SoVote

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/9/24 3:14:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the latest reports show that emissions from big oil and gas are up yet again, quelle surprise, and now Imperial Oil is announcing a massive increase in production, thanks to the government's $34-billion freebie known as the TMX pipeline. That will be 900,000 barrels a day of unrefined bitumen emissions threatening coastal indigenous communities. However, the government's going to go one step further and exclude greenhouse gas emissions from environmental assessments. Will the environment minister just admit that his promise at COP26 for an emissions cap was just a publicity stunt?

97 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

May/9/24 3:15:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that just last week the national inventory report came out and showed that, since before the pandemic, our emissions have gone down 44 million tonnes. It is the largest decrease in the last 25 years. It is the equivalent of removing from our roads 13 million gas-powered vehicles. Our plan is working. However, I will agree with the member that there is more we need to do to fight climate change in this country, if only the Conservative Party of Canada could understand that.

93 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

May/9/24 3:16:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, protesters against Israel and the war with Hamas have set up an illegal encampment at the University of Toronto. Most of these demonstrators for hire are not even U of T students. Hate propaganda, threats and anti-Semitic slogans are being directed at legitimate students. Media state that the encampment is funded by pro-Hamas sympathizers who are directing a sham protest for a listed terrorist organization. Is the government investigating pro-Hamas entities in Canada who are funnelling money to support anti-Semitism and illegal protests in Canada?

91 words

Hon. Kamal Khera (Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, Lib.)

May/9/24 3:16:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that the local authorities are engaged in their jurisdictions on this matter. On this side of the House, we will always protect the charter-guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression, but it must not cross the line into hate and intimidation. At times like this, as a government, we are going to continue to do everything that we can to combat hate and to bring people together.

73 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

May/9/24 3:17:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to know if the government House leader can update the House as to what we will be dealing with for the rest of this week and for the week after the constituency workweek, which is scheduled for the week of May 20. As well, I wonder if you can inform the House of a couple of very important items. The House passed a motion ordering the Prime Minister to host a carbon tax conference within a certain time period after the motion was adopted. The government has about a week left, so can the government House leader inform Canadians as to what day the Prime Minister will hold this carbon tax conference with the premiers, what channel we can watch it on and whether he will listen to the 70% of Canadians and seven out of 10 provincial premiers who want to axe the tax?

153 words

Scheduled

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/9/24 3:18:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, I know the government is approaching that issue with all the seriousness with which the Conservatives come up with their slogans, but I will move on to the House agenda. This evening, we will resume debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business Motion No. 39, concerning the pharmacare legislation. We will go back to debate on Bill C-59 in the afternoon. Upon our return following the constituency week, we will resume debate on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, May 23, shall be an allotted day. On the extension of sitting hours, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28. Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Thursday, May 23, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Justice. Furthermore, debate on the main estimates for the Department of Health will take place on the evening of Wednesday, May 29.

197 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 3:19:48 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted. The hon. member for Lethbridge has the floor.

28 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

May/9/24 3:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to add to the question of privilege I raised on May 1, concerning the removal of my words from the Hansard. The question I submit to you today is the following: Is it appropriate for the Speaker of this place, the House of Commons, or those authorized to speak on his behalf, to comment publicly on a question of privilege that is before him for adjudication? I would like to explain why I put forward this question. It has come to my attention that the office of the Speaker did, in fact, comment to the media regarding my question of privilege. In fact, multiple articles, including one I have here on the front page of the National Post—

123 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 3:20:49 p.m.
Watch

I'm sorry, but the hon. member knows she is not to point to articles or hold them up because it then becomes a prop. I would ask the hon. member to just keep on with her point, please.

