Murray Rankin

Mr. Speaker, Canadians did not vote to buy a pipeline. Yesterday, the grand council chief of the Anishinabek nation called the Liberals' decision to spend $4.5 billion on a leaky 65-year-old pipeline “very foolish”. He asked, “why is the government paying an international company when there are many needs in this country?” It is a good question. Think about how many communities across Canada, particularly indigenous ones, could benefit from that level of investment.If the Liberals were to invest these billions of dollars in clean energy, would we create more or fewer jobs than this pipeline? Have they even thought—

Mr. Speaker, President Trump has issued yet another executive order. This one has serious implications for all Canadian travellers or innocent Internet users. Trump's order excludes all non-American citizens from the U.S. Privacy Act. This is deeply troubling. President Trump wants to subject all visitors to the United States to biometric screening. What is this Canadian government doing to protect the privacy rights of Canadians, and how will these screenings impact our industries that depend on speedy border crossings?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberals on the justice committee refused to ensure that people from the Prime Minister's Office would testify; not Gerry Butts and not the other officials who held dozens of meetings with SNC-Lavalin to discuss criminal charges.How will Canadians get to the truth, if the Liberals refuse to invite people at the centre of this mess, and if the Prime Minister refuses to waive privilege to let the former attorney general tell her story?He kept saying sunshine is the best disinfectant, so why is he content keeping Canadians in the dark?

Mr. Speaker, during the election, the Liberals promised to finally end criminalizing Canadians for simple possession of marijuana. The current government could have taken immediate action, but has not. There are no details, no timeline for decriminalizing marijuana possession, no commitment to expunge the record of hundreds of thousands of Canadians convicted for simple possession, and thousands are still unfairly facing possible arrest, tying up the police and our justice system.Why has the government not taken any action to legalize simple possession of marijuana?

Mr. Speaker, this Canadian has already suffered unconscionable abuse and torture at the hands of Sudanese authorities, and the Government of Canada not only abandoned him but also was found by the federal court to have been complicit in his detention. However, rather than work toward justice and accountability, the government has just walked away from settlement negotiations with Mr. Abdelrazik, giving no reasons. Let me echo the call from Amnesty International. Will the Prime Minister instruct his officials to recommit to mediation and to apologize for Canada's role in his horrific ordeal?

Madam Speaker, according to a Department of Public Safety report, fully 86% of participants agreed that the government should completely wipe out, not merely suspend, criminal records for minor offences, particularly convictions for cannabis possession. Half a million Canadians have criminal records for this. They continue to face significant barriers to employment and housing for an activity that is now entirely legal. These Canadians deserve freedom, not forgiveness.Will the Liberals commit to expunging criminal records for cannabis possession?

Mr. Speaker, this report shows that the federal government's health care offer falls far short of the provinces' increased costs. Already we are seeing the direct impacts of that underfunding like the horror stories coming out of Surrey, British Columbia, where a quadriplegic home care patient is forced to choose between a meal and a change of clothes. Why have the Liberals broken their promise to properly fund health care and what the heck ever happened to the Liberals' campaign commitment to immediately invest $3 billion in home care?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Federal Court ruled that CSIS has been illegally storing sensitive personal information on untold numbers of Canadians—Canadians who the spy agency itself has determined pose no threat. This is a gross abuse of power and an unjustifiable intrusion into the privacy of Canadians. The minister just admitted that he was told of this abuse of powers. Does he really believe it is enough to just advise the review committee? Why were Canadians not told immediately?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals may be walking away from a new commitment to mental health funding. Quebec's health minister said that he was worried that funding for mental illness is not a priority for this finance minister or this Prime Minister because “they don't see a political gain on that.”While it may not pay off like cash-for-access fundraisers, I can assure the House that for Canadians suffering from mental illness, there is much to gain.Will the Liberals commit to real negotiations with the provinces based on that rather than based on political calculations?

Mr. Speaker, the flawed study of the Afghan detainees scandal was cut short by the Conservatives after only reviewing an initial set of documents. Stéphane Dion at that point said, “[w]hen you read these documents, you will have questions to ask to your Prime Minister”. He also said that the Conservatives were blocking an inquiry because of being “afraid of having to answer to Canadians”. Therefore, will the Minister of National Defence appear before the defence committee to answer questions about this scandal, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, just outside these doors, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh suggested that the federal government, B.C., Alberta, and indigenous leaders refer jurisdictional issues concerning Kinder Morgan to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Liberal government scoffed. It said it was a ridiculous proposal, that their jurisdiction was clear and beyond dispute.Now the government has decided to join in the reference case to the B.C. Court of Appeal. Oops. If it was such a ridiculous idea then, why is it such a good idea now?

Mr. Speaker, is the Liberal government serious about tax havens?The Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary are busy explaining why companies they have left have links to Caribbean tax havens. The Minister of National Revenue continues to defend sweetheart deals with millionaire tax cheats and privileged relations with KPMG.As Canadians are sitting down these days and doing their taxes, they are angry about one set of rules for the super rich and another for the rest of us. When will the minister just call an investigation into the KPMG tax evasion scandal?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is spreading alternative facts on democratic reform. According to the Prime Minister, it was not his fault that he broke his promise, it was the NDP's. Talk about desperate.Let us talk about real facts. The current system provides 100% of the power to a party that gets 39% of the vote. The Prime Minister promised to change all that, and then he broke that promise.Do the Liberals not understand that blaming everyone else for their broken promises is exactly what breeds cynicism in politics?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal government is being stubborn and intransigent, rejecting the evidence and advice of Canada's top experts in both medicine and law. Liberals are choosing to narrow charter rights instead of expand them, as a truly progressive government would do.If Liberals really are so allergic to compromise and if they really believe that they are correct in law, will they agree to refer this bill to the Supreme Court? Why are the Liberals so afraid to ask the Supreme Court to review this bill?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were so disappointed last week when the Liberals said they would not expunge criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. The Liberals claim that they want to break down barriers to jobs, education, housing and volunteer work, but they will not take the steps necessary to do so. Only by erasing those records can we ensure Canadians do not suffer unjustly for a previous act that as of last week is entirely legal. Will the Prime Minister support my bill and expunge those records or will he move ahead with his half-baked plan?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are increasingly anxious about climate change.Last October, a UN report concluded the planet only had a dozen years to make dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or face a catastrophe. Canada's environment commissioner warned that meeting our Paris commitments “will require....actions beyond those currently planned or in place.” Canadians cannot wait for the government to get its act together to urgently address climate change.Why does the Prime Minister think that sticking to Harper's climate change targets will get the job done?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast support my bill to expunge criminal records for now-legal cannabis possession, and editorials in magazines and newspapers across the country prove it. Everyone knows that the government's pardon proposal just will not fix the problem. A pardon for a pot conviction will not help when someone fills out a rental form or a job application, but an expungement means that someone may truthfully say, “I have never been convicted of a criminal offence.” A pardon will not do that.Will the government work with me to erase these records and let these thousands of Canadians get on with their lives?

