Debates of May 15th, 2019

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Abbotsford.

Mercifully, we are in the dying days of the Liberal government, praise the Lord. The Prime Minister now is waking up every morning and seeing the same polling data that we are. He knows Canadians are fed up with his government and, more important, fed up with the scandal we see day after day with the government. We have seen SNC-Lavalin, the Mark Norman trial, his illegal trip to the Aga Khan island and the embarrassing trip to India.

He sees that polling data and he knows Canadians hate the fact that his record includes increased taxes, the disintegration of relations with major powers, including the United States and China, increased tariffs on Canadian goods and manufacturers and job losses. The Prime Minister also recently watched his lunch get eaten in two by-elections.

I am sure the Prime Minister when he wakes up in the morning, looks at all of this and thinks that the left, his vote, is deeply divided in Canada. I would surmise that he understands this is a problem for him, and is probably an upside to the rest of Canada, in that his electoral prospects have been greatly diminished.

This is why we have seen the Prime Minister and other leftist leaders put forward motions this week in the House of Commons even though other leftist leaders in the House have flip-flopped on issues related to the environment, including the NDP leader. I would propose that everything we see this week is crass politics, and I want to break down why.

Rather than giving two rips about fixing any of the problems that the Prime Minister has created or getting my constituents back to work, the Prime Minister desperately needs to change the channel. He hopes that if the press gallery and Canadians are not talking about SNC-Lavalin, his attempts to influence the independence of the judiciary, his failed record on taxes, the economy, then somehow he can dupe Canadians into giving him another term in government. Thus enters the lefts great push to put virtue signalling, do nothing, empty motions on climate change in this place.

Climate change is a real problem and it is a global problem that requires concrete and measurable action to solve. How we do that, the policy outcome, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and Canada has a role to play in that both domestically and internationally, but we have to do this while protecting our economy and, to reiterate, showing we are actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

How we do that, those policies, is not what any leftist leader, especially the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, wants to talk about in this place. It is much like his virtue signalling on feminism, his fake feminism. He unceremoniously turfs a strong indigenous woman from his cabinet and a strong physician after taking credit for their CVs. It is the same thing on immigration and on the economy. I could speak at length to that, but I will not. He wants Canadians to get super-duper excited about his virtue signalling on climate change, because he wants to distract from his scandals and the fact that he has done absolutely nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

One of my colleagues said that we had no choice but to act. Why have the Liberals not acted for three and a half years? We are in the dying days of this Parliament. This virtue signalling motion has no policy on how it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It does not even mention the economy. All the motions we are talking about this week have nothing in them about how we are going to meet our Paris targets or how we are going to ensure that the people in my riding get to work. That is why the left is divided, because it is fighting over the dregs of failed virtue signalling policy, and Canadians have had enough of that.

Members will remember a picture that was taken a couple of Halloweens ago of the Prime Minister and the environment minister, the high priestess of the climate change elite cocktail circuit herself, dressed as Captain Planet and the Climate Crusader. She took this cape and was like, “Yeah, the environment”.

That is the perfect summary of the Liberal government's climate change approach. It is all costumes. It is all smoke and mirrors. It is all photo ops. That would be fine if it did not cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars or if it reduced greenhouse gas emissions and did not ruin the Canadian economy. That is why we have to reject any virtue signalling from the current government.

Here is a very inconvenient truth. The last Liberal government, under Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, the climate change-crusading Liberal government of the Kyoto accord, saw greenhouse gas emissions grow by 30%. That is the last Liberal government's record.

Here is another inconvenient truth. The only time in Canadian history we have seen a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions growth was under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Why? It was because we understand that in a Canadian context, we have to heat our homes because it is cold eight months of the year. Also, we are a vast country and have to drive to places, because Liberal governments perpetually fail to get transit infrastructure built. That is because they are more concerned about SNC-Lavalin and their buddies than about getting track built to get passengers off the roads and into the downtown cores.

We put in place emissions regulations on light-duty passenger vehicles, heavy-duty passenger vehicles and the coal-fired sector. Any emissions reductions the current government sees—none yet—will happen because of those regulations. Why? It is because the current Prime Minister has said he wants to shrink the economy by taxing people with a carbon tax.

We cannot change the reliance of people on carbon in Canada, because there is no substitute. They need to drive around to get to work and they need to put gas in their combines and heat their homes, so we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by putting a tax on gasoline. Hence, when gas prices in Vancouver went to $1.80 a litre, the only behaviour that changed was that people in Vancouver said, “Better not support a carbon tax.”

