Debates of Sept. 25th, 2023

Apology by the Speaker

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before beginning our proceedings today, I wish to make a brief statement.

On Friday, in my remarks following the address of the President of Ukraine, I recognized an individual in the gallery. My intention was to show that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not a new one, that Ukrainians have unfortunately been subject to foreign aggression for far too long and this must end.

I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to recognize this individual. I wish to apologize to the House. I am deeply sorry that I have offended many with my gesture and remarks.

I would also like to add that this initiative was entirely my own, the individual in question being from my riding and having been brought to my attention. No one, including you, my fellow parliamentarians, or the Ukraine delegation, was privy to my remarks prior to their delivery.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that apology.

I am parliamentarian, a Canadian of Jewish origin and a descendant of Holocaust survivors. A majority of my family walked into Auschwitz-Birkenau and only my grandfather and his brother walked out. I think this hurt all of us in Parliament. Personally, I feel particularly hurt by this.

As parliamentarians, we place our trust in you, Mr. Speaker. There are many times when we recognize people in the gallery, and we do so on your good advice and your good offices. All of us here did that in the chamber on Friday, because we trusted you on that.

This unfortunate situation has been deeply embarrassing for Canada's Parliament. It has been deeply embarrassing for Canada. It was deeply embarrassing for the President of Ukraine, who came here in friendship, who came here because we are a strong ally, and who came here because he trusted Canadians.

I appreciate that you are taking responsibility, Mr. Speaker, because this was your initiative, and you have confirmed that neither the Government of Canada nor the Ukrainian delegation had any prior knowledge of this individual being invited to the House or that he would be recognized.

However, given this deeply embarrassing situation, for all of us as parliamentarians on all sides, it is very important that we collectively work together to strike this recognition from the record. I will work with my colleagues to do that.

For all those who have loved ones who were in the Holocaust, for Jewish Canadians, today being Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, a day of atonement, a day to prepare for the year ahead, we stand with you, Mr. Speaker, in this. We recognize this was a deeply hurtful moment. Many of us in this chamber feel that hurt acutely.

I want to ask all colleagues, particularly those in the Conservative Party of Canada, to please ensure that we do not politicize this issue. I do not think it helps anybody. We need to ensure that we move forward, recognizing this mistake and standing in solidarity together to reiterate our commitment to Jewish Canadians, but also to Ukrainian Canadians and the people who are fighting for freedom, peace and justice in Ukraine right now.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to respond to the statement that you just made and to address what happened in the House on Friday.

Every day members of Parliament entrust the Speaker to guide this Parliament through challenging circumstances. You, Mr. Speaker, have done an admirable job doing just that through COVID-19, the occupation of downtown Ottawa last winter and the putting in place of a hybrid Parliament.

As members know, House of Commons Procedure and Practice indicates that the Speaker's role is not just administrative and procedural, but also ceremonial and diplomatic. It states that the Speaker often acts as a representative of the House of Commons. Because of his ceremonial role and his role as a representative, he is the only one who has the privilege of recognizing the presence of guests and visitors in the gallery.

It was this privileged role that led to the recognition on Friday of an individual who, as the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center pointed out, was a member of the Waffen-SS, a Nazi military branch that was responsible for the murder of Jews and that was declared a criminal organization during the Nuremberg trials.

It is shocking that this individual was a guest of the House and shocking that members of Parliament rose to give him an ovation. Members did so because we took the Speaker's word that this individual should indeed be granted this honour in good faith.

We have members of Parliament who have dedicated significant parts of their lives to fighting racism, fascism and anti-Semitism. We have members of Parliament who lost family members to Naziism. Two members of my family, my uncle and my grandfather, whose names are commemorated on the cenotaph in New Westminster, B.C., are part of the scars of this history. These same members of Parliament feel betrayed right now, as do members of the Jewish community and other communities who were victims of the horrific violence of the Nazis.

