Marilène Gill

Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers in all regions of Quebec have reached the end of their employment insurance benefits. They have to find another way to make it until the next season begins, either through social assistance or by living off of their credit cards. In any case, they will have to go into debt. People are struggling and having a hard time putting food on the table, because the government refuses to understand the reality of our regions, because Ottawa does not give a damn about Quebec. When will this government wake up and recognize that it is the work that is seasonal, and not the workers, and resolve the spring gap or "black hole" problem once and for all, by extending the minimum entitlement period? This is urgent.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal finally dissociated himself from the shameful statements his friend, the mayor of Hampstead, made comparing secularism to ethnic cleansing. The Minister of Justice was asked to condemn the statements yesterday, but he chose not to.Insulting Quebec is apparently okay with the Minister of Justice.Will the minister condemn the statements made by the mayor of Hampstead and pledge not to challenge the secularism bill in court?

Mr. Speaker, today being February 15, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to observe a minute of silence in memory of the Patriots of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, especially those who were executed or exiled.

Mr. Speaker, whether the minister likes it or not, it is up to Quebeckers to decide what works for them. The secularism of the state of Quebec will be decided by Quebec, not by Ottawa and not by the House, which even refuses to condemn the shameful remarks of the mayor of Hampstead, who has compared the secularism bill to ethnic cleansing.Will the Minister of Justice respect the will of Quebec and undertake not to challenge Bill 21 or support any legal challenges?

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that this banker's government has tried to deprive Quebec consumers of their rights.With Bill C-86, there is a real possibility that Quebec's Office de la protection du consommateur will no longer have any recourse against banks. That means that people who are getting gouged will no longer have any free recourse and will have to pay to take their bank and its army of lawyers to court.When will the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec start defending their constituents instead of being the banks' lackeys?

Madam Speaker, let us talk about another file where the government is neglecting the regions of Quebec: the spruce budworm that is devastating our forests.The infested area is larger than the entire province of New Brunswick, and yet, the government gave $75 million to New Brunswick and nothing, not one cent, to Quebec. Not surprisingly, the Irvings own part of New Brunswick's forests and have cutting rights to the rest. They are the ones pocketing the money, as usual.Will the government admit that it is robbing Quebec to line the pockets of its friends at Irving?

Mr. Speaker, the nail care lobby seems to have a lot of influence with the Minister of Transport. His claim that six-centimetre blades will allow people to clean their nails on the plane is ludicrous. There is no reason to allow knives in an aircraft cabin when they can easily be stowed in the hold. Will the minister listen to reason and leave knives on the prohibited items list?

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just said, there is nothing for Quebec in the economic update. What is more, a few moments ago, the Minister of Natural Resources announced an additional $2.9 billion in loan guarantees—a slap in the face for the whole of Quebec.I have a question for the minister. Is contempt for Quebec a Canadian value? Are fiascos part of their economic strategy? Is adding insult to injury the Liberals' modus operandi?

Mr. Speaker, Irving is unable to deliver a single ship despite being awarded $63 billion in federal contracts, yet the government continues to grant it favours.Today, the government is making us vote on whether to allocate an additional $54 million to cover Irving's cost overruns. While 800 workers at Davie are going to lose their jobs due to a lack of contracts, Ottawa is rewarding an incompetent shipyard that, number one, is not up to the task, and number two, costs too much. If that is not favouritism, what is?I will repeat the question directed at the Minister of Public Services. Will she, the Minister of Transport, or the Minister of National Defence take five minutes—

Mr. Speaker, in response to my question yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there is no place for discrimination against our citizens, as though the bill on secularism introduced by the state of Quebec were discriminatory.The bill sets rules for everyone. It is not discriminatory. The same rules will apply to everyone.Is the Prime Minister accusing the Government of Quebec and the millions of Quebeckers who support this bill of discrimination? Have the Liberals really sunk that low?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek consent for the following motion: That this House call on the Department of Transport to prohibit the carrying of a knife with a blade measuring less than six centimetres on board aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, once again, Ottawa's negligence and laissez-faire approach are hurting Quebec. Ottawa has shown once again, through negligence, that Quebec would be much better off on its own. Until February 17, a Rio Tinto ship was stuck in the ice for two days, because of a serious shortage of icebreakers on the St. Lawrence. There are five, when there should be 11 of them.Will the government stop tarnishing Quebec's reputation internationally and start listening to the Quebec government, which wants to see twice as many icebreakers on the St. Lawrence?

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister recently visited a mosque.Members of the Bloc Québécois want to know whether this government would have found it more or less acceptable if, rather than women, homosexuals, Indigenous people or Blacks had been the ones relegated to the balcony. If that were the case, would the Prime Minister still have agreed to speak?

Mr. Speaker, even though the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is too broke to pay back the $266 million it owes the federal government, the Canadian government is increasing its debt capacity by saying that since it is broke, it will let it go into more debt. The government, with taxpayers' money, including that of Quebeckers, is going to let Newfoundland and Labrador incur more debt in order to compete with Hydro-Québec. If it cannot pay, Ottawa will pay for it, no problem.Will this government let parliamentarians debate the Muskrat Falls loan guarantee before signing the contract with Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Speaker, the G7 summit brings together the world's most powerful leaders, but such gatherings often lead to property damage, leaving locals out of pocket. Whether in Quebec City or Pointe-au-Pic, it is municipalities, businesses, and residents who will have to pick up the tab.I am worried about the tourism industry, which is a pillar of the economy in the Capitale-Nationale region, especially in Charlevoix. I am worried about business owners, whose profits will take a hit or whose windows will get smashed. I am worried about seasonal workers, who are stuck at home, unable to get to work, even though the warm weather is back.The extravagance of the G7 stands in stark contrast to the austerity on the other side of the fence.Will the government promise to fully compensate anyone who is negatively affected?

