Luc Thériault

Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia murders journalists. Saudi Arabia flogs bloggers. Saudi Arabia kills civilians in Yemen. Saudi Arabia lies to the entire world.How many more Badawis, Khashoggis, women, and children will have to die? When will the Prime Minister cancel Canada's arms sales agreements with this murderous regime?

Mr. Speaker, “talking through one's hat” is a figure of speech. “Taking someone for a fool” is a figure of speech. However, the $1-billion price tag for cancelling a contract to sell arms to Saudi Arabia is not a figure of speech.Does the Prime Minister take us for fools, or is he talking through his hat when he invents numbers to get out of cancelling deals with Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Speaker, how many Raif Badawis, Samar Badawis and Jamal Khashoggis will it take before the government decides to stop selling arms to a regime that flogs bloggers and murders journalists?When will the Liberals stop selling out human rights for dirty money from the murderous regime of Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Speaker, asylum seekers arriving in Plattsburgh are given instructions on how to cross the border illegally. One pamphlet tells them how to get to Roxham Road, how much a taxi costs, who to contact in Montreal and what to expect. The minister has known all of this for weeks. What did he just tell us he did? He made a phone call. I am impressed by such vigorous action that will make all the difference. Does he take us for fools?

Mr. Speaker, through the member for Louis-Hébert, the Liberal government has misled the public. The Ethics Commissioner was unable to give her blessing to a kickback worth about $70,000 in Papineau, because the report of the Chief Electoral Officer was not even available, as the members of this government are well aware.Will the Prime Minister apologize for once again taking the public for fools?

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We need to draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is the last, blood-soaked straw. By selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Canada is supporting this murderous regime and selling its soul.Will the government suspend its contracts with Saudi Arabia or will it remain complicit?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is refusing to rise as a statesman, and his silence, like that of the Conservative Party on Friday, encourages derogatory Quebec bashing. While all of Quebec is mourning its dead in the wake of the terrible attack at the Quebec City mosque, people are insulting Quebec and attacking and besmirching its reputation. Meanwhile, neither the official opposition nor the Prime Minister want to condemn this disgraceful rag. How can the Prime Minister, the self-proclaimed Quebec lieutenant, justify remaining seated and remaining silent?

Mr. Speaker, this government, which is all about promoting peace and love and singing Kumbaya, is quick to abandon its grand principles of universal peace and love when it comes to taking action against tyranny. There will not be any sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, no sir. The government is looking the other way. I do not call that diplomacy. I call that complicity.Is the Prime Minister aware that, by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, he is complicit with this murderous regime?

Mr. Speaker, you will know that, today, fanatics have again launched a Quebec bashing campaign following the comments made by the Premier of Saskatchewan. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That the House of Commons condemn the disrespectful remarks made by the Premier of Saskatchewan regarding Quebec and the fanatical call against Quebec by Ezra Levant.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Prime Minister wants to keep selling arms. Raif Badawi's flogging sentence will not stop Canada from doing business, nor will the jailing of women who stand up for their rights, the killing of civilians in Yemen or the assassination of a journalist in a consulate.What more does this government need to stop selling arms to this vile country? Maybe what it really needs is a spine.

Mr. Speaker, selling armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia is immoral and contrary to the ethics of responsibility. The Minister of Foreign Affairs knows that.The United Nations confirmed that the Saudi army is targeting schools and civilians in Yemen. PBS showed that Saudi Arabia was using its armoured vehicles against political dissidents. Even so, the minister insists on honouring contracts, and he is using every intellectual trick in the book to justify his decision even though the armoured vehicles are being used for ill. He calls it “responsible conviction”.When will the minister stop being an accomplice and stop the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Speaker, when British Columbia said no to northern gateway, everyone listened. When the Americans said no to Keystone XL, everyone listened.However, when 82 municipalities representing four million Quebeckers do their homework and say no to energy east, we are insulted, scorned and even threatened.When will the Prime Minister take off his referee jersey and stop stalling for time? When will this government finally understand that TransCanada's pipeline is not welcome in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec made it very clear that we want nothing to do with Alberta's dirty energy. There is no social licence. We do not want pipelines crossing our rivers, and we do not want tank cars rolling through our towns. Will the Prime Minister get the message that if they want to sell their tar sands oil to other countries, it will not be going through Quebec either by pipeline or by train?

Toufik Benhamiche is desperate. He has been held in Cuba against his will and kept from his family since July 7, 2017, and he could be thrown in prison any day, even though the Cuban supreme court overturned his conviction because of a procedural error.He is facing a new trial with the same judge, the same prosecutor and the same procedure, and he could end up unjustly convicted once again.Will the minister responsible for global affairs act immediately to protect a citizen who is the victim of an abuse of power?

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.The Quebec National Assembly has legalized doctor-assisted death as part of end-of-life care, in accordance with the express will of a terminally ill person. The Prime Minister even praised Quebec's legislation.Can the Minister of Health guarantee that the six-month extension the federal government is asking for will not adversely effect the coming into force of Quebec's legislation?

Madam Speaker, not a single penny in compensation will be going to supply-managed producers before the election. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed it.Farmers are already suffering the consequences of being sacrificed in the free trade agreements. To them, compensation is not an election issue, but an urgent need. The farmers say they want to see concrete action before the election, and that would include a cheque.When will they get their cheque?

Madam Speaker, flight attendants are worried about the decision to allow small knives on planes. They were clear with the Minister of Transport, expressing that “the changes go too far and put flight attendants and the public at risk”.Since the ICAO has no requirement for standardizing high-risk items, why is it necessary to allow pocket knives on planes instead of keeping them in the baggage hold?

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege.In response to our question yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House by providing incorrect information. The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois asked him why the rush to legalize cannabis by October 17, and the Prime Minister replied: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. However, Quebec asked to push cannabis legislation back to July 1, 2019. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion to that effect on November 16, 2017. It reads: THAT the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to defer the cannabis legalization currently scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2018 until at least 1 July 2019. The Prime Minister's statement was misleading.In addition, after the National Assembly adopted this motion, it also unanimously agreed to send this motion to the Prime Minister and to all Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec.The Prime Minister therefore had knowledge of the resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The Prime Minister therefore knew when he was making that statement that it was incorrect.Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and that the Prime Minister made a statement that he knew to be incorrect, it seems clear to us that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. Just this morning we received the selected decisions from May 7, 2012, of the Speaker who preceded you. On page 31, it states: It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and incorrect—as we have demonstrated—and given that he knew, when he was making the statement, that it was misleading and incorrect—as we have demonstrated—what other intention could he have had apart from misleading the House by saying these falsehoods?I repeat the Prime Minister's reply: The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. I would like to clarify that I raised my question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because the most recent information was obtained during yesterday's question period.Finally, should you consider it to be a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: That the House acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled the House and ask him to correct the answer to the question posed October 17, 2018, by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, and to apologize to the House.Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government makes the wrong compromises in the wrong places. It compromised on gender equality, it compromised on the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, it compromised on human rights in China, and it compromised on torture in Syria, but it refuses to compromise when it comes to helping sick people in Quebec.My question is a simple one. Will the minister restore health transfer increases to 6%?