In many ways, the Speaker is the face of the House. Not only does he represent its members, but even more importantly, he represents our shared commitment to democratic principles and institutions. In upholding these democratic norms, the Speaker's actions must be above reproach.

Although we appreciate the Speaker's apology yesterday and his remarks today, I very regretfully and sadly consider them insufficient.

Ultimately, this was an unforgivable error. It puts the entire House in disrepute. Unfortunately, a sacred trust has been broken. It is for that reason, for the good of the institution of the House of Commons, that I say sadly that I do not believe you, Mr. Speaker, can continue in this role. Regrettably, I must respectfully ask that you step aside.

For the good of Parliament, I ask that you resign from your position as Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very grave incident, on the day when the Government of Canada was welcoming the head of state of Ukraine, a country that is undergoing an unjust and illegal invasion, that there was a guest in the gallery whose presence fed into the Russian propaganda and narrative about the bogus justification for Putin's illegal invasion.

State visits are organized by the government. Every aspect of President Zelenskyy's visit would have been highly managed by the PMO. There are incredible security concerns. When we have not just a head of state, not just a foreign dignitary, but someone whose people are fighting for their lives and their survival, someone who is targeted by Vladimir Putin's regime, obviously, there are massive security implications.

Your statement, Mr. Speaker, does not answer questions around how this individual was vetted, how the government, which would have seen all aspects, all guest lists and all interactions with President Zelenskyy, would have allowed that person to be in the chamber.

Members of Parliament do not have the ability to vet who might happen to be in the chamber on any given day. That is the responsibility of the director of Parliamentary Protective Service, who reports to the Minister of Public Safety. The coordination between the Prime Minister's Office, the protocol office here in the House of Commons and that protective service is what members trust is happening to ensure that things like that do not happen.

If someone of that background, which a straightforward Google search would show served in that particular division during World War II, if that basic level of vetting was not done by the government, that raises serious concerns. What kind of message does that send to our allies around the world, that when they come to the House of Commons to address the House and Senate that this basic rudimentary vetting as to who might be in the galleries is not done? That is incredible.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will take your statement under advisement. We will have more to say on this, but there are still many questions that need to be answered as to how the Prime Minister's Office so completely dropped the ball on this.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon. colleague, because I think we both share the frustration about what happened on Friday. However, I do want reiterate, and as you made very clear in your statement, that this was your initiative. The Government of Canada had no knowledge of this individual. The Speaker is responsible for this chamber. He invited him of his own accord, and he made the decision himself to recognize him. Neither the Government of Canada nor the delegation of Ukraine had any knowledge of this.

I would respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that you clarify this for the members opposite. It is important that this information be clear and that these false allegations do not continue, because they are not true.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, before I speak about the situation at hand, I would like to say that my thoughts are with those who suffered the horrors of the Second World War, which claimed 70 million lives. It was one of the darkest periods in history, particularly for the Jewish community, which at the time bore the full brunt of a ruthless invader's unspeakable aggression.

As you well know, I have always thought you have done an exceptional job, Mr. Speaker. I have always made a point of telling you so. I rise today with a great deal of emotion.

For us, you have always been a beacon. We have never doubted your actions or suggestions, so much so that, on Friday, when you proposed that we recognize this individual, who turned out to be someone who helped the Nazis, we would never have thought that he was anything but a person who deserved to be recognized in the House.

Afterwards, we realized that he did not deserve it, that he was someone with a dark and grim past. It came as a shock to us to learn that you were somehow responsible for his recognition in the House.

That being said, you have apologized to us and I do not question the sincerity of your apology. I am appealing to your wisdom. It is up to you and your conscience to decide whether this apology is enough. I want to rise above partisanship because what we are talking about today needs to be free of partisanship. This is serious. There will be consequences for the Ukrainian people, for the leader of Ukraine, who will likely be caught up in this situation.

