Mylène Freeman

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, no, I have no desire to do that. Throughout my speech, I laid out the facts and said how distressing it was to hear only about the Conservatives' ideology. The Supreme Court said that this should be protected. The court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, according to which everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of their person.

I do not understand how someone can object to this Supreme Court of Canada decision. My colleague says that we are encouraging drug-related problems. However, if a person cannot do this at a supervised site, how will the problem be addressed? The Conservatives say they want to keep heroin out of our backyards. How will they do that without something that is properly regulated, such as InSite?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this bill is another example of how completely out of touch the Conservatives are with the real world.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that InSite was providing essential services and that it must remain open in accordance with an exemption under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Court ruled that the charter authorized users to access InSite's services and that an exemption should be granted to authorize similar sites to open.

The Conservatives are disregarding this ruling. At the end of the day, this shows that they have no respect for the separation of powers or for legal authority. They have no respect for any authority other than their own and this is made clear in Bill C-2, which goes completely against the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling.

The ruling called on the minister to consider exemptions for supervised injection sites, in order to address public health and safety issues. This ruling invited the minister to consider all the aspects in light of the benefits of having supervised injections sites, rather than provide him with a list of principles upon which to base his decisions.

As usual, the Conservatives are showing no respect for a legal process that has demonstrated how important a place like InSite can be. Apparently, as I said, they do not understand the importance of the principle of separation of powers. Worse yet, they are deliberately disregarding the Supreme Court's ruling.

To add insult to injury, in addition to their lack of respect for court rulings, the Conservatives are implementing measures that illustrate their lack of empathy, and I would go so far as to say their lack of humanity. They are tough on crime when it comes to Canadians, but soft on crime when it comes to their friends. It does not make sense. The benefits in terms of harm reduction are known and proven. Ignoring these facts is nothing more than ideology.

Since this morning, the Conservatives have been focusing on their personal opinion, but, unfortunately, they have not stood up to defend their bill.

Perhaps we need to go over the facts again. I know that many of my NDP colleagues have done so, but I will go over the facts again because it is important to show how disconnected Bill C-2 is from fact.

More than 30 peer-reviewed studies published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have described the benefits of InSite. Studies of more than 70 supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia have reported similar benefits. InSite is one of the biggest public health success stories in Canada.

The number of overdose deaths has dropped by 35% in Vancouver since InSite opened. That is a very significant statistic. It has also been proven that InSite has reduced crime, the rate of communicable disease infection and relapse rates for drug users. Once again, these are very significant statistics.

The Supreme Court established that InSite and other supervised injection sites must be granted a section 56 exemption because opening such sites:

...will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety...

I am not the only one to talk about these statistics. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada said that it was well established that a facility like InSite reduces overdose deaths and crime.

The evidence showed that supervised injection sites effectively reduced the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. Once again, there are fewer fatal overdoses. It was also shown that InSite does not jeopardize public safety. On the contrary, it improves public safety by reducing injections in public, related refuse and violence associated with drug use.

As my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup mentioned, where he lived before, there was refuse and he really did not want his children to see it. A place like InSite prevents that type of situation.

A 2004 study by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction indicated that supervised injection sites reach out to vulnerable groups and are accepted by communities. In addition, they also improve the health of their users and reduce high-risk behaviour. Furthermore, they reduce fatal overdoses and the consumption of drugs in public places.

That is some compelling evidence in support of supervised injection sites like InSite. However, the Conservatives have opposed this and have launched a campaign based on fearmongering and misinformation. This is nothing new. They deny the facts, disregard any opinions that contradict their own and resort to fearmongering to obscure the debate. A bill like this makes it clear that the Conservatives would rather abandon people instead of trying to rehabilitate them.

Their many justice bills—or should I call them injustice bills—all follow the same model: they ostracize, isolate and divide people. Instead of trying to address the root issue, the Conservatives tackle symptoms without ever looking for the source of the problem. Throwing people in jail without helping them reintegrate into society does not solve the problem. It simply makes things worse, since these people do not have access to what they need to reintegrate.