The Liberal-Green-leftist-NDP alliance in British Columbia all of a sudden wanted a pipeline. Now these parties are saying we need to further reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I agree that we do, but we need to further double down on our targets. The Liberals cannot even meet the targets they have already agreed to. Why would we support anything they put forward?

This is empty virtue signalling. What do we need to do? We need to stop reverse tariffs, like allowing the Chinese to dump steel into our country when China does not have a carbon tax but our manufacturers do. We have to stop these ridiculous policies that stop clean Canadian products from being bought in our own country. We have to stop importing Saudi oil and start using clean Alberta energy. We have to stop all these things.

These are the real measures. We need a sector-by-sector regulatory approach.

We know why the big oil and gas companies were cheering Rachel Notley's $40 a tonne. It was because they had already priced it into their production. They can buy up the assets of juniors that did not do it and get profits through consolidation. That is not reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Rather than flip-flopping for votes, we have to take a leadership stand that manages to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that does without Captain Planet's virtue signalling and that is not at the expense of the jobs in my constituency.

This party on this side of the House will reduce greenhouse gas emissions just as we always have done. We refuse to take the virtue signalling garbage that we hear day after day about greenhouse gas reduction. It is exacerbating an important issue for political gain without doing anything to materially support it.

Climate change is an emergency, and the last person on this planet to have any credibility for doing anything about it is that Prime Minister.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is a contest today on how often we use the term “virtue signalling”, but I can say this: in terms of what has been said, this kind of virtue signalling is spinning like cotton candy.

Right now we have a claim by my hon. colleague about all these great things that were done by the Conservative government. However, I can recall a promise for cap and trade—broken. I can recall a promise for regulation of emissions from fossil fuels—broken. Then Conservatives had this very popular home energy retrofit program, but it had to be cancelled because they needed to reduce the deficit.

The reality is that the only reason there were emissions reductions was that we had economic problems. That is the reality. I would like hear, very specifically, why this colleague believes that there is no climate emergency. I do not know what reality she is living in, but let us just hear a little more.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, very specifically, I believe it is around page 35 of the 2014 emission trends report. My hon. colleague can flip through that and see, to completely counteract her claim, that the only time in Canadian history that emissions decreased while the economy grew was under a Conservative government.

Of course we are going to look at a North American context for a regulatory framework, because if the Americans are going to reduce their taxes and make it easier for people to invest in natural resources, why would we not do the same? Why would we price our jobs out of competitiveness, without the Americans contributing to some sort of a North American context?

This member probably got up in the House of Commons to applaud Barack Obama as a climate change champion. The Americans never put any sort of carbon tax on their industries. It was all virtue signalling there too.

Why would we put my constituents out of work and send those jobs to the United States, which is exactly what is happening right now? That is not reducing greenhouse gas emissions; that is just shifting the profit and the jobs to a country that understands that we have to make this a global issue.

All of these parties here have abdicated the responsibility to make this a global problem. They take cocktails and canapes in Davos and at all these different conferences, but they refuse to address the problem. We will not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to my friend across the way.

On the government side, we do have a plan. There is a very tangible plan that has resulted in the creation of well over a million jobs since the last federal election as a result of working with Canadians and understanding that it is not only about the economy but that we also have to be sensitive to the environment, and we have a plan there with the price on pollution.

Conservatives, on the other hand, feel that they do not have to share any sort of a plan. We have been waiting days, turning into weeks, turning into months for the Conservative plan, and now we are at well over a year. What are we waiting for? Why can Doug Ford, Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney and the current leader not sit around a table and come up with a plan? That is what we are waiting for.

The real strength in the Conservative Party today here in Ottawa is Doug Ford, Stephen Harper, the current leader, and the recent add-on of Jason Kenney, all of whom, I would suggest, do not have a plan to protect Canada's environment. Why should Canadians have any faith, when the only leadership they see coming from the Conservative Party in Canada is from those individuals?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have Captain Planet costumes, money for Loblaws for refrigerators, $1.80-a-litre gas prices and lobbyists with steak dinners who invent programs that have green in them just to get corporate welfare.

The Liberals are not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that is the Liberal plan, I want none of it, and neither does any Canadian. The member is right that Canadians are waiting for leadership, and they are going to get it from the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada when he becomes prime minister in October.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, about the futility of the Liberal environment plan. Honestly, it is a national disgrace.

Let me refer specifically to the motion before us. We have two competing motions. As we know, the NDP put forward a motion declaring a national climate change emergency, and very quickly our Liberal friends jumped in and put forward a motion saying, effectively, the same thing. We have these competing motions before us, and it reflects the fact that both the NDP and the Liberals are posturing because we are approaching an election in the fall and they have not done anything to justify their being in government, certainly not on the climate change file.

