Public Service Labour Relations Act  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member and I were watching the same Charbonneau commission. Personally, what I remember from that commission is that, unfortunately, people in positions of authority in the unions violated the fundamental rights of union members to have proper representation.

Public Service Labour Relations Act  Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to my hon. colleague's sense of democracy. Why would there be a lower rate of unionization with a secret ballot? It may be because people do not want to unionize. Perhaps it is the reason because perhaps it is the reality. MPs were all elected by secret ballot.

Public Service Labour Relations Act  Mr. Speaker, the government failed to recognize the authority of secret ballots. More than that, it missed the great opportunity to create something new, something stronger for our proud RCMP members. If they had a secret ballot vote decision to become unionized or not, and to elect their representatives, the union as a group that will come from that will be stronger, more accurate, more responsible, and in front of the government, will have more authority than what is proposed.

Public Service Labour Relations Act  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House to speak to Bill C-7. Throughout the discussion I will take the opportunity to emphasize that, even though I am not my party's critic on the matter related to this bill, two aspects of it concern me in both form and substance. Bill C-7 concerns the 28,000 officers of the RCMP, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He was elected barely six months ago, but he nonetheless has excellent political experience, having been the mayor of a municipality. As I believe I told the Minister of Finance yesterday, in Quebec, municipalities are not allowed to post a deficit.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for his remarks. I thank him for the quality of his French. Every time I rise in the House of Commons and ask him a question, he answers me in French. I deeply appreciate that, not because he is speaking French but because what he is saying is right.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply outraged by the government's attitude, but I am not surprised by it. This is yet another demonstration of the ugliness of Liberal hypocrisy, as if we needed another. Those people brag about their lofty principles, but when the time comes to act, they do exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.

Finance  Mr. Speaker, in a previous life, the Minister of Finance was an experienced businessman who gave excellent financial advice. I would like to take him back to the good old days. Back when he was a financial advisor, if he had had a client who earned $100,000 a year but spent $110,000, would the financial advisor have told his client to keep up this lifestyle or to be careful and live within his means?

Finance  Mr. Speaker, no one here is against investments, but we still need to invest within our means. It is not a good idea to make an investment with a deficit, because other people end up footing the bill. Earlier, the minister talked about his meeting with Mayor Labeaume. Does he know that municipalities in Quebec are not allowed to run deficits?

Finance  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance made a statement that was surprising, to say the least. He said, “Clearly, the members from the other side [that means us] are still stuck in this whole balanced budget thing.” I can assure this House that, yes, we are and we will always be stuck on having a balanced budget.

Finance  Mr. Speaker, the government's approach is irresponsible. It is obvious that the Minister of Finance has completely lost control of public spending. Running up a $30-billion deficit, with more to come, is irresponsible to today's society and especially to our children and grandchildren, who are going to pay for this government's excesses.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, facts are facts. A year ago, when the Supreme Court directed Parliament to legislate, we did not really have a choice. The Supreme Court knew it was an election year. Parliament therefore had just three months before the fall election was called. During that time, the government, under the leadership of the right hon. member for Calgary Heritage, struck a committee of three independent Canadian experts to study the situation.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, we were very pleased and moved to hear our newly elected colleague, who has also served in other sessions. It is clear that she is experienced. Are people in my colleague's riding talking about this issue? What are they telling her?

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, it is once again my turn to commend my colleague from New Brunswick, whom I respect and hold in high esteem. In committee, we worked together a great deal and did so positively and constructively. I got to know him, and I believe the feeling is mutual. Earlier, our colleague mentioned that there are words in the bill, such as “incurable" and “advanced state of decline”, that were not in the Carter decision.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I too would like to commend my colleague, with whom I served on the special committee struck by the government. The committee was made up of MPs and senators from all political parties. I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on the text of the bill. It uses words that have raised many questions in Quebec and all across Canada regarding what is reasonably foreseeable: a reasonably foreseeable death.