Daniel Blaikie

Mr. Speaker, the member is pretending like the Liberals are just making this choice now. The fact of the matter is they made the choice a long time ago when they did not tell Canada Post management to deal with the injury rate. They made the choice when they decided to do nothing when Canada Post cut off its sick and injured workers at the beginning of the strike. They chose to do this two weeks ago when they signalled back-to-work legislation. The government has been poisoning the well all along, so how dare they pretend that they just made this choice this week? It is not true.

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post workers on disability and mothers depending on their top-up are being wrongfully targeted. It has been a week since I first raised this in the House and it has been longer since they have been cut off. Whatever the government says, this is not a normal part of the collective bargaining process. We know the minister responsible for Canada Post can call off the dogs at any time.What is she waiting for? Is she waiting for someone to miss a mortgage payment or skip their medication? What exactly is it going to take for her to call Canada Post and tell it to stop bargaining on the backs of sick and vulnerable workers?

Mr. Speaker, if they believe in the bargaining process, they should not be threatening back-to-work legislation. They should not be targeting sick and vulnerable workers.We know the minister has the ability to call up Canada Post and tell it to stop. We are about to go home to our constituencies for a week. When we come back, it will have been a month that these workers have gone without pay. Will the minister pick up the phone today and do something about it or resign and make way for somebody who has the compassion and the backbone to do it?

Mr. Speaker, nobody is advocating that the deal be reopened. Anyone with eyes can see it never closed. Congress is trying to change the deal. The president is declaring a trade war on one of the countries involved, Mexico. This is a live deal.Why does the government want to tie its hands and put its head in the sand, instead of waiting for an opportunity to improve the deal for Canadian workers and for the environment? That is the real question. I suspect it is because the government is listening to the same drug companies that want to fight pharmacare in this country and that are going to make money off this deal.Why is the government more concerned with defending the interests of corporate tycoons than the interests of Canadian workers?

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, another 21 refugees, looking for safety, walked for hours through snowy fields to get to Canada through Emerson, Manitoba. Repeated calls on the government to take concrete, immediate actions like suspending the safe third country agreement continue to go unanswered, while these individuals are literally risking life and limb. If some poor farmer were to find a refugee family lying in his field would the Minister of Immigration continue to repeat the same lame non-answer we have heard for weeks, or would he have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans repeat them for him? Will the minister finally suspend the safe third country agreement now? What is it going to take?

Mr. Speaker, it is baffling that someone who can blow $1,700 on food for a three-hour flight cannot find help to understand the law. As a result, the Prime Minister is under two different investigations by the Ethics Commissioner and has violated the Official Languages Act. Let us quote the Prime Minister: ...when you make a mistake you admit it, you make amends, you ask for forgiveness and you make sure it never happens again. Will he admit his mistake, make amends, ask for forgiveness, and make sure it never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are getting tired of the combination of high-handed actions and non-sequitur answers by the Liberals. Just as they grew tired of omnibus bills under Stephen Harper's regime, the Liberals promised in the last campaign to end them. Omnibus bills allow for the government to push through hundreds of changes at once, without time for Parliament to scrutinize them or for civil society to scrutinize them. However, instead of getting rid of the practice of omnibus bills, the Liberals are proposing new rules that will legitimize the practice of omnibus bills.We are just wondering this. What happened to the Liberals of the campaign?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the picket line with Canada Post workers I learned that the company has suspended a number of benefits, including short-term disability payments. Michael Wall, who has been employed at the company since 2004 and has a serious illness, is depending on those payments in order to make ends meet. For Canada Post to respond to the strike by attacking its most vulnerable workers is cynical and cruel. While the strike is rotating, these cuts in payments are not. Will the minister be complicit in this mistreatment of Michael and those like him or will she get on the phone today and tell Canada Post to back off?

Mr. Speaker, what he does not say is that those investments are going to come at a high cost to Canadians, who want to know why they cannot get Liberals in government to behave like the Liberals they vote for at election time. For instance, the Liberals have promised an infrastructure bank that would “provide loan guarantees and small capital contributions to provinces and municipalities”, not the BlackRock group. Nothing about user fees and tolls. Nothing about taxpayers taking on private risk. Liberals ran on a program that would have benefited communities, but, once elected, turned it into a $35-billion slush fund for their international corporate buddies. We want to know, where is their sense of shame?

Mr. Speaker, CP Rail workers can go on strike legally as soon as tonight, and those workers, like all Canadian workers, have the right to free and fair collective bargaining. The minister has addressed this issue before in the House, but she has not clearly stated that her government will not use back-to-work legislation to unilaterally end the strike, so I am giving her that opportunity now.Will the minister commit to those workers today, on the record, that she will not use back-to-work legislation to end the strike?

Mr. Speaker, that answer is simply not good enough.The CRA has been letting tax cheats off for far too long. Canadians have been looking to the government for leadership, and all the Liberals do is say that they are not in charge. If they are not in charge, who is? Canadians mean to elect a government that will take care of big tax cheats, and the Liberal government is not doing it. Please, stop with the incredible answer that somehow the Minister of National Revenue does not have anything to say about whether tax cheats get off the hook in Canada, and give Canadians the answer they are looking for, which is that the rich are going to pay their fair share.

There we have it, Mr. Speaker, Liberal ministers getting up and saying it is status quo; every one of them except for the finance minister, who is hinting that Trump's presidency is changing everything including the budget. Therefore, instead of flowing the funds for their promises on mental health and home care, the Liberals have cynically been using that money to force provinces onto the Harper plan. As Liberal promises collapse left and right, Canadians are wondering if they will ever get the things they really need, like a national pharmacare plan. Is the Liberal government going to take responsibility for backtracking on its promises, or is it just going to blame it on Trump?

Mr. Speaker, according to an internal RCMP document, staffing levels at the dispatch centre in Manitoba have reached a “critical level”, with a vacancy rate of 35%. As a result, Manitoba RCMP officers who are dealing with refugee border crossers at Emerson on top of their regular duties are going to see a reduction in their field support. This level of so-called “risk management” by the government is not acceptable. When the government looks to pinch pennies, why is it always front-line RCMP officers who get the short end of the stick?

Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side is impugning the motives of the RCMP or the director of public prosecutions; what we are impugning is the motives of a government that interfered in this case when the Prime Minister said, before charges were laid, that it was going to go to court, which hired the reporter who reported on Scott Brison's pork-barrelling, and which has been accused of having told witnesses what to say. That is what we are trying to get to the bottom of. Instead of trying to defend the director of public prosecutions with its discredited word, it should launch an independent investigation to show that nothing happened. When are we going to have—

Mr. Speaker, China arbitrarily detained Canadian citizens for political purposes and the Liberals said that it was business as usual. A former SNC-Lavalin executive pleaded guilty to breaking political financing laws in what has been called the “biggest fraud case” in the country, but it continues to get huge federal contracts. It seems that whenever there is a buck to be made, the Liberals' moral compass breaks down. SNC-Lavelin should be suspended from bidding on federal government contracts until Canadians have all the details of this fraud. Will the Liberals order the suspension or do they have a price for every principle?

Madam Speaker, I think people need to hear a more concrete answer in terms of how we will make progress. That is why people doubt that we will make progress in a timely way. It is why civilian members of the RCMP are upset that the government has reversed a previous commitment not to put them on the Phoenix payroll system until it is fixed and instead has created an arbitrary deadline of 2020, where come what may it will put those RCMP members on the payroll system. Why are the Liberals risking doing material damage to the men and women of the RCMP when the payroll system is not ready to go and will they reverse the decision?

Mr. Speaker, this week we heard explosive testimony from the former attorney general. We heard that the Prime Minister led a concerted pressure campaign to protect corporate and Liberal interests with inappropriate political interference. These allegations are so serious that yesterday, five former attorneys general wrote to the RCMP commissioner requesting a criminal investigation. The Liberals continue to pretend that a justice committee investigation, with a limited mandate and controlled by a Liberal majority, can get to the bottom of this, but they are the only ones who think so. When are they going to do the right thing and launch a full public inquiry so Canadians can get the whole story?

Mr. Speaker, the only one who is naive is somebody who thinks that this deal is closed, because there is clearly a lot of action on the deal. I just wish that the Liberals were in as big a rush to do something about climate change as they are to ratify this deal. They still have Stephen Harper's targets. Their carbon tax gives the steepest discounts to the biggest polluters. They are wasting billions of dollars buying old pipelines to pay out international investors, instead of investing in what they ought to be investing in, like a program to help Canadians retrofit their homes, saving money on their monthly bills and reducing their carbon footprint.Why is it that the Liberal government once again is more interested in defending corporate profits than standing up for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it has been three years since the ill-fated Phoenix rollout and we are still hearing the same answers we heard three years ago when the whole thing started. It is a shame. Federal workers have lost homes and have had strain put on their families. Even some simple things would help, like changing the law so that they do not have to pay back the gross pay on the net pay that they received.When SNC-Lavalin wanted legal changes to get out of criminal charges, that got done. In fact, they rolled out the red carpet. Why should workers continue to have their lives put on hold while the government is distracted protecting its well-connected buddies?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to restore good faith with Canada's public servants. While the Liberals have brought real change to the rhetoric of government, we are waiting for real change in the actions of government. The new government promised to repeal the Conservatives' sick leave legislation, but then it showed up this week at the bargaining table and put the exact same Conservative offer on the table.We are wondering this. When are the Liberals going to bring a deal to the table that reflects their promises in the election?

Mr. Speaker, the red herrings continue. No one has said that it is not the prerogative of the RCMP whether or not to decide to launch that investigation, but someone who has been in politics that long should know that it is very significant to have five former attorneys general suggest that a criminal investigation might be warranted. So can we please stop with the red herrings? The fact of the matter is that we have heard that there was a concerted political pressure campaign in the PMO. We want to get to the bottom of that. We believe that a full public inquiry is the way to get to the bottom of that. When are they going to launch one?

Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative government notoriously mismanaged the temporary foreign worker program and allowed abuse to flourish. It meant downward pressure on wages and working conditions for Canadian workers, while encouraging the exploitation of foreign workers.Now the TPP will make this worse. Employers will not even have to show that they could not hire Canadians to do the job before bringing in temporary foreign workers.Will the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour stand today in the House and urge her government not to ratify the TPP unless changes are made in this clause to ensure it will not bring the TFW back to Canada through the back door.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen too many times the Liberal government's indifference to the pensions of private sector workers like those at Sears, but right under its nose, at Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, there are thousands of workers from Chalk River, Ontario, to Pinawa, Manitoba, who are going to be kicked out of the public service pension plan in September because of the federal government's privatization agenda.The government has known about this issue for a long time now. Will the President of the Treasury Board stand up today and let these workers know what is going to happen to their pension in September?

Madam Speaker, after a year and a half of work and several million dollars to try to fix the many problems with the Phoenix pay system, public servants are still not getting paid properly. Several unions have suggested that there are sufficient resources within the system to build an effective system without having to wait for a whole new one.Solutions are available. Is the government exploring them?When will the government announce the next step in finding a fair solution for our public servants?

Mr. Speaker, after promising more times than we can count to get rid of our unfair voting system, the Prime Minister abandoned that promise. He would not let members of the House decide whether to move forward. Instead he said it was his choice alone. Well, he is wrong and tomorrow every MP will get to make that choice for themselves.Will the Prime Minister get out of the way and promise not to punish Liberals who, unlike him, choose to keep their promise?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many of the small communities that are going to be left out of the infrastructure bank were clapping when that was said.Every few days, new revelations come out about the Liberal pick for the official languages commissioner and her connection to the Liberal Party, to the PMO, and to the heritage minister's own office.The partisanship in this appointment is so blatant that today a minority languages group out of New Brunswick will be seeking a legal injunction to stop it.What is it going to take for the Prime Minister to admit that this time he has gone too far? When is he going to finally stop pretending that Madame Meilleur can be seen as an independent officer of Parliament?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but one does not move on to talk about other issues when there is a serious cloud of corruption hanging over us. Public service is not transactional. It is not that we announce a little program here and get to help our buddies over there. That is not how it works.With respect to the justice committee, we know full well that a Liberal majority on that committee shut down the study. We know because the former attorney general wrote the justice committee today and said that she has more to say and hopes that the committee will accept her comments. She also said that those comments will be limited by the restrictions on the waiver that the Prime Minister issued.Therefore, will the Prime Minister lift the waiver and create a forum for these former ministers to speak?

