Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2024

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned a reasonable conversation. I would like to have a reasonable conversation with him. I heard him defend Trans Mountain and the $34 billion spent on a pipeline. I find that a little strange.

Now his government is about to invest billions of dollars in carbon capture, even though everyone knows, since it has been proven, that this technology is not working anywhere else.

Does my colleague not think this technology should be scientifically validated before we sink any public money into it? Is he not sick of seeing money being wasted on nothing?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, regarding the importance of Canada's natural resources sector, the oil sector, which is primarily in western Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, is extremely important to Canada's economy, particularly considering the money that flows to the provinces.

This sector, with its investments and the revenue it generates, is extremely important for the economy in Quebec and Nova Scotia, particularly when it comes to the resources needed for social programs.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues today for debating concurrence in a committee report from the environment department on the path forward. In relation to this, one of the main things we come at in our dissenting report is that despite claiming that the cost of carbon tax would address climate change, the current Liberal government has failed to meet any carbon climate target. This is something that has to be brought forth here very specifically.

The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development Canada provided five reports to Parliament just a few weeks ago, in which he illustrated exactly what the government was not accomplishing with all of its efforts in this respect. When I say efforts, I mean up to 140 programs across government that are spending money and not reducing emissions at all.

I will go into a lot of the guts of the reports, particularly the report in which the commissioner talks about the net-zero transition and where we are with respect to getting towards net zero in our economy, because he makes some significant statements in this regard. He goes on about this, saying, “Missing and inconsistent information, delays in launching important measures, and a lack of reliability in projections hindered the credibility of the plan.”

Before I go any further, Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Recognize that we are getting zero emissions at the end of the day out of all the programs. Tens of billions are being spent on climate changes, effectively, the latest one of course being the emissions cap, which is a pie-in-the-sky thing, and we are going to eliminate emissions without putting down production. The only way we are actually going to eliminate emissions in Canada at this stage is by undoing our economy.

Especially in our resource production, undoing our economy means that resources are being produced elsewhere, which would mean higher emissions, lower labour standards and less benefit for the world. Therefore we continue on the path of making sure the government is exposed for the folly of its approach to how they are trying to get at emissions, because the emissions are not appearing at the end of the day.

I will go on with another of the commissioner's reports. He said, “The recent decreases to projected 2030 emissions were not due to climate actions taken by governments but were instead because of revisions to the data or methods used in modelling.” For 20 years, the department of environment has had a model that is not transparent about how it is measuring emissions in the Canadian economy. As the environment commissioner has stated, the whole model is flawed. Nobody can see it; therefore, it is effectively flawed.

The only way to reduce emissions is to change the inputs in its own modelling. This does not reduce CO2 in the atmosphere; all it does is make the model look like we are accomplishing something when we are accomplishing next to nothing. What we are accomplishing is the shutdown of the most productive part of the Canadian economy, our resource industry. That is part of what the government's virtue signalling is all about: saying we are doing something, but changing the metrics of how we measure what we are doing. The Liberals are trying to fool the Canadian public. It is deceitful and has to be exposed at its highest level.

It is not the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre but the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development who actually said very clearly that the Liberals are monkeying around with the numbers. The next monkeying around they will do of course is to include in the numbers the actual absorption of CO2 embedded in Canada's forests, to make it look like they have actually accomplished something although that was not part of the inputs from the get-go.

There are a whole bunch of quotes from the commissioner that are very important, and I am going to go through a few more of them. Here is one: “This issue of the lack of transparency in the modelling continues to be an ongoing concern, which can undermine the trust and credibility in the reported progress.” Did members hear that? The government has lost all kinds of trust with Canadians and has also lost credibility with anybody who is paying attention to emissions and to our energy production systems in Canada, which need to be sustained in order for us to continue with our prosperous economy and to continue as a world leader in emissions reduction.