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' $100-billion naval strategy sought to ensure the survival of two of Canada's shipyards, even if it meant destroying Davie and all of its suppliers, mostly in Saguenay. When the Liberals took office, they wanted to finish the job the Conservatives started, finish off Davie and deprive it of contracts. That is what we learned from the Vice-Admiral Norman case.Now that the government has stayed proceedings against the vice-admiral, does it also intend to abandon the Conservatives' naval strategy and finally treat Davie fairly?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals said they would do things differently.However, they broke their promises about respecting provincial jurisdiction in health care, an infrastructure program funded at 50%, the Aveos workers, medical assistance in dying, and reforming the electoral system, a promise broken by the Prime Minister now that the Liberals are in power. This is the same party leader who said he was fed up with politicians breaking their promises.Is that what real Liberal change looks like?

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons claims to recognize the Quebec nation, but when push comes to shove, Ottawa says no: no to advancing French in Quebec, no to our environmental sovereignty, and no to allowing us to decide how we want to live together in society.Will the Prime Minister admit that the recognition of Quebec as a nation means nothing at all to his party? It is nothing but a sham.

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, more than 200 Quebec farmers are still waiting for foreign workers to arrive in order to harvest their crops. At present, 1,000 workers are required. In my riding alone, Les Frères Riopel family farm has lost almost $5,000 in crops to date, and it is not the only one. Even though the applications were submitted in November, the visas will not be ready before mid-June. The only reason for that is incompetence.Has the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food heard of the verb “to act”? Will he stop working in isolation and do what has to be done so that the workers can be in the fields by the end of—

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday we learned that Canada is the country that sells the most arms to the Middle East. Today, we learned that four Canadian financial institutions invested $565 million in companies that manufacture cluster bombs, even though their use is prohibited by a United Nations treaty ratified by Canada.Since the Minister of Foreign Affairs is always a stickler for rules, will he speak out against this situation instead of continuing to make Canada look like a banana republic?

Mr. Speaker, even Quebec Liberals are lamenting Ottawa's decision to cut billions in transfers and fine Quebeckers $160 million, so the minister is clearly out to lunch. Never has a government done so much so quickly to undermine the quality of care in Quebec. People are waiting 18 hours to see an emergency room doctor and six months for an appointment, yet the minister would have us believe that cuts will solve the problem. Does the minister realize just how insulting that is to Quebeckers' intelligence?

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is preparing to take in more asylum seekers and the Americans are preparing to send them to us, but never through legal channels. The government still refuses to suspend the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States. Instead of encouraging illegal entries, and instead of going off to Africa, can the minister show some backbone and go to the United States to fix the problem with the American authorities?

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just as effective as a pillow in putting us to sleep.According to LCN, the transport minister's office recently met with representatives of the Sikh community, and it just so happens that they talked about kirpans on planes. Coincidentally, the World Sikh Organization of Canada welcomed the decision of the minister and Transport Canada.Does the Minister of Transport really believe that allowing small knives on planes will make passengers safer?

Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of our rights. Again today, the government claimed that every member could contribute to parliamentary reform. Nothing could be further from the truth.The parliamentary reform introduced by the government and the government's handling of this file tramples the rights and privileges of members who do not belong to recognized parties. Hundreds of thousands of voters are being muzzled. I have checked, and I want to—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister blows hot and cold when it comes to Quebec. After telling Philippe Couillard to take a hike, he now wants Quebeckers to feel more at home in Canada. The last time a Trudeau risked his neck for change, he sent the Quebec nation into exile.Will the Prime Minister finally respond to the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous resolution asking him to respect Quebec's laws and change Bill C-44?

Mr. Speaker, to hear Liberal ministers tell it this morning, protecting our borders is one of this government's top priorities.Can the minister tell us how his trip to Nigeria will address the problem of Honduran and Salvadoran asylum seekers coming in from the United States?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Democratic Institutions wants to change the rules of democracy without holding a referendum because that democratic instrument apparently is an outdated, 19th century tool. The minister thinks that she has the authority to change the rules without a referendum because she campaigned on this issue.By that logic, Quebec would have the right to independence without a referendum, making the Clarity Act null and void. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs throw out his Clarity Act?

Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia uses its armoured vehicles against the country's political dissidents, but according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that is okay because the images we have seen do not show Canadian armoured vehicles. I suppose the Canadian armoured vehicles are used to drive children to school. Yesterday, the Prime Minister justified the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia by saying that he wanted to protect Canada's business reputation. How many human rights is the Minister of Foreign Affairs prepared to disregard to preserve Canada's business reputation?

Mr. Speaker, all the Liberals do is talk, talk, talk. They have meetings and blah, blah, blah, but never take any concrete action. The migrant crisis is a humanitarian crisis. There are 200 asylum seekers a day, and there will be 400 a day this summer. What do the Liberals do? They talk. When will the minister finally hire extra staff to process the backlog of claims? It is a simple question.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec says that it needs 14 judges to be appointed in order to avoid lengthy proceedings that result in the release of the accused pursuant to the Jordan ruling. I did say 14. What did the Minister of Justice do? She appointed four judges. Does the minister realize that she may be enabling the release of dangerous criminals, putting Quebeckers at risk, and helping to discredit our justice system?

Mr. Speaker, the Saudi regime lied repeatedly about what happened to journalist Jamal Khashoggi. It lied repeatedly about how he was killed. It lied repeatedly by claiming not to know the whereabouts of the journalist's remains.Does the Liberal government believe the Saudi regime when it claims that it does not use Canadian armoured vehicles against Yemeni civilians?

Mr. Speaker, the revelations of the new leader of Canadian diplomacy outraged the Belgian media, which ran headlines such as “Crocodile tears mislead Wallonia”, “The drama minister”, “Fake tears guilt the Walloons”.Guilt trips, hypocrisy, crocodile tears, my goodness, it feels like the 1995 love-in in downtown Montreal.Is that what Canadian diplomacy is going to look like under the Liberals from now on?

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to fight climate change, but not at the expense of western oil companies. It wants to believe in the rule of law, but it changes the law to accommodate Air Canada. It wants to stand up for social justice, but it will not deprive its friends on Bay Street of their tax haven in Barbados. It wants to defend human rights, as long as that does not affect its business dealings with Saudi Arabia.At what price does this government sell out its principles?