Mr. Speaker, they do deserve that, but clearly they are going to need a different government to get it. I will say this, when the wealthy and well-connected want help getting out of paying their taxes, the Liberals are there to get them an expedited secret deal. However, there are 3,000 to 5,000 veterans living homeless in Canada right now. Yesterday, MPs from all parties supported a motion that would give a stipend to veterans to help them put a roof over their heads, but we all know it is not going to happen until the government adopts this as its own policy.Is the government prepared to develop a program to give direct help to veterans so they are able to put a roof over their heads? If so, when and with how much?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to end the abuse of the temporary foreign worker program, but now they are on the cusp of signing the trans-Pacific partnership, a trade deal that is going to entrench the worst aspects of that program.Under the TPP, foreign companies are going to be allowed to bring in their own workforce without advertising their jobs to Canadians, without getting a labour market opinion saying there are not enough qualified Canadian tradespeople to do the job. Provincial governments are expressly prohibited from doing any kind of skills testing on these workers.As a Canadian tradesperson myself, I want to know how it is the Liberals thought it was okay to sell out Canadian tradespeople at the international bargaining table.

Mr. Speaker, over half of the strategic investment funding for post-secondary institutions has been announced. There is a 2018 deadline on the money but not a dime has been committed to Manitoba. The Conservative government in Manitoba does not get the importance of investing in post-secondary education for students, for construction workers, or for employers.The question is this. Are Manitoba's Liberal MPs just going to sit there and watch as a short-sighted government on Broadway passes up funding of up to $100 million for Manitoba? Or are they going to commit to working with Manitoba's post-secondary institutions to make sure that Manitoba gets its fair share of the money before the clock runs out?

Mr. Speaker, access to information reform has been studied time and again. In fact, one could say in this case it has been studied literally to death. Despite two recent reports and calls for reform, the President of the Treasury Board announced he was not going to be keeping his promise to introduce new legislation this spring. Instead of explaining himself at committee, to which he earnestly promised reform, he is allowing the Liberal members to run interference. Why is he suddenly scared to come to the committee, and will he take this opportunity to explain himself to the House?

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Liberals have called on the legislature to stop holding blood drives in protest of the Canadian Blood Services' discriminatory treatment of gay men. The CBS policy is based on stigma and prejudice, not science, but the Liberals in Manitoba have chosen the wrong target for their outrage. The outrage is not that well-meaning Canadians are organizing blood drives. The outrage is that these Liberals, the ones right here in Ottawa, have had almost four years to stop this discrimination, four years to finally treat gay men who want to save lives with respect, and they are still waiting. When will these Liberals finally fix the problem?

Mr. Speaker, after years of pretending to be champions for Air Canada workers, the Liberals tabled legislation that gives Air Canada free rein to ship the good-paying jobs of 2,600 workers and their families right out of Canada.The Prime Minister once stood alongside protesting maintenance workers. He was chatting about solidarity and probably throwing in the odd Kumbaya for good measure, but where is that solidarity when it could actually do something for workers?Will the Prime Minister stand up, apologize for his cynicism, and withdraw Bill C-10?

Mr. Speaker, the Columbus Housing Co-op offers safe and affordable housing for seniors in Elmwood, but not without its challenges. The riverbank near the building is eroding. If a leaky roof were jeopardizing its units, it would be able to apply for renovation funding. However, the rules prevent it from getting money to shore up the riverbank. Its operating agreement is going to expire in several years. While the Liberals promised a fix for this co-op and those like it, after three years, all we have is a Band-Aid to get them through the next election. A proper national housing strategy would provide help and certainty to housing co-ops like Columbus, but that is not what the government has delivered. I want to know how much longer they are going to have to wait.

Mr. Speaker, recently 19 individuals crossed the border into Manitoba during a blizzard, including a pregnant woman and a toddler. The Liberal government continues to claim that the current situation is somehow the status quo, but I can say that people running across farmers' fields across the border in a blizzard is not the status quo. To make matters worse, the Prime Minister has not even answered the Premier of Manitoba's letter asking for help. During the meeting today with President Trump's official, would the Liberals point out that the U.S. no longer fits Canada's own description of a safe country for refugees?

Mr. Speaker, this week, two first nations in Manitoba were uprooted. Their evacuation due to the forest fires resulted in the worst coordination efforts in years. Leadership in Little Grand Rapids was not listened to and people were left stranded until the last minute. Before this life-threatening ordeal was over, blame was squarely placed on the chief and council, which is unhelpful and unacceptable. It seems the experiences of previous years have not been taken into account. Will the minister work with the province and ensure that indigenous communities are heard and respected, and that what happened this week never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, on the say-so of a U.S. court, North Dakota is pushing ahead with two water diversion projects that could have terrible consequences for Lake Winnipeg. Foreign organisms could be transferred between independent watersheds and increased nutrient loads could mean further problems with toxic algae. It was a platform commitment of the Liberals to protect Lake Winnipeg. The way to do that is to refer these projects to the International Joint Commission for independent review and Canadian oversight. Now that the time for talk is over, will the Liberals stand up for Lake Winnipeg and make that referral?

Mr. Speaker, at first the Liberals said that they had no choice but to change the rules of Parliament. Now, after being roundly criticized, the Liberals are walking back everything, or almost everything. In their platform, the Liberals promised to end the practice of having parliamentary secretaries manage what happens in committees.Why are the Liberals forcing through changes to the rules that would allow just that?

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege pertains to what happened earlier today. Of course, members have a right to raise points of order if they suspect that the proceedings of the House are not in order. I still have several points of order with respect to Vote 40. I was not able to be heard.In the earlier comments of the Chair, as well, there was some aspersion cast as to what my motives for raising those points of order might be. I think it is a violation of my privilege as a member of this House to be told by the Speaker that I cannot continue with a point of order because he suspects it may be specious. I will try to reassure you that it is not a specious point of order. However, I think that because my privilege was violated in this case by comments made by the Chair, I think the appropriate thing to do would be to find a prima facie case of breach, so that the appropriate motion can be moved and this issue be considered by the procedure and House Affairs committee as to whether it is appropriate for the Speaker not to hear a point of order because, apparently, he has views about the motives of the member before hearing the point of order and making a judgment on the substance of the point of order itself before it is made.That is the question of privilege I would like to raise with you. I hope you will find there is a prima facie case of a breach, so that the appropriate motion can be moved and the procedure and House affairs committee can consider this.

