Debates of May 19th, 2016

Reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I read section 265(1). Clearly, if someone outside of these doors grabs somebody by the arm and drag the person down the hall unwillingly, it would be committing an offence. That is the average person, let alone someone who is entrusted with highest elected office in the federal government. Not only is it the responsibility of the Prime Minister to act in accordance with the laws of Canada, but to set an example, a much higher example, based on the office and responsibility he holds.

If behaviour like that occurred outside of the doors in front of a law enforcement officer, there would be consequences and they would have to be dealt with.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was right here. It was six feet away from me so I saw what happened yesterday. I was in a state of shock as I watched it happen. The Prime Minister came over the first time and then he came over a second time. I could not believe what I was seeing.

However, on reflection and hearing what others have said, I sense there is a pattern, that this is not a one-off incident for which the Prime Minister is now apologizing.

We have heard about Motion No. 6 and what that would do. We have seen the domineering and dictatorial approaches in committee practice. There is a tone in the House. Who is responsible for setting that tone? Is it the government? If tension in the House has built up to a manifestation that we experienced yesterday, are other things adding to it? Does he think this is a one-off, or is this a pattern that is really concerning, one which the government needs to address? We may even be dealing with a bigger issue.

There is the apology for an assault, but could the member comment on the bigger picture? What is happening in the House that we have never seen happen before.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I alluded to this as far as a pattern of behaviour. I was hopeful. A lot of positive words were said during the campaign and after the campaign. I thought we might have a good working relationship. Then the evidence started to build from the time when the Liberal Party took government and started to simply repeal legislation, piece after piece, then started to call time allocation to restrict our capability of debating.

Then there was something unprecedented, a change in the calendar midstream after an agreement. Agreements are traditionally kept. Promises are made and kept by House leaders, but the calender was then changed so nobody could prepare for debate.

Of course there is the draconian motion that would take away our capabilities of being able to represent our constituents properly. Then there is the behaviour. Yes, I am very concerned a pattern is evolving here, and it is troubling and worsening.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not here today debating if yesterday's behaviour or conduct was appropriate. I think we would all say that what we witnessed yesterday was not what we wanted to see in the House.

However, today I rise to speak to a question of privilege raised last evening. That question of privilege concerns the actions of the Prime Minister in regards to last evening's incident.

I would begin by noting that the Prime Minister yesterday, and today, at the first opportunity, rose to offer his heartfelt apology for his actions, for which he took full responsibility. I spoke to him at length last night, and other people on his team, and there is no doubt that the Prime Minister's apology is both fulsome and extremely sincere.

Yesterday was a highly emotional day on many fronts. Many of us had been listening to Canadians about their thoughts on the medical assistance in dying bill, which is before the House at this time. Frustrations with the progress of the bill and other matters have caused emotions to run very high on both sides of the House, both in the front benches and also in the backbenches.

The Prime Minister has made commitments and followed through on them to try to make the House a more functional and respectful institution. He is, however, like everyone else who is sitting here, fallible. He has never professed to be anything but that. He let his emotions take a hold of his better judgment and conducted himself in a way that he himself said was unacceptable.

We do in the House have a tradition that we take members at their word and accept their truthfulness in their statements. The Prime Minister's apology was unreserved and absolute. I think that everyone who has met the Prime Minister, and those who know him, know that he sometimes wears his heart on his sleeve, and that he is an honourable man in every sense of the word.

Let us go over what happened yesterday, and I hope we can kind of put a few facts to the situation.

As the chamber prepared to vote, there was some obstruction in the aisle, apparently intentional, delaying the proceedings. The Prime Minister then rose, crossed the aisle, and intervened to expedite the Conservative's whip's progress so the vote could proceed. In the course of this intervention, the Prime Minister unintentionally made contact with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé was understandably upset by the incident and left the chamber. I can completely appreciate what she was going through. The member did not record her vote as a result of these events. The outcome, we can agree, was absolutely not right, and we saw that.

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé stated that she was unable to vote. She was undoubtedly shaken up by this very unfortunate incident. Therefore, I believe one action that could be taken would be to seek unanimous consent for the member's vote to be recorded in the manner in which she wished to vote. I can assure the House that if such a motion were to be made, that this side of the House would absolutely agree with it.

Twice, if not three times, the Prime Minister has sincerely apologized for his inadvisable actions. Physical intervention is never appropriate in this chamber. However, in so far as the Prime Minister made contact with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, and in so far as he may have thereby interfered with her privilege as a parliamentarian, it was unintentional. This is the truth. Video of the event will absolutely confirm this.