Fully three-quarters of the amount of money spent by private enterprise in this country on climate emissions reductions is spent by the oil and gas industry in making sure it gets cleaner production. That production, specifically in the oil sands, on the emissions profile per barrel of oil produced has gone down by 26% in the last 20 years. That outperforms any other industry in Canada as far as reductions associated with technological advances. When my colleague across the way talks about technology not taxes, we have clear illustrations of how that works.

Businesses spending money on technology as opposed to spending money on taxes actually advance the science and advance the utilization of carbon-reducing emissions. This is what we are after at the end of the day. We want less carbon emissions per unit of production. We want to make sure we have a sustainable economy going forward. We want to replace carbon being produced around the world with more carbon-efficient and less-emitting options available here in Canada.

I will conclude with a quote from the commissioner of the environment: “This lack of transparency meant that accountabilities for reducing emissions remained unclear.” I beseech my colleagues on the other side of the House. It is not the opposition saying this; it is the government's own commissioner of the environment and sustainable development who is saying the Liberals are not getting anything done. The only thing they are accomplishing in numbers, and the numbers are down slightly from their peak pre-COVID, is not necessarily a result of anything the programs have designed; it is a result, significantly, of changes to the model.

Now, the Liberals can change their input models all they want, but in the end, the world is getting more carbon in the atmosphere. We have to actually get less carbon in the atmosphere, so we need to find some programs and find some technology that actually accomplishes that. However, the government seems strained on that because it is bent toward that whole regulation and control as opposed to innovation and market decisions, which are going to be part of the future and the solution.

I said to my constituents, “When you have dug a hole this deep, it is time to stop digging.” That is the main thing. The Liberals have gone down the rat hole, and making sure they are producing less emissions is no longer their goal. The goal is to push more money out the door, and I am particularly worried about this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

When the hon. member is turning his pages, it is hitting the microphones and causing a lot of distraction and difficulties for the interpreters. I would caution him on that. I know that he is as worried as I am about the interpreters.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it the first time I have heard that complaint. I apologize. I do have pages here, and I do have to flip them; we do go from significant preparation here. However, I will put this away and just go from what I know of the subject matter as opposed to the notes I have.

We have done a lot in this country. We have overspent tens of billions of dollars in this effort and gotten nowhere. Where has that money gone? I think Canadians need to know where that money has gone. It has gone into a bunch of self-serving organizations this government uses. I used these words before and I mean them very clearly: They are paid propagandists.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development is getting $30 million from the government to pursue efforts that are all over the map as far as what they are measuring, and it has no expertise in actually delivering. The Canadian Climate Institute was at one of our committee meetings not long ago. We can take a look at what it is actually delivering, and it was getting, at that point, $11 million going up to $30 million. It is actually giving advice to the Department of the Environment because the Department of the Environment has no advice of its own. It is now, effectively, a department captured by special interest groups that get paid a lot of money to be special interest groups and therefore spin that wheel. Canadian taxpayer dollars are going out the door, with all kinds of organizations and individuals getting rich, and I could name those organizations and individuals if we had more time.

To wrap up, we are not accomplishing anything in the environment. The government needs to acknowledge that. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development has acknowledged it. I beseech my colleagues on the other side of the House and in the other two opposition parties to read the report that says we are accomplishing nothing. We are spending tens of billions of dollars and we are getting nowhere. What more clarity do the Liberals need to make it understandable that we need to focus on technologies that are reducing carbon emissions in Canada as a benefit for the whole world?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not expect the member to answer my question, because he never really does, but I will say this to counter some of the false narrative in there: He said our emissions are just slightly reduced since before COVID. The reality is that our emissions right now are at the same level they were at in 1998. What is the huge difference between now and then? Our economy was worth about $650 billion in 1998, and now it is worth $2 trillion. Our economy is three times the size it was in 1998, and we had the exact same emissions that we do now.