Mr. Speaker, this week we are hearing of senators who are using their parliamentary staff to work in their private tanning facilities. We are hearing that they are using them to organize their home renovations. The Liberals congratulate themselves a lot in this House for talk about openness and transparency. However, we have recommended concrete action. We have talked about tightening the expense limits in the Senate, limiting taxpayer-funded travel, and strengthening the Senate ethics office. What we are asking for the government to do today is to stand in the House and join us in demanding the implementation of those rules by the Senate. Will it do it?

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this announcement had all the hallmarks of a government that was shopping around to participate in an announcement that was happening anyway, because Loblaws was moving ahead to renovate their fridges, and it wanted to be at the podium. That is the issue.The problem is that it is part of a theme of the government, caving to corporate interests, as it did when it passed special legislation for SNC-Lavalin, while at the same time saying it needed a long, drawn-out consultation to see if it was worthwhile protecting the pensions of Sears workers and Stelco workers.Why is that Canadian workers cannot get the same protection for their pensions that SNC-Lavalin is getting from criminal charges?

Madam Speaker, this week is Right to Know Week, but every day that goes by without a duty to document the discussions and decisions in ministers' offices is an affront to Canadians' right to know.The Liberal government has so far not dealt with the issue of ministerial emails being deleted. The Information Commissioner has recently called for the Auditor General to look into the practice. When is the Liberal government going to make it clear to Canadians what it is deciding to keep and what it is deciding to delete, and when is it going to bring in rules to require proper documentation? After all, Canadians have a right to know.

Mr. Speaker, one year has now passed since Churchill lost its rail line and became a fly-in only community. The closure of the rail line and the port has hurt the entire north. The fact is, Churchill residents do not have time for a years-long legal battle with Omnitrax to end. They need a deal to get the line back up and running now. In fact, they needed it a long time ago. After a year, the Liberal government has failed to broker a deal that will restore the line. Therefore, on behalf of northern Manitobans and all those concerned to see them succeed, I would like to ask when exactly they can expect a deal to get the line back on track.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his office have been accused of interfering in the most important and serious prosecution of corporate corruption in modern Canadian history. They have had a slew of high profile resignations over the issue. Yesterday, the former Treasury Board president clearly stated, “There's much more to the story that should be told.” She went on to say, “there's been an attempt to shut down the story.”With allegations this serious, the country cannot move on until Canadians know the whole story. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and clear the way for the truth to come out, call a public inquiry for a fair, non-partisan assessment of the facts, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, that was not really an answer to the question. It was over 20 years ago that the Liberals first promised pharmacare. They have had three majority governments since then, and their common criticism of the NDP is that we are in too big of a hurry. We are in a hurry. We think it should not have taken 20 years for Canadians to get affordable access to drugs. We are not prepared to apologize for that in the least. We also know, because the science tells us, that preventative access to things like dental care and eye care are less expensive in the long term and improve quality of life. Will they commit today to moving forward on that?

Mr. Speaker, as vice chair of the committee, I am pleased to answer the question and teach the Prime Minister to do something he has not learned in 18 months, which is to give a straight answer. The committee did indeed table its report last year. In light of a recent announcement by the President of the Treasury Board that the government did not intend to implement its promised reforms anytime soon, some committee members moved a motion calling on the President of the Treasury Board to explain himself at committee. For those who do not know, our committee has a Liberal majority. When it came to a vote, the motion was defeated.

Mr. Speaker, last fall, the Liberals promised to establish visa-free access to Canada for Ukrainians, but yesterday, visiting MPs from Ukraine confirmed that those talks have stalled out.In light of the situation with Russia, it has become more important than ever to strengthen our ties with Ukraine.Given that Ukraine already has visa-free access to the EU and that Canada already has a trade agreement with Ukraine, people want to know what exactly it is the Liberals are waiting for. When will the government finally get a deal done to ensure visa-free access for Ukrainians to Canada?

Mr. Speaker, it is the government House leader above all who should know and observe the rules of this place. She created some considerable confusion earlier when, during a vote, she rose out of her seat and began to wander around the floor of the House of Commons. I understand that she attempted to resolve this informally by asking the table not to have her vote counted, but I am wondering if you could clarify for the House what the rules are with respect to where members should be in a vote, for the benefit of the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker, Cyrus Reporter, a senior adviser to the Prime Minister, who used to be a lobbyist, has just taken a job as a lobbyist again. The Liberals tell us not to worry because he is not going to be lobbying his friends. Instead, he will just be coaching other lobbyists on how to lobby his Liberal friends.This clearly goes against the spirit of the Lobbying Act, which is supposed to prevent this revolving door of Liberal lobbyists. How can the Liberals explain this blatant attempt to get around the law? Where is their integrity?

Mr. Speaker, last week, in light of concerns about the new central vote in the main estimates, I asked the President of the Treasury Board for a take-note debate on that matter. Today the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the vote is riddled with problems that pose serious challenges to parliamentary oversight of government spending.In light of those concerns, in light of the fact that it is wrong for the government to make unilateral changes to the foundations of Parliament, instead of making it look like the government has something to hide, will the minister today commit to having a take-note debate in the House on that matter?

Mr. Speaker, if they believe in the bargaining process, they should not be threatening back-to-work legislation. They should not be targeting sick and vulnerable workers.We know the minister has the ability to call up Canada Post and tell it to stop. We are about to go home to our constituencies for a week. When we come back, it will have been a month that these workers have gone without pay. Will the minister pick up the phone today and do something about it or resign and make way for somebody who has the compassion and the backbone to do it?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the picket line with Canada Post workers I learned that the company has suspended a number of benefits, including short-term disability payments. Michael Wall, who has been employed at the company since 2004 and has a serious illness, is depending on those payments in order to make ends meet. For Canada Post to respond to the strike by attacking its most vulnerable workers is cynical and cruel. While the strike is rotating, these cuts in payments are not. Will the minister be complicit in this mistreatment of Michael and those like him or will she get on the phone today and tell Canada Post to back off?

Mr. Speaker, the member is pretending like the Liberals are just making this choice now. The fact of the matter is they made the choice a long time ago when they did not tell Canada Post management to deal with the injury rate. They made the choice when they decided to do nothing when Canada Post cut off its sick and injured workers at the beginning of the strike. They chose to do this two weeks ago when they signalled back-to-work legislation. The government has been poisoning the well all along, so how dare they pretend that they just made this choice this week? It is not true.

