2016-05-19

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is being hypocritical when it comes to veterans. He made a solemn promise that they would never have to go to court against the government. Once elected, he reneged on that promise.The Prime Minister is disrespectful toward our veterans and the members of the House.Can he confirm right now that he will keep his word and drop the lawsuit in the Equitas case?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals arrogance knows no bounds. It is quite evident that the Prime Minister has absolutely no respect for this place and the democracy it represents. The Liberals are trying to ram through electoral reform just like they tried to ram through the opposition yesterday. Does the Prime Minister think that he can also manhandle democracy, or will he let Canadians have a say in a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, as we know, many Canadians who have tight budgets use food banks.I have stated that my comments on that issue were insensitive. I regret them. I repeat that in the House. I would also say that by my actions, I think I have shown myself unequivocally welcoming to all of our Syrian refugees.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister's temper got the best of him, but his behaviour was just an extension of his government's approach to the House. Increasingly, Liberals treat the House and the voices of Canadians with arrogance and disrespect, and nowhere is that more clear than in Motion No. 6, which would strip the opposition of all of its tools to hold the government to account.Will the Prime Minister put the words of his apology this morning into action and withdraw this offensive motion?

Mr. Speaker, it seems that sunny ways have quickly turned into “Sonny, get the bleep out of my way”. That is the elbows up approach the Prime Minister took in this Parliament yesterday, but it also seems to be the approach he is taking to voting reform. He is trying to rig the next election in the favour of the Liberals.Is the Prime Minister really so arrogant that he thinks he can impose his will on Canadians without giving them a say in a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's unstable leadership has been on absolute full display this week for us. Whether it be misleading Canadians about his made-up consultations with the opposition or his absolutely bizarre behaviour last night, the Prime Minister is out of control. Will he do us all a favour and take a remedial course in civics and perhaps learn the basics of democracy? Will he also do the right thing and give Canadians the final say in how governments are elected? Will the Prime Minister respect the voices of each and every Canadian by holding a referendum? Yes, or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are so concerned with the refugee numbers that they have forgotten the people themselves.The Liberals have failed to support Syrian refugees once they arrive, and many of them are using food banks while making the transition to Canada.How could the minister have been so arrogant as to suggest it is a Syrian cultural value to depend on food banks?

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chief government whip. When is that member going to stand up against the arrogance of his government and stop driving injured veterans into court?In the last election, the whip made a solemn vow to veterans to bring back lifetime pensions, full tuition payments, and a range of promises that the new government has already broken.When will the chief government whip, a retired Canadian Armed Forces general, stand up and live up to the promises he made to our veterans?

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois commends the government for withdrawing Motion No. 6.With regard to the bill on medical assistance in dying, the leader just said that he is prepared to hear from members. Is he prepared to listen to them?The reasonably foreseeable natural death provision is not consistent with the Carter decision. Is the government prepared to support the Bloc Québécois' amendment to remove this criterion, which discriminates on the ground of age and bases eligibility on inhumane conditions such as hunger strikes?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is crystal clear. The Prime Minister misled veterans during the last election. In contrast, our Conservative prime minister always did what he said he would do. He certainly never made false promises, offering false hope.Canada needs a respectful and consistent leader, not a schoolboy who shoves his colleagues. Can the Prime Minister finally show some leadership and stop this legal fight with our veterans in the Equitas case?

Mr. Speaker, legislation on medical assistance in dying is a difficult, sensitive issue. Canadians have legitimate and heartfelt concerns and all of us in this place share a responsibility to get this right. It has been so disappointing to see the government's approach. It rejected an all-party committee report, ignored testimony about the unconstitutional nature of the bill, and rejected amendments that would fix that. All the while, it falsely claims that everything is the opposition's fault.Will the government drop the strong-armed tactics and work with us to fix this deeply flawed bill?

Mr. Speaker, they gave us the same old story as the former Conservative government, and they even went further.They want to give themselves all the power in the House in order to force us to pass their problem-riddled bill, to force us to accept the loss of 2,400 jobs at Aveos, even though that broke the law, and to force us to accept their solution to medical assistance in dying, even if it goes against the Supreme Court ruling.When exactly did the Liberals decide to move from their sunny ways to bully tactics?

Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to move beyond her repetitive non-answers, beyond her refusal to allow the Canadian people to decide the manner by which they elect their representatives. The minister stands and pretends that a few hundred witnesses at a committee are more inclusive than a referendum that could involve 17 million or more voters. What does she not understand about this? This is a simple question of the legitimacy of this place. Does the government really think Canadians will accept a rigged system chosen by and for the Liberal Party of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, here is the reality. Here is what has been happening.By its own actions, the government showed a deep disrespect for Parliament this week. There are serious and substantial issues before the House. The Liberals are shutting down debate and stripping the ability of MPs to hold them to account.Whether they voted for a government or an opposition member, Canadians want their voices heard. When exactly did the Liberals decide to turn their back on sunny ways in favour of these strong arm tactics?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals need to take responsibility for the bizarre actions of the Liberal government over the past few days.Motion No. 6 was a glimpse into the mind of a Prime Minister when he does not get his way. Canadians have every reason to be worried about what the Liberals plan to do with the voting system of Canadians.Will the government commit to dropping its attempts to rig the system and promise Canadians a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, the government promised a new era of respect for Parliament. Instead, after just six months, we have the Liberals shutting down debate for the first time in our history on an end-of life conscience matter.The Liberals tried to rig the rules of this place to the government's total advantage through Motion No. 6. We commend them for withdrawing that, but now they are trying to rig the very system that elects members to this place.The minister has just said that we need to hear the voices of those Canadians who brought us to this place. Those were 17.5 million voices that will be excluded by her closed, Liberal-controlled parliamentary process.Why will the government not really demonstrate a commitment to democratic reforms through a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, today's Toronto Star says that the minister's handling of the electoral reform file is “asinine”, “disingenuous”, and “discredited”. The Star also reports that “she is prone to explanations that defy logic”. Those are the words of the Toronto Star, not mine. Here is the minister's chance to turn things around by actually giving a straightforward answer, which includes a yes or a no, to a straightforward question. Will the Liberal government hold a referendum to give Canadians a veto in its plans to change our electoral system?

Mr. Speaker, our government is acting aggressively on a mandate letter given by our Prime Minister.In budget 2016, we have $5.6 billion in financial benefits to those men and women who need our help and support. We are expanding our earnings loss benefit, improving access to the career impact allowance, and making the disability award more generous.We are delivering for veterans, and we will continue to do so. It is really above the height of hypocrisy, these questions regarding this file from the former government.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled Canadians on three separate occasions when he said that he consulted the opposition on electoral reform. He said to Canadians to trust him, that he will design an electoral system that is ideal for Canada. The Prime Minister's failure of leadership this week shows why Canadians need to make their own decisions with regard to how they vote. A referendum is absolutely the only safeguard that Canadians have against this tyrannical Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister so afraid to hold a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, the opposition comes to the House to represent the 60% of Canadians who do not support the Liberals. In the past few days, the Liberals have been pulling their own fire alarms to prevent MPs from doing their work. They tried to punish us for their mistake by bringing in Motion No. 6. We appreciate the fact that they have now announced that they are withdrawing that, but I do know that they are only withdrawing it after the massive backlash from not only opposition parties, but Canadians, and even their friends in the media.The Prime Minister has withdrawn this anti-democratic motion to rig the rules of the House. Will he now withdraw his anti-democratic attempts to rig the voting system by changes to the electoral system?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the government has finally listened to reason and withdrawn Motion No. 6, which was nothing less than a straitjacket imposed on the Parliament of Canada.Nonetheless, it will take more than that to change the prevailing climate around here. For weeks, the government has repeatedly used closure motions for no good reason.Will the Prime Minister also stop the excessive use of closure motions here in Parliament in order to give members a chance to speak?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage had this to say about the sale of Maison Radio-Canada: “I now expect CBC/Radio-Canada to take the next steps in the process in a transparent manner”.Yesterday, the CBC/Radio-Canada board of directors did not say much. There was no information about the cost, the size, or the number of studios. Nothing at all. Since the vast majority of the board members are partisan appointees, that is worrisome. It is also worrisome because one of the companies selected is best known for the Îlot Voyageur fiasco in Montreal that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Can the minister demand that all of the details about this enormous project be made public? Is that not the least she should do?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals have finally taken back Motion No. 6. That was the most draconian power grab that any government has ever attempted in Canadian history. It is good that they have pushed that back.However, there are other ways the government can finally start working with opposition parties. It can stop the rush to closure. It can actually provide calendars so we know what is being debated day to day. It can stop changing the Order Paper at the last minute.Will the government finally start working with opposition parties in this Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, I had the opportunity to speak at the lyme disease federal framework conference on behalf of New Brunswick Southwest constituents impacted by lyme disease.Listening to those impacted and the experts, it is clear we need more data on the devastating effects of lyme disease across Canada. Given that our government is committed to science and data, would the Minister of Health inform this House about the government's next steps, so that we can have better services and treatments for lyme disease?

Mr. Speaker, the government decided to withdraw Motion No. 6. That is a good thing. Well done. The government has also just told us that it will allow a free and full debate on Bill C-14. That is great.However, we need to be careful. We got burned on the bill on medical assistance in dying. At second reading, on two separate occasions, government representatives rose to interrupt the debate and put an end to second reading. That is completely unacceptable. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is an honourable man. Will he give us his word that every parliamentarian who wants to speak to this bill will have the opportunity to do so and that no government representatives will rise to stop debate?

Mr. Speaker, after applauding Quebec's non-partisan approach in dealing with medical assistance in dying, the Liberal government is taking the exact opposite approach.It is stifling debate, refusing to listen to experts about the constitutionality of the bill, and rejecting the opposition's most important amendments. Even the Alberta Court of Appeal has contradicted the government. Bill C-14 does not comply with the Carter ruling.How can the Liberals put forward a bill that could be challenged the very moment it is passed?

