Debates of Feb. 8th, 2023

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-282 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #256

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Freedom from Obstruction: Technical Difficulties with Interpretation Services

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a question of privilege concerning the interpretation services provided to this morning's meeting of the official opposition caucus. To be clear, these were issues with the technical arrangements provided by the House of Commons administration, not the quality of the work provided by our great and hard-working interpreters.

Caucus meetings play a very special role in the work of members of Parliament here in Ottawa. It is where we gather to discuss the issues of the day that are dominating the national conversation as well as the business that needs to be addressed here in the House. These meetings are also where we learn about local and regional priorities in this vast and diverse country of ours.

Mr. Speaker, as a former chair of the national Liberal caucus yourself, I know I do not need to remind you of that. Our national caucuses engage in conversations about national issues in a truly national way, not least because they are conducted in our two official languages, English and French.

Indeed, subsection 4(2) of the Official Languages Act requires that:

Facilities shall be made available for the simultaneous interpretation of the debates and other proceedings of Parliament from one official language into the other.

Today, those facilities were not available to the Conservative caucus here on Parliament Hill. Technical concerns at caucus meetings have, in the past, given rise to prima facie cases of privilege.

On October 17, 1973, at page 6942 of the Debates, Speaker Lamoureux found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the discovery of a bugging device in the NDP caucus room.

More recently, on March 25, 2004, at page 1711 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege when the confidential proceedings of the Liberal Party's Ontario regional caucus had been inadvertently disclosed through the House's audiovisual system, which was installed in the meeting room. The Chair observed the pivotal nature of proceedings to MPs' work, stating the following: “The concept of caucus confidentiality is central to the operations of the House and to the work of all hon. members.”

Subsequently, in its 22nd report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs stated at paragraph 14:

To the extent that caucus confidentiality is breached by Members by disclosing what was said or went on to non-members of caucus, this is a matter to be dealt with by each party caucus. Any unauthorized recording of caucus meetings, however, is a matter for the House itself. Not only does this arguably impede Members in carrying out their parliamentary functions, but it also could constitute a contempt of the House of Commons.

Although both cases involved eavesdropping on confidential caucus meetings, I would respectfully submit that the rulings stand for two important propositions. First, caucus meetings form an essential component of an MP's parliamentary functions. When they are interfered with or impeded, this raises considerations of parliamentary privilege. Second, troubles arising from the technical facilities at caucus meetings become, in the words of the procedure and House affairs committee, a matter for the House itself.

On pages 111 and 112, House of Commons Procedure and Practice recalls for us:

A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities. If, in the Speaker’s view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties...then a [case] of privilege cannot be found.

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege

The inability of the Conservative caucus to conduct its affairs in both official languages has seriously undermined our ability to do our work, discuss issues at hand and prepare ourselves for another week of resistance in the face of a government that, after eight years, has so cruelly abandoned Canadians.

Should you agree with me that there is indeed a prima facie case of privilege here, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak to this question of privilege, because I believe that my privileges as a parliamentarian were also breached during this morning's caucus meeting. My francophone colleagues in the Conservative caucus and I unfortunately did not have access to interpretation during the meeting.

The current situation on the Hill is no secret. Last October, Linda Ballantyne, president of the International Association of Conference Interpreters for the region of Canada, said the following to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs:

Canada did conduct a survey dating back to December 2021, I think it was. Measuring the amount of time spoken in Parliament by different parliamentarians of different languages, indeed we found that English has predominated and French has been snuffed out.

That is the reality in Parliament, because most of our colleagues use English as their primary language to communicate, share their opinions and make speeches. Unfortunately, when a group of colleagues get together, the discussions tend to occur mainly in English.

Unfortunately, that is what happened this morning in our caucus meeting. I want to commend the interpreters who were there for their offer. They came out of their booth and offered to provide interpretation services at the back of the room for those who wanted them. Unfortunately, that is not ideal. That is not the way to conduct a meeting, hold debates and have normal discussions. We cannot have a caucus meeting and make some of the members go to the back of the room so they can have access to interpretation services.