Mr. Speaker, on the say-so of a U.S. court, North Dakota is pushing ahead with two water diversion projects that could have terrible consequences for Lake Winnipeg. Foreign organisms could be transferred between independent watersheds and increased nutrient loads could mean further problems with toxic algae. It was a platform commitment of the Liberals to protect Lake Winnipeg. The way to do that is to refer these projects to the International Joint Commission for independent review and Canadian oversight. Now that the time for talk is over, will the Liberals stand up for Lake Winnipeg and make that referral?

Mr. Speaker, Cyrus Reporter, a senior adviser to the Prime Minister, who used to be a lobbyist, has just taken a job as a lobbyist again. The Liberals tell us not to worry because he is not going to be lobbying his friends. Instead, he will just be coaching other lobbyists on how to lobby his Liberal friends.This clearly goes against the spirit of the Lobbying Act, which is supposed to prevent this revolving door of Liberal lobbyists. How can the Liberals explain this blatant attempt to get around the law? Where is their integrity?

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are getting tired of the combination of high-handed actions and non-sequitur answers by the Liberals. Just as they grew tired of omnibus bills under Stephen Harper's regime, the Liberals promised in the last campaign to end them. Omnibus bills allow for the government to push through hundreds of changes at once, without time for Parliament to scrutinize them or for civil society to scrutinize them. However, instead of getting rid of the practice of omnibus bills, the Liberals are proposing new rules that will legitimize the practice of omnibus bills.We are just wondering this. What happened to the Liberals of the campaign?

Mr. Speaker, that was not really an answer to the question. It was over 20 years ago that the Liberals first promised pharmacare. They have had three majority governments since then, and their common criticism of the NDP is that we are in too big of a hurry. We are in a hurry. We think it should not have taken 20 years for Canadians to get affordable access to drugs. We are not prepared to apologize for that in the least. We also know, because the science tells us, that preventative access to things like dental care and eye care are less expensive in the long term and improve quality of life. Will they commit today to moving forward on that?

Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative government notoriously mismanaged the temporary foreign worker program and allowed abuse to flourish. It meant downward pressure on wages and working conditions for Canadian workers, while encouraging the exploitation of foreign workers.Now the TPP will make this worse. Employers will not even have to show that they could not hire Canadians to do the job before bringing in temporary foreign workers.Will the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour stand today in the House and urge her government not to ratify the TPP unless changes are made in this clause to ensure it will not bring the TFW back to Canada through the back door.

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post workers on disability and mothers depending on their top-up are being wrongfully targeted. It has been a week since I first raised this in the House and it has been longer since they have been cut off. Whatever the government says, this is not a normal part of the collective bargaining process. We know the minister responsible for Canada Post can call off the dogs at any time.What is she waiting for? Is she waiting for someone to miss a mortgage payment or skip their medication? What exactly is it going to take for her to call Canada Post and tell it to stop bargaining on the backs of sick and vulnerable workers?

Mr. Speaker, this week, two first nations in Manitoba were uprooted. Their evacuation due to the forest fires resulted in the worst coordination efforts in years. Leadership in Little Grand Rapids was not listened to and people were left stranded until the last minute. Before this life-threatening ordeal was over, blame was squarely placed on the chief and council, which is unhelpful and unacceptable. It seems the experiences of previous years have not been taken into account. Will the minister work with the province and ensure that indigenous communities are heard and respected, and that what happened this week never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, after promising more times than we can count to get rid of our unfair voting system, the Prime Minister abandoned that promise. He would not let members of the House decide whether to move forward. Instead he said it was his choice alone. Well, he is wrong and tomorrow every MP will get to make that choice for themselves.Will the Prime Minister get out of the way and promise not to punish Liberals who, unlike him, choose to keep their promise?

Mr. Speaker, China arbitrarily detained Canadian citizens for political purposes and the Liberals said that it was business as usual. A former SNC-Lavalin executive pleaded guilty to breaking political financing laws in what has been called the “biggest fraud case” in the country, but it continues to get huge federal contracts. It seems that whenever there is a buck to be made, the Liberals' moral compass breaks down. SNC-Lavelin should be suspended from bidding on federal government contracts until Canadians have all the details of this fraud. Will the Liberals order the suspension or do they have a price for every principle?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to RCMP members, the Liberal government has been taking the Conservative approach as well. The men and women of the RCMP put themselves on the line every day for Canadians, but on average they are making 11% less than their counterparts across the country. That is why back in 2015, the RCMP commissioner submitted a request for an RCMP pay raise to the Treasury Board Secretariat for approval. It has now been over a year since the Liberals were elected and RCMP members are still waiting for action on that raise.To the President of the Treasury Board, why are RCMP members still waiting for the respect and pay they deserve?

There we have it, Mr. Speaker, Liberal ministers getting up and saying it is status quo; every one of them except for the finance minister, who is hinting that Trump's presidency is changing everything including the budget. Therefore, instead of flowing the funds for their promises on mental health and home care, the Liberals have cynically been using that money to force provinces onto the Harper plan. As Liberal promises collapse left and right, Canadians are wondering if they will ever get the things they really need, like a national pharmacare plan. Is the Liberal government going to take responsibility for backtracking on its promises, or is it just going to blame it on Trump?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but one does not move on to talk about other issues when there is a serious cloud of corruption hanging over us. Public service is not transactional. It is not that we announce a little program here and get to help our buddies over there. That is not how it works.With respect to the justice committee, we know full well that a Liberal majority on that committee shut down the study. We know because the former attorney general wrote the justice committee today and said that she has more to say and hopes that the committee will accept her comments. She also said that those comments will be limited by the restrictions on the waiver that the Prime Minister issued.Therefore, will the Prime Minister lift the waiver and create a forum for these former ministers to speak?

Mr. Speaker, what he does not say is that those investments are going to come at a high cost to Canadians, who want to know why they cannot get Liberals in government to behave like the Liberals they vote for at election time. For instance, the Liberals have promised an infrastructure bank that would “provide loan guarantees and small capital contributions to provinces and municipalities”, not the BlackRock group. Nothing about user fees and tolls. Nothing about taxpayers taking on private risk. Liberals ran on a program that would have benefited communities, but, once elected, turned it into a $35-billion slush fund for their international corporate buddies. We want to know, where is their sense of shame?