Mr. Speaker, from January to May, over 12,000 asylum seekers entered Quebec. If this keeps up, that number will exceed 25,000 by the end of the year. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and his assistant, the Minister of Transport, made all kinds of promises to the Government of Quebec, but they have been all talk and no action so far.When will the ministers do something to take the pressure off Quebec on the immigration file once and for all?

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers thought they were masters in their own house. However, I have bad news for them: the federal government would like to remind us that we are not.After Neuville and Saint-Cuthbert, Ottawa wants to impose a new recreational airport in Mascouche which will have no significant economic benefits and disregards Quebec laws. Does social licence mean anything to him? Will the Minister of Transport finally accept that concerned citizens in the cities of Mascouche and Terrebonne, the Montreal metropolitan area, members of UPA and the National Assembly are opposed to the project, or will Ottawa unilaterally make this decision for us?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals invest in health once they have calculated how much they stand to gain politically. According to the Minister of Health, the only thing the Minister of Finance wants to know is how much can be gained politically by the health transfers. It is so cynical it feels like an episode of House of Cards.Does the Minister of Finance realize that his little political calculations could jeopardize the health of those who are ill in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, this morning on the radio, the Minister of Transport suggested that people are at the same risk from small knives as they are from being smothered by a pillow. However, small knives are still on the ICAO's list of high-risk items, whereas pillows are not. According to the ICAO, there is no obligation to standardize the high-risk items not allowed on planes.Will the minister finally recognize that he is allowing small knives on planes just to pander to his base?

Madam Speaker, a cheque is exactly what people want. They have had it up to here with reassuring words. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that if he were a farmer, he would be worried. There are only so many ways to reassure people. Rather than tell supply-managed farmers to vote Liberal if they want their cheque, will the government get those cheques in the mail before the end of the session?

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to redeem himself and answer the question. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium are just a few of the countries that have taken a stand against Donald Trump's order banning refugees from around the world and people from seven Muslim countries. Those countries openly and unequivocally condemn the order. Will the Prime Minister follow suit rather than continue to wallow in diplomatic complacency?

Mr. Speaker, when the Spanish government denied the Catalan people the right to self-determination, Ottawa said nothing. When the Spanish government sabotaged the referendum, Ottawa said nothing. When the Spanish government cracked down on the Catalan population who actually thought they might be able to vote, once again, Ottawa said nothing.Its silence makes it complicit.When will the Prime Minister finally stand and act like a true statesman for democracy?

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I talked about the petitions signed by 25,000 Quebeckers who are saying “no” to energy east. According to another electronic petition of the House, 257 Quebeckers are in favour of energy east.Therefore, 10,000% more Quebeckers oppose energy east. There is no social licence in Quebec for this project and there never will be. What hidden interests are behind the government's reluctance to say no? Is this the Irving siren call from the Maritimes?

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I am addressing you in your capacity as the custodian of our rights and privileges. For weeks, the government has been claiming that all members will be able to fully participate in the parliamentary reform. It said so as recently as yesterday. However, nothing could be further from the truth.The government's proposed parliamentary reform and the approach it is taking to this issue violate the rights and privileges of members who do not belong to recognized parties. Hundreds of thousands of voters are being muzzled.I checked, and I can tell the House that the letter from the Leader of the Government on the changes to electoral reform was sent only to her counterparts in the recognized parties. Not only were we not informed by letter like the other parliamentarians, but we had to learn about the leader's intentions in the newspapers.We did not get the leader's letter until yesterday afternoon. What is worse, she indicated in that letter that the government will now have to use time allocation motions more often. That means we will have even less speaking time. The government's decision will limit our freedom of speech and have a direct impact on our work, the work that hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers elected us to do.How can the government possibly amend the Standing Orders of the House without including every single elected member of the House, with no exceptions?The government is accountable not just to recognized parties in the House, but also to all those elected by Canadians. This is set out very clearly in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 61: “The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector.”Members of non-recognized parties are 34th in the order of speaking, and the leader has announced that the number of closure motions will increase. This means that we will never get a turn to speak. This will permanently silence small minority political parties, as well as voters. It is an unacceptable attack on the freedom of speech of the members of the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. Mr. Speaker, in the next few weeks, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will debate the the reform of Parliament, its procedures, and its Standing Orders. It will establish the new parliamentary rules that you will have to enforce. I would like to bring to your attention that as a result of the defeat of our motion of April 5, these changes will be discussed and amended without our being able to fully participate in the discussions. It was the government that defeated our motion. We are barred from all committees. This practice is discriminatory and unfair for non-recognized parties. These rules and procedures discriminate against non-recognized parties and run counter to the principle that the privileges protect the rights of every voter.Mr. Speaker, we are asking you to defend minority elected officials so that the majority does not crush them. I will repeat the quote: “The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector.”In your speech of December 3, 2015, you clearly stated that you wanted to reform parliamentary procedure. You said: “I believe the Speaker should lead discussions about how to reform our procedures to achieve these things and to have measures that ensure that members are better able to focus on their work and carry out their duties”.On page 89 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, we read: “By far, the most important right accorded to members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings.” A little further on, it is described as “a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties.”The Speaker's role in protecting this privilege in particular is set out on page 308. “The duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the right of members to free speech is protected....”Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of our privileges, it is your duty to intervene to ensure that the elected members of non-recognized parliamentary groups are not deprived of their most fundamental right, the right to speak, and the right to vote in committee and in the House on behalf of their constituents.I am asking you today to guide us as to how to reform our procedures so that you can protect the rights and privileges of parliamentarians belonging to non-recognized parties. In fact, we hold that there are four breaches of our parliamentary privileges. First, the procedure put forward by the government to reform House procedures and practices without the participation of all parliamentary groups, who are excluded from the committee on parliamentary reform, is not in keeping with the principle of fairness that must guide the Speaker's rulings and infringes on our freedom of speech.Second, the government's expressed intent to use its parliamentary majority rather than seeking a consensus among elected officials to make changes to the Standing Orders and procedures is not in keeping with the practices and customs in that regard.Third, the government's expressed intent to use time allocation more frequently inordinately violates the freedom of speech of non-recognized parties, especially since it has announced that it will use its parliamentary majority to push through its reforms.Fourth, the fact that elected members of non-recognized parties were not informed of the government's intentions regarding the procedural amendments at the same time as the recognized parties is a clear indication that parliamentarians from non-recognized parties are not being treated equitably.We are counting on you, Mr. Speaker, and we await your wise judgment.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade says she is prepared to defend the softwood lumber industry before the courts. A good thing, too, because Quebec's lumber producers want free trade, not a bad deal.The last softwood lumber dispute happened on the Liberals' watch, and Quebec paid the price. Our businesses went bankrupt, our workers lost their jobs, and our regions nearly collapsed.This time, will the government pledge to liberate Quebec softwood lumber from tariffs and quotas?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about some lofty principles this week. She told us that Canada needs to show leadership and that Canada would do just that.That is all well and good, but what about human rights? Why is this government in discussions with the Saudis for the sale of arms, but it refuses to talk to them about human rights? If this government wants to be taken seriously and regarded as a serious leader, when will it speak up and demand Raif Badawi's release?