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Victoria, people are so frustrated by the Liberals' stale talking points and by the gigantic gap between rhetoric and action on the environment.No matter what the Prime Minister says, climate change leaders do not use public dollars to buy pipelines. People are clear that action is needed now.When will the Prime Minister stop giving fossil fuel subsidies to giant corporations and get serious about climate change?

Mr. Speaker, the minister's attempt to bully Europe into submission on CETA is not working, and it is unbecoming. Wallonia is not caving into the pressure, and the fact is that millions of Europeans and Canadians share concerns with the agreement and its potential impact on drug prices, dairy producers, and environmental regulations.This delay is an opportunity to improve the deal. Will the government drop the manufactured deadlines and sit down at the table to fix the problems with this deal?

Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?

Mr. Speaker, Victoria is surrounded on three sides by water. The Canadians I represent keep asking me why the Liberals want to impose the real risk of a catastrophic spill of bitumen upon our shoreline. They remember the recent devastating spills on the Pacific coast and reminded me that when the Prime Minister came to Victoria, he promised on the media to redo the Kinder Morgan process, then broke that promise. Now they are asking me again why the Liberals are willing to use our tax dollars to write a blank cheque to Texas billionaires. What can I tell them?

Mr. Speaker, problems at the Canada Revenue Agency just keep mounting: officials being wined and dined by the very people they are meant to investigate, a senior investigator going over to the company in the middle of a court case, secret sweetheart deals that let millionaire tax cheats off the hook with no penalties. This is an outrage. Canadians are tired of the wealthy and well-connected getting all the tax breaks. When will the minister stop defending the indefensible and announce an investigation into the KPMG tax scandal?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a media report revealed that there are almost 3,500 federal employees who work on messaging for the Liberal government, 10 times the number of reporters on the Hill. One would think that with so many people, the government would be more transparent. However, access to information requests about important matters of public interest take months, often years, to be processed, and what we get is often so blacked out as to be useless.Will the government acknowledge the mess it has created and truly modernize, rather than gut, the Access to Information Act?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development told Canadians that the government had conducted a national security review, full stop, of the takeover of a Vancouver high-tech company by a Chinese company. However, that is the opposite of the truth. The minister is trying to pretend that there is a difference between, wait for it, a national security review and the national security review process. The minister is playing cynical word games. This is deceptive, but worst of all, he is misleading Canadians.Were the Liberals not supposed to be better than this?

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to defend sweetheart deals for multi-millionaires caught using offshore tax havens. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused, again, to answer whether these tax evaders and their KPMG scam artists will face criminal charges.We must restore faith in the fairness of our tax system and send a message that special treatment for the wealthy and well-connected will not be allowed to stand.Will the government bring criminal charges against all those involved in this tax evasion scandal?

Madam Speaker, yesterday I stood in Parliament with leaders from the John Howard Society. They said pardons do not provide enough protection for people with criminal records. They said this: If people's convictions are expunged, rather than pardoned...they will be able to respond 'no' to any questions about their criminal history—no matter how the question is phrased. The government admits that black and indigenous Canadians have been disproportionately burdened with criminal records for possession. The application of this law has been fundamentally unjust, so will the government do what is just by erasing their records?

Mr. Speaker, the current government is sowing confusion left and right on marijuana. The Liberals promised to legalize it, but they offered no timeline. When the chiefs of police complained that this was creating uncertainty, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice helpfully cleared things up when he said that, well, the current approach of criminalizing people for possession is failing, but the government is still going to continue the current approach indefinitely.Why does the government not clear up the confusion and simply decriminalize personal possession of marijuana immediately?

Mr. Speaker, due to a lack of funding, the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre has had to discontinue its hotline after decades of service. Year in, year out, the hotline has helped hundreds of women in Victoria. Across the country, rape crisis centres face the same urgent problem, and with the surge of victims coming forward after the #MeToo movement, the situation just gets worse.If the Prime Minister is truly concerned with the well-being of women and sexual assault victims, why does the budget not provide stable, predictable, operating funding to rape crisis centres?

Mr. Speaker, Audrey Parker of Halifax is dying today. She has stage 4 cancer and lives in terrible pain. She has chosen to end her life much sooner than she would like. Audrey was forced to make this agonizing choice because our existing medical assistance in dying law does not allow for advance requests. She worried that if she waited, she would not be able to give the consent required.Soon the government will be receiving an expert report on this law. Will it introduce legislation before the next election so people like Audrey never again have to make this agonizing choice?

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, on September 4, SNC was told there was no deal. On September 17, the Prime Minister and Privy Council clerk met with the former attorney general to discuss SNC. On December 5, the Prime Minister's top staffer, Gerry Butts, met with her to discuss it. On December 18, the Prime Minister's two top staffers met with her chief of staff to discuss it. On December 19, the Privy Council clerk called her to discuss it. On January 14, the former attorney general was fired from her role. How can Canadians, who are reviewing these facts, not conclude there was relentless pressure to have her change her mind?

Mr. Speaker, how long are the Liberals going to keep blaming Harper? There are a couple of anniversaries to note. We are approaching the two-year anniversary of when Phoenix first started to fail our public service, and we are already well past the one-year anniversary of when the current government promised to fix it. We now learn that the government is also violating its legal obligations by failing to meet implementation deadlines for new collective agreements. As PSAC president Robyn Benson said, “Phoenix might be the reason, but it is not an excuse.”Is the government not tired of letting down our public service?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard explosive testimony from the former attorney general. It directly involved the Prime Minister of Canada, and Canadians still have not heard the whole story. The Prime Minister is not allowing the former attorney general to discuss anything that happened after she was removed from her role. Yesterday the Liberal majority on the justice committee voted no when I asked that she be able to tell us what happened after that date.Will the Prime Minister stop trying to save himself and remove the restrictions that he imposed on her so she can tell her entire story?

Mr. Speaker, as if prescriptions were not expensive enough, this new NAFTA deal will make them even more expensive. This deal will increase drug costs for Canadians with arthritis, Crohn's disease and other chronic conditions. It will also increase the cost for drug plans by tens of millions of dollars every single year. By extending patents, Canadians are going to have to wait two more years before affordable generic drugs are available.Since this new trade deal does not make prescription drugs more affordable, will the Liberals immediately introduce universal, affordable pharmacare for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, student debt is a huge burden for so many young Canadians. Steacy from Victoria tells me there is so much interest accumulating on her student loans that she cannot pay the principal of the debt. She feels she just cannot get ahead.People like Steacy have been working for years and still cannot pay their debt. Getting an education should not mean getting an unmanageable debt.The NDP government in British Columbia has eliminated the interest on student loans. Will the government follow B.C.'s lead and eliminate the interest on Canada student loans?

