Debates of May 19th, 2016

Reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with Motion No. 6 we again see a government and a leader who are saying, “I will show you. How dare you question my authority”.

Whether it is closure on the debate on perhaps the piece of legislation that will have the most impact that our generation will ever see—we are debating pipelines longer than we are debating assisted suicide—it is unacceptable.

Motion No. 6 fundamentally would put closure on any debate, on anything. This has never been seen before in the history of our Parliament. It just shows the length the Liberals will go to make sure that Canadian voices are not heard.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot in the last day and half about the incidents that may have led to what happened yesterday. I want to take this from a different angle.

I do not feel that the mood in the House yesterday before the vote was heated at all. In fact, there was nothing really going on prior to the incident. I feel that there is a lot of excuses going on about what led to the hon. Prime Minister leaving his seat to walk across. What really struck me in all of this is that I would hold our Prime Minister to a much higher standard. Members are talking about the tone in this House. The Prime Minister is the person who should be setting this tone, and he certainly set the tone yesterday, a tone that I do not think as parliamentarians we should be following.

Certainly the feedback I am getting from my constituents is not necessarily who was impacted, but the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada rose out of his seat, and in what I would describe as a huff, walked across the floor and grabbed another member. I think our Prime Minister should be held to a much higher standard. Personally, I am embarrassed that our Prime Minister took these actions.

I would like my hon. colleague to talk about what he thinks about the tone the Prime Minister set yesterday.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have said this right from day one. Again, I am a coach and I am a small business owner, but leadership comes from the top. Actions speak louder than words, and we have seen the actions over the last six months.

I will reiterate that outside of this House the Prime Minister has been very generous to me when I have had constituents who would like to meet the Prime Minister, but in this House, I have seen complete disregard and childish actions.

Our tone is set by our leader, and whether or not he is our leader on this side, he is the leader of our country, and actions such as that are unacceptable, here or in any workplace.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning.

As members may know, I arrived in this House just over six months ago, along with many members here, as a representative for the first time. I represent the wonderful riding of Markham—Stouffville. It is a great honour to have the opportunity that we all have to represent the people of our own constituencies.

In that six months, I have learned a great deal from colleagues around this House. I have learned a great deal about parliamentary procedure, and I continue to learn on that matter. I have been encouraged by the professionalism and the high level of debate and discussion on issues that are so fundamentally important to Canadians.

I think about the times that I have spent in this House in that short time. One of the outstanding memories is of the evening that we sat late into the night on an emergency debate about suicide and mental health issues in indigenous communities. I remember hearing members who were moved to tears as they spoke, and seeing other members who were moved to tears as they listened to the comments that were made from all sides of the House of Commons. That was a proud evening for us as Canadians. We have debated so much important legislation, and we know that the things we talk about and the decisions we make in this House will have a fundamental influence on the lives of Canadians.

This has been a particularly challenging week for us all. It has been a week full of emotion. I certainly have had a span of emotions myself. We have had some real struggles together, and we have debated some very serious issues. Every single day, we, as parliamentarians in this House, need to live up to the expectations and the responsibility that we have to the people of Canada, the people we represent. Every day, we are put to the test to meet that challenge in the best way we can.

Today, I heard our Prime Minister deliver sincere apologies for what transpired yesterday, and that was the right course of action. To the members who have been hurt by the incident, I want to empathize and express my sincere concern for them. I trust that any comments that I or others make today would never in any way diminish the feelings of hurt that they have expressed.

We all have different experiences that we bring to the table and to this position. As a result, we experience events in our own unique and personal ways. In my life, I have had the tremendous privilege of working as a family physician. I spent almost 10 years working in sub-Saharan Africa, and then over 17 years working as a family doctor here in Ontario. I have had the privilege of being with people in some of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. I have sat with people as they have been challenged with facing recovery from illness and disability. I have seen so much generosity and so much strength of spirit and human character.

I have seen those same kinds of qualities here in this House. I have seen strength of character. I have seen resilience. I have seen compassion. I hope that, for my part, I will always be able to remain respectful and to enter into that level of conversation with members of this House. I hope that fellow members here have felt that I have provided genuine answers to sometimes challenging questions to the best of my ability during question period, and that I have endeavoured to enter into meaningful debate on these substantive matters. I have attempted to do this with respect for my colleagues and with an attempt to avoid untoward language. I hope I have succeeded, but the evaluations of my colleagues and Canadians will be the evidence of that. This is how I will try to proceed in my role as a parliamentarian.

