Debates of June 4th, 2024

Report Stage

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak tonight to Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission.

As we have heard, the bill seeks to establish a stand-alone statute to create the public complaints and review commission, the PCRC, to serve as a robust independent review body for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency. It proposes to build on the expertise of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, which currently serves as the complaints and review body for the RCMP. This work would continue under the PCRC. It would increase transparency and accountability on the review body's mandate, which will also be extended to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Bill C-20 responds to a long-standing gap in the public safety civilian review framework by ensuring an external review process for the CBSA, as there is currently no mechanism to request an independent review of public complaints against the agency.

We have before us a much-improved bill that raises the bar of the quality of law enforcement review in Canada. This is due in no small part to the quality of the interventions by members and witnesses at committee.

During its study of Bill C-20, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard from various stakeholders, including indigenous leaders, union representatives, academics, and civil rights and society organizations. I am pleased to note that all were generally supportive of this initiative. I therefore take this opportunity to thank the members of SECU, witnesses and stakeholders, who all contributed to advancing this important legislation.

In particular, I would like to thank Heather Campbell, a commissioner with the Calgary Police Commission, who spoke to the need for improved data collection and analysis in policing. Data is key to identifying and developing responses to systemic issues in Canadian law enforcement.

I also wish to highlight the testimony of members of the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration. Their testimony highlighted the need to ensure that third parties can submit complaints to the PCRC and to guarantee that information shared with complainants is also shared with legal representatives.

Aided by these testimonies, the committee made several amendments that improved Bill C-20, strengthening the complaints and review process through increased accountability and transparency, as well as providing further clarity to make it more accessible to all.

I would now like to highlight some of the most impactful changes made to the proposed legislation by the committee.

To build further trust in federal law enforcement, it is imperative that complainants be able to recognize themselves and their communities in the PCRC, including among members of the commission. Thus, it bears repeating that one of the committee's main contributions is the inclusion of a clause that would require the Minister of Public Safety to take into account the diversity of Canadian society when he or she recommends to the Governor in Council the appointment of a PCRC member.

The committee also made amendments to increase transparency around the complaints and review process by requiring the PCRC to incorporate additional elements in its annual report, such as demographic data on complainants. This amendment will be key to supporting our efforts to identify and respond to issues of systemic racism within law enforcement, as well as boosting public confidence in our institution.

A third amendment that received strong support from all committee members is one that would provide the PCRC with the autonomy to best determine how it should fulfill its complaints and review mandates. More specifically, this amendment removed a PCRC obligation to consider whether it has sufficient resources to conduct a specified activity review, also known as a systemic investigation.

I will quickly remind my hon. colleagues of what the two main activities of the PCRC would be. Members of the public, be they Canadians or not, would be able to make a complaint against an employee of the RCMP or the CBSA regarding their conduct or level of service. Should a complainant not be satisfied with the RCMP's or the CBSA's investigation at first instance, they would have the right to request that the PCRC examine the organization's findings regarding their complaint.

In addition to the review of complaints, the commission would also conduct systemic investigations of non-national security RCMP and CBSA activities to ensure that those activities are in line with legislation, policies, guidelines and procedures.

These specified activity reviews are essential. They would allow the PCRC to identify and investigate systemic issues that exist within these organizations, such as use of force and harassment, and to develop recommendations for the RCMP and the CBSA. These recommendations would also support the development of solutions to systemic matters and could contribute to cultural changes within our law enforcement.

These amendments would give the PCRC increased flexibility to identify and develop recommendations around broader, more systemic issues within the RCMP and the CBSA. Giving the PCRC more autonomy on how to fulfill its mandate also aligns with other review bodies, such as the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA.

A fourth amendment made by SECU, or the committee, would improve co-operation between the PCRC and review bodies such as NSIRA. Indeed, the committee voted in favour of government-introduced amendments that would allow the Minister of Public Safety to create regulations around the sharing of information, referral of complaints and joint proceedings between federal entities. These regulations could be made to improve work between review bodies and to ensure no complaint is misplaced.