Mr. Speaker, the Carter ruling required the government to revise the Criminal Code because it violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the bill introduces a grey area with respect to eligibility for medical assistance in dying. This morning, the Minister of Health has an obligation to be clear and rigorous.My question is simple: on the basis of the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion, would Kay Carter have been eligible for medical assistance in dying without going on a hunger strike?

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec says that it needs 14 judges to be appointed in order to avoid lengthy proceedings that result in the release of the accused pursuant to the Jordan ruling. I did say 14. What did the Minister of Justice do? She appointed four judges. Does the minister realize that she may be enabling the release of dangerous criminals, putting Quebeckers at risk, and helping to discredit our justice system?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is refusing to rise as a statesman, and his silence, like that of the Conservative Party on Friday, encourages derogatory Quebec bashing. While all of Quebec is mourning its dead in the wake of the terrible attack at the Quebec City mosque, people are insulting Quebec and attacking and besmirching its reputation. Meanwhile, neither the official opposition nor the Prime Minister want to condemn this disgraceful rag. How can the Prime Minister, the self-proclaimed Quebec lieutenant, justify remaining seated and remaining silent?

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.The Quebec National Assembly has legalized doctor-assisted death as part of end-of-life care, in accordance with the express will of a terminally ill person. The Prime Minister even praised Quebec's legislation.Can the Minister of Health guarantee that the six-month extension the federal government is asking for will not adversely effect the coming into force of Quebec's legislation?

Mr. Speaker, this government makes the wrong compromises in the wrong places. It compromised on gender equality, it compromised on the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, it compromised on human rights in China, and it compromised on torture in Syria, but it refuses to compromise when it comes to helping sick people in Quebec.My question is a simple one. Will the minister restore health transfer increases to 6%?

Mr. Speaker, the revelations of the new leader of Canadian diplomacy outraged the Belgian media, which ran headlines such as “Crocodile tears mislead Wallonia”, “The drama minister”, “Fake tears guilt the Walloons”.Guilt trips, hypocrisy, crocodile tears, my goodness, it feels like the 1995 love-in in downtown Montreal.Is that what Canadian diplomacy is going to look like under the Liberals from now on?

Mr. Speaker, this morning on the radio, the Minister of Transport suggested that people are at the same risk from small knives as they are from being smothered by a pillow. However, small knives are still on the ICAO's list of high-risk items, whereas pillows are not. According to the ICAO, there is no obligation to standardize the high-risk items not allowed on planes.Will the minister finally recognize that he is allowing small knives on planes just to pander to his base?

Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege must be raised as soon as the breach occurs. I could not inform you a day or an hour in advance because I did not hear the government confirm what was reported in the media. Then I had to wait until question period to have the opportunity to rise today. It was therefore impossible to give an hour's notice. You are the guardian of parliamentarians' speaking time, and independent members get very little of that. It seems to me that you could at least wait until the end of my remarks, which are not even a minute long.

Mr. Speaker, a week ago, Raif Badawi's children had a message for the Prime Minister. They said it was unfair that their father is in prison, that he did not kill anyone, and all he did was create a blog.They asked the Prime Minister to pick up the phone and call the King of Saudi Arabia so that their father could come home.That was their heartfelt plea. Did the Prime Minister call the Saudi Arabian king to have Raif Badawi released, as his children have asked?

Mr. Speaker, the Saudi regime lied repeatedly about what happened to journalist Jamal Khashoggi. It lied repeatedly about how he was killed. It lied repeatedly by claiming not to know the whereabouts of the journalist's remains.Does the Liberal government believe the Saudi regime when it claims that it does not use Canadian armoured vehicles against Yemeni civilians?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is refusing to explain how $70,000 ended up in his riding's coffers and is hiding behind his party's half-baked explanation. The party is now saying that that money came from a fundraising event that was held in British Columbia at the end of June. Since when are fundraising events for Papineau held 5,000 kilometres away from Montreal?

Mr. Speaker, we know how the Government of Quebec is going to react. Any additional federal assistance for the Muskrat Falls project will create a situation of unfair competition for Hydro-Québec. Need I remind the House that Hydro-Québec developed without Ottawa's help? Newfoundland and Labrador want to compete in foreign markets, and Quebeckers are supposed to pay for that? That is out of the question.Will the minister make a solemn commitment to the House that he will not increase the loan guarantee for Newfoundland and Labrador, as the Government of Quebec has asked?

Mr. Speaker, all members of the Quebec National Assembly, sovereignists and federalists alike, are unanimous. The message is clear: health falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, and Ottawa is certainly not going to be the one to decide how Quebec manages its money.Rather than imposing Conservative-style unilateral cuts, with NDP-style conditions, will the minister maintain the 6% transfer increase without conditions, as the Quebec National Assembly is unanimously calling for?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec made it very clear that we want nothing to do with Alberta's dirty energy. There is no social licence. We do not want pipelines crossing our rivers, and we do not want tank cars rolling through our towns. Will the Prime Minister get the message that if they want to sell their tar sands oil to other countries, it will not be going through Quebec either by pipeline or by train?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Conservatives are going to heckle, the least they could do, in a self-respecting Parliament, is wait until the last sentence or word of a motion.

Mr. Speaker, when British Columbia said no to northern gateway, everyone listened. When the Americans said no to Keystone XL, everyone listened.However, when 82 municipalities representing four million Quebeckers do their homework and say no to energy east, we are insulted, scorned and even threatened.When will the Prime Minister take off his referee jersey and stop stalling for time? When will this government finally understand that TransCanada's pipeline is not welcome in Quebec?

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 minister stated twice in the House that she had invited members of the Bloc and the Green Party to join her committee. What she failed to mention, however, is that we will not have the same rights as the other members, since she denied us our right to vote on this committee. Are the members of the Bloc Québécois second-class MPs?

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to redeem himself and answer the question. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium are just a few of the countries that have taken a stand against Donald Trump's order banning refugees from around the world and people from seven Muslim countries. Those countries openly and unequivocally condemn the order. Will the Prime Minister follow suit rather than continue to wallow in diplomatic complacency?

