Garnett Genuis

[Egypt, April 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday saw another horrific attack on Egypt's Christian community, which killed more than 40 worshippers and wounded many others. Yesterday was also the beginning of Holy Week, when Christians mark the death and the resurrection of Jesus.

Peaceful sacrificial martyrdom is at the centre of the Christian story. God himself gave his life for the redemption of his tormentors. Today's indigenous Middle Eastern Christian communities live out this peaceful martyrdom on a regular basis, knowing the risks while living their lives of love and commitment as a witness to the Christian Gospel, a witness which, despite the hostilities throughout the region and widespread indifference in the western world, has a powerful effect on all who pause to take notice.

While grieving the dead, we must also honour their heroic courage and reflect again this Easter on the mystery of the Christian cross; that is, on how the suffering of the innocent begets the redemption of the guilty.

To the Christians of Egypt, we mourn with them. We must do more to help them, and we must follow their example.

[Forced Organ Harvesting, April 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this week I announced my intention to reintroduce Bill C-561 from the last Parliament, a bill dealing with forced organ harvesting.

In other parts of the world, most notably in China, people who have committed no crime are murdered by the state so that their organs can be used for transplantation and for other purposes. Often these people are being targeted as part of the PRC's repression of religious and spiritual communities that they do not like.

Here in Canada we have a legal gap that must be addressed. There is no law to prevent a Canadian from going abroad to receive a harvested organ. Supporting forced organ harvesting is a crime against humanity in international law, so it should be a crime here in Canada as well.

I am reaching across party lines to get this done. This bill was originally written by Irwin Cotler, a former Liberal justice minister.

I look forward to working with the member for Etobicoke Centre, who also proposed a bill on this issue in a previous Parliament.

As the government pursues closer ties with China, it must allay legitimate fears that human rights will be sacrificed along the way. Fixing gaps in Canadian law on organ harvesting would be a very good step.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I was not planning on speaking tonight, but after hearing the words of the parliamentary secretary, I felt it was necessary to respond to some of the things that were said.

I am very pleased to be supporting this initiative by my colleague. I spoke in favour of it at second reading. The arguments that are being used against this bill so badly miss the mark and yet more subtly reveal a very troubling attitude of the government and, unfortunately in this case even the NDP, toward private members' business and toward the way in which we should work together in this House.

It has been pointed out that this bill would make substantial changes to our legal framework. Well, I would like to see more private members' bills that make substantive changes. We have a lot of private members' bills that simply recognize things without changing laws, and that is okay, but let us celebrate the fact that a colleague actually took the time to have detailed legislation. That is what private members' business is for. It is the one avenue where individual members of Parliament can put their ideas before the House that reflect things that they are hearing.

It is not sufficient for a parliamentary secretary to say that this is complex so we need a government-led initiative. We are here representing our constituents. Individual members should use this channel for important, substantial proposals, and it is just not good enough to dismiss it that way. If the Liberals do not like it, they should argue against the substance of it, not simply say that they are going to come up with a government-led initiative later on. This is just disgusting, divisive partisanship. Members should argue against the bill if they do not like it, but they should not dismiss it on that basis.

The parliamentary secretary went through and identified all of the different positive aspects of this legislation without seeming to appreciate the fact that he could have proposed substantive amendments to the legislation, rather than just proposing that it be dismissed in its entirety.

Members of the government and of the NDP have argued against higher mandatory minimums. I only have 10 minutes, so I am not going to go into the mandatory minimums debate. I know it is a complex one. It speaks to deeper philosophical ideas about criminal justice, and yes, that is something addressed in this bill, but there is a critical part of this bill which is mandatory screening that is so important, that we know will save lives. If the government members have an issue with the mandatory minimums section, they could have proposed an amendment in committee, or they could propose a report stage amendment to strike the relevant clauses, but let us have the discussion. Let us move forward on mandatory screening.

