take all the questions in one of the question periods one day a week. It did not excuse him from attending the other sessions.

On this deliberate misunderstanding of the proposition, I guess the opposition is entitled to mislead themselves. However, the reality is that what the Prime Minister said was that he would answer all the questions on one specific day so that backbenchers could ask the Prime Minister questions and not just party leaders.

On the issue of Fridays off, I have been explicitly clear about this. It is not about taking time off. The Conservatives may not do any work when they are not in the House. I do not know. That may be the way they view the schedule. However, I can assure the House that the goal here was to compress the time we sit in the House to get work done, to compress the time we have with our constituents to get our work done, and to try to find a better balance around that. That may mean some hours are chopped from one day and added to another day.

On the final issue of whether we could frame the work of committees to be more productive, yes, that is what we are trying to do. We would like to have that conversation.

Finally, on the issue of concurrence around electoral reform, I have been just as crystal clear with my constituents. We have priorities in this House on housing, the opioid crisis, transit, and infrastructure investments that now have a shortened time as a result of all the ridiculous hijinks. We have other priorities, and we are getting to those. I will be supporting our government's position on this.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is accusing us on the opposition side of not working hard, which is rich, given that the average number of new bills a new government brings to the House in its first year is 45, yet the Liberal government brought in 14. That is 14 in its first year of work.

Tonight we are debating the government's motion to extend hours to work until midnight, which we are all happy to do. However, the problem tonight is that the fact of the motion being on the floor has actually cancelled my ability to have a long-scheduled debate on the long-standing issue of abandoned vessels.

This is an environmental crisis on the west coast and on the east coast. We have had local governments calling, for over 15 years, for federal leadership. The government keeps saying that it is going to take that leadership, but it has been about 14 months now that they have been saying that the legislation is coming in the coming weeks. I have quotes from almost every minister on the file saying that they are working on it. I have asked the government to consider supporting my bill, Bill C-352, instead.

Does the member opposite not see the irony in the government's motion tonight, which is actually decreasing transparency?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure how a public motion decreases transparency.

On the issue the member raised, I would be happy to debate the issue of derelict vessels. I think it is a critical issue. If my comments reflected back to the NDP, I assure the member that they were directed straight at the Conservatives. The NDP have been a little more productive and co-operative and focused than the loyal opposition.

On this issue, if her house Leader would like to concur in the extension of the hours, I am sure we would not have to have this debate. The trouble is that there was one party that simply wanted to debate this and did not want to simply agree with us and move forward with a unanimous verbal vote.

On the issue of the amount of legislation, one of the criticisms I have of the NDP is that when the government moves without consulting, it says the government went too fast, and when the government moves with consulting, the NDP says it is not going quickly enough. I appreciate that its job is to just provide criticism to us at times, but the reality is that “no” is the easiest word in politics. They can say “no” to something because it is too fast or too slow. The reality is that it is the quality of the legislation that matters.

We are going to get the legislation on derelict vessels right, along with an ocean protection plan. We are engaged on those issues and will hopefully provide a suitable answer—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a serious question for the member. He knows, I think, that the government tried to make unilateral changes to the Standing Orders through the procedure and House affairs committee. Of greatest concern to us was the fact that they wanted to make time allocation on legislation automatic. The government would, through so-called programming, automatically allocate time in advance. We said that would be fundamentally injurious to a democratic institution. Yes, we used every single tool available to us to fight against the designs of the government, including dilatory motions, and we were right to do so. There was a groundswell of public support from Canadians, which was in part driven by the tactics we used in the House. Yes, there were dilatory motions, and we were right to use them, because that brought this issue to the fore.

We successfully forced the government to back down from its anti-democratic designs. We can be very proud, and the interim leader deserves a lot of credit for the incredible work she did and that all of us did on that issue. We saved the House from the direction the government wanted to go.

Now the member wants to list those dilatory motions. I am very proud of what we did there. Will the member acknowledge that the government was wrong to try to unilaterally ram through these changes? He knows that as soon as they backed down and agreed with the opposition position, all of those tactics stopped.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, we brought a discussion paper to a committee. We asked the committee to consider these ideas. We had no final decision or final goal enunciated, beyond the fact that these were the subject areas we wanted to talk about. If members and the public want to go back and read that letter, what they will see is sometimes contradictory ideas in the same letter, saying do this or do that and let us discuss which option might be better. The opportunity for the committee to put even a third option forward was there.