Madam Speaker, yesterday a new report from the parliamentary budget officer highlighted the lack of a national strategy for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and how our current approach is going to cost us all dearly.Liberals continue to operate under the old Conservative plans and targets. They are great at environmental rhetoric, but time and again they fall down on getting anything done. The parliamentary secretary just refused to answer this question, so let us try again. Exactly how much will greenhouse gas emissions be reduced in each of the next three years?

Mr. Speaker, when the government does not fulfill its responsibility to fill vital appointments, it has a tangible and direct effect on Canadians.Earlier this month a first-degree murder charge was thrown out in Edmonton due to unreasonable delays. The national judicial vacancy rate has more than tripled since the government took office. Judicial vacancies cause the entire justice system to slow down.When will the Liberal government take the appointments process seriously and fill these vacancies?

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to unilaterally change the rules that govern the House of Commons. At first, the Liberals pretended it was just a discussion paper and now they claim that this power grab is necessary to be rammed through here because, well, it was in their election platform. Can the Prime Minister explain then why he used the excuse of a lack of consensus to abandon his platform promise on democratic reform, but now he unilaterally wants to change the way our democracy works?

Mr. Speaker, harassment in any workplace is a serious issue. It must be dealt with fairly and immediately, but according to new reports, complaints about things like bullying and sexual touching were raised by former RCMP employees in 2014 and 2015 but were too often ignored. When fault was found, the penalties were just not credible. The RCMP investigating itself is just not working. Will the minister agree to take this on directly and order a full, independent review of harassment in the RCMP?

Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister responded to the $1.2 billion in cuts to programs fighting climate change by saying “the numbers are in there”. Well, they sure are: page 150, 2017-18, cut $750 million; 2018-19, cut $500 million. To make matters worse, the Liberals are cancelling the public transit tax credit which will make it more expensive to ride the bus. If it is not the middle class and those working so hard to join it, who do the Liberals think take public transit?

Mr. Speaker, a Senate report has just concluded that Canadians who use cannabis after it is legalized and try to cross the border to the United States could be denied entry, but worse, those who do not answer certain questions in pre-clearance could face up to two years in prison under Bill C-23, which calls it resisting or wilfully obstructing an American officer, even on Canadian soil.Can the Prime Minister confirm whether or not Canadians who simply refuse to answer American officers in Canada about their cannabis use could face fines or imprisonment?

Madam Speaker, more words, less action, less jobs.The Prime Minister's ethics rules were very clear. I want to quote: “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access,” for political donors.Now it is clear, those were just empty words. Ministers do not follow them, and the Prime Minister will not enforce them.The question is simple. Will the government turn that empty promise of good intentions into actual rules that are enforced?

Mr. Speaker, thanks to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian courts have given women the right to choose, the right to medical assistance in dying, LGBTQ2 rights, collective bargaining rights and more. While the notwithstanding clause is part of the charter, so far it has always been used sparingly, but maybe no longer.Canadians are telling me how disappointed they are that the Liberals refuse to even study the use of the clause which lets legislatures override their rights. We want to know why the Liberals will not allow even a study of the notwithstanding clause so we can better protect the charter rights of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent the day urging the Prime Minister to waive any solicitor-client privilege that may exist here and allow the former attorney general to speak to troubling allegations of alleged political interference.Within the hour, the justice committee will meet to discuss witnesses. The Liberal members on that committee will have the chance to do the right thing. Canadians deserve answers.Does the Prime Minister not agree that the justice committee, at a minimum, must hear from those at the centre of the story: the officials in the Prime Minister's Office—Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Butts, and others—as well as the former attorney general?

Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister reveal to Canadians if this attack was part of a larger strategy, and will the government insist that Canada's support for further action is contingent on an approach of multilateralism?

Mr. Speaker, let us put aside the rhetoric and talk about the facts.Since January, this government has received two compliance orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and has spent nearly $500,000 on lawyers' fees to fight Cindy Blackstock after voting in the House to stop fighting indigenous children in court once and for all.How can the Minister of Justice justify this Conservative-style approach?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal House leader keeps referring to her government's unilateral power grab as a discussion paper. Well, let us listen to some of that discussion. Don Martin said that the changes are aimed at strengthening the “elite Liberal advantage”. John Ivison's response has the headline “Liberals latest attempted power-grab in Commons sure to fail again”. Chantal Hébert said, “A majority government has already quite a lot of power without abusing it by changing the rules”. I have one simple question for the Liberals: How do they think this is going over?

Mr. Speaker, Patricia Kidd from Victoria was married to her husband, Pete, a naval surgeon, for 31 years. They raised two sons and loved each other until the day Pete died in April 2016.Yet, Patricia is not getting a penny of his pension, as the Liberals continue to deprive veterans' spouses of benefits if the veteran they marry is over 60. The minister keeps telling me this is a top priority, but these widows are still waiting.Will the Liberals immediately eliminate the archaic over-60 clause, so that widows like Patricia can finally get the pension they deserve?

Mr. Speaker, even though he broke his promise on electoral reform, the Prime Minister refused to apologize to Canadians. On top of that, he is trying to use misinformation to defend this betrayal. He said we need to keep our current voting method in order to prevent a right-wing government from coming to power. Really? A Conservative government in Canada?My question is simple. Did the Prime Minister sleep right through the 10 years of the Stephen Harper government?

Mr. Speaker, this Canadian has already suffered unconscionable abuse and torture at the hands of Sudanese authorities, and the Government of Canada not only abandoned him but also was found by the federal court to have been complicit in his detention. However, rather than work toward justice and accountability, the government has just walked away from settlement negotiations with Mr. Abdelrazik, giving no reasons. Let me echo the call from Amnesty International. Will the Prime Minister instruct his officials to recommit to mediation and to apologize for Canada's role in his horrific ordeal?

Mr. Speaker, the public health emergency caused by opioids is having devastating impacts on our families. Even our life expectancy is declining due to this crisis. The U.S. has already secured criminal pleas, along with dozens of states, for over $600 million in damages from opioid manufacturers, yet the Liberals have taken no steps to investigate potential violations of Canadian law, or to pursue civil damages. We need justice and accountability.Will the government launch now an investigation into the role drug companies may have played in fuelling the opioid crisis in our country?