The Conservatives show the same lack of understanding with every problem they tackle, whether it is poverty, illness, crime or addiction. They revel in state violence instead of trying to address it. It sure makes for some good fundraising campaigns.

That is the driving force behind this bill. Instead of trying to fix a very important problem, the Conservatives are promoting a cold and violent ideology with their fearmongering, their concrete action against prevention and their disdain for justice.

In the winter of 2012, I had the opportunity to visit the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood and the surrounding area. I met with people from organizations that support people from the neighbourhood, such as women's groups like the WISH Drop-In Centre Society or the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre. These people are on the front lines and understand the reality, unlike the Conservatives, who refuse to face the facts, whether we are talking about the legal system, statistics, their own department or even the consensus of the scientific community. They ignore it all.

A number of my colleagues mentioned that earlier in this debate. The Conservatives are entitled to their own opinion. However, they need to look at facts and statistics—at reality—when they are introducing bills and governing a country. The Conservatives are showing their inability to manage the most basic government duties and their inability to govern. There is no shortage of evidence of that.

Before I finish, I would like to share some more statistics. In one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addictions counselling and other support services. Thanks to InSite, those people were able to get back on track. Individuals who used InSite at least weekly were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who rarely visited the centre.

There has been a dramatic drop in the number of discarded needles, the amount of discarded injection paraphernalia and the number of people injecting drugs in the street.

All of those things are extremely important to remember. They prove that InSite is successful.

The NDP feels that any new legislation concerning safe injection sites must respect the spirit of the Supreme Court decision. That is not the case with this bill. I will be opposing it. The NDP believes that harm reduction programs, including safe injection sites, should be granted exemptions based on their proven ability to improve the health of a community and preserve human life. This should not be based on ideology.

[Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the bill to give voice to the concerns that have been expressed to me by members of the community of Kanesatake, which is in my riding, who would be directly affected by the legislation proposed in the Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-428.

The concerns that have been raised in the bill remind us that we need to move forward and truly work on a nation-to-nation paradigm rather than through this paternalistic, piecemeal, and unilateral approach that the government has been using and continues to use in this bill.

Bill C-428 seeks to amend the Indian Act by deleting sections dealing with wills and estates, sale of produce, trade with certain people, and the sections on residential schools. It also calls on the government to make an annual report to Parliament on its progress on dismantling the Indian Act.

Like pretty well all legislation pertaining to the Indian Act put forward by the Conservative government, the bill has major flaws and does not solve the problems it wishes to address. Although it does delete some archaic provisions of the bill, other deleted sections like the provisions on wills and estates could put first nation citizens living on reserve in legal limbo because there is no guarantee that provincial legislation will cover their situation.

What is more, there was no consultation with first nations before presenting the bill, like pretty well all Conservative legislation on this issue. The overriding issue with the relationship that the Conservative government has with first nations is that of a unilateral, paternalistic one. That is to say, it does not want to wait for everyone to be in agreement; it is the government and it knows best, so it is going to go ahead and do this. This is not an approach that is respectful of what unfortunately is not legally, but should be, the status of first nations in this country.

We all know that what is at the basis of a relationship and should always be at the basis of a relationship is a nation-to-nation relationship. Bill C-428 was drafted without consultation with first nations, reinforcing this unhealthy relationship. Unfortunately, it is not surprising, as I mentioned, that the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, acted unilaterally rather than engaging in meaningful consultation and collaboration.

I sincerely feel like I have said this many times on many bills. Unfortunately, I feel it is once again important that I state that I strongly believe that there is no greater or more urgent challenge facing us as MPs than the need to resolve the degrading relationship that Canada has with our aboriginal people.

There are clear actions that the government can, must, and could take immediately by using the UN declaration on indigenous peoples as a guide for what actions must be taken toward the sovereignty and decolonization of aboriginal people. Unfortunately, the number one thing that needs to be done in order to respect and address this is completely ignored by the Conservative government when it fails to do any kind of consultation.