Mr. Speaker, it has been five years since Canada signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We still see barriers for people living with disabilities. Education, accessible housing, and employment have not been fully implemented. The Liberal government promised to form a persons with disabilities act, and now we need to see some action.When is this going to happen? We have had absolutely no word yet, and it is very important for—

I find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite can stand and accuse this government of anything. This came about because of years of neglect by the former government on this file. We are delivering $5.6 billion in financial security to veterans and their families. We have an aggressive mandate from our Prime Minister to do things better than the former government, and this includes a return to an option for a lifelong pension.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the Liberals will fail to provide sufficient resources to Parks Canada to address the anticipated increase in visitors next year, but they are definitely failing to address the state of accessibility within our parks today for those with disabilities. Accessible infrastructure has declined, all-terrain vehicles have disappeared, and the maintenance and upkeep of trails and facilities have fallen off. These parks belong to all of us. Will the government step up and ensure that our national parks are accessible for all Canadians, including those with disabilities?

Mr. Speaker, if I told you that a company has not paid its employees in months, you would think that is unacceptable, right?Well, that is what has been happening to federal government employees since the new pay system was implemented. Many employees have not received a paycheque in several months. There is a Service Canada employee on maternity leave who has not received anything in three months. Three months without pay.What will the government do to ensure that the people who are affected can feed their families?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister let his emotions get the best of him. We knew that, and now the Canadian public knows as well. His behaviour yesterday was unworthy of the office of Prime Minister of Canada.Can the Prime Minister or one of his representatives explain why he lost his self-control yesterday under the circumstances? Was it because things were not going his way?

Mr. Speaker, that is a great start, showing all of the members in the House and Canadians that the Prime Minister respects them.In that spirit, I am going to ask him this. Will his government also allow every member who wants to speak on the issue of assisted dying, which is a conscience issue, the opportunity to speak?

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to be a backseat driver, but what we just disposed of was the motion that this question be now put. Now we will need to put the question, and I think members are ready for that.

Mr. Speaker, a month ago, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food committed to extend the provisions of the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. Unfortunately, up until now, we have not heard a single thing since that announcement. People are starting to believe that this is just another broken promise by the Liberals.Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stand right now and commit to extending these provisions immediately?

Mr. Speaker, I have some headache medicine in my desk, should you wish to have any.Democracy is more than just about voting. Democracy is about ensuring that the voices of those who are normally engaged in the process are included to ensure that we are the strongest that we can be. In the past, we have extended the right to vote to women and to indigenous persons, and it has been Conservative governments, Progressive Conservative governments that have done this. This was the right thing to do. It came to the House. The members took responsibility and brought forward the changes necessary. We need to demonstrate the same leadership.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in her remarks at the beginning of question period today, we represent the voice of every Canadian. I would urge my colleagues in the House to move beyond the repetitive questions asked every day. Let us engage in a productive exchange of ideas. Let us work together and seize this historic opportunity to bring our electoral system into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, that was not my question. Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rise and give his word that no government representative will rise to stop debate on this very sensitive bill at second and third reading, yes or no? There is no call for partisanship on this bill. We want the minister to give his word.

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we all agree that the status quo must end. Over 60% of Canadians voted for change. They voted for parties—

Mr. Speaker, we have not decided on a system yet. We have put forward a committee to study a wide range of electoral reform options, including proportional representation and alternative voting, including online voting and mandatory voting. That process has just begun and we need to work together to ensure the voices of Canadians are included in that conversation, and that we use the tools available to us in the 21st century to do this in the most meaningful and inclusive way possible.

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to enhancing rail safety, and in budget 2016, we are investing $143 million for rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. However, it is premature for comments on funding for a rail bypass before the study is completed.The minister was honoured to meet citizens of the town recently to hear their stories first-hand. He knows that the municipal council and residents of Lac-Mégantic have an interest in relocating the rails away from the centre of town.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that it is very important that we move ahead. The Supreme Court has made it clear to us that Canadians have a right to medical assistance in dying. We have seen, even this week, by the decision that was made in Alberta at a Court of Appeal, that in fact it is very important that a regulatory framework be put in place so this assistance can be provided safely.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday we learned via Twitter that even the Prime Minister's principal secretary thinks that holding a referendum is not a bad way to conduct consultations. Can the minister and the Prime Minister respect the opinion of the 62% of Canadians who did not vote for them, forget about partisanship on such a fundamental issue, and tell us if they are rejecting the idea of a referendum just because it is a good Conservative proposal?

Mr. Speaker, the report by the Commissioner of Official Languages, which was tabled today, shows once again that violations of the act are still a common occurrence. There was an excellent example of that this week. Energy east submitted its application to the National Energy Board in English only. That is simply unacceptable. How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is also supposedly responsible for official languages, justify the fact that francophones will have to wait another month in order to be able to access the documents in their language?

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that this process has failed before it has even begun.We need to work together to find common ground. We need to ensure that the voices of those Canadians who sent us to this place are reflected in the conversations.I urge all members to bring their ideas forward and to help strengthen this process and our democratic institutions.

Mr. Speaker, is a referendum a tool, a means of engaging Canadians? Yes, it is. However, is it the best tool? It is not the best tool. During previous referenda in Ontario and in B.C., nearly 50% of the population did not participate. Is that okay? We need to work together, and we need to work harder, to ensure that our democratic institutions are inclusive and the systemic barriers that exist today are addressed by all 338 members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is wondering why the questions are repetitive, it may be because the answers are unsatisfactory.Contrary to what the minister thinks, we are not the only ones who believe that a referendum is a good option. Canadians and the media are also wondering about the process put in place by the Liberal government. Yesterday, a respected Toronto Star journalist said, “[The minister] has so far succeeded in burning bridges where she should have been building some...It is an unsustainable proposition.”Will the minister acknowledge that a referendum is the best way to respectfully consult all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we have been trying to extend the hours and allow for more debate on this very important issue. I think all colleagues will agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we recognize the importance and sensitivity of Bill C-14. It is an issue that touches the lives of many Canadians and all parliamentarians, and we will continue to look for a way to extend the debate and allow every member who wants to speak to speak.However, we also respect the deadline that the Supreme Court of Canada has asked Parliament to respect and we think there is a proper way to balance those two interests.

Mr. Speaker, our government is investing more than $40 million to develop national parks and marine conservation areas, with nearly $17 million to expand the learn-to-camp program develop new programming to tell Canada's stories, encourage indigenous storytelling, and ecotourism opportunities.Of course, we will be marking Canada's 150th by making admission to our national parks, conservation areas, and historical sites free of charge. I would like to commend the hon. member for coordinating the paddle on the Ottawa River event for June 4 in conjunction with Tourism Pontiac and Paddle Canada. All members and their constituents are welcome to attend.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, we have withdrawn Motion No. 6 from the Order Paper.We are always looking for opportunities to work with all our colleagues in the House of Commons in order to extend the hours of debate in a respectful and appropriate tone and to allow Parliament to study our government's important bills.However, we are aware that we have obligations to Canadians and we intend to carry out our term in a respectful manner and to work with all parties on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision is one decision, but Parliament also has a voice, and that is the voice of every Canadian.Shutting down a debate on a conscience issue is unprecedented, so I will ask the House leader again. We know the Prime Minister has shut down debates time and time again and continues to treat democracy as an inconvenience, but he has two choices here. One is that he can side with us and Canadians and give them a voice. Will he show members of the House and Canadians that he respects them?

Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise to anyone that I do not fully agree with my colleague.However, I do agree with her that we need to encourage more respectful debates in the House on all the important bills that the government has introduced in Parliament to fulfill the promises that we made to Canadians during the last election campaign. We will continue, as we always have, to try to work with everyone in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled Canadians on three separate occasions when he said he consulted—

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's concern. I can assure him that this issue will be addressed in a proper forum to take care that grain is delivered to the ports, and to make sure that our exports are kept in line.We will make sure that we supply the transportation for Canadian farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said, we respect the need to ensure that all of our parliamentary colleagues have the opportunity to speak to the bill on medical assistance in dying, including our colleagues in the Senate. That is what all parliamentarians want.However, as I said, we are under a deadline from the Supreme Court. We did not choose that deadline, but we are going to try to meet it. We are going to try to work with everyone to find the right balance.

Mr. Speaker, I am working with stakeholders from a variety of disability groups as we design an inclusive and engaging consultation process that will lead to federal accessibility legislation, which will include access issues on a variety of areas of federal jurisdiction. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to do this, so we can help Canadians with disabilities have access to federal services, programs, and policies, and they do not have to wait to be discriminated against.

That is peachy, Mr. Speaker. They can all do that on Twitter, but in the meantime there should be a referendum at the end of the process put to all 35 million Canadians.The minister has actually argued that her ongoing Twitter consultations are more inclusive than a referendum. She has actually said that. However, if she actually reads some of the responses she has received on Twitter, she will see that there are not many who think it is okay to rig the 2019 election. In fact, she will find what the media characterizes as a groundswell of opposition to her chosen process.Given the minister's deep admiration for Twitter consultations, will she respect the wishes of those who are writing to her, and will she hold the referendum that they are requesting?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle that it is important to have more respectful debate in Parliament.I hope she will agree with me that, particularly with respect to Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying, we have tried on numerous occasions to allow the House to continue for extended hours so all members of Parliament can be heard on this important issue. We will continue to urge the House to do that.However, we are also conscious of the deadline that the Supreme Court imposed on Parliament, and we think it is important to have the appropriate balanced legislative framework in place by that deadline.

Mr. Speaker, Phoenix is a new pay system that is replacing a 40-year-old system. Yes, there are some glitches to be expected, but we are working very closely to make sure, as every employee deserves to be paid, that every employee is paid on time. Unfortunately, there are issues that we are trying to resolve. We are doing that by putting extra resources into the system to respond to it. To date we have had 1.4 million transactions, and of that number, we have 77 outstanding issues. We are working very hard to deliver for all of our employees, who deserve to be paid for the work that they have performed.

Mr. Speaker, I met today with a group of paddlers who are joining me on a four-day canoe trip down the Dumoine River, a renowned wilderness destination. The Algonquin Anishinabe call it the Aginagwasi Sipi and it is located on their traditional territory.Located two hours west of Parliament on the edge of Pontiac riding and flowing into the Ottawa River, the Dumoine watershed contains one of the largest areas of unfragmented southern boreal forests in Quebec.Would the minister of Minister of Small Business and Tourism please tell this House how the government is helping ecotourism and the conservation economy succeed across Canada?

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister did the right thing and apologized sincerely and wholeheartedly. Let us accept that.For those who are interested in reforming our electoral system, let us work together. I know that many members have great ideas and they cannot wait to share them. I ask them to bring them forward so that we can ensure that the modernization that needs to occur occurs with the best ideas and the most inclusive approach possible.