Mr. Speaker, the flawed study of the Afghan detainees scandal was cut short by the Conservatives after only reviewing an initial set of documents. Stéphane Dion at that point said, “[w]hen you read these documents, you will have questions to ask to your Prime Minister”. He also said that the Conservatives were blocking an inquiry because of being “afraid of having to answer to Canadians”. Therefore, will the Minister of National Defence appear before the defence committee to answer questions about this scandal, yes or no?

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, Canadians are increasingly anxious about climate change.Last October, a UN report concluded the planet only had a dozen years to make dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or face a catastrophe. Canada's environment commissioner warned that meeting our Paris commitments “will require....actions beyond those currently planned or in place.” Canadians cannot wait for the government to get its act together to urgently address climate change.Why does the Prime Minister think that sticking to Harper's climate change targets will get the job done?

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, Bob Hergott had to sign his request for medical assistance in dying in a bus shelter. Then, in 2017, Doreen Nowicki was forced to receive her assessment for ending her life on the sidewalk. Edmonton's Covenant Health hospitals, where these patients were treated, have banned these activities on their properties.Enough is enough. Will the Liberals actually defend their legislation, show some leadership and ensure that the constitutional rights of terminally ill patients are upheld across Canada?

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Victoria, people are so frustrated by the Liberals' stale talking points and by the gigantic gap between rhetoric and action on the environment.No matter what the Prime Minister says, climate change leaders do not use public dollars to buy pipelines. People are clear that action is needed now.When will the Prime Minister stop giving fossil fuel subsidies to giant corporations and get serious about climate change?

Madam Speaker, yesterday I stood in Parliament with leaders from the John Howard Society. They said pardons do not provide enough protection for people with criminal records. They said this: If people's convictions are expunged, rather than pardoned...they will be able to respond 'no' to any questions about their criminal history—no matter how the question is phrased. The government admits that black and indigenous Canadians have been disproportionately burdened with criminal records for possession. The application of this law has been fundamentally unjust, so will the government do what is just by erasing their records?

Mr. Speaker, I guess he did not answer because Canadians were not offered that choice. All week we have been asking specific questions about the secret Liberal infrastructure brought to us by BlackRock, and all week the Liberals have avoided clear answers, just like today. Instead they have responded with very tightly crafted talking points.Here is my question for the Liberals: Is the government using any messaging given to it by BlackRock, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were so disappointed last week when the Liberals said they would not expunge criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. The Liberals claim that they want to break down barriers to jobs, education, housing and volunteer work, but they will not take the steps necessary to do so. Only by erasing those records can we ensure Canadians do not suffer unjustly for a previous act that as of last week is entirely legal. Will the Prime Minister support my bill and expunge those records or will he move ahead with his half-baked plan?

Mr. Speaker, government members keep hiding behind the June 6 deadline, as they call it, as an excuse, but now even former Liberal leaders, Bob Rae and Paul Martin agree there is nothing to fear.If this bill does not pass next week, the Carter decision itself provides the criteria for determining who is eligible and the provinces are now prepared and have already released guidelines for their physicians.We have the time we need to fix this, so will the government stop ramming through this deeply flawed bill and work with us to get it right?

Mr. Speaker, Victoria is surrounded on three sides by water. The Canadians I represent keep asking me why the Liberals want to impose the real risk of a catastrophic spill of bitumen upon our shoreline. They remember the recent devastating spills on the Pacific coast and reminded me that when the Prime Minister came to Victoria, he promised on the media to redo the Kinder Morgan process, then broke that promise. Now they are asking me again why the Liberals are willing to use our tax dollars to write a blank cheque to Texas billionaires. What can I tell them?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast support my bill to expunge criminal records for now-legal cannabis possession, and editorials in magazines and newspapers across the country prove it. Everyone knows that the government's pardon proposal just will not fix the problem. A pardon for a pot conviction will not help when someone fills out a rental form or a job application, but an expungement means that someone may truthfully say, “I have never been convicted of a criminal offence.” A pardon will not do that.Will the government work with me to erase these records and let these thousands of Canadians get on with their lives?

Mr. Speaker, Audrey Parker of Halifax is dying today. She has stage 4 cancer and lives in terrible pain. She has chosen to end her life much sooner than she would like. Audrey was forced to make this agonizing choice because our existing medical assistance in dying law does not allow for advance requests. She worried that if she waited, she would not be able to give the consent required.Soon the government will be receiving an expert report on this law. Will it introduce legislation before the next election so people like Audrey never again have to make this agonizing choice?

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the point of privilege, I want to add my two cents to the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I will conclude my remarks by asking for unanimous consent for a motion.There is no doubt that the minister's actions were inappropriate, but more to the point, they were entirely misplaced. The lack of respect in dealing with the bill in question firmly rests on the shoulders of the government House leader not the Conservatives. The government made the decision to try to shoehorn the debate on Bill C-17 into the tiny 30-minute window before the budget. It was not the opposition that did that. Perhaps the minister should just march on down the front bench and channel her anger where it actually belongs. She should demand that the government House leader call it for debate this afternoon or maybe even for all day tomorrow.I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion, that the order of the day for tomorrow, Friday, March 23, 2017, shall be Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. Let us just get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development told Canadians that the government had conducted a national security review, full stop, of the takeover of a Vancouver high-tech company by a Chinese company. However, that is the opposite of the truth. The minister is trying to pretend that there is a difference between, wait for it, a national security review and the national security review process. The minister is playing cynical word games. This is deceptive, but worst of all, he is misleading Canadians.Were the Liberals not supposed to be better than this?

Mr. Speaker, the minister's attempt to bully Europe into submission on CETA is not working, and it is unbecoming. Wallonia is not caving into the pressure, and the fact is that millions of Europeans and Canadians share concerns with the agreement and its potential impact on drug prices, dairy producers, and environmental regulations.This delay is an opportunity to improve the deal. Will the government drop the manufactured deadlines and sit down at the table to fix the problems with this deal?

Mr. Speaker, this report shows that the federal government's health care offer falls far short of the provinces' increased costs. Already we are seeing the direct impacts of that underfunding like the horror stories coming out of Surrey, British Columbia, where a quadriplegic home care patient is forced to choose between a meal and a change of clothes. Why have the Liberals broken their promise to properly fund health care and what the heck ever happened to the Liberals' campaign commitment to immediately invest $3 billion in home care?

Mr. Speaker, it is not just Quebec that is protesting. Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, today testified that Bill C-14 fails to respect the Carter decision and will undoubtedly be struck down as soon as it gets to court. He said that the government cannot turn around and exclude a group of people that the Supreme Court clearly ruled have these charter rights.It is never too late for the government to do the right thing. Will the Liberals finally respect the charter and announce that they are willing to fix the bill?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' stubborn refusal to listen to experts and work with the opposition will mean suffering Canadians spending years in court defending rights that they have already won.Kay Carter's family is also disillusioned with the current government. They said today that they felt betrayed. Today they called out the Prime Minister for his refusal to listen to Canadians. If the Liberals really disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Ontario court, and Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, will they at least now table the government's legal opinion on the bill, so that Canadians can judge for themselves?

