House of Commons Hansard #321 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was diabetes.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Committees of the House First reading of Bill C-392. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to limit the application of the R. v. Jordan decision for serious primary designated offences. 200 words.
Alleged Unjustified Naming of a Member—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules there is no prima facie question of privilege regarding the accuracy of the official record (Hansard) after the member for Lethbridge was named and asked to withdraw. The Speaker states editors removed "I withdraw" from the initial transcript due to unclear audio, and his decision to name the member was justified by what he heard. Members raise points of order questioning the Speaker's recusal and the process of changing the blues. 2400 words, 20 minutes.
Opposition Motion—Summer Tax Break Members debate a Conservative motion calling for the immediate removal of the carbon tax, federal fuel tax, and GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day to help families afford summer vacations. Conservatives argue this saves typical families $670, citing high living costs. Liberals, NDP, and Bloc members challenge the savings estimate, arguing the measure undermines climate action, removes carbon rebates benefiting low/middle income, and impacts government revenue. 41300 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Business of the House NDP MP Jenny Kwan's motion setting a specific timeline and process for the committee study and reporting of Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference, is agreed to. 500 words in 3 segments: 1 2 3.
Opposition Motion—Summer Tax Break Members debate a Conservative motion to suspend federal fuel taxes, including the carbon tax, for the summer, arguing it would provide immediate relief from the cost of living crisis and lower prices. Liberals and NDP members discuss climate change impacts and question the Conservative savings claims and the motion's financial basis, while NDP also notes provincial jurisdiction on carbon pricing. 3100 words, 25 minutes.
Parliament of Canada Act Second reading of Bill C-377. The bill C-377 aims to improve parliamentarians' access to classified information by deeming MPs and Senators applying for a secret security clearance as having a "need to know" for their application. Debate highlighted past issues like the Afghan prisoner crisis, discussing the balance between parliamentary oversight and national security concerns. 8000 words, 1 hour.
Pharmacare Act Report stage of Bill C-64. The bill establishes a framework for national pharmacare, initially covering contraception and diabetes medications. Supporters view it as a crucial first step to improve access and affordability for millions. Opponents argue it is not truly universal, interferes with provincial jurisdiction, and raises concerns about costs and private insurance impacts. Conservatives moved to delete its clauses. 37000 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Alleged Breach of Deputy Speaker's Impartiality Members debate a question of privilege regarding a social media post featuring the Deputy Speaker in robes. The Deputy Speaker states it was not approved and has been removed. Conservatives contrast it with a previous Speaker issue and cite different impartiality standards for Deputy Speakers. The NDP argues the cases are similar, involving unauthorized use of a Chair occupant's image, and calls for an apology. 2100 words, 20 minutes.
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government is once again hiring foreign mercenaries to shoot deer on a B.C. island. This will cost taxpayers over $12 million to cull less than 900 invasive deer, this while local hunters had previously removed over 2,000 of the invasive fallow deer for free.
Why is the minister wasting $12 million on a deer hunt that Canadian hunters said they would do for free?
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this issue. We will look into it and get back to the member as quickly as possible.
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Mr. Speaker, we have Canadian hunters that say they would even pay to hunt these deer, yet the NDP-Liberals have found a way to make it cost millions.
Scott Carpenter says, “It’s a real slap in the face to Canadian hunters, and there’s millions of us in this country who would’ve been more than happy to spend our own money to go in there and harvest some of the meat ourselves...To...invite foreigners into the country because they felt we were incapable of doing it ourselves, it’s insulting to say the least.”
What does the NDP-Liberal government have against Canadian hunters?
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will look into it and get back to the member as fast as possible.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show that if it is not climate change, they do not know anything about it.
In 2015, the Prime Minister told Canadians that one did not need an AR-15 to bring down a deer, yet he has hired foreign mercenaries with semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines to do just that. The NDP-Liberals are spending $12 million to cull a few hundred deer on Sidney Island. The waste is typical; the hypocrisy is palpable.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to demonize hunters, while finding the most expensive way to do something that local hunters would have done for free?
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, I answered this question twice in English. I know my English could stand some improvement, so I will answer in French.
We will look into this matter and provide an answer to the member as quickly as possible.
Valerie Bradford Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian task force on preventative health just announced its updated breast cancer screening guidelines. I am disappointed that the guidelines do not reflect concerns put forward by many Canadians.