In the atmosphere of an emotional House of Commons that we are experiencing this week, I hope that we will all, as parliamentarians, reflect on and remember the millions of Canadians who are looking at our proceedings and who will review them. I recently had a conversation with one of my staff members, who recounted the experience he had watching question period with his 10-year-old son, a delightful young man whom I have met. His son said to him that they would never be allowed to talk that way in school. That was a striking comment to hear from a wise young man.

Regardless of what transpires in this chamber, each of us has the ability to manage our own conduct. We must hold ourselves to the highest standards, and I believe we are all going to try to do that. Some days are more challenging than others, but we need to remember that we are here to advance the interests of Canadians. We are here to wrestle with challenging issues. We are here to represent the voices and the diverse perspectives of our constituents.

There are some very important issues at hand that we are going to continue to focus on. We have one legislative bill that I have been particularly involved in that is before the House of Commons. It will continue to be a focus of mine for considerable time to come. We have a responsibility to ensure that we find the solutions to the challenges before us. I look forward to continuing dialogue with members on the work that we need to complete in very short order.

I am pleased that we are having this meaningful debate on an important issue right now. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues about their perspective on determining when it would be appropriate for us to move on to discussing other important matters in the House.

I have been thinking a lot about what our constituents expect of us. They expect us to lead in the House. They expect us to make important decisions and to make laws. We do that on the basis of representing the people who have elected us. We do that on the basis of consultation and seeking the very best scientific evidence we can find. We do it on the basis of sound judgment. I trust that our judgment will be deemed to be appropriate.

I want to specifically encourage members to consider some other work that we have before us in the days to come. I had the privilege of speaking to this in responding to questions yesterday, about why I believe it is so important that we try, as soon as is deemed appropriate, for us to move on to discussing the matter of Bill C-14. This is a matter that I have been deeply involved in and for which we have been under a deadline, a deadline that has put us all in a challenging situation.

The Supreme Court of Canada has asked us, the representatives of the people of Canada in the House, to put an appropriate legislative framework in place around medical assistance in dying. It has been a challenging task, and we have had to do it in a short time period. My concern is that we must meet that deadline if it is at all possible. The reason I am concerned is because we need to make sure that Canadians will have access to medical assistance in dying, as the Supreme Court has made clear that they should. If we do not have a legislative framework in place, my colleagues who are health professionals have expressed to me their concern that there would be very few medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who feel they have the appropriate framework in place to participate in medical assistance in dying.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it very disappointing. On a day when we are speaking about something that is extremely important, the first time in Canadian history that a prime minister has been accused of something like this, and the Minister of Health is talking about Bill C-14. There are some relevancy questions here, and I would appreciate if she would bring this back to the topic we are talking about, which is the actions of the Prime Minister, not Bill C-14.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the member for Foothills raising on the point of order. In terms of the relevance question, it is in the realm of standing order questions. It is true that our remarks in the House do need to be relevant to the question before the House. In this particular case, the said bill that he references was part of the subject of debate for which the House was prepared to enter into. Relative to that particular bill, it was part of the consequences around the subject at hand that is being debated here in the House.

While agreeably there is a dotted line connection there, on questions of privilege, members are permitted considerable liberty to connect various events to their debating points around the issue. Therefore, I think it does stand the relevancy test. However, I would remind the hon. minister to continue to make those connections in the course of her remarks.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will abbreviate my further comments out of respect for my colleague. I simply want the House to understand, and to make a request, that we consider making wise decisions with respect to when it is appropriate for us to move on to debating the important legislation before us.

The only other point I want to add is that, on the one hand, I want to ensure that access is available and, on the other hand, we have a real responsibility to face that if that legislative framework is not in place in due time, there will not be adequate safeguards to protect Canadians.

I know that my colleagues opposite are concerned about that. I hope we can move forward on the debate of Bill C-14 as soon as possible, which I think is so important.

I will respectfully respond to questions in very short order. I am thankful for this opportunity to speak.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I grew up at a dinner table where my mother talked to us about how we had to respect others. She did not use the word “tolerant”, but we had to be tolerant of the other kids in the playground. When I entered this place, the most meaningful conversation I had was with my dad, and I say this to the minister who I know is also a doctor. He turned to me as a physician, and said, “I don't ever want to see you do anything in that House that you would not have a mom or dad be respectful of you saying or doing in your clinic.”