The committee also adopted amendments that would leave no ambiguity about who can make a complaint, as well as ensuring that the process remains accessible to both members of the public and stakeholders. More specifically, Bill C-20 now clarifies that third parties can submit complaints and request that the PCRC initiate a specified activity review.

I know that hon. members on the other side want to hear about this. The committee made an amendment to clarify that the information related to the handling of complaints can also be shared with the legal representatives of complainants.

Again, I commend the important improvements made by the hon. members of the committee. They have listened to concerns from stakeholders and have contributed to improving on what is already a robust transparency and accountability mechanism.

Let us not forget why the bill is so crucial. The CBSA is the only agency under the public safety portfolio that is not subject to an external, independent complaints and review mechanism. The legislation fulfills our government's commitment to establish an independent review body for the CBSA; it would respond to important transparency and accountability gaps and increase public confidence in the RCMP and the CBSA.

Furthermore, this initiative also responds to several recommendations, notably those made in the Mass Casualty Commission's report and SECU's report on systemic racism in policing.

In my belief, not only would the bill have a positive impact on public interactions with our law enforcement agencies, including at the border, but it is also essential to public trust and the rule of law.

I note that my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House have demonstrated their support for the legislation. I therefore urge them to vote with me in favour of this important bill.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and I served several years together on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and it is nice to be in the House debating with him. I appreciate his comments, especially around the makeup of the PCRC, and I tease him about all the acronyms used. I am wondering if he could explain the PCRC. He talked about appointments representing our wide diversity in Canada, but how would it be looked at from a geographic perspective? CBSA issues and RCMP issues in Alberta are very different than in downtown Toronto and across the country. How is the bill set up so the PCRC would properly be representing those differences?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight because we are debating an amendment from the Conservative Party on the title of a bill. That is why we are here tonight. We are not here to debate the content of the bill. We are seriously here to debate the title of a bill.

I am going to ask my hon. colleague whether he thinks it is valuable time to debate the title of a bill and whether the Conservative Party thought it was a really good idea to debate the title of the bill tonight.

I will answer his question. Diversity is diversified across the country. Obviously, the government would take into account the diversity of British Columbia, Alberta and all provinces across the country. Again, I would ask my hon. colleague why we are debating the title of a bill tonight.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague who gave the speech was supposed to respond to a question but asked a question instead. I will challenge him on that, because the real nature of asking a question is to get a response and an answer to the question asked.

I will push back on his question about regional representation, because his government has been sorely lacking in getting input from the provinces in this country in all the legislation it has put forth thus far. It is an autocratic system that it is pushing upon the provinces.

We have a Constitution, where we have a federation of powers between the provinces and the federal government. The government continues to ignore that federal arrangement and act in its own interest all the time. I challenge the member on whether he is actually serious about his words when he says the government is going to get input from the regions of the country.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are at report stage in the House. If those arguments were brought at committee, they would have been taken seriously, but obviously it is just about delaying time in the House. I get it. The opposition wants to delay time from the budget implementation act. The Conservatives do not want to talk about pharmacare. They do not want to talk about the importance of the budget, which would impact millennials, my generation and the next generation. Of course, it is just about wasting time in the House. Again, the biggest thing they chose to argue about was the title of the bill. How silly is that?

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

Madam Speaker, obviously we are here to debate the substance of the bill, although I will say that we see so much entitlement from the Liberal government, entitlement to something we certainly see as being in the public interest to discuss.

Behind this bill also, as my colleagues have talked about, is the reality that we see increasing crime in this country, and this informs the context of this bill and of the provisions that would be put in place around complaints and the adjudication of those complaints.

I wonder if the member will acknowledge how, following the change in government in 2015, the trajectory of violent crime in this country changed dramatically and how violent crime was dropping when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister and violent crime has gone up dramatically. So much of it is because the same criminals are committing crimes over and over again, and under the Liberals it is bail, not jail. Conservatives would bring in jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders.