Mr. Speaker, one year has now passed since Churchill lost its rail line and became a fly-in only community. The closure of the rail line and the port has hurt the entire north. The fact is, Churchill residents do not have time for a years-long legal battle with Omnitrax to end. They need a deal to get the line back up and running now. In fact, they needed it a long time ago. After a year, the Liberal government has failed to broker a deal that will restore the line. Therefore, on behalf of northern Manitobans and all those concerned to see them succeed, I would like to ask when exactly they can expect a deal to get the line back on track.

Mr. Speaker, over half of the strategic investment funding for post-secondary institutions has been announced. There is a 2018 deadline on the money but not a dime has been committed to Manitoba. The Conservative government in Manitoba does not get the importance of investing in post-secondary education for students, for construction workers, or for employers.The question is this. Are Manitoba's Liberal MPs just going to sit there and watch as a short-sighted government on Broadway passes up funding of up to $100 million for Manitoba? Or are they going to commit to working with Manitoba's post-secondary institutions to make sure that Manitoba gets its fair share of the money before the clock runs out?

Mr. Speaker, it is baffling that someone who can blow $1,700 on food for a three-hour flight cannot find help to understand the law. As a result, the Prime Minister is under two different investigations by the Ethics Commissioner and has violated the Official Languages Act. Let us quote the Prime Minister: ...when you make a mistake you admit it, you make amends, you ask for forgiveness and you make sure it never happens again. Will he admit his mistake, make amends, ask for forgiveness, and make sure it never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, last fall, the Liberals promised to establish visa-free access to Canada for Ukrainians, but yesterday, visiting MPs from Ukraine confirmed that those talks have stalled out.In light of the situation with Russia, it has become more important than ever to strengthen our ties with Ukraine.Given that Ukraine already has visa-free access to the EU and that Canada already has a trade agreement with Ukraine, people want to know what exactly it is the Liberals are waiting for. When will the government finally get a deal done to ensure visa-free access for Ukrainians to Canada?

Mr. Speaker, after years of pretending to be champions for Air Canada workers, the Liberals tabled legislation that gives Air Canada free rein to ship the good-paying jobs of 2,600 workers and their families right out of Canada.The Prime Minister once stood alongside protesting maintenance workers. He was chatting about solidarity and probably throwing in the odd Kumbaya for good measure, but where is that solidarity when it could actually do something for workers?Will the Prime Minister stand up, apologize for his cynicism, and withdraw Bill C-10?

Mr. Speaker, that answer is simply not good enough.The CRA has been letting tax cheats off for far too long. Canadians have been looking to the government for leadership, and all the Liberals do is say that they are not in charge. If they are not in charge, who is? Canadians mean to elect a government that will take care of big tax cheats, and the Liberal government is not doing it. Please, stop with the incredible answer that somehow the Minister of National Revenue does not have anything to say about whether tax cheats get off the hook in Canada, and give Canadians the answer they are looking for, which is that the rich are going to pay their fair share.

Mr. Speaker, as vice chair of the committee, I am pleased to answer the question and teach the Prime Minister to do something he has not learned in 18 months, which is to give a straight answer. The committee did indeed table its report last year. In light of a recent announcement by the President of the Treasury Board that the government did not intend to implement its promised reforms anytime soon, some committee members moved a motion calling on the President of the Treasury Board to explain himself at committee. For those who do not know, our committee has a Liberal majority. When it came to a vote, the motion was defeated.

Mr. Speaker, they do deserve that, but clearly they are going to need a different government to get it. I will say this, when the wealthy and well-connected want help getting out of paying their taxes, the Liberals are there to get them an expedited secret deal. However, there are 3,000 to 5,000 veterans living homeless in Canada right now. Yesterday, MPs from all parties supported a motion that would give a stipend to veterans to help them put a roof over their heads, but we all know it is not going to happen until the government adopts this as its own policy.Is the government prepared to develop a program to give direct help to veterans so they are able to put a roof over their heads? If so, when and with how much?

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege pertains to what happened earlier today. Of course, members have a right to raise points of order if they suspect that the proceedings of the House are not in order. I still have several points of order with respect to Vote 40. I was not able to be heard.In the earlier comments of the Chair, as well, there was some aspersion cast as to what my motives for raising those points of order might be. I think it is a violation of my privilege as a member of this House to be told by the Speaker that I cannot continue with a point of order because he suspects it may be specious. I will try to reassure you that it is not a specious point of order. However, I think that because my privilege was violated in this case by comments made by the Chair, I think the appropriate thing to do would be to find a prima facie case of breach, so that the appropriate motion can be moved and this issue be considered by the procedure and House Affairs committee as to whether it is appropriate for the Speaker not to hear a point of order because, apparently, he has views about the motives of the member before hearing the point of order and making a judgment on the substance of the point of order itself before it is made.That is the question of privilege I would like to raise with you. I hope you will find there is a prima facie case of a breach, so that the appropriate motion can be moved and the procedure and House affairs committee can consider this.

Madam Speaker, after a year and a half of work and several million dollars to try to fix the many problems with the Phoenix pay system, public servants are still not getting paid properly. Several unions have suggested that there are sufficient resources within the system to build an effective system without having to wait for a whole new one.Solutions are available. Is the government exploring them?When will the government announce the next step in finding a fair solution for our public servants?

Mr. Speaker, normally budget items have to get Treasury Board approval before being included in the main estimates. That is why last year we all agreed to delay the tabling of the main estimates so that budget items could be approved by the Treasury Board and included in them. However, this year's estimates include seven billion dollars' worth of budget initiatives that have not gone through the Treasury Board process and should be brought forward in supplementary estimates. It is a big change in the way we approve government spending, and that is why I have asked the President of the Treasury Board to request a take note debate in the House so that we can learn more about this and pronounce on it. Will the Prime Minister support that request?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, I could not help but hear the government House leader said that the Prime Minister answered every question in question period last Wednesday. Having answered a question myself, I know that not to be true. I wonder if she wants to—

Mr. Speaker, it is the government House leader above all who should know and observe the rules of this place. She created some considerable confusion earlier when, during a vote, she rose out of her seat and began to wander around the floor of the House of Commons. I understand that she attempted to resolve this informally by asking the table not to have her vote counted, but I am wondering if you could clarify for the House what the rules are with respect to where members should be in a vote, for the benefit of the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker, the Columbus Housing Co-op offers safe and affordable housing for seniors in Elmwood, but not without its challenges. The riverbank near the building is eroding. If a leaky roof were jeopardizing its units, it would be able to apply for renovation funding. However, the rules prevent it from getting money to shore up the riverbank. Its operating agreement is going to expire in several years. While the Liberals promised a fix for this co-op and those like it, after three years, all we have is a Band-Aid to get them through the next election. A proper national housing strategy would provide help and certainty to housing co-ops like Columbus, but that is not what the government has delivered. I want to know how much longer they are going to have to wait.