Madam Speaker, public transit is a perfect example of how little the federal government understands about Quebec's actual needs. From Saguenay to Longueuil to Trois-Rivières, every one of our cities has infrastructure needs, but federal investment is proportional to ridership on existing public transit networks. The problem is that if the service is not available, there are no riders. There has to be a bus for people to get on.Why won't the federal government just transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec? Afterwards, we can figure things out for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes the Liberal government is going to introduce its bill to legalize marijuana. This bill will have many more implications for the Government of Quebec than it will for the Government of Canada. It raises issues related to public health, safety, education, economic development, agriculture, and more. This file raises a lot of issues that do not fall within Ottawa's jurisdiction.Will the government make a solemn promise to not use marijuana as an excuse to infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction?

Mr. Speaker, if I were to tell my constituents that the Conservatives would be the ones to solve the softwood lumber issue, they would not be satisfied with that.Today is May 15, and I can tell you that the answer is not satisfactory. The softwood lumber crisis has begun to claim victims in Quebec. It has affected about 1,300 forestry workers in Girardville, Dolbeau-Mistassini, Kénogami, La Tuque, and Baie-Comeau. Every dollar lost and every week that goes by with families having to tighten their belts is thanks to the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec who have done nothing. Will the Minister of Natural Resources come up with an answer that is relevant to the present, not to the future or the past, stop wasting time, and commit—

Madam Speaker, the uncertainty surrounding the government's intentions for the SNC-Lavalin file is having real consequences. Today, the company reported a $1.6-billion loss in the last quarter. At this rate, a fire sale or layoffs cannot be far behind.The government urgently needs to take action.A remediation agreement would punish the culprits, instead of collectively penalizing workers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.When is the government going to start negotiations? Is it waiting until thousands of people lose their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said yesterday that Bill 21 violates fundamental rights and individual freedoms and that he would always defend the charter. He was basically saying that he intends to challenge the Government of Quebec's secularism law.My question is simple. Is the minister going to wait until after the election to challenge Bill 21, for fear of alienating Quebeckers?

Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to buy the Trans Mountain expansion, a project that Kinder Morgan is backing away from due to its high risk. It is a project that poses a constant threat to the environment and is opposed by British Columbians and indigenous nations. Quebec is also not interested in assuming the economic, environmental, and social risks.Will the government reimburse Quebeckers for their share of the $4.5 billion it is going to spend to finance its irresponsible action so that Quebeckers can instead invest in renewable energy?

Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since I introduced Bill C-372 to protect workers' pension funds. It has been a year since Sears closed its doors. It has been three years that Cliffs retirees living on the north shore in Quebec have been fighting to recover their stolen pensions and insurance benefits. Retirees should be the top priority when a company goes out of business. We have been talking about this for decades, but the Liberals are not doing one single thing about it. In fact, they are still only thinking about doing consultations. It is high time we protected our workers and retirees from being robbed blind by multinational corporations. Will the Liberals protect workers and retirees by supporting my bill?

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question.The Liberals just do not get Quebec. This has nothing to do with discriminating against anyone. We want clear rules that apply to everyone. Rules that apply to everyone are not discriminatory; they are the opposite of discriminatory.Will the minister pledge to respect what Quebeckers want, or will the federal government once again deny Quebec the right to make its own choices?

Amidst all this talk of growth and improvement, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with yet another softwood lumber crisis, the fifth in 35 years.This is going to be really devastating for Quebec, our regions, our families, and our communities. Forestry workers know that they cannot count on the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec, who have said nothing. How many sawmills will have to close their doors before the government wakes up?For the fifth time, is Ottawa going to abandon Quebec's forestry sector, or will it at the very least provide loan guarantees to help it get through this crisis?

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are outraged that the government is taking $1 billion from them in order to disingenuously finance Trans Mountain, a pipeline project that British Columbians and first nations are opposed to.The ploy certainly paid off: some Liberals are already contemplating using the same trick to force Quebeckers and First Nations to accept the energy east pipeline against their will with their own money.From one nation to another, can the government guarantee that the energy east project is dead for good?

Mr. Speaker, on October 17, I introduced Bill C-372 to protect retired workers' pension funds and group insurance plans. The NDP tabled a similar bill. The Liberal Party convention voted in favour of similar measures. Even the Leader of the Opposition voted for a bill similar to mine in 2010. Let us put an end to injustice.Since today is May 1, will the government pledge to protect our workers' pension funds before the next election? Yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is an economic disaster, an environmental disaster, and an insult to Quebec. The premier of Newfoundland behind the project even described it as an opportunity to declare independence from the yoke of Quebec. All members across party lines, except for the Bloc Québécois, voted in favour of this project, despite two unanimous motions by the Quebec National Assembly denouncing this scandalous attempt to create unfair competition for Hydro-Québec.Quebeckers paid for their electricity network themselves. How can anyone justify asking them to fork out billons of dollars to help their competitor?

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I have asked the government about employment insurance for remote regions where the black hole is a fact.The government never promised to protect those workers. It is not so much that the members are ignoring an MP by refusing to answer me, it is that they are blatantly abandoning workers.I am reaching out to the Minister of National Revenue. Will she commit to standing up for her own constituents, the working people of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, as I am standing up for them in the House and standing up for my own constituents, the working people of the north shore?Will she talk to her colleague, the Minister of Labour, and work out a way to help workers by fixing the black hole problem once and for all?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour gives vague answers every time someone asks her about this. For nearly 20 years now, the upper north shore has been asking for employment insurance reform that takes its high unemployment rate and its seasonal industry into account. What the minister is denying Manicouagan, she will soon be offering to 16 economic regions in Canada. Of the 40 Quebec members opposite me, some of whom represent people struggling with the same problems as residents of the north shore, such as the people in the Gaspé, who will join me in persuading the minister that Quebec deserves the same treatment as Canada?