I wonder if, after nine years of failure, the member is prepared to acknowledge that his government's decisions have had a negative impact on public safety in this country.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really respect my hon. colleague on the other side, but again, Conservatives, and Conservatives only, chose to debate the title of a bill, which is “Public Complaints and Review Commission Act”, which they want to strike from debate. They had the opportunity to bring this at committee, and they did not. They had the opportunity to bring this at second reading in the House before this, and they did not. Now, suddenly, they are waking up and want to debate this particular title—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, right out of the starting blocks, I will say that I will be supporting the bill, as my Conservative colleagues will be.

There may be those who think it is our duty as an official opposition to oppose all legislation put forward by the costly Liberal-NDP coalition, that it is our duty to vote against it. We do that with the majority of their bills. After nine years of the Prime Minister, crime, chaos, drugs and disorder reign in so many of our streets and communities. The coalition government has dragged our country down: The cost of living has soared, housing costs have doubled and Canadians are struggling. An election cannot come soon enough. The longer the NDP and the Liberals are in power, the worse off Canadians will become.

There is a good reason why we vote against most of the Liberal government's bills, and that is for the good of Canadians. However, this bill, to establish a public complaints and review commission, is not one of them. It is not perfect, but it is a good bill that has the support of the parties in the House. That begs the question: Why has it taken so long for the bill to get through the legislative process and become law?

[An hon. member]

Oh, I know.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about that. I know that members on the other side of the House are eager to jump into this right now, but the fact of the matter is that the Liberals promised it. They promised to introduce a more effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies in, drum roll, 2015. That is right. Nine years ago, they were hot to trot and decided to introduce Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. However, when did they introduce it? It was not 2015, not 2016, not 2017 and not 2018. It was 2019, in May. What was May 2019 about? That was the end of their first mandate. They decided in May 2019 to introduce it and an election was called. They had to have an election. Then what happened? That legislation fell through.

They obviously were not very serious about this law, as it fell through in 2019. Then they decided they were going to bring it up again in January 2020, a few months later. They went through some of the processes, and actually, the Conservatives voted for the bill all the way through. However, the Liberals did not give themselves enough time, and even more than that, they decided to take the opportunity to have a COVID election, something they said they were not going to do but did. Then guess what happened to this bill. It tanked. It died.

Here we are again, and it is at the very end of the session. It is not May, though. It is June, and the Liberals have decided to bring it forward again, rushing it through because of their disorganization and ramming it through with time allocation. We are approaching the pumpkin hour debating Bill C-20, and my question is, are they even serious about having this bill pass? One must wonder. Maybe it is a good bill, and they are not used to having a good bill. The fact of the matter is that we want it passed. However, we do believe in debating it. We do believe in speaking to it. I think that is important.

The bill before us deals with specific complaints made by the public about the RCMP or the Canada Border Services Agency. It is about how these complaints would be investigated. Currently, the CBSA and the RCMP investigate most of the complaints filed. While both of these agencies, the RCMP and CBSA, are very professional, there is, nonetheless, concern about police investigating police. There is a risk of bias or perceived bias, which can undermine public trust, and an internal investigation process may lack transparency and public accountability, leading to doubts about fairness.

Before I go any further, I want to express my deep appreciation for the work and service of RCMP officers, police overall, and our Canadian border services personnel for the public security and safety they provide. They place their lives on the line, day in and day out. I think of Constable Rick O'Brien, who was a constable in my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. He was at a drug bust when he was shot at through the door from the other side and killed. His widow is Nicole, and he had six children. He was a real example of a person who just gave his all in community engagement, especially with youth. He became an officer later in his life, probably in his forties, but it was his dream. However, he laid down his life.

Bill C-20 is not an anti-police or anti-border agency bill, but I just want to say that, as Conservatives, we support our protective services, and they know that. As a matter of fact, I can think of maybe one person who is a police officer who has said that she may not vote for me. I mean, there may be a police officer who is not voting for Conservatives, but they see that we stand for order, safety, security and sanity, as opposed to the disorder, insanity and chaos of the other side. We are living in a dangerous society, and our CBSA also faces risks. To them all, I say thank you.

