Michelle Rempel

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to the government’s agreement with Stellantis-LG Energy Solutions (LGES) related to electric vehicle battery production: (a) were any consultants or external advisors used by the government related to the deal or the negotiations, and, if so, what are the details of each, including (i) who, (ii) the amount of the contract, if applicable, (iii) the description of goods or services provided, (iv) the reason that the consultant or advisor was chosen; and (b) were any bonuses or performance awards awarded to any individuals for their work on the agreement, and, if so, (i) how many people received such bonuses or performance awards, (ii) what was the total amount paid out in such bonuses or performance awards?

[Privilege, December 5th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, in a representative democracy, people who elect us to serve here must have a certain degree of faith that our voices count and that their voices are heard through us. I believe this is why we have the standing order that requires the Speaker to be impartial.

My colleague from the NDP raised a question about what recommendations she would like PROC to make. In that vein, could the member also talk about the need for the impartiality of the Speaker's chair to be maintained, in order for the public to have faith in the function of Parliament?

[Points of Order, December 5th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on decorum.

During Statements by Members, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle called the women of the Conservative Party “weak”. I have been called a lot things in my life, but weak is not one of them.

The member's language to tear down women and reduce our value to a quota is exactly what discourages women from running for office and makes it harder for every single one of us here. Strength comes from courage of action, no matter someone's gender, not from tokenization.

If the member wanted to show some strength of her own, she would apologize.

[Canadian Heritage, December 5th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”. That is what the Prime Minister said in 2015. After eight years, we see what that ideology has brought. Canada a is becoming a place where neighbours threaten violence over conflicts wrought abroad, as the government, for years, encouraged them to sort themselves based on what divides rather than what unites. This must end.

Canada does have a national identity. We are a people united in the freedom to worship freely, to speak freely and to prosper freely, knowing that any differences that we may have must be set aside to protect the identity that so many fought and died for.

As we head into the holiday season, a time when Canadians need hope, I ask the Prime Minister to reject the dangerous notion that we do not have a shared identity and to stop dividing Canadians for political gain. We must fight to save Canada's peaceful, pluralistic and prosperous national identity, no matter the cost. If he keeps Canada on the path we are currently on, the cost will be much higher still.

Lest we forget.

[Privilege, December 4th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of your deliberations on this matter, it is very important to put on the record the entirety of what was contained in the Speaker's video. He said this:

“You were the Steinberg's manager out in the West End. I was this young little kid, well you were young too, who was working for John Manley, and we struck up a great friendship: you, me, Linda, your kids, Julie; we all just hung out. You guys were a real inspiration to Julie and me. When we were just getting together, getting married, you and Linda gave us some great advice, great hope and a lot of love. When we started having children, we turned to looking at your family and how active you and Linda were in terms of getting things done. And boy, did we have fun. We had a lot of fun together through the Ottawa South Liberal association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected.

“This was really a seminal part of my life, and when I think of the opportunities that I have now as being the Speaker of the House of Commons, it is because of people like John and Linda, especially you, John, as to why I'm the person I am today. Of course, that could be, you know, a scary thing, and I am sorry to put that burden on you, but only the good parts. Only the good parts are really due to you.

“John, you know, anybody can ask you to do something once, and that's fine. But when they ask you to do something twice, it's because they really like you, they really respect you and they really think you're a great person. I know that, and I've known that for well over 30 years. So thank you, John, for all the work that you've done for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada.”

In light of the Speaker's statement this morning, which had the tone of downplaying the severity of this action, I would like to put on the record the ways that the Speaker shattered the impartiality he has sworn to uphold in what I believe, in tone and in content, is an endorsement video for a sitting Liberal parliamentarian. As the Conservative House leader said earlier, the Speaker made this video and statement in Speaker's robes in the Speaker's office for a video to be played at the Ontario Liberal Party convention. It was recorded for a partisan political convention in its tone and content, heaping effusive praise on a sitting partisan legislator at a political convention. It amounted to being an endorsement video.