Mr. Speaker, three years have gone by since the rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic. The people there are still waiting for a rail bypass so that they can rebuild their town with peace of mind.However, Aecom is proposing that the track follow the same route as before, right through the downtown core, or that a bypass be built over the next 10 years. Both of those options are unacceptable.The Prime Minister promised to get the bypass built. He even signed a petition in that regard. Will he keep his word and work to get the bypass built as quickly as possible?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his substantive engagement in the discussion around Bill C-14.We are confident that we have made and put forward a public policy decision around medical assistance in dying in this country. This is a transformative piece of legislation on which we have engaged with many Canadians and many members within this House. We look forward to the continued discussion. We look forward to ensuring that we reach our deadline of June 6 so that we will have a legislative framework in place for medical assistance in dying that is balanced and which speaks to this transformative piece in the period of time that we are in.

Mr. Speaker, in this House, every single vote has an equal weight. What this Prime Minister committed to was bringing together a committee made up of parliamentarians, to study and review possible electoral reform options, including online voting and mandatory voting. The final decision will come to this House, where every member has an equal voice and an equal vote.

Mr. Speaker, we intend to continue to show Parliament and Canadians that we respect the role of members of Parliament, particularly on an issue and a piece of legislation as sensitive and as compelling as medical assistance in dying, but we also respect the deadline that the Supreme Court imposed on Parliament. We have consistently said that we think it would be irresponsible to go beyond the deadline the Supreme Court gave Parliament and not have the appropriate pan-Canadian legislative framework in place. That continues to be our belief.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary budget officer's latest report confirms that our government is making significant progress in presenting its spending plans more transparently and in a more timely fashion to Parliament.In his own words, the PBO said that these important improvements will enhance “parliamentary financial scrutiny”.Our government has and is raising the bar on openness, transparency, and accountability to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our democratic institutions must evolve. We all agree, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition just said, that we represent the voices of the Canadians who brought us to this place. We need to take responsibility for this privilege and work together to ensure that the changes we bring forward are relevant to the 21st century and include the voices of those who do not normally engage in this process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.Bilingualism and official languages are a priority for our government. We will ensure not only that the energy east project complies with the Official Languages Act, but also that both official languages are promoted. I will work with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, to ensure that that is the case.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her answer.Naturally, we all have very strong feelings about Bill C-14. Our constituents elected each and every one of us to this place to debate the issues that matter to Canadians. The opposition members have done important work. We produced a dissenting report that was heeded and respected. I thank the government. We need to continue and go even further.Do the Liberals plan to give members who want to have their say on behalf of Canadians in this debate the opportunity to speak?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about the record. Here is what the former government did. It cut 800 front-line support staff workers who worked with our veterans. It closed nine offices. It ignored veterans for 10 long years.We are not doing that on this side of the House. We are delivering in the budget $5.6 billion in financial security to those men and women who have served and who need our support. We will continue to do this and implement our mandate letter. You will see that veterans and their families are going to do much better under our government than the former.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times, this is a deeply complex and personal issue. We have been working incredibly hard with all members in the House to have detailed discussions to ensure we comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline, to ensure that we have in place a legal framework for medical assistance in dying in our country, a framework that will ensure there is balance between personal autonomy and protections of the vulnerable. We need to have a system in place by June 6 to ensure safeguards are in place around medical assistance in dying in our country.

Mr. Speaker, we have consistently tried to work constructively with all members of the House.We agree with the colleagues across the way that it is important to have more respectful debate on legislation and on motions. We also agree with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby that certainty and predictability, as he just referenced in terms of the Order Paper, are important parts of respectful parliamentary debate.We will continue to work with all members to improve these issues, but we will also be conscious of the commitments we made to Canadians and the important legislation we have before the House. It is our intention to find the appropriate way to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the comments made by all of our colleagues and I would like to inform the House that a short while ago, we withdrew Motion No. 6 from the Order Paper. Our objective remains to work with everyone to find the proper mechanism to extend the sitting hours to allow for a more respectful debate on government legislation and I look forward to working with all members of the House to achieve that objective.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, and as we have done from the beginning, we have every intention of giving all members a chance to speak, given the importance and sensitivity of Bill C-14.However, we also recognize that the Supreme Court has given the government and Parliament a deadline, which is June 6. We believe it is important to strike a balance between the need to hear from all members and the need to abide by the Supreme Court ruling and pass balanced legislation by that deadline.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the concerns of the House on the matter that took place last evening and we acknowledge those concerns. Members of the House are aware of the fact that our Prime Minister issued an unreserved apology this morning. We look forward to continuing the work of the House in a tone of respect and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the House to further the work of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly excited that the very first part in my mandate letter is to engage in a consultation process that will lead to federal accessibility legislation. I just met this morning with the Trans Canada Trail executives, and I am excited to be working with them to make sure that our parks and trails are accessible.

Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, we have the technology available to us that did not exist even 10 years ago. We have the capacity and indeed the responsibility to take advantage and leverage these tools and ensure that the 19th century model we are currently operating under is improved and enhanced and brought into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary budget office noted several positive elements regarding the details in the supplementary estimates (A).Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us about his reaction to the report?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is the flaw in this process. Electoral reform is neither simple nor easy to address. It is a complex question, with many underlying factors and many consequences. We need to work together to ensure that we answer those questions effectively, that the best ideas are brought forward, and the voices of those who do not normally have an opportunity to be included in this conversation are included in this conversation.

Mr. Speaker, our public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, is finally looking to the future. We have reinvested in CBC/Radio-Canada, and we also made sure that it put forward two feasible scenarios together with its board of directors.I understand my colleague's feelings about appointments to the CBC/Radio-Canada board of directors, and in the coming weeks, I will introduce an independent, merit-based appointment process to secure good directors.That said, I would like to remind my colleague of the arm's-length—

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague will agree with me that we have tried many times to find a way to extend the hours of debate. At one point, I even moved exactly the same motion as my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle, but the House did not support it.We remain optimistic and we are going to work with everyone to ensure that as many people as possible are able to speak to Bill C-14. However, we are also going to show respect for the Supreme Court and the decision that it imposed on Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have not decided on a system yet. We have simply taken the first step in fulfilling our promise to Canadians, over 60% of whom who said our democratic institutions needed to be modernized, needed to be strengthened, needed to be more relevant. We took that first step a week and a day ago. We introduced a motion to bring together an all-party parliamentary committee, and we look forward to working with all members and not prejudging the outcome of that work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her work on behalf of people affected by lyme disease.As a physician myself, I understand the impact lyme disease has on Canadians and their families. That is why I was so pleased to see over 700 Canadians participating in our three-day conference this week on lyme disease.We heard from patients about the need for better surveillance, enhanced awareness, and an increased investment in research, all of which will inform the federal framework that we will develop while working closely with our partners and stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that this process has failed before it has even begun.We need to work together to find common ground. We need to ensure that the voices of those Canadians who sent us to this place are reflected in the conversations.I urge all members to bring their ideas forward and to help strengthen this process and our democratic institutions.

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to enhancing rail safety, and in budget 2016, we are investing $143 million for rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. However, it is premature for comments on funding for a rail bypass before the study is completed.The minister was honoured to meet citizens of the town recently to hear their stories first-hand. He knows that the municipal council and residents of Lac-Mégantic have an interest in relocating the rails away from the centre of town.

Mr. Speaker, legislation on medical assistance in dying is a difficult, sensitive issue. Canadians have legitimate and heartfelt concerns and all of us in this place share a responsibility to get this right. It has been so disappointing to see the government's approach. It rejected an all-party committee report, ignored testimony about the unconstitutional nature of the bill, and rejected amendments that would fix that. All the while, it falsely claims that everything is the opposition's fault.Will the government drop the strong-armed tactics and work with us to fix this deeply flawed bill?

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois commends the government for withdrawing Motion No. 6.With regard to the bill on medical assistance in dying, the leader just said that he is prepared to hear from members. Is he prepared to listen to them?The reasonably foreseeable natural death provision is not consistent with the Carter decision. Is the government prepared to support the Bloc Québécois' amendment to remove this criterion, which discriminates on the ground of age and bases eligibility on inhumane conditions such as hunger strikes?

Mr. Speaker, I met today with a group of paddlers who are joining me on a four-day canoe trip down the Dumoine River, a renowned wilderness destination. The Algonquin Anishinabe call it the Aginagwasi Sipi and it is located on their traditional territory.Located two hours west of Parliament on the edge of Pontiac riding and flowing into the Ottawa River, the Dumoine watershed contains one of the largest areas of unfragmented southern boreal forests in Quebec.Would the minister of Minister of Small Business and Tourism please tell this House how the government is helping ecotourism and the conservation economy succeed across Canada?

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in her remarks at the beginning of question period today, we represent the voice of every Canadian. I would urge my colleagues in the House to move beyond the repetitive questions asked every day. Let us engage in a productive exchange of ideas. Let us work together and seize this historic opportunity to bring our electoral system into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals need to take responsibility for the bizarre actions of the Liberal government over the past few days.Motion No. 6 was a glimpse into the mind of a Prime Minister when he does not get his way. Canadians have every reason to be worried about what the Liberals plan to do with the voting system of Canadians.Will the government commit to dropping its attempts to rig the system and promise Canadians a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, in this House, every single vote has an equal weight. What this Prime Minister committed to was bringing together a committee made up of parliamentarians, to study and review possible electoral reform options, including online voting and mandatory voting. The final decision will come to this House, where every member has an equal voice and an equal vote.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, I had the opportunity to speak at the lyme disease federal framework conference on behalf of New Brunswick Southwest constituents impacted by lyme disease.Listening to those impacted and the experts, it is clear we need more data on the devastating effects of lyme disease across Canada. Given that our government is committed to science and data, would the Minister of Health inform this House about the government's next steps, so that we can have better services and treatments for lyme disease?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled Canadians on three separate occasions when he said he consulted—

Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times, this is a deeply complex and personal issue. We have been working incredibly hard with all members in the House to have detailed discussions to ensure we comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline, to ensure that we have in place a legal framework for medical assistance in dying in our country, a framework that will ensure there is balance between personal autonomy and protections of the vulnerable. We need to have a system in place by June 6 to ensure safeguards are in place around medical assistance in dying in our country.

