Debates of April 29th, 2024

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.2142—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

With regard to federal support to Canada’s grocery sector, between November 1, 2015, to January 1, 2024: (a) how much federal funding was provided to Canada’s major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; (b) how much federal subsidies were provided to those major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; and (c) what programs were responsible for managing federal funding and subsidies to Canada’s grocery sector, by federal department or agency?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2340—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

With regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding?

(Return tabled)

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opioids

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I wish to inform the House that I have received two notices of requests for an emergency debate concerning the same subject. I invite the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock to rise and make brief interventions.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of grave, urgent and time-sensitive importance. Your decision on whether to grant this emergency debate will be a life or death decision. If you question that, let me share with you the statistics and the background.

In May 2022, the Prime Minister announced that he was granting British Columbia's NDP government an exemption to the Criminal Code prohibition on crack, heroin, meth and other deadly drugs. In January the following year, 2023, that exemption took effect, which decriminalized those aforementioned drugs and their use in playgrounds, hospitals, parks, transit and other places where children and vulnerable people are exposed to the risks.

The results are now in, and they are irrefutable. In the 12 months that followed the decriminalization of those hard drugs, British Columbia had a record-smashing 2,500 drug overdose deaths. This represents a 380% increase in said deaths since the Prime Minister took office. In other words, in the period since these policies came into effect, we have seen drug overdose deaths increase by a factor of four.

Furthermore, Canada now has the fastest-growing drug overdose death rate and the second-highest total rate of any of the 11 countries reviewed by The Commonwealth Fund. In other words, people are dying as a direct result of these policies. This is not simply my claim; it is now the NDP government's admission. As I said at the outset, it was the NDP government that asked for the decriminalization, which the Prime Minister granted. That provincial government has now reversed itself and has asked for the government to urgently recriminalize drugs in many public places. It is an admission that this policy is taking lives.

This is where the urgency comes in. Every day in British Columbia, six people die of drug overdoses. This is by far the highest overdose rate anywhere in Canada. It is something that even the NDP government is now attributing, in part, to the decriminalization. Unfortunately, that provincial government needs the federal government's permission to reimpose criminal sanctions on those drugs, something that the minister refused to grant today.

That means that even though the NDP government in B.C. wants to recriminalize it, as I stand here and as the clock ticks, decriminalization is in place. Every single day that goes by before the Prime Minister reverses himself, decriminalized drugs will be killing people on the streets of Vancouver, on Vancouver Island, in the Lower Mainland and in other places across the province.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to please hold his comments until he has the floor.

The hon. member for Carleton has the floor.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who believes six deaths per day is not an emergency needs to give their head a shake. Anybody who says that 2,500 deaths a year is not an emergency needs to give their head a shake. Those numbers, by the way, do not include the indirect deaths caused by drug-induced crime on innocent bystanders who might just be taking their kids to a local Starbucks before they get stabbed in front of their family and die in a puddle of their own blood, which is then broadcast on social media, as we have seen.

Those are the kinds of horrific scenes that have become commonplace ever since the Prime Minister and the NDP radical policy was implemented. Given that we are losing six lives a day, given that the reversal of the policy could prevent some of those lost lives, or at the very least, that such a matter should be debated, and given that the clock is ticking as the NDP government in B.C. awaits a decision from the Prime Minister and his health minister, this is an emergency.

We ask the Speaker to join with common-sense Conservatives to allow for this debate to happen immediately so that we can stop the drugs, disorder, death and destruction that the radical NDP-Liberal decriminalization policy has caused.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to request an emergency debate on the Prime Minister's dangerous and failed drug decriminalization policy. The House heard the Leader of the Opposition speak about the gravity, that it is a grave and urgent matter, and I agree with that. I particularly agree with it as a British Columbian.

B.C. Premier David Eby and his NDP government have finally admitted that these extremist policies are a failure, and now, he has come begging for major changes to the Prime Minister's hard drug decriminalization plan. For Canadians watching who are not from B.C., this plan allows for opioids, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines to be used in public spaces such as parks, coffee shops, one's local Tim Hortons, public transit and even hospitals.

When this policy began in 2023, the province set a devastating record. In that one year, there were over 2,500 drug deaths. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, more than 40,000 Canadians have tragically died from drug overdoses; those are 40,000 completely preventable deaths.

Taxpayer-funded drugs continue to be handed out by the radical Liberal government, and those deadly drugs are increasingly diverted into the hands of organized crime and into the hands of teenagers, pushing our youth into the destructive cycle of addiction. We see videos about this pretty much daily out of British Columbia. Drug overdose is now the number one cause of death for 10-year-olds to 17-year-olds in B.C. That is pretty devastating.

Until the Prime Minister's extremist drug decriminalization policy is dismantled, it will continue to cause death, chaos and carnage across Canada. Parliament has a responsibility to attend to the ongoing destruction caused by this deadly hard drug policy. I understood from the minister earlier today in question period that they have Premier Eby's request under review. As the Leader of the Opposition just said, every day of review means six more deaths; that is every day.