Let us remember that this is something that was supported in a previous Parliament by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It recommended mandatory screening because that committee was able to, through its study, identify that this is an initiative that saves lives. We know that mandatory screening would save lives. We have seen the evidence from a wide variety of jurisdictions. This has been studied by various committees. Now let us move forward with this because we know the impact that it would have.

Going through the arguments that we have heard, it is unbelievable to me. The government said that the process for a government bill involves a more robust parliamentary record and this requires the involvement of government lawyers. There is the opportunity for all kinds of different people to provide that same kind of evidence through the parliamentary process envisioned and created by a private member's bill.

Let us remember also that the member proposing this is a former public safety minister. He is not somebody who is new to this House, although if he were, I still would say the member has a right to bring forward substantive legislation. He is a member who has experience in this area, who has worked with bureaucrats and public servants on these issues. He has more experience in cabinet and more experience directly being responsible for these files than the parliamentary secretary has, who denounced this bill with his mealy-mouthed bureaucratic words that do not actually deal with the substance of the legislation. Let us actually dig into this discussion. Let us actually talk about the bill and let us move it forward.

The best thing the government can come up with are these small, around-the-edges arguments, such as the coming-into-force date is too soon. Well, change the coming-into-force date if that is such a big problem. We are talking about legislation that all the evidence shows will save hundreds of lives. If the government's problem is the coming-into-force date and that is its basis for wanting to tear up an opposition private member's bill, I do not think that is the real reason. What we heard from the parliamentary secretary is that the Liberals are going to have a government-led initiative later on. If this is about taking the political credit for it, then this makes sense from the Liberals' way of thinking. They want to throw out an opposition bill so that they can bring forward government legislation. I do not care who gets the credit for this bill; let us just get it done.

The government has not proposed any legislation yet. If it was in such a hurry on this, if it thought mandatory screening was a good idea, it should have proposed legislation by now. If not, let us move forward with this bill. Let us expedite this bill. We will give the Liberals full credit for supporting this bill if they do the right thing. It is not about who gets the credit. This is too important. It does not matter if it is a government-led initiative or an initiative led by a private member. This is something that needs to get done, because it is going to save lives.

We heard an argument from the NDP that I want to address. My friend from Victoria expressed the concern that added police powers may have a negative impact on minority communities. These are concerns that need to be considered and taken seriously, but there is absolutely nothing about mandatory screening that in any way fundamentally affects those concerns one way or the other. There is the concern now of the possibility of profiling. There will also be a concern afterward about the possibility of profiling, but I would argue that we are better off, even on that score, under this legislation.

Right now, a person can only be legally asked for a Breathalyzer if an officer has a certain degree of suspicion. Is there a worry that certain perceptions, certain negative stereotypes, might inform whether officers think they have probable cause? There is that possibility, but if there is mandatory screening, and everyone who goes through a checkstop is screened, that actually creates a much greater level of equality. That creates an equal playing field. Notwithstanding the importance of those concerns and the need to discuss them in an ongoing way, this bill is actually a positive step with respect to those things. In any event, it certainly does not make things worse. Yes, we need to talk about concerns about profiling, but there is no way in which Bill C-226 changes those dynamics whatsoever.

These are just fundamentally bad arguments we are hearing from the other side, not just arguments I disagree with but poorly formed arguments that talk about issues that are completely unrelated to the substance of the issue. That the parliamentary secretary says the things he says is dismissive of the role of private members, of the legitimate channel of private members' business, and of the real experience of this private member, who is a former public safety minister. He understands these issues. The parliamentary secretary clearly is either not understanding the issues or is glued to talking points he has been given by the minister.

We have to move forward. Again, I do not care who takes the credit here. This is about lives. If there is a government-led initiative, it should have proposed it by now, and if there is not, let us move forward with a piece of legislation that is already on the table. Let us have a vote. I call on members of the government. Clearly, the cabinet members are not going to change their minds, but members of the government, members who have exercised their legitimate rights and independence before, have this opportunity to stand up for the legitimacy of using private members' business to make substantive legislative changes but also to stand up for a simple initiative that is constitutional. Peter Hogg says it is constitutional. It is effective, it is efficient, and we know it will save lives. When this measure comes to a vote, it is up to those members to decide whether we take the action we need to take or not, because lives will depend on how those members vote.