I have grave concerns about what happened in this place yesterday. I would like to know this from the minister. Does she find that type of bullying acceptable? Would she conduct herself that way in her clinic? Does she find that language acceptable? Would she talk to a parent or patient in that manner? Also, what would be her advice to the Prime Minister on his unprofessional behaviour?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member's question raises for us is this matter that we have all been thinking a great deal about in the last day or so, which is the matter of decorum in the House. I believe this has been an important debate. It is a debate that has impressed upon each of us to take personal responsibility for our behaviour and our comments. It has impressed upon us the weighty business that we have at hand. I look forward to working with all members of this House to continue to ensure that we work in a manner that is both respectful and efficacious in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments about tone in the House. She is right. When we sat together until midnight to debate both suicide in Attawapiskat and physician-assisted dying, those were good moments. That is what we heard a lot about in the election campaign. People wanted to hear a dialogue and a tone in this place that they would recognize, the way that they deal with their own family and friends, and in their own workplaces. This is particularly why we are all so rattled by what happened last night. It is so out of keeping with the very powerful mandate that the Liberal government received to do business differently. Therefore, I am very frustrated and disappointed.

I am also frustrated and disappointed that I have come to work on four days this week being ready to give a speech on physician-assisted dying, to echo the extremely high volume of mail and advice that I am getting from my constituents. Four days in a row I have shown up ready to give that speech, and the Liberal government has changed its mind, saying, “We are going to talk about immigration.” or “Over the next hour we are going to talk about the RCMP.” How can the minister justify shutting down debate when we need to be having these important conversations in this House?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for echoing my remarks about the very positive tone that we have had in this House on a number of occasions. I think it has set a good standard for us, a standard that hopefully we can learn to aspire to on a daily basis.

I look forward to hearing the hon. member's speech. I agree with her that we need to move forward as quickly as possible to discuss the important matter of Bill C-14. I will remind the hon. member that we have already had, I believe close to 24 hours of debate on the matter of Bill C-14 in this House. I know that there are more comments to come. I have enjoyed many conversations with my colleagues on all sides of this House about the matter, and I hope that we will soon be able to resume that discussion.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Health for her speech, and I respect a lot of the things she does here in the House. She has some very difficult files to work with.

I think we have to keep perspective in the House. We are opponents, not enemies, and last night, that aggression we saw was totally unacceptable.

I recall the critic for the NDP asking what are appropriate consequences for actions. The topic we are debating today is a question of privilege. It is the physical molestation of a fellow member.

The Minister of Health talks about being a physician, and I would like her opinion as a physician. If she had a patient come into her home town of Markham—Stouffville and present her with a challenge that she faced with molestation in the workplace, what is her duty as a physician confronted with this? What is her duty to report, and should her leader be any different? What are appropriate consequences?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was aware, as I believe he was here in the House very recently when our Prime Minister issued an unreserved apology around the unfortunate incident that took place last evening. That was the appropriate action.

I want to also commend those who have suggested that this matter be sent to the appropriate committee to deal with it on a further basis and to make appropriate actions. I look forward to hearing about the work of that committee.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the work that the Minister of Health has done and will continue to do and give this House her wisdom in all things.

I listened to the Prime Minister's apology and I accepted that as being very heartfelt. Then I looked at the response of a number of the colleagues opposite, and there were hugs to him, handshakes, and pats on the back, as if he were a victim. That is where I find this really troublesome, because within that framework, there is no accountability or any point where one accepts responsibility.

These were his actions and his actions alone. He told MPs to get the blank out of the way. He grabbed a colleague by the arm, and the unintended consequence of those actions was that he elbowed another colleague. Therefore, if we are viewing him as a victim, his apology is hollow.

First and foremost, given that conduct, would the minister not agree that the first step is to go and get some anger management training?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question, and I also want to thank her for her very kind remarks. I look forward to continuing to work with her on a number of important issues here.

As I expressed earlier, I want to make sure that the members who were hurt in the unfortunate incident have our deepest empathy for their concern.

I would like to remind the member that our Prime Minister has made an apology in this House and that this matter will be referred to committee for further conversation. I thank the member for respecting that process.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the topic we are discussing this morning, I want to remind the minister that we are not debating Bill C-14 because of the government's actions and the Prime Minister's behaviour yesterday.