I trust my request will be considered as the emergency and crisis that it is. In order to save lives, to rebuild families, to eliminate chaos in our streets and to start putting more money into treatment and recovery from drug addiction, we must put an end to these dangerous and deadly policies immediately. I repeat that it is six lives per day, every day. The time to turn this hurt into hope starts now. Please consider this as the urgent matter that it is.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to thank the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock and the member for Carleton for giving the Speaker notice, as well as for the arguments they presented in the House. However, I do find that their request does not meet the requirements of the standing order as it is listed in the House of Commons Standing Orders.

Decorum in the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Table has received notice, and I did mention prior to the break when we went back to our constituencies that I would be intervening on the issue of the use of false titles in the House of Commons. Members will recall that this came up just prior to the constituency break. I did say at the time that I would be bringing forward further information, so I am rising on it today.

When we speak in the House, we have to follow clear rules of decorum in the way we address each other. We are guided by general principles, by being respectful, being truthful and not using false information, which is why we do not refer to each other with false titles. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, commonly referred to as Bosc and Gagnon, which is, of course, our procedural bible, says:

During debate, Members do not refer to one another by their names but rather by title, position or constituency name in order to guard against all tendency to personalize debate. A Minister is referred to by the portfolio he or she holds....

Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member.

The Speaker will recall that, on April 18, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn had to retract his comment after stating that the member for Edmonton Strathcona was “in the government right now”. The Speaker will also recall that the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes had to withdraw his comments on April 18, while we were questioning Mr. Firth before the bar, because the member was saying things that were not true. On the same day, during question period, the member for Milton referred to the leader of the Conservatives with a false title and the Speaker immediately intervened to ask the member to withdraw his statement.

We are encouraged to see that the speakership is taking the matter of false titles and factually incorrect statements to heart.

I would like to quote a ruling handed down by the Chair on March 29, 2022:

Members are elected to the House under the banner of a political party or as independents. The party that can obtain the confidence of the House forms the government. As such, it is the governing party and it consists of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and backbenchers who, without being members of the executive, are all part of the same political group. The other parties in the House and independent members constitute the opposition since they are not members of the governing party.

...

It is clear to the Chair that there is no change in the status or designation of the members of the New Democratic Party, nor in that of their officers, as a result of this agreement.

That agreement being the confidence and supply agreement.

...No NDP member is holding a ministerial post. There has been no change in the representation of the parties in the House. As a result, it seems obvious to the Chair that the NDP still forms a recognized opposition party, just like the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois.

Since that ruling, the official opposition, the Conservative Party, has interchangeably used, in a very false way, the terms “NDP-Liberal government” and “Bloc-Liberal government”, which makes no sense. This shows the contradiction, and that they are aware they are issuing falsehoods. They have repeatedly used these false titles, these false comments, in the House of Commons. Repeating in the House over and over—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are, of course, heckling because—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I will ask the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies to hold his comments until he has the floor.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby will please continue with his point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, repeating in the House over and over a statement that is factually untrue is a serious problem and a serious breach of parliamentary practices.

The members in the Conservative Party know that. They have repeated something in the House thousands of times that is false and misleading. They have admitted it is false and misleading by using a false title that is different in English than it is in French. In French, they continually refer to a Bloc-Liberal government, which is factually untrue. That is a falsehood, the same way that calling it an NDP-Liberal government is a falsehood. It is factually incorrect.

I would like to point out that the French term “gouvernement bloquiste-libéral” is equally incorrect.

We have a duty to do everything in our power to limit the use of false titles and incorrect terms in the House.

Quite simply, the Conservatives have raised the question of false titles, and we believe very strongly that you should make a ruling on the issue of false titles. You did say that you would be coming back to the House on this issue.

We believe this additional information will help you to make the appropriate decision that the use of false titles, including the use of a falsehood that the Conservatives love to repeat but is factually untrue, is something that is inappropriate for the proceedings of this chamber, the House of Commons of Canada, the highest body of political discourse in our land.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's intervention, he made a number of incredible claims. One was that I had said something that was not true. He is indirectly accusing me of lying, but is offering no proof of such because that did not happen. That is the first problem.

The second problem is that the member is saying that we cannot give false titles to individuals. Of course, what we are talking about is that the NDP-Liberal government should not be talking about that member.

The third thing is that, just seconds after the leader of the official opposition raised the emergency of the effects of the dangerous decriminalization that has been causing deaths in our communities, this member was falling all over himself to make sure that he could be comfortable with the signed contract he has with the Liberals to support them.

There are two million people at food banks and more than a half dozen people a day dying. He should be ashamed, and he needs to withdraw the falsehood he said.

[An hon. member]

Debate. That is debate.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to shout me down. He should be asked to withdraw the blatant falsehood that he said about me, unless he is willing to point to the falsehood that he is alleging I said. If he cannot, he should be instructed to withdraw it and to apologize.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I see the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is rising. Is this on the same point of order? I am coming very close to hearing all that was mentioned to be heard on this issue.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby was extended the opportunity to intervene as he had given notice that he would comment on this point of order before the Speaker made his ruling. Because there was a reference made to the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, that member was also extended the opportunity to raise his point, to counter or to clarify the record.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex was not mentioned, so I want to make sure that we would be hearing something new. The Speaker has heard enough on this debate to be able to come back to the House with a ruling.