At a minimum, we should expect to have a minister responsible for the file introducing a bill such as this. The Conservative tactic of using a backbencher to advance policy is a lack of leadership and demonstrates its chronic inability to move forward in the legislative process honestly and in good faith. The very fact that a government private member rather than the minister responsible is presenting the bill means that the steps that the bill would have to go through to seek legal relevance and the steps that the House would go through, such as the amount of debate that it would go through or the access that it has to information from the ministry, are all greatly relaxed. It means the bill has a lot less oversight than it would if it were presented by a minister.

Acting in this way to begin with, let alone the lack of consultation, means that it really aggravates the problems rather than solves them.

I believe, alongside my colleagues from the NDP, that we must move away from this paternalism that is in the Indian Act toward a paradigm where we have a healthy relationship with first nations, and where we are able to maintain their sovereignty and jurisdiction over their lands and businesses. The bill is a perfect example of exactly the opposite, because it is done in bad faith and lacks the extensive consultation and the nation-to-nation relationship that would be required in order for us to have a healthy relationship that moves away from the Indian Act.

In terms of wills and succession, this bill puts first nations in an area of uncertainty. In any situation not covered by provincial legislation, in addition to creating potential conflicts, the burden of this uncertainty would be placed on the shoulders of tribal councils while Conservatives continue to impose budget cuts and restrictions on these same councils. Conservatives do not seem to understand that this is the reality of what it is like in a band. There is not enough money or land, yet the bills that keep coming forward do not take into account that these are problems.

We saw the same problem with MRP legislation. It does not make any sense, because there is no extra money or land to go along with that kind of legislation. It is not actually addressing the problem in a meaningful way. The member who spoke before me said that it does not mean anything if we apologize for the residential schools and do not actually take action. Action requires money, respect, consultation, and all the things that go along with treating first nations as equal partners in the federation. We cannot just present private member bills and expect that the problem is going to start being addressed.

I have a constituent who came to speak to me who adamantly wanted me to oppose this bill. His name is Denis Gaspé, from Kanesatake. He wrote the following to me so that I could speak his words in the House today:

Consultation with the people has not been undertaken and any future attempts will be seen as suspect unless an attempt is made to include First Nations groups at the community level who have perennially rejected the notion they are subject to the Indian Act.

He is saying that we cannot change the relationship, as I was saying, in the Indian Act, without consultation. What this bill is purporting to do flies in the face of actual meaningful change.

Monsieur Gaspé's principal objection to the bill is section 10. It raises many problems for him. He stated:

...there is no identification of bylaws as separate from Band Council Resolutions. Manipulation of the publication requirement will bring more unrest.

There are a lot of concerns, and the fact that there are concerns that there has not been consultation means that we cannot move forward with this kind of legislation. We need to set aside the fact that the process we are using right now is not an appropriate one. What is in the bill is also not going to do what it purports to do.

It is long past the time that we address these issues. We need a process that is consultative, that respects UNDRIP, and that brings the nation-to-nation relationship between first nations and Canada into the 21st century.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my hon. colleague and neighbour from Pontiac.

This is interference, pure and simple. I mentioned this interference in my speech, as well as how clueless the Conservatives seem to be in terms of the importance of this issue for our region.

That is what is so unfortunate. They are laying off archeologists, archivists and librarians, then they claim to know what they are doing. It is clear that their actions are purely political and that they have no real interest in history.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that was really terrible about the way the former minister of heritage went about that answer was he said that all these artifacts would be available to my local museums.

What he does not realize is there is actually 10,000 artifacts at Musée régional d'Argenteuil.

There are so many artifacts that they do not have enough room to display them all. That is incredible for a small museum in Carillon, in the Argenteuil region. Not many people live there, but the museum brings people to the area. Those 10,000 artifacts are all properly protected in the museum's attic.