I would love for the member to reflect, perhaps, on the days when Stephen Harper was prime minister, when the economy was stagnant or even going down, yet emissions were continuing to rise. Although I appreciate the member's rhetoric, it is nothing more than that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how to respond to the member, because I think I have answered every question he has ever asked in the House of Commons. I will say to him again, in direct response to what he said, that I do not know where he is getting his numbers, because the numbers I have seen very clearly, from his government's department, on emissions in Canada is that we are now around where we were in 2019, not 1998, and that is just pre-COVID. We are going down to where we were before the economy collapsed at this point, and then we rose back up. I do not know where he is getting 1998, but this is my answer to his question. I hope he appreciates the directness of the response.

There is no rhetoric in my speech at all. We are talking about spending tens of billions of dollars and accomplishing nothing. What Canadians need to see is where that tens of billions of dollars went, how we make sure we are getting results for the money we are spending and what we are doing for Canadians.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is beginning to look a lot like Christmas. We are drifting through some sort of surreal world. This is far from reality.

Earlier I heard my two Liberal Party colleagues boast about the Liberal record on the environment. To set the record straight, I have before me an article from La Presse, from November 7. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, Canada has the worst record in the G7.

Our Liberal friends boast about their record while the Conservatives propose to do even less when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases. None of this makes sense. We are truly in Christmas holiday mode. We are in some sort of fairy tale.

The International Monetary Fund led a study that found that, in 2022, Canada directly and indirectly gave $50 billion to the oil industry. It gave $50 billion of taxpayer money to an industry that earned $220 billion in profits in 2022.

Does my colleague not think that this money could have been better spent building social housing?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to see my colleague attacking the Liberals, who are not accomplishing anything on the environment. He is right about that. However, he continued by saying that the Canadian government gave $50 billion to the oil industry. That is a joke. The government gave almost nothing to the most productive sector in Canada. My colleague needs to take another look at the facts.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague says Conservatives want to be prudent with money. The Harper regime was the most outrageous shoveller of money toward billionaires and banks in our country's history. I will just go through the numbers. There was $116 billion in liquidity supports to Canada's big banks with the Harper regime. We had the overseas tax havens that cost us $30 billion a year, according to the PBO, again, with the Harper regime. Shamefully, the Liberals have not ended that practice of $30 billion a year going to overseas tax havens and tens of billions of dollars going to oil and gas CEOs.

Conservatives shovel money off the back of a truck. If someone is a billionaire or a banker, they get that money, but what Conservatives did cut were all the programs on clean energy, including ecoENERGY, which Canadians stepped up to and the Harper government cruelly ended and shut down so many of those small businesses across the country.

How can the Conservatives possibly say they are credible when they did that?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where the member is getting his facts either because the government does not give any money to executives of petroleum companies across the country. It is a productive sector and when it is doing well, all the employees do well. When it is doing poorly, we can take a look at the employment losses over the last eight years while we were in Parliament. It has only bounced back in the very near past, the last two years. There is some significant misinformation that comes from the member.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what the member is referring to when he mentions a government a decade ago that had to deal with fiscal prudence, but I agree with him that the Conservatives are looking at where we need to spend money effectively in the economy because, frankly, the current government is going broke.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members if they want to have conversations while someone else has the floor, and this is on both sides, they should step out to do that or wait until their turn comes up to speak.

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

Madam Speaker, I feel as though your words were directed at me. That said, you are right, and I hope to make amends in the years to come.

I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I would like to remind members that, for more than two years now, I have had the privilege of sitting in the shadow cabinet as minister responsible for environment and climate change.

At our convention in Quebec City over a year ago, our Conservative leader, the leader of the official opposition and member for Carleton, outlined the guiding principles of the Conservatives' approach to the environment. First, let me say that climate change is real. We need to face facts and adapt to it. We must continually reduce pollution and cut greenhouse gas emissions. However, choosing the right approach is where we differ. The ideological Liberal government is all about taxation and squandering money. The Conservative approach is much more pragmatic and focused on direct action. I will come back to that a little later in this speech.