Mr. Speaker, since the message is not getting through, I will repeat that the forestry sector is made up of people. It sustains 120 towns in Quebec. This is how the land is occupied, here.A new softwood lumber crisis is affecting the people of our villages in Quebec who could lose their livelihoods and be forced to leave their region in order to find work.I ask again, will Ottawa commit to granting loan guarantees to forestry companies to deal with the new softwood lumber crisis caused, let us face it, by the Prime Minister's inability to negotiate in the interests of our people?

Mr. Speaker, last week, Canadian values was the argument used to justify a loan guarantee somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 billion.Is unfair competition a Canadian value?Is putting Quebec's interests last a Canadian value?How can the government justify its involvement in an operation designed solely to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to enter into direct competition with Hydro-Québec on foreign markets?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my colleague from Repentigny asked the Liberals three times to commit to honouring the will of Quebeckers and not challenge the Quebec law on secularism before the courts. Three times, the Minister of Justice refused to commit. He thinks that Quebec's desire for a secular state is discriminatory. I will try a fourth time.Will the Minister of Justice commit to honour the will of Quebec and not challenge the law on secularism before the courts?

Mr. Speaker, the people of La Romaine and Unamen Shipu on the lower north shore are cut off from the rest of Canada because the federal wharf no longer meets the minimum safety requirements. First the supply ship was unable to dock there and now the oil tanker will not be able to either. A month from now, the thermal plant will no longer even be able to provide electricity.Because of the federal government's negligence, the fragile connections these communities have with the mainland are at constant risk of being severed.Will the minister finally show a minimum of consideration for elected officials and local residents who are worried about their survival and agree to at least keep them informed? When do the Liberals intend to roll out an emergency plan?

Mr. Speaker, the only contact the people of La Romaine and Unamen Shipu on the north shore have with the rest of the continent is the ship Bella Desgagnés. The government has known for years that the wharf in La Romaine is in a critical state, so critical that the ship was able to unload only a quarter of its cargo yesterday, cargo that was primarily perishable goods. Tomorrow it might not even be able to dock. Time is of the essence, and the safety and security of the people of La Romaine and Unamen Shipu are at stake.Will the Minister of Transport act quickly? What does he plan to do for the people of the lower north shore?

Mr. Speaker, guaranteeing a $9.3-billion loan for 500,000 people is like guaranteeing a $144-billion loan for Quebec. That is too much money, and Newfoundland and Labrador will not be able to repay it. We will be left to deal with this debt.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the government will be signing the new free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. That is happening tomorrow, yet there is still no firm commitment from the government about compensation for our dairy farmers.The government has abandoned them three times in a row, in its agreements with North America, the Pacific region and Europe. It must take responsibility for these three betrayals.Will it make a formal commitment to fully compensate our supply-managed farmers for their losses under these three agreements—

Mr. Speaker, from Quebec's perspective, supply management, diafiltered milk, spent fowl, and the softwood lumber agreement do not need mere tweaks. The word “outstanding” is just as important as the word “tweaks”. This is major for thousands of Quebec workers, their families, and our regions.Other than shedding crocodile tears if negotiations do not go its way, does the federal government have a plan to make sure that the interests of workers from all regions of Quebec are not dismissed when the American negotiators make their so-called tweaks?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs that considering the 1,300 workers from the north shore, from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, from the Mauricie who just lost their jobs, there is no doubt that the softwood lumber crisis is already hurting us badly.I have a message for the 40 Liberal members from Quebec, including the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who voted in favour of $2.9 billion in loan guarantees to pay for this fiasco, the unfair competition of Muskrat Falls.Now our forestry industry is under attack. Will you stand up to defend it and insist on what everyone in Quebec, expect you perhaps, is calling for, namely loan guarantees?

Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members across the way that a period of questions should be followed by a period of answers.I will try again. The forestry sector, the unions, l'Union des municipalités du Québec, and the Government of Quebec have been calling for the same thing that the Bloc Québécois has been trying to get an answer to for months. How many times do we need to ask the same question?A new softwood lumber crisis is set to begin in 20 days. It is said that this crisis will affect workers and families in entire regions, but it is already affecting them.We need a clear response immediately. Stop toying with people's emotions.I will repeat my question. Will the government give loan guarantees to the forestry industry to help it cope with the new crisis or not?

Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix fiasco has been going on for more than three years. The Government of Canada has been unable to pay its own employees for three years.This issue continues to drag on, and 80,000 new cases are added every month. These cases all represent families who are suffering massive amounts of stress. This government caused the crisis, so I expect this government to fix it.Will the government commit to compensating those affected by Phoenix and fixing the problem, not in 10 years, but before the election?

Mr. Speaker, we have met with people in forestry, and it is clear that the softwood lumber dispute will resume in a few weeks.The last time, the federal government was to blame for the loss of 15,000 jobs in Quebec in one year. That means a lot of people and families, and many villages and regions are emptying out.Among other things, our workers need loan guarantees to deal with the next dispute.Will Ottawa let our people down once again?

Mr. Speaker, on the softwood lumber issue, Quebec reaffirmed last week that our forestry regime is fully compliant with NAFTA in every respect and that there was absolutely no reason for Ottawa to accept the imposition of any quotas or tariffs on our exports.However, in order to bail out British Columbia, the government is currently negotiating a protectionist agreement with the Americans, even though it could kill Quebec's forestry industry.Will the Minister of International Trade clearly tell the Americans that our lumber is not subsidized and that she will never agree to a protectionist agreement, unless Quebec is exempt from it?

Mr. Speaker, steelworkers have been on Parliament Hill for three weeks this year to stick up for retirees who lost their pensions and insurance benefits when the companies they worked for went bankrupt. They have still not been able to secure a meeting with the minister. The government says it stands up for the middle class, seniors and workers. Give me a break. If that were true, first of all, it would be meeting with the workers, and second, it would vote in favour of my bill that seeks to protect them.If the minister will not meet with the steelworkers, who are available right here, right now, will the Prime Minister meet with them instead?