Mr. Fraser is a sitting Liberal member of the Ontario provincial legislature, and he is planning to run again. The Speaker talked about how much fun the Liberal political activities were, while in his robe in the Speaker's office. He referenced how much fun the Ottawa South Liberal association is. He referenced helping get former Liberal premier, Dalton McGuinty, elected. He talked about participating in Liberal Party politics.

There are a couple of other things that my colleague did not mention that I think you, Mr. Speaker, should take into consideration in your ruling. For the Speaker to say this morning or in the media that he did not know what this was for is utterly preposterous. That, in and of itself, is an affront to the House. It shows the same bad judgment as the previous Speaker had in allowing a Nazi to be feted in this place. There is no way that three layers of staff, in the Speaker's office and at the Ontario Liberal convention, did not know what this was for. It is actually preposterous to suggest otherwise.

The other thing is that this is a pattern of behaviour. He actually made the argument that he did not know in this Parliament, when he was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. I want to read it into the record, because this is important to the point that the argument that he needs to exercise better diligence has been used twice before. My colleague mentioned one; I want to mention the other. It is from a CBC article subtitled “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion calls for ethics training in wake of latest breach”. It states:

The conflict of interest and ethics commissioner is recommending that all federal ministers and parliamentary secretaries report to his office for training after [the current Speaker] became the latest high-profile Liberal to violate the Conflict of Interest Act.

The article talks about the ethics violation in which the current Speaker found himself when in that role. I encourage you to read it, Mr. Speaker. The former conflict of interest commissioner said this: “Being dual-hatted does not mean [the Speaker] can circumvent the rules of the Act by simply wearing his MP hat”.

The article goes on to state that it is preposterous to say that a seasoned parliamentarian did not know. The article states that the Speaker “apologized for his ‘unintentional error’” and said, “I will redouble my efforts to be more diligent in the future”. Where have we heard this before? He said he would be more diligent when he gave information that should have gone to the House to a teenage blogger; this is now twice. I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the statement this morning through this lens. It is a pattern of behaviour.

I have to close with this. The speech was broadcasted on TVO, so it is not just we who were affected. Anybody who was watching the broadcast would have seen the Speaker of the House of Commons, in his office and dressed in his robe, giving a partisan speech. That is an affront not just to the people of the House but also to every person we represent. Why is it? I want to echo what the Bloc House leader said, which is that we need to make this place work. If we are, rightly I think, questioning the Speaker's impartiality every single time because of a pattern of behaviour of “I did not know” or “I will be more diligent in the future”, democracy is eroded. This place is eroded. This place has to work, and now we have a very serious question.

In closing, I want to read the terms of employment for the pages in this place. It is posted on the parliamentary website:

The House of Commons administration is a non-partisan workforce where respect, support and promotion of the democratic process are an organizational value. Pages may not participate in any activities, including on social media, that are politically partisan or that could give rise to the perception that they could not perform their duties impartially.

What kind of example is the Speaker setting for our pages if he is wearing his robe outside the House? What would happen if they wore their robes out to some sort of political convention? This is also about setting an example for our youth.

This is such a serious issue that the House of Commons proceedings, as my colleague said, should not be proceeding without a ruling on the matter. This is very, very serious and very disappointing, and I cannot believe we are here again, two months after a Nazi was feted in the House.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, for a carbon tax to reduce consumer reliance or get consumers to switch from a high-carbon consumer product or practice such as, let us say, filling up a gas-powered car, there has to be affordable substitute goods for them to purchase.

If the member opposite came to my riding in Calgary, he would see that the federal government has failed to build out light rail transit, for example. Light rail transit could conceivably pull 50,000 cars off the road every day, but that does not exist because the government has not been able to build these things out.

What happens is that, no matter how high the price of gas is or how much tax there is, my constituents still have to fill up their cars. Therefore, the carbon tax does not work.

It is price inelastic because there are no substitute goods. That dogmatic adherence to a pricing instrument that does not work is bad public policy and the government should abandon it.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

I think it is really important to have this debate at this particular juncture, given that Canada's ability to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets and the heft and might of its climate strategy will come under scrutiny at the COP climate conference in the next week or so.