I note that it is the Liberals in this House who brought forward this last-minute motion declaring a national climate emergency. Where were they when the west was burning, when forest fires were sweeping the four western provinces, when Fort McMurray was burning? Were they in the House putting forward a motion declaring a national climate emergency? Of course not.

This is all about political posturing by both the NDP and the Liberals. Canadians are not looking for political posturing; they are looking for a real climate plan that makes measurable reductions in our emissions, that continues to foster a strong economy and that allows Canada to be a leader in the areas where we have a comparative advantage.

In this NDP motion, there are a number of things that I take issue with. Aside from a declaration of an emergency, under subsections (c) and (f) are two items that Canadians should be really worried about.

The first is that the motion asks for this House to increase Canada's ambition when it comes to climate change targets.

Let us think about that. We have a motion on the floor that asks Canada to increase its targets under the Paris Agreement when Canada is not even meeting its current targets and in fact is falling further and further behind.

I know my Liberal friends still claim that they are on track to meet the Paris targets. The last time the minister made a statement about it was at committee a couple of weeks ago, when, with a very straight face, she looked us in the eye and said we are on track to meet our targets—yet her own department's documents reported that in 2016, they fell 44 megatonnes short of their climate change targets under the Paris Agreement. In 2017, they fell 66 megatonnes short of their Paris targets. In 2018, they fell 79 megatonnes short of their Paris targets. Now the most recent report out of that department reveals that Canada's emissions are projected to be even higher and will fall short by even more, by about 150 megatonnes. That is less than halfway to the target that was set.

Therefore, the government is failing on its most important file, and the Prime Minister identified it as being his, so this failure rests at his feet.

If anyone doubts what I am saying, the commissioner of the environment, the Auditor General of Canada, the United Nations itself and even David Suzuki have all said the government will not meet its United Nations Paris targets.

The bottom line is that the plan the Liberals brought forward is not working. It is not a climate plan. Everybody knows it is a tax plan. Why do I say that? Well, let us talk about the carbon tax.

The parliamentary secretary, just a few minutes ago, talked about the 50 different measures that the Liberal government had implemented to achieve its Paris targets. Well, the Liberals are failing to meet those targets. Why, out of those 50 measures, is there only one measure, the carbon tax, that is being made mandatory and being forced upon the provinces? This is only one tool out of 50. Imagine giving the provinces a tool kit and telling them that they can use whatever they want from the tool kit as long as they meet their targets, but that the one tool they need, which will be forced on them and shoved down their throats, is the carbon tax. Now Canadians are paying for it.

Why is this the one tool the government is making mandatory? It is because its plan is to make this a cash grab from Canadians: more revenues for the government to spend on its priorities rather than on the priorities of Canadians. However, we cannot tax our way to a cleaner environment. The Liberals believe the carbon tax is the be-all and end-all, but theirs is a tax plan.

The Liberals often refer to British Columbia, the paragon of virtue when it comes to the carbon tax, except for the promises that were made when that carbon tax was introduced. There were three promises. One was that it was going to be capped at $30 per tonne of emissions. What happened to that promise? It is gone. Today, the carbon tax in British Columbia is $40 per tonne and it is going up every single year, so that promise is gone and broken.

The second promise was that it was going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the province of British Columbia. What is happening today? The emissions continue to go up and up. It is another broken promise.

The third promise was that it was going to be a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Do members remember that promise? The government takes a dollar out of one pocket and gives it right back to people in the other pocket through tax relief. Does that sound familiar, similar to what the Liberals claim is going to happen federally? What happened to that promise in British Columbia? The NDP got elected and revenue neutrality was legislated out of existence. Today, it is a tax grab. It is a cash cow for governments to spend on their political priorities rather than on the priorities of Canadians. That is what is coming down the line with the Liberal tax plan.

The Liberals' carbon tax does nothing for the environment. We have seen that they are failing. They are falling further and further behind. It is not working. All it is doing is imposing a burden on average, middle-class families, which now have to pay more for everything: for their cars, homes and to buy groceries. This is a tax on everything.

Beyond that, the Liberals were not really upfront about what they were doing. Do members know that the Liberals are charging GST on the carbon tax? It is a tax on a tax. What is happening to the GST they are collecting on all the carbon tax that is being paid? Are they giving that back to Canadians? Of course not. We are talking about half a billion dollars today, and in the future it is going to go up and up as the carbon tax goes up. Canadians are getting fleeced. Why is the government not being upfront about that? Why is it not being honest with Canadians? This rests at the feet of the current Prime Minister.