Mr. Speaker, during the election, the Liberals promised to finally end criminalizing Canadians for simple possession of marijuana. The current government could have taken immediate action, but has not. There are no details, no timeline for decriminalizing marijuana possession, no commitment to expunge the record of hundreds of thousands of Canadians convicted for simple possession, and thousands are still unfairly facing possible arrest, tying up the police and our justice system.Why has the government not taken any action to legalize simple possession of marijuana?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Federal Court ruled that CSIS has been illegally storing sensitive personal information on untold numbers of Canadians—Canadians who the spy agency itself has determined pose no threat. This is a gross abuse of power and an unjustifiable intrusion into the privacy of Canadians. The minister just admitted that he was told of this abuse of powers. Does he really believe it is enough to just advise the review committee? Why were Canadians not told immediately?

Mr. Speaker, a Senate report has just concluded that Canadians who use cannabis after it is legalized and try to cross the border to the United States could be denied entry, but worse, those who do not answer certain questions in pre-clearance could face up to two years in prison under Bill C-23, which calls it resisting or wilfully obstructing an American officer, even on Canadian soil.Can the Prime Minister confirm whether or not Canadians who simply refuse to answer American officers in Canada about their cannabis use could face fines or imprisonment?

Madam Speaker, according to a Department of Public Safety report, fully 86% of participants agreed that the government should completely wipe out, not merely suspend, criminal records for minor offences, particularly convictions for cannabis possession. Half a million Canadians have criminal records for this. They continue to face significant barriers to employment and housing for an activity that is now entirely legal. These Canadians deserve freedom, not forgiveness.Will the Liberals commit to expunging criminal records for cannabis possession?

Mr. Speaker, is the Liberal government serious about tax havens?The Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary are busy explaining why companies they have left have links to Caribbean tax havens. The Minister of National Revenue continues to defend sweetheart deals with millionaire tax cheats and privileged relations with KPMG.As Canadians are sitting down these days and doing their taxes, they are angry about one set of rules for the super rich and another for the rest of us. When will the minister just call an investigation into the KPMG tax evasion scandal?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister responded to the $1.2 billion in cuts to programs fighting climate change by saying “the numbers are in there”. Well, they sure are: page 150, 2017-18, cut $750 million; 2018-19, cut $500 million. To make matters worse, the Liberals are cancelling the public transit tax credit which will make it more expensive to ride the bus. If it is not the middle class and those working so hard to join it, who do the Liberals think take public transit?

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister received a dozen letters from jurors across Canada suffering mental health challenges after experiencing trauma from graphic evidence and disturbing trials. Members of all parties have supported Mark Farrant's tireless advocacy on behalf of Canadian jurors.First, will the Prime Minister stand now and thank every Canadian who has served on a jury? Second, will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to work with the provinces to better support Canadians who have suffered from doing their jury duty?

Mr. Speaker, problems at the Canada Revenue Agency just keep mounting: officials being wined and dined by the very people they are meant to investigate, a senior investigator going over to the company in the middle of a court case, secret sweetheart deals that let millionaire tax cheats off the hook with no penalties. This is an outrage. Canadians are tired of the wealthy and well-connected getting all the tax breaks. When will the minister stop defending the indefensible and announce an investigation into the KPMG tax scandal?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear here. It is not like the Liberals do not know what consultation with other parties looks like. They did consult the opposition before appointing the Supreme Court justice recently. However, they consistently fail to consult on appointments for officers of Parliament. These watchdogs do not work for Liberals; they work for all of Parliament, and we represent all Canadians.Therefore, when will the Prime Minister drop his tired talking points, keep the promise to be open and accountable, and commit right now to follow the right process, the legal process, for these appointments?

Mr. Speaker, how long are the Liberals going to keep blaming Harper? There are a couple of anniversaries to note. We are approaching the two-year anniversary of when Phoenix first started to fail our public service, and we are already well past the one-year anniversary of when the current government promised to fix it. We now learn that the government is also violating its legal obligations by failing to meet implementation deadlines for new collective agreements. As PSAC president Robyn Benson said, “Phoenix might be the reason, but it is not an excuse.”Is the government not tired of letting down our public service?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to severely restrict the ability of the parliamentary budget officer to initiate studies by requiring him to have a work plan approved by the Speakers of this House and of the Senate. They also want to prevent members of this House from requesting cost estimates of government projects. That means previous reports on old age security, F-35 fighter jets, and crime legislation would simply not have been possible.Is this what an independent parliamentary budget officer looks like to the government?

Just blame the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Speaker.The finance minister says he is working for the middle class, all the while attempting to justify that his actions were ethical, showing again just how out of touch he is with the reality facing most Canadians. The minister is in charge of the country's finances and he should not be allowed to maintain control over tens of millions of dollars in personal investments in a company he regulates. That is common sense.When will he take personal ownership that what he did was wrong and just apologize to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, when the government does not fulfill its responsibility to fill vital appointments, it has a tangible and direct effect on Canadians.Earlier this month a first-degree murder charge was thrown out in Edmonton due to unreasonable delays. The national judicial vacancy rate has more than tripled since the government took office. Judicial vacancies cause the entire justice system to slow down.When will the Liberal government take the appointments process seriously and fill these vacancies?

Mr. Speaker, the current government is sowing confusion left and right on marijuana. The Liberals promised to legalize it, but they offered no timeline. When the chiefs of police complained that this was creating uncertainty, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice helpfully cleared things up when he said that, well, the current approach of criminalizing people for possession is failing, but the government is still going to continue the current approach indefinitely.Why does the government not clear up the confusion and simply decriminalize personal possession of marijuana immediately?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told Canadians to “heed very carefully” the words of Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick. Last week, that clerk said, “ I do not see where the former Attorney General was a solicitor. The matter was never discussed at cabinet...So she was not giving advice to cabinet. She was not advising the Prime Minister.” Therefore, he concluded that solicitor-client privilege did not even apply here.Since the Prime Minister has said we should heed the clerk, I have a simple question. Will he allow the former attorney general to speak her truth?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have not denied that the projects funded through their privatization bank would result in user fees and tolls placed on Canadians. They have not denied that the projects will cost more and will result in significant delays. Will the government deny today that if offered the choice, Canadians would choose not to have user fees on infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, both opposition House leaders have made a fair and reasonable proposal that we follow the model that Jean Chrétien used for his parliamentary modernization. It included one member from each party and it was chaired by the deputy speaker. Let me quote from the committee's mandate, “the committee shall not adopt any report without the unanimous agreement of all the Members of the committee”. If it was good enough for Jean Chrétien's majority Liberals, why does the minister believe her majority government is so much more entitled?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians did not vote to buy a pipeline. Yesterday, the grand council chief of the Anishinabek nation called the Liberals' decision to spend $4.5 billion on a leaky 65-year-old pipeline “very foolish”. He asked, “why is the government paying an international company when there are many needs in this country?” It is a good question. Think about how many communities across Canada, particularly indigenous ones, could benefit from that level of investment.If the Liberals were to invest these billions of dollars in clean energy, would we create more or fewer jobs than this pipeline? Have they even thought—