The report is kind of an indictment on the government's ability to undertake concrete action to implement policies, procedures and strategies that would materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions production within the government's own scope of operations. The recommendations contained herein, given the amount of public money that I am sure has been expended on the activities contained here, which were audited, should give every member of the House pause for thought and certainly some level of concern in terms of the government's ability to deliver results when it comes to climate change.

I want to use this opportunity to talk about two things. The first is the government's inability to meet Canada's climate targets, and what I think it should be doing at the junction and intersection with the activities of the government that are contained within this report. Also, I want to talk about how the government needs to look at its operations and structures on different initiatives that are purportedly designed to meet Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets but that are not getting the job done.

A couple of weeks ago, ahead of a fairly significant vote in the House on removing the carbon tax on home heating for all Canadians, I wrote a piece entitled “Canada's carbon tax isn't working. It's time for it to go”. The subheading I used was “Monday’s vote on ‘axing the tax’ on home heating should be viewed as a critical opportunity to innovate.” The reason I put that subheading in there is that there were new reports that were showing that the government, in spite of having the carbon tax in place, was really not on its way to meeting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. At the same time, the economy, according to data we saw today, is shrinking. Canadians are having a really hard time making ends meet, and we are not meeting our targets. This should prompt the government into rethinking its approach.

The piece reads as follows:

Ahead of a Wednesday morning caucus meeting, and as winter temperatures begin to set in across the country, [the] federal Conservative Party leader...announced that his party would force a vote in the House of Commons...to extend a three-year carbon tax exemption that was announced by [the] Prime Minister...for Atlantic Canadian heating oil to all forms of home heating in every part of Canada.

The temptation for the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners will be to continue to toe the line [the Prime Minister] took...which was that no additional carve-outs on the carbon tax would be forthcoming, and vote against [this Conservative] motion.

This is what the Liberals and the NDP did. Actually, I am not sure, but the Liberals definitely voted against it. The article continues:

But that position is a mistake, both politically and morally. If the Liberals and NDP care about public support for climate policy, the inflation crisis, and their jobs, they should vote in favour of [this] motion.

Here's why.

While inflation and cost of living remain the top concerns of Canadians, a very recent survey by Leger suggested that about 70% of Canadians are worried about climate change. However, support for keeping [the Prime Minister]'s signature climate policy, the carbon tax, only registers with the support of 18% of Canadians. The reason for the vast delta between public concern for addressing climate change and support for the carbon tax is something that few Liberal intelligentsia have considered. That blind spot is now both politically biting them in the rear and is likely preventing Canada from meeting its emissions reduction targets.

And that reason is that the carbon tax is failing to move consumer preferences away from high-carbon products and practices in the way [the Prime Minister] promised that it would, and Canadians know it. And in the middle of a generationally high cost of living crisis, all Canadians—even those very concerned about climate change—are unwilling to pay for a policy they consider ineffectual.

Said differently, people will only choose alternatives to driving and heating their homes with carbon-based fuel if other options exist, are available, and are affordable. Those circumstances might be partially available in other, more temperate, highly populated regions of the globe, but not so across much of Canada. So even though [the Prime Minister] is increasing the price of carbon fuel with his tax, Canadians aren't choosing to purchase alternatives because in most parts of Canada, they don't yet widely exist, or are completely unaffordable.

Even within the government's own scope of operations, that principle is clearly shown within this report.

It continues:

This concept is simple to grasp for even the most politically disconnected Canadians, particularly when they fill up their car and pay a carbon tax but have no public transit alternatives or pay a carbon-based home heating bill for six months of brutal cold with no other option.

And a decade of Liberal rule has also shown that their government isn't particularly good at getting these alternatives built—

This is very much evidenced in this report.

—which has further added to the failure of the carbon tax to shift demand for carbon fuel. Few Canadians now believe the Liberals can do things like actually build out the infrastructure needed to pull gas-powered cars off the road, for the simple fact that they’ve failed to do so after nearly a decade in government.

