Debates of May 28th, 2024

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is still some heckling going on, or some individuals are trying to participate in the debate. I would ask them to wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has 30 seconds to wrap up.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is so nice of you to respect the clock and give me the last 30 seconds here to just wrap up my comments.

I would like to thank everyone for helping us get here. I also want to talk directly to the people who are helping the Speaker out right now. He needs help. He has embarrassed the office of Speaker, and he needs to be convinced to resign.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I just want to remind members to please hold back. If they have anything to add, they should keep it for the next questions and comments. However, now we are going to debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, we know that the role of the Speaker carries great responsibility in the House. It is critical to the functioning of our democratic institution. The Speaker has a duty to enforce the rules and the traditions of the House, whether written or not. The Speaker has the responsibility to maintain order and to preside over debates. The Speaker is also entrusted to safeguard the rights and the privileges of all members in the House. It is a role that carries great influence and great power, a role that requires a high level of trust in the individual that holds the office. That is why it is imperative that the Speaker carry the role of impartiality. To act otherwise is a breach of the trust that is required of the Speaker. That is where we find ourselves today: The trust between the Speaker and the members of the House has been broken.

Once again, the Speaker has shown complete disregard for the neutrality required of him in the role that he holds. The Liberal Party's advertisement of “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Member]” was overtly partisan. There is no question about its partisan nature. It contained language and messaging that was clearly inciting about the leader of the official opposition and the Conservative Party. It is no surprise that the Liberal Party has come rushing in, trying to shield and to defend the Speaker. However, it is the Speaker who allowed his name to be used to promote the event. In doing so, he tied the office that he holds to the language and partisan messaging used in the invitation. That is unacceptable. The appropriateness of his actions are not even in question here. The Speaker did not maintain the neutrality required of him in this role.

In fact, the Deputy Speaker has now ruled that the Speaker acted in a partisan manner. Therefore, it is already decided that the Speaker acted inappropriately. His pattern of behaviour is simply unacceptable. It is my opinion that the Speaker must resign. If he does not, then he must be removed. Without the confidence of members of the House, the Speaker cannot be trusted to govern this place in a manner that is fair and that is also impartial.

Let us be clear: As has been stated over and over again this evening, this is not strike one, strike two or strike three for the Speaker. This is a pattern of behaviour. I know that all members of the House will recall when the Speaker used his official Speaker's robes, his office and his title in an unquestionably partisan video broadcast at an Ontario Liberal Party event. That he used his office and the title that he holds to further partisan efforts was a clear violation of his role. That was then followed by partisan speeches in Washington, D.C., delivered using his title as Speaker of the House of Commons, where he reminisced about his days as a young Liberal. Of course, we know that the Speaker has also spoken at neighbouring ridings' Liberal fundraising events. If there was any trust left after any of these single incidents, it has only been further shattered after each and every one. It also makes us question whether there have been other violations that just have not come to light as of yet.

The Speaker has now repeatedly failed to uphold the neutrality and impartiality that is required of the office he holds. After so many incidents, it cannot be argued in a believable way that it was simply an oversight. The Speaker has intent. He has shown to Canadians and to members of the