44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 26, 2024 11:00AM
- Feb/26/24 3:07:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is imminently. It is going to happen right away.
I want to thank all parties, because it is through co-operation and working together, the mechanism that we set forth. Remember that it is the Public Health Agency of Canada that makes decisions around redactions. We set forward a collaborative process that all parties participated in. As a result of that, this is exactly why additional information will be deposed before the House, and that additional information was exactly the intention in setting up that committee. That means Canadians will have additional views on the information therein.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:07:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the four MPs on the Winnipeg lab committee found that most of the information the government withheld from Parliament was withheld to shield the Prime Minister and ministers from embarrassment rather than to protect national security. These four MPs, including a Liberal member, recommended that the majority of the information withheld by the government be made public.
Will the government finally admit that its decision to withhold documents from Parliament was not to protect national security, but rather to protect itself from political embarrassment?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:08:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across knows very well that it is the Public Health Agency of Canada, not the Government of Canada, that makes the decision with respect to redactions. Those decisions have to do with national security and also with the protection of employees. What we said, and, by the way, what was initiated by this government, was that there were questions that parliamentarians had, wishing to see additional information.
I would remind us that the Conservatives did not want to participate in this process. They actually were against participating in the process that produced the documents. It was the NDP, then the Bloc and then the Conservatives who all participated. That is exactly why this information is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:09:07 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I would ask the member for Ajax and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to please take their conversation outside of the chamber or ask questions and receive responses.
The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:09:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during the pandemic, we reached a historic agreement with Moderna to create life-saving vaccines in Laval.
Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry tell us how the work on this facility is progressing and what it means for jobs, growth and the success of Canada's biomanufacturing sector?
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:10:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laval—Les Îles and all my colleagues from Laval.
On Friday, I joined my colleagues to celebrate the completion of construction on Moderna's state-of-the-art plant. It is located here in Canada and will be able to manufacture 100 million vaccines to protect the health and safety of Canadians. I was joined there by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement.
This is great news for Laval and the Montreal area, great news for research and great news for maintaining Canada's position as a world leader in life sciences.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:11:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the Chaudière-Appalaches region, a violent crime wave is stirring up strong emotions and feelings of insecurity.
These crimes confirm the alarming increase in violence in this country, which, under this government, has seen a 39% increase in violent crime and a 61% increase in assaults with a weapon or causing bodily harm. That is the sorry track record after eight years of this Prime Minister.
When will he reverse his soft-on-crime policies and send criminals to prison where they belong?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way.
I want all Canadians watching us right now to know that crime in our communities is a priority for every parliamentarian in the House.
That being said, with Bill C‑48, which was just enacted two months ago and deals with bail, we focused specifically on the most violent offenders who used a firearm in the commission of their crime. We are aiming for a situation where these individuals will stay in prison.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:12:30 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's policies let violent criminals serve their sentences in the comfort of their living rooms, thanks to Bill C‑5, which the Bloc Québécois supported.
Another consequence of this slipshod legislation has made the news: A former police officer who lured a teenage girl is serving his sentence at home. That is unacceptable given that sexual violence is up 71%.
What does the Prime Minister have to say to the victim who had the courage to speak out and is seeing her attacker get a slap on the wrist?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:13:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, violent and sexual crimes have been a top priority for our government since we came to power.
We have addressed intimate partner violence a number of times in our own bills in terms of bail and other sentences.
When it comes to mandatory minimum sentences, however, we are at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from the Conservative Party. To deal with indigenous and Black overrepresentation in our prisons, in our justice systems, we have to focus on the actual sentences.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:13:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives will stop the crime that the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister has unleashed on our streets for eight years. Instead of enforcing the law and stopping crime, he is going after law-abiding sport shooters and hunters.
Machine guns have been illegal in Canada since the 1970s, but last week, caught on video, violent attackers with machine guns opened fire at a home in small city White Rock.
Why does the Prime Minister prioritize billions of dollars going after hunters and lawful gun owners instead of the real criminals?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:14:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our government has been steadfast and focused when it comes to going after serious criminals, something the Conservatives cannot actually talk about. As they yell out, it would be interesting for Canadians to know that during their time in office, they cut 600 RCMP employees from being able to operate across the country.
The so-called “common-sense Conservatives” means cuts to policing. We are cleaning up the mess they created.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:15:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, investments in infrastructure like roads, highways and bridges are crucial for our supply chains, local economies and traditional industries, commuters and all Canadians.
Last week, our government, along with the Province of Prince Edward Island, invested over $21 million to improve local roads, benefiting islanders and building on significant infrastructure investments.
Could the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities share with the House the government's policy on projects like this and how they benefit rural communities?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:15:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy to get roads built in his community.
This announcement, worth more than $21 million, is going to help build or improve 149 kilometres of road on the island. We continue to fund different road supports across programs, whether it is the Canada community-building fund, the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, the national trade corridors fund or the investing in Canada infrastructure plan, which included specifically eligibility for rural roads.
We have programs in Calgary, in my own constituency in Nova Scotia and on the island. We are going to keep doing what it takes to put people to work in good-paying jobs that build communities.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:16:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are struggling with the rising cost of food, and it is even worse in northern and indigenous communities, where the lack of competition has allowed NorthMart, often the only option, to jack up the cost of food without consequence.
The Liberals are choosing to stand with wealthy CEOs instead of helping families afford food. In addition to competition, first nations like Garden Hill need reliable all-weather roads to be able to bring in food and supplies.