Mr. Speaker, a month ago, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food committed to extend the provisions of the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. Unfortunately, up until now, we have not heard a single thing since that announcement. People are starting to believe that this is just another broken promise by the Liberals.Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stand right now and commit to extending these provisions immediately?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is crystal clear. The Prime Minister misled veterans during the last election. In contrast, our Conservative prime minister always did what he said he would do. He certainly never made false promises, offering false hope.Canada needs a respectful and consistent leader, not a schoolboy who shoves his colleagues. Can the Prime Minister finally show some leadership and stop this legal fight with our veterans in the Equitas case?

Mr. Speaker, the opposition comes to the House to represent the 60% of Canadians who do not support the Liberals. In the past few days, the Liberals have been pulling their own fire alarms to prevent MPs from doing their work. They tried to punish us for their mistake by bringing in Motion No. 6. We appreciate the fact that they have now announced that they are withdrawing that, but I do know that they are only withdrawing it after the massive backlash from not only opposition parties, but Canadians, and even their friends in the media.The Prime Minister has withdrawn this anti-democratic motion to rig the rules of the House. Will he now withdraw his anti-democratic attempts to rig the voting system by changes to the electoral system?

Mr. Speaker, the government promised a new era of respect for Parliament. Instead, after just six months, we have the Liberals shutting down debate for the first time in our history on an end-of life conscience matter.The Liberals tried to rig the rules of this place to the government's total advantage through Motion No. 6. We commend them for withdrawing that, but now they are trying to rig the very system that elects members to this place.The minister has just said that we need to hear the voices of those Canadians who brought us to this place. Those were 17.5 million voices that will be excluded by her closed, Liberal-controlled parliamentary process.Why will the government not really demonstrate a commitment to democratic reforms through a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are so concerned with the refugee numbers that they have forgotten the people themselves.The Liberals have failed to support Syrian refugees once they arrive, and many of them are using food banks while making the transition to Canada.How could the minister have been so arrogant as to suggest it is a Syrian cultural value to depend on food banks?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the government has finally listened to reason and withdrawn Motion No. 6, which was nothing less than a straitjacket imposed on the Parliament of Canada.Nonetheless, it will take more than that to change the prevailing climate around here. For weeks, the government has repeatedly used closure motions for no good reason.Will the Prime Minister also stop the excessive use of closure motions here in Parliament in order to give members a chance to speak?

Mr. Speaker, that was not my question. Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rise and give his word that no government representative will rise to stop debate on this very sensitive bill at second and third reading, yes or no? There is no call for partisanship on this bill. We want the minister to give his word.

Mr. Speaker, Phoenix is a new pay system that is replacing a 40-year-old system. Yes, there are some glitches to be expected, but we are working very closely to make sure, as every employee deserves to be paid, that every employee is paid on time. Unfortunately, there are issues that we are trying to resolve. We are doing that by putting extra resources into the system to respond to it. To date we have had 1.4 million transactions, and of that number, we have 77 outstanding issues. We are working very hard to deliver for all of our employees, who deserve to be paid for the work that they have performed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.Bilingualism and official languages are a priority for our government. We will ensure not only that the energy east project complies with the Official Languages Act, but also that both official languages are promoted. I will work with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, to ensure that that is the case.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the Liberals will fail to provide sufficient resources to Parks Canada to address the anticipated increase in visitors next year, but they are definitely failing to address the state of accessibility within our parks today for those with disabilities. Accessible infrastructure has declined, all-terrain vehicles have disappeared, and the maintenance and upkeep of trails and facilities have fallen off. These parks belong to all of us. Will the government step up and ensure that our national parks are accessible for all Canadians, including those with disabilities?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about the record. Here is what the former government did. It cut 800 front-line support staff workers who worked with our veterans. It closed nine offices. It ignored veterans for 10 long years.We are not doing that on this side of the House. We are delivering in the budget $5.6 billion in financial security to those men and women who have served and who need our support. We will continue to do this and implement our mandate letter. You will see that veterans and their families are going to do much better under our government than the former.

Mr. Speaker, they gave us the same old story as the former Conservative government, and they even went further.They want to give themselves all the power in the House in order to force us to pass their problem-riddled bill, to force us to accept the loss of 2,400 jobs at Aveos, even though that broke the law, and to force us to accept their solution to medical assistance in dying, even if it goes against the Supreme Court ruling.When exactly did the Liberals decide to move from their sunny ways to bully tactics?

Mr. Speaker, three years have gone by since the rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic. The people there are still waiting for a rail bypass so that they can rebuild their town with peace of mind.However, Aecom is proposing that the track follow the same route as before, right through the downtown core, or that a bypass be built over the next 10 years. Both of those options are unacceptable.The Prime Minister promised to get the bypass built. He even signed a petition in that regard. Will he keep his word and work to get the bypass built as quickly as possible?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals arrogance knows no bounds. It is quite evident that the Prime Minister has absolutely no respect for this place and the democracy it represents. The Liberals are trying to ram through electoral reform just like they tried to ram through the opposition yesterday. Does the Prime Minister think that he can also manhandle democracy, or will he let Canadians have a say in a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the concerns of the House on the matter that took place last evening and we acknowledge those concerns. Members of the House are aware of the fact that our Prime Minister issued an unreserved apology this morning. We look forward to continuing the work of the House in a tone of respect and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the House to further the work of Parliament.

I find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite can stand and accuse this government of anything. This came about because of years of neglect by the former government on this file. We are delivering $5.6 billion in financial security to veterans and their families. We have an aggressive mandate from our Prime Minister to do things better than the former government, and this includes a return to an option for a lifelong pension.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision is one decision, but Parliament also has a voice, and that is the voice of every Canadian.Shutting down a debate on a conscience issue is unprecedented, so I will ask the House leader again. We know the Prime Minister has shut down debates time and time again and continues to treat democracy as an inconvenience, but he has two choices here. One is that he can side with us and Canadians and give them a voice. Will he show members of the House and Canadians that he respects them?

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we all agree that the status quo must end. Over 60% of Canadians voted for change. They voted for parties—

Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, we have the technology available to us that did not exist even 10 years ago. We have the capacity and indeed the responsibility to take advantage and leverage these tools and ensure that the 19th century model we are currently operating under is improved and enhanced and brought into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, our government is acting aggressively on a mandate letter given by our Prime Minister.In budget 2016, we have $5.6 billion in financial benefits to those men and women who need our help and support. We are expanding our earnings loss benefit, improving access to the career impact allowance, and making the disability award more generous.We are delivering for veterans, and we will continue to do so. It is really above the height of hypocrisy, these questions regarding this file from the former government.

That is peachy, Mr. Speaker. They can all do that on Twitter, but in the meantime there should be a referendum at the end of the process put to all 35 million Canadians.The minister has actually argued that her ongoing Twitter consultations are more inclusive than a referendum. She has actually said that. However, if she actually reads some of the responses she has received on Twitter, she will see that there are not many who think it is okay to rig the 2019 election. In fact, she will find what the media characterizes as a groundswell of opposition to her chosen process.Given the minister's deep admiration for Twitter consultations, will she respect the wishes of those who are writing to her, and will she hold the referendum that they are requesting?

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our democratic institutions must evolve. We all agree, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition just said, that we represent the voices of the Canadians who brought us to this place. We need to take responsibility for this privilege and work together to ensure that the changes we bring forward are relevant to the 21st century and include the voices of those who do not normally engage in this process.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chief government whip. When is that member going to stand up against the arrogance of his government and stop driving injured veterans into court?In the last election, the whip made a solemn vow to veterans to bring back lifetime pensions, full tuition payments, and a range of promises that the new government has already broken.When will the chief government whip, a retired Canadian Armed Forces general, stand up and live up to the promises he made to our veterans?

Mr. Speaker, here is the reality. Here is what has been happening.By its own actions, the government showed a deep disrespect for Parliament this week. There are serious and substantial issues before the House. The Liberals are shutting down debate and stripping the ability of MPs to hold them to account.Whether they voted for a government or an opposition member, Canadians want their voices heard. When exactly did the Liberals decide to turn their back on sunny ways in favour of these strong arm tactics?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary budget office noted several positive elements regarding the details in the supplementary estimates (A).Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us about his reaction to the report?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage had this to say about the sale of Maison Radio-Canada: “I now expect CBC/Radio-Canada to take the next steps in the process in a transparent manner”.Yesterday, the CBC/Radio-Canada board of directors did not say much. There was no information about the cost, the size, or the number of studios. Nothing at all. Since the vast majority of the board members are partisan appointees, that is worrisome. It is also worrisome because one of the companies selected is best known for the Îlot Voyageur fiasco in Montreal that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Can the minister demand that all of the details about this enormous project be made public? Is that not the least she should do?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled Canadians on three separate occasions when he said that he consulted the opposition on electoral reform. He said to Canadians to trust him, that he will design an electoral system that is ideal for Canada. The Prime Minister's failure of leadership this week shows why Canadians need to make their own decisions with regard to how they vote. A referendum is absolutely the only safeguard that Canadians have against this tyrannical Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister so afraid to hold a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, I have some headache medicine in my desk, should you wish to have any.Democracy is more than just about voting. Democracy is about ensuring that the voices of those who are normally engaged in the process are included to ensure that we are the strongest that we can be. In the past, we have extended the right to vote to women and to indigenous persons, and it has been Conservative governments, Progressive Conservative governments that have done this. This was the right thing to do. It came to the House. The members took responsibility and brought forward the changes necessary. We need to demonstrate the same leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said, we respect the need to ensure that all of our parliamentary colleagues have the opportunity to speak to the bill on medical assistance in dying, including our colleagues in the Senate. That is what all parliamentarians want.However, as I said, we are under a deadline from the Supreme Court. We did not choose that deadline, but we are going to try to meet it. We are going to try to work with everyone to find the right balance.