As well, I found it of great benefit yesterday when I was in the House to hear a fair account of the event from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The member had a close and clear view of the situation, in which she was not involved. In addition, not belonging to any caucus involved, that independence may afford her a greater degree of objectivity in observing, assessing, and describing the events. I would quote her remarks as follows:

What we saw was unacceptable, but let us keep it in perspective. What I saw that was unwise and unacceptable was that Prime Minister deliberately trying to move a vote along. There was some mischief. Let us face it. There was some mischief on the floor... there was an attempt to slow down the vote. There is no doubt about that, but it was innocent mischief...

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands continued to say that:

I am trying to keep this in perspective....It was most unwise of the Prime Minister to attempt to move along the vote by moving along the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. That movement was clearly contact that was unwanted.

The second contact with my friend, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, which was certainly the one that was the most emotional for the member involved, was clearly, from my perspective, and I confirm what the member for King—Vaughan said, unintentional. I have to say that I saw the Prime Minister following the hon. member, trying to reach her, saying how very sorry he was, that he had not seen her behind him. That is the truth. Members can like it or not like it, but nothing that happened here today reflects well on us.

That is a fair and reasonable account of the situation. To summarize, there was some mischief delaying the proceedings. The Prime Minister chose to intervene. He agrees this was inadvisable and unacceptable, and has offered an unreserved apology to the House for his actions.

In the course of his interventions, the Prime Minister made unintentional contact with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. That was an accident. However, the member was justly aggrieved at the contact, no matter it was accidental, and for that, the Prime Minister has also apologized not only to the chamber but personally to the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

The Prime Minister is very sorry. He said:

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity, now that the member is able to return to the House, to express directly to her my apologies for my behaviour and my actions, unreservedly.

The physical integrity of members of the House is and must be imperative. This is at the heart of our democracy. Cooler heads must prevail. We must not lose our respect, our sense of collegiality, and our sense of shared purpose. That statement would justly apply to attempts to delay or disrupt our democratic proceedings. However, that statement would also apply to our responses to disruption.

The Prime Minister's actions to intervene were inadvisable and unacceptable. The accidental results were inappropriate, and I must underline that. So far, the Prime Minister has apologized on several occasions. However, I would take issue with any member who would suggest the Prime Minister intentionally made contact with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. To make such a suggestion is not letting cooler heads prevail. It is not making a fair and reasonable judgment of the situation. To allege that this was an instance of gender-based violence is making light of violence.

I can tell members that I know a lot about violence. For the past 24 years, before entering public life, I was the coordinator of the Codiac RCMP victim services program. I have worked with thousands of victims of violence: victims of domestic violence, victims of sexual violence, victims of random violence, and the list goes on. I certainly do know the consequences of violence. I have also provided crisis counselling, crisis intervention, and risk assessments for many of the victims I have worked with. Also, I was the chair of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women. My role was truly to promote women's rights and equality.

What took place yesterday was inadvisable, but to call it gender-based violence, to make exaggerations and misrepresentations about the nature of the incident is really irresponsible and wrong. It does not help us take the culture in this place where it needs to be, and it does a disservice to victims of violence.

In this chamber, none would condone violence, but this was not gender-based violence. Calling it such is wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right. We have a duty to stick to the facts, to find the truth, and to form our judgments from the truth.

I have called the account of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands fair and reasonable. I think we all need to endeavour to work hard to be fair and reasonable. The political process does not always encourage these qualities, and today, I hope the temperature will go down a bit. We all need to focus on the work that needs to be done, the work we need to do as lawmakers.

We need to work together. We have so much work that needs to be done. On two occasions yesterday, the government asked for unanimous consent to pass the motion to have this matter dealt with by the appropriate committee of the House, that being PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee. Twice that consent was not given.

The outrage shown by the opposition, both real and enhanced, has led us to where we are now. I cannot see what other action the Prime Minister can take to put this matter to rest.

The House must continue to do the work that we are elected to do. I hope that we can move past this unfortunate incident with assurance that such actions will never ever happen again. Tensions have undoubtedly been running very high. With the stress of meeting the Supreme Court's tight timeline on a vitally important piece of legislation at this time of year, things have been getting intense. I again say that we all need to take a breath and let cooler heads prevail. Let us keep our focus on doing the public's work for the public good. That is what Canadians expect of us.

It is a special honour and responsibility for all of us to be here. We must move forward. The apology has been made. Let us get the work done.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to most of those comments while eating my lunch, and then I came back in here because I felt it was very important that we actually discuss this.

First, the member quoted many members of Parliament, but she did not actually quote the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

Yesterday, I was sitting in this House and I said to my friend from New Brunswick Southwest, who is a member of the government, that I had to leave and take an adult timeout. I am a 45-year-old woman, similar in age to the Prime Minister. As an adult, I recognized that I was losing my cool, that I was not happy with the way things were going in the House. Therefore, I took a stance, removed myself from the House, had a breath of fresh air, and came back in.