Mr. Speaker, CP Rail workers can go on strike legally as soon as tonight, and those workers, like all Canadian workers, have the right to free and fair collective bargaining. The minister has addressed this issue before in the House, but she has not clearly stated that her government will not use back-to-work legislation to unilaterally end the strike, so I am giving her that opportunity now.Will the minister commit to those workers today, on the record, that she will not use back-to-work legislation to end the strike?

Mr. Speaker, recently 19 individuals crossed the border into Manitoba during a blizzard, including a pregnant woman and a toddler. The Liberal government continues to claim that the current situation is somehow the status quo, but I can say that people running across farmers' fields across the border in a blizzard is not the status quo. To make matters worse, the Prime Minister has not even answered the Premier of Manitoba's letter asking for help. During the meeting today with President Trump's official, would the Liberals point out that the U.S. no longer fits Canada's own description of a safe country for refugees?

Mr. Speaker, under the previous government 20,000 Winnipeggers lost their door-to-door mail service along with many others across the country. During the campaign, the Prime Minister promised to restore that service but the government has been backpedalling ever since. I was quite shocked to read in the Free Press this week that Winnipeg Liberal MPs say that people in our city are happy with the cuts.I am wondering if the Minister of Public Services and Procurement will explain to seniors and people living with disabilities struggling to stay in their family homes why the Prime Minister feels that promises made to them do not need to be kept and when exactly he told her it would be okay to let them down.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is advocating that the deal be reopened. Anyone with eyes can see it never closed. Congress is trying to change the deal. The president is declaring a trade war on one of the countries involved, Mexico. This is a live deal.Why does the government want to tie its hands and put its head in the sand, instead of waiting for an opportunity to improve the deal for Canadian workers and for the environment? That is the real question. I suspect it is because the government is listening to the same drug companies that want to fight pharmacare in this country and that are going to make money off this deal.Why is the government more concerned with defending the interests of corporate tycoons than the interests of Canadian workers?

Mr. Speaker, we have seen too many times the Liberal government's indifference to the pensions of private sector workers like those at Sears, but right under its nose, at Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, there are thousands of workers from Chalk River, Ontario, to Pinawa, Manitoba, who are going to be kicked out of the public service pension plan in September because of the federal government's privatization agenda.The government has known about this issue for a long time now. Will the President of the Treasury Board stand up today and let these workers know what is going to happen to their pension in September?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his office have been accused of interfering in the most important and serious prosecution of corporate corruption in modern Canadian history. They have had a slew of high profile resignations over the issue. Yesterday, the former Treasury Board president clearly stated, “There's much more to the story that should be told.” She went on to say, “there's been an attempt to shut down the story.”With allegations this serious, the country cannot move on until Canadians know the whole story. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and clear the way for the truth to come out, call a public inquiry for a fair, non-partisan assessment of the facts, yes or no?

Madam Speaker, this week is Right to Know Week, but every day that goes by without a duty to document the discussions and decisions in ministers' offices is an affront to Canadians' right to know.The Liberal government has so far not dealt with the issue of ministerial emails being deleted. The Information Commissioner has recently called for the Auditor General to look into the practice. When is the Liberal government going to make it clear to Canadians what it is deciding to keep and what it is deciding to delete, and when is it going to bring in rules to require proper documentation? After all, Canadians have a right to know.

Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that as early as summer 2015, IBM was advising the government that Phoenix was not ready to go. For those keeping score, that means departmental reviews, public sector unions, and the principal private contractor itself were saying that Phoenix was not ready to go. Now, the Liberal Party has a rich history of going back on its commitments. I am thinking of electoral reform and I am thinking of its promise on CEO stock option loopholes.Why is it that the one time the Liberals could have used their great power of doubling back on their commitments to help Canadians, they passed up the opportunity?

Mr. Speaker, I am actually rising on a point of privilege. I respect your job in terms of managing the House's time, but if a colleague of mine from any side of the floor has a proposal for unanimous consent in the House, I think that as a member I have a right to hear the entire proposal before I make up my mind whether I would say yes or no.I respect that anyone saying no would cancel the motion, but we all have a right to hear what is being proposed, and members should be able to at least finish reading out any motion they propose. I would like you to consider this as a question of privilege for me, and come back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Liberals have called on the legislature to stop holding blood drives in protest of the Canadian Blood Services' discriminatory treatment of gay men. The CBS policy is based on stigma and prejudice, not science, but the Liberals in Manitoba have chosen the wrong target for their outrage. The outrage is not that well-meaning Canadians are organizing blood drives. The outrage is that these Liberals, the ones right here in Ottawa, have had almost four years to stop this discrimination, four years to finally treat gay men who want to save lives with respect, and they are still waiting. When will these Liberals finally fix the problem?

Mr. Speaker, according to an internal RCMP document, staffing levels at the dispatch centre in Manitoba have reached a “critical level”, with a vacancy rate of 35%. As a result, Manitoba RCMP officers who are dealing with refugee border crossers at Emerson on top of their regular duties are going to see a reduction in their field support. This level of so-called “risk management” by the government is not acceptable. When the government looks to pinch pennies, why is it always front-line RCMP officers who get the short end of the stick?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to restore good faith with Canada's public servants. While the Liberals have brought real change to the rhetoric of government, we are waiting for real change in the actions of government. The new government promised to repeal the Conservatives' sick leave legislation, but then it showed up this week at the bargaining table and put the exact same Conservative offer on the table.We are wondering this. When are the Liberals going to bring a deal to the table that reflects their promises in the election?

Mr. Speaker, many children outside Quebec have no choice but to attend an English school because all the census asks is whether French is their mother tongue. However, the Charter also guarantees access to French-language education to children who have a parent or sibling who went to school in French. The Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones is asking that all of these questions be included in the census.Will the Liberals make the necessary changes?