[National Seal Products Day Act, April 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, for the first time I find myself in violent agreement with the member for Winnipeg North. This is surely unprecedented. When I first saw the title of the bill, I thought we might be speaking about trained seals, which we have spoken a lot about in recent days, but instead, we are talking about actual seals. I would not want to insult seals by comparing them to any members of this House.

I want to thank my friend from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame for bringing this motion forward. We have had a chance to get to know each other quite a bit in recent days with time spent at PROC. I have not always supported initiatives the member has brought forward, as he may recall from some of the brief comments I made at that committee. I am very pleased to be here to support this important proposal from a member who happens to be part of the government, but certainly this is something that all members of the House should be able to get behind. This is a common-sense proposal. It reflects a recognition of our heritage, but also real common-sense when it comes to appreciating what hunters do in this industry and in other industries across the country.

Really, this represents a coming together of Canadian voices in opposition to, sometimes, some of the misinformation that we hear, albeit from celebrities, and voices internationally who do not really understand what the seal hunt is all about, and do not really understand the realities of it. Sometimes, this happens on certain kinds of issues, environmental but other issues as well, where people get a specific image in their mind about it, and it is very hard to remove that image even if that image runs completely contrary to the facts and realities of the issues.

There are a lot of things that we and I think many members of this House know about the positive, effective management of seal products in this country, of seals as a resource, and yet, that information does not always get out there. Therefore, we have an opportunity, through this initiative, to start to push back against that misinformation, to have a vehicle for pushing back against that information.

In that context, I want to make a few comments here about what happens in this industry in general, and first to read a position statement. This is from 2012. It is a comment made by the WWF, the World Wildlife Federation. It said:

WWF recognizes that hunting seals is an important part of the local economy, culture and heritage of many coastal communities in Atlantic Canada, the Arctic, and many other maritime nations. Most importantly, from the perspective of a conservation organization such as ours, the harp seal population is at a near record high with more than 5 million individuals and current harvest practices pose no apparent threat.

This is pretty clear from a wildlife organization. It recognizes in that position statement that there are different points of view on this issue, perhaps within its own community, but members of the organization said that clearly it is not a management of the resource issue, and there is no danger to this population. Of course, all of us would recognize that when there is a danger to a population, a risk of endangerment or extinction, that needs to be managed in a completely different way, but that is not the case with this particular resource. Very clearly, there is no reason to be concerned with respect to that when that is very clearly the information and the evidence that we have, and that members have seen.

At the same time, we know, in terms of the hunting methods that are used, that there are humane methods. Recognizing the effective management of the resource and also the humane methods of hunting, there is not really a coherent basis on which to oppose this unless perhaps, as some people do, they take the view that all hunting and all killing of animals is somehow wrong or immoral. Certainly, there are some people who have that perspective, but unless we go to that extreme, there is absolutely no reason to oppose the humane and environmentally effective and efficient, culturally, socially, and economically beneficial use of our seal resources.

In spite of what I have just presented and in spite of what we know to be these realities, we see these challenges come sometimes from people in Canada, but also internationally. It is important that we stand up to that. In 2009, for example, the European Union banned import and trade of seal products other than in cases of hunting by indigenous communities.

As Canada moves forward with our free trade agreement with Europe, certainly an important trade initiative, I hope we will be able to persuade our friends in Europe, recognizing the facts that I have identified, how much they could benefit from being able to import seal products that come from Canada.

Europe does not ban hunting. Europe does not ban livestock. People kill and eat animals in Europe as well as they do here. There is no consistent basis on which to have this limitation in place. I hope, coming forward from this motion, there will be international advocacy from our government's trade representatives around the importance of countries taking a consistent approach with respect to these issues at the very least.