Public complaints do occur, justified or unjustified, and it is important that the complaints be dealt with expeditiously with as little red tape as possible. However, the Liberals and the NDP are red tape proponents, and it just causes delays and increased expenses. Even though they have added 100,000 new bureaucrats, things have gotten a lot worse. We believe in being expeditious. We support an amendment for the PCRC, which would be the public complaints review commission, to direct the RCMP to conduct informal resolutions. It would just be informal.

According to the National Police Federation, most complaints can be resolved with a phone call, and they can conduct information resolutions to address long delays of complaints. It is important that we get things moving. We do believe that there needs to be timelines, that it cannot just go on and on. Things must move along so that justice and people's concerns are addressed. We also believe that timelines begin at the top, and it really falls on the Liberal government, with its cabinet ministers who do not take control of the bureaucracy, and that just goes right down. We believe in having more efficiency, which is important for the taxpayers.

Conservatives also support the unions that represent workers during the hearings. We believe in fair processes that support union agreements, and an automatic back pay process for unfounded complaints because, when someone, such as agents, security personnel or police, is being investigated, it can be without pay. It is important that, if the complaint is unfounded, they would automatically receive their back pay.

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

Madam Speaker, one has to admit it is truly amazing when we get Conservative after Conservative standing up, saying they support the legislation and want to pass the legislation, but then go out of their way to actually prevent the legislation from passing.

The only reason the bill is going to pass is that we were able to finally get it time allocated. If we did not get it time allocated, the Conservatives would continue debating it endlessly. There are only a limited number of days that the House actually sits. We have to get 70-plus pieces of legislation across. They should do the basic math. All the Conservatives want to do, even if they support legislation, is cause it to fail and prevent it from passing. Thank goodness we have a tool called time allocation. Otherwise, no matter who is in government, they cannot get legislation passed with the Reform Party across the way.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is having a memory lapse. I went through the process about how the Liberals let it all flounder. This is nine years down the road. I know right now the Liberals are doing lots of other promises, nine years down the road, saying that they are going to do this, they are going to do that. Well, it is nine years right now. When we go to an election, it is not going to be based upon their promises, which do not get accomplished, but upon what they actually do.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and I appreciated my colleague's intervention. We really got to see his teaching background come through there. It was as though he were giving a pop quiz that the Conservatives knew the answers to, but the Liberals had somehow not done their homework when it came to their past attempts at filibustering and changing the names of short titles and things like that, which I know will be brought up later tonight.

If the member could deliver one message, one line, to the Liberals based on their inability to get things done when they say they are going to get done, budgets will balance themselves and modest deficits, what would that line be, based on his experience with this bill?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not need a line; I need a word. It is called “misery”. What Canadians are feeling right now is misery. The standard of living is going down, nothing is getting done, nothing is getting built and it is just time for a change.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have heard this ridiculous conversation around bringing forward amendments to change the short title of a piece of legislation. Would the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge have any other examples of perhaps other parties putting forward amendments that would change the short title? This is not a very uncommon thing. Perhaps, even the government itself, the NDP-Liberal government, has done it also.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an amazing question because I do have the answers. Let us give a few little examples. Let me see. The Liberals did it as well. For example, in the notice paper on November 26, 2018, a notice of a motion deleting the short title for Bill C-87 happened. That was interesting.

Again, on March 6 of the year before, the parliamentary secretary put a motion to delete the short title of Bill C-22. Yes, that was two, but we have to give three, right?

The third is on June 6, 2018. We need to mix things up a little bit. The NDP member for Victoria seconded an amendment by the BQ member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert to delete the short title of Bill C-218.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, there is some housekeeping. Of course, it is 11:05 p.m. on June 4, and we are here in the House debating a bill, but first of all, June 4 is a very important date in my household. June 4 is my anniversary with my wife of our marriage 13 years ago. Members who have met my wife know that I am a pretty lucky man, and I thank her for all the years and all the joy she has added to my life. My life is full because of her.