This Liberal government has been in power for nine years, and here is this government's record on the environment: Canada has the worst record of any G7 country, ranking 62nd out of 67 countries. That is the reality after nine years of Liberal government. That is the result of their management.

Recently, two programs have provided the most glaring example of bad investments so far. The government implemented one program and continued to manage the other. Unfortunately, the government managed these programs the Liberal way, that is, haphazardly and with a whiff of corruption.

First of all, let us talk about the $8-billion net-zero accelerator initiative. That is a lot of money. Unfortunately, this program did not produce any results, and that is the problem. Yes, the government brags about its lofty principles and sets ambitious targets. The Liberals are always talking about their ambitious targets, but they are not getting results, and yet we are talking about $8 billion. The commissioner and the deputy minister responsible for this file stated in committee that they were unable to directly assess whether there had been a drop in greenhouse gas emissions. I am not making this up. We are talking about a net-zero accelerator, an accelerator to reduce emissions to zero, but we are unable to determine whether we actually managed to reduce emissions.

It gets worse. Let us talk about the testimony we heard in committee. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development appeared before the committee on May 2 and 9. When we asked him how all of this was done, here is what he said, and I quote:

We also found that the department did not always know to what extent GHG emissions had been reduced by those companies that took part in the [net-zero accelerator] initiative, or whether the funding provided would lead to reduced emissions.

It is called the net zero accelerator. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development told us there was no way to ensure that emissions would go down. After nine years of the Liberal government, there is no making this stuff up. Later on, in his testimony, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development said, “The majority of the contribution agreements do not have a commitment for reduction”. In fact, 12 of the 17 companies did not have to commit to reducing emissions, even though it is called the net zero accelerator. We need to speed up progress to net zero, but 12 of the 17 companies have no target. What kind of management is that? It is how the Liberals have managed things for the past nine years.

We asked for access to those documents. The government vetoed that categorically. Parliamentarians can look at the documents, but it is important to point out that it is an eyes-only situation. They cannot take notes or photos or do anything with the documents. They can only look. We sincerely hope that the documents will be made public.

Obviously, I cannot talk about what I saw, and I am certainly not going to get myself in trouble. I cannot say what was in those documents, but I can say that everything I saw should be known to Canadians. It was disturbing. All members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have access to it. We sincerely hope that all MPs can get access to it. Conservative members have seen the documents, and that is why my message to all Canadians is that they deserve to know how that $8 billion—the $8 billion they contributed—was spent.

Let us now talk about another program introduced by this government over the past five years, the green fund for sustainable development technologies. This fund was not a Liberal Party creation. It was active under other governments and, as a fund intended to help companies reduce their emissions, it was doing well. After disclosures were made in various media outlets, the Auditor General of Canada was instructed to look into what had happened with the now-infamous green fund. The results were very troubling, not in our estimation, or in the Conservative Party's estimation, but in the opinion of the Auditor General. Of the $500 million allocated over the past five years, this Liberal government had spent $390 million, which means that close to 80% of the money in this fund was not properly managed. Board members were allocating taxpayers' money to their own companies, in violation of the rules of good management.

When people realized how much turnover there was on the board of directors due to conflicts of interest, it became clear that some board members should not be there. So much coming and going should always be a red flag. It seems to me that this should be a wake-up call for people to want to do things differently. That is not what happened, which is very unfortunate. That is also why, after nine years under this government, not only is Canada the worst country in the G7, but it ranks 62nd out of 67 countries, according to the most recent report released at COP29 just a few days ago. In fact, I asked to table that document, but the Liberals refused.

Clearly, those folks did not meet the targets. They did not achieve what they set out to do and, more importantly, they do not know how to manage investment funds when they have them. As Conservatives, our approach is positive, constructive, effective and, above all, not dogmatic. At our convention in Quebec City a little over a year ago, in September 2023, our leader defined the four pillars of our environmental action plan.