39 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

May/9/24 3:21:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, multiple articles, including one on the front page of the National Post, as I just showed the House, were published using an official statement provided by the Speaker's official spokesperson, which means it required his sign-off. This is particularly concerning to me and to Canadians when the matter is before the Speaker for a decision to be made. When the Speaker was asked to provide comment to CTV News on May 1 concerning why he kicked out the leader of the official opposition, he rightly governed himself in that moment and he said, “It would be unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House”. However, that same day, the Speaker's official spokesperson released a statement concerning my question of privilege. It is curious to me, then, that the Speaker would deem it appropriate to comment on one matter before the House but not another. In many ways, mine is more severe, because mine is an official question of privilege requiring adjudication, while the matter the Speaker refrained from speaking to actually did not require a ruling at all. On the front page of the National Post of May 2, the day after I moved my question of privilege, the following statement was issued by the Speaker's office, again signed off by the Speaker. It says, “The blues are unofficial and it is not unusual for changes to be made during the editing and revision process. Sometimes comments are left out when there is a lot of noise, and it is not clear what was said”. This is from the Speaker's office spokesperson, Mathieu Gravel. In the Speaker's own words, and I will repeat them, he said it is “unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House,” yet his office released an official statement. The question I leave with the Speaker for consideration today is this: Why was an official statement concerning my question of privilege issued to the media? I look forward to receiving an answer when the Speaker makes his official ruling concerning my question of privilege.

362 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 3:23:20 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the additional information that the hon. member for Lethbridge has brought forward. We will certainly take that into consideration as we continue to deliberate on that.

28 words

Hon. Patty Hajdu

May/9/24 3:23:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was really disappointed with the use of the word “addicts” to describe people who are struggling with substance use. In her question to the House, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha used this pejorative term again, as her leader has many times, to undermine the value and worth of people who use substances. I would ask that she withdraw it and apologize to the House. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

82 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 3:23:58 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. minister has had an opportunity to raise her point. I would just ask that she wait. Unfortunately, at this point, I cannot ask the hon. member to withdraw, but certainly we can do that at the next sitting. Give me one second here. The point of order that was brought up was to ask the hon. member to withdraw. After further consideration and discussions with the Table, at this point I would rather wait to look at the blues to see what was said and whether there is a need to ask the member to withdraw. We will come back to the House if need be. The hon. official opposition House leader.

115 words

Withdraw

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

May/9/24 3:25:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to add a couple of points to the comments made by my colleague for Lethbridge. In trying to get to the bottom of who altered the transcript of the Hansard on the day that the member for Lethbridge was kicked out by the Speaker, certain questions were posed to the aspect of the House administration that is responsible for the transcripts for Hansard. Those questions included who gave the order to alter the official record, what guidelines were in place at the time that decision was made and other related points. I will not go into all the questions that were posed, but the answer came back from the Hansard department saying that, since this was raised as a question of privilege in the House, they would refrain from answering those questions from my colleague and instead leave it to the Speaker. Therefore, I just want to ensure that, when the Speaker does come back on that ruling, those questions that were put to the House administration are addressed by the Speaker. The material change of the official record is a serious matter. The deletion of the two words “I withdraw” are substantial because the Speaker, on that day, kicked out the member for Lethbridge and deprived her of the ability to exercise her parliamentary duties and rights for the rest of that day. To keep a member of Parliament from participating in debate and being able to vote in potential votes and other types of related parliamentary functions is no small matter. Even though these are just two small words, the matter itself is very serious. Therefore, I would like to signal to the Chair that we are expecting that the questions that were put directly to the House of Commons administration are addressed in that Speaker's ruling.

306 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 3:27:20 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the additional information. We will certainly take that into consideration as well as we continue to deliberate on that question.