Europe should not ban the importation of products from one kind of animal from one other country in a way that is not consistent with its own domestic approaches to the management and use of animals. There might be a spectrum of opinion philosophically with regard to what ways it is and is not appropriate to use animals, but those distinctions should be coherent. They should not be made on the basis of banning animals from a country that somehow would not apply that same standard in its own country.

As we talk about this legislative initiative, this is about having a national seal products day, and we support that. It is a positive step in recognition. We do this a lot in the House, especially around private members' business. We have these moments of recognition, where we all come together and affirm something that is important, whether it is a heritage month, a day of recognition, sometimes a week, sometimes simply a point of affirmation. These moments are important because they can provide an opportunity for awareness, for recognition, perhaps for particular communities to understand the affirmation and support they receive from legislators. These things are important.

However, it is not good enough to just stop at these points of recognition. If we have a national seal products day and then we close the file at that point, that certainly is not good enough. There is a need for ongoing advocacy, ongoing activities of recognition and to continue that dialogue domestically and internationally, and not shy away from that. Recognition alone does not have that much of an impact on the ground. It is really what we do after that, what we do with a particular day, how we proceed going forward. This is something that all members should take on board. It seems we will move forward with this and support it, so there should be constructive, clear action that comes out of this.

Coming from Alberta, the seal industry is not particularly important for us. However, we deal with questions of weighing out environmental criticisms that may not always be based on fact. Perhaps a comparison would be some of the images of ducks from our oil sands. A couple of images get sent around the world and there is such misinformation that comes out of that. In reality, there are all kinds of reclamation activities that take place, when there are risks to birds associated with many energy alternatives such as wind farms, yet we see one image and people run with it. We sometimes see that happen with the seal issue. People look at one image and they draw conclusions from it without looking at the facts. This is an important proposal that calls for us to focus on the facts. Let us move forward on that basis.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, that is precisely the issue when a budget talks about only six sectors with respect to innovation. There are needs across a wide range of sectors, such as, fisheries, the agriculture sector, the energy sector, which I focused on. The member is right that the west just does not get the attention that it should be getting. There are very innovative sectors that are important, and not just to western Canada, and they are being totally ignored.

A member of the Liberal Party said during the opioid crisis, which is ongoing, that if the centre of that crisis was not in the west, perhaps the government would have reacted faster. It is comments like that coming from Liberal members that are very telling about the mentality of the government.

We need a government that governs for the good of the whole country, that considers the national common good, the good of every region. That is just not what we are seeing.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I certainly recognize the results of the last election and the work we are doing in Atlantic Canada, but I will say that the investments the government made in Atlantic Canada with respect to shipbuilding were significant. After the last election, it was not that member or that government that was fighting for Atlantic Canada's place on the Supreme Court. It was only after repeated questions from members on this side of the House, who do not even represent ridings in Atlantic Canada, who stood up for the people of Atlantic Canada because they were not getting representation from that side of the House.

However, my speech was about Alberta. That member is a parliamentary secretary in the government. He should have posed a question about the fact that there is nothing in this budget to address the situation in Alberta. There are specific sectors named for a focus of the investments which do not in any way consider the specific sectors that are suffering in Alberta. They do not address at all the energy sector. The government thinks that energy is a dirty word. That is the issue.

The Liberals do not care about Alberta. The best they can do is this paltry discussion of $30 million to the Government of Alberta. At least in questions and comments, we should have a comment from the government about what it is doing for Alberta. The Liberals cannot even stand up and defend it. That is pretty telling.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the late Liberal senator Keith Davey purportedly said this during the 1980 election campaign: screw the west and we will take the rest.

Budget 2017 does not just regurgitate the bad fiscal policies of that period, but it also regurgitates the divisive anti-Alberta policy approach, which defined the Pierre Trudeau government. My constituents are proud Albertans and also proud Canadians. We work hard, we do our share, and sometimes we do more than our share. During good times, that is okay, but Alberta is hurting right now. Unemployment has surged and investment is drying up, partly due to commodity prices but also because of tax increases of every shape and size from multiple levels of government.