Finally, who is the target of the carbon tax? One would assume that, in Canada, if the government was going to impose a carbon tax, the biggest polluters would pay. What is happening in Canada? The Prime Minister made sure that the biggest polluters in Canada get exemptions. Members can guess how much that exemption is. Is it 30%? No. Is it 40% of the carbon tax value? No. Is it 60%? No. The exemption is up to 90%. When we add up all the carbon tax that is being collected in Canada, do members know how much is actually being paid by the big polluters? Is it 8%.

Canadians are paying the balance: 92% of the burden of this carbon tax is on the shoulders of ordinary, average Canadians. That is a national scandal, which is why we are opposing any kind of motions that are going to perpetuate the failed tax plan of the Liberals.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two very quick questions, connected together, I hope.

Number one, does the hon. member believe there is a climate emergency? Number two, knowing that he opposes the carbon tax, what would he do instead?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues in this House have acknowledged that we face a climate crisis. It is a global climate crisis that requires global solutions. Of course, Canada is perfectly positioned to respond to that challenge because we have the technology, we have the know-how and we have the cleanest products in the world that we can sell to the world.

To the member's second question, I know he is trying to get a sneak peek into our environment plan. We have made it very clear that we are going to release that plan prior to the end of June. It is going to be a plan that does not include a carbon tax, and it is going to be a much better plan than the Liberal plan because it is going to make measurable improvements in Canada's emissions. It is going to be a plan that is responsible and accountable, and it is going to very much reflect the concerns that Canadians have. I am confident that this plan is going to be well received by Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, countries from around the world went to Paris and generated a number of ideas. One of the most popular ideas that were discussed was having a price on pollution. That idea is something that then came to Canada. In Canada, we now have the current government, the New Democratic Party, the Green Party and, I suspect, even the Bloc Québécois that recognize the value of having a price on pollution.

Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party here have said that they know better than all those other countries around the world and they know better than all the other political parties inside this chamber; they say that a price on pollution is a bad idea. I would argue that the Conservative Party and the brains behind the Conservative Party that tend to want to deny climate change in the first place are wrong on this.

A majority of my constituents in Winnipeg North are going to be financially further ahead because of the price on pollution. Would it be the Conservatives' intention not only to take that money away, but to penalize those provinces that currently have a price on pollution?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I made it pretty clear that we are going to eliminate the carbon tax. We are never going to take the money out of the pockets of taxpayers in the first place. That is what Conservatives do. We believe that the tax system should be managed in such a way that Canadians can continue to have affordability in their lives, and that the tax burden should not be one that makes it more and more difficult for Canadian families to survive. We know that about half of Canadians today are about $200 away from insolvency. The current Liberal government, and of course the NDP, want to keep taxing them to death. That is their solution for climate change.

Our plan is going to be a responsible plan that does not undermine affordability for Canadians and at the same time makes measurable reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions. By the way, our environment plan, more broadly, will be a comprehensive plan that is much better than what the Liberals across the way have delivered for Canadians.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I probably have a sum total of about seven minutes. I know that my colleague who has fought with me for many decades on environmental and climate issues would be deeply disappointed that I will not have more time to speak and that she will not have an opportunity to speak.

I am appalled at the dialogue that has gone on here today, particularly from the Liberals. I am sick and tired of the line “We are all in this together”, and then the Liberals stand to speak and they do nothing but insult us. I am sorry, but there are a good number of people in this place who have spent more than just the past four years, more than this afternoon, more than four decades fighting for stronger federal, provincial, territorial and municipal environmental protection and climate change laws and programs.

I am hoping that the next Parliament will actually believe in “Let us work together.” I do not have much time, but I want to share what those of us in this place should know and wake up to. The youth of this country and this planet are fed up. They do not believe that the previous Conservative government or the current Liberal government is doing enough to address the crisis of climate change. They are leaving their schools and taking to the streets. They want action, and they want it now.

A number of speakers here today made fun of us because we are calling for an end to fossil fuel subsidies now. Gosh darn it, back in 2008, the Conservatives promised to move on it right now. Now we are 10 years later and the Liberals twice promised it. They say we are demanding action now. How about an action plan that says that 10 years from now they have to have removed their perverse subsidies? Yes, we do need action now, a compliance plan.

I would like to share the words of one of the most incredible spokespeople on this planet today for action on climate, and that is Greta Thunberg, the 15-year-old from Sweden. These are her words: “Our house is on fire. I am here to say, our house is on fire.... I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.”