The first pillar is the tax incentives in research and development in new technologies to reduce emissions. This needs to be done responsibly and not to make cronies happy, as the Auditor General concluded with the green fund, nor by committing billions of dollars—$8 billion in the case of the Liberals—without any real reduction commitments. As the Ethics Commissioner concluded, 12 out of 17 businesses received billions of dollars without any clear goals. What is that all about? Conservatives want a tangible, realistic, responsible approach that is respectful of taxpayers' wallets.

The second pillar involves giving a green light to green energy. We need more wind, solar, hydroelectricity, geothermal and nuclear energy in Canada. Yes, decarbonization leads to green energy. That is why we need it. We do not have enough. We need more. We need to give the green light to green energy.

The third pillar is the Canadian advantage. In Canada, we have all the natural resources we need for decarbonization. Let us take lithium, for example. As the member for Carleton said when he became leader, we need Canadian lithium to electrify our electric cars. We want to give the green light to green energy and develop all the potential energy and natural resources that we have in Canada to make progress on this front.

The fourth pillar is working hand in hand with first nations. Too often in our history, when we arrived somewhere to pursue development and first nations were there, we signed a small cheque to make them go away because we were going to develop that area. That is not the right approach. We need an approach in which we create shared wealth, work as equals and become partners in prosperity.

The Conservatives are taking climate change seriously, and we plan to provide tax incentives for new technologies, give the green light to green energy, develop natural resources to their full potential to further decarbonization and work hand in hand with first nations. I am really looking forward to an election that will result in a responsible government for all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as opposed to focusing attention on the concurrence report, I see the tactic of the Conservative opposition is to continue an ongoing filibuster. My question for the member opposite is related to why the Conservatives continue to move concurrence reports and then return reports back to the standing committees, thereby dictating more and more. We see this as a troubling pattern from the leader of the Conservative Party, who wants to send reports back to committees and instruct standing committees what to do.

Does the member have any concerns in terms of this power grab by the leader of the Conservative Party in trying to dictate the types of issues that committees are forced to talk about because he, as leader of the Conservative Party, wants that issue discussed and is instructing them to do so?

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

Madam Speaker, it was very sad to see, again, that the government refused to accept an order of the Chair. This is why we have no action in the House, because the government refused to move forward with a motion asking it to give some documents to the RCMP. The government refused

On the other hand, what I want to raise, also, is that he said that we are dictating what we want to say. Yes, I want to talk about climate change. I am very proud to defend our observations and the actions we will take if we are honoured by the people of Canada in the next election.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Alleged Intimidation during Proceedings of the House

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

Madam Speaker, as promised yesterday, I am rising to make a more structured intervention on the question of privilege raised by the NDP member for London—Fanshawe.

I agree wholeheartedly with all my Conservative colleagues who have already risen on this matter. There is no question of privilege here whatsoever concerning the behaviour of the official opposition. If anything, the actual contempt here was when the NDP deputy House leader stormed up the aisle in a very physically demonstrative and verbally aggressive fashion to confront the Chair. She was quickly joined by the NDP member for Edmonton Griesbach.

That was, of course, in plain view of anyone watching the television feed of Thursday evening's proceedings of the House. She also confessed to it in her intervention Friday afternoon when she said, “After we adjourned, I approached the Chair to ask how this could have been allowed.”

That is a very polite way of putting it. If we look at the tape, the camera was still running after the Speaker adjourned the House. We can see the member in question, the NDP member, walking up very aggressively, waving wildly, pointing fingers and basically yelling at and admonishing the Speaker.

Standing Order 16(4) instructs us that, “When the House adjourns, members shall keep their seats until the Speaker has left the chair.” That clearly did not happen. If anything, the NDP deputy House leader's conduct reminded me of the incident described at footnote 345 on page 645 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

Perhaps the worst scene in modern times occurred in 1980 when closure was moved on a motion to establish a committee to study a constitutional resolution. Several Members, angered by the closure motion, stormed the Chair, demanding to be heard. The resulting disorder on the floor of the House led to the entrance, behind the curtains, of members of the protective staff on the orders of the Sergeant-at-Arms....