From the current federal government, before budget 2017, we had all kinds of different measures that have substantively negatively impacted the Alberta economy. We had the introduction of a tanker ban off northern B.C., limiting our export options at the same time as Alaskan tankers are constantly flowing through that area. We had the withdrawal of support for vital energy infrastructure like the northern gateway pipeline. We had the effect of federal small-business tax hikes, which went completely against a commitment made in the Liberal platform. We had the elimination of the hiring credit for small business, an important incentive to help create jobs. We had the expansion of CPP, effectively a significant increase to the tax on jobs, again creating a greater disincentive for prospective employers. We had the introduction of the carbon tax. We had the overall fiscal instability characterized now by a second budget with a deficit of over $20 billion and the impact that has on investor confidence, but we had that instability even before this budget. Finally, we had a failure of the equalization formula to update in response to the realities on the ground with respect to Alberta.

Those are a number of key ways already, before this budget, where we were seeing the impact of federal policy on Alberta.

The Alberta Conservative caucus recognized these challenges and worked hard through an Alberta jobs task force process. I want to recognize the leadership of my colleagues from Edmonton Riverbend and Calgary Nose Hill on this process. It was a process whereby we presented constructive feedback to the government about what it could do to help Alberta. We did our job as the opposition. We did not just oppose; rather, we proposed constructive solutions. We did that, but all of these suggestions were ignored.

What is in this budget for Alberta? There is nothing, in fact, but more tax increases, targeted punitive tax increases that would negatively affect our energy sector. The government chose this budget at this point in time to remove vital incentives for small companies engaged in energy exploration. These incentives allowed those companies to defer taxation by writing off capital investment in the first year. These incentives were not a subsidy or even a tax break for the energy sector; they were a tax-deferral measure that encouraged investment, which would actually make more money for the government in the long run. The removal of these incentives in this budget, the tax hike uniquely targeted to our energy sector, would not increase revenue. It is a purely punitive measure that would discourage exploration and investment. It would reduce government revenue by reducing investment in the energy sector. It reflects no plausible policy other than the current government's clear anti-energy ideology. There is just no other explanation for the removal of tax-deferral incentives that benefit not only workers but that benefit the government in the long run.

What is the current government's message to struggling middle-class families in my constituency and across Canada? The government's message is this: If they are struggling, it will increase their taxes; if they are unemployed, it will kill off business investment that could have given them a job; if they are down, the government will kick them again.

The budget begins:

The story of Canada is the story of hard-working people—from fisheries workers in Atlantic Canada to forestry workers in Quebec, from the farmers who feed us to the tradespeople who build our cities to the teachers who give young Canadians the tools they need to embrace their own futures.

It says “from fisheries workers in Atlantic Canada to forestry workers in Quebec”. Even in the government's colourful, fluffy opening paragraph, it cannot spare a mention for the entire western half of this country or for the hard-working women and men who get their hands dirty pulling the stuff out of the ground that the government members use to drive their limousines and ride around in helicopters.

The budget repeatedly talked about a so-called innovation and skills plan, which from the start excludes any investment in or support for our energy sector.

It repeatedly mentions advanced manufacturing, agrifood, clean technology, digital industries, health and bioscience, and clean resources as being the only places where this spending will go, even though our energy sector is one of the most innovative on the planet. Our innovations are helping to create jobs as well as reduce environmental impacts. All discussion of innovation and so-called superclusters highlights these six arbitrarily selected sectors only, and makes no mention of the critical value of Canada's energy sector.

I think the government's approach of state-managed innovation is the wrong way to go about things, anyway. It has not worked before and it will not work now, especially when the government is simultaneously undercutting our competitiveness through tax hikes. However, it is telling that in the midst of this the government explicitly excludes our energy sector from any of its proposals. The exclusion of Alberta and the energy sector from the budget cannot have been an accident. Repeatedly, proposals are discussed, but Alberta is passed over.