She also said:

[H]ardly anyone speaks about the fact that we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction [backed up by the UN report just issued].... Nor does hardly anyone ever speak about the aspect of equity or climate justice, clearly stated everywhere in the Paris Agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale.... What we do or don’t do right now, me and my generation can’t undo in the future.... We already have all the facts and solutions. All we have to do is to wake up and change.... Everything needs to change—and it has to start today.

That is our mission today in this motion. We have to have action today. That does not mean we do not give time to comply, but for heaven's sake, the government is coming up with policies written on the back of a napkin. At one point in time someone in the United States said to reduce methane by 40%, so we said we would reduce methane by 40%.

The Liberals criticize those of us on this side for not bothering to get the facts. I attended the detailed technical briefing on what is possible with existing technology to reduce methane and make a profit. I call on the government to step up and actually apply the technology. Yes, we need more investment in better technology, but where is the regulatory agenda?

I brought forward a motion calling on the government to enact a law modelled on the United Kingdom law. The Liberals have been briefed on that, just as I have. That law puts binding targets, which are required to be updated every five years, and there is an independent commission that gives advice, audits and reports publicly. Why are we not getting real measures like that? They talk about accountability; it is in all the mandate letters. Let us see some real accountability. Let us see real measures set in stone, in law.

I do not have the time to list all the measures that are possible. The technologies are there. What we need are the regulatory measures and the removal of the perverse subsidies so that we can have a level playing field, so that the clean energy future can happen now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue in that the leader of the New Democratic Party seems to be changing his position on LNG. On the one hand, the provincial government of B.C., a New Democratic government, has been very clear about assisting in the future of LNG, which seems to contradict what is in the NDP motion before us.

Canadians have a right to know if the NDP at the national level supports LNG today or is it just the British Columbia NDP?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about leaders who break their promises. How many times during the last election did the Prime Minister say that no energy project would ever be approved under the Liberal government until he enacted strengthened environmental assessment laws and environmental protection laws? I think he said that a thousand times, but it depended if he was in Alberta speaking to oil field workers or if he was in British Columbia talking to environmentalists.

My leader is reaching out and talking to people in British Columbia about whether we can move ahead. Gas may be cleaner than coal, but if we are processing gas and are going to give perverse subsidies, we have to give it a second look. We have promised as a country to get rid of perverse subsidies and so it has to happen.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Thursday, May 16, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 23, 2018, consideration of the motion.

Officers of Parliament

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to the many constituents of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching. Today, it is my pleasure to debate Motion No. 170, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, a special committee, chaired by the Speaker of the House, should be established at the beginning of each new Parliament, in order to select all Officers of Parliament.

Before I begin, I would like to recognize with all due respect that the motion was moved by the member for Hamilton Centre, who is with the NDP and has been in Parliament for quite a while, but will not seek re-election. If he is listening right now, I would like to acknowledge him and thank him for his work and decades of public service. The member for Hamilton Centre was once an MPP in Ontario, as well, and worked hard on all sorts of causes that were important to his constituents. I would like to congratulate him on his service.

Moreover, he is more than just a good parliamentarian. I remember hearing one of his speeches at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, if I remember correctly. I took note of his delivery, because he is a fine public speaker with good rhetorical skills. I have always had a great deal of respect for my colleagues with vast parliamentary experience. I try to learn from the best.

I am sure the member for Hamilton Centre wants to leave his mark on Canadian democracy. I too want to improve Canada's Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. Our role as MPs is the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy. It is fundamental. MPs must play a leading role in the workings of Canadian democracy, which includes the selection and appointment of officers of Parliament. That is what this motion is about.

Officers of Parliament are individuals jointly appointed by the House of Commons and the Senate to look into matters on our behalf and help us carry out our duties and responsibilities. For example, Canada has a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, a position created by Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party.

There is also the Information Commissioner, who ensures that Canadians are able to have access to all government information so that they can get to the bottom of things. Then, there is the Commissioner of Lobbying. We heard a lot about her because of the Prime Minister's trip to the Aga Khan's island. Then there is the Commissioner of Official Languages. I am the official languages critic and I worked on the appointment of the new commissioner, Mr. Théberge. There is also the Auditor General. That position is currently vacant because the former auditor general passed away just a few months ago. God rest his soul. I send my best wishes to his family. Finally, there is the Chief Electoral Officer and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

There are other officers of Parliament, but the ones I mentioned are the main commissioners who have been mandated by Parliament to conduct investigations in order to ensure proper accountability in the Canadian democratic process.

The member for Hamilton Centre wants to improve and strengthen parliamentary democracy with respect to the process for appointing commissioners and other officers of Parliament. Here is why.