It really is too bad that these museums are being ignored by the Department of Canadian Heritage. It makes local heritage seem unimportant. Although I may want the Canadian Museum of Civilization to remain a major attraction forever, it will no longer bring people to this region, to the local museums. They all work in tandem.

The government wants to reorganize how the region's tourism works, but it is not going about it in the most inclusive manner, unfortunately.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Gatineau.

I have the honour and the duty to rise in the House to oppose Bill C-7, which appears directly connected to the Conservatives' plan not only to eliminate history, but also to control it. A Conservative member even said in this House that they were trying to control history.

Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-49, is the Conservatives' latest attempt to rewrite our history by recalibrating the Canadian Museum of Civilization and giving it a new image as the Canadian museum of history.

I am proud of our history, but in this bill, the Conservatives are presenting an incomplete history that is a bit too political to be called history. The bill will narrow the museum's mandate, and I am very concerned that they are doing this to disregard parts of our diverse history, such the experiences of francophones, first nations and women.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is an important institution in the Outaouais region, a region that I represent as a member from the RCM of Papineau. The museum received 1.2 million visitors last year and brought in $15 million in revenue. If the change to the museum's mandate is not done right, it could have disastrous effects on the Outaouais region's tourism industry, and therefore on my region as well. The region's economy and many jobs could be in jeopardy.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. It is a tourist draw that helps drive the economy. I cannot stress enough that this institution attracts people to the Outaouais, helps the tourism industry in the RCM of Papineau in particular, and helps stimulate the economy. Imagine losing these gateways to the Outaouais region, these huge museums like the Canadian Museum of Civilization—a museum that brings people from all over the world to the Outaouais. This will make a huge difference to our region if it is not done right.

Despite this obvious fact, the decision to transform the museum was not actually made by the minister's office. It is clear that this is a political decision, since the stakeholders in the Outaouais region were not consulted in this process. When people in my riding in the Outaouais say that this change will affect them, that they were not consulted and that they would have liked to be, I think this cannot be called consultation.

At the same time, the Conservatives will continue to spend millions until 2014 to commemorate the War of 1812, wasting taxpayers' money on pretty showcases, commemorations and ribbon cuttings.

In my riding, Grenville Canal was built as a result of certain events in 1812. However, the canal has been downright abandoned. It is falling apart and is being completely neglected and ignored by the government. However, it does exist and it has a place in our Canadian history--but no, it does not matter. On the other hand, there is always money for Freedom of the Town events held in towns that would have never had them.

In short, lately our history has been rewritten. It is clear that this initiative is part of a wider effort to promote symbols with a more conservative character. In my view, this is an actual scheme to rewrite our Canadian identity, carried out for the express purpose of highlighting militarism and the monarchy. Far be it from me—I really want to emphasize this—to speak against showcasing our military history. I have nothing against our military heroes.

The first time I came to Ottawa was to watch the Governor General present my uncle with the Order of Military Merit. I was a little girl at the time and my uncle took me to the Canadian Museum of Civilization for the first time. I am getting choked up thinking about it.

When most Canadians come to Ottawa for the first time, when they are young, on a school trip for example, they go to the Canadian Museum of Civilization. They discover a great many things there. Let us not take that away from future generations of Canadians.

That being said, a history that only celebrates the military, which is what the Conservative government is doing, puts women second. No one ever talks about women in wartime, especially when we are talking about the past. Women are currently serving in Afghanistan, among other places, but when we are talking about history, no one talks about what women went through and how women helped to build the country.

I made this point during the study on the celebrations of the War of 1812 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Frankly, it was clear that I was not alone in saying so.

All these changes also give me the impression that the Conservatives are off-loading some important tasks to our smaller museums, which are accomplishing a lot with the little resources they have. They are fantastic. To illustrate what I mean, I will talk about two museums in my riding.