I did watch what the Prime Minister did yesterday. Actually he and I had some words. Because I feel I can communicate with many members, I said to him that I saw the anger. That is something we have to look at. He is the leader of our country. He needs to be the leader of all Canadians. What I saw last night on Twitter was absolutely disgusting. I saw that the NDP member who had been hit—yes, by accident; I do agree it was an accident—was not just victimized about being hit, but her integrity was totally thrown overboard. No one really cared. They were saying that she was a drama queen, and this and that. That is not what this is about. Although I have great respect for the member for Hull—Aylmer, with respect to his comments about this being a soccer match, yes, it was a soccer match, and our Prime Minister should have been given a red card. His actions were out of line.

When I am not a member of Parliament, I am a mother of five children. I, too, have had to learn to take an adult timeout. The Prime Minister felt that he needed to go over there and say, “We need to do this”. He is not the king of the castle. We are members of Parliament and we need to all work together. If I as the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London recognized that things were getting out of hand, why could he not sit back, allow things to take place, and act as an adult, rather than interfering in something that he had no business interfering which resulted in where we are today? We can talk about wanting to talk about Bill C-14, because we all do, but unfortunately because of what happened we cannot, and those actions must be discussed.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I really have to agree that much needs to be changed in this House when it comes to decorum.

I am a member of PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee. As a new member of Parliament, and as a social worker who is not used to working in such an adversarial environment, as my first experience here, I have to say that I was shocked. I even brought it up at PROC. A lot of work needs to be done by all parliamentarians.

I would also say that I have to hand it to our Prime Minister for speaking up right away and apologizing for his actions. He is making no excuse for what happened yesterday and also today. I have to respect him for that. He is taking full responsibility for exactly what has happened.

With respect to the decorum in the House, I believe that we all have a role to play here. When we are speaking, it would be very good if members would not speak over one another. Again, as a new parliamentarian, perhaps if we are a bit objective when we get here we can give some positive feedback. I would encourage all members of this House to sit down and let us work together, because I think that we all want to get the job done.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the Prime Minister's apology this morning. If he had made that apology last night, it would have de-escalated things a lot.

I am dismayed to hear the member now revisit and reopen things, and try to justify and qualify what was said. We have had a significant setback by virtue of the member's intervention just now. I am very discouraged to hear her referencing the comments from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who could not sit further away, in the sixth row. Why would those comments be highlighted?

Again, this morning we have had an apology with no qualifications and no attempt by the Prime Minister to justify any of his actions. That was classy. Last night was not, by anybody on the other side.

I ask the member, were the comments she made on behalf of her party and her government? If they are, this is a serious setback to what we heard from the Prime Minister this morning.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, not at all.

First and foremost, we have to recognize that if PROC is going to be looking at this issue, we really have to make sure that we collect all of the information on what occurred yesterday. The role of PROC is really to be the collector of facts, and that is really what the role is going to be.

It is important to make sure that we have a clear picture of what happened yesterday. I am in no way trying to justify the actions that happened here yesterday by all of the members who were involved, actually.

Our Prime Minister was very quick to give his apology, his sincere apology, yesterday and again today. If he can do anything to make the situation better for the member involved, he truly wants to do that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my hon. colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe spoke about her experience as a social worker and said that she had witnessed similar situations.

Yesterday, my colleague from Ontario, our whip, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, was grabbed, bullied, and subjected to verbal and physical violence and bullying. Ultimately, this is our workplace.

Since my colleague has experience in this field, could she tell us what kind of disciplinary action or consequences someone would face for committing such an act in a workplace? I would like to know whether there are any therapies or programs. Normally, what kind of measures would be taken in a workplace in similar circumstances?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

In the past, I saw people who had been victims of workplace situations or incidents that were not appropriate.

However, the first thing that happened was that our Prime Minister admitted to making a mistake. In many cases, when one wants to repair a relationship, that is the first step. The mistake must be not only admitted to, but admitted to sincerely. The Prime Minister wants to ensure that the people who were affected know that what he said was very sincere.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the same question to the hon. member who just spoke that I put to the Prime Minister. I was very disappointed that he did not respond.

The hon. member just spoke of the importance of decorum in this House. We all understand that what we saw last night went beyond the definition of decorum. It was essentially seen as an assault, not necessarily an assault on my colleague but certainly an assault on the Conservative Party whip.

What troubles me is the member seems to be suggesting that if we returned to a sense of decorum in the House, everything would be fine and we would all be the same. I will put the question to her that I put to the Prime Minister which he refused to respond.

There have been a lot of problems in this place this week because of the actions taken by her government, such as Motion No. 6 which would take away all of our rights and privileges to participate reasonably and properly in this House to represent our constituents.