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent in the House for me to move the following motion: that the House honour its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states in article 1 that all peoples have the right of self-determination, and condemn the violent repression orchestrated by the Spanish government during the Catalonia referendum of October 1, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals invest in health once they have calculated how much they stand to gain politically. According to the Minister of Health, the only thing the Minister of Finance wants to know is how much can be gained politically by the health transfers. It is so cynical it feels like an episode of House of Cards.Does the Minister of Finance realize that his little political calculations could jeopardize the health of those who are ill in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, this reform is off to a bad start. The government wants to use its majority to change democracy. However, this should not be a partisan issue. Changing the way we vote cannot be left just to experts and parliamentarians. The people should decide.How can the government think it has a legitimate right to impose a voting system without a referendum, when it received less than 40% of the vote in the last election?

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers thought they were masters in their own house. However, I have bad news for them: the federal government would like to remind us that we are not.After Neuville and Saint-Cuthbert, Ottawa wants to impose a new recreational airport in Mascouche which will have no significant economic benefits and disregards Quebec laws. Does social licence mean anything to him? Will the Minister of Transport finally accept that concerned citizens in the cities of Mascouche and Terrebonne, the Montreal metropolitan area, members of UPA and the National Assembly are opposed to the project, or will Ottawa unilaterally make this decision for us?

Mr. Speaker, from January to May, over 12,000 asylum seekers entered Quebec. If this keeps up, that number will exceed 25,000 by the end of the year. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and his assistant, the Minister of Transport, made all kinds of promises to the Government of Quebec, but they have been all talk and no action so far.When will the ministers do something to take the pressure off Quebec on the immigration file once and for all?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals said they would do things differently.However, they broke their promises about respecting provincial jurisdiction in health care, an infrastructure program funded at 50%, the Aveos workers, medical assistance in dying, and reforming the electoral system, a promise broken by the Prime Minister now that the Liberals are in power. This is the same party leader who said he was fed up with politicians breaking their promises.Is that what real Liberal change looks like?

Toufik Benhamiche is desperate. He has been held in Cuba against his will and kept from his family since July 7, 2017, and he could be thrown in prison any day, even though the Cuban supreme court overturned his conviction because of a procedural error.He is facing a new trial with the same judge, the same prosecutor and the same procedure, and he could end up unjustly convicted once again.Will the minister responsible for global affairs act immediately to protect a citizen who is the victim of an abuse of power?

Mr. Speaker, the Senate amended Bill C-14 by deleting the criterion of reasonably foreseeable death in order to allow the most vulnerable to have access to medical assistance in dying. That is what the Barreau du Québec, the lawyers for the Carter family, the eminent constitutional law expert Peter Hogg, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP were calling for all along.Why is the Minister of Justice intent on withdrawing the right to self-determination from the most vulnerable people in society, the people suffering from a grievous and irremediable illness, disease, or disability that causes intolerable suffering?

Mr. Speaker, even Quebec Liberals are lamenting Ottawa's decision to cut billions in transfers and fine Quebeckers $160 million, so the minister is clearly out to lunch. Never has a government done so much so quickly to undermine the quality of care in Quebec. People are waiting 18 hours to see an emergency room doctor and six months for an appointment, yet the minister would have us believe that cuts will solve the problem. Does the minister realize just how insulting that is to Quebeckers' intelligence?

Mr. Speaker, how many Raif Badawis, Samar Badawis and Jamal Khashoggis will it take before the government decides to stop selling arms to a regime that flogs bloggers and murders journalists?When will the Liberals stop selling out human rights for dirty money from the murderous regime of Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that this House call on Health Canada to suspend the sale of high-sugar, high-alcohol drinks and alcoholic energy drinks containing guaranine for the duration of the consultations on this matter and until such time that new rules come into effect.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons claims to recognize the Quebec nation, but when push comes to shove, Ottawa says no: no to advancing French in Quebec, no to our environmental sovereignty, and no to allowing us to decide how we want to live together in society.Will the Prime Minister admit that the recognition of Quebec as a nation means nothing at all to his party? It is nothing but a sham.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I talked about the petitions signed by 25,000 Quebeckers who are saying “no” to energy east. According to another electronic petition of the House, 257 Quebeckers are in favour of energy east.Therefore, 10,000% more Quebeckers oppose energy east. There is no social licence in Quebec for this project and there never will be. What hidden interests are behind the government's reluctance to say no? Is this the Irving siren call from the Maritimes?

Mr. Speaker, the axe has fallen. The Minister of Health has decided, in the Liberal tradition, to unilaterally decrease health transfers. What a great way to work collaboratively with her Quebec counterpart. This is a direct attack on the Quebec health system. There is less money for access to doctors, less money for nurses, and less money for care and surgical procedures.Why are the 40 Liberal members from Quebec saying nothing and letting this government attack Quebec's health care system?

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House request that the results of the secret ballot on Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act with respect to adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, to be held January 29 and 30, 2019, be disclosed at the same time as the voting results.

Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia uses Canadian weapons against civilians. On July 28, the minister said that she was going to take action. Nevertheless, armoured vehicles are still making their way to Riyadh, and Saudi money is still making its way to Canada.Why does the Minister of Foreign Affairs want to sign the Arms Trade Treaty, when her government does not even intend to abide by it?

Madam Speaker, flight attendants are worried about the decision to allow small knives on planes. They were clear with the Minister of Transport, expressing that “the changes go too far and put flight attendants and the public at risk”.Since the ICAO has no requirement for standardizing high-risk items, why is it necessary to allow pocket knives on planes instead of keeping them in the baggage hold?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Democratic Institutions wants to change the rules of democracy without holding a referendum because that democratic instrument apparently is an outdated, 19th century tool. The minister thinks that she has the authority to change the rules without a referendum because she campaigned on this issue.By that logic, Quebec would have the right to independence without a referendum, making the Clarity Act null and void. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs throw out his Clarity Act?

Mr. Speaker, the Carter ruling required the government to revise the Criminal Code because it violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the bill introduces a grey area with respect to eligibility for medical assistance in dying. This morning, the Minister of Health has an obligation to be clear and rigorous.My question is simple: on the basis of the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion, would Kay Carter have been eligible for medical assistance in dying without going on a hunger strike?

Mr. Speaker, I just asked a question and some of those people had the gall to answer in the affirmative.

On behalf of my political party, the Bloc Québécois, and our members here in Parliament, we are pleased to extend our best wishes for Christmas. We wish you the very best for 2017. We salute your sense of fairness and your pursuit of equity in the House.We would also like to extend our best wishes to the entire team, which serves us with exemplary dedication. As a user of their services, I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work of the interpreters in the House. Finally, we extend our best wishes for Christmas to all our colleagues from all parties. We wish them a very happy new year.Although we are all proud representatives of our parties, we are also human beings who will be returning to our families today. We hope you will all enjoy the holidays. Until next time! May 2017 be as eventful as the year drawing to a close.

Mr. Speaker, to hear Liberal ministers tell it this morning, protecting our borders is one of this government's top priorities.Can the minister tell us how his trip to Nigeria will address the problem of Honduran and Salvadoran asylum seekers coming in from the United States?