When will the Liberals stop subsidizing CEO profits, take on the grocery giants and stand up for northerners?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:17:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are working with provincial governments, territorial governments, indigenous governments and communities in the north to address the very real challenges that are in the north: isolation, lack of infrastructure, the high price of food and the high price of absolutely everything.
With the partnerships we have, I am confident that progress is being made, but there is so much more to do, and we will get it done.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:17:41 p.m.
- Watch
I have a statement I would like to make.
The Chair would like to take a few minutes to share with the House some brief reflections on our proceedings since the resumption of the session at the end of January. This is quite relevant today.
Since my election as your Speaker, I have made it my main goal to work toward improving the decorum of this place. I have received feedback and support from whips, which led to some improvements. I am grateful for their efforts.
In my observations, I have also noticed the vast majority of exchanges during the sitting day are productive and are worthy of our institution, and for this, I express my gratitude to all as it is incumbent on all of us to elevate the quality of our proceedings. That being said, there has been a slow but steady increase in language and expressions that have been perceived to be inflammatory. The Chair wishes to address this as we move toward the spring session.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:20:06 p.m.
- Watch
During key moments, remarks have, at times, gotten too close to the limit of what is considered respectful and courteous, or even in good taste. Other interventions have clearly crossed the line of unparliamentary language. As a result, proceedings were often interrupted by a Chair's interventions or by points of order generated by the conduct of members from all sides of the House.
In some cases, the use of certain expressions or language was determined by the Chair to be unparliamentary and resulted in the withdrawal of the offending term or an apology from the member. In those instances, the Chair considered the matter closed and we moved on. There are other times when the Chair has issued warnings, encouraging members to stay away from certain terms. While not finding them unparliamentary, they do contribute to disorder and we would all be best served by avoiding this sort of language.
On other occasions, the Chair has ruled that something was considered “a matter of debate”. When a Chair rules that a particular statement is a matter of debate, the Chair is saying that there is a debatable point in the balance as opposed to a personal attack, the use of an easily identifiable unparliamentary term or an exchange that results in disorder. Insofar as debate can, on occasion, be sharp and tense, even sometimes causing some members to take offence, it can still fall within the realm of an acceptable discourse in the House. The Chair will continue to make these distinctions when necessary.
Even when there was no finding of the actions or language in question being unparliamentary in a strict sense, it is evident to the Chair and to those watching our debates that the accumulation of this sort of behaviour has had a negative lingering effect on our proceedings. Since January, the Chair has heard statements that were excessively provocative and insulting.
These sorts of comments have proven to be disruptive to our proceedings, hurtful to members, detrimental to moving our work forward, and beneath the high office we hold as members of parliament.
On December 12, 2012, one of my predecessors had observed, at page 13,215 of Debates:
The House is also an inherently adversarial forum that tends to foster conflict. As a result, sometimes emotions get the better of us and we quickly find ourselves in situations marked by disorderly conduct. Tone and gestures can cause as much of a reaction as the words used in debate. Lately, it appears that at different times the mood of the House has strayed quite far from the flexibility, accommodation and balance that ideally ought to exist in this place.
Regardless of whether the Chair finds language unparliamentary, it is incumbent upon all members to judiciously consider their remarks. As I stated on October 18, 2023, at page 17584 of the Debates, and I quote:
The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended. While the Chair must allow the widest possible range of individual expression possible, members are expected to be mindful of their words and behaviours within the realm of what would be considered parliamentary.
The Chair, and by this I mean myself and my fellow presiding officers, therefore, encourages all members to take part in our proceedings, even vigorously and passionately, as the case may be, but to do so in a civilized and respectful manner in accordance with our own rules.
The Chair will continue applying the rules, fairly and forcefully when required, but in the end, it is every member's responsibility to exercise a reasonable degree of self-discipline and restraint while exercising their privilege of freedom of speech.
I thank all members for their attention and for their continued efforts in improving decorum in the House.
640 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:26:12 p.m.
- Watch
I am also now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 8, by the member for Regina—Lewvan concerning allegedly misleading statements made in the House by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
In raising his question of privilege, the member alleged that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change had misled the House during Oral Questions on February 7 and 8, when they implied that he said there is no link between the carbon tax and food prices. The member quoted one of the statements he made in the House on February 6, to assert that, in fact, he had made such a link. In the member's view, this misrepresentation rose to the level of a prima facie question of privilege.
The question of privilege the Chair is being asked to rule on can be summarized as follows: determining whether the statements of the Prime Minister and the minister contain inaccuracies that would show that they knowingly misled the House.
When the member raised his question of privilege in the House, he rightly referred to the three conditions that must be met for the Chair to find a prima facie case of privilege. In my ruling of February 15, 2024, I laid out those three conditions. I would encourage members to review that ruling.
In a similar situation, one of my predecessors said, in a ruling on April 30, 2014, which can be found on page 4,753 of Debates:
Thus, it is not sufficient for members to simply make allegations based on their perceptions of what is or is not factually correct. Members must recognize and accept the existence of differences of fact and interpretation, which have always been a part of the normal cut and thrust of debate and question period.
As for the question of privilege before us, I reviewed the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change during oral questions on February 7 and 8, 2024. The Chair could not find in those statements any grounds to conclude that those members knew their answers were misleading or that they intended to mislead the House.
The member for Regina—Lewvan was able to correct the record by explaining his intent and his point of view. In my opinion, we are therefore dealing with a matter of debate. Consequently, the Chair cannot find a prima facie case of privilege here.
I thank all members for their attention.
424 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-63, An Act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