The Plaisance Heritage Centre is an important and exceptional museum in my riding. It is devoted to the local history of Petite-Nation in the Outaouais. This proud and compelling region needed a museum that showcased its local history. The interpretation centre was founded in 1994 and, like the Canadian Museum of Civilization, it includes a permanent exhibit and temporary exhibits. One of the temporary exhibits on right now is about the importance of rivers in Petite-Nation's history. The exhibit focuses on Champlain and celebrates the 400th anniversary of his voyage on the Ottawa River.

The centre brings a lot of people to the region. Those who were interested in following Champlain's route and who took part in the 400th anniversary activities in the Ottawa-Gatineau region and on the river, came through Plaisance. This is part of how the tourism industry in the Outaouais region works.

The Musée régional d'Argenteuil also sits on the banks of the Ottawa River. It was founded in 1938. It is the second-oldest private museum in Canada and is housed in the Carillon Barracks in Saint-André-d'Argenteuil. It was purchased by the Historical Society of Argenteuil County. Many of the founding members were very well known, in particular Maude Abbott. The region has gained recognition because of them and their dedication.

Unfortunately, small museums are fending for themselves and they do not receive enough help. That is why I find it so unfortunate that this resourcefulness and passion for history is being pitted against a Conservative government that is abandoning history, culture, our economy, our environment and the way of doing things that we pride ourselves on.

I would ask the members of the House one last time to not support this bill, to vote against it. It will have truly damaging effects, not only on my region, but also on the way we self-identify as Canadians. I find that very unfortunate.

[Electronic Petitions, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech since we returned from an extended summer break. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues and welcome them.

I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for his work on this motion and on electronic petitioning, as well as his overall efforts to represent his constituents. I know this is really important to him. I am very proud to have him as a colleague, since I see how hard he works. I hope he can achieve his dreams of modernizing Parliament.

The motion before us is an important step to bring Canadians closer to the political process, and I think that is why he has focused on it. It really is a first; however, it is still very basic. Unfortunately, we, in the House, in our work, increasingly see citizens and young people lose interest in politics. They feel that the political reality is too remote and makes no impact on their lives and that they have no influence on policy and on us, their members of Parliament.

We need to change that perception by reminding Canadians that they are always the focus of our concerns here in the House of Commons. We also need to provide them with more tools to give them greater influence in the House. We need tools that create more interaction between Canadians and politicians.

This motion will help improve Canadian democracy and the vitality of our participatory institutions. Our petition system is, quite frankly, a dinosaur. Innovations in information technology have made the paper-only petition process obsolete. We need a tool from this century—or even from the last century, since we are that far behind—so that Canadians can communicate easily with their elected representatives.

My hon. colleague's motion will allow us to work in that direction in a professional, thoughtful manner, because it calls on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to make recommendations to establish an electronic petitioning system that would allow Canadians to sign petitions electronically.

This is very simple: we want Canadians to be able to sign a petition that the House will receive via the Internet. The particulars of this request are to be debated by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was already mentioned earlier.

I want to be very clear. If this motion passes, the House would be sending a clear message that we want to modernize how we do things in Parliament in order to include Canadians more. We would be calling on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to carry out this modernization, but most of all, we would be recognizing the importance of doing so. I do not know what else to say about the speech given by one of my colleagues, who said that we would be skipping some steps. The House needs to recognize the need to modernize. That is the right decision. We need to move forward.

This is a very clear request to refer the matter to a very competent body that could really introduce these measures in an appropriate manner, both legally and procedurally.

My colleague has also made some proposals that could be incorporated, including the possibility of having a debate in the House of Commons outside of regular sitting hours once a certain number of signatures has been collected. He also suggested that a petition be sponsored by five members and be tabled in the House. I like those suggestions.

The fact that we would have to debate the subject of a petition signed by a significant number of Canadians is not even the most important thing here. When that many Canadians sign a petition, they need to know that the issue has been acknowledged and studied by the House and that proposals are being heard and truly taken into consideration by the political parties. We owe them that.

The majority of Canadians would be surprised to know that this is not already something we do when enough people sign a petition. In fact, when a petition is presented, the minister responds and it ends there. Canadians would like to have more influence over what is discussed in the House

Requiring a petition to also have the support of a certain number of members is another effective measure against abuses.