Mr. Speaker, U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden is in town. He will meet with the Quebec premier. What a great opportunity for the Canadian government to join him and to make him see that Quebec's forestry regime is compliant with the terms of free trade. What a great opportunity to increase pressure with concrete gestures to protect our industry. No one wants another sellout of the industry with a devastating agreement.Will the government immediately offer loan guarantees to our forestry industry and commit to ensuring that free trade will continue?

Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, completely out of touch with Quebeckers, has already dragged out his “it is a sad day for Quebec”. It took less than 24 hours.Whether he likes it or not, it is a good day for Quebec. This is a great day, and the culmination of over 10 years of debate on secularism in Quebec. The fight is not over, however. We still have to make sure that Ottawa will not drag this matter before the courts.Will Quebeckers get a solemn commitment that the federal government will respect their will and not challenge this secularism legislation either directly or indirectly?

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec, a majority government, finally has the opportunity to address the issue of secularism. If all goes as planned, the bill should be passed by the summer. Unfortunately, it appears that this Liberal government might well be the biggest obstacle opposing the will of Quebeckers. Could the Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, in Quebec, commit to respecting the will of Quebeckers and promise not to challenge Bill 21 on secularism in the courts or support any legal challenges?

Mr. Speaker, right now, Quebec's seasonal workers are in the midst of the annual employment insurance spring gap. Every year, the government stands idly by watching them fall into that gap. In eastern Quebec, however, a coalition of elected representatives, unemployed workers' associations, unions, and businesses has taken shape. I am part of that coalition, a coalition that will not be ignored, a coalition united in demanding two things: emergency measures and an immediate and permanent solution to the problem. Time is tight and the very survival of our regions is at stake, so will the government commit to adopting concrete measures, measures that actually put food on the table so that no worker, family, or community ever—

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, Quebec was thinking about religious neutrality as part of the Bouchard-Taylor commission. Six years ago, Quebec was debating secularism following the introduction of the Quebec charter of values. Those passionate and necessary debates led to the introduction of Bill 21 on secularism last week. Today, Ottawa wants to prevent us from resolving that issue.Why is the government trying to prevent Quebeckers from setting guidelines to protect the religious neutrality of the Quebec state?

Madam Speaker, more than 40 years ago, the government established a tax credit to stimulate investment in the Atlantic region, which includes the Maritimes, Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence to La Pocatière, but not the North Shore, which also needs to diversify its economy. Mining is a good activity, but it is cyclical. I wrote to the Minister of Finance, but he took no action.Why is the government so intent on holding back investment in the North Shore?

Mr. Speaker, the government will present its first budget in just a few minutes. Unfortunately, its signals to Quebec's forestry industry, such as when I asked the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs questions in the House, have been very disquieting.I would like to remind the government that all the Quebec Forest Industry Council wants is to restore free trade with the United States. The organization's president and CEO, André Tremblay, sounded the alarm when he said that, “It's now or never. It's time to stand up for Quebec”, because this is no more or less—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs that considering the 1,300 workers from the north shore, from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, from the Mauricie who just lost their jobs, there is no doubt that the softwood lumber crisis is already hurting us badly.I have a message for the 40 Liberal members from Quebec, including the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who voted in favour of $2.9 billion in loan guarantees to pay for this fiasco, the unfair competition of Muskrat Falls.Now our forestry industry is under attack. Will you stand up to defend it and insist on what everyone in Quebec, expect you perhaps, is calling for, namely loan guarantees?

Amidst all this talk of growth and improvement, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with yet another softwood lumber crisis, the fifth in 35 years.This is going to be really devastating for Quebec, our regions, our families, and our communities. Forestry workers know that they cannot count on the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec, who have said nothing. How many sawmills will have to close their doors before the government wakes up?For the fifth time, is Ottawa going to abandon Quebec's forestry sector, or will it at the very least provide loan guarantees to help it get through this crisis?

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is an economic disaster, an environmental disaster, and an insult to Quebec. The premier of Newfoundland behind the project even described it as an opportunity to declare independence from the yoke of Quebec. All members across party lines, except for the Bloc Québécois, voted in favour of this project, despite two unanimous motions by the Quebec National Assembly denouncing this scandalous attempt to create unfair competition for Hydro-Québec.Quebeckers paid for their electricity network themselves. How can anyone justify asking them to fork out billons of dollars to help their competitor?

Exactly, Mr. Speaker. Ouch.Furthermore, this money, Quebeckers' money, will fund unfair competition with Hydro-Québec.Will this government allow a debate in the House on increasing the loan guarantee for Newfoundland and Labrador's Muskrat Falls project, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers in all regions of Quebec have reached the end of their employment insurance benefits. They have to find another way to make it until the next season begins, either through social assistance or by living off of their credit cards. In any case, they will have to go into debt. People are struggling and having a hard time putting food on the table, because the government refuses to understand the reality of our regions, because Ottawa does not give a damn about Quebec. When will this government wake up and recognize that it is the work that is seasonal, and not the workers, and resolve the spring gap or "black hole" problem once and for all, by extending the minimum entitlement period? This is urgent.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Canadian values was the argument used to justify a loan guarantee somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 billion.Is unfair competition a Canadian value?Is putting Quebec's interests last a Canadian value?How can the government justify its involvement in an operation designed solely to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to enter into direct competition with Hydro-Québec on foreign markets?

Madam Speaker, let us talk about another file where the government is neglecting the regions of Quebec: the spruce budworm that is devastating our forests.The infested area is larger than the entire province of New Brunswick, and yet, the government gave $75 million to New Brunswick and nothing, not one cent, to Quebec. Not surprisingly, the Irvings own part of New Brunswick's forests and have cutting rights to the rest. They are the ones pocketing the money, as usual.Will the government admit that it is robbing Quebec to line the pockets of its friends at Irving?

