Debates of May 28th, 2024

Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 38(3.3) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, a case report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Main Estimates 2024-25: Votes 1, 5 and 10 under Department of Fisheries and Oceans”. I want to thank everybody for their input on the committee and the staff who helped prepare this report for the House.

Health

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Health, which is in relation to Bill C-64.

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Because of the importance of this legislation and because of the programming motion that referred it to our committee, the level of effort given by the support team from the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament was absolutely commendable. I wish to sincerely thank them for our being able to present the report in such a timely fashion today.

Safe Hospitals Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (possession of weapons and drugs in hospitals).

Mr. Speaker, under the radical and extremist Liberal-NDP government, our hospitals, once sanctuaries of care and safety, have become infested with chaos, drugs and weapons. In B.C. specifically, we have heard countless reports from the B.C. Nurses' Union of staff being exposed to fentanyl and meth smoke in their workplace.

A nurse on Vancouver Island was exposed to hard drug smoke at work. The exposure was so bad that she required emergency care and was told to stop breastfeeding her baby. In April, five nurses on one shift all had to be treated in emergency due to fentanyl smoke exposure. This is at a time when we have an urgent shortage of nurses, patients waiting for OR time and cancer patients being sent to Washington state for treatment.

This is the reality after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government.

Doctors and nurses should feel safe at work. Vulnerable patients should not be concerned about the presence of dangerous weapons while they are receiving care in our hospitals. This is common sense.

That is why I am introducing the safe hospitals act. This act would toughen sentences for criminals who bring weapons into hospitals to ensure the punishment fits the serious crime that it is. This act would also ban ministers of the Crown from granting an exemption to allow open, unsupervised and unprescribed hard drug use in hospitals. It is common-sense legislation to protect doctors, nurses and patients.

I look forward to this bill receiving the unanimous support of all parties. It will stop the crime and the chaos.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Gaza

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding who are concerned about the horrific situation right now in Gaza, where over 73,000 Gazans have been injured and over 34,000 have died, over 70% of them women and children.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to investigate whether Canadian weapons or weapon components have been used against Palestinian civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory, including during the current war on Gaza, and to close loopholes that allow the unregulated and unreported transfer of military goods to Israel through the United States.

The petitioners are citing that the Liberals have an obligation to prevent genocide. The killings must be stopped, and Canada must do everything possible to end this conflict now, including with a two-way arms embargo, immediate sanctions and supporting the ICC and ICJ.

Both Palestinians and Israelis deserve peace, justice and safety. The petitioners are calling for the release of hostages and a ceasefire now.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated—Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of the question of privilege raised by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie I move, seconded by the President of the Treasury Board:That debate be not further adjourned.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, is this concoction of closure to continue the cover-up part of the coalition agreement with the NDP?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is confused. We are trying to move back to the agenda that provides fairness for every generation and gets to debating tangible things such as pharmacare, dental care, expanding the rural rebate for the price on pollution and putting more money in the pockets of Canadians. The member wishes to instead dance on the head of a pin on procedural matters. We are trying to get back to business.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is an important debate on the fate of the Speaker, which is a must in a democracy like ours. The Liberal Party clearly wants to muzzle Parliament on this issue. That is really something else.

We have a Speaker who is rewriting the history books. Instead of muzzling Parliament, the government might win more respect from everyone here if it kindly asked the Speaker to simply step down, as the vast majority of people here think he should.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I come from the same province. The Quebeckers I speak to want Parliament to take action on things that will positively impact our constituents on a daily basis, not dwell on procedure and the Speaker of this House for the umpteenth time. Honestly, people look at this and think it is time to get down to business.

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

Madam Speaker, we have had Conservatives viciously attacking the Speaker repeatedly. We see what has happened in Saskatchewan. A conservative party is ruling in Saskatchewan, and what they did to the Speaker I will cite for the record. The Speaker, in his final statement, said:

...my experience with the [conservative] Government House Leader includes threatening gestures whenever I rule against him in the Assembly. He will start yelling at me and standing up and flashing his suit jacket. As the gestures and behaviour became more aggressive, I worried that he might be carrying a handgun. My concerns over his mental stability and his obsession with guns was only confirmed when he heckled after the passing of the motion to devolve all relevant parts of the Firearms Act to the province. He twice yelled, open carry, open carry next.

