Damien Kurek

[Criminal Code, December 6th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I understand the member's frustration. I would simply ask for unanimous consent to allow him to switch places with the next speaker. That would give him 15 minutes or so to work with IT in order to figure out the technical difficulty and address it accordingly.

[Criminal Code, December 6th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the member was passionately suggesting that he had the same question I do.

I have some concerns about how terminology like “minor disturbances” might be widely interpreted. It is a term that could be very subjective. I wonder if the member has any comments about that term and maybe some of the other challenges where in committee this terminology might be able to be tightened up.

[Criminal Code, December 6th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about how this bill very clearly articulated some of the challenges that existed, but on Friday, November 26, the Minister of Justice said that the challenges the bill tried to address were not a new problem. As I read through the bill and some of the challenges it attempts to address, terminology like “minor disturbances” raises concerns. There is a lack of clarity—

[Criminal Code, December 6th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend and colleague's comments regarding the irony that the government, which promised a number of elections ago to never introduce omnibus legislation, is in fact addressing two very, very different types of issues within this bill.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said earlier that it was not important to address access to other critical infrastructure such as pipelines, ports and maybe schools. It is unfortunate to see that the bill does not go further in ensuring that Canadians can not only have access to their workplaces and health care, but can also feel safe going to other critical infrastructure across our country.

[December 6th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again ask a question in this important debate. I want to note that the bill addresses two very distinct areas and that I asked earlier whether or not it would be relevant to split the bill into two separate ones.

However, specifically regarding health care facilities, it brings up a very important point. No Canadian and no health care professional should be hindered from being able to access their workplace or from being able to access care.

Specifically, I wonder if the member would support that being expanded to include something like critical infrastructure, pipelines and railways and so on. Especially at a time when there are serious supply chain challenges within this country, I am wondering if the member would be open to including that in this legislation.

[Criminal Code, December 6th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to enter into debate on this important subject today.

I have heard from a number of colleagues and a number of parties, who have raised concerns that this bill addresses two very different issues. Although both are very important to discuss and debate in this place, the fact is that they are quite different. One is related to protecting health care workers from being restricted from entering hospitals and whatnot, and then the other is regarding paid sick leave.

I am wondering if my colleague has any comments about whether these two distinct issues should be debated separately and if there is value in that to ensure it has the fulsome discussion required to make good policy that comes from this place.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 2nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter the debate to ask some very important questions about the content of the Speech from the Throne.

My constituents have made it very clear over the last couple of weeks since the Speech from the Throne that two areas are lacking. One is a plan to combat the corruption and lack of ethics in possibly the most corrupt Canadian government in Canadian history. Two is the fact that the government is putting forward a “light on crime” agenda that is letting criminals out on our streets, which is having a serious impact, especially in the rural communities I represent. This is why it is so relevant.

Between rural crime, light on crime and the lack of ethics, I would ask the member to address what is seriously lacking in the government's throne speech.

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

She is going to keep that up—

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. It is interesting that the member is obviously referencing the same point you had called out earlier concerning not being able to speak to the allegations that the member is currently facing. She is doing indirectly what you said explicitly could not be done directly.

[Softwood Lumber Dispute with the United States, December 1st, 2021]

Madam Chair, the question is very simple. Does the member believe that a political party that condones his activities can in good faith—