A further example on page 93 of the budget proposes the extension of the mineral exploration tax credit, a tax credit for junior companies that invest in mineral exploration. Does this sound familiar? It is exactly the same kind of tax measure that the Liberals are cutting for the energy sector. They are extending exploration incentives for the mining sector while killing them for the energy sector.

What other possible conclusion could Alberta families draw from this than that they were left out of this budget not by accident but on purpose? It is the same old 1980 Keith Davey Liberal election formula: screw the west.

The Liberals' approach harkens back to an old and dangerous view of Canada, which many westerners had hoped had been put to bed, a view that sees Canada as a compact of central and eastern Canadian provinces, which then acquired the territory of western Canada as a sort of colony of which it could decide how to dispose. It is a view that sees the project of national reconciliation and agreement as including only urban central Canada.

However, this is a view that, on this side of the House, we firmly reject. We believe in Canada as a union of equal provinces. Some provinces may seek different kinds of accommodation or arrangement, and that is fine, but we believe that the project of national co-operation and reconciliation stretches from sea to sea to sea. We believe that the representation of perspective and culture and support for economic development must include every Canadian in every region from every kind of industry.

When Conservatives were in government, I am proud to say that we did not favour the west over the rest of the country. We presided over the lowest ebb in Quebec separatist sentiment in a very long time. We invested in shipbuilding in Atlantic Canada; we bailed out the auto sector in southern Ontario; we engaged and grew our seat total in Quebec, in part by supporting the forestry sector. We did our best to listen to and govern Canada as one nation, for the common good.

We created jobs from Newfoundland, to British Columbia, to Nunavut, and everywhere in between. We believe in Canada as a union of equal provinces.

That the Prime Minister himself rejects this view is well established. He said during the last government: “Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work.”

We know the Prime Minister's view, but what about the Liberal MPs from Alberta? What about the member for Edmonton Centre and the member for Calgary Skyview, the Minister of Infrastructure and the Minister of Veterans Affairs? Do they at least think that Alberta should have been included in budget 2017?

Oh, wait, there is a heading in the budget that refers to supporting jobs in the resource sector. It says:

The Government understands the challenging economic circumstances arising from weak commodity prices affecting the oil and gas sector. Budget 2017 proposes to provide a one-time payment of $30 million to the Government of Alberta to support provincial actions that will stimulate economic activity and employment in Alberta’s resource sector.

Wow, that is almost 10% of what Bombardier was given. In fact, that is less than the total proposed executive compensation being paid to Bombardier's board chair and top five executives. More for the executives of Bombardier than for the province of Alberta to address the energy sector. Last year, Alberta had a budget deficit of $10.8 billion. With this spending, it could have been $10.77 billion. Now that would have made a difference.

This is a screw the west budget, indeed.

[Committees of the House, April 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, as the parent of young children, I will say that my daughter insists on unanimity in the decisions we make in our house as well.

Certainly I think the member's point is quite an important one. Every member of Parliament here is elected by their constituents and obviously has a slightly different role, whether they are in government or opposition, but is an equal member of this House. They need to be actively involved in the decision-making, on an equal footing, when we talk about things that are fundamental to our institution. Within this place, there are tiers of members. All members need to be engaged in this discussion. It would be very concerning if the government were able to go ahead with its plan unilaterally imposed on the opposition. It could talk about discussion all it wants, but when the decisions are clearly made in advance and point in the direction of working to the government's advantage, that is obvious to Canadians. We are seeing in terms of the outcry from Canadians that they do not believe that the government is not personally interested in the outcome. Clearly, it is, and we need to move in a way that is collaborative.

[Committees of the House, April 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my friend is very clearly comparing apples to oranges here. A proposal to change the process by which a Speaker is elected is a relatively minor change in the scheme of things. It was discussed and debated on, and there was a great diversity of opinions within individual parties. At the time, there were differences of opinion in every party. It would be very different from a majority government unilaterally trying to impose substantial changes to the legislative process without any kind of opposition buy-in.