While I support these proposals, I would like to remind members opposite—and other members who are not sure they will support this motion—that these are suggestions that the committee should evaluate. Giving the committee the authority to establish the best way forward for Parliament and for our country is a very good idea.

Unfortunately, certain Conservative members too often oppose excellent bills because they are unhappy with small details. They sometimes use that to try and divide the House. I really see this as an opportunity to engage in non-partisan work.

In this case, I am very optimistic that we will embrace the necessary changes proposed by this motion. I hope it will be adopted.

All Canadians will benefit from this change because it is clear that the Internet is becoming more prevalent in our lives. However, it is mostly young people who will be affected by this motion because, as we all know, they communicate mainly via the Internet and social media. That is also the main way they participate in the democratic process. Young people are at ease with using new technologies and the Internet in every aspect of their lives. This really is a way to bring home the political process for them.

It is something I see in my everyday life and when I visit schools, universities or the homes of young people in my riding and across the country. For me and these young people, it is completely incomprehensible that the House of Commons does not recognize online petitions. Apparently, technology is everywhere but in the House of Commons.

It is possible to make purchases and fill out a variety of official forms online. My colleague from the Liberal Party mentioned that many government services are available only online these days. If we want to be sure that people are included, the House must accept both paper and electronic petitions.

We are even trying to put together a pilot project to make House standing committees paperless. This is something that we could also do in the House and not just in committee.

Since I have been in office, I have met with young people across the country and in all of the Atlantic provinces. I have led discussions on youth involvement in politics. Young people were really shocked to learn that only paper petitions could be circulated and submitted to their federal MPs. They were really surprised. It made them feel even farther removed from the process and their MP. That is very unfortunate.

I got the same reaction when I visited universities in western Canada, Ontario and other areas. Young people were really surprised to learn that we are so behind the times when it comes to technology. Young people across the country feel the same way about this situation.

My riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is located in Quebec. This province uses electronic petitions. I went to speak in youth centres. The young people there are not necessarily old enough to vote yet but I want them to start thinking about getting involved in politics and I want them to be heard. The young people were completely shocked to learn that they had to circulate paper copies of petitions, particularly when the province accepts electronic petitions.

In closing, I would like to say that I sincerely believe that we must vote in favour of this motion in order to make the voices of all Canadians heard in the House, to speak on their behalf and to find out their concerns.

[Women's Organization in Lachute, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the work of Carrefour des femmes du Grand Lachute, an organization that is very important to me and that is celebrating its 30th anniversary this month.

Carrefour des femmes du Grand Lachute opened in 1983 with the support of a federal grant. Its mission is to help women by informing them of their rights and advising them on how to improve their living conditions.

Over time and at the request of clients, its services and activities have expanded. As in the early days, women continue to come to the organization to break out of their isolation, obtain information and help other women.

They come to an awareness of their condition, develop confidence in themselves and their potential, and spread feminist thinking, thus helping to improve their lives and their community.

Congratulations and continued success to Carrefour des femmes du Grand Lachute.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing members of the government saying that the NDP has not brought forward legislation on first nations issues. That is because what needs to be done is to consult and work with first nations. We do have one bill about that. It is Bill C-469, presented by my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. It would enact, in this Parliament, that we would have to respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires us as parliamentarians free, prior and informed consent.

I have constituents from Kanehsatà:ke. Ellen Gabriel, a very well-known native women's rights activist, was telling me she was not and they were not, consulted. They have not agreed. This issue is more complex and should not just be legislation rammed down our throats.

[International Trade, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the trade agreement that Canada is about to sign with Europe is the most important such agreement in the last decade.

However, the only reason the Prime Minister is rushing off to Europe is to distract attention from the scandals that are undermining his credibility and that of his government. The Prime Minister is not taking this seriously. Canadians do not even know what was put on the negotiating table.

Will the government commit to consulting with Canadians regarding the terms of this agreement?