Parliament can sometimes, in its collective wisdom, find a way forward. What we talked about was how to get more efficient and effective debate on issues. How do we make sure the votes happen in a scheduled way so we do not interrupt committee work? How do we frame the work so that it is both fair and effective but also productive and efficient? That is the conversation we want to have. If they do not want to have that conversation, and they play their games afterward to pretend it is really about that instead of just about shutting down our legislative agenda, that is their prerogative. I can explain it differently to my constituents.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is time for a brief question. The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, anyone watching the debate at home would see that the parliamentary secretary laid out a very logical and truthful analogy of how this place has been running to date.

When I wake up in the morning, I think to myself, “What can I do today to help the Conservatives and the NDP?” I get seized with that question.

I just want to share with the new members that this does not play well back home. We had an opportunity to bring Bill C-4 forward in the House, but the NDP stood up and split the vote on whether the member should be now heard. We know that the CLC conference was going on in Toronto, and the NDP members were seen as being part and party to delaying Bill C-4 coming to the House. It is very important to organized labour, and they were taken to the woodshed.

I would like to ask the member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the member to respond to your comments. As I said, there was a brief time, and usually that means please ask the question and do not make a whole speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary, please.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pretty sure I can see where he was going. Sometimes the NDP surprises us and moves with us, as on the opioid crisis, and gives us consent. It is welcome. When we see that, Parliament is working. Other times, it obstructs for the sake of obstruction.

There is a saying in Toronto. It is Dippers, Tories, same old story. The opposition, based on ideology, is so automatic and predictable it is quite frankly funny to see how parallel their voting records are. They may be motivated by different goals, but the same--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time is up.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to some of the things that were said in the previous debate, but I did not get a chance to ask a question or make a comment, so I will just say this.

Many of the points mentioned by the parliamentary secretary are just ducky. The opposition does not need to submit anything to get permission from the government to oppose anything, or how we oppose it, or when we oppose it. We will likely get an opportunity to oppose this right into late evening if the motion passes.

I will also say that a breach of privilege is not a red herring. It is a matter that is taken up by the entire House. Every member who wants to rise should be allowed to rise. No member on this side of the House is ever stopped from speaking to a motion, such as Motion No. 14, and no member on this side is ever told what to say.

A concurrence report debate allows the opposition to highlight important issues of the day in the amount of time that is allocated for that type of debate.

The will of Parliament is tested at times by the opposition, by the government, by the third party, and even by individual members. We should never take it for granted that Parliament thinks one thing or another, including on Motion No. 14. Perhaps members of the government caucus will decide to dissent once more, saying they do not wish to sit late into the evenings. I have no problem working overtime. I have no problem working extra. I have no problem debating into the late evening, because I have done so already at the procedure and House affairs committee, participating in the debate. I know there were other members there with me. I remember spending the entire day, almost 10 straight hours of debate.

We have a responsibility to oppose legislation. It is clear why we are opposed to parts of Motion No. 14. We are not opposed to the entire motion. We do agree with the principles of it. We just want to see minor amendments.

I always worry whenever I hear the word modernization, because modernization in the context of what the government is proposing means ramming through any changes that it wishes at any time. I am worried about passing many parts of Motion No. 14. I am worried that we will not have an opportunity, if the government chooses to advance changes to the Standing Orders of the House, to oppose those changes in the future. One member mentioned programming. Other members mentioned other things that might happen.

Modernization does not include changing this place into a slot machine, where we simply drop in a law, pull the lever, and out pops a law at the other end in a fixed amount of time. That is not the point of this place. The point of this place is to debate, and I am happy to debate late into the evening. I have no problem whatsoever doing that.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George, who I am sure will have more amazing comments to make than I could ever make. He is one of the bright, new, shining members of the House, a great new rookie who has joined this side.

I really think that Motion No. 14 highlights the incompetence of the Government House Leader. Her complete inability to move legislation through shows a lack of planning and a lack of foresight. The government has barely passed any bills. These days are being extended to allow more time for members who wish to partake in a debate. I still feel that the government will likely squander this extra time.

As I said, I am happy to do overtime. I have done lots of overtime in the private sector, both working in human resources at the chamber of commerce and also as an exempt staffer working for ministers where overtime and working weekends was simply a given.

I am also happy to clean up the mess left by the government House leader in her legislative agenda, the one that the government has obviously failed to push forward. Now the government needs late sittings into June in order to clean up the mess that the House leader has gifted to the House. The House now has to respond and sit late into the evening.

I urge the government to take this time to get its legislation right the first time around. I urge it not to rush legislation through the House in late sittings just to send it to the Senate, where it will be amended and come back here once more. I urge the government to do it right the first time, listen to committees, and listen to the opposition.