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to be a backseat driver, but what we just disposed of was the motion that this question be now put. Now we will need to put the question, and I think members are ready for that.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals have finally taken back Motion No. 6. That was the most draconian power grab that any government has ever attempted in Canadian history. It is good that they have pushed that back.However, there are other ways the government can finally start working with opposition parties. It can stop the rush to closure. It can actually provide calendars so we know what is being debated day to day. It can stop changing the Order Paper at the last minute.Will the government finally start working with opposition parties in this Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, as we know, many Canadians who have tight budgets use food banks.I have stated that my comments on that issue were insensitive. I regret them. I repeat that in the House. I would also say that by my actions, I think I have shown myself unequivocally welcoming to all of our Syrian refugees.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the comments made by all of our colleagues and I would like to inform the House that a short while ago, we withdrew Motion No. 6 from the Order Paper. Our objective remains to work with everyone to find the proper mechanism to extend the sitting hours to allow for a more respectful debate on government legislation and I look forward to working with all members of the House to achieve that objective.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that sunny ways have quickly turned into “Sonny, get the bleep out of my way”. That is the elbows up approach the Prime Minister took in this Parliament yesterday, but it also seems to be the approach he is taking to voting reform. He is trying to rig the next election in the favour of the Liberals.Is the Prime Minister really so arrogant that he thinks he can impose his will on Canadians without giving them a say in a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, the report by the Commissioner of Official Languages, which was tabled today, shows once again that violations of the act are still a common occurrence. There was an excellent example of that this week. Energy east submitted its application to the National Energy Board in English only. That is simply unacceptable. How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is also supposedly responsible for official languages, justify the fact that francophones will have to wait another month in order to be able to access the documents in their language?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's unstable leadership has been on absolute full display this week for us. Whether it be misleading Canadians about his made-up consultations with the opposition or his absolutely bizarre behaviour last night, the Prime Minister is out of control. Will he do us all a favour and take a remedial course in civics and perhaps learn the basics of democracy? Will he also do the right thing and give Canadians the final say in how governments are elected? Will the Prime Minister respect the voices of each and every Canadian by holding a referendum? Yes, or no?

Mr. Speaker, if I told you that a company has not paid its employees in months, you would think that is unacceptable, right?Well, that is what has been happening to federal government employees since the new pay system was implemented. Many employees have not received a paycheque in several months. There is a Service Canada employee on maternity leave who has not received anything in three months. Three months without pay.What will the government do to ensure that the people who are affected can feed their families?

Mr. Speaker, we have not decided on a system yet. We have put forward a committee to study a wide range of electoral reform options, including proportional representation and alternative voting, including online voting and mandatory voting. That process has just begun and we need to work together to ensure the voices of Canadians are included in that conversation, and that we use the tools available to us in the 21st century to do this in the most meaningful and inclusive way possible.

Mr. Speaker, we intend to continue to show Parliament and Canadians that we respect the role of members of Parliament, particularly on an issue and a piece of legislation as sensitive and as compelling as medical assistance in dying, but we also respect the deadline that the Supreme Court imposed on Parliament. We have consistently said that we think it would be irresponsible to go beyond the deadline the Supreme Court gave Parliament and not have the appropriate pan-Canadian legislative framework in place. That continues to be our belief.

Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to move beyond her repetitive non-answers, beyond her refusal to allow the Canadian people to decide the manner by which they elect their representatives. The minister stands and pretends that a few hundred witnesses at a committee are more inclusive than a referendum that could involve 17 million or more voters. What does she not understand about this? This is a simple question of the legitimacy of this place. Does the government really think Canadians will accept a rigged system chosen by and for the Liberal Party of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the government decided to withdraw Motion No. 6. That is a good thing. Well done. The government has also just told us that it will allow a free and full debate on Bill C-14. That is great.However, we need to be careful. We got burned on the bill on medical assistance in dying. At second reading, on two separate occasions, government representatives rose to interrupt the debate and put an end to second reading. That is completely unacceptable. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is an honourable man. Will he give us his word that every parliamentarian who wants to speak to this bill will have the opportunity to do so and that no government representatives will rise to stop debate?

Mr. Speaker, after applauding Quebec's non-partisan approach in dealing with medical assistance in dying, the Liberal government is taking the exact opposite approach.It is stifling debate, refusing to listen to experts about the constitutionality of the bill, and rejecting the opposition's most important amendments. Even the Alberta Court of Appeal has contradicted the government. Bill C-14 does not comply with the Carter ruling.How can the Liberals put forward a bill that could be challenged the very moment it is passed?

Mr. Speaker, our public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, is finally looking to the future. We have reinvested in CBC/Radio-Canada, and we also made sure that it put forward two feasible scenarios together with its board of directors.I understand my colleague's feelings about appointments to the CBC/Radio-Canada board of directors, and in the coming weeks, I will introduce an independent, merit-based appointment process to secure good directors.That said, I would like to remind my colleague of the arm's-length—

Mr. Speaker, today's Toronto Star says that the minister's handling of the electoral reform file is “asinine”, “disingenuous”, and “discredited”. The Star also reports that “she is prone to explanations that defy logic”. Those are the words of the Toronto Star, not mine. Here is the minister's chance to turn things around by actually giving a straightforward answer, which includes a yes or a no, to a straightforward question. Will the Liberal government hold a referendum to give Canadians a veto in its plans to change our electoral system?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his substantive engagement in the discussion around Bill C-14.We are confident that we have made and put forward a public policy decision around medical assistance in dying in this country. This is a transformative piece of legislation on which we have engaged with many Canadians and many members within this House. We look forward to the continued discussion. We look forward to ensuring that we reach our deadline of June 6 so that we will have a legislative framework in place for medical assistance in dying that is balanced and which speaks to this transformative piece in the period of time that we are in.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle that it is important to have more respectful debate in Parliament.I hope she will agree with me that, particularly with respect to Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying, we have tried on numerous occasions to allow the House to continue for extended hours so all members of Parliament can be heard on this important issue. We will continue to urge the House to do that.However, we are also conscious of the deadline that the Supreme Court imposed on Parliament, and we think it is important to have the appropriate balanced legislative framework in place by that deadline.

Mr. Speaker, it has been five years since Canada signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We still see barriers for people living with disabilities. Education, accessible housing, and employment have not been fully implemented. The Liberal government promised to form a persons with disabilities act, and now we need to see some action.When is this going to happen? We have had absolutely no word yet, and it is very important for—

Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise to anyone that I do not fully agree with my colleague.However, I do agree with her that we need to encourage more respectful debates in the House on all the important bills that the government has introduced in Parliament to fulfill the promises that we made to Canadians during the last election campaign. We will continue, as we always have, to try to work with everyone in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have not decided on a system yet. We have simply taken the first step in fulfilling our promise to Canadians, over 60% of whom who said our democratic institutions needed to be modernized, needed to be strengthened, needed to be more relevant. We took that first step a week and a day ago. We introduced a motion to bring together an all-party parliamentary committee, and we look forward to working with all members and not prejudging the outcome of that work.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is being hypocritical when it comes to veterans. He made a solemn promise that they would never have to go to court against the government. Once elected, he reneged on that promise.The Prime Minister is disrespectful toward our veterans and the members of the House.Can he confirm right now that he will keep his word and drop the lawsuit in the Equitas case?

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague will agree with me that we have tried many times to find a way to extend the hours of debate. At one point, I even moved exactly the same motion as my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle, but the House did not support it.We remain optimistic and we are going to work with everyone to ensure that as many people as possible are able to speak to Bill C-14. However, we are also going to show respect for the Supreme Court and the decision that it imposed on Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we have been trying to extend the hours and allow for more debate on this very important issue. I think all colleagues will agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we recognize the importance and sensitivity of Bill C-14. It is an issue that touches the lives of many Canadians and all parliamentarians, and we will continue to look for a way to extend the debate and allow every member who wants to speak to speak.However, we also respect the deadline that the Supreme Court of Canada has asked Parliament to respect and we think there is a proper way to balance those two interests.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that it is very important that we move ahead. The Supreme Court has made it clear to us that Canadians have a right to medical assistance in dying. We have seen, even this week, by the decision that was made in Alberta at a Court of Appeal, that in fact it is very important that a regulatory framework be put in place so this assistance can be provided safely.

Mr. Speaker, our government is investing more than $40 million to develop national parks and marine conservation areas, with nearly $17 million to expand the learn-to-camp program develop new programming to tell Canada's stories, encourage indigenous storytelling, and ecotourism opportunities.Of course, we will be marking Canada's 150th by making admission to our national parks, conservation areas, and historical sites free of charge. I would like to commend the hon. member for coordinating the paddle on the Ottawa River event for June 4 in conjunction with Tourism Pontiac and Paddle Canada. All members and their constituents are welcome to attend.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, we have withdrawn Motion No. 6 from the Order Paper.We are always looking for opportunities to work with all our colleagues in the House of Commons in order to extend the hours of debate in a respectful and appropriate tone and to allow Parliament to study our government's important bills.However, we are aware that we have obligations to Canadians and we intend to carry out our term in a respectful manner and to work with all parties on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is the flaw in this process. Electoral reform is neither simple nor easy to address. It is a complex question, with many underlying factors and many consequences. We need to work together to ensure that we answer those questions effectively, that the best ideas are brought forward, and the voices of those who do not normally have an opportunity to be included in this conversation are included in this conversation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's concern. I can assure him that this issue will be addressed in a proper forum to take care that grain is delivered to the ports, and to make sure that our exports are kept in line.We will make sure that we supply the transportation for Canadian farmers.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister's temper got the best of him, but his behaviour was just an extension of his government's approach to the House. Increasingly, Liberals treat the House and the voices of Canadians with arrogance and disrespect, and nowhere is that more clear than in Motion No. 6, which would strip the opposition of all of its tools to hold the government to account.Will the Prime Minister put the words of his apology this morning into action and withdraw this offensive motion?

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is wondering why the questions are repetitive, it may be because the answers are unsatisfactory.Contrary to what the minister thinks, we are not the only ones who believe that a referendum is a good option. Canadians and the media are also wondering about the process put in place by the Liberal government. Yesterday, a respected Toronto Star journalist said, “[The minister] has so far succeeded in burning bridges where she should have been building some...It is an unsustainable proposition.”Will the minister acknowledge that a referendum is the best way to respectfully consult all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, on Monday we learned via Twitter that even the Prime Minister's principal secretary thinks that holding a referendum is not a bad way to conduct consultations. Can the minister and the Prime Minister respect the opinion of the 62% of Canadians who did not vote for them, forget about partisanship on such a fundamental issue, and tell us if they are rejecting the idea of a referendum just because it is a good Conservative proposal?