Mr. Speaker, all week, the Minister of Transport repeated that he was proud and very happy that Air Canada did not have to abide by the law.As a result, 1,800 Aveos workers who lost their jobs no longer have any recourse. The minister chose to side with the offenders. Today, I am giving the government a chance to respectfully respond to the workers and their families, instead of feeding us the same old lines.Why does it refuse to enforce its own act?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to statements we just heard during question period.I am sure that if we ask—

Mr. Speaker, the true face of the Liberals in power is one that talks out of both sides of its mouth. On the fight against climate change, protecting Quebec consumers, health transfers, funding for Muskrat Falls, the lumber industry, promoting institutional bilingualism, financing Bombardier, head offices in Quebec, compensation for cheese producers, electoral reform, political party financing, and so much more, the Liberals do not walk the talk, to put it mildly. Is there anyone in the House who knows what the 40 Liberal members from Quebec are good for?

Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia murders journalists. Saudi Arabia flogs bloggers. Saudi Arabia kills civilians in Yemen. Saudi Arabia lies to the entire world.How many more Badawis, Khashoggis, women, and children will have to die? When will the Prime Minister cancel Canada's arms sales agreements with this murderous regime?

Mr. Speaker, Manuel Valls and the Muslim Canadian Congress both consider so-called religious symbols such as the full veil to be more of a political statement.The Bloc Québécois believes that religion and politics should be kept separate. After all, the best way to protect religions is for the state not to have one. Furthermore, gender parity is not negotiable and a tenet of our democracy. Will the Prime Minister listen to reason and require women to vote with their faces uncovered?

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Prime Minister wants to keep selling arms. Raif Badawi's flogging sentence will not stop Canada from doing business, nor will the jailing of women who stand up for their rights, the killing of civilians in Yemen or the assassination of a journalist in a consulate.What more does this government need to stop selling arms to this vile country? Maybe what it really needs is a spine.

Mr. Speaker, we did not ask whether the government is aware of the issues; we want to know if it is going to enforce the regulations.For the parliamentary secretary's benefit, I repeat that the National Assembly called on the government to ensure that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency enforces its own regulation on cheese composition, using the same definition of diafiltered milk that the Canada Border Services Agency uses, namely, a protein concentrate.Will the government commit to respecting the unanimous will of the National Assembly and dairy producers, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, throughout the session, the government has provided us with a myriad of opportunities to criticize its $1,500 cocktail parties offering privileged access to the Prime Minister.In the report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, Jean-Pierre Kingsley proposed returning to the per-vote subsidy system of party financing in order to make things fair. The Bloc Québécois introduced a bill that would do just that. It is a balanced bill that eliminates sectoral financing and the undue influence of major donors.What is the government going to do? Will it play back its prerecorded message about having the strictest rules or will it restore the per-vote subsidy system of party financing?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade says she is prepared to defend the softwood lumber industry before the courts. A good thing, too, because Quebec's lumber producers want free trade, not a bad deal.The last softwood lumber dispute happened on the Liberals' watch, and Quebec paid the price. Our businesses went bankrupt, our workers lost their jobs, and our regions nearly collapsed.This time, will the government pledge to liberate Quebec softwood lumber from tariffs and quotas?

Mr. Speaker, this government, which is all about promoting peace and love and singing Kumbaya, is quick to abandon its grand principles of universal peace and love when it comes to taking action against tyranny. There will not be any sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, no sir. The government is looking the other way. I do not call that diplomacy. I call that complicity.Is the Prime Minister aware that, by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, he is complicit with this murderous regime?

Madam Speaker, a cheque is exactly what people want. They have had it up to here with reassuring words. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that if he were a farmer, he would be worried. There are only so many ways to reassure people. Rather than tell supply-managed farmers to vote Liberal if they want their cheque, will the government get those cheques in the mail before the end of the session?

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' $100-billion naval strategy sought to ensure the survival of two of Canada's shipyards, even if it meant destroying Davie and all of its suppliers, mostly in Saguenay. When the Liberals took office, they wanted to finish the job the Conservatives started, finish off Davie and deprive it of contracts. That is what we learned from the Vice-Admiral Norman case.Now that the government has stayed proceedings against the vice-admiral, does it also intend to abandon the Conservatives' naval strategy and finally treat Davie fairly?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Democratic Institutions does not like the majority report tabled by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, and she really does not like its recommendations, which are in favour of a referendum on the voting system and a more proportional voting system that does not weaken Quebec's political weight.What are the chances that the minister will try to discredit the report today or that the Liberals will not support proportional representation precisely because they are only interested in an electoral reform that will keep them in power forever?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek consent for the following motion, which is seconded by the member for Humber River—Black Creek, the member for Chilliwack—Hope, the member for Vancouver East, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. That the House recognize the injustice, abuse and suffering endured by the British Home Children as well as the efforts, participation and contribution of these children and their descendants within our communities; and offer its sincere apology to the former British Home Children who are still living and to the descendants of these 100,000 individuals who were shipped from Great Britain to Canada between 1869 and 1948, and torn from their families to serve mainly as cheap labour once they arrived in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons noted, the Bloc Québécois supports the creation of a special committee on assisted suicide. The National Assembly was wise enough to have a non-partisan debate on dying with dignity by inviting members from all political parties to be part of the travelling commission that examined the issue.What is stopping the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who is promising real change and claims he wants to reform our democratic and parliamentary institutions, from including members from all parties on that committee?

Mr. Speaker, from the debate that has taken place in the House, I am certain that all democratic members will agree to amend the government's Motion No. 5 concerning the creation of a special committee on election reform, in order to include, exceptionally, one Bloc Québécois member and the member of the Green Party as voting members. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to amend the government's Motion No. 5 as follows: “That the committee be composed of 12 members of which six shall be government members, three shall be from the Official Opposition, one shall be from the New Democratic Party, one shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the—

Madam Speaker, I wish to seek consent for the following motion: That this House call upon the government to review its method for determining eligibility for employment insurance benefits in order to better meet the needs of seasonal workers, whose jobs are important for the economy of the various regions of Quebec.

Madam Speaker, not a single penny in compensation will be going to supply-managed producers before the election. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed it.Farmers are already suffering the consequences of being sacrificed in the free trade agreements. To them, compensation is not an election issue, but an urgent need. The farmers say they want to see concrete action before the election, and that would include a cheque.When will they get their cheque?

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what we just heard, the White House has confirmed that Canada is waiting for the Quebec election to be over to announce important concessions on supply management. In fact, everyone seems to be aware of this except Quebeckers.Who is telling the truth, the Canadian government or the American government?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, the House voted against the principle that Quebec should choose its own integration model.The three non-negotiable principles underpinning the Quebec nation are gender equality, separation of church and state, and French as the common tongue. None of those principles appear in the multiculturalism policy.Why is the government not letting Quebec make its own choices about how its people want to live together in society?