During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister made some promises that he mostly did not keep. He promised to make the process for appointing commissioners more democratic. Under the Conservative government, from 2006 to 2015, the process for appointing commissioners was much more democratic from the perspective of a Westminster-style parliamentary system. It was also much more transparent than what we have seen over the past few years with the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

When the Prime Minister chose the Official Languages Commissioner a year and a half ago, I am sure that the member for Hamilton Centre noticed, as we all did, that the process for appointing officers of Parliament was anything but open and transparent. Note that I am not in any way trying to target the individual who was selected and who currently holds that position.

This was done differently before 2015. For example, the Standing Committee on Official Languages used to send the Prime Minister of Canada a list of potential candidates for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages. The Prime Minister, with help from his advisors and cabinet, selected one of the candidates suggested. That is far more transparent and democratic than what the Prime Minister and member for Papineau is doing.

What has the Prime Minister done these past few years? Instead of having committees with oversight and the necessary skills for selecting commissioners, such as the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics or the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Prime Minister is no longer relying on committees to send him a list of names of people or experts in the field. They are no longer able to send a list to the Prime Minister. He said to trust him, that he had set up a system involving people in his own office who send him lists of candidates with absolutely no partisan connections or any connections whatsoever to the Liberal list, candidates who were found by virtue of their expertise.

What actually happened? We saw one clearly terrible case with Ms. Meilleur. Far be it from me to badmouth her, but unfortunately, she was part of this undemocratic process. Ms. Meilleur had been a Liberal MPP in Ontario. She donated money to the Liberal Party of Canada, and less than a year later, she was nominated for the position of official languages commissioner. The Prime Minister did not send a list of candidates' names to the opposition parties. He did not start a discussion with the other party leaders to ask who they thought the best candidate was. He sent a single name to the leader of the official opposition and to the then NDP leader, saying that this was his pick and asking if they agreed.

Not only did the committees have no input under the current Liberal Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister actually only sent one name to the opposition leader.

What the member for Hamilton Centre wants to do is set up a process whereby candidates are selected by a committee, which would be chaired by you, Mr. Speaker, amazingly enough. First off, the idea suggested by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Centre, could not be implemented before the session ends. We have only a few weeks left, and I gather that an NDP member will be proposing an amendment to the motion in a few minutes. We will see what happens then.

Personally, I would say we need to go even further than the motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre. I will speak to my colleagues about this once we are in government, as of October.

Why not be even bolder and give parliamentary committees not just the power to refer candidates to the Prime Minister for him to decide, but also the power to appoint officers of Parliament? I want to point out that I am speaking only for myself here. I began reflecting on this a year and a half ago, after what happened with Ms. Meilleur and the current commissioner.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for two years now, and I humbly believe that I have learned a lot about official languages issues. I am familiar with the key players on the ground and I am beginning to understand who the real experts are, who the stakeholders are and who might make a good commissioner. I have to wonder why we would not go even further than what my colleague from Hamilton Centre is proposing, and perhaps even give the real power to the committees.

Imagine the legitimacy the process would have if parliamentary committees could one day choose officers of Parliament. These appointments should still be confirmed by both chambers, as is always the case.

Careful reflection is still needed. What is certain is that we are too close to the end of the current parliamentary session for the motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre to become a reality. This is even less likely to happen under the current Liberal government, which made many promises to please the Canadian left, including a promise for democratic emancipation. All those promises have been broken.

I wish the hon. member for Hamilton Centre continued success.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an immense pleasure to speak to the motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre, whom I have admired immensely since arriving here in 2011.

I will quickly remind members of the motion, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, a special committee, chaired by the Speaker of the House, should be established at the beginning of each new Parliament, in order to select all Officers of Parliament.

On October 21, Canadians and Quebeckers will vote in the next Parliament. The first and perhaps most important distinction to make is that, when people go to the polls, they will not only elect a government, they will elect 338 men and women who will represent them in the House and form the next Parliament.

Naturally, every member of every party works hard to ensure that theirs has the largest number of seats and forms the government because that is the system we have. However, we could very well find ourselves in a situation where, to keep the government going, several parties could be called on to collaborate if the people, in their infinite wisdom, decided to elect a minority government.

That speaks to the primordial importance of parliamentarians. First and foremost, Canadians will elect a Parliament; then, there will be a government, which will form a cabinet. We all know how it works. I just want to make it clear, because we hear so much nonsense about the role of opposition members. By the way, for anyone that follows my podcasts, that will be the subject of my next one.