Will the member speak to that matter? It is very important that that be one of the matters addressed if we are going to move forward and work collaboratively on good legislation on behalf of Canadians.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we all have a responsibility as parliamentarians to work collaboratively to make sure that we influence good public policy, and that we bring laws forward.

At this point in time, our government has a very tight agenda, and a lot of bills need to be passed. We have to work to ensure that that work is done. That is truly what Canadians expect of us.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Before I comment on the matter before us this morning, I would like to make a comparison with the discussions we had about Bill C-14.

The discussion started off well enough. I am very happy to have been a member of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, where the quality of the debate was very mature. I really enjoyed collaborating with my Liberal and Conservative colleagues on our committee's work. We were all motivated by a desire to work together to get the best results for the people we represent. Even though we did not always agree, our discussions were always respectful.

Our life experiences make us who we are today. Personally, regardless of the situation, I always pay attention to the people around me. Someone just said that, when emotions are running high, our actions may be out of character. No. When my emotions are running high, I am always respectful of the people around me.

I was therefore saying that the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying managed to discuss the issue respectfully. Last week, I attended the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to examine Bill C-14 clause by clause. I think that may have been the beginning of what we saw yesterday. I did not get the impression that the Liberal members who were at that meeting were open to discussion.

My life experience has taught me that discussion and debate yield better results. I did not get the impression that the members at that meeting were open to debate. The members were there, but some of them did not even seem to be interested in the discussion. They were just there to obey the order they had received to vote against any amendments proposed by the opposition.

This week, time allocation motions were moved, motions that would prevent members from speaking in the House. One Liberal colleague made an interesting analogy. When I asked him why we could not have a discussion about Bill C-14, he told me that even he had tried, but it is as though the government is caught in a rushing stream moving toward the deadline, toward its goal, and going against the government right now is like trying to swim against the current at Niagara Falls.

When a government adopts the attitude of wanting to achieve a certain goal at all costs, it will run roughshod over anything standing in its way. In my life, there is something that I refuse to ever accept and that is the excuse that the end justifies the means. That should be unacceptable. I think that we were all able to see the result of that attitude yesterday.

We really need to ensure that our debates in the House are respectful. That is the only way that we will be able to honour the privilege that we have been given of being here to represent our constituents.

In her speech, I heard my Liberal colleague trivialize yesterday's behaviour, and we saw that attitude yesterday as well.

When someone witnesses an act of violence or intimidation and thinks that the victim is partially responsible, that should raise a red flag. That line of reasoning is wrong. Under no circumstances is a victim of an act of violence or intimidation ever responsible for that act.

Some Liberal members are trivializing what happened, saying that he is a good person. I too am a good person and I am never disrespectful towards anyone. I would never do anything that might hurt anyone around me. If genuine respect guides us in all our actions and in all situations, we can ensure that we will always be considerate of those around us.

In his apology this morning, the Prime Minister said that he did not pay attention to his surroundings. When the committee examines this matter, it will have to decide what the consequences should be, and then we will all know what consequences we can expect if we do not pay attention to our surroundings in the House. That is crucial.

What is more, people keep talking about bringing decorum back to this House. Unfortunately, since this government came to power, there has been plenty of lip service, but very little in the way of real measures. If it really wants to bring back decorum, the government should start by withdrawing Motion No. 6, which muzzles the opposition and limits our rights as parliamentarians. That would be far more meaningful as a concrete gesture than any empty rhetoric the Liberals could spew here today.

Some concrete action needs to come from this debate, and we must leave room for discussion. This morning the Minister of Health said that she hoped we would make a wise decision regarding Bill C-14. In order to do so, parliamentarians must be allowed to continue the discussion and debate.

Yesterday's incident occurred when the government was trying to curtail debate. It is the attitude that we saw this week that led to yesterday's actions. After the Prime Minister's apology, some Liberal MPs rose in the House to make light of the situation.

In the House, we must not make light of acts of violence and bullying. Yesterday, when I compared what happened to other acts of violence, that is exactly what I wanted to convey. We must not make light of acts of violence and bullying, no matter where they are committed. This belief must be very clear in everything that is said in the House.

We have the privilege of representing citizens. Consequently, we must rise above what we witnessed yesterday. Since yesterday, I have heard people say that we have to put things into context. The context and the facts are very clear, though, and we must not try to make light of them. It is important that there be very clear consequences for yesterday's actions. The best thing that the government could do about this incident is withdraw Motion No. 6.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. We both served on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. It went very well. The proceedings were cordial, warm, and respectful, even though, at the end of the day, we all have different points of view. That is democracy. That is how parliamentary business works.

I have a lot of respect for my colleague, even though we disagree on about 95%, or even 100%, of social and economic issues. That is democracy. That is what we must protect. I have a very simple question for my colleague. Yesterday, at around 7 p.m., she made a statement comparing yesterday's events and violence against women, which garnered a strong reaction in Quebec.