22 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)

May/9/24 3:27:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Bay of Quinte. After nine years, the Prime Minister and his NDP coalition are not worth the drugs, disorder, death and destruction. There is crime and chaos on the streets, and dangerous, extreme drug policies pushed forward by the NDP-Liberal government have made things so much worse. Since the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister took office, opiate overdoses across Canada have increased by 166%. In British Columbia, drug deaths were up 380% between 2015 and 2023, from 529 to 2,546. Those are people: loved ones, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, cousins, friends, family and neighbours. Every single life lost is tragic. However, it is important to note that the 380% increase since the Prime Minister started implementing his dangerous and extreme drug policies in B.C. absolutely must be called out. In British Columbia, more people are dying as taxpayer-funded drugs flood the streets. We see playgrounds littered with crack pipes, dirty needles and drug paraphernalia that abound. All the while, the Liberals have handcuffed law enforcement, making it nearly impossible for the police to just do their job and keep communities safe. We have clearly heard that the Liberals' failed legalization in British Columbia removed tools from police officers, making our streets more dangerous. Nurses have to deal with plumes of smoke from meth in the hospitals they work in. In fact, one nurse was forced to make a tough choice to end breastfeeding her twins earlier than she wanted to, as a direct result of being exposed to dangerous and deadly drugs in the workplace and her concern about this potentially harming her precious little babies. In the year after the Prime Minister made it legal to possess crack, heroin, meth, fentanyl and other hard drugs, a record 2,500 British Columbians lost their lives to overdose. Last year, the former Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, Carolyn Bennett, assured Canadians that the Liberals would end their experiment if public health and public safety indicators were not met. Fifteen months in, it is clear that we are failing at both, and B.C.'s NDP premier had to plead with the federal government to grant its request and rescue them from the failed policy. It took 11 days before the NDP-Liberal government acted on the pleading request from the B.C. NDP, effectively gutting its extreme policy and admitting that it was a failure. Now, common-sense Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to listen to our common-sense letter and fully reject Toronto's request to legalize hard drugs, and to prevent another tragedy like we have so clearly seen in British Columbia. The Prime Minister must show leadership, completely reject the failed policy and state clearly on the record that he will not allow the dangerous policy to legalize hard drugs in any community across the country. He absolutely needs to not export the failed policy to communities such as Montreal, Toronto or others. It is so concerning, as many communities across the country have passed resolutions calling for legalization. It is worth noting that this happened after the extremist NDP-Liberal government funded an organization called Moms Stop the Harm, which then quickly launched a national campaign lobbying municipalities and indigenous communities to call on the federal government to develop a plan that includes “legal regulation of illicit drugs to ensure safe supply of pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs, and decriminalization for personal use.” Effectively, the federal government funded an advocacy organization to do its dirty work for it, giving it cover to further the dangerous policy. To make matters worse, we have heard many leading addiction physicians, right across the country, state that the Liberal-NDP so-called safe supply continues to fuel new addictions. Courageous physicians from across the country have come forward and demanded an immediate end to programs that were flooding the street with taxpayer-funded high-potency narcotics. However, what confuses me is that when we start looking into the so-called safe supply and we get to the bottom of it, it is clear that someone must be making money from it. Where is all the money coming from? Where are the activists getting the money to push forward with this? It turns out that there probably is a lot of money being made. I am going to describe a few people. The first is Dr. Perry Kendall. He was British Columbia's public health officer from 1999 to 2018. In 2017, while still in his role as the public health officer, Dr. Kendall appears to have leveraged his influence to shape Health Canada's regulations to approve diacetylmorphine, that is, heroin, for treatment of opiate use disorder. In 2020, after retiring as public health officer, Dr. Kendall then co-founded a company called Fair Price Pharma to provide diacetylmorphine, that is, heroin, to those at risk of overdose. In 2021, Fair Price Pharma then imported 15 kilograms of diacetylmorphine that it bought from a licensed European supplier. Fair Price Pharma then contracted a federally licensed dealer's permit to import the heroin. From the time that Dr. Kendall was in office, Fair Price Pharma got upset because there were not enough people using the drug. A headline from one article reads, “BC's first provincial health officer fighting for safe supply of heroin”. Then there is Dr. Martin Schechter. Dr. Schechter played a leading role in two Canadian studies that were completed in Vancouver, the NAOMI and SALOME studies, which were the basis for the arguments made to bring forward the so-called safe supply. Ironically, Dr. Schechter is the other co-founder of none other than Fair Price Pharma. To recap, Martin Schechter and Dr. Kendall co-founded a company that led to profit from so-called safe supply. Dr. Tyndall is also involved. He is a former executive medical director of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control and former deputy provincial health minister under Dr. Kendall. Dr. Tyndall then started MySafe Society, which provides so-called safe supply hydromorphone from vending machines. In July 2023, MySafe received $1.3 million in Health Canada's SUAP funding, in addition to $3.5 million it had previously received. At this point, another article came out in British Columbia, with the headline, “BC doctors upset their ‘safe supply’ of heroin going unprescribed during overdose crisis”. It is exceptionally troubling that there are doctors pushing for safe supply and then potentially profiting from it after having created companies to solve the problem. It is important to share that Conservatives will listen to the experts and shut down the government-supplied drug programs. We will bring hope and a common-sense plan for treatment and recovery. Conservatives believe recovery is possible and that it should be the goal. We believe that every Canadian with an addiction deserves the opportunity to pursue recovery. If the Prime Minister allows Toronto, Montreal or any other community to legalize hard drugs as he did in British Columbia, the only outcome will be leading more vulnerable Canadians to a life of misery and despair. We need to restore hope to all Canadians. Common-sense Conservatives will stop funding the dangerous taxpayer-funded, so-called safe supply drugs. We will ban hard drugs. We will invest in detox, treatment and recovery services. We will bring our loved ones home drug-free.