Members of the Conservative Party and members of the New Democratic Party have proposed amendments that are worth consideration. The government should not send legislation to the Senate where it will be amended once more to point out errors that the government has made. Rushing legislation through now will only result in even more delays. The Senate might sit through the entire summer and bring back legislation in the fall. Where is the gain in that? Are we going to have late sittings into December as well? Will this become a normal practice of the House, simply squandering three months and then rushing things through in the final months before a session ends? That is what I am worried about.

The opposition members on this side of the House have been fixing errors, rewording poorly written sections of legislation, and we are making a stand on principle as well as drawing attention to evidence that contradicts the government's position, as is our right, as is our responsibility both to Her Majesty the Queen and to the Constitution of Canada.

For too long the government House leader has been trying to basically—now I will use a Yiddish proverb because I know many members know my great love for Yiddish proverbs: trying to outsmart everybody is the greatest folly. We saw previously at the procedure and House affairs committee attempts to outsmart everybody in this House by trying to push through changes to the Standing Orders. On a Friday is when the discussion paper was dropped. The motion notice to the committee was also on that Friday, and I am concerned that if we have these late sittings, will the government commit to not moving any changes to the Standing Orders in a late sitting? Can we agree then to have it in a fulsome regular session of the House in the fall? Can the Liberals schedule it six months ahead of time? Can they also agree to only pass it with unanimous consent of the House?

That is what we asked at committee. I remember being there till 3 a.m. one time asking exactly the same thing: a simple request to the government caucus members and to members of the executive, the cabinet members. Taking the summer to get it right and drafting legislation that opposition parties can support, that all of us can support, that the Senate will not amend, and that committees will not amend is a really reasonable thing to do. Take the time. We are not rushing the Liberals in any way. We have not been rushing them so far.

The parliamentary secretary who spoke before mentioned dilatory motions. They were the motions that slowed down the House. Adjourning debate in the House moves on to another piece of debate that the government controls. The government controls the entire agenda. It is up to the Liberals to decide what comes forward for debate. The opposition rarely gets an opportunity to do that.

That is why one of the things we would like is an opportunity to see opposition days go into the late evening as well. If we are extending the hours for government business, with which the government House leader desperately needs help, obviously, why not do the same for opposition days? Why not have the opportunity to have another four, five, or six hours of debate on an opposition day, or what is called a supply day? I am sure that, if we had an extra five hours, we could have perhaps debated the Canadian autism partnership to the point where we could have convinced members of the government caucus, those who are not in cabinet but are working so hard to join the cabinet, to perhaps vote for the autism initiative brought forward by the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. I think that would have been more than reasonable. We could have had a fulsome debate late into the evening. Sometimes they are quite productive. I learned quite a lot of things being on a committee that sat into the late evening. I learned lots about the views of Liberal members of the backbench, both on the main motion and about the Standing Orders and how the House worked or did not work.

The government has basically moved to cut off debate before it even got started. The Liberals cannot say or pretend that we are obstructing. Oftentimes I have heard them say—“them” being both members of the cabinet and the government caucus—that we are obstructing when we are simply debating. Members are simply rising in their seats to offer 10 minutes or 20 minutes of their thoughts, commentary, sometimes from constituents, sometimes their own based on experience, based on judgment, based on principle. I do not think it is obstruction to allow every member who wishes to rise an opportunity to speak.

An effective opposition can indeed slow down government business, but as I said, this is not a slot machine. At the end of the day, we cannot just drop in a law, pull the lever, as I mentioned before, and out comes a law and the government wins. That is simply not the way it works.

My concern is that the government will use the late sitting hours again, as I said, to ram through those changes to the Standing Orders. It does not help anyone. It will not help members of the opposition. It will not help members of the government backbench, the caucus members, so not members of the government. I know that is confused oftentimes. Our requests or demands on the opposition side are reasonable. Any changes to the Standing Orders must be unanimous. I really think that this motion is more about the government being half as productive as the previous Conservative government, and we know that the previous Conservative government was far more productive in the shorter amount of time it had.

It is a failure of leadership on behalf of the government House leader, and this is why we have been brought to this point today where we are debating Motion No. 14 and late sittings. I, on this side, speak for myself. I have no problems working overtime in sittings late into the evening, but I do want to see an opportunity for opposition days to be considered the same as government business.

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

First and foremost, Madam Speaker, I do not believe for a moment that Stephen Harper's first few years were anywhere near as productive as the first 18 months of this particular government.