Mr. Speaker, a year later, it is clear that the government is really just winging its response to the migrant crisis.There is a backlog of 53,000 applications. It will take two and a half years to process them all, assuming that no further applications are submitted after today. The government's solution is to fly to Nigeria and tell people that 90% of claimants will be turned away. What a clever idea.Is that the new magic solution for fixing the migrant crisis?

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has always been a desirable destination for newcomers, but ever since the Prime Minister issued that irresponsible invitation, Quebec has been facing an immigration crisis, and Ottawa is not taking the issue seriously.The case processing backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is years long, yet the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship sees fit to tell Quebec what to do. That is irresponsible and unacceptable, as Quebec has said.The government's carelessness is costing Quebec a lot of money. Will the government make a decision by the end of the day and reimburse Quebec for those costs?

Mr. Speaker, by her reaction to the special committee’s report, the Minister of Democratic Institutions has made it quite clear that Liberal interests matter more than democratic interests. It is Liberal interests that also matter more with respect to political party financing, with $1,500 cocktails to gain exclusive access to the Prime Minister. Instead of playing the same worn out old record and feeding cynicism, will the minister restore public funding for political parties based on the votes received or not?

Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia uses its armoured vehicles against the country's political dissidents, but according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that is okay because the images we have seen do not show Canadian armoured vehicles. I suppose the Canadian armoured vehicles are used to drive children to school. Yesterday, the Prime Minister justified the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia by saying that he wanted to protect Canada's business reputation. How many human rights is the Minister of Foreign Affairs prepared to disregard to preserve Canada's business reputation?

Mr. Speaker, when a parliamentarian is deeply hurt and wronged by comments and debates in the House that undermine the very essence of his work, he must immediately stand up and say so. I therefore rise on a question of privilege.I humbly address all my colleagues. I heard the House Leader of the Official Opposition refer to the government's approach to procedural reform as dictatorial. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that she wanted to hold a discussion and have all parliamentarians take part in it. I would humbly submit to the House that we have had to witness this exchange even though we cannot sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or any other committee. Indeed, since October 19, 2015, we have been banned from this type of debate and thus ostracized as parliamentarians.What I am humbly stating today is that if we want to reform the Standing Orders, I imagine that we want to do so for the good of parliamentary democracy. Therefore, no one would oppose our right to speak, which we had in the case in the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. It is an affront to hear people who have millions of dollars, and so much the better for them, to spend on being heard and having their constituents' voices heard. I was legitimately elected by people who pay their taxes to the federal government and I have the right to sit on the committee that will study parliamentary reforms.

Mr. Speaker, at the Paris conference, the government made a commitment to the entire world to fight climate change. According to the Pembina Institute, however, if the energy east pipeline goes into service, greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 32 million tonnes a year. That is the equivalent of adding more than seven million vehicles to Quebec's roads.Will the government finally admit that the energy east project is completely at odds with the Prime Minister's commitments at the Paris conference?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has lost her battle: her colleague, the Minister of Finance, has convinced the Prime Minister to move forward with the energy east pipeline. The Prime Minister has given up on refereeing. He has asked for a strategy, a plan, I imagine, to impose this pipeline on Quebec. Never mind social licence, never mind the Paris commitments, never mind the green shift.Is that the kind of influence the 40 members from Quebec have within this government?

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just as effective as a pillow in putting us to sleep.According to LCN, the transport minister's office recently met with representatives of the Sikh community, and it just so happens that they talked about kirpans on planes. Coincidentally, the World Sikh Organization of Canada welcomed the decision of the minister and Transport Canada.Does the Minister of Transport really believe that allowing small knives on planes will make passengers safer?

Mr. Speaker, just because it is legal does not make it ethical.Privileged access to the minister by friends of the Liberals for $1,500 may be legal, but is not ethical, and it results in cynicism. A private cocktail with the Prime Minister for Chinese investors looking to push their own agendas may be legal, but it is unethical and results in cynicism.Instead of fuelling voters' cynicism, will the Minister of Democratic Institutions restore per-vote subsidies for political parties, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, as recently as March 13, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec informed us that, last year, 2,332 young Quebeckers between the ages of 12 and 24 were hospitalized for acute alcohol intoxication. We are talking about 7 to 10 young people a day. The minister wants to consult and regulate because she knows full well that highly sweetened, high-alcohol beverages are dangerous.Will she use her common sense and suspend the sale of these beverages until new regulations are put in place?

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I am addressing you in your capacity as the custodian of our rights and privileges. For weeks, the government has been claiming that all members will be able to fully participate in the parliamentary reform. It said so as recently as yesterday. However, nothing could be further from the truth.The government's proposed parliamentary reform and the approach it is taking to this issue violate the rights and privileges of members who do not belong to recognized parties. Hundreds of thousands of voters are being muzzled.I checked, and I can tell the House that the letter from the Leader of the Government on the changes to electoral reform was sent only to her counterparts in the recognized parties. Not only were we not informed by letter like the other parliamentarians, but we had to learn about the leader's intentions in the newspapers.We did not get the leader's letter until yesterday afternoon. What is worse, she indicated in that letter that the government will now have to use time allocation motions more often. That means we will have even less speaking time. The government's decision will limit our freedom of speech and have a direct impact on our work, the work that hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers elected us to do.How can the government possibly amend the Standing Orders of the House without including every single elected member of the House, with no exceptions?The government is accountable not just to recognized parties in the House, but also to all those elected by Canadians. This is set out very clearly in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 61: “The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector.”Members of non-recognized parties are 34th in the order of speaking, and the leader has announced that the number of closure motions will increase. This means that we will never get a turn to speak. This will permanently silence small minority political parties, as well as voters. It is an unacceptable attack on the freedom of speech of the members of the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. Mr. Speaker, in the next few weeks, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will debate the the reform of Parliament, its procedures, and its Standing Orders. It will establish the new parliamentary rules that you will have to enforce. I would like to bring to your attention that as a result of the defeat of our motion of April 5, these changes will be discussed and amended without our being able to fully participate in the discussions. It was the government that defeated our motion. We are barred from all committees. This practice is discriminatory and unfair for non-recognized parties. These rules and procedures discriminate against non-recognized parties and run counter to the principle that the privileges protect the rights of every voter.Mr. Speaker, we are asking you to defend minority elected officials so that the majority does not crush them. I will repeat the quote: “The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector.”In your speech of December 3, 2015, you clearly stated that you wanted to reform parliamentary procedure. You said: “I believe the Speaker should lead discussions about how to reform our procedures to achieve these things and to have measures that ensure that members are better able to focus on their work and carry out their duties”.On page 89 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, we read: “By far, the most important right accorded to members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings.” A little further on, it is described as “a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties.”The Speaker's role in protecting this privilege in particular is set out on page 308. “The duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the right of members to free speech is protected....”Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of our privileges, it is your duty to intervene to ensure that the elected members of non-recognized parliamentary groups are not deprived of their most fundamental right, the right to speak, and the right to vote in committee and in the House on behalf of their constituents.I am asking you today to guide us as to how to reform our procedures so that you can protect the rights and privileges of parliamentarians belonging to non-recognized parties. In fact, we hold that there are four breaches of our parliamentary privileges. First, the procedure put forward by the government to reform House procedures and practices without the participation of all parliamentary groups, who are excluded from the committee on parliamentary reform, is not in keeping with the principle of fairness that must guide the Speaker's rulings and infringes on our freedom of speech.Second, the government's expressed intent to use its parliamentary majority rather than seeking a consensus among elected officials to make changes to the Standing Orders and procedures is not in keeping with the practices and customs in that regard.Third, the government's expressed intent to use time allocation more frequently inordinately violates the freedom of speech of non-recognized parties, especially since it has announced that it will use its parliamentary majority to push through its reforms.Fourth, the fact that elected members of non-recognized parties were not informed of the government's intentions regarding the procedural amendments at the same time as the recognized parties is a clear indication that parliamentarians from non-recognized parties are not being treated equitably.We are counting on you, Mr. Speaker, and we await your wise judgment.

Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is investigating the fact that preferential access to the Prime Minister was given to Chinese billionaires, including the founder of a bank in Vancouver. On the day that bank received its charter, Papineau received $70,000. Now we are expected to be satisfied with an answer like that. Canadians deserve respect. They deserve transparency. They deserve an answer. Did the Prime Minister give the list of Vancouver donors to the Ethics Commissioner, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, asylum seekers arriving in Plattsburgh are given instructions on how to cross the border illegally. One pamphlet tells them how to get to Roxham Road, how much a taxi costs, who to contact in Montreal and what to expect. The minister has known all of this for weeks. What did he just tell us he did? He made a phone call. I am impressed by such vigorous action that will make all the difference. Does he take us for fools?

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That this House condemn the government's approval of the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration in Marrakesh without debate in this House.

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is preparing to take in more asylum seekers and the Americans are preparing to send them to us, but never through legal channels. The government still refuses to suspend the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States. Instead of encouraging illegal entries, and instead of going off to Africa, can the minister show some backbone and go to the United States to fix the problem with the American authorities?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health will be holding consultations to stop sugary, high-alcohol drinks from being sold in their current format, and that is a good thing. However, we also have a duty to be diligent and above all thorough in our actions, to prevent another tragedy from occurring. As part of these consultations, will the Minister of Health also consider banning the addition of guarana to these alcoholic drinks?

Mr. Speaker, when the Spanish government denied the Catalan people the right to self-determination, Ottawa said nothing. When the Spanish government sabotaged the referendum, Ottawa said nothing. When the Spanish government cracked down on the Catalan population who actually thought they might be able to vote, once again, Ottawa said nothing.Its silence makes it complicit.When will the Prime Minister finally stand and act like a true statesman for democracy?

Mr. Speaker, in light of the statements made during question period, I am sure that if you were to ask all parties in the House about membership of the electoral reform committee, people would give the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois the right to participate and vote.I would like to move the following motion: “That the participation of the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party be governed by the same provisions governing all other members and include the right to vote”.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are these. On May 19, 2016, the founder of Wealth One paid $1,500 for a private dinner with the Prime Minister. On July 7, he got his wish and was told that his bank could open. Then, by sheer coincidence, within 48 hours of the bank getting approved, $70,000 was deposited into the bank account of the Liberal riding of Papineau by wealthy Chinese individuals from Vancouver.If that was not a way to return the favour, then what was it?

Mr. Speaker, when the minister made promises to Quebec about the migrant crisis, he was clearly making things up as he went along. The minister assumed that Ontario would help triage the asylum claims, but the mayor of Toronto said no, since their shelters are overloaded as well. Twelve days after the minister made his promise, nothing has budged. We are not talking about a backlog of cases. We are talking about people in need who responded to the Prime Minister's irresponsible invitation.When will this government have a plan?

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to fight climate change, but not at the expense of western oil companies. It wants to believe in the rule of law, but it changes the law to accommodate Air Canada. It wants to stand up for social justice, but it will not deprive its friends on Bay Street of their tax haven in Barbados. It wants to defend human rights, as long as that does not affect its business dealings with Saudi Arabia.At what price does this government sell out its principles?

Mr. Speaker, more than 200 Quebec farmers are still waiting for foreign workers to arrive in order to harvest their crops. At present, 1,000 workers are required. In my riding alone, Les Frères Riopel family farm has lost almost $5,000 in crops to date, and it is not the only one. Even though the applications were submitted in November, the visas will not be ready before mid-June. The only reason for that is incompetence.Has the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food heard of the verb “to act”? Will he stop working in isolation and do what has to be done so that the workers can be in the fields by the end of—

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday we learned that Canada is the country that sells the most arms to the Middle East. Today, we learned that four Canadian financial institutions invested $565 million in companies that manufacture cluster bombs, even though their use is prohibited by a United Nations treaty ratified by Canada.Since the Minister of Foreign Affairs is always a stickler for rules, will he speak out against this situation instead of continuing to make Canada look like a banana republic?

Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is not consistent with the Carter decision.Rather than act courageously to comply with the court's ruling, the government decided to wash its hands of the whole thing. People who are gravely ill and suffering will bear the burden of challenging this law right up to the Supreme Court or going on a hunger strike to fulfill the reasonably foreseeable natural death criteria.Why is the government so lacking in courage and compassion as to place that burden on people struggling with intolerable suffering?

Mr. Speaker, next week, at the meeting in Marrakesh, the government will discuss the global compact on migration. The issue of migrants is not strictly under federal jurisdiction. In Quebec, we also welcome, integrate and select migrants.The Prime Minister cannot make unilateral decisions on this and leave the provinces to deal with the consequences of his decisions or his tweets. Will he take advantage of his meeting with the first ministers to present the compact and promise to sign it only if every premier is on board?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question was clear. When will this government intervene?The aerospace industry accounts for 40,000 jobs in 200 high-tech companies in Quebec. It has been nearly a year since Bombardier indicated that it might need a line of credit to tide it over until it receives its certification.The question is simple. When will the government stand up for Quebec's economy? When will it take action on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On September 26, 2017, the House unanimously adopted the following motion: That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations. Everyone knows that, yesterday, the government concluded a new agreement with the United States. By so doing, the government dismissed out of hand the unanimous will—