Since when does a cabinet minister or House leader give orders to a committee anyway, Mr. Speaker?The government House leader is ignoring the long-held tradition of getting all-party agreement for an overhaul of the way that democracy works in this place. If the House leader's argument that the government of such a warm and loving Prime Minister could not possibly harm our democracy with the power grab now under way, I wonder if she might speculate with us what the majority government of a prime minister like, say, Kevin O'Leary would do with all that power?

Mr. Speaker, Canada should be investing in clean, renewable energy sources that create good quality, long-lasting jobs for today's workers and future generations. Instead of looking to the future and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies as they promised, the Liberals have become huge supporters and investors in the oil industry. If they vote against the NDP motion, the Liberals will undermine Canada's commitment we made to the world in Paris and ignore the transition that we need to renewables.Will the Liberals support our motion and ensure real climate leadership?

Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Assembly of First Nations is holding its special chiefs assembly where a resolution will be presented to reject Bill C-58, the Liberals' effort to gut our Access to Information Act. Today, five chiefs stood with me, calling on the Liberals to fix Bill C-58, since it introduces significant new barriers for first nations trying to access even basic information. The Liberals like to talk about how the most important relationship is with indigenous people, so will they finally actually consult first nations and fix this regressive bill?

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take a brief moment to rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to extend season's greetings and holiday wishes to you and to colleagues and staff across the parliamentary precinct.I would like to thank the government House leader and the House Leader of the Official Opposition, who spoke before me, for the productive work and discussions we have had over the past number of months as we have settled into our new roles. While it has not always been easy, I feel that our work on behalf of Canadians has been valuable.Happy holidays to them and to their entire caucuses and teams.Many people work behind the scenes to support parliamentarians in their day to day work. That includes the interpreters, the broadcasting team that makes it possible for Canadians to see our work, the security guards who protect us, and the maintenance staff who keep the buildings on the Hill in order. I want to thank all of them and wish them all a happy holiday season.I would like say thank you, Mr. Speaker, to you and your team of procedural experts at the table, journals, committees, and across the precinct for your dedication and wish you good health and happiness in the new year.I would be remiss if I did not also wish the pages a merry Christmas. No doubt they are looking forward to going home to see their families after this first semester in Ottawa. They provide us with professional service, even though they are busy with school work and finals.I would like to take one final moment to draw to the attention of all members of this House that Ms. Lynn Legault is preparing for a well-deserved retirement after serving as the supervisor in the House of Commons page program for the past 32 years.Lynn has served this House over the span of eight different prime ministers and has seen the history of our nation unfold on the floor of this chamber. Lynn's perpetual smile and kind heart have had an impact on the more than 1,200 pages she has supervised. At 40 pages per year, after 32 years, that really adds up. Those former pages include at least three clerks at the table, as well as the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.I have to say that one of my own staff in the House leader's office, Alex Telka, remembers Lynn as one of the first people he met when he moved to Ottawa to take up his role as a page. He tells me that Lynn's kindness and warmth are known in every corner of the Hill, given the number of former pages she has influenced who are now working across the precinct.Thank you to Lynn Legault for her four years of loyal and dedicated service. I wish her a very happy retirement.On behalf of the NDP, I wish everyone a happy holiday season and all the best in 2017.

Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us exactly when the government was informed of the U.S. attack?Can he confirm that during this conversation his government offered Canada's support?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a media report revealed that there are almost 3,500 federal employees who work on messaging for the Liberal government, 10 times the number of reporters on the Hill. One would think that with so many people, the government would be more transparent. However, access to information requests about important matters of public interest take months, often years, to be processed, and what we get is often so blacked out as to be useless.Will the government acknowledge the mess it has created and truly modernize, rather than gut, the Access to Information Act?

Mr. Speaker, student debt is a huge burden for so many young Canadians. Steacy from Victoria tells me there is so much interest accumulating on her student loans that she cannot pay the principal of the debt. She feels she just cannot get ahead.People like Steacy have been working for years and still cannot pay their debt. Getting an education should not mean getting an unmanageable debt.The NDP government in British Columbia has eliminated the interest on student loans. Will the government follow B.C.'s lead and eliminate the interest on Canada student loans?

Mr. Speaker, Patricia Kidd from Victoria was married to her husband, Pete, a naval surgeon, for 31 years. They raised two sons and loved each other until the day Pete died in April 2016.Yet, Patricia is not getting a penny of his pension, as the Liberals continue to deprive veterans' spouses of benefits if the veteran they marry is over 60. The minister keeps telling me this is a top priority, but these widows are still waiting.Will the Liberals immediately eliminate the archaic over-60 clause, so that widows like Patricia can finally get the pension they deserve?

Divide and conquer, Mr. Speaker. Speaking of jobs, tens of thousands of Canadian jobs are under attack by the actions of President Trump. Millions of Canadians are worried about how a trade war will impact their families and their communities. No one can predict what President Trump will do next. Will the government focus on protecting workers here at home?Can the government tell us exactly when meetings will take place with labour and industry to determine precisely how we can support our Canadian workers?

Mr. Speaker, these commissioners work for all Canadians and report to Parliament, not to the government of the day. This is to ensure their independence so they can investigate any government, regardless of their political affiliation. The Liberals attempted to change that tradition for their own partisan benefit, but luckily for our democracy, they failed.Will the Liberal government now accept responsibility for its actions, and with humility, agree to a new process that would prevent partisan appointments in the future?

Mr. Speaker, even though he broke his promise on electoral reform, the Prime Minister refused to apologize to Canadians. On top of that, he is trying to use misinformation to defend this betrayal. He said we need to keep our current voting method in order to prevent a right-wing government from coming to power. Really? A Conservative government in Canada?My question is simple. Did the Prime Minister sleep right through the 10 years of the Stephen Harper government?