1255 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

May/9/24 3:38:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hardly know where to start in this debate. It is so distressing to hear the Conservatives deliberately distorting and falsifying the information about what is happening in British Columbia and about the role of groups like Moms Stop The Harm. Overdose deaths have actually dropped in British Columbia over the last three months. They are now 11% lower than they were last year. We are seeing the positive impacts of the programs introduced in British Columbia. Yes, the B.C. government asked for an adjustment on public use of drugs. It did not say this was a failed program. It is not abandoning the program. It did not beg for it to stop. In fact, groups like Moms Stop The Harm and other people who have lost loved ones want to know what the Conservatives are proposing in provinces like Alberta, which now actually has a higher death rate from overdoses than British Columbia does. What are the Conservatives proposing to keep people safe in Alberta?

169 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

May/9/24 3:38:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that more people have died of overdose in British Columbia in the first three months of 2024 than in all of 2015. More than six people die in British Columbia every day due to an overdose. It is absolutely incumbent on each and every one of us legislators to adopt a recovery-oriented system of care, providing hope for people who are struggling with addiction, and offer them off-ramps so they can pursue recovery. British Columbia did not just tweak the program; it effectively gutted it, admitting it was an abject failure and demanding the federal government rescue the province from this failure. Unfortunately, I am not going to take any lessons from the Government of B.C. on how to handle the addiction crisis.

131 words

Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Lib.)

May/9/24 3:40:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to agree with my colleague from the NDP. There is a lot to unpack in that speech, for which, frankly, we do not have nearly enough time. The member talked about, essentially, a conspiracy theory about officials benefiting financially from the horrible crisis. Would the member speak to her leader about the fundraising that the Conservatives are doing right now on the issue and whether that is appropriate?

72 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

May/9/24 3:40:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the tragic overdose crisis that is gripping our country, and the addiction crisis, are very serious issues. There are some very stark differences with the approaches on how to handle this serious, tragic issue. Conservatives believe that people have the capacity to recover from addiction. We believe we need to support people in pursuing recovery through detox, treatment and a recovery-oriented system of care. It is very obvious that the NDP-Liberal coalition does not believe in supporting people in those endeavours. Unfortunately, people's lives are lost as a direct result.

95 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 312