Let me get to the matter at hand here. My constituents will know that we start work the same time as they do, 8 a.m., here in Ottawa. Here we are at 11 p.m., and that is because of mismanagement of the government's agenda. There is a lot on the agenda here, but the things we were talking about last week and the week before are all a matter of not being able to manage the time in this House, and that is on the government's side.

However, tonight we are here debating Bill C-20, which is an act establishing the public complaints and review commission. It is an act that would actually take what was previously the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and update it. It has been debated in the House by the government a number of times, in three different Parliaments, starting as a promise in 2015, and then it expired. Then, of course, it came back, and it came back again. It is back in front of this Parliament this time, and I will have people note that the first time the bill was read in this Parliament for first reading, as we call it, was on May 19, 2022. Over two years ago, the bill was brought before the House of Commons.

Then, of course, the process in the House of Commons is that we go to a second reading. The second reading, in this government's allocation of its timeline, happened on November 25, 2022, so about six months later, the House got it through to a second reading, which is where we debate in the House of Commons, much like we are doing here tonight, although we usually do it before supper.

Then, of course, it goes to committee. It gets consideration in committee, and that took, for some reason, a full year. People need to know that when a bill goes to committee, it has precedence over everything else that is happening in the committee, over all the reports and everything else, and legislation jumps to the front of that. It is not like it is waiting behind a whole bunch of things to get done. The minute it goes to committee, it gets considered, but for some reason, the government did not want to put it there and get it passed until November 2023, a full year after second reading in the House of Commons. That is too long. Again, it is mismanagement, not on the opposition side, but on the government side.

The government does not know how to get its legislation through the House, and it was not always this way. Governments used to get things done in this place. They did not have to sit until midnight to go through an agenda to get things done. They actually got things done in the allocated time, and that took some co-operation with the other parties in the House of Commons. I wish the current government could learn co-operation and could learn how to actually make bills better in committee and on the floor of the House of Commons. However, it is acting repeatedly in an autocratic sense, and as a result, here we are. Here we are at almost midnight, 11:09, as I see right now on the clock.

We are debating Bill C-20, and it is not a bad bill, but it is a bill that we need to take a good look at because it would impact so much. It is about public trust, at the end of the day, to reinforce the government's intent to build that public trust in oversight of law enforcement for accountability and responsibility.

I am not sure I am allowed to do this, so I hope the Speaker pays attention to what I am saying. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the then minister of public safety. That former minister is no longer in cabinet for some good reasons. That former minister used to mislead this Parliament on a daily basis. He would come up in question period, and for every response to any question he gave, he would say the talking lines, even if they were so remote from reality that they stunk, quite frankly. I remember a journalist in the paper actually said that this man knows how to “fluff their putts” like nobody else. Yes, the remoteness from the truth was something that was very off his agenda at that point in time.

This is a bill about trust. That is pertinent because the people introducing bills have to be people Canadians can trust. To actually have trust in the House of Commons, we have to make sure people are always representing themselves as honest people. That is what we need. It is about honourability in the House of Commons. We have seen the results of that.

The bill is about an imbalance of power, if we think about it. If somebody is going to make a complaint in front of a public review committee and it is the police that they are complaining about, or the Border Services Agency, to go to the committee and tell it that they have a complaint about somebody in the organization creates a bit of a problem, particularly, if I can talk about it, with new Canadians. In Canada, we have a robust system of justice, a robust system of reporting and a robust parliamentary democracy, which is being mismanaged right now, but it is still a tradition of democracy.

Many Canadians come here from other regimes where they do not have that. The trust in the police is not there. New Canadians represent a substantial percentage of Canadians. They do not necessarily have trust in the institutions in their prior countries. The imbalance of power they sense would be much more than that of a complainant who was born and raised here and who has experienced their own interactions with police. There is that extra consideration we need to give in the bill to make sure that we are not looking at something and visiting it unfairly.