I therefore wholeheartedly support the question of privilege raised by the House leader for the official opposition. I want to raise the same question of privilege because I think that my privilege of being able to communicate with my colleagues was also breached by these technical difficulties. We need to have a plan B. Meetings must take place at the scheduled time and proceed normally with the possibility of access to interpretation services and interpreters and, especially, to the equipment that makes those services possible.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will find that the question of privilege raised by my colleague is fair and you will side with him.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

As members know, it is very important to me that every member in the House or on the Hill be able to participate in a debate or listen to a debate in the official language of their choice, because that is their right. It is very important. I would like to thank the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for bringing that up. I will take it under advisement, dig in deeper and come back with an answer after the shortest delay. I want to thank all of you.

Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of British Columbia.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Health Care

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to describe an important step our government took just yesterday to strengthen our country's health care system.

As we all know, accessible, publicly funded, universal health care is a source of pride for many Canadians. Unfortunately, over the past several decades, and certainly in recent years, our health care system has faced unprecedented challenges.

Across the country, Canadians seeking care are finding their emergency rooms overwhelmed or even closed. Surgeries are being postponed or even cancelled. We have all heard heartbreaking stories of how the system has failed. Canadians deserve better. No one should lose a loved one because they could not get timely medical care.

After months of work, yesterday our government tabled a strong, reasonable and concrete offer to deliver real results for health care workers and all Canadians.

First, we want to work together to improve essential access to family health care, especially in rural and remote regions and underserved communities. Right now, less than one-third of Canadians can see a health care provider within 48 hours. However, we know that better access to quality family health care helps us live healthier lives, reducing hospitalizations and ER visits. That is especially true for children, because prevention is key to avoiding long-term health problems. That means investing in family health teams, which may include doctors, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dietitians, occupational therapists and other health care providers.

Second, we want to work together to support our health care workers and reduce surgical backlogs. As my colleagues from Yukon and Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who are both doctors, have told us time and time again, our health care workers suffered greatly during the pandemic. Many of them got sick or experienced burnout. Unfortunately, many of them left the profession. Those who remain are worried they will be forced to bear an additional burden. They took care of us, and we want to take care of them too. That means investing to improve support, retention, training and recruitment and to recognize the credentials of workers trained in Canada or abroad. It also means better planning and more investment in the future of our workers, which includes creating a centre of excellence to support their future.

Third, together we want to improve mental health and substance use services for Canadians. Currently, one in three Canadians report having mental health problems. As my colleague, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, so often says, mental health is health. Mental health is an integral part of overall health and how we function as a society, so it requires special attention. Our goal is to provide Canadians with a multidisciplinary care model that integrates mental health into all of our shared priorities. For example, with better access to a family health team, people who are suffering will be more easily referred to a psychologist or psychiatrist.

Fourth, we want to work together to modernize our health care system, because information saves lives. I have had this discussion with many people, including my colleague from St. John's East, and we know that improved access to health information will help patients take better care of their health. This is also essential to ensuring that health care workers can provide high-quality health care and make informed decisions. Imagine a nurse or physician in an emergency room trying to treat an unconscious patient in need of urgent care, without knowing what medication the patient is taking, what allergies they have, and what their medical history is.

Can members recall a time when they were referred by one health professional to another and felt frustrated at being asked to answer the same questions and take the same tests again because their medical records could not be shared?

That results in a duplication of efforts, a lot of stress for health care workers and increased costs. In 2023, it should be possible to share medical information securely in order to provide patients with quality health care while respecting their privacy.

Finally, helping Canadians age with dignity closer to home, with access to home care or safe long-term care, is another area of common priority. Many seniors want to remain in their family homes for as long as possible but lack supports to do so.

Collaborative work is fortunately already on its way with provinces and territories to support access to home care and safe long-term care through a joint investment of $6 billion over five years.

Investing in these five key areas of common priorities will help repair the damage caused by COVID-19 and prepare for the future. The investment announced yesterday of $198 billion over 10 years, of which $48 billion is new funding, includes certain common commitments.

First, as per our shared responsibility under the Canada Health Act, governments must ensure that health care is provided based on need, not on the ability to pay. Governments must also ensure equitable access to health care services and that such access is supported by a strong public health care sector.

Second, agreements will reflect our joint commitment to health equity in reconciliation, so that indigenous peoples are able to access quality and culturally safe health services. Finally, we will also continue supporting better access for underserved and equity-deserving groups, including Canadians living in rural and remote areas, and those living in official language minority communities.

In summary, the major support that our government announced yesterday is aimed at helping Canadians live longer, healthier lives. To do that well, we need to act now and for the future. As time goes by, pressure on the health system will only increase as the demographic, social, health and environmental changes accelerate. Our aging population is straining the health care system just as health needs are growing. Experts also agree that we are facing increasing chronic and infectious diseases, growing costs for technology and drugs and the escalating impacts of climate change.