The role of opposition members is different, but just as important as the role of government members. Again, in their infinite wisdom, Canadians want their government, regardless of political stripe, to be responsible and to allow all different perspectives to be expressed in the House.

When we talk about officers of the House, we are talking about parliamentarians' staff. For those who do not really know what is meant by “officers of Parliament”, I will give a few examples that should sound familiar.

First there is the Auditor General. If there is one report that people look forward to every year, it is the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General has the team and resources needed to keep tabs on the government's actions. He or she raises any issues of concern.

The Chief Electoral Officer is another example. Thank God we have a Chief Electoral Officer who ensures that our voting system is impartial, neutral and functional and that it operates without interference from foreign countries.

We could talk about the Commissioner of Official Languages. We could talk about the Privacy Commissioner, especially now, when personal information is such a sensitive topic. We could also talk about the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

I would like to make one very important point. We have been saying this all along, but it is still just as true, that in all situations, these officers of Parliament must not be associated with a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest, so that they can do their jobs and also be perceived as having no ties to the executive.

What is happening right now with the appointment process? The whole process, or nearly all of it, falls entirely to the executive. It is all very well to say that the process is legitimate and fine, that there is no influence, that it is truly a coincidence that appointees are also on the Liberal Party donor list and that no one saw that coming. There is, at the very least, an appearance of conflict of interest there, which undermines the very credibility of these officers of Parliament, whose work is generally impeccable.

Before they can get to work, however, we need to make sure the appointment is impeccable. The existing process only requires the executive branch to consult the opposition parties. The word “consult” is open to interpretation. We recently saw that consulting can be as simple as sending the opposition party leaders a letter stating the name of the proposed candidate, not even a shortlist.

There is already a problem here, and there is an even bigger problem with the voting system, which needs to change. As we saw with the Conservatives, and again with the Liberals, a government is getting elected with 39% of the popular vote. That, however, is 39% of a total turnout of about 50%. That government suddenly ends up with 100% of the power and the responsibility of appointing 100% of the officers of Parliament. This is a clear procedural flaw that needs to be addressed.

Thank God we have this extremely simple proposal. Notwithstanding the member for Hamilton Centre's indisputable talent, his motion does not reinvent the wheel. We are not the first to notice this problem with potential conflicts of interest or apparent lack of neutrality. New Zealand and other parliaments have already taken steps toward what the member for Hamilton Centre is proposing, in order to give full authority back to elected officials via a multi-party committee.

We got a taste of how this could look when a committee made up of members from all parties was created to study electoral reform. Thanks to the NDP, this bill went a bit further to allow members of political parties that are not officially recognized in the House to serve on this committee. This brings all parliamentarians together and ensures that a single party is never making the final decision, which is instead based on a broader consensus among parliamentarians. This is, after all, about their employees.

These are our employees. When the government introduces a bill at 3 p.m. and I have to comment to the media at 3:45 p.m., it is difficult for me to analyze a 200-page document. Fortunately, the Parliamentary Budget Officer works full time, 365 days a year, minus vacation, on this and many other budget issues, to give us credible, objective and partisan-free information. We want more emphasis on ensuring that this information is free from any appearance of political involvement. This is truly a step in the right direction.

The member, in his infinite wisdom, particularly thanks to his experience in parliamentary procedure, and because time is running out as the session comes to an end, was not sure what the outcome of the motion would be, even if we all voted in favour of it. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would think this is not a good idea. I tried to find a reason, just to play devil's advocate. Perhaps someone would want to yield power to the executive in the hope of winning the election and getting that power to make choices. This would be a bad idea, since it would undermine nearly all of the principles I have been talking about today.

We could say that this is how it has always been, that it must be a British tradition and that we will not rock the boat. Well, no, we must move things along and go further. I believe that this motion is a step in the right direction. We could tell ourselves that we do not have the structure to do it. That is exactly what this motion does: it gives us the structure to do it, and it is up to us to find the means to move forward. I would like to point out that this costs nothing. All it takes is an ounce of common sense to recognize the merits of the proposal we are debating.

In my research, I could find no reason for voting against this motion. I look forward to hearing different points of view. What I am hearing so far already suggests that we seem to be headed for a broad consensus. However, I would like to present an amendment to the motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre, who saw that time was passing and thought that perhaps we should move beyond the issue of principle and set up a pilot project that would take us further.

This is what the amendment says:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “in the opinion of the House,” and substituting the following: “during this Parliament, a special joint committee co-chaired by the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament should be created as a pilot project to begin undertaking the selection process for the vacant Auditor General of Canada position”.

Note the term “Parliament” rather than “government”.