The member has special expertise on this issue, having worked in shelters for women who are victims of violence. I would like the member to clarify her perspective, since we must admit that yesterday, in Quebec, and even on the Radio-Canada evening news, some people felt that this type of comparison was a bit of a stretch. I want to give the member the opportunity to explain her thinking.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Indeed, taken out of context, my words could have meant a lot of things. The key word in his question is “parallel” because yesterday I was indeed drawing a parallel. From my experience working on domestic abuse cases, often in these situations friends of the guilty party tend to downplay the situation, saying that the victim asked for it. That is the parallel that sprang to mind when I heard colleagues saying that she should not have been there, she should not have been in the middle of the room, as if she were responsible for what happened to her. That was the parallel I was trying to make.

Likewise, when a child is bullied in the schoolyard, it is not right to ask what he did to provoke the bullying. The bully is responsible for what happened, not the person who was bullied or assaulted. That is the parallel I wanted to draw yesterday. I hope I answered my colleague's question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and respect to my colleague.

In my 12 years, I have learned some things about this institution. Parliament may seem to be a very strong institution going back centuries, but it is also a very fragile institution. At the end of the day, it is based on the principle of the fundamental goodwill of the members to work together.

What we have seen here over this past week is a disintegration of a way of working together, which led to the unfortunate event of last night. What we need to look at is how we got there. The fact was that it was the Prime Minister who became upset at that moment, but it could have been any member. I am not going to excuse his behaviour, but we have to go back to the disintegration of what is happening in this House and talk honestly about how to go forward.

When we go to these tit-for-tat procedural wars, the fundamental trust breaks down and people end up doing things that they regret. We have to be with one another in the coming four years, and it will be tense at times, but the government does have a majority. It does have the power to get its mandate through, which is the will and the mandate that the people of Canada gave the Liberals. However, the people of Canada also gave us as parliamentarians our obligations.

It would be, for me, a very good sign of de-escalating to remove Motion No. 6. The idea that in Parliament a minister could arbitrarily end debate by saying it is over means that we as opposition members would be acting as visitors in our House. That the government could suspend for the summer simply by saying we are suspending for the summer is a breach of rules that we have never had.

I would ask my colleagues on the other side, and ask the member, what she thinks about this. We need to bring ourselves back to a place where we can restore the respect we need to show the Canadian people by working together. We have to find a way through this, and I prefer to do this now, so we can end this and find a way to show this House the dignity that it needs to have.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I got into politics to try to help make people less cynical about politics. I believe that what happened yesterday only made people more cynical.

As I said from the outset, I was lucky because the first parliamentary committee I sat on is a committee where we were able to work together respectfully and we achieved the best possible result following our exchanges.

I sincerely hope that the government stops trying to get its way by all means possible. The end does not justify the means.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to feel unsettled about what happened in this chamber last night. I think many of us are feeling the same way. The Prime Minister's actions were disappointing; they were shocking; they were unprecedented.

Many of us have said it this morning, but again, in no workplace would swearing or grabbing of colleagues, male or female, be allowed. It should not have happened.

I will echo my colleague's comments. Cynicism about senior governments and cynicism about this place is a big problem in this country, and it affects the work we do here. The government was elected on such a message of hope and change and optimism after, frankly, a dark decade with the Conservative government—I will say that again—and that hope and change is betrayed by the actions that have happened, particularly this week, in this House.

We had a very strong message from voters to work together, and we saw that on Tuesday, when my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke stood together with the Minister of Justice. To have her take entirely the bill on transgender rights that he has worked on for so many years, to have that co-operation across the aisle, to have them stand together was a very beautiful and very powerful and respectful moment, very respectful of my NDP colleague's work. I am thankful to the Minister of Justice for doing that. That is an example of where we can work together, work co-operatively and set a different tone.

The profile of feminism that the government has set has been noticed around the world. Now every country is having the same conversation. We have a unique opportunity in the world right now to truly bring gender equality and to bring gender into all our conversations, and I commend the government for setting that tone.

Why then would we dial that back this week? We also had a great example of tone in this House around our debates until midnight, those of us who sat together until midnight, both to talk so powerfully and sorrowfully about the tragedy of suicide in Attawapiskat and then a couple of weeks later to talk about physician-assisted dying, a very emotional, very personal discussion, and to have members of all parties speak from the heart on this and have us speak together. That is the kind of work we should be doing together.

To contrast that to yesterday, to see the Prime Minister intervene in a way that was completely outside his job description, completely inappropriate and completely rattling of all of us, to see grabbing and swearing, was shocking to all of us. It feels like bullying, I have to say. We have seen the government shut down debate on five of its 15 bills. It did not need to do that. It has a majority. It will get its way at the end of the day. Why would it invoke closure and stifle debate in this House?