In conclusion, I want to thank my provincial and territorial health ministers for their strong collaborative work over the past year and assure them that our government will continue to be there to support them.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the aisle we know very clearly that, after eight years of the Liberal government, everything is broken, and sadly that includes the health care system. Having worked in that system for over a quarter of a century myself, it is very clear that my colleagues who continue to work there, as physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, etc., experience unbelievable levels of burnout. It is over 50%. When we start to think about those folks and how we are going to continue to deliver care, what we feel is a sense of sadness. We feel a sense of crisis.

Dr. Katharine Smart, who is the former president of the Canadian Medical Association, states that we have a system on the brink of collapse. I guess what I would say is that this agreement, which in my mind was delivered by a Prime Minister who is out of touch with the realities as a fait accompli, is with the premiers of provinces, and when we watched those premiers walk very quickly by the microphones of the reporters yesterday, it is very easy to tell that they are not happy with this deal in any way, shape or form. What we know is that the Prime Minister has a habit of not wanting to discuss things with the premiers, or with anybody else who disagrees with his opinion. It would appear that he is out of touch once again with what is happening in the health care system.

For everyone out there in Canada who is listening, we know very clearly that the Liberal government has had almost eight years to improve the health care system. This Hail Mary pass it wants to throw is to a system that is crumbling in front of everybody's eyes. This is not a simple position of a Conservative opposition. It is very easy to see, as any Canadian does when they try to access a family doctor. As we know, over five million Canadians do not have access to a family physician. Many folks in the House do not have access to a family physician, and I know that Canadians out there watching today do not have access to a family physician.

That leaves us, sadly, with Canadians clamouring to receive care in settings such as emergency rooms. After eight years of the Liberal government, and it is almost hard to say that this is happening in Canada, people are dying in emergency rooms. People have died in an emergency room in my riding, and to have these things happening in a system that I cherish, both as a physician and as a Canadian, is unconscionable. For the Liberal government to have neglected health care over the past eight years is, once again, unconscionable.

What have the Liberals done with the money Canadians pay out of their pockets? What have they done with it? They have more than doubled the debt. They have added more to the debt than any other government in the history of Canada, and then when the premiers come to them and say there is a health care crisis out there, in case we did not know, the Liberals say that the cupboard is bare.

They talk about $190-some billion, but when we really look at the mathematics of it all, it is again a bit of smoke and mirrors, because realistically what that is related to is an increase of $4.6 billion, on average, year over year. Is $4.6 billion a lot of money? I think it is a lot of money. That being said, it is nowhere near what the premiers, in their wisdom, realize they need to operate a safe, effective, efficient and modern health care system, which Canadians want to see, Canadian health care workers want to be a part of and we, as Canadians, want to be proud of. Once again, the Liberal government has let Canadians down.

We know that at the current time the wait time for referrals from one's family physician for specialist treatment is the longest it has been in 30 years. It is over six months. It is unconscionable. There are over 1.228 million people waiting for procedures in this country. The backlog is enormous.

We also know very clearly that the Prime Minister chose not to meet with the premiers. We know he is not a collaborator. Once again, it is shameful. Also we know that the government in its platform in 2021 committed $4.5 billion to the Canada mental health transfer, and absolutely none, that we know of, has been sent. We talk about a mental health crisis, and we have a government here, once again, that is out of touch with reality.

We have also spoken about medications for children. We have spoken about it in this House and at the health committee. We know there is a lack of availability of children's pain and fever medication, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, and that has not changed. The government has not given Canadians a satisfactory explanation as to why. We know that every primary children's oral antibiotic is short. We know that mothers who choose to use infant formula cannot get it in this country. Still, we have a government that is out of touch with reality.

When I look at all these things in totality, the final thing we need to really understand, as the government talks about preventive medicine, is that the government refuses to get clean water to indigenous nations in this country. It is shameful.

The budget is not giving the money required because the government spent it all. That is the reason. It spent it all in the way it chose to, even though the premiers have asked for it to be provided in a different way. This is unconscionable. This funding agreement that has been foisted upon the provinces is unacceptable in this country, and I know that Canadians will reject it.