Mr. Speaker, we have consistently tried to work constructively with all members of the House.We agree with the colleagues across the way that it is important to have more respectful debate on legislation and on motions. We also agree with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby that certainty and predictability, as he just referenced in terms of the Order Paper, are important parts of respectful parliamentary debate.We will continue to work with all members to improve these issues, but we will also be conscious of the commitments we made to Canadians and the important legislation we have before the House. It is our intention to find the appropriate way to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly excited that the very first part in my mandate letter is to engage in a consultation process that will lead to federal accessibility legislation. I just met this morning with the Trans Canada Trail executives, and I am excited to be working with them to make sure that our parks and trails are accessible.

Mr. Speaker, is a referendum a tool, a means of engaging Canadians? Yes, it is. However, is it the best tool? It is not the best tool. During previous referenda in Ontario and in B.C., nearly 50% of the population did not participate. Is that okay? We need to work together, and we need to work harder, to ensure that our democratic institutions are inclusive and the systemic barriers that exist today are addressed by all 338 members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, and as we have done from the beginning, we have every intention of giving all members a chance to speak, given the importance and sensitivity of Bill C-14.However, we also recognize that the Supreme Court has given the government and Parliament a deadline, which is June 6. We believe it is important to strike a balance between the need to hear from all members and the need to abide by the Supreme Court ruling and pass balanced legislation by that deadline.

Mr. Speaker, I am working with stakeholders from a variety of disability groups as we design an inclusive and engaging consultation process that will lead to federal accessibility legislation, which will include access issues on a variety of areas of federal jurisdiction. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to do this, so we can help Canadians with disabilities have access to federal services, programs, and policies, and they do not have to wait to be discriminated against.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary budget officer's latest report confirms that our government is making significant progress in presenting its spending plans more transparently and in a more timely fashion to Parliament.In his own words, the PBO said that these important improvements will enhance “parliamentary financial scrutiny”.Our government has and is raising the bar on openness, transparency, and accountability to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister did the right thing and apologized sincerely and wholeheartedly. Let us accept that.For those who are interested in reforming our electoral system, let us work together. I know that many members have great ideas and they cannot wait to share them. I ask them to bring them forward so that we can ensure that the modernization that needs to occur occurs with the best ideas and the most inclusive approach possible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her answer.Naturally, we all have very strong feelings about Bill C-14. Our constituents elected each and every one of us to this place to debate the issues that matter to Canadians. The opposition members have done important work. We produced a dissenting report that was heeded and respected. I thank the government. We need to continue and go even further.Do the Liberals plan to give members who want to have their say on behalf of Canadians in this debate the opportunity to speak?

Mr. Speaker, that is a great start, showing all of the members in the House and Canadians that the Prime Minister respects them.In that spirit, I am going to ask him this. Will his government also allow every member who wants to speak on the issue of assisted dying, which is a conscience issue, the opportunity to speak?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister let his emotions get the best of him. We knew that, and now the Canadian public knows as well. His behaviour yesterday was unworthy of the office of Prime Minister of Canada.Can the Prime Minister or one of his representatives explain why he lost his self-control yesterday under the circumstances? Was it because things were not going his way?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her work on behalf of people affected by lyme disease.As a physician myself, I understand the impact lyme disease has on Canadians and their families. That is why I was so pleased to see over 700 Canadians participating in our three-day conference this week on lyme disease.We heard from patients about the need for better surveillance, enhanced awareness, and an increased investment in research, all of which will inform the federal framework that we will develop while working closely with our partners and stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, that is a great start, showing all of the members in the House and Canadians that the Prime Minister respects them.In that spirit, I am going to ask him this. Will his government also allow every member who wants to speak on the issue of assisted dying, which is a conscience issue, the opportunity to speak?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister let his emotions get the best of him. We knew that, and now the Canadian public knows as well. His behaviour yesterday was unworthy of the office of Prime Minister of Canada.Can the Prime Minister or one of his representatives explain why he lost his self-control yesterday under the circumstances? Was it because things were not going his way?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her work on behalf of people affected by lyme disease.As a physician myself, I understand the impact lyme disease has on Canadians and their families. That is why I was so pleased to see over 700 Canadians participating in our three-day conference this week on lyme disease.We heard from patients about the need for better surveillance, enhanced awareness, and an increased investment in research, all of which will inform the federal framework that we will develop while working closely with our partners and stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her answer.Naturally, we all have very strong feelings about Bill C-14. Our constituents elected each and every one of us to this place to debate the issues that matter to Canadians. The opposition members have done important work. We produced a dissenting report that was heeded and respected. I thank the government. We need to continue and go even further.Do the Liberals plan to give members who want to have their say on behalf of Canadians in this debate the opportunity to speak?

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister did the right thing and apologized sincerely and wholeheartedly. Let us accept that.For those who are interested in reforming our electoral system, let us work together. I know that many members have great ideas and they cannot wait to share them. I ask them to bring them forward so that we can ensure that the modernization that needs to occur occurs with the best ideas and the most inclusive approach possible.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary budget officer's latest report confirms that our government is making significant progress in presenting its spending plans more transparently and in a more timely fashion to Parliament.In his own words, the PBO said that these important improvements will enhance “parliamentary financial scrutiny”.Our government has and is raising the bar on openness, transparency, and accountability to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, and as we have done from the beginning, we have every intention of giving all members a chance to speak, given the importance and sensitivity of Bill C-14.However, we also recognize that the Supreme Court has given the government and Parliament a deadline, which is June 6. We believe it is important to strike a balance between the need to hear from all members and the need to abide by the Supreme Court ruling and pass balanced legislation by that deadline.

Mr. Speaker, I am working with stakeholders from a variety of disability groups as we design an inclusive and engaging consultation process that will lead to federal accessibility legislation, which will include access issues on a variety of areas of federal jurisdiction. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to do this, so we can help Canadians with disabilities have access to federal services, programs, and policies, and they do not have to wait to be discriminated against.

Mr. Speaker, is a referendum a tool, a means of engaging Canadians? Yes, it is. However, is it the best tool? It is not the best tool. During previous referenda in Ontario and in B.C., nearly 50% of the population did not participate. Is that okay? We need to work together, and we need to work harder, to ensure that our democratic institutions are inclusive and the systemic barriers that exist today are addressed by all 338 members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly excited that the very first part in my mandate letter is to engage in a consultation process that will lead to federal accessibility legislation. I just met this morning with the Trans Canada Trail executives, and I am excited to be working with them to make sure that our parks and trails are accessible.

Mr. Speaker, we have consistently tried to work constructively with all members of the House.We agree with the colleagues across the way that it is important to have more respectful debate on legislation and on motions. We also agree with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby that certainty and predictability, as he just referenced in terms of the Order Paper, are important parts of respectful parliamentary debate.We will continue to work with all members to improve these issues, but we will also be conscious of the commitments we made to Canadians and the important legislation we have before the House. It is our intention to find the appropriate way to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday we learned via Twitter that even the Prime Minister's principal secretary thinks that holding a referendum is not a bad way to conduct consultations. Can the minister and the Prime Minister respect the opinion of the 62% of Canadians who did not vote for them, forget about partisanship on such a fundamental issue, and tell us if they are rejecting the idea of a referendum just because it is a good Conservative proposal?

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is wondering why the questions are repetitive, it may be because the answers are unsatisfactory.Contrary to what the minister thinks, we are not the only ones who believe that a referendum is a good option. Canadians and the media are also wondering about the process put in place by the Liberal government. Yesterday, a respected Toronto Star journalist said, “[The minister] has so far succeeded in burning bridges where she should have been building some...It is an unsustainable proposition.”Will the minister acknowledge that a referendum is the best way to respectfully consult all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister's temper got the best of him, but his behaviour was just an extension of his government's approach to the House. Increasingly, Liberals treat the House and the voices of Canadians with arrogance and disrespect, and nowhere is that more clear than in Motion No. 6, which would strip the opposition of all of its tools to hold the government to account.Will the Prime Minister put the words of his apology this morning into action and withdraw this offensive motion?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's concern. I can assure him that this issue will be addressed in a proper forum to take care that grain is delivered to the ports, and to make sure that our exports are kept in line.We will make sure that we supply the transportation for Canadian farmers.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is the flaw in this process. Electoral reform is neither simple nor easy to address. It is a complex question, with many underlying factors and many consequences. We need to work together to ensure that we answer those questions effectively, that the best ideas are brought forward, and the voices of those who do not normally have an opportunity to be included in this conversation are included in this conversation.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, we have withdrawn Motion No. 6 from the Order Paper.We are always looking for opportunities to work with all our colleagues in the House of Commons in order to extend the hours of debate in a respectful and appropriate tone and to allow Parliament to study our government's important bills.However, we are aware that we have obligations to Canadians and we intend to carry out our term in a respectful manner and to work with all parties on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, our government is investing more than $40 million to develop national parks and marine conservation areas, with nearly $17 million to expand the learn-to-camp program develop new programming to tell Canada's stories, encourage indigenous storytelling, and ecotourism opportunities.Of course, we will be marking Canada's 150th by making admission to our national parks, conservation areas, and historical sites free of charge. I would like to commend the hon. member for coordinating the paddle on the Ottawa River event for June 4 in conjunction with Tourism Pontiac and Paddle Canada. All members and their constituents are welcome to attend.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that it is very important that we move ahead. The Supreme Court has made it clear to us that Canadians have a right to medical assistance in dying. We have seen, even this week, by the decision that was made in Alberta at a Court of Appeal, that in fact it is very important that a regulatory framework be put in place so this assistance can be provided safely.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we have been trying to extend the hours and allow for more debate on this very important issue. I think all colleagues will agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we recognize the importance and sensitivity of Bill C-14. It is an issue that touches the lives of many Canadians and all parliamentarians, and we will continue to look for a way to extend the debate and allow every member who wants to speak to speak.However, we also respect the deadline that the Supreme Court of Canada has asked Parliament to respect and we think there is a proper way to balance those two interests.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague will agree with me that we have tried many times to find a way to extend the hours of debate. At one point, I even moved exactly the same motion as my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle, but the House did not support it.We remain optimistic and we are going to work with everyone to ensure that as many people as possible are able to speak to Bill C-14. However, we are also going to show respect for the Supreme Court and the decision that it imposed on Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is being hypocritical when it comes to veterans. He made a solemn promise that they would never have to go to court against the government. Once elected, he reneged on that promise.The Prime Minister is disrespectful toward our veterans and the members of the House.Can he confirm right now that he will keep his word and drop the lawsuit in the Equitas case?

Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise to anyone that I do not fully agree with my colleague.However, I do agree with her that we need to encourage more respectful debates in the House on all the important bills that the government has introduced in Parliament to fulfill the promises that we made to Canadians during the last election campaign. We will continue, as we always have, to try to work with everyone in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have not decided on a system yet. We have simply taken the first step in fulfilling our promise to Canadians, over 60% of whom who said our democratic institutions needed to be modernized, needed to be strengthened, needed to be more relevant. We took that first step a week and a day ago. We introduced a motion to bring together an all-party parliamentary committee, and we look forward to working with all members and not prejudging the outcome of that work.

Mr. Speaker, it has been five years since Canada signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We still see barriers for people living with disabilities. Education, accessible housing, and employment have not been fully implemented. The Liberal government promised to form a persons with disabilities act, and now we need to see some action.When is this going to happen? We have had absolutely no word yet, and it is very important for—

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle that it is important to have more respectful debate in Parliament.I hope she will agree with me that, particularly with respect to Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying, we have tried on numerous occasions to allow the House to continue for extended hours so all members of Parliament can be heard on this important issue. We will continue to urge the House to do that.However, we are also conscious of the deadline that the Supreme Court imposed on Parliament, and we think it is important to have the appropriate balanced legislative framework in place by that deadline.

Mr. Speaker, today's Toronto Star says that the minister's handling of the electoral reform file is “asinine”, “disingenuous”, and “discredited”. The Star also reports that “she is prone to explanations that defy logic”. Those are the words of the Toronto Star, not mine. Here is the minister's chance to turn things around by actually giving a straightforward answer, which includes a yes or a no, to a straightforward question. Will the Liberal government hold a referendum to give Canadians a veto in its plans to change our electoral system?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his substantive engagement in the discussion around Bill C-14.We are confident that we have made and put forward a public policy decision around medical assistance in dying in this country. This is a transformative piece of legislation on which we have engaged with many Canadians and many members within this House. We look forward to the continued discussion. We look forward to ensuring that we reach our deadline of June 6 so that we will have a legislative framework in place for medical assistance in dying that is balanced and which speaks to this transformative piece in the period of time that we are in.

Mr. Speaker, our public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, is finally looking to the future. We have reinvested in CBC/Radio-Canada, and we also made sure that it put forward two feasible scenarios together with its board of directors.I understand my colleague's feelings about appointments to the CBC/Radio-Canada board of directors, and in the coming weeks, I will introduce an independent, merit-based appointment process to secure good directors.That said, I would like to remind my colleague of the arm's-length—

Mr. Speaker, the government decided to withdraw Motion No. 6. That is a good thing. Well done. The government has also just told us that it will allow a free and full debate on Bill C-14. That is great.However, we need to be careful. We got burned on the bill on medical assistance in dying. At second reading, on two separate occasions, government representatives rose to interrupt the debate and put an end to second reading. That is completely unacceptable. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is an honourable man. Will he give us his word that every parliamentarian who wants to speak to this bill will have the opportunity to do so and that no government representatives will rise to stop debate?

Mr. Speaker, after applauding Quebec's non-partisan approach in dealing with medical assistance in dying, the Liberal government is taking the exact opposite approach.It is stifling debate, refusing to listen to experts about the constitutionality of the bill, and rejecting the opposition's most important amendments. Even the Alberta Court of Appeal has contradicted the government. Bill C-14 does not comply with the Carter ruling.How can the Liberals put forward a bill that could be challenged the very moment it is passed?

Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to move beyond her repetitive non-answers, beyond her refusal to allow the Canadian people to decide the manner by which they elect their representatives. The minister stands and pretends that a few hundred witnesses at a committee are more inclusive than a referendum that could involve 17 million or more voters. What does she not understand about this? This is a simple question of the legitimacy of this place. Does the government really think Canadians will accept a rigged system chosen by and for the Liberal Party of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, we intend to continue to show Parliament and Canadians that we respect the role of members of Parliament, particularly on an issue and a piece of legislation as sensitive and as compelling as medical assistance in dying, but we also respect the deadline that the Supreme Court imposed on Parliament. We have consistently said that we think it would be irresponsible to go beyond the deadline the Supreme Court gave Parliament and not have the appropriate pan-Canadian legislative framework in place. That continues to be our belief.

Mr. Speaker, we have not decided on a system yet. We have put forward a committee to study a wide range of electoral reform options, including proportional representation and alternative voting, including online voting and mandatory voting. That process has just begun and we need to work together to ensure the voices of Canadians are included in that conversation, and that we use the tools available to us in the 21st century to do this in the most meaningful and inclusive way possible.

Mr. Speaker, if I told you that a company has not paid its employees in months, you would think that is unacceptable, right?Well, that is what has been happening to federal government employees since the new pay system was implemented. Many employees have not received a paycheque in several months. There is a Service Canada employee on maternity leave who has not received anything in three months. Three months without pay.What will the government do to ensure that the people who are affected can feed their families?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's unstable leadership has been on absolute full display this week for us. Whether it be misleading Canadians about his made-up consultations with the opposition or his absolutely bizarre behaviour last night, the Prime Minister is out of control. Will he do us all a favour and take a remedial course in civics and perhaps learn the basics of democracy? Will he also do the right thing and give Canadians the final say in how governments are elected? Will the Prime Minister respect the voices of each and every Canadian by holding a referendum? Yes, or no?

Mr. Speaker, the report by the Commissioner of Official Languages, which was tabled today, shows once again that violations of the act are still a common occurrence. There was an excellent example of that this week. Energy east submitted its application to the National Energy Board in English only. That is simply unacceptable. How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is also supposedly responsible for official languages, justify the fact that francophones will have to wait another month in order to be able to access the documents in their language?

Mr. Speaker, it seems that sunny ways have quickly turned into “Sonny, get the bleep out of my way”. That is the elbows up approach the Prime Minister took in this Parliament yesterday, but it also seems to be the approach he is taking to voting reform. He is trying to rig the next election in the favour of the Liberals.Is the Prime Minister really so arrogant that he thinks he can impose his will on Canadians without giving them a say in a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the comments made by all of our colleagues and I would like to inform the House that a short while ago, we withdrew Motion No. 6 from the Order Paper. Our objective remains to work with everyone to find the proper mechanism to extend the sitting hours to allow for a more respectful debate on government legislation and I look forward to working with all members of the House to achieve that objective.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, many Canadians who have tight budgets use food banks.I have stated that my comments on that issue were insensitive. I regret them. I repeat that in the House. I would also say that by my actions, I think I have shown myself unequivocally welcoming to all of our Syrian refugees.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals have finally taken back Motion No. 6. That was the most draconian power grab that any government has ever attempted in Canadian history. It is good that they have pushed that back.However, there are other ways the government can finally start working with opposition parties. It can stop the rush to closure. It can actually provide calendars so we know what is being debated day to day. It can stop changing the Order Paper at the last minute.Will the government finally start working with opposition parties in this Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to be a backseat driver, but what we just disposed of was the motion that this question be now put. Now we will need to put the question, and I think members are ready for that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said, we respect the need to ensure that all of our parliamentary colleagues have the opportunity to speak to the bill on medical assistance in dying, including our colleagues in the Senate. That is what all parliamentarians want.However, as I said, we are under a deadline from the Supreme Court. We did not choose that deadline, but we are going to try to meet it. We are going to try to work with everyone to find the right balance.

Mr. Speaker, I have some headache medicine in my desk, should you wish to have any.Democracy is more than just about voting. Democracy is about ensuring that the voices of those who are normally engaged in the process are included to ensure that we are the strongest that we can be. In the past, we have extended the right to vote to women and to indigenous persons, and it has been Conservative governments, Progressive Conservative governments that have done this. This was the right thing to do. It came to the House. The members took responsibility and brought forward the changes necessary. We need to demonstrate the same leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled Canadians on three separate occasions when he said that he consulted the opposition on electoral reform. He said to Canadians to trust him, that he will design an electoral system that is ideal for Canada. The Prime Minister's failure of leadership this week shows why Canadians need to make their own decisions with regard to how they vote. A referendum is absolutely the only safeguard that Canadians have against this tyrannical Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister so afraid to hold a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage had this to say about the sale of Maison Radio-Canada: “I now expect CBC/Radio-Canada to take the next steps in the process in a transparent manner”.Yesterday, the CBC/Radio-Canada board of directors did not say much. There was no information about the cost, the size, or the number of studios. Nothing at all. Since the vast majority of the board members are partisan appointees, that is worrisome. It is also worrisome because one of the companies selected is best known for the Îlot Voyageur fiasco in Montreal that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Can the minister demand that all of the details about this enormous project be made public? Is that not the least she should do?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary budget office noted several positive elements regarding the details in the supplementary estimates (A).Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us about his reaction to the report?

Mr. Speaker, here is the reality. Here is what has been happening.By its own actions, the government showed a deep disrespect for Parliament this week. There are serious and substantial issues before the House. The Liberals are shutting down debate and stripping the ability of MPs to hold them to account.Whether they voted for a government or an opposition member, Canadians want their voices heard. When exactly did the Liberals decide to turn their back on sunny ways in favour of these strong arm tactics?

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chief government whip. When is that member going to stand up against the arrogance of his government and stop driving injured veterans into court?In the last election, the whip made a solemn vow to veterans to bring back lifetime pensions, full tuition payments, and a range of promises that the new government has already broken.When will the chief government whip, a retired Canadian Armed Forces general, stand up and live up to the promises he made to our veterans?

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our democratic institutions must evolve. We all agree, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition just said, that we represent the voices of the Canadians who brought us to this place. We need to take responsibility for this privilege and work together to ensure that the changes we bring forward are relevant to the 21st century and include the voices of those who do not normally engage in this process.