I agree with the minister that our life experiences shape how we deal with those around us. I commend her for saying that we must be respectful in our behaviour toward the people around us and in how we deal with others.

What really got to me in the exchange we had yesterday after the Prime Minister apologized was that a number of his Liberal colleagues rose to downplay violence and bullying. They even put part of the blame on the person who was subjected to this violence and bullying.

I would like her to talk about her contribution. What will she do to ensure that her colleagues no longer downplay violence and bullying?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I empathize with the member and other colleagues in the House who were hurt.

My sense is that it is important for all of us to reflect upon our own attitudes, actions, comments, words, and conduct. It is certainly something I always encourage my own children to do, to take responsibility for their actions, and that is something we all need to do.

I expressed this morning the kinds of deliberations I have had on this matter, my commitment to continue to be respectful, and I trust that all members of the House will, in their reflections, make personal commitments as well to proceed in a manner that is deserving of the dignity of this place, and I look forward to the future work we have to do together.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I note that many hon. members wish to participate in the period for questions and comments. I will do my level best to make sure that each member who wishes to rise on those occasions can do so wherever possible, but it has to be spread around to all members who so choose.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as most of my colleagues in this House know, I am one of the longest serving members in this Parliament. During that period of time, I have been in the opposition, in the government, and now back in the opposition. What is more important is that during all this period of time that I was on both sides, we had a great relationship with each other because we recognized all of us were elected as members of Parliament and, as members of Parliament we had a duty, first to our constituents and second to our country.

Taking that into account, I have extensively travelled around the world with colleagues from both sides of the House and other parties including, I must say, the current House leader when his father was the Governor General of Canada.

During all of this period of time when we were travelling around the world, everybody commented on one thing. We visited some parliaments where they were unruly, emotions were flying very high, and parliamentarians could not control their emotions. We have seen in many parliaments fist fights and all these things. There was always one comment, “You Canadians are so respectful of each other. It is amazing to see the opposition and the government working together. We wish our politicians would do that. We wish our parliament would do that”. That made all of us feel very proud.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I will say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.

We had a great reputation around the world for respecting each other.

What happened yesterday absolutely shocked us. The shocking incident that took place yesterday is going around the world and people are now wondering, really, what happened, “Where is this great respect that Canada had?” The respect everybody had in this institution was broken yesterday, and broken very badly.

Of course, the Prime Minister has apologized for that. I am glad he is taking full responsibility, as it is appropriate for him to take full responsibility.

Nevertheless, I want to talk from my experience in this House about what led to yesterday.

As I said here before, we have had other governments. When we were in government, we all respected what each other's government was doing and how they were doing. They had good points. Every government does. However, when the present government came into power, the first thing it did was to insult other governments, other people working in this House, other members of Parliament in this House.

The first time the Prime Minister went around the world, he said, “Canada is back”. In the last 10 years, I worked my butt off for Canada on the international scene, and here is somebody going around, insulting not only the work we have done but also that of the public service and of everybody who has been working so hard over these years.

That attitude is the attitude that is prevailing in the government: insulting what others are doing because, somehow, it thinks it has received such a terrific mandate from the Canadian public. Let us see. How much mandate is that? It is only 38%.

Coming along with that attitude, the government has done everything possible to shut out the opposition. They were in opposition, but most of the members are new on the other side. Some have been in other legislatures, but for most of them, this is the first time they are in Parliament. It is the first experience for them, and the experience for them should have been the Prime Minister, the government, and my colleague from the government who has been here for a long time, all showing respect for others because they were in the opposition.

During the time we were in the government, we never treated the opposition in the manner it has been treating us.

Motion No. 6 would take away the rights of the opposition to work, so it can be part of their agenda.

This attitude that this government has come out with, insulting the opposition, insulting members of Parliament, culminated yesterday in an action. We all saw that action. He was angry. The Prime Minister was angry because he could not get his way.

It is something that he has been showing since his government was elected, absolutely disregarding this institution, which is the seat of democracy and where, through the government and opposition, the House has tremendous experience. All his has been thrown out by the Liberal government.

It is amazing how the direction the Liberals are taking does not respect the democratic institution and that is what happened yesterday. I have received terrible tweets, insulting me racially, but they seem to forget that we were elected. Everyone here was elected to represent constituents.