Why would the government have pushed past the very powerful advice that its committee on physician-assisted dying gave? Why would it not have reflected the advice of that all-party partial consensus in its legislation? It just feels like a disregard. Why would the government take a majority on its democratic reform committee? It has a majority in the House; why not take these opportunities to work together, as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley proposed, to have the committee designed in a different and innovative way? It did not take those opportunities.

More than anything, we were elected to give voice to our voters and voice to our ridings, and the actions this week and what feels to me like bullying are impeding that. I have been waiting four days to give a speech about physician-assisted dying. Every time I have come to work ready to give that speech, the government has been throwing spanners in the works all week.

The Liberals then asked us to debate, all of a sudden with no notice, the immigration bill. We have not talked about that for weeks. Then all of a sudden we were talking about RCMP collective bargaining. Then there was a copyright bill that we had not debated at all. We were kind of jumping around all over the map. There was so much consensus in the House that we moved through the copyright bill very quickly, but again, why make us jump all over the map when the true emergency is the bill on physician-assisted dying. It is very discouraging.

We should remember that what we were voting on last night was a motion that the government moved to invoke closure on debate around the physician-assisted dying legislation, very heated and passionate. Why would the Liberals stifle debate on this? It was in that atmosphere that the Prime Minister charged across the aisle when he did not need to and came into physical contact with two members on this side of the House.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, PROC, is going to look at this issue. I am concerned, given that the government has a majority on that committee, that it might bully its way there also. I would love to hear members on the other side reassure me on that point.

There is another bullying motion, Motion No. 6, which was announced yesterday morning, an unprecedented straitjacket on the work of the opposition and an unprecedented stifling of the ability of members of Parliament, elected democratically in their ridings, to give voice to their constituents' concerns. It is extremely troubling.

It is clear that high tensions yesterday affected everybody in the House, but the government imposed those tensions, both by shutting down debate on five out of 15 pieces of legislation that have been in the House already and by proposing Motion No. 6 to hamper the opposition. The government chose to do that and the Prime Minister chose to leave his seat and get physically entangled with members on the other side. That was his decision.

I do appreciate his apology this morning. If he had given that unqualified apology last night, it would have gone a lot further. It was important for him to have said it immediately. I am glad that, 15 hours later, he said to us in the House.

I encourage the government to back down from its strong-arming of this legislation. It should allow us to do our work, to represent our voters and our ridings, and to speak true voice to all the important issues before the House. The government should recommit to a workplace in which swearing and grabbing are never allowed and nobody ever tries to justify it; they say it is not allowed. The government should also abandon Motion No. 6. The House has to be able to do its work.

New Democrats believe in working together with all parties to get things done and improving the tone in the House. However, the Liberals need to take leadership to make this happen, and they lost a lot of ground last night. Canadians have a right to expect decorum in the House, to expect workplace safety, and to expect better things in Parliament than what they saw yesterday; and New Democrats are determined to work with all parties to make that happen.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is troubling me is the number of tweets being sent out by the public, which seem to be undermining even the heartfelt apology by the Prime Minister, who has admitted that his behaviour was untoward in this place and against the recognized rules of the House.

There are two really important things on which there is unanimity today. One is that Prime Minister acted in an untoward way, and he has apologized for that. The second is that we need unanimity on the fact that we need to have the rights and privileges of all members in this place. I do not think we can move forward until we go in that direction.

I do not know what kind of message the members on the other side are sending out to the public. I do not expect that they should take any responsibility for what people tweet, but we need to be unanimous in saying we would like proper behaviour to return to this place. It is very important that we work in a cordial and reasonable way, even if we disagree.

None of us should send the message that we do not accept the apology the Prime Minister gave. He agrees his behaviour was wrong and he has sincerely apologized. I am starting to feel uncomfortable that not all members agree and maybe have not accepted the Prime Minister's apology. My colleagues have accepted the apology.

I wonder if my colleague could speak about these two actions that need to occur so that we can move forward and work on the important work of this place.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I think we often see in social media, and just in conversations around the country, is an attempt to justify what is unjustifiable. This happens in domestic violence all the time.

I am not saying that what happened on the floor yesterday was domestic violence. I am not saying that at all. I want to be really clear on that.

However, when we do see people weighing in, trying to justify the unjustifiable, that is a sign to me that we have a lot of work to do in our country about workplace violence, about violence in our lives generally. That is why I am so proud that our status of women committee has violence against young women and girls as a high priority. A number of members of the House are part of that committee. It is why I am so pleased that New Democrats have led on a commitment, working with non-governmental organizations and the labour movement, to establish a national violence against women strategy. I am very glad to see the government has a commitment to that, also. It especially says why it is so important for the leaders in this House, and the Prime Minister more than anybody, to set the tone and to never let there be any room to blame victims of violence in any form.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her gracious and generous words, and also my other colleague. I guess I do see this slightly differently. Since the Liberals are so interested in talking about facts, we should probably review what happened. It was not accidental, or magical, or unintentional that the Prime Minister ended up going from his seat to over here in this corner, then grabbed our whip, frog-marched him down the aisle four or five seats, and in his anger, elbowed the NDP member and knocked her into the desk and did not notice that happened because he was so angry. That is actually the fact. There was no debate going on. It was not heated. It was not emotional. That was a choice that he made to end up over there and cause that act.

