Madam Speaker, there is a fundamental difference between the two debates. As far as the one on health is concerned, we have known for years that it was a problem, that there are solutions and that governments are not proposing them.
In this case, it is a proposal by an opposition member, because we are indeed here to improve the system. We all know what the status quo and the old way of doing things mean. We all know the consequences of that. We have Ambassador Gagliano representing Canada while we cannot even guarantee his integrity. This model has to be changed. This should not be allowed to happen again.
The member says that the motion corresponds to the present reality and I invite you to read it again because there are two important elements in this motion.
The motion says that consultation should be automatic and also that it should be done before these people take up their duties. It seems to be two different things.
I would like to add one last thing to the declarations made by my leader. I think that, yes,he was talking about the parliamentary activity. We are here to improve the situation and we are here to hold constructive debates like the one that has been proposed today.
We will see tonight if the Liberal majority sings two different tunes: one outside the House, to try to be chosen as a leader, and the other one, based on reality, for those moments when a vote is called in this House. We will see the difference between the two.