I think there is a clear difference, especially in terms of the scale of the kind of changes we are talking about. From now on, automatically every piece of legislation would have the government dictating the amount of time that was spent discussing that, not only in the House but also in committee. That would be a revolutionary change, and it would completely undermine the role of the opposition.

I think the change with respect to the Speaker election was whether we have successive rounds of balloting or an instant run-off vote. With all due respect, whether we have an instant run-off or multiple rounds of balloting is a minor change compared to whether the government dictates how much time a committee can spend discussing legislation.

[Committees of the House, April 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate in this chamber. I started to make some points on this issue at committee, but I just did not have enough time there to get to a lot of the things that I wanted to say. Therefore, I appreciate the opportunity to continue that dialogue here in the chamber.

It is interesting how much this issue has galvanized the interest of Canadians. Even before I started participating in the work of the committee, I was receiving correspondence on all kinds of different channels from Canadians who are interested in this issue. Who would have thought that Canadians would be so seized with the activities of the procedure and House affairs committee here in Ottawa? Canadians take the strength of our institutions very seriously. They take the integrity of those institutions seriously. They take the process by which we see developments and changes to those institutions very seriously, because there is something very insidious being talked about and being intended by the government.

The Liberals use nice-sounding weasel words like “modernization” and “having a conversation”, but it is actually very clear what they mean in every case. On this side of the House, we are very willing to have a conversation in a collaborative way about how the Standing Orders might be changed collaboratively going forward. No set group of Standing Orders is perfect and I am sure we can always learn from the experience and look for opportunities to improve them. However, there is a difference between that collective process of evolution that we can undertake together where we work on possible improvements and what is being proposed by the government, which is nothing short of a Standing Orders revolution, where the Liberals come in independently as the government and decide what they would like the Standing Orders to say. It is their concept of what constitutes modernization and they are going to impose that on the House.

Government members plead, “No, this is not our intent. We are not going to necessarily do it unilaterally. We just want to leave open the possibility to do it unilaterally.” As long as the government members leave that possibility open, surely members of the opposition cannot trust their good faith. Why do the Liberals not just take that option off the table, the option of unilateral action, of revolutionary changes to the Standing Orders, and instead say they are going to do this in an evolutionary way where members put forward different ideas but ultimately have to agree on the next steps we take forward? That would be a productive way of gradually improving our institution.

We hear members of the government say, “Let us just get on to the discussion on the substance. We want to have a discussion about these issues.” It is interesting that this actually parallels the conversation we had during the electoral reform debate. Members of the government said not to worry about the issue of a referendum but to just get on to talking about electoral systems, because, in fact, what they wanted was to push their preferred system. What I think the Liberals realized as that process went through was that Canadians were paying attention to what the Liberals were trying to do, that Canadians cared about the process by which these decisions were made, and they wanted to know that there was going to be a fair process established up front before proceeding to have the discussion. It is great to have the discussion, but they have to define a fair process up front.

What we saw with the electoral reform discussion was that in response to that public pressure, eventually the government realized that it was not going to be able to get away with it unilaterally, so it dropped it and decided it was not going to do anything. That is probably where we are going to end up eventually with respect to the Standing Orders, but it is unfortunate that the government members have yet to learn this lesson. They still want to make a unilateral change that reflects their concept of what the Standing Orders should be rather than work with the House in a constructive way to evolve those going forward.

Frankly, I am very interested in having a conversation about possible changes to the Standing Orders. We had a take-note debate in the House of Commons about those issues. I put forward some specific ideas about changes that could be made to the Standing Orders. Those might be changes that are shared by some members of the government. They might be changes that some members within my own party do not agree on. That was an opportunity to put forward ideas, to have that conversation, and to move that forward in a constructive way.