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, SNC was told there was no deal. On September 17, the Prime Minister and Privy Council clerk met with the former attorney general to discuss SNC. On December 5, the Prime Minister's top staffer, Gerry Butts, met with her to discuss it. On December 18, the Prime Minister's two top staffers met with her chief of staff to discuss it. On December 19, the Privy Council clerk called her to discuss it. On January 14, the former attorney general was fired from her role. How can Canadians, who are reviewing these facts, not conclude there was relentless pressure to have her change her mind?

Madam Speaker, a report out this week says that over the last 25 years the earth's oceans have retained 60% more heat than scientists had thought. Also this week, a glacier in Antarctica lost a section of ice five times the size of Manhattan, but the Liberals do not seem to get the urgency of climate change. They think following Harper's targets is just fine. Our oceans are warming, our icebergs are melting. We need urgent action now.Why do the Liberals not ditch their grossly inadequate plan and come up with something consistent with the urgency of climate change?

Mr. Speaker, harassment in any workplace is a serious issue. It must be dealt with fairly and immediately, but according to new reports, complaints about things like bullying and sexual touching were raised by former RCMP employees in 2014 and 2015 but were too often ignored. When fault was found, the penalties were just not credible. The RCMP investigating itself is just not working. Will the minister agree to take this on directly and order a full, independent review of harassment in the RCMP?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's ethics rules were very clear. I want to quote: “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access,” for political donors. Now it has come to light that the Minister of Finance has held cash-for-access fundraisers. These occurred at the same time and in the same locations as his budget consultation tour. No wonder the Liberals love consultations.Are the new ethics standards promised to Canadians in effect for Liberal ministers as well? Yes or no.

Madam Speaker, yesterday a new report from the parliamentary budget officer highlighted the lack of a national strategy for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and how our current approach is going to cost us all dearly.Liberals continue to operate under the old Conservative plans and targets. They are great at environmental rhetoric, but time and again they fall down on getting anything done. The parliamentary secretary just refused to answer this question, so let us try again. Exactly how much will greenhouse gas emissions be reduced in each of the next three years?

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the SNC-Lavalin saga, the Prime Minister sent mixed messages to Canadians. First, he refused to allow the former attorney general to speak at all. Then he gave in but only a little bit. This week, she wrote the justice committee and said that she will not be able to tell us anything as to what happened after January 14.Are these the actions of a Prime Minister who says that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister let the former attorney general tell her story, speak her truth and tell Canadians exactly what happened?

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to Bill C-14 are now before the House. We have another chance to pass a bill that respects the right to medical assistance in dying.Will this government accept our amendment to make this bill constitutional, instead of forcing Canadians who are suffering to fight for years in court?

Mr. Speaker, thanks to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian courts have given women the right to choose, the right to medical assistance in dying, LGBTQ2 rights, collective bargaining rights and more. While the notwithstanding clause is part of the charter, so far it has always been used sparingly, but maybe no longer.Canadians are telling me how disappointed they are that the Liberals refuse to even study the use of the clause which lets legislatures override their rights. We want to know why the Liberals will not allow even a study of the notwithstanding clause so we can better protect the charter rights of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, due to a lack of funding, the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre has had to discontinue its hotline after decades of service. Year in, year out, the hotline has helped hundreds of women in Victoria. Across the country, rape crisis centres face the same urgent problem, and with the surge of victims coming forward after the #MeToo movement, the situation just gets worse.If the Prime Minister is truly concerned with the well-being of women and sexual assault victims, why does the budget not provide stable, predictable, operating funding to rape crisis centres?

Madam Speaker, 2,000: that is the number of Canadians who are about to lose their job because of the government's inaction.Workers at Bombardier have been waiting a long time for the government to make good on its investment promise. What have they actually received to date? Nothing.Companies around the world are global giants today because their home governments invest in them. Does the government understand that, and will it finally deliver its investment promise needed to keep good-paying jobs at Bombardier here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, CSIS has been storing sensitive data on totally innocent Canadians, a policy that the government defended, but the courts have now said is illegal. This metadata can reveal our medical conditions, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and much more. While many are calling for new safeguards, the minister has left the door open to double down and make it easier for CSIS to mine data from ordinary Canadians.With Bill C-51 still the law, does the government now want to add the power to store the sensitive data of innocent Canadians, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, instead of targeting five wealthy neighbourhoods, the Liberals can act right now on tax avoidance by closing tax loopholes. In fact, the Liberals voted in favour of an NDP motion that would do just that, but, of course, they failed to act. My private member's bill aims to shut down tax loopholes very similar to the ones that were used in the paradise papers.I have a simple question. Will the Liberals prove to Canadians they are working for the middle class by closing tax loopholes to make sure their wealthy friends stop abusive tax avoidance, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard explosive testimony from the former attorney general. It directly involved the Prime Minister of Canada, and Canadians still have not heard the whole story. The Prime Minister is not allowing the former attorney general to discuss anything that happened after she was removed from her role. Yesterday the Liberal majority on the justice committee voted no when I asked that she be able to tell us what happened after that date.Will the Prime Minister stop trying to save himself and remove the restrictions that he imposed on her so she can tell her entire story?

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Liberal government helped pass Bill C-51, Canadians are concerned about the oversight of our security services. The House public safety committee significantly improved the security oversight bill but now the government wants to muzzle this new watchdog by restricting its access.Why is the government ignoring all-party agreement and expert evidence, and stripping away the very oversight tools that the Prime Minister and the public safety minister and nine other cabinet ministers voted for in November 2014?

Mr. Speaker, as if prescriptions were not expensive enough, this new NAFTA deal will make them even more expensive. This deal will increase drug costs for Canadians with arthritis, Crohn's disease and other chronic conditions. It will also increase the cost for drug plans by tens of millions of dollars every single year. By extending patents, Canadians are going to have to wait two more years before affordable generic drugs are available.Since this new trade deal does not make prescription drugs more affordable, will the Liberals immediately introduce universal, affordable pharmacare for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a well-known rule that committees are meant to be masters of their own domain, and we have all been told that the motion to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that was presented by the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is not being coordinated by the government. In question period today, the government House leader said, “I have asked the committee to expand the scope of the study”, and she went on from there.I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to enforce the well-known rule on committee independence and tell the government House leader to stay out of it before she makes matters even worse.

Madam Speaker, more words, less action, less jobs.The Prime Minister's ethics rules were very clear. I want to quote: “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access,” for political donors.Now it is clear, those were just empty words. Ministers do not follow them, and the Prime Minister will not enforce them.The question is simple. Will the government turn that empty promise of good intentions into actual rules that are enforced?