A member of Parliament on the other side called the previous government “regressive”. Come on, let us be honest about this. We won an election. If we were regressive, does anyone think we would have been elected in 2011 with a majority? But governments change. The last government changed. Prime Minister Chrétien's government changed. Prime Minister Martin's government changed. Governments change, but we do not go about insulting others or talking about the opposition.

We come here with experience. Our job is to hold the government accountable. On many occasions, we agree with the government. As the international development critic, I have agreed with some of the positions the government has taken and I commend the members for this, but that is working together. Now the Liberals have come in with a new bill and they have poisoned the atmosphere here in the House where we cannot trust the government. We are supposed to be working together for the Canadian public, not against each other.

I want to tell my colleagues on the other side that they will get invitations to go to schools. In the last months, I have been to two high schools and tonight I will be going to a school in Calgary to speak to the students. They are very much interested in democracy. They are very much interested in how the House of Commons works. I explain very clearly to them how it works and I never take a partisan stand, but I say this is the way the government works, how the official opposition works, and how third parties work.

What happened yesterday was absolutely shocking, but this is the attitude. I am glad the Prime Minister has made his apology. As the Leader of the Opposition said, he made an official apology, which is the first step, but the second step is to respect every member of Parliament, respect the opposition, so that they can do the job they were elected to do. That is the key.

Now that this has happened, we have to move forward and the only way we can move forward is to show respect for each other so we can gain the same respect we have around the world when I travelled and everyone said they were very much impressed with the workings of the Canadian Parliament.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I stand is that I have been overwhelmed and alarmed by what happened yesterday.

I came to Canada 38 years ago as an immigrant because I admired Canadian values: freedom of speech, democracy, and rule of law. As mentioned by colleagues who were teachers, I have been a teacher all my life starting in Hong Kong where I was an elementary school teacher. I was a high school teacher, a college teacher, and in Canada, before I went into politics, I was also a university professor.

What happened yesterday was completely unacceptable. As I travel around the world, as the hon. member just said, Canada has been admired as a model for true democracy. However, in the past few months, we have not seen that happen, and what happened yesterday was even worse.

I ask my colleague how we can represent our constituents when we cannot stand here to speak on their behalf to protect the most vulnerable.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for what she said about coming to Canada. Thousands and thousands have come to Canada, including myself. This is a land of immigrants.

Yesterday started as a great day, with the apology to the South Asian community on the ills of the past. It started as a great day and it ended with the Prime Minister absolutely destroying what should have been one of the best days for Canada with his actions.

Again I agree with the member, apologizing is not going to solve the problem. There is a fundamental flaw in the government, and that is that it is not respecting the opposition. It is trying to take away the powers of the opposition. That is a fundamental issue with what the government is doing. If it does not correct that, their attitude will remain poisonous.

Therefore, as the Leader of the Opposition has appealed and we are appealing, let the Parliament do its work.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of words to describe the Prime Minister's conduct yesterday. It certainly was unparliamentary. It was unprofessional. It was unbecoming of a Prime Minister. However, let us not lose sight of what actually took place.

What took place yesterday was an assault, a criminal assault. The Prime Minister walked over, there was clear mens rea, and he grabbed and dragged the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

I was wondering if the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn might be able to comment on the fact that what took place yesterday in the House by the first minister, the Prime Minister of Canada, was an assault.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it did look like it was an assault.

It was something in the House of Commons that never should have taken place. When touching anybody, intentionally or unintentionally, one has to be responsible for their actions. For the Prime Minister to go out there and pull the whip's hand, which we all saw on the video, it was really not very appropriate.

When he got up immediately after that yesterday, he tried to defend himself. He tried to defend himself. Not only that, members of the Liberal Party tried to defend his actions. They cannot defend what was very clearly on the video. What was even more terrible was that the Liberal members were doubting the statements of members on this side who witnessed everything. They were not respecting what was being said over here.

As a matter of fact, one member of Parliament sitting way at the other end thought she saw the whole thing. Sitting here, I could not see because there were too many people around.

Those who were there, who witnessed it, and who spoke about it, their testimony should have been respected. It was not respected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I usually stand up and say that I am honoured to speak to the issue. I cannot say that today.