I would like to talk to the government, of course, about bias and conflict of interest, because the bill is all about conflict of interest and setting up a new body to make sure that other bodies are not looking after their own business at the end of the day. Setting up a separate civilian body to look after the police has been a long time coming. Roping in the Canada Border Services Agency is also something that needs to be done. It would elevate the organization as well. However, conflicts of interest are about the confidence, credibility and objectivity of the complaint process that would have to be undertaken.

Let me talk about something here, because I remembered that the former governor general was the special rapporteur on foreign interference in Canadian elections. I looked at it. I had great respect for the former governor general when he was the governor general. It is almost as if I wanted to scream across the airwaves to him that he was in a conflict of interest, with respect to what he would be reporting to on foreign elections interference. Not knowing one has a conflict of interest, even though one has an interest, is the definition of conflict of interest.

We have to understand that being involved in something means one has a perspective that does not make them objective. That is what the nature of the legislation before us actually would do; it would move the reporting relationship one step further than the people who might have been directly involved, one step away from what was involved in the complaint that happened in the first place. That is a necessity. That is the imperative that has to happen here. From what I have seen from the members on the other side, they have to get back to the basics of understanding what the whole nature of a conflict of interest is about.

I tuned in for a while to the Auditor General this morning. I can tell the House that she spoke repeatedly about conflict of interest, particularly with respect to the SDTC and how many of its directors appointed by the current government have put themselves in a position of conflict of interest. Clearly there is a misunderstanding among the government, and its friends, about how it has to report its interests, its financial interest in that case. However, interests are interests. We have to make sure that they are balanced appropriately and that everybody has the opportunity for objectivity.

There is a quantity that we are looking at. I appreciate that the minister has put forward what the bill would cost Canadians. It is about $120 million over the first six years, and then about $20 million per year after that, so even now, $20 million to set up an organization of arm's-length people to make sure that there would be a complaints process. Canadians need to know that, but I am hoping the government in this case can actually stick to a number, because it has not stuck to a budget yet that it has put forward on the floor of the House of Commons. That too is a matter of accountability that it has delivered nothing on at this point in time.

One thing I want to say before I close is that some input came in through committee from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I will shorten the quote, knowing I am out of time. It states:

Unfortunately, Bill C-20 ignores these types of recommendations as well as the criticisms of the RCMP’s existing inadequate complaints investigation structure. Instead of putting in place truly independent, civilian investigation of police and security agency misconduct, it retains the limited powers in the current police complaints system and extends the CRCC’s flawed oversight model to the CBSA.

I wish—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will have to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, I was actually here during the four-year majority government of Stephen Harper. During that period of time, in standing committees, I cannot recall Stephen Harper's Conservative Party ever supporting an opposition amendment. I could be wrong on that. The Conservatives might have accepted one or two amendments, but I cannot recall any. We can contrast that to this government.

When we think of the number of times the Conservatives brought in time allocation, it must have been 125 times. Do we want to talk about a majority government and dominant rule? Do we want to do a comparison with the Liberals and the four years of a minority situation in terms of how much legislation we have been able to get through and how much legislation we have been able to build consensus on? Our legislative agenda and our performance far surpass whatever Stephen Harper did. I can assure members of that.

I can sense a little remorse on that side. The Conservatives are feeling a little guilty because of the stupid amendment they brought forward.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I retract the word “stupid”, so the members can calm down.

Having said that, surely the Conservatives realize that this is something that could have passed. They support the legislation. Why the ongoing filibuster?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know it is getting late and I know the member seems a little cranky at this hour. It has gotten a little testy, but I will challenge him on the veracity of everything he is saying here.

When we come to Parliament, and I am not as long in the tooth in Parliament as he is, Canadians expect us to be able to work together and actually make legislation together. After everything I have seen, at every one of the committees I have been at, when the government says it is going to do something, it will just go through the process, get done what it wants, and forget about what everyone else is saying because it does not matter.

Co-operation needs to happen here, and the government does not put enough effort into that co-operation.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the use of the word “co-operation”. We heard it from the member for Calgary Centre—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member does not have a tie; the hon. member cannot speak.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.