The member talked about dilatory motions and said that the government has control and it can actually say what is going to be coming next. It is important that the Conservatives in opposition have moved that the House do now be adjourned, as an example. That means that if the Conservatives get what they propose, the House comes to an end; there is no more continuation for that day. We sit the following day, so we do lose time. We never see the opposition moving that on an opposition day, but only on government days. The opposition members use dilatory motions to prevent government legislation from passing. Would the member not at least acknowledge the fact that when they move that the House adjourn for the day, the House business comes to an end?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have heard from that member quite often in this House, and he makes a contribution to his caucus, most definitely. What I will say is this. The opposition—Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, official opposition, and the New Democrats and the Bloc and the single member of the Green Party—does not need to get the permission of the government for us to oppose and for how we choose to oppose. At the time that the Liberals were trying to rush changes to the Standing Orders of the House through the committee, and in the manner and the way they did it and their complete, sheer, reckless unwillingness to compromise, they deserved the response they got from the opposition. We will defend this Parliament. We will defend the rights of every single member to oppose in the way that he or she chooses to.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member for Calgary Shepard mentioned the Senate in his speech, because I believe that one of the main motivations for sitting until midnight is to give the government enough time to clean up the mess that its new model Senate has created. By appointing supposedly independent senators, the government has emboldened the other place not only to review legislation passed by the House for things that might have been missed but to actually disagree with policy decisions made by elected MPs in this chamber.

I would be very curious to hear from the member for Calgary Shepard what he thinks about the Liberal government's approach to Senate reform and its spending of $1 million per year on a committee to appoint supposedly independent senators.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it will probably come as no surprise to that member that I support an elected Senate. I always have and I always will. I will also say there are many elected senators, great Conservative senators who were elected from the province of Alberta, and I hope that would be adopted throughout all of Canada. In terms of this model Senate—that is great terminology from the member, a model Senate—at this point the changes they are trying to ram through to how the official opposition can do its work there is reckless to the extreme. It will not do justice to Parliament, and it will not do justice to Canadians when the business of the House has ground to a halt because the Senate is busy fixing the errors of the Government of Canada.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech because it highlights what we are hearing on the ground. I know in Oshawa, we are hearing about the laziness of the current government, the incompetence, how basically nothing is getting done, and when the Liberals do want to get something done they are just pushing it through. They do not want debate. The Prime Minister does not want to show up. The Liberals do not want to show up.

The Prime Minister actually said he admires the basic dictatorship of China. Would the member please kind of put that into perspective and let us understand what that means today with the government trying to force these things through?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Calgary Shepard, give a brief answer in 40 seconds.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the 40 seconds that you have given me to answer. I could use 40 minutes, probably, to answer this one. In brief, we saw it with Motion No. 6. We saw it with the behaviour of the Prime Minister in the House in the previous breach of privilege. I think it was called the molestation of the member, to use the really complicated parliamentary term for it. We saw the behaviour in the House, how they treat the House, and how they treat parliamentarians. It is the treatment that members of the cabinet give to the House and members of the government caucus give to the House. It comes also with a lot of them being new to this place, and it is a process of learning. Over time, I would hope that the Liberals would pick up the respect that this Parliament deserves.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague pre-empted my speech by talking about how riveting he thinks this one is going to be. I will offer this: I am not as articulate as my hon. colleague and I will keep this simple. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are watching this, and sometimes in Ottawa we get carried away with language that perhaps Canadians may not understand. Let us keep it plain and simple.

Yesterday I congratulated the member for Spadina—Fort York for his maiden speech and I will now congratulate him on his second speech in this session. It was interesting. He waxed on about all of the dates, the dilatory motions, and how the opposition is wasting time.

I want to remind him of something, through you, Madam Speaker. If I step out of line, I am sure you will keep me in order, because it has been a while since I have stood in the House, unlike my hon. colleague the hon. parliamentary secretary, who seems to be the only who stands and actually speaks. There are 184 members of Parliament across the way, and he seems to be the only one, time and time again, although the member for Spadina—Fort York stood today, for the second time this session. That is great, and I applaud him for that.

He talked about all of the dilatory motions and the opposition dragging its feet. That brings me back to my days in school and Newton's third law: that for every action, there is a reaction. That was exactly what the government saw on March 10 when the government House leader tabled this discussion paper about new ways to modernize Parliament.

She felt that this discussion paper was going to revolutionize Parliament and released it to the media. It was not a discussion paper with parliamentarians. She thought that by releasing it to the media, she would get a favourable response. In fact, she saw quite the opposite. The media's response was quite negative. A couple of comments were that Liberals will always do what Liberals do and that they showed one thing, which was that they cannot be trusted.