The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the health care system that he has broken and allow us to fix it. Our solution for health care is to elect a Conservative government.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to say that my thoughts are with the friends and families of the children and adults who were the victims of the terrible tragedy at Garderie éducative Ste‑Rose in Laval. I think we are all in shock following this terrible incident, and words fail us. I cannot imagine what the parents of the children who go to this day care are feeling. I want them to know that we are with them.

I have had the privilege of representing the people of Montcalm since 2015. It is as much an honour for me today as it was the first day. During the first oral question period in which I participated, the member for Rivière-du-Nord asked for an increase in health transfers. Members will recall that, in 2011, the Harper government cut the health transfer escalator in half, reducing it from 6% to 3%. That was grossly insufficient to cover system costs. By 2015, we were feeling the repercussions of that decision. I have had the privilege of sitting in the House for almost eight years, and all that time, we have been constantly repeating that health transfers must increase.

Two years ago, Quebec and the provinces agreed to call for an increase in health transfers that would raise the federal government's share of health care funding from 22% to 35%. The way things are going, Quebec and the provinces will not be able to provide quality health care to the public.

If Ottawa underfunds health care, which is what it is doing, then there are three possible scenarios. Either health services decline, other government services decline because the governments of Quebec and the provinces have to use their own money to make up for Ottawa's cutbacks, or provincial debt spikes and the fiscal imbalance gets worse. Those are the three scenarios Quebec and the provinces are facing because of this lack of federal funding: deterioration of health services; underfunding of other government programs, including education, social services, roads and culture; or a growing fiscal imbalance. That is the choice that the federal government made by refusing to consider the premiers' legitimate and necessary demands. It has been putting the provinces on the road to austerity for 10 years.

Worse yet, the government is jeopardizing the quality of the services provided to the public. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois rightly said, the gap between the premiers' demand and this government's offer, which really ought to be called an ultimatum, should not be calculated in dollars. No, it should be calculated in terms of the number of people who will be abandoned. How many surgeries will be postponed? How many nurses and orderlies will be left to fend for themselves most of the time? What heartbreaking decisions will the health ministers in Quebec and the rest of Canada have to make in order to balance their budgets in a tight fiscal environment?

For years, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have been raising the matter by moving opposition motions, appearing with health care professionals, and tabling unanimous motions adopted by Quebec's National Assembly. We have asked questions relentlessly and reiterated the need to support exhausted and overworked health care workers. We have spoken about the tragedies unfolding in oncology and pediatric departments and the patients forced to wait months and months at the risk of their health, and sometimes even their lives.

The government said that our colleague was right and that that is why it was investing money, because it is so important. If it is that important, then it needs to invest the money because people are dying as we speak.

Yesterday, the government demonstrated that all it is capable of doing is saying the right thing, nothing more. The minister was also eloquent earlier.

Ottawa let its chequebook do the talking. It did not have much to say, other than that the provinces should just deal with it. Its offer is despicable. I say its offer, but when it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation, then it is more like an ultimatum. Its ultimatum is a 5% escalator for five years. I would remind the House that before the Harper era, it was 6%. They are not even going back to the Martin era. They are fixing the escalator issue, but only partly, because the cost of the system is now counted in sick people.

The aging population has put more pressure on the system, and the direct impact this has on health costs needs to be taken into consideration. We are talking about a 5% escalator for five years. The Prime Minister did not need to meet with the premiers of Quebec, the provinces and the territories to do that. He could have done it whenever he wanted to, unilaterally, just like when Stephen Harper unilaterally lowered the escalator from 6% to 3%. The Prime Minister could have announced this on his own, without an agreement.

The provinces were calling for an additional $28 billion a year for health. The federal government's response was $4.6 billion and that was its final offer. The government would have us believe that this is good news. Does the government have any mission more sacred than taking care of people? There are people who are sick, health care workers who are at the end of their rope. What is more important than being there for them? The Liberals would have us believe that they know more about health care needs than the health ministers for Quebec and the provinces and territories, that they know where to invest the money and how much is needed.

We are supposed to believe that the people who are not even capable of managing passports, managing borders and paying employees know how to fix the health care systems in Quebec and across the country. That is ridiculous. Quebec and the provinces needed a minimum of $280 billion over ten years. That was the minimum. Ottawa responded with $46 billion. That is a minimum shortfall of $230 billion in the coming years.