Quebeckers and Canadians, who are wholeheartedly behind the people of Ukraine and their leader, did not want this. Ukrainians are fighting for freedom. Their leader is a Ukrainian liberation hero. Unfortunately, he will end up being tainted by a mistake he did not make.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Canada-Slovakia parliamentary friendship group, it is my obligation to point out that the individual in question who was recognized on Friday was part of the division that was used against the Slovak National Uprising, which was the military uprising organized by Slovak resistance movements during World War II, comprising the anti-Nazi political faction of the Slovak nation, which is my heritage. Units of this division this man fought with were sent to help squash the Slovak rebellion. Battle groups were formed to actively search out and destroy members of the resistance. According to Slovak historian Karol Fremal, the division's members were helping anti-partisan, repressive and terrorist actions, and they committed murders and other excesses.

Based on what I have heard in the House today, I feel that this is a government trying to collectivize responsibility for an incident that was solely within its purview. By inviting the Ukrainian president to our country, we had a duty to protect him in all aspects. With the government's either having a non-existent vetting process or failing to have a judgement-free one for people who would be recognized and lauded in the House of Commons, the House of Commons should not be accepting collective responsibility for the abject, egregious lack of judgment that has tarnished the reputation of our country and led to people like the ambassador from Poland's demanding an apology from us.

This is a time in which our allies need to be standing with us. There should be no question about whether or not we have our act together, yet here we are having this debate. It is beyond an embarrassment; it is a stain on our country. I refuse, as a member of this place who represents 120,000 Canadians, to collectively share responsibility with a government that has a pattern of not vetting questionable individuals with whom its members take meetings, such as Jaspal Atwal and Joshua Boyle. I will not, on behalf of my constituents, take one ounce of blame for the government's failing a vetting process.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals can say that it was within your purview, but they invited this world leader here and they failed to vet this. So, no, on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Nose Hill, I will not accept collective responsibility. The buck stops at the Prime Minister's Office.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before anything starts, I just want to make it clear that it was my decision and my decision alone. This was a constituent who wanted to be here, and I recognized him. It was my decision, and I apologize profusely. I cannot tell members how regretful it is, which may not be good enough for some of you, and for that I apologize.

I will let the hon. opposition House leader take it from here, and then we will go to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to underscore the point my colleague just raised. Is it the government's position that when we have a foreign head of state visiting, the government does zero security vetting for who will be in the same room as that head of state? Is that the message we are sending to our allies, so that when they come here, they will not know who is going to be in the gallery? What kind of a message does that send to Canada's partners and allies around the world?

That is the point that we are raising, Mr. Speaker. It is all well and good for you to come in and accept your share of the responsibility, but there is only one entity in the chamber that has the resources and the mandate to keep people safe. As my colleague just pointed out, when President Zelenskyy comes here on the invitation of the Prime Minister, when the entire itinerary is planned by the PMO, the government of Canada has an obligation to him personally to secure his safety. It has a responsibility to the people of Ukraine to ensure the safety of their president. The Prime Minister has a responsibility to all Canadians to uphold the dignity of Canada as a country and as a trusted partner and ally. In all three of those areas, the Prime Minister failed to take that basic level of responsibility. That is the point we are underscoring. There was a Nazi in the chamber. There is only one entity, one group that could have done anything about it, who could have flagged that.

As I mentioned, the director of the Parliamentary Protective Service reports up to the Government of Canada for operational matters. That is in the mandate of the Parliamentary Protective Service. The director of the Parliamentary Protective Service must be a member of the RCMP. That is in the enabling legislation. That was all done for a reason. I was in the chair when that legislation was passed, and it was precisely because the House of Commons itself did not have the capability to do full security vettings and background checks on individuals. That was the reason we did that, to make available to the House of Commons the resources of federal institutions like the RCMP and CSIS.

That is why we do not accept the attempt to collectivize blame for this. Opposition parties do not have access to CSIS reports. We do not have access to the RCMP's vast capabilities to do background checks and vetting. In this case it would have taken a simple Google search to find a blog post written by that individual saying that he served in an SS division, in a Nazi division, during World War II.