When they stand in the House, they have it almost to an art. Perhaps that is because the Prime Minister is a former grammar teacher. Maybe he has coached them about talking with sincerity. When they stand in the House, they say this is for the best interests of Canadians. They say they want to debate the things that matter most. They say the opposition is dragging its feet and really making things hard.

That is our job. Our job is to stand up for Canadians and those who put us in the House. I remind people that this House does not belong to the Prime Minister or to the government; it belongs to all Canadians, the electors, those who put us in the House. I will get to that a bit later.

On March 10, the discussion paper was tabled, if we can call it a discussion paper, and I want to talk about that quickly. I have been a member of Parliament for about 19 months now, and far be it from me to be bold enough to put forward a discussion paper about how I suggest we modernize Parliament. I believe the House leader is a newly elected member of Parliament as well, a rookie MP, as am I. She said it was her discussion paper. This is what she has seen throughout the course of her being a member of Parliament and sitting through the debate. She feels there are things we could do better.

There are always things we could do better, but I can say that I would never be so bold as to put forward a document such as that, a document that would fundamentally change the way democracy and this House operate, without all-party or unanimous support.

I believe her comments were that they were elected on a campaign promise of making Parliament more effective, and she would not bow down to the Conservatives or give the Conservatives a veto. Essentially, what she is saying is that those who elected the Conservatives and those who elected the opposition do not really have a say and really do not matter, but those are the electors that the House belongs to.

The dilatory motions that took place from March 10 to just a short while ago at all committees, and some of the actions that took place in the House, occurred because we were standing up for Canadians. We were defending democracy. We were making sure that opposition voices and the voices of those who elected us were not muzzled.

All we are asking for is an amendment to Motion No. 14. We agree. We agree to work longer hours. Bring it. I said it earlier this week. I am okay working until midnight. I work until midnight anyway. I will be in my office anyway. That is what Canadians expect us to do.

One of the things we are asking for with this amendment, and the opposition was unanimous in this request, is opposition supply days. There are very few times we get an opportunity to debate matters that are not on the government's agenda. I brought this up earlier. Whether it is softwood lumber or pipeline approval or the plight of the Yazidi women, these are examples of opposition supply day motions that we have debated or would be able to debate. All we are asking for with Motion No. 14 is that the government, in a most sincere way, see its way to allowing opposition supply days to be extended as well.

We are not saying we do not want to work longer; what we are asking for is the same opportunity, the same value weighting, on the government's legislative agenda so that the opposition supply days are weighted the same and we have the opportunity to bring forth the voices of our electors.

It is not just the voices of the opposition during supply day motions. We see backbench MPs from the government speak and voice their views and their opinions and their constituents' opinions on things that matter most for everyday Canadians.

The Liberals like to say that we are again dragging our feet and delaying progress on their legislative duty. They say that the government is trying everything to work hard for Canadians, that it is just the opposition that is dragging its heels and causing all the grief. Well, I offer this: for 19 months now, the government has done nothing. We have seen one side do nothing but point fingers and blame others and never take credit for the mismanagement of its legislative process or its budget or the softwood lumber file. It has blamed others. It is not going to accept any blame.

It is disappointing. I came here as a new member of Parliament who was willing to work collaboratively and try to build relationships. Indeed, we have done that on certain issues, but I am also a small business owner and I believe there is a time when one has to take charge and lead. How does one lead and build trust? It is by being honest, taking responsibility, and admitting it when one is wrong.

I have not even brought up May 17 of last year, when Motion No. 6 was brought forth, because I wanted to keep it relevant here, but if the government wants to know why trust has been broken and why we have been doing the dilatory motions and the opposition has been standing forth, it is because the government has broken trust and faith with Canadians and those who elected all of us in opposition in the House.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I have now heard a member of the Conservative Party stand to say that they agree with extra sitting hours and earlier I heard a member of the New Democratic Party stand to say the same thing. They agree with the additional hours we are adding to the June calendar and the additional days that we have proposed.

I guess I am kind of curious. If both sides agree, why, when it came forward for a vote, did we not just say yes and get on with the business of the House? Instead what we get is a debate in which everyone agrees with the outcome, but the opposition would rather debate who is working and when and why we are working than actually resolve the issue.

On the issue that the member raised about the number of supply days for the opposition, at the start of the session we asked how many they wanted, they said how many they wanted, and we gave them to them. Now they want more. I am not sure why. Maybe what we should do is give them one, move an adjournment motion, and pay them back.