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec, a majority government, finally has the opportunity to address the issue of secularism. If all goes as planned, the bill should be passed by the summer. Unfortunately, it appears that this Liberal government might well be the biggest obstacle opposing the will of Quebeckers. Could the Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, in Quebec, commit to respecting the will of Quebeckers and promise not to challenge Bill 21 on secularism in the courts or support any legal challenges?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said yesterday that Bill 21 violates fundamental rights and individual freedoms and that he would always defend the charter. He was basically saying that he intends to challenge the Government of Quebec's secularism law.My question is simple. Is the minister going to wait until after the election to challenge Bill 21, for fear of alienating Quebeckers?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek consent for the following motion: That this House call on the Department of Transport to prohibit the carrying of a knife with a blade measuring less than six centimetres on board aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, Irving is unable to deliver a single ship despite being awarded $63 billion in federal contracts, yet the government continues to grant it favours.Today, the government is making us vote on whether to allocate an additional $54 million to cover Irving's cost overruns. While 800 workers at Davie are going to lose their jobs due to a lack of contracts, Ottawa is rewarding an incompetent shipyard that, number one, is not up to the task, and number two, costs too much. If that is not favouritism, what is?I will repeat the question directed at the Minister of Public Services. Will she, the Minister of Transport, or the Minister of National Defence take five minutes—

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois submitted a brief on Bill 21 to the National Assembly.Our message to Quebec's elected officials is simple: Ottawa can hardly wait to use the court challenges program to bankroll a challenge of the secularism bill.Can the Minister of Justice guarantee that he does not intend to directly or indirectly challenge Quebec's secularism bill?

Mr. Speaker, since the message is not getting through, I will repeat that the forestry sector is made up of people. It sustains 120 towns in Quebec. This is how the land is occupied, here.A new softwood lumber crisis is affecting the people of our villages in Quebec who could lose their livelihoods and be forced to leave their region in order to find work.I ask again, will Ottawa commit to granting loan guarantees to forestry companies to deal with the new softwood lumber crisis caused, let us face it, by the Prime Minister's inability to negotiate in the interests of our people?

Mr. Speaker, for over 20 years, the various reforms introduced by the Liberal and Conservative governments have decreased benefits for unemployed workers and restricted eligibility so that only two in five workers can access these benefits.The current government must commit to making employment insurance a real insurance program for our workers, rather than a labour tax. Will the government also commit to taking into account the specific characteristics and needs of workers in the regions, particularly seasonal workers? Will it commit to allowing regional stakeholders to participate in the process?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour gives vague answers every time someone asks her about this. For nearly 20 years now, the upper north shore has been asking for employment insurance reform that takes its high unemployment rate and its seasonal industry into account. What the minister is denying Manicouagan, she will soon be offering to 16 economic regions in Canada. Of the 40 Quebec members opposite me, some of whom represent people struggling with the same problems as residents of the north shore, such as the people in the Gaspé, who will join me in persuading the minister that Quebec deserves the same treatment as Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the government will present its first budget in just a few minutes. Unfortunately, its signals to Quebec's forestry industry, such as when I asked the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs questions in the House, have been very disquieting.I would like to remind the government that all the Quebec Forest Industry Council wants is to restore free trade with the United States. The organization's president and CEO, André Tremblay, sounded the alarm when he said that, “It's now or never. It's time to stand up for Quebec”, because this is no more or less—

Mr. Speaker, in the softwood lumber file, the federal government put the interests of British Columbia ahead of those of Quebec. In the shipyards file, “a great day for Canada”, as the NDP called it, it was the interests of the Maritimes that came ahead of those of Quebec. In the energy east file, it was Alberta that came ahead of Quebec. In the Muskrat Falls file, it is Newfoundland and Labrador that matters more than Quebec.Enough is enough.Will the minister promise once and for all not to increase the loan guarantee for Newfoundland and Labrador for the Muskrat Falls project?

Mr. Speaker, the nail care lobby seems to have a lot of influence with the Minister of Transport. His claim that six-centimetre blades will allow people to clean their nails on the plane is ludicrous. There is no reason to allow knives in an aircraft cabin when they can easily be stowed in the hold. Will the minister listen to reason and leave knives on the prohibited items list?

Madam Speaker, more than 40 years ago, the government established a tax credit to stimulate investment in the Atlantic region, which includes the Maritimes, Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence to La Pocatière, but not the North Shore, which also needs to diversify its economy. Mining is a good activity, but it is cyclical. I wrote to the Minister of Finance, but he took no action.Why is the government so intent on holding back investment in the North Shore?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of Liberal partisanship, in the latest budget, the government announced that print media could obtain charitable status. Did it come as a surprise to anyone when, yesterday, La Presse announced a move to a non-profit charitable model?I should point out that La Presse's board of directors, like The Federal Idea's, is heavily populated with Liberal Party of Canada donors. Can the minister tell us if La Presse would be eligible for charitable status despite its decidedly political editorial policy?

Mr. Speaker, forestry workers are demonstrating across Quebec today to call on the government to negotiate a fair and balanced agreement on softwood lumber. That may seem obvious, but the forestry sector has learned not to trust Ottawa.Arguing over guarantees has cost weeks of work for workers, who are more than ready for a bit of stability.Will the government make a solemn promise to refuse to sign any sellout agreement that could hurt forestry workers?

Madam Speaker, many workers are worried about how they will protect their hard-earned pensions if their employer goes bankrupt. The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act provides for a review after five years. The former government tabled its report in September 2014 and the committee was supposed to review the act before September 2015.When will the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act be examined and, more importantly, when will retirees be considered preferred creditors?

Mr. Speaker, even though the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is too broke to pay back the $266 million it owes the federal government, the Canadian government is increasing its debt capacity by saying that since it is broke, it will let it go into more debt. The government, with taxpayers' money, including that of Quebeckers, is going to let Newfoundland and Labrador incur more debt in order to compete with Hydro-Québec. If it cannot pay, Ottawa will pay for it, no problem.Will this government let parliamentarians debate the Muskrat Falls loan guarantee before signing the contract with Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Speaker, we already know that the United States has decided to slap a new 20% countervailing duty on softwood lumber. On day 1, Quebec announced that it will provide loan guarantees to the companies affected. However, Ottawa is still refusing to support our forestry industry, which means that it is knowingly putting the industry at risk. Besides trying to develop a market in China and announcing programs that already exist, is Ottawa coming up with more appropriate solutions, such as providing loan guarantees, as Quebec has unanimously requested?