Again, all of those resources are available to the government. The mandate, the responsibility, lies with the government. The entire reporting structure of the Parliamentary Protective Service here flows up to the government. That is why we still have many questions, and this issue does not end with your statement or your apology.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have immense respect for my colleague opposite. In fact, he occupied that chair, so he would know that, as the Speaker, you do have prerogative to invite guests into the chamber. I will reiterate that neither the government nor the Ukrainian delegation had any prior knowledge. In fact, if colleagues will recall, when the recognition was done, it was done by the Speaker, and we did it on the good offices of the Speaker—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I ask the hon. member to respect that this is a very difficult time for everyone in the chamber. I understand that emotions are running loud and high, but I am going to ask everyone to listen to each other. I do not think that I have ever been through a tougher time in the House since I came here in 2004, so I would ask for some respect for both sides. If someone is speaking, please show some respect.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is not even worth responding to.

The hon. government House leader, please continue.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate for colleagues that, if they recall when this happened, which was during the Speaker's remarks, we were all caught off guard by this. I am not trying to collectivize responsibility; I am trying to lay on the table the facts, which my Conservative colleagues are choosing to ignore. I have asked them respectfully not to politicize this issue. In fact, it hurts communities more than it helps them. As someone who personally has been deeply hurt by this, as indeed I believe all members of the chamber have been, we need to work together to strike this recognition from Hansard and to ensure that this never happens again.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I appreciate your desire to take full responsibility for this entire event, but those of us who asked for guests to be able to attend Friday's proceedings know that we were required to give notice of the individuals for whom we were asking permission. They went through a process. Emails were sent to those individuals.

You, Mr. Speaker, were not standing at the door of the parliamentary precinct. There were massive security protocols. Individuals were required to be on extensive lists. I do not believe that you individually vetted each of those names. The Parliamentary Protective Service is responsible to the government. The lists were given to the government. One would assume there would have been some process of vetting. Is the government now saying that none of that happened?

Mr. Speaker, I know your desire to take this on, but I do not believe for a second that you verified each person who was invited to this place, verified that they were not a security risk and then stood at the door and let them in. I know that is not the truth. Therefore, this attempt by the government to state that this was your doing, and your doing alone, that you alone are responsible and that it bears no responsibility, is to send a signal to all Canadians and all of our allies that we are not serious about anything. I am not going to take collective responsibility for what, in fact, is the government's responsibility, and, Mr. Speaker, I recommend you not do it either.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think my hon. colleague has misinterpreted what I was saying. What I was saying and what you, indeed, have said is that you invited this particular individual. You decided to recognize this individual without informing either the government or the Ukrainian delegation that you would be doing this. When it comes to everyone who was invited to Parliament, of course that vetting happened. However, the decision to recognize an individual was that of the Speaker.

I would ask that the members opposite please be respectful. This is a very difficult time for all of us, but I do ask them to stick to the facts and the issue at hand, which is the fact that this individual was invited by the Speaker and the decision to recognize him was by the Speaker, not by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are getting completely mixed messages today. Today is Yom Kippur, which our Jewish fellow citizens will be celebrating. It comes hot on the heels of this atrocious international incident that the government allowed to happen, and we need clarity. Just a few moments ago, the the government House leader said the government had no idea that this individual had been invited. Now, the government House leader has just said that there was a vetting process. I would like some clarity. Did the Government of Canada receive a list with this individual's name on it, yes or no?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course security measures are taken for invitations to Parliament. However, this individual was invited by the Speaker. The government had no knowledge that this individual was invited or that he would be recognized in Parliament.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your taking responsibility for your part in this. It is weighing very heavily on all of us here. A lot of the public does not understand how this person or anyone with that history could possibly have been here and how we could not have known. It has been explained that there is no ability for opposition members to know when someone is introduced from the gallery. We had no notice or context for that.