The framework that we thought we could work under was one in which the procedure and House affairs committee would study these prospective changes, work on them, and look for ways of moving them forward. It would be a more genuine, gradual process of moving forward, not a kind of unilateral process of the government House leader or the Prime Minister or some staffer in the PMO deciding, “No, this is what we want to do.”

The Liberals plead with us to accept their good faith, but when we look at what is in the discussion paper, these are all things that work to the advantage of the government.

It is interesting going through the discussion paper. I read it and spoke about it in detail at committee on what the government House leader was putting forward. The government always uses its human shield, the young family, the family friendliness of it. That is always the Liberals go-to for trying to make changes to the House of Commons that works to their political advantage.

I take exception to this as a member of Parliament with a young family, always very seized with these questions of how we balance the needs of our families with the needs of the work we do. Let us remember, as other members have pointed out, this is not unique to members of Parliament. All Canadians deal with this in different forms. Many people in my constituency have to travel for work as well, whether they work in the energy sector or perhaps the military. This is not just unique to members of Parliament.

I put forward some ideas of things that we could actually do that would not be about the political interests of the government but would actually help young families. The Liberals talk about having fewer days but more extended hours. However, extended hours is a real problem for people with young families. If we are sitting for very long days four days a week, that makes it much more difficult for members to have time to talk on the phone or to meet in person with members of their family. That creates some new additional challenges for families.

The elimination of Friday sittings is really about taking away a day on which the government would have to be accountable. Even if we add those extra minutes to question period at other times of the day, we know, and the Liberals know, that if Friday sittings are taken away that is one less day on which the government has to stand and answer questions which could appear on that day's news. There are only four days instead of five days on which we get to ask the government questions, which then can appear as part of the broader discourse.

The Liberals are using young families as their human shield for this change they want to make, which is in their interests, when we could have a real constructive discussion about ways to move forward. One of the suggestions I put forward was reducing the number of days on which votes could take place, continuing to have the same number of days for discussion, debate, and questions, but maybe having one additional day on which votes did not take place. That would provide an additional level of flexibility but would in no way slow down the existing legislative process.

If we work together in a constructive, collaborative way in which we establish ground rules from the start, we could have some of these ideas given a full airing. These are things that I mentioned when we debated the Standing Orders earlier.

Let us talk about some of the so-called reforms to question period that the Liberals want to make. I think Canadians are interested in discussions about potential changes to question period, but one the suggestions put forward is that we make better use of late shows in particular as a vehicle for more substantive exchanges. Perhaps we could require that ministers make themselves available to be scheduled for a late show exchange rather than parliamentary secretaries. That is an opportunity where the minister responsible for a given file has to answer, in long form, specific questions that members of Parliament have. This idea would enhance accountability.

What the government has proposed in its reforms are not some of the changes that were put forward in a private member's bill by my friend from Wellington—Halton Hills on question period reform, which would have involved an expectation that ministers actually answer the questions. That is not in the discussion paper. We see the government only putting forward changes that work to its interests. It is obvious what the Liberals are doing.

Another example is what the Liberals are doing on time allocation. Their proposal entails time allocation effectively being automatic, that on every bill, the Liberals would be allocating the time. This is different. They would not only be allocating the time in the House, but they would also be allocating the amount of time at committees. Therefore, committees would no longer be the masters of their own domain and would not have the flexibility. This is really concerning.

What if in the context of the study of a bill a committee doing its job suddenly realizes there is a significant issue that it was not aware of before and it needs to dig deeper into that to ensure it understands what is going on, so it needs more time. The government wants to completely take away that flexibility. It would be really good for the government, but it would not be good for this institution, it would not be good for the important role that the opposition has, and it would not be good for Canadians. We need to have the proper amount of time to debate legislation.

Let us agree to support a unanimous decision-making process where we can make changes collaboratively that are in the interests of Canadians and the institution. Let us do it that way, not in a unilateral way that the government wants. Let us agree to do it in that way and then we can start moving forward.