That is peachy, Mr. Speaker. They can all do that on Twitter, but in the meantime there should be a referendum at the end of the process put to all 35 million Canadians.The minister has actually argued that her ongoing Twitter consultations are more inclusive than a referendum. She has actually said that. However, if she actually reads some of the responses she has received on Twitter, she will see that there are not many who think it is okay to rig the 2019 election. In fact, she will find what the media characterizes as a groundswell of opposition to her chosen process.Given the minister's deep admiration for Twitter consultations, will she respect the wishes of those who are writing to her, and will she hold the referendum that they are requesting?

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we all agree that the status quo must end. Over 60% of Canadians voted for change. They voted for parties—

Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, we have the technology available to us that did not exist even 10 years ago. We have the capacity and indeed the responsibility to take advantage and leverage these tools and ensure that the 19th century model we are currently operating under is improved and enhanced and brought into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, our government is acting aggressively on a mandate letter given by our Prime Minister.In budget 2016, we have $5.6 billion in financial benefits to those men and women who need our help and support. We are expanding our earnings loss benefit, improving access to the career impact allowance, and making the disability award more generous.We are delivering for veterans, and we will continue to do so. It is really above the height of hypocrisy, these questions regarding this file from the former government.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision is one decision, but Parliament also has a voice, and that is the voice of every Canadian.Shutting down a debate on a conscience issue is unprecedented, so I will ask the House leader again. We know the Prime Minister has shut down debates time and time again and continues to treat democracy as an inconvenience, but he has two choices here. One is that he can side with us and Canadians and give them a voice. Will he show members of the House and Canadians that he respects them?

I find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite can stand and accuse this government of anything. This came about because of years of neglect by the former government on this file. We are delivering $5.6 billion in financial security to veterans and their families. We have an aggressive mandate from our Prime Minister to do things better than the former government, and this includes a return to an option for a lifelong pension.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the concerns of the House on the matter that took place last evening and we acknowledge those concerns. Members of the House are aware of the fact that our Prime Minister issued an unreserved apology this morning. We look forward to continuing the work of the House in a tone of respect and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the House to further the work of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals arrogance knows no bounds. It is quite evident that the Prime Minister has absolutely no respect for this place and the democracy it represents. The Liberals are trying to ram through electoral reform just like they tried to ram through the opposition yesterday. Does the Prime Minister think that he can also manhandle democracy, or will he let Canadians have a say in a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, three years have gone by since the rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic. The people there are still waiting for a rail bypass so that they can rebuild their town with peace of mind.However, Aecom is proposing that the track follow the same route as before, right through the downtown core, or that a bypass be built over the next 10 years. Both of those options are unacceptable.The Prime Minister promised to get the bypass built. He even signed a petition in that regard. Will he keep his word and work to get the bypass built as quickly as possible?

Mr. Speaker, they gave us the same old story as the former Conservative government, and they even went further.They want to give themselves all the power in the House in order to force us to pass their problem-riddled bill, to force us to accept the loss of 2,400 jobs at Aveos, even though that broke the law, and to force us to accept their solution to medical assistance in dying, even if it goes against the Supreme Court ruling.When exactly did the Liberals decide to move from their sunny ways to bully tactics?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about the record. Here is what the former government did. It cut 800 front-line support staff workers who worked with our veterans. It closed nine offices. It ignored veterans for 10 long years.We are not doing that on this side of the House. We are delivering in the budget $5.6 billion in financial security to those men and women who have served and who need our support. We will continue to do this and implement our mandate letter. You will see that veterans and their families are going to do much better under our government than the former.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.Bilingualism and official languages are a priority for our government. We will ensure not only that the energy east project complies with the Official Languages Act, but also that both official languages are promoted. I will work with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, to ensure that that is the case.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the Liberals will fail to provide sufficient resources to Parks Canada to address the anticipated increase in visitors next year, but they are definitely failing to address the state of accessibility within our parks today for those with disabilities. Accessible infrastructure has declined, all-terrain vehicles have disappeared, and the maintenance and upkeep of trails and facilities have fallen off. These parks belong to all of us. Will the government step up and ensure that our national parks are accessible for all Canadians, including those with disabilities?

Mr. Speaker, Phoenix is a new pay system that is replacing a 40-year-old system. Yes, there are some glitches to be expected, but we are working very closely to make sure, as every employee deserves to be paid, that every employee is paid on time. Unfortunately, there are issues that we are trying to resolve. We are doing that by putting extra resources into the system to respond to it. To date we have had 1.4 million transactions, and of that number, we have 77 outstanding issues. We are working very hard to deliver for all of our employees, who deserve to be paid for the work that they have performed.

Mr. Speaker, that was not my question. Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rise and give his word that no government representative will rise to stop debate on this very sensitive bill at second and third reading, yes or no? There is no call for partisanship on this bill. We want the minister to give his word.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the government has finally listened to reason and withdrawn Motion No. 6, which was nothing less than a straitjacket imposed on the Parliament of Canada.Nonetheless, it will take more than that to change the prevailing climate around here. For weeks, the government has repeatedly used closure motions for no good reason.Will the Prime Minister also stop the excessive use of closure motions here in Parliament in order to give members a chance to speak?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are so concerned with the refugee numbers that they have forgotten the people themselves.The Liberals have failed to support Syrian refugees once they arrive, and many of them are using food banks while making the transition to Canada.How could the minister have been so arrogant as to suggest it is a Syrian cultural value to depend on food banks?

Mr. Speaker, the government promised a new era of respect for Parliament. Instead, after just six months, we have the Liberals shutting down debate for the first time in our history on an end-of life conscience matter.The Liberals tried to rig the rules of this place to the government's total advantage through Motion No. 6. We commend them for withdrawing that, but now they are trying to rig the very system that elects members to this place.The minister has just said that we need to hear the voices of those Canadians who brought us to this place. Those were 17.5 million voices that will be excluded by her closed, Liberal-controlled parliamentary process.Why will the government not really demonstrate a commitment to democratic reforms through a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, the opposition comes to the House to represent the 60% of Canadians who do not support the Liberals. In the past few days, the Liberals have been pulling their own fire alarms to prevent MPs from doing their work. They tried to punish us for their mistake by bringing in Motion No. 6. We appreciate the fact that they have now announced that they are withdrawing that, but I do know that they are only withdrawing it after the massive backlash from not only opposition parties, but Canadians, and even their friends in the media.The Prime Minister has withdrawn this anti-democratic motion to rig the rules of the House. Will he now withdraw his anti-democratic attempts to rig the voting system by changes to the electoral system?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is crystal clear. The Prime Minister misled veterans during the last election. In contrast, our Conservative prime minister always did what he said he would do. He certainly never made false promises, offering false hope.Canada needs a respectful and consistent leader, not a schoolboy who shoves his colleagues. Can the Prime Minister finally show some leadership and stop this legal fight with our veterans in the Equitas case?

Mr. Speaker, a month ago, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food committed to extend the provisions of the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. Unfortunately, up until now, we have not heard a single thing since that announcement. People are starting to believe that this is just another broken promise by the Liberals.Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stand right now and commit to extending these provisions immediately?

Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times, this is a deeply complex and personal issue. We have been working incredibly hard with all members in the House to have detailed discussions to ensure we comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline, to ensure that we have in place a legal framework for medical assistance in dying in our country, a framework that will ensure there is balance between personal autonomy and protections of the vulnerable. We need to have a system in place by June 6 to ensure safeguards are in place around medical assistance in dying in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misled Canadians on three separate occasions when he said he consulted—

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, I had the opportunity to speak at the lyme disease federal framework conference on behalf of New Brunswick Southwest constituents impacted by lyme disease.Listening to those impacted and the experts, it is clear we need more data on the devastating effects of lyme disease across Canada. Given that our government is committed to science and data, would the Minister of Health inform this House about the government's next steps, so that we can have better services and treatments for lyme disease?

Mr. Speaker, in this House, every single vote has an equal weight. What this Prime Minister committed to was bringing together a committee made up of parliamentarians, to study and review possible electoral reform options, including online voting and mandatory voting. The final decision will come to this House, where every member has an equal voice and an equal vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals need to take responsibility for the bizarre actions of the Liberal government over the past few days.Motion No. 6 was a glimpse into the mind of a Prime Minister when he does not get his way. Canadians have every reason to be worried about what the Liberals plan to do with the voting system of Canadians.Will the government commit to dropping its attempts to rig the system and promise Canadians a referendum?

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in her remarks at the beginning of question period today, we represent the voice of every Canadian. I would urge my colleagues in the House to move beyond the repetitive questions asked every day. Let us engage in a productive exchange of ideas. Let us work together and seize this historic opportunity to bring our electoral system into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I met today with a group of paddlers who are joining me on a four-day canoe trip down the Dumoine River, a renowned wilderness destination. The Algonquin Anishinabe call it the Aginagwasi Sipi and it is located on their traditional territory.Located two hours west of Parliament on the edge of Pontiac riding and flowing into the Ottawa River, the Dumoine watershed contains one of the largest areas of unfragmented southern boreal forests in Quebec.Would the minister of Minister of Small Business and Tourism please tell this House how the government is helping ecotourism and the conservation economy succeed across Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois commends the government for withdrawing Motion No. 6.With regard to the bill on medical assistance in dying, the leader just said that he is prepared to hear from members. Is he prepared to listen to them?The reasonably foreseeable natural death provision is not consistent with the Carter decision. Is the government prepared to support the Bloc Québécois' amendment to remove this criterion, which discriminates on the ground of age and bases eligibility on inhumane conditions such as hunger strikes?

Mr. Speaker, legislation on medical assistance in dying is a difficult, sensitive issue. Canadians have legitimate and heartfelt concerns and all of us in this place share a responsibility to get this right. It has been so disappointing to see the government's approach. It rejected an all-party committee report, ignored testimony about the unconstitutional nature of the bill, and rejected amendments that would fix that. All the while, it falsely claims that everything is the opposition's fault.Will the government drop the strong-armed tactics and work with us to fix this deeply flawed bill?

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to enhancing rail safety, and in budget 2016, we are investing $143 million for rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. However, it is premature for comments on funding for a rail bypass before the study is completed.The minister was honoured to meet citizens of the town recently to hear their stories first-hand. He knows that the municipal council and residents of Lac-Mégantic have an interest in relocating the rails away from the centre of town.

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that this process has failed before it has even begun.We need to work together to find common ground. We need to ensure that the voices of those Canadians who sent us to this place are reflected in the conversations.I urge all members to bring their ideas forward and to help strengthen this process and our democratic institutions.