However, in law, there is a concept of responsibility, which is that someone either knew or ought to have known. This is where we have a disconnect in these discussions today, because who sits in the gallery is not only up to the Speaker of the House. It is the responsibility of those charged with our national security and our overall security in this House. Those of us who lived through a terrorist attack back in 2014, when someone charged into Centre Block with a weapon, know this all too well. We were all engaged in that terrible day.

We used to have just an unlocked door in front of Parliament, and our naïveté was shattered that day; changes were made, as the House leader has already said. Those changes determined whom the responsibility for the safety and security of all members in this House is squarely put on. There are countries that have bulletproof glass between the public galleries and their legislators; that is not what we have here. We still have a very open way of doing our business. However, we put trust in those in authority: the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and the Speaker's office. We do this to ensure that we have our debates and discussions free from worry about security issues. When it comes to recognizing people, we trust that the reason we are being asked to recognize them is that they have made significant contributions, either to Canada or internationally, or they are noted and elected government officials from provinces or other countries. We repose that trust in our authority positions.

In my view, it is wrong, and it is trying to escape responsibility, for the government to say its members had nothing to do with it. If they did not have anything to do with it, they should have. If they let it all happen and they are on the outside and mere observers in the great play of life, as they often say about so many things, I say no, they are the government. They are the executive, and they are the ones in charge; they should have done their job, and they did not.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

As a Polish Canadian, I can say that the month of September is difficult for many Poles and Polish Canadians. This is when they commemorate the German Nazi invasion of Poland, as well as the Soviet Russian invasion of Poland on September 17.

Six million Poles were murdered in the Second World War. One out of five citizens was killed.

The presence of the gentleman in the gallery was deeply hurtful to Polish Canadians and to Poles. He was a member of the First Ukrainian Division, or the Waffen-SS Galicia Division. This was a particularly and exceptionally cruel unit that viciously murdered thousands of Jews and Poles in eastern Poland.

That moment in the House was deeply painful to my community, to Polish Canadians and to Poles abroad.

However, Mr. Speaker, I know you as a good man. The delegations that come here, internationally, know you as a good man. You have taken ownership of this grievous error. You have promptly taken full responsibility on your shoulders. You apologized deeply.

My interest here is that we work together as parliamentarians to make sure that we have the systems in place so that this never happens again in the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

If there are no other interventions, once again, I want to apologize for what happened and really tell you that the intention was not to embarrass the House.

The intention was to illustrate that what has been done in the past is still happening today in Ukraine and it must stop.

This was the intention. I offer my sincere apologies to the House, to each and every one of you who are in the House today, and to all Canadians for having been put through this.

The House resumed from April 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Excise Tax Act

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult to deliver this intervention after the conversation we just had in the House. However, the business of the government has to continue.

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's second reading of a private member's bill, Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act in relation to mental health services. As we know, this bill would exempt supplies of psychotherapy and mental health counselling services from the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax, or the GST/HST. At the outset, I am pleased to announce that the government and I will be supporting this private member's bill to go forward to committee for further study.

Our government has a proven record of supporting the delivery of mental health services for Canadians, and we look forward to building on this record with Bill C-323. At the same time, my colleagues will know that our government also likes to ensure that we get things right.

The creation of tax legislation is an area of public policy where we certainly do not want to get things wrong, as the results can be particularly costly and unfair to Canadians. That is why our preference is ordinarily that tax changes, such as those proposed in Bill C-323, be undertaken through the budget process. This enables us to fully consider trade-offs, balance priorities, close potential loopholes and undertake new fiscal commitments only to the extent that they are fair and affordable.

This sort of policy safeguarding is typically undertaken by the tax professionals and lawyers at the finance department. However, when it comes to this private member's bill, Bill C-323, this responsibility will fall to us as parliamentarians. There are some important considerations that we will need to address in this regard before moving the bill past the House.