Mr. Speaker, this week we are hearing of senators who are using their parliamentary staff to work in their private tanning facilities. We are hearing that they are using them to organize their home renovations. The Liberals congratulate themselves a lot in this House for talk about openness and transparency. However, we have recommended concrete action. We have talked about tightening the expense limits in the Senate, limiting taxpayer-funded travel, and strengthening the Senate ethics office. What we are asking for the government to do today is to stand in the House and join us in demanding the implementation of those rules by the Senate. Will it do it?

Madam Speaker, I think people need to hear a more concrete answer in terms of how we will make progress. That is why people doubt that we will make progress in a timely way. It is why civilian members of the RCMP are upset that the government has reversed a previous commitment not to put them on the Phoenix payroll system until it is fixed and instead has created an arbitrary deadline of 2020, where come what may it will put those RCMP members on the payroll system. Why are the Liberals risking doing material damage to the men and women of the RCMP when the payroll system is not ready to go and will they reverse the decision?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many of the small communities that are going to be left out of the infrastructure bank were clapping when that was said.Every few days, new revelations come out about the Liberal pick for the official languages commissioner and her connection to the Liberal Party, to the PMO, and to the heritage minister's own office.The partisanship in this appointment is so blatant that today a minority languages group out of New Brunswick will be seeking a legal injunction to stop it.What is it going to take for the Prime Minister to admit that this time he has gone too far? When is he going to finally stop pretending that Madame Meilleur can be seen as an independent officer of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, the only one who is naive is somebody who thinks that this deal is closed, because there is clearly a lot of action on the deal. I just wish that the Liberals were in as big a rush to do something about climate change as they are to ratify this deal. They still have Stephen Harper's targets. Their carbon tax gives the steepest discounts to the biggest polluters. They are wasting billions of dollars buying old pipelines to pay out international investors, instead of investing in what they ought to be investing in, like a program to help Canadians retrofit their homes, saving money on their monthly bills and reducing their carbon footprint.Why is it that the Liberal government once again is more interested in defending corporate profits than standing up for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this announcement had all the hallmarks of a government that was shopping around to participate in an announcement that was happening anyway, because Loblaws was moving ahead to renovate their fridges, and it wanted to be at the podium. That is the issue.The problem is that it is part of a theme of the government, caving to corporate interests, as it did when it passed special legislation for SNC-Lavalin, while at the same time saying it needed a long, drawn-out consultation to see if it was worthwhile protecting the pensions of Sears workers and Stelco workers.Why is that Canadian workers cannot get the same protection for their pensions that SNC-Lavalin is getting from criminal charges?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to end the abuse of the temporary foreign worker program, but now they are on the cusp of signing the trans-Pacific partnership, a trade deal that is going to entrench the worst aspects of that program.Under the TPP, foreign companies are going to be allowed to bring in their own workforce without advertising their jobs to Canadians, without getting a labour market opinion saying there are not enough qualified Canadian tradespeople to do the job. Provincial governments are expressly prohibited from doing any kind of skills testing on these workers.As a Canadian tradesperson myself, I want to know how it is the Liberals thought it was okay to sell out Canadian tradespeople at the international bargaining table.

Mr. Speaker, last week, in light of concerns about the new central vote in the main estimates, I asked the President of the Treasury Board for a take-note debate on that matter. Today the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the vote is riddled with problems that pose serious challenges to parliamentary oversight of government spending.In light of those concerns, in light of the fact that it is wrong for the government to make unilateral changes to the foundations of Parliament, instead of making it look like the government has something to hide, will the minister today commit to having a take-note debate in the House on that matter?

Mr. Speaker, access to information reform has been studied time and again. In fact, one could say in this case it has been studied literally to death. Despite two recent reports and calls for reform, the President of the Treasury Board announced he was not going to be keeping his promise to introduce new legislation this spring. Instead of explaining himself at committee, to which he earnestly promised reform, he is allowing the Liberal members to run interference. Why is he suddenly scared to come to the committee, and will he take this opportunity to explain himself to the House?

Mr. Speaker, the red herrings continue. No one has said that it is not the prerogative of the RCMP whether or not to decide to launch that investigation, but someone who has been in politics that long should know that it is very significant to have five former attorneys general suggest that a criminal investigation might be warranted. So can we please stop with the red herrings? The fact of the matter is that we have heard that there was a concerted political pressure campaign in the PMO. We want to get to the bottom of that. We believe that a full public inquiry is the way to get to the bottom of that. When are they going to launch one?

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians called for a better NEB process, but without defined targets and more information, the new government is going to make a longer process without making a better process. Key stakeholders are noticing. That is why the mayor of Burnaby said he was severely disappointed with the new Liberal measures, and first nations are saying that the new measures ignore critical risks to rivers, ecosystems, and streams. The minister said she would base her decision on science, but the broken system is not gathering it. Why is it that she is willing to move ahead with a decision without evidence?

Mr. Speaker, at first the Liberals said that they had no choice but to change the rules of Parliament. Now, after being roundly criticized, the Liberals are walking back everything, or almost everything. In their platform, the Liberals promised to end the practice of having parliamentary secretaries manage what happens in committees.Why are the Liberals forcing through changes to the rules that would allow just that?

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, another 21 refugees, looking for safety, walked for hours through snowy fields to get to Canada through Emerson, Manitoba. Repeated calls on the government to take concrete, immediate actions like suspending the safe third country agreement continue to go unanswered, while these individuals are literally risking life and limb. If some poor farmer were to find a refugee family lying in his field would the Minister of Immigration continue to repeat the same lame non-answer we have heard for weeks, or would he have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans repeat them for him? Will the minister finally suspend the safe third country agreement now? What is it going to take?

Mr. Speaker, this week we heard explosive testimony from the former attorney general. We heard that the Prime Minister led a concerted pressure campaign to protect corporate and Liberal interests with inappropriate political interference. These allegations are so serious that yesterday, five former attorneys general wrote to the RCMP commissioner requesting a criminal investigation. The Liberals continue to pretend that a justice committee investigation, with a limited mandate and controlled by a Liberal majority, can get to the bottom of this, but they are the only ones who think so. When are they going to do the right thing and launch a full public inquiry so Canadians can get the whole story?