Erin Weir

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little strange to have Conservatives rise in the House and bemoan the state of grain transportation while praising the record of the Harper government, because of course it was the Harper government that dismantled the system of orderly marketing that we used to have for grain in western Canada. The member for Brandon—Souris quite rightly described the railways as a duopoly. The Canadian Wheat Board used to give farmers a fair bit of negotiating power in dealing with the railroads.

I am doubtful the member for Brandon—Souris would agree with me that we should reinstate a system of orderly marketing, but I wonder if he would agree, for the sake of transparency and openness, that the government should conduct an audit on the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board so that Canadian taxpayers have some accounting of what happened to all of the assets in that organization.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on that last question about the latest job numbers. I was struck by the fact that Statistics Canada's website was down almost that whole day. That was not an isolated incident. The former chief statistician, Wayne Smith, resigned in protest of the lack of IT support Statistics Canada was getting from Shared Services.

Does the member for Durham have any comments on the state of Statistics Canada and whether the Liberal government is providing enough support to this agency so that we, as parliamentarians and Canadians, have the data to properly evaluate what is happening in our country's economy?

[Leader of the Conservative Party, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a constituent who was recently elected to lead a national organization.

This young Regina—Lewvan resident has impressed many with his civic engagement and sunny disposition. I cannot name this constituent because he is also a member of the House. I am of course congratulating the new Conservative leader.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is a student of the Westminster system, and must be almost as excited as me about the newly elected British Parliament.

Let me be the first to congratulate Jeremy Corbyn in the Canadian Parliament. The British Labour Party made significant gains campaigning on a bold, progressive platform. Our sister party's success is an inspiration to the NDP as we choose a new leader to build Canada for the many, not the few.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Beauport—Limoilou is the Conservative critic for Public Services and Procurement Canada. He was previously the Conservative critic for veterans affairs. The government has recently announced major new expenditures related to both of those areas that were not in the federal budget. In the past couple of weeks, we saw another $140 million to try to fix the Phoenix pay system, which is fast becoming a billion-dollar boondoggle. We also saw billions of additional dollars for national defence, possibly in response to pressure from President Trump.

Could my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou comment on the fact that these expenditures were not in the budget, and what implications that has for the credibility of the legislation that we are debating today?

[Cannabis Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the examples that he gave regarding the United States and for the many arguments he presented regarding the Liberal government's bill.

I would like to ask my colleague whether he can better explain the Conservative's position on this issue. Are the Conservatives satisfied with the existing system? Marijuana is available everywhere in Canada, but Canadians can face criminal charges for using it.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key questions in this debate is whether extending sitting hours until midnight is the best way to facilitate a focused and attentive discussion on legislation before the House. I wonder if my colleague across the way is concerned that it might instead result in members becoming fatigued and reading the wrong speech by mistake.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 30th, 2017]

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.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton West is quite correct to point out the incoherence between the government sitting on these Senate amendments for 11 months and then applying time allocation to this bill responding to those amendments.

I appreciate that the member for Edmonton West was not part of the previous Conservative government. The position that the Conservatives put forward in this debate is that they support the ability of RCMP members to form a union and to bargain collectively, but they believe that process should require a secret ballot.

I wonder if my colleague from Edmonton West could shed any light on why the previous Conservative government did not extend collective bargaining rights to RCMP members when it was in power and when the Canada Labour Code did require a secret ballot as opposed to card-check certification.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member across the way about the government's use of time allocation on this bill.

The use of time allocation suggests that the government perceives some urgency in passing its response to these amendments. However, the Senate provided its amendments in June of last year. The government waited 11 months to bring its response to the Senate amendments to the House and is now using time allocation to limit debate in this House to only a few days.

If this is such an urgent issue, why did the government sit on it for 11 months? If it is not an urgent issue, why is the government imposing time allocation now?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, May 15th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Surrey—Newton that we urgently need this legislation to save lives. I hope he would agree that his Liberal government's new model Senate has unnecessarily delayed this legislation by about three months.

In terms of the specific amendments, the one his government accepts, which is for a 45-day public consultation, is an amendment the Liberals rejected when it was put forward by the Conservatives in the House. I am wondering if the member for Surrey—Newton could explain whether the government has changed its mind and decided that the amendment actually improves the legislation or is giving a pat on the head to the Senate and trying to justify the delay and the $1 million being spent every year on this new process for Senate appointments.