What is concerning is that, in his words last night and today, and in the words from some other members, there is an effort to rationalize, to excuse, and to diminish what occurred and to act as if it just sort of happened magically and unintentionally. I think that is very troubling. Many of his comments and those from other members have devolved into a lecture on the behaviour and the decorum of the rest of us. They are trying to turn this into a collective issue, but only one person is actually responsible and accountable for what happened.

I wonder if my hon. colleague might comment on the gap between words and actions, and when people make an apology, whether or not they need to make amends, whether or not there should be consequences, and whether or not action actually shows they are sorry.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the member's observations. She is quite right. What happened in the House last night was 100% because of the actions of the Prime Minister. He chose to stride across the aisle; he chose to swear at members across the aisle; he chose to grab and intervene physically. There is no excuse for that. I am very interested to see what actions the Prime Minister will take to go beyond simply “I'm sorry”, because what happened was inexcusable.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

This is not one of the times that I really would love to get up and debate in the House. After last night, I think all Canadians, when they watch the behaviour that was witnessed last night, realize that this is about our institution. This is about our highest level of government. We heard words like “shocked”, “unacceptable”, “traumatic”, “overwhelmingly violated”. These are some of the words that my hon. colleagues here in the House have used to describe the physical event that took place yesterday in the chamber. I am joining all members in the House in the shock and indignation over the actions of the Prime Minister.

I think all of us would prefer to get on to debating other things, but how does the Prime Minister fix this?

As my colleagues have said in the House, this did not just happen. If we look at this week, it started out as a normal week. I know for those of us in the opposition, what we did is something that all Canadians do. We showed up for work on Monday morning, and unfortunately, not enough Liberal members showed up for work, and they almost lost a vote. It is the first time in Canadian history that the Speaker had to break a tie in a situation like this, and they got mad at us for that.

This is something that all Canadians do. They wake up in the morning and they show up for work. That is what Canadians expect us to do. The fact that the Prime Minister was not able to manage a vote through the House, that his House leader was unable to get the votes here required to pass a bill, is not something that is our fault.

What else did we see this week?

There was Motion No. 6, and I think all of us, after that vote, realized that there is a new team in town governing things, but we never thought that it would go as far as Motion No. 6, taking away all the tools that we in the opposition have to effectively oppose.

I have to say to those members on the other side that I have been in opposition and I have been on the government side, and it is our job to oppose. It gives good government. We are opponents; we are not enemies.

The actions of the Prime Minister and his House leader this week kind of set the stage. I think all members of the House would agree. I have been here for 12 years and I have never seen behaviour like this. The behaviour we have seen is totally unacceptable.

The Prime Minister has admitted to coming into physical contact with a number of members. What are the consequences?

We heard today that the Prime Minister is okay that it is being sent to committee, but we all know who has the majority of that committee. I was hoping to hear from the members across the way that, perhaps for this committee, we could agree that maybe the opposition would even have the majority, or at least have some equality there so that we can look at this issue in a reasonable way. However, the government has proven from its actions this week that those members are willing to do anything to drive their agenda forward.

As I said, why I am so disturbed is that I have been here 12 years and I have never seen anything like that before. For me, it is about the love for this institution.

I think everybody would agree that it is completely unacceptable for the Prime Minister to be coming into physical contact with any member of the House without their consent. If the Prime Minister cannot really see that, he clearly does not understand his role in Parliament and how his actions are affecting the functioning of the House.

As I said, I have grown to love this institution. My constituents ask me what it is like being a member of Parliament. I wake up and I sometimes have to pinch myself, because this is a privilege.

I am sorry if I am getting emotional, but this is. I pinch myself. I look around at the beautiful works of art we have here. We have the ability to debate with colleagues who are such outstanding individuals here in the House. Some of the best people I have ever met I have met here in the House, not only from our side but on the opposition side as well.

How have last night's actions affected this institution that all of us love? I am talking about you, Mr. Speaker. What is the role of the Speaker in the House when you come across behaviour like this? What is the Speaker supposed to do? We trust in the Speaker's judgment, and it is a difficult position that the Prime Minister has now put the Speaker of the House in, this House that we feel so wonderful about and respect. What position is the Prime Minister putting the Speaker in? What position is he putting our Sergeant-at-Arms in?