Could the Minister of Health please share his views on the task force recommendations?
Mark Holland LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern. I was concerned and disappointed, frankly, at the recommendations that were there. They do not seem to comport to the experts who I have spoken to across the country.
That is why I have asked immediately for the chief public health officer to review this independent task force decision, to make sure we convene the best science and the best experts to be able to inform the decision that makes sure that every woman in the country gets the guidance they need to protect their health.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are expecting this wildfire season to be devastating, and the minister has said the same.
Last summer, we had to rely on our military to help battle wildfires and support communities. This year, the chief of defence staff says that is no longer an option. We need a solution.
Canadians overwhelmingly want a dedicated national wildfire fighting force. Will the Liberals create this needed force to tackle fires, support communities and save lives?
Sherry Romanado LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say that our hearts go out to the families of the eight firefighters who were killed in last year's wildfire season. Over 200,000 Canadians were evacuated last year. The important thing is that we work very closely with the municipalities, the provinces and territories that have the first line of defence when it comes to fighting wildfires. We will always be there for them. We are ensuring that we have the proper resources in place to make sure we are ready for this year.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour of participating yesterday in a symposium sponsored by Senator Marilou McPhedran, from the other place. It was attended by many brilliant young people arguing that the voting age should be 16 years. The #Vote16 movement includes a bunch of people over 70, like myself. Well, I am not over 70, but I am almost 70. However, my point is, all of us, regardless of party, should get behind this.
Would the hon. Minister for Democratic Reform, responsible for the elections, let us know whether the government is prepared to listen to young people and put the voting age at 16?
Jennifer O'Connell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for the question and, in particular, for young people taking part in their democratic institutions. This is precisely what we want young people to do: be engaged. The democratic process involves Canadians all across this country at every age to take part in our democracy.
PROC is studying this matter as well, and we have introduced reforms to the Canada Elections Act. We are going to continue to listen to Canadians to ensure that everybody can take part in the democratic process.
Réginald Charles GagnonOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
There have been discussions among all the parties in the House and I believe there is consent to observe a moment of silence in memory of Réginald Charles Gagnon, who was known as Cayouche.
I invite hon. members to rise.
[A moment of silence observed]
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is the usual Thursday question, but for the last few days, if not weeks, the government has been having a hard time sticking to a schedule. It keeps moving more and more time allocation motions and muzzling parliamentarians on a lot of important bills.
Can the government House leader tell us what business is planned for tomorrow and next week? Can we be certain that the schedule he shares with us today will be the same we will see next week?
Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, my daily attempts to reach out to opposition members and improve the efficiency of the business of the House are always rebuffed out of hand. The Conservatives would rather filibuster, raise totally fake questions of privilege, and use all sorts of delay tactics in the House to prevent the government from passing measures that are going to help Canadians in their daily lives.
Despite it all, I will continue to reach out to opposition members to make sure that the business of the House takes place efficiently.
This evening, we will deal with report stage of Bill C-64 respecting pharmacare. Tomorrow, we will commence second reading of Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. On Monday, we will call Bill C-64 again, this time at third reading stage.
I would also like to inform the House that next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days. On Wednesday, we will consider second reading of Bill C‑61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.
Next week, we will also give priority to Bill C‑20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, and Bill C‑40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Speaker, earlier today in question period, one of my Alberta colleagues, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, in asking a question, used the phrase “anti-Alberta minister” in reference to the environment minister. You asked him to rephrase his question.
A simple Google search shows that, over the years, members of all four recognized parties in the House have used the phrase “anti-Alberta” or “anti-Quebec” in standing up for their constituents in ways that their constituents would expect them to stand up.
I think we are not better off in the House when the list of words we cannot use gets longer and longer. I think we suffer from a lack of clarity right now as we make efforts, as members of Parliament, to stand up for our constituents.
I would like some clarification on what language we can and cannot use because it seems to have changed significantly over the past several months.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for raising this issue.
What was going through the Chair's mind on this issue is that people can have policies or they can have ideas they might characterize as one thing or the other. The thing that caught me, and I will get back to the member on this, is whether or not members should attribute that to another hon. member. That is something I will review. I thank the hon. member for raising it, and I will come back to the House on this point.