Thankfully, it did not quite get that far. We did not need armed police in here to address the NDP's chaos and disorder, but the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms did have to escort, physically, the NDP deputy House leader away from the Conservative benches after her unprofessional, erratic and unhinged attack on several Conservative MPs who, in compliance with the standing order, had remained seated and remained calm.

Like I said, if anything gives rise to a contempt, it is the storming of the Chair by the NDP deputy House leader. Had Conservatives wanted to, we could have raised our own question of privilege, which I believe would have been a slam dunk for securing a prima facie ruling from the Chair, but Conservatives believe that questions of privilege should be raised to address serious violations of the authority and dignity of Parliament, not to score cheap political points to deflect from a given party's strategic errors.

That is what I believe is behind the NDP deputy House leader's question of privilege. If you will grant me a little bit of latitude, I do believe that motive and context matters in this.

The NDP is suffering. What we are seeing is the lashing out of emotions that its predicament has built up. For three years, the NDP was in a coalition arrangement with the Liberal Prime Minister, aiding and abetting his disastrous policies for Canada, which has Canadians suffering—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is a question of privilege on the floor. We are going to allow this intervention to end, and then we will go to the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who is rising on the same question of privilege, from what I can gather. If the hon. member is providing context particular to the event that happened, then that is acceptable. If it is other stuff that he wants to debate, then I would say that that is not admissible.

The hon. official opposition House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, out of respect for you, I will quickly move through this part.

I will just point out in the New Democrats' interventions on this, they had no problem using the House's time to come up with all kinds of wild theories and conjecture about motivations or even fabrications of what was going on. However, I will heed what you have said, Madam Speaker, and quickly just point out that clearly the New Democrats were frustrated that night.

I believe they saw an opportunity to deflect and distract from their decision to—

[Some hon. members]

Debate.

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

No, this is what happened on Thursday night. They seized an opportunity to try to deflect from their own strategic error. That being said, Canadians are smart and recognize what they are seeing, and the NDP knows this.

All that happened during Thursday night's vote was that 100 or so Conservative MPs, proud to be here to vote on behalf of their constituents, were voicing their opinion about the NDP's voting. If the Speaker actually watches the video of the vote, she will see that the four or five NDP members who were voting physically in the House actually reacted in a playful and good-humoured way, like gesturing that they could not hear, jokingly, what the Conservative colleagues were saying, not that they could not hear the Chair or the vote callers. They were actually looking at our members, joking around and playing it up for the cameras.

In the moment, that is how those MPs interpreted the noise that was coming from down the hall. We can actually see the NDP member for Port Moody—Coquitlam jokingly asking Conservative members to speak up, because she was pretending that she could not hear them.

That was the flavour and that is visible on the cameras. That is without debate. That is not my opinion. That is what the Speaker will see if she looks at the video from that evening.

Now, I do believe that all that might have drawn a brief intervention from the Chair, and the House moved on, as it naturally would. It is the Speaker's job to enforce decorum, enforce the rules and apply them when he or she believes that it is getting to the point of being disruptive. Conservative members heeded the call of the Chair, and the House moved on, as it would.

As for specific allegations that were made, I have it on very good authority that we categorically reject the NDP's defamatory, spurious and completely unfounded allegations of anyone being intoxicated. If the Speaker really wants to take a look at the validity of those allegations, the two members who the NDP accused, in this chamber, that was again caught on video, are two members who are non-drinkers. This is not only insulting to them, but it is incredibly dangerous that somebody can use the parliamentary privilege like the NDP House leader has done to make these unfounded and baseless accusations, which now have gone out into social media and have really damaged members' reputations without any substantiation at all. That is really a problem.

If the Speaker looks at the behaviour of members that evening, if there is a question of who might have been intoxicated, it certainly was not Conservative members. Yesterday, the NDP House leader made an intervention where he asserted a number of those outrageous—