I want to make my comments in light of the fact that the 338 seats here in the House, no matter where they are, represent individuals who have the extraordinary opportunity, the great blessing, of having the trust of enough people in the ridings they represent to send them here to represent them in the greatest democracy in the world. We come here humbled by that—or we should be humbled by that—knowing that we serve at their behest and we serve because they trust us to come here and not only represent them legislatively and regulatorily, but also to represent them in a fashion that would be becoming of those who would be the leaders of this great federation.

I want to make my comments in light of that reality that we live every day here in the House, being people who have a great honour and blessing to represent their constituents, in my case the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook.

I just have five points that I will get through in the brief time that I have, which I think the Prime Minister should consider.

The first point is that the Prime Minister's actions reflect on this entire chamber. In fact, the Prime Minister's actions reflect on every member here and on every Canadian citizen. I know that Her Majesty is the head of the state in our Westminster tradition, but the Prime Minister's position publicly is often indistinguishable from that of Her Majesty in regard to who is seen as the leader of this country. When the Prime Minister behaves in the fashion he did yesterday, it stains the institution, it stains us, and it stains every Canadian.

The second consideration I would like to pose to the Prime Minister would be the rationalization by some of his members of what happened yesterday. One of the grave concerns that I have is that a number of members from the Liberal bench stood up almost immediately and tried to rationalize the behaviour. They phrased the reaction of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé as a dive in sports. That took us to a new level of degradation after the very inappropriate actions of the Prime Minister happened. One rationalization was that somehow the delay by the opposition whip was justification for the behaviour. There should be lots of thought and consideration on the other bench and by the Prime Minister in that regard.

Another thing I would like to say is that I have never been involved in martial arts, but I had a lot of friends who were active in martial arts. The Prime Minister is active in martial arts. He is a proven boxer, and that fact he does not hide. In fact, he pretty well promotes his prowess in the martial sport quite actively publicly. All those people whom I have known who have been trained in combative sports and martial arts have always made a covenant with themselves, knowing that their capability is greater than the average person to harm someone, that they take double restraint and ensure that they do not take any kind of action that would cause harm to someone. It is not only the Prime Minister's position, but it is by the very fact that he is trained in these martial arts, he has a double duty to be responsible for the kind of strength that he yields. This should have been known by the Prime Minister and should be one of his highest commitments to himself.

What came up in the last question and answer session was interesting.

I would like to read into the record section 265(1) of the Criminal Code, which states:

A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose;...

We are not all lawyers here, but we sit as legislators. People should be well aware of the common law and certainly mindful of when we come close to or intend to break the law. I will leave that for the record and ask the Prime Minister to contemplate that section of the Criminal Code.

Finally, I am gravely concerned about the pattern of behaviour that has led us to today. To begin this session of Parliament, instead of the government implementing its agenda and campaign promises, it began spitefully repealing legislation. I do not remember a time in the history of the House when a government began by ensuring it tore down everything the previous government did.

Then it quickly moved to do something that Liberals said they would never do, and that is to shut down debate. It did not take very long at all. They not only shut it down once, but did it repeatedly, bill after bill.

Then the Liberals did something truly unprecedented. They changed the legislative calendar so members of Parliament would not even know what bill was coming up. Therefore, it would impossible for them to effectively represent the very people who elected them to come here. This was done wantonly and without apology. Then, of course, the draconian motion to essentially remove all of the tools that the opposition has to represent the 60%-plus of people who did not vote for a Liberal member of Parliament is cause for real concern.

There is a pattern of behaviour that culminated last night with the Prime Minister leaving his seat, crossing the aisle, barging through opposition members to grab the opposition whip, drag him forward, and then get out of his seat a second time to confront the opposition again. This pattern of behaviour is very troubling and causes me great concern about where we go from here.

I have heard the apology by the Prime Minister. I hope it was sincere. One thing was said this morning during the National Prayer Breakfast. This morning's speaker said that we would know when someone had actually had a change of heart because the person would behave differently. We will be watching for that new behaviour, that new spirit of decorum, and willingness to work with the opposition, so we can continue to serve our constituents, be responsible to those who elected us, and, as we say everyday, make good laws and serve ordinary Canadians.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I am a new parliamentarian. My hon. colleague spoke of how hard we worked to get to this place and that we were all here to try to make a difference in our communities and, indeed, the country. What we witnessed yesterday was troubling, but we have seen more and more of these types of actions over the last six months.

What would happen if those actions took place just outside of the doors, if there were unwanted grabbing, pressure, and pulling? The member mentioned that it was assault, but what would have taken place outside of the doors?