Leah Taylor Roy

[Privilege, October 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What is the relevance of this to the amendment we are debating right now?

[Petitions, October 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents and other residents in the area surrounding the Bradford Bypass.

This is a 16-kilometre 400-series highway in southern Ontario that would traverse the East Holland River. Runoff from highways has been known to increase chloride pollution hot spots. A number of serious concerns relate to the construction of the Bradford Bypass.

This petition is directed to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and it requests that the Bradford Bypass be considered an undertaking or activity that is likely to result in harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. Therefore, the petitioners request all information permitted under subsections 37(1) and 34.3(1) necessary to determine if construction of this highway should be permitted, and if so, that it be under conditions set out in formal Fisheries Act authorisation. They call on the ministers to designate the Bradford Bypass for an impact assessment pursuant to the recently amended Impact Assessment Act, as well as to require a comprehensive, transparent species-at-risk permitting process to be followed.

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it seems like this speech is getting further from the motion. I do not know if—

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am questioning the relevance of what the member is saying to the matter we are debating.

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have to revisit what the debate is about. It is not about releasing the documents; it is about how it should be done in a way that protects charter rights. We have been advised by the Auditor General and the RCMP that releasing the documents to them is not the right way to proceed. There has been a ruling from the Speaker that said that the issue should go to PROC.

Could the member opposite please admit to Canadians that this is a filibuster by the Conservatives so nothing is getting done in the House? We have agreed to send the documents to PROC. We are not hiding the documents; we are simply ensuring that it is done in the correct way according to the processes we have in the House of Commons.

[Small Business, October 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is an issue that affects us all. Small businesses are not immune to the devastating effects of a changing climate. Small businesses in my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, such as Windfall Ecology Centre, have been contributing to the fight against climate change through the services they provide, the price on pollution program and so much more.

Can the Minister of Small Business tell Canadians about the measures our government has put in place to help all small businesses as they deal with the impacts of a changing climate and the fight against it?

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. The member opposite is now saying that I forced two million Canadians to go to a food bank as part of the government's bringing forward policies. That is completely misleading, and I take it as a question of privilege.

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually doing research on it and found that some can be made directly, without an hour's notice, and one of them was on misleading statements.

I am just wondering what are the circumstances under which that can be done and how many misleading statements have to be made before one can actually raise that point.

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have never raised this issue, but I understand there can be a matter of privilege raised on misleading statements. I have been sitting here listening to the member opposite for the last however long it has been and heard many misleading statements that I think are detrimental, not only to our Prime Minister but also to me. I am part of the environment committee that put these policies in place.

When can a matter of privilege for misleading statements be used when we sit and hear them over and over again?

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, he has been referencing the waste of taxpayer dollars and I agree. Filibustering in the House is certainly a waste of taxpayers' dollars. We have had a ruling from the Speaker saying that this matter should go to PROC. The subamendment just suggested by the member is something that could be considered by PROC, rather than extending this filibuster further. There are important matters that taxpayers and my constituents expect us to be dealing with.

Will the member agree to put this to PROC, as has been ruled by the Speaker, and end this filibuster?