Mr. Speaker, unions, business people, workers and elected representatives from Quebec's North Shore, the Lower St. Lawrence, Charlevoix, Montérégie, and New Brunswick joined forces today to demand that Ottawa fix the employment insurance spring gap. We have solutions.They all want protected regions and permanent measures that take the realities of seasonal work into account. Even the Conservatives, who made cuts while in government, have suddenly discovered empathy for our workers.When will this government show some respect for workers and fix the EI spring gap for good?

Mr. Speaker, steelworkers have been on Parliament Hill for three weeks this year to stick up for retirees who lost their pensions and insurance benefits when the companies they worked for went bankrupt. They have still not been able to secure a meeting with the minister. The government says it stands up for the middle class, seniors and workers. Give me a break. If that were true, first of all, it would be meeting with the workers, and second, it would vote in favour of my bill that seeks to protect them.If the minister will not meet with the steelworkers, who are available right here, right now, will the Prime Minister meet with them instead?

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal finally dissociated himself from the shameful statements his friend, the mayor of Hampstead, made comparing secularism to ethnic cleansing. The Minister of Justice was asked to condemn the statements yesterday, but he chose not to.Insulting Quebec is apparently okay with the Minister of Justice.Will the minister condemn the statements made by the mayor of Hampstead and pledge not to challenge the secularism bill in court?

Mr. Speaker, U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden is in town. He will meet with the Quebec premier. What a great opportunity for the Canadian government to join him and to make him see that Quebec's forestry regime is compliant with the terms of free trade. What a great opportunity to increase pressure with concrete gestures to protect our industry. No one wants another sellout of the industry with a devastating agreement.Will the government immediately offer loan guarantees to our forestry industry and commit to ensuring that free trade will continue?

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question.The Liberals just do not get Quebec. This has nothing to do with discriminating against anyone. We want clear rules that apply to everyone. Rules that apply to everyone are not discriminatory; they are the opposite of discriminatory.Will the minister pledge to respect what Quebeckers want, or will the federal government once again deny Quebec the right to make its own choices?

Mr. Speaker, once again, Ottawa's negligence and laissez-faire approach are hurting Quebec. Ottawa has shown once again, through negligence, that Quebec would be much better off on its own. Until February 17, a Rio Tinto ship was stuck in the ice for two days, because of a serious shortage of icebreakers on the St. Lawrence. There are five, when there should be 11 of them.Will the government stop tarnishing Quebec's reputation internationally and start listening to the Quebec government, which wants to see twice as many icebreakers on the St. Lawrence?

Mr. Speaker, guaranteeing a $9.3-billion loan for 500,000 people is like guaranteeing a $144-billion loan for Quebec. That is too much money, and Newfoundland and Labrador will not be able to repay it. We will be left to deal with this debt.

Mr. Speaker, the only contact the people of La Romaine and Unamen Shipu on the north shore have with the rest of the continent is the ship Bella Desgagnés. The government has known for years that the wharf in La Romaine is in a critical state, so critical that the ship was able to unload only a quarter of its cargo yesterday, cargo that was primarily perishable goods. Tomorrow it might not even be able to dock. Time is of the essence, and the safety and security of the people of La Romaine and Unamen Shipu are at stake.Will the Minister of Transport act quickly? What does he plan to do for the people of the lower north shore?

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the government will be signing the new free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. That is happening tomorrow, yet there is still no firm commitment from the government about compensation for our dairy farmers.The government has abandoned them three times in a row, in its agreements with North America, the Pacific region and Europe. It must take responsibility for these three betrayals.Will it make a formal commitment to fully compensate our supply-managed farmers for their losses under these three agreements—

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia's Irving Group has good connections in the federal government. When the Conservatives were in power, Irving received $65 billion in shipbuilding contracts, while Davie shipyard in Quebec had to settle for a single contract. Now that the Liberals are in power, they have tried to derail the only contract awarded to Quebec, probably under the influence of the President of the Treasury Board, a minister from Nova Scotia.Is this the real change that the Liberals had in mind for Davie's workers?

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that this banker's government has tried to deprive Quebec consumers of their rights.With Bill C-86, there is a real possibility that Quebec's Office de la protection du consommateur will no longer have any recourse against banks. That means that people who are getting gouged will no longer have any free recourse and will have to pay to take their bank and its army of lawyers to court.When will the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec start defending their constituents instead of being the banks' lackeys?

Mr. Speaker, whether the minister likes it or not, it is up to Quebeckers to decide what works for them. The secularism of the state of Quebec will be decided by Quebec, not by Ottawa and not by the House, which even refuses to condemn the shameful remarks of the mayor of Hampstead, who has compared the secularism bill to ethnic cleansing.Will the Minister of Justice respect the will of Quebec and undertake not to challenge Bill 21 or support any legal challenges?

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes the Liberal government is going to introduce its bill to legalize marijuana. This bill will have many more implications for the Government of Quebec than it will for the Government of Canada. It raises issues related to public health, safety, education, economic development, agriculture, and more. This file raises a lot of issues that do not fall within Ottawa's jurisdiction.Will the government make a solemn promise to not use marijuana as an excuse to infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction?

Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, completely out of touch with Quebeckers, has already dragged out his “it is a sad day for Quebec”. It took less than 24 hours.Whether he likes it or not, it is a good day for Quebec. This is a great day, and the culmination of over 10 years of debate on secularism in Quebec. The fight is not over, however. We still have to make sure that Ottawa will not drag this matter before the courts.Will Quebeckers get a solemn commitment that the federal government will respect their will and not challenge this secularism legislation either directly or indirectly?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebeckers chose a new government. Despite this change, Quebec remains united in denouncing Ottawa for abandoning dairy farmers.All of the elected candidates and all of the parties that will make up the Quebec National Assembly spoke out against the new free trade agreement. Clearly, the federal government is once again ignoring Quebec's vital interests. Why did the government once again use Quebec as a bargaining chip in its trade negotiations?