Basically, the federal government announced yesterday that the underfunding of health care will continue for the next 10 years. That is it, and that is all. The Liberals promised us a big offer, but all we got was a big disappointment. Sick people in Quebec and Canada are the ones who will pay the price.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cherish public health care. It is part of our national identity, a social contract that ensures we will be cared for when we are vulnerable, regardless of the size of our bank account. It is an affirmation of our collective commitment to equality and justice.

However, our health care system is in crisis. Emergency rooms are overwhelmed; health care workers are burning out; millions of Canadians lack access to a primary care provider, and patients are facing massive backlogs for surgeries, diagnostics and other procedures.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably placed enormous strain on our health care system, it did not cause the current crisis; it exposed it. In fact, its roots can be traced back to decades of poor policy choices and underfunding by successive Conservative and Liberal governments.

When our health system was first created, it was based on a fifty-fifty cost-sharing partnership between Ottawa and the provinces, but over the years the federal government’s contribution has declined far below that. This has profoundly shifted the fiscal burden for health care delivery and exacerbated pressures caused by an aging population, technology advances and increasingly expensive treatments and pharmaceutical drugs.

The results of this are clear to see on the front lines of care. Where Canada used to have 6.9 hospital beds per 1,000 people, we now have just 2.5. One in five Canadians cannot access a family doctor, the primary portal into our health care system, and Canada now ranks near the very bottom of the OECD in the number of physicians per 1,000 and wait times for essential care.

Tommy Douglas warned Canadians about the threat posed by this “subtle strangulation” strategy. He understood that opponents of public health care would attempt to starve our system of resources to lay the groundwork for private, for-profit care.

Unfortunately, his prediction appears dangerously accurate. Across Canada, Conservative premiers are exploiting the current crisis to pursue privatization, with the tacit approval of the federal government.

Alberta premier Danielle Smith has brazenly called for patients to fundraise for their own health care needs. Her government is implementing health spending accounts, a Trojan horse to inject user fees and private care into Alberta’s health system.

In a recent throne speech, Manitoba premier Heather Stefanson announced her government’s intention to expand private partnerships to deliver health care.

Ontario premier Doug Ford is planning to divert funding from his province’s hospitals toward for-profit surgical clinics. This move is expected to benefit clinic owners with a windfall of over $500 million.

We know this approach is a false solution that will exacerbate the current crisis. Just last year, in an exhaustive review of the evidence in the Cambie Surgeries case, the B.C. Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that allowing more private care in a parallel system is more expensive, fundamentally unfair and ultimately counterproductive. It found what experts and patients have long known: Privatization means line skipping for the rich, a drain on workers from a public system already short of staff and longer wait times for everyone else.

It is also poor economic policy. For-profit delivery drives up costs in the short term and make us dangerously vulnerable to corporate ransom in the long term. It is a frontal assault on our public health care system, and it must be stopped in its tracks.

Unfortunately, the government has demonstrated a troubling lack of concern in the face of this privatization agenda. The Prime Minister has even called Doug Ford’s for-profit clinics scheme an example of “innovation.” This should come as no surprise. While the Liberals may claim to defend public health care, their record demonstrates otherwise.

After promising to negotiate a new health accord in the 2015 election, the Liberal government instead adopted the very health transfer formula imposed by Stephen Harper. By unilaterally cutting annual federal transfer increases from 6% to 3%, when the need to tread water was 5.2%, Harper had baked in a recipe for systemic decay. The Liberals’ decision to adopt that funding formula has deprived our health care system of over $30 billion to date.

Now, after years of inaction in the face of a growing crisis, the Liberal government has come forward with the bare minimum needed to address this deliberate underfunding.

While initially indicating that it was offering nearly $200 billion for health care over the next decade, a claim repeated by the Prime Minister today in this chamber, it turns out that three-quarters of that money is existing Canada health transfer funding that would have flowed to the provinces and territories without any new agreement. In reality, there is only $4.6 billion per year in new federal spending on the table, and that has to be split among 10 provinces and three territories. To put this in perspective, total health care spending in Canada for 2022 was $331 billion, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

While this additional federal funding is urgently needed to help stabilize our health care system, it is far from sufficient to provide the generational fix that we need to the current crisis. It is a band-aid solution for a gaping wound. As Dr. Kevin Smith, president of Toronto’s University Health Network, just noted, “If we look at the demands—the number of new Canadians we’re expecting a year and the aging of the population—it’ll come close to addressing inflation. It won’t come close to addressing massive transformation.” Canada’s nurses are already expressing discouragement.