It goes on, but I think what we see taking place in conservative-held provinces, what we see with the Speaker and what we see happening federally are an attempt by conservatives to try to move aside from the agenda. Why are they doing this?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think we watched some of the events with absolute horror. No one in Canada can imagine that a cabinet minister, a House leader of all things, would walk into a legislature in this country, threaten the presiding officer and then concoct stories, alibis and fabrications to cover that up—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I ask the hon. member to get to the relevance at hand. I understand that he is answering the question, but we would like relevance.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am answering the question.

This culture of guns, violence and threats is something we never want to see in Parliament. While what we are seeing today is a further attempt to intimidate the Chair, the Speaker, and engage in delay and unnecessary political games, the fact is that this culture of intimidating the Chair is something we have seen in other legislatures, and I think Canadians are rightly horrified by it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question specifically about the Conservative tactics here. I find it incredibly rich that Conservatives are attacking our Speaker of the House of Commons for—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order.

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

Madam Speaker, I regret to have to inform my colleagues that he is our Speaker. He is the House's Speaker and this is our House. Unless I have something wrong here, he is a Speaker who was elected by all of us, regardless of how members cast their votes.

This further proves my point. The irony of this is that the Conservatives are going after the Speaker of the House of Commons for an image that was added to something about a fundraiser. Meanwhile, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, while he was the Speaker of the House, attended a fundraiser of the member for Regina—Wascana.

Does the House leader not find it incredibly hypocritical for them to suddenly be attacking this Speaker, our Speaker, given what transpired back in the day with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, it always amazes me that the people here think Canadians are not watching. They know the facts that he just related. They know that a Speaker of the House, being a member of Parliament, must do the basics necessary to attempt to be re-elected in their constituency. They must do the basics required of them by their political party. They must do the basics required of them as a regional member of Parliament and a representative of the place they come from. The Conservatives think no one sees that, but people, of course, can understand it.

What I think troubles those watching today is what has happened to this place. It used to be that when the Speaker was elected, we moved on with our business, debating the issues of the day with a back-and-forth, the various issues that come before us. Instead, the Conservatives try every day to disrupt our work by showing disrespect. We are not allowed to stand, for example, when the Speaker is standing. However, the Conservatives, led by their leader, will stand up in defiance of the Speaker. They will speak over the Speaker. They will send insults that are entirely inappropriate in this place or in any place.

The Conservatives would do better to worry about the kinds of seeds they are sowing, because they are breaking the norms, the customs and the respect that have governed this place for centuries.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the comments by the government House leader are so disappointing. He is not protecting the sanctity of this place. The House of Commons is our House of Commons, and that is our chair; however, the current chair occupant has proven that he is not fit to be in that chair.

We had a decision by the Deputy Speaker about the partisan activities of the Speaker. I do not know what type of baseball the Liberals play when empowered by their NDP coalition to shut down debate on a privilege motion, but the last time I looked, in baseball, it is three strikes and a player is out. On three different occasions, the Speaker has been involved in partisan activities and given partisan speeches. This is the fourth occasion. It has been found each and every time that he has violated the rules of this place.

We have a question of privilege in front of us. Turning to chapter 3 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 150, it says:

Once the motion is properly moved, seconded, and proposed to the House, it is subject to all the procedures and practices relating to debate on a substantive motion. The speeches are limited...

The House has considered all the conduct of the member, in this case, the Speaker. It goes on to say:

A privilege motion once under debate has priority over all Orders of the Day including Government Orders and Private Members’ Business. However, the debate does not interfere with Routine Proceedings, Statements by Members, Question Period, Royal Assent, deferred recorded divisions or the adjournment of the House [or other] scheduled...Private Members’ Business...

We have done our orders of the day, but now we have the Liberals, empowered by their NDP coalition partners, shutting down debate and moving closure on a question of privilege that relates to the very confidence that all of us in the House of Commons have in the Speaker.

The Speaker should do the honourable thing and resign. The House Leader should do that instead of forcing us to—