As I am not sitting on the finance committee, and I understand this bill would go to the finance committee, I would like to talk about some of the policy considerations regarding Bill C-323. I hope my colleagues, especially the member proposing the bill, whom I have the honour and privilege of sitting with on the health committee, will take note of this.

We know, for example, that the policy underlying the GST/HST treatment of the health care sector generally exempts basic health care services from the GST/HST. We also know that, to determine which services should be considered basic health care services for the purpose of ascertaining eligibility for this exemption, the federal government looks to provincial funding and regulatory practices as key criteria. This is appropriate, since they are on the front lines in delivering health care to Canadians. More specifically, if a service is covered by the health care plan of two or more provinces, it may be exempted from the GST/HST in all provinces. Likewise, if a profession is regulated as a health care profession by at least five provinces, the services of that profession may be exempt from the GST/HST in all provinces.

Under the status quo, psychotherapy and mental health counselling are not covered by the public health insurance program of any province and are not regulated in at least five provinces; this is why they are not eligible to be considered for a GST/HST exemption. Psychotherapy services provided by a psychologist or other health professional, such as a physician, nurse or social worker, are already exempt if the services are within the scope of practice of their profession.

In short, provincial policies currently determine what medical services should be considered for a GST/HST exemption, and it is based on these policies that psychotherapy and mental health counselling are not currently exempt from the GST/HST. I think we have to bear this in mind and remain sensitive to the fact that we are doing a bit of an end run around this process as we move forward with Bill C-323.

Exempting the GST and HST on psychotherapy and mental health counselling services, as proposed by Bill C-323, could undermine the long-standing criteria established by deciding whether services of recognized health practitioners should be GST and HST exempt. This, in turn, could make it more difficult to make objective decisions on any future requests to exempt other services.

There are important questions related to this bill that must be examined more closely at committee. The most fundamental one is whether this bill will apply in the same way in each province. This is a basic question of fairness for all Canadians. I think we need to also better understand how each province regulates the health care practitioners this bill targets and how each province defines the services it provides for the purpose of health care.

Should this bill make it to the finance committee, with our government's support it is our hope that provincial health officials, mental health service providers, mental health advocates and other experts can testify to shed light on these issues that I have discussed.

On a completely personal note, since 2015, I have had the honour and privilege of being a member of this House. I have always advocated for parity when it comes to mental and physical health. I believe this might be a gateway for us to open that conversation. Although I know this is a narrow passage, I think it is a great opportunity for us to engage in a broader conversation. Naturally, it will not be at the finance committee. However, it is something we should consider.

I just want to quickly talk about a few of our government's achievements and focus in support of mental health since 2015. Canadians can rest assured that our government has already made it a top priority to invest in mental health services for Canadians and will move forward on this basis.

I want to talk about the most recent budget, budget 2023, which proposes to provide a total of $359 million over five years starting in 2023-24, with $5.7 million ongoing, and a $1.3-million remaining amortization in support of the renewed Canadian drug and substance strategy, which will guide our government's work to save lives and protect the health and safety of Canadians. Also, our government has provided about $158 million over three years, starting in 2023-24, to the Public Health Agency of Canada to support the implementation and operation of the 988 suicide prevention line.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the fact that we are making investments because a strong and effective public health care system is essential to the well-being of Canadians, which includes mental health care. It is also an important foundation of a growing, healthy economy. Our economy is stronger when people are healthy and can get the care they need before a complication arises or they are in crisis. Our government will move forward in supporting Bill C-323 on this understanding, but we also want to make sure that we get it right. We look forward to hearing from key stakeholders at the finance committee.

Once again I thank my colleague for bringing this bill forward. Many constituents in my riding are looking forward to having this bill passed, and hopefully amended, to address the concerns we have so they can get the services that are much needed in the community. I look forward to the debate on the bill at the finance committee.

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

I saw someone taking a picture up in the gallery. Phones are not allowed in the gallery, so please delete the photo. Thank you.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.