Most troubling of all, the federal proposal leaves the door wide open for premiers who are pursuing private, for-profit health care schemes. New Democrats have strongly asserted the condition that additional public dollars must go to public care, and yet the Prime Minister did not raise a single concern with the premiers about their privatization plans at yesterday’s summit, nor did he attach a single condition of his funding proposal to prevent it.

Canadians need their federal government to champion public health care, instead of standing back while Conservative premiers and others seek to systematically dismantle it. Real innovation is better support for health professionals, shorter wait times in hospitals and access to care based on need. It is expanded team-based care, preventative care and supports for aging at home. It is universal access to prescription drugs, dental care and mental health care.

New Democrats will never stop fighting to protect, strengthen and expand public health care across Canada. We know that we can deliver a public health care system that is world-class, timely and accessible for all, but this will not happen without national leadership, a full financial partnership and unwavering commitment to equity. The government’s offer yesterday is but a start to what needs to be done.

New Democrats will continue to do our part to build the high-quality public health care system that Canadians want, need and deserve.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent for the Green Party to be allowed to speak on the ministerial statement on the urgent need for health care protection in this country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement and the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 82 minutes.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: the 22nd report entitled “Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Prince Edward Island 2022”, and the 23rd report entitled “Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Newfoundland and Labrador 2022”.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House.

If the House gives its consent, I move that the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Electoral Reform

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition of great concern to residents of my community with respect to electoral reform. The petitioners call for this Parliament to establish a national citizens assembly for electoral reform, to require the citizens assembly to complete its work within 12 months, and to adopt recommended changes before the next federal election so that Canadians can experience fair voting for the first time.

Ahmadi Muslims

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition on behalf of Ahmadi Muslims living in Pakistan. Through section 48A of the Pakistan Elections Act of 2017, Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan have been effectively denied the right to vote and essentially have been disenfranchised from the full and equal participation of a citizen's democratic right to vote because of their faith. In fact, they must renounce their faith in order to be placed on a separate electoral list.

Those who have signed this petition are asking for the government and the House of Commons to urge the Pakistani government to immediately repeal section 48A of the Elections Act and permit Ahmadi Muslims to vote alongside all other citizens of Pakistan as part of a joint electorate, and ask the federal government to urge the Pakistani government to create fair and democratic election processes for all Pakistanis without discrimination, prejudice or mention of anyone's religion.

Opioids

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting three petitions today.

I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of constituents who remind us that the toxic drug supply and overdose crisis is one of the most deadly public health emergencies of our lifetime and that, on average, someone dies every two hours. The petitioners call on the government to declare a national public health emergency and develop a pan-Canadian overdose action plan. They talk about other reforms, including decriminalization, flawed drug policy and policing reforms, and the need for funding for programming and supports.

Fireworks

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition from Canadians who note the harmful impacts of fireworks with respect to the environment, animal welfare and people who suffer from PTSD. The petitioners note there are amazing alternatives, such as visual light shows with drones, and call on the government to replace fireworks with these alternatives.

Corporate Social Responsibility

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition that focuses on the fact that Canadian companies are contributing to human rights abuses and environmental damage around the world. The petitioners call on the government to adopt due diligence legislation that would require companies to do due diligence to prevent human rights abuses and environmental damage throughout their global operations and supply chains, to have meaningful consequences for these companies and a legal right for people to seek justice in Canadian courts.

Health Care

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, for months now I have had residents of Winnipeg North sign a petition asking for the federal government to work with the provinces with respect to the issue of health care. Health care being the important issue that it is, and given the fact that the Prime Minister and the premiers had discussions yesterday and billions of dollars have followed, I thought it was most timely to present this petition, which calls on the federal government to provide the extra care necessary for mental health and long-term care, as well as additional financial commitments and support for health care workers. I am glad to see that many of the questions posed in the petition have actually been answered.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that he is to summarize what is in the petition, not to add to it through other means.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

Climate Change

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to share a petition on behalf of petitioners who want to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that Canada has signed the Paris Agreement and the signatories to the Paris Agreement are required to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. They call on the Government of Canada to take bold climate action, and that includes setting targets that align with lowering Canada's emissions in line with the 1.5°C target, working with provinces to phase out cold-fired electricity, ending thermal coal exports and investing in the transition to a prosperous decarbonized economy.