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just said, there is nothing for Quebec in the economic update. What is more, a few moments ago, the Minister of Natural Resources announced an additional $2.9 billion in loan guarantees—a slap in the face for the whole of Quebec.I have a question for the minister. Is contempt for Quebec a Canadian value? Are fiascos part of their economic strategy? Is adding insult to injury the Liberals' modus operandi?

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, today is the last sitting day of parliament before the holidays, but more importantly it is the last sitting day before hundreds of workers loose their job at the Davie shipyard. The Prime Minister cannot go on holiday when hundreds of workers are about to spend Christmas without a job. This is the last chance to announce a real contract in the House so that workers can keep their jobs. Will the Prime Minister take that chance, show some compassion, and protect jobs at the Davie shipyard?

Mr. Speaker, if I were to tell my constituents that the Conservatives would be the ones to solve the softwood lumber issue, they would not be satisfied with that.Today is May 15, and I can tell you that the answer is not satisfactory. The softwood lumber crisis has begun to claim victims in Quebec. It has affected about 1,300 forestry workers in Girardville, Dolbeau-Mistassini, Kénogami, La Tuque, and Baie-Comeau. Every dollar lost and every week that goes by with families having to tighten their belts is thanks to the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec who have done nothing. Will the Minister of Natural Resources come up with an answer that is relevant to the present, not to the future or the past, stop wasting time, and commit—

Mr. Speaker, the government already dictates what people can and cannot wear. Soldiers, RCMP officers and prison guards all wear uniforms. Male MPs have to wear a tie in order to be recognized in the House of Commons. I do not hear the Minister of Justice objecting to those rules.What is the real reason that the Minister of Justice wants to challenge a state secularism law that is supported by the people of Quebec?

Madam Speaker, the uncertainty surrounding the government's intentions for the SNC-Lavalin file is having real consequences. Today, the company reported a $1.6-billion loss in the last quarter. At this rate, a fire sale or layoffs cannot be far behind.The government urgently needs to take action.A remediation agreement would punish the culprits, instead of collectively penalizing workers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.When is the government going to start negotiations? Is it waiting until thousands of people lose their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members across the way that a period of questions should be followed by a period of answers.I will try again. The forestry sector, the unions, l'Union des municipalités du Québec, and the Government of Quebec have been calling for the same thing that the Bloc Québécois has been trying to get an answer to for months. How many times do we need to ask the same question?A new softwood lumber crisis is set to begin in 20 days. It is said that this crisis will affect workers and families in entire regions, but it is already affecting them.We need a clear response immediately. Stop toying with people's emotions.I will repeat my question. Will the government give loan guarantees to the forestry industry to help it cope with the new crisis or not?

Mr. Speaker, from Quebec's perspective, supply management, diafiltered milk, spent fowl, and the softwood lumber agreement do not need mere tweaks. The word “outstanding” is just as important as the word “tweaks”. This is major for thousands of Quebec workers, their families, and our regions.Other than shedding crocodile tears if negotiations do not go its way, does the federal government have a plan to make sure that the interests of workers from all regions of Quebec are not dismissed when the American negotiators make their so-called tweaks?

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent in the House to adopt the following motion: that this House support the right to abortion as recognized in 1988 by Supreme Court jurisprudence on the decriminalization of abortion in the Morgentaler decision, and in several subsequent rulings, in particular the Daigle decision in 1989, the Winnipeg Child and Family Services decision in 1997, and the Dobson decision in 1999, regarding a woman's right to equality, autonomy, and security.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of International Trade confirmed that officials in her department are negotiating a new softwood lumber agreement because, as she said, “It is essential for Canadians”. Actually, for some Quebec communities, it is more than essential; it is vital. According to the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, 20,000 Quebeckers have lost their jobs in the forestry industry over the last decade.What will the minister do to ensure that the new agreement recognizes Quebec's forestry regime, which is vital to Quebec regions such as Abitibi and the North Shore, and to ensure that our regime is not considered a subsidy, as is the case in the United States?

Mr. Speaker, last night Quebec passed its secularism bill. Finally.Will the Prime Minister now undertake to respect the will of Quebeckers and their National Assembly and neither challenge the new Quebec bill in court nor fund legal challenges?

Mr. Speaker, there are people on the North Shore and in all our regions who have worked their entire lives.People like the retirees of Cliffs Natural Resources put their heart and soul, and their talents into their jobs and then were left high and dry because the company went bankrupt. When one has to choose between food or paying for chemotherapy or ostomy supplies, things are not good.What is the minister waiting for to take action? How many shattered lives does he need to justify taking action?

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister recently visited a mosque.Members of the Bloc Québécois want to know whether this government would have found it more or less acceptable if, rather than women, homosexuals, Indigenous people or Blacks had been the ones relegated to the balcony. If that were the case, would the Prime Minister still have agreed to speak?

Mr. Speaker, every time we ask a question we see the Minister of Justice and Attorney General pick up his notes and repeat the answers written by the Prime Minister's office. That says a lot about the independence of the new attorney general vis-a-vis the Prime Minister. Could we please get a straight answer to a simple question?Will the Minister of Justice challenge Bill 21 or support a legal challenge, yes or no? It seems to me that he does not need notes to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix fiasco has been going on for more than three years. The Government of Canada has been unable to pay its own employees for three years.This issue continues to drag on, and 80,000 new cases are added every month. These cases all represent families who are suffering massive amounts of stress. This government caused the crisis, so I expect this government to fix it.Will the government commit to compensating those affected by Phoenix and fixing the problem, not in 10 years, but before the election?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that, but the minister should not need to consult his notes to know that this situation is urgent. It is a yes or no question, and I expect an equally clear answer. This government has three weeks to decide to help the regions of Quebec weather the next softwood lumber crisis.The last time, the agreement was so poorly negotiated by Ottawa that 34,000 jobs were lost in Quebec. I repeat: families lost their jobs and people had to leave our regions, including the North Shore. That is serious.Will the government give the forestry industry a loan guarantee so that it can deal with the new crisis, or will it once again leave the regions of Quebec to fend for themselves? I would like the minister to give a yes or no answer without consulting his notes.