This is a golden opportunity to take the first steps towards this new arrangement and open the door wide for the next legislature.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must inform the hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), amendments to private members' motions and to the motion for the second reading of a private member's bill may only be moved with the consent of the sponsor of the item.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Hamilton Centre if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the wording reflects the wording that I would like to have, and therefore, I formally accept the proposed amendment, with thanks.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

With that, we will resume debate. The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre and the important work done by our government to ensure a more rigorous approach to Governor in Council appointments.

The motion calls into question the important role that ministers play in recommending candidates to the Governor in Council, as well as our government's commitment to openness and transparency, which are critical elements of our approach to Governor in Council appointments.

As members know, in February 2016, the government announced a more rigorous approach to Governor in Council appointments. This new approach applies to the majority of full-time and part-time positions on commissions, boards, Crown corporations, agencies and tribunals across the country, including officers of Parliament.

As with all selection processes for all positions appointed by the Governor in Council, we ensure that the most qualified people are put forward for consideration. This is made possible by the hard work our government has already done to improve the selection process for Governor in Council appointments.

What sets this new approach apart is that the positions are open to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Now all Canadians who are interested can apply for a position posted on the Governor in Council appointments website. This is a departure from the old way of doing things.

For example, in 2017, the position of Information Commissioner, which is an officer of Parliament position, was posted on the Governor in Council appointments website for all Canadians who might want to apply. The notice of appointment opportunity clearly stated the level of education, experience, knowledge, skills and abilities required for this senior position.

For this position and other officer of Parliament positions, a selection committee reviews applications and then screens the applicants for further evaluation against the publicly stated criteria. The candidates who are deemed to be the most qualified by the committee go through an interview, a formal reference check, an official languages proficiency evaluation and other evaluations, including an assessment of their personal suitability for the position. The selection committee then submits its formal opinion on the most qualified candidates to the relevant minister for review.

When selecting a new Information Commissioner, the Governor in Council appoints a person only after consultation with the leaders of every recognized party in the Senate and House of Commons and approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.

As we can see, there is already a parliamentary procedure for appointing officers of Parliament. The motion moved by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Centre, would add another procedure to a system that is already working openly and, of course, transparently.

The motion would actually impinge on the Governor in Council's ability to appoint highly qualified candidates in a timely manner to fill positions that are essential to the functioning of our democratic institutions. This motion could seriously delay the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

I can assure the House that our government takes this issue very seriously and is determined to ensure that highly qualified candidates are appointed to these important positions. Our government has also pledged to ensure that Governor in Council appointments reflect Canada's diversity and that the appointment process takes regional, linguistic and employment equity representation into account.

Since launching this new open, transparent, merit-based selection process, our government has made over 1,070 appointments, of which 53% have been women, 13% have been people who identify as members of a visible minority, and 9% have been people who identify as members of an indigenous group. Just over 50% of the appointees are bilingual, to be sure.

With respect to officers of Parliament, I would add that, in less than two years, eight of the 11 positions have been filled by means of the new open, transparent, merit-based selection process.

I want to take a few minutes to stress the important role played by the officers of Parliament in making the government run properly and providing important services to Canadians. The officers of Parliament have accountability and oversight functions over government and Parliament. They operate independently from the government, fulfill their statutory duties and report to the Senate, the House of Commons or both. The people appointed to these positions work for Parliament and report to both chambers, usually through the Speakers.

This motion would slow down the appointment process for the officers of Parliament, which is already working quite well. Parliamentarians are already asked to participate in the appointment process by law. Each legislative measure provides for slightly different processes, but the appointment process for officers of Parliament requires that the leaders of the House of Commons and the Senate, or both chambers, be consulted.

What is more, Standing Order 111 provides for the appropriate standing committee to examine the qualifications and competence of all those appointed to a Governor in Council appointed position. That is what we should be focusing on, the qualifications of those who have been selected. That is what is important. We have already implemented a process to ensure that these people are qualified. As I already mentioned, the criteria associated with the Governor in Council appointed positions are posted on the Governor in Council appointments website. Candidates are carefully assessed against those criteria through a number of formal evaluations.

I would also like to remind members that, when it comes to the appointment of officers of Parliament, this government informs the party leaders of both chambers of the process and publishes the appointments for each position. The government also asks the leaders for their opinions and for the names of people who, in their view, have the qualifications and experience necessary to do the job. The government is not required by law to contact the leaders that early in the process, but it does so in a spirit of openness.

Our government's approach to Governor in Council appointments guarantees that public institutions are open, transparent and accountable, which enables us to focus our efforts on the people we are supposed to represent.

I will close by—