We have another point of order. I am going to ask for a very short intervention from the member for Kingston and the Islands on this point, because we are going to come back to the House on it.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do agree with the member and what he said.
In particular, I would bring to the attention of the Chair that there is still a member of Parliament on this side of the House who has not spoken in about a month and a half because he accused Conservatives of being pro-Russia.
As a result, your deputy asked him to withdraw his comment. He did not want to withdraw because he believed what he was saying was correct. As a result, he has not been able to speak for about six weeks.
In your consideration about this issue, I would ask that you also consider whether or not it is appropriate to make a statement like that, because I would agree with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin that this would be limiting the words we can use in this House.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I will consider that and come back to the House.
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon, my office submitted to you the necessary letter pursuant to Standing Order 48(2) to give notice to you of my intention to rise now and to speak to what I believe to be a potential question of privilege. The document that I will be referring to was just recently brought to my attention and I am bringing this forward at my first opportunity, as is required.
It has come to my attention that on October 31, 2023, the member of Parliament for West Nova and our esteemed Deputy Speaker appeared in his Speaker robes in a Conservative Party advertisement. At first sight, this constitutes an improper use of the Speaker's robes, which of course are meant to be above the partisan fray. It is also worth noting that the ad specifically mentions him as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and not just as an MP.
As outlined in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the role of Deputy Speaker is an important one, with the Deputy Speaker's authority being comparable to that of Speaker. Page 359 reads, “Every action of the Deputy Speaker when acting in the Speaker’s place has the same effect and validity as if the Speaker had acted,....”
We do have some previous examples in recent months of discussions in the chamber around the principles of impartiality and of the use of House of Commons resources, namely the Speaker's robes. On December 4, 2023, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was commenting on the appearance of the Speaker in a partisan ad while wearing his robes and when being referred to as “Speaker”. As the member pointed out:
[The Speaker] made these remarks from the Speaker's office in the West Block while dressed in his Speaker's robes. As bad as it would have been to appear at a party convention at all, it might have at least been a little different if he had been introduced as the member for Hull—Aylmer, and worn a suit or a sweater, while standing in front of a scenic backdrop in his riding, but he was not.
On the following day, the same member said:
When somebody enters this place and decides to run for Speaker, they usually go to some length to assure members that they do have a non-partisan side, that they can put aside their partisanship and partisan affiliations, and that they can take the Speaker's chair, put on the Speaker's robe and be impartial.
Again, the critical detail here is the use of the robes, which the member contends are meant to represent the impartiality of the office. Ultimately, the procedure and House affairs committee found that in using the Speaker's robes, the Speaker had effectively used House of Commons resources. On that basis, the Speaker was ordered to pay a fine.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier this week, there was also a debate over the Liberal Party of Canada's posting of an inappropriate ad featuring the Speaker, as well as partisan messaging. The party—
Alleged Breach of Deputy Speaker's ImpartialityPrivilegeOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I am sorry to interrupt the hon member. I am going to come back to the hon. member.
There is a conversation between the government House leader and members on this side of the House. I am going to ask them to please take their conversation behind the curtains, so that I can hear the intervention from the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, uninterrupted.
The hon. member.
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will start back at the point where I was interrupted.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, earlier this week there was debate about the Liberal Party of Canada's posting of an inappropriate ad featuring the Speaker, as well as partisan messaging. That party took responsibility and the matter was concluded.
I suspect that in the case of the member for West Nova and the ad I have raised today, the same is true. I believe an opportunity should be afforded to the member and to the Conservative Party of Canada to clarify who was responsible. Should the party prove to have made this decision without the knowledge or consent of the Deputy Speaker, then the member is owed an apology from the party and I would consider the matter closed.
However, I would think that if the Deputy Speaker did approve or direct this ad wherein he is clearly using the office of Speaker for partisanship gain, then I believe, Mr. Speaker, you would have to find a prima facie case for a question of privilege. If so, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this matter referred to the procedure and House affairs committee.
Alleged Breach of Deputy Speaker's ImpartialityPrivilegeOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I thank the hon. member for London—Fanshawe for rising on this question of privilege.
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, we would like to take a few moments before responding with our comments on this question of privilege at a later time.
Alleged Breach of Deputy Speaker's ImpartialityPrivilegeOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I also see the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader rising on his feet. I am assuming it is in a manner similar to the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.