We have this institution that has evolved over centuries, this institution that we have all become part of, like a family. Our role here is to work together to get things done. Part of that is allowing the opposition to do its job, to oppose. This week, sadly, we have seen the government do everything possible, unprecedented, so that, as my colleague said earlier, it does not have an opposition, it has an audience. That is truly sad. We are not enemies; we are opponents.

How does the Prime Minister fix this?

On the other side, we have seen, as my colleague said earlier, the rationalization of the behaviour. It is about taking responsibility for that behaviour and moving along. Yes, the Prime Minister did apologize, and I want the Speaker and all colleagues to know that I do accept that apology, but I want to say past actions are the best predictor of future actions.

I remember in the House, I was sitting right over here and the Prime Minister, at the time, was sitting right back there. My colleague from Thornhill, the Minister of the Environment at that time, one of the most regarded journalists we have ever had in Canada, one of the most respectful speakers here, one of the best speakers I have ever heard, was called something by the Prime Minister, something I cannot repeat here in the House. The Prime Minister did apologize for that. It was a heartfelt apology.

However, I have an article from the Toronto Star, from a couple days later, by Susan Delacourt. When the Prime Minister was asked about that apology, he said:

I called him something that was fundamentally biodegradable, compostable and good for the environment.

Is that a heartfelt apology?

For me, as I said, past actions are some of the best predictors of future behaviour. It is incumbent upon all of us, with our love for this institution and showing an example to future generations, to make sure that this institution is not damaged by the actions of the Prime Minister.

How does he do that? I again say, what does the Prime Minister do to fix this? It is about consequences. I have not really seen what is going to happen. I have not seen, from my colleagues across the way, how they would hold their leader, in the highest office in this country, to account for his actions.

We hear that he is okay with this being sent to committee, but we all know the Liberals have the majority on the committee. I do not know. I do not have a crystal ball. Maybe we can figure it out. If the Liberals' actions this week in the House, such as Motion No. 6, are any indication of future action, I think we can probably use that crystal ball and figure out how this is going to affect us and this institution.

I would love to talk a little more on this, because I want my colleagues to know that I am one of those guys who have been up to speak in the House on the assisted suicide bill, twice. My constituents really want their voices to be heard. I have a doctor in my community, Dr. Gillian Gilchrist, who has had years in the palliative care field. I want to bring her comments to the House.

However, I have been denied that right. It has been changed twice. I am hopeful that when the Prime Minister said he was willing to change that he truly is willing to change, and that the actions moving forward will be different. I welcome his apology and I hope that bodes well for his future behaviour.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's tone and the way he conducts himself as an hon. member. I do not want to go over what happened yesterday. It happened right here in front of me. We saw what happened. We have talked about what happened, but I want to talk about Motion No. 6 in regard to what we are discussing today.

We have what we call Standing Orders, which are here to protect parliamentarians. They are here to protect democracy within Parliament. The government in a tit-for-tat felt it almost lost a vote, so it came in with Motion No. 6. The motion starts this way, “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order” in other words, those things that protect Parliament, the rules of Parliament. Then it lists 17 things, (a) to (q), that would take away the power of the opposition to hold the government to account.

The Minister of Health said here today that they are here to advance the issues of Canadians, so is the opposition. However, the government has said it knows what is best so it will handcuff the opposition and ramrod through what it thinks the issues of Canadians are.

The first thing the Liberals said is that “on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment until such time as a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary moves a motion for the adjournment of the House”. In other words, we just stay and debate until the Liberals decide, and they will not tell us when. Then at two or three o'clock in the morning, they can simply say that now we are going to go to another debate and the opposition had better get its speakers ready at three or four o'clock in the morning.

That is the kind of government we have here. It is trying to take away all of our powers. Could the member who just spoke stand and tell us how Motion No. 6 is taking away from the decorum in the House, or is it adding to decorum in the House? Is it poking the opposition, poking Parliament, and poking Canadians in the eye as far as us being able to hold the government to account?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, all those things are true, but I would like to point out that Motion No. 6 is actually removing from Canadians the right to hear their members of Parliament debate the important issues before the House. I have been here long enough and I can count. The reality is that the Liberals have the numbers and they will get anything they want through the House. All we are asking on this side is to allow us to have the tools that have evolved. As I said, we belong to an institution that is hundreds of years old and it has worked. It is one of the best systems in the world and its longevity proves that.

I wholly respect my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot who is one of the longest sitting MPs. Motion No. 6 is about taking away, as my colleague said, Canadians' rights to hear from their members of Parliament and those of us who love this institution. I am asking my colleagues on the other side to please talk to their leader and ask him for a change of heart because Canadians deserve to be heard in the House. They deserve their opinions to be heard and they deserve to hear from their members of Parliament.