Madam Speaker, public transit is a perfect example of how little the federal government understands about Quebec's actual needs. From Saguenay to Longueuil to Trois-Rivières, every one of our cities has infrastructure needs, but federal investment is proportional to ridership on existing public transit networks. The problem is that if the service is not available, there are no riders. There has to be a bus for people to get on.Why won't the federal government just transfer the infrastructure money to Quebec? Afterwards, we can figure things out for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are outraged that the government is taking $1 billion from them in order to disingenuously finance Trans Mountain, a pipeline project that British Columbians and first nations are opposed to.The ploy certainly paid off: some Liberals are already contemplating using the same trick to force Quebeckers and First Nations to accept the energy east pipeline against their will with their own money.From one nation to another, can the government guarantee that the energy east project is dead for good?

Mr. Speaker, in the House yesterday, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources said, first of all, that he disagrees with the decision to impose unfair and punitive tariffs on softwood lumber; second, that he has created a federal-provincial task force, and I want to emphasize this, to support the forestry industry; and third, that he supports forestry workers. That is all great. In that case, why is his government being so inconsistent and refusing what, first of all, Quebec, second, the forestry industy, and third, the forestry workers themselves are asking for in terms of support, that is, loan guarantees?

Mr. Speaker, for the past 10 years, Quebeckers have been debating secularism and integration as well as how to ensure social peace in a society in a period of transformation, taking into consideration the diversity, beliefs, and non-beliefs of modern-day Quebeckers. It is entirely legitimate, and healthy even, for a society to have these debates. It is about reflecting, having a dialogue, coming up with solutions, and wanting to improve the quality of life of everyone. It is about asking tough questions. I repeat, this is healthy for a people.Now, can the minister tell us how, exactly, without playing politics—

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Foreign Affairs is calling for a return to free trade in softwood lumber, the Minister of International Trade has been saying for several weeks now that her officials are negotiating a new agreement. However, the Quebec forestry industry just wants one thing: a return to free trade, under NAFTA, for softwood lumber.Who is speaking on behalf of the government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is calling for free trade, or the Minister of International Trade, who is negotiating an agreement that is not suitable to Quebec's forestry industry?

Mr. Speaker, right now, Quebec's seasonal workers are in the midst of the annual employment insurance spring gap. Every year, the government stands idly by watching them fall into that gap. In eastern Quebec, however, a coalition of elected representatives, unemployed workers' associations, unions, and businesses has taken shape. I am part of that coalition, a coalition that will not be ignored, a coalition united in demanding two things: emergency measures and an immediate and permanent solution to the problem. Time is tight and the very survival of our regions is at stake, so will the government commit to adopting concrete measures, measures that actually put food on the table so that no worker, family, or community ever—

Madam Speaker, in Quebec there is consensus about the separation of church and state. However, that is not the case here.This week, the House of Commons welcomed Caliph Ahmad. To mark the occasion, some non-Muslim Liberal members wore the veil. Furthermore, there was a call to prayer right here in Centre Block.While Quebec is debating the secularism of institutions, the House of Commons is morphing into a place of worship.Have we not clearly established the separation of state and religion?Once and for all, could we please affirm secularism in institutions, starting with Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, in response to my question yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there is no place for discrimination against our citizens, as though the bill on secularism introduced by the state of Quebec were discriminatory.The bill sets rules for everyone. It is not discriminatory. The same rules will apply to everyone.Is the Prime Minister accusing the Government of Quebec and the millions of Quebeckers who support this bill of discrimination? Have the Liberals really sunk that low?

Mr. Speaker, the answer was not clear.The Bloc's position is clear. We support the religious neutrality of the Quebec state. We believe that people should give and receive services with their faces uncovered. We support the ban on public workers in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols.In the meantime, the chair of the justice committee is waiting for Bill 21 to be passed before initiating legal challenges.Will you respect the will of Quebec and not challenge Quebec's secularism bill, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec community newspaper association, which represents 81 regional newspapers back home, reacted this week to the announcement that La Presse is becoming a not-for-profit organization. Community newspapers such as Le Trait d'union du Nord have concerns about the fact that Ottawa seems more responsive to major financial groups than to our community media, who work hard with limited means to provide topnotch, essential local information. They are worried that private companies are going to end up getting their share.Will the Minister of Heritage commit to funding Quebec's community media to ensure their survival?

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I have asked the government about employment insurance for remote regions where the black hole is a fact.The government never promised to protect those workers. It is not so much that the members are ignoring an MP by refusing to answer me, it is that they are blatantly abandoning workers.I am reaching out to the Minister of National Revenue. Will she commit to standing up for her own constituents, the working people of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, as I am standing up for them in the House and standing up for my own constituents, the working people of the north shore?Will she talk to her colleague, the Minister of Labour, and work out a way to help workers by fixing the black hole problem once and for all?

Mr. Speaker, the people of La Romaine and Unamen Shipu on the lower north shore are cut off from the rest of Canada because the federal wharf no longer meets the minimum safety requirements. First the supply ship was unable to dock there and now the oil tanker will not be able to either. A month from now, the thermal plant will no longer even be able to provide electricity.Because of the federal government's negligence, the fragile connections these communities have with the mainland are at constant risk of being severed.Will the minister finally show a minimum of consideration for elected officials and local residents who are worried about their survival and agree to at least keep them informed? When do the Liberals intend to roll out an emergency plan?