That is again evidenced in this report.

This was two weeks ago, but it goes on:

And this week’s serious whistleblower allegations regarding wrongdoing at a federal government agency—

This of course was SDTC.

—that was supposed to spur the development and deployment of emissions reduction technologies will undoubtedly further erode public trust in the Liberal government's capacity to provide lower cost alternatives to carbon fuels.

These facts are laid bare in recent government reports that show that even with the tax, Canada will still probably miss its 2030 emissions targets by close to 50 percent.

We are not even in the universe of getting close to meeting those emissions targets.

It continues:

There's proof of these facts in recent political trends, too. [The Prime Minister's] capitulation on the tax on heating oil should have been viewed as an inevitability by even the most lay observer—the signs have been present for months. For example, in August, a Nova Scotia provincial riding that has been a safe Liberal hold for time immemorial was flipped by provincial conservatives due mainly to the unpopularity of the federal Liberal carbon tax. Within [the Prime Minister's] federal caucus, there has also been [a lot of] dissent over the issue, likely due to the sustained, precipitous dip in polls in the traditionally safe-for-the-Liberals electoral territory that is Atlantic Canada.

These incidents followed nearly a year of high-profile messaging by my party, the Conservative Party, on these points, with “a message that was easy to grasp for millions of Canadians already grappling with increased living costs in the inflationary crisis.” It continues, “Now, that same crisis has overlaid onto the tax and means millions of Canadians face the prospect of choosing between heating and eating, never mind considering investing in expensive or”, as is the case is in most parts of Canada, “non-existent alternatives to carbon fuels.”

Again, I draw members' attention to the finance minister's very tone-deaf comments in Atlantic Canada earlier this year when she talked about how easy it was for her to get around in her downtown riding after being asked about the impacts of the carbon tax on Prince Edward Island's car-based tourism economy.

The report continues:

Further, [the Prime Minister's] late-stage, partial capitulation on removing the tax only for heating oil but not for other carbon fuel also risks creating perverse incentives like the one mentioned by the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, Bruce McLauchlin, who suggested that [the Prime Minister's] partial tax exemption may generate demand for higher emitting heating oil in certain circumstances. Keeping the tax with regional inequities also will further divide the country at a time when the federal government should be working towards unifying policy.

This report really shows that the government makes a lot of promises when it comes to climate and has not delivered. Canadians are poorer and our greenhouse gas emissions have risen. I really hope the government takes the recommendations in this report writ large, looks at them, goes back to the drawing board and develops policy that does not harm Canadians and lowers our emissions.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I think what my colleague highlights is a problem where the technology is changing so much faster than either the government's or Parliament's current ability to be nimble and flexible and move quickly.

Just to reference the government deputy House leader's response, this is not a time for the typical theatrics we might see in the House. This bill needs to be split and the government needs to go back to the drawing board. We need to see movement on this immediately. I implore the House.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, there are no rules around the development of this technology. IP can be stolen. Labour can be exploited. There are no rules around the deployment. This technology is highly disruptive and could be used for things like autonomous weapons. There are no rules around that either. However, there are also potential benefits.

Because our country is so far behind the rest of the world on this topic and has not engaged civil society, academia or industry in a meaningful way, or international partners, we are becoming an unstable place for investment and we are rapidly going to lose talent. The brain drain for AI is real and people are rapidly leaving our country.

The government needs to rethink a bill that it developed two years before the launch of large language model technologies like ChatGPT, separate it out from the privacy bill, engage civil society, industry and academia and move forward.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I have been here during my colleague's time in the House. In his role as House leader, he does not understand what we just voted on. The motion that I moved would have adjourned debate on this topic so the question could have been put to the House, we could have split the bill and the government could have had the opportunity to undertake some of the activities that have already been raised in the House. It was a motion to move forward.

Therefore, I would ask him to avail himself of a better understanding of procedure in the House, rather than to cast aspersions on colleagues with respect to a very serious matter, which is moving Canada forward in alignment with the world on regulations and protections around artificial intelligence.