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the minister's response is that the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Canadian Bar Association, Barreau du Québec, constitutional experts, and now even former Prime Minister Martin all agree, Bill C-14 in its present form is likely not constitutional.Even if the bill is passed next week, it will be tied up in legal challenges for years to come, and costly, exhausting court battles for suffering Canadians who just want to see their legal rights vindicated.Why will the government not do the right thing and work with us to get the bill right the first time?

Mr. Speaker, last year the health and justice ministers commissioned the Council of Canadian Academies to conduct independent studies on the eligibility criteria under the new law on medical assistance in dying.Dr. Harvey Schipper is a vocal opponent of that law, yet he has now been made chair of a committee under it. This raises serious doubts about the impartiality of the entire process. How can Canadians have any confidence that the working group will examine the issue fairly, when its chair opposes medical assistance in dying?

Mr. Speaker, for the system to be fair, jury members need to reflect the community where the alleged crime occurred. However, in far too many instances, that is just not the case. The use of peremptory challenges means lawyers can reject jurors for no reason at all: maybe they do not like the way they look, or maybe it is the colour of their skin.As a first step to ensure real community representation, especially following the tragic death of Colten Boushie, will the minister review and possibly revoke the use of peremptory challenges under the Criminal Code?

Mr. Speaker, so much for co-operative federalism and sunny ways. Co-operative federalism means actually working with the provinces, not simply telling them that this is the way things are.Now provinces are raising concerns about the home cultivation of marijuana, but the Prime Minister simply says, “No way, we are going ahead, regardless of your concerns.”When did the Liberals decide to abandon co-operative federalism?

Mr. Speaker, CSIS, the spy agency, set up the illegal program a decade ago and hid it from the court.It is clearer now than ever that we need a parliamentary watchdog with real teeth. The government's bill, with its censored, after-the-fact review committee, just will not cut it.The NDP has proposed concrete, balanced amendments to ensure the committee can provide real oversight and get access to all the documents it needs to do the job. Will the government accept our amendments to create real parliamentary oversight of Canada's spy agency?

Mr. Speaker, President Trump has issued yet another executive order. This one has serious implications for all Canadian travellers or innocent Internet users. Trump's order excludes all non-American citizens from the U.S. Privacy Act. This is deeply troubling. President Trump wants to subject all visitors to the United States to biometric screening. What is this Canadian government doing to protect the privacy rights of Canadians, and how will these screenings impact our industries that depend on speedy border crossings?

Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, selling public infrastructure to private investors did not seem to get mentioned by the Liberals before the last election, but last year's budget revealed the Liberals' plan to take $15 billion from existing infrastructure promises to fund their new Infrastructure Bank. As Canadian families deal with record levels of household debt, private investors like BlackRock are setting the government's priorities and making Canadian families pay for new tolls and service fees. Just why do the Liberals think they have the mandate to create their Infrastructure Bank?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals may be walking away from a new commitment to mental health funding. Quebec's health minister said that he was worried that funding for mental illness is not a priority for this finance minister or this Prime Minister because “they don't see a political gain on that.”While it may not pay off like cash-for-access fundraisers, I can assure the House that for Canadians suffering from mental illness, there is much to gain.Will the Liberals commit to real negotiations with the provinces based on that rather than based on political calculations?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberals on the justice committee refused to ensure that people from the Prime Minister's Office would testify; not Gerry Butts and not the other officials who held dozens of meetings with SNC-Lavalin to discuss criminal charges.How will Canadians get to the truth, if the Liberals refuse to invite people at the centre of this mess, and if the Prime Minister refuses to waive privilege to let the former attorney general tell her story?He kept saying sunshine is the best disinfectant, so why is he content keeping Canadians in the dark?

Mr. Speaker, when asked yesterday why the government is still spending half a million dollars fighting Cindy Blackstock and first nations children in court, the government repeated talking points about how it welcomed the ruling from the Human Rights Tribunal.I want to get the Minister of Justice on record on this issue. As the Attorney General of Canada, how can she justify not complying with this order of the tribunal, and what does she have to say to Cindy Blackstock, who is back at the tribunal today?

Mr. Speaker, we have spent the day urging the Prime Minister to waive any solicitor-client privilege that may exist here and allow the former attorney general to speak to troubling allegations of alleged political interference.Within the hour, the justice committee will meet to discuss witnesses. The Liberal members on that committee will have the chance to do the right thing. Canadians deserve answers.Does the Prime Minister not agree that the justice committee, at a minimum, must hear from those at the centre of the story: the officials in the Prime Minister's Office—Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Butts, and others—as well as the former attorney general?

Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?

Mr. Speaker, this week we learned the government fought relentlessly to extradite to France a Canadian citizen, Hassan Diab, even as the case was crumbling in the face of scant and unreliable evidence. Mr. Diab spent over three years in near-solitary confinement in a French prison without ever being charged with a crime. Does the Prime Minister really think we can rely on an internal departmental review, which by definition lacks independence? Will he launch a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this grave injustice and find ways to reform our unacceptable extradiction laws?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal government is being stubborn and intransigent, rejecting the evidence and advice of Canada's top experts in both medicine and law. Liberals are choosing to narrow charter rights instead of expand them, as a truly progressive government would do.If Liberals really are so allergic to compromise and if they really believe that they are correct in law, will they agree to refer this bill to the Supreme Court? Why are the Liberals so afraid to ask the Supreme Court to review this bill?

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, just outside these doors, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh suggested that the federal government, B.C., Alberta, and indigenous leaders refer jurisdictional issues concerning Kinder Morgan to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Liberal government scoffed. It said it was a ridiculous proposal, that their jurisdiction was clear and beyond dispute.Now the government has decided to join in the reference case to the B.C. Court of Appeal. Oops. If it was such a ridiculous idea then, why is it such a good idea now?

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to unilaterally change the rules that govern the House of Commons. At first, the Liberals pretended it was just a discussion paper and now they claim that this power grab is necessary to be rammed through here because, well, it was in their election platform. Can the Prime Minister explain then why he used the excuse of a lack of consensus to abandon his platform promise on democratic reform, but now he unilaterally wants to change the way our democracy works?

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to defend sweetheart deals for multi-millionaires caught using offshore tax havens. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused, again, to answer whether these tax evaders and their KPMG scam artists will face criminal charges.We must restore faith in the fairness of our tax system and send a message that special treatment for the wealthy and well-connected will not be allowed to stand.Will the government bring criminal charges against all those involved in this tax evasion scandal?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is spreading alternative facts on democratic reform. According to the Prime Minister, it was not his fault that he broke his promise, it was the NDP's. Talk about desperate.Let us talk about real facts. The current system provides 100% of the power to a party that gets 39% of the vote. The Prime Minister promised to change all that, and then he broke that promise.Do the Liberals not understand that blaming everyone else for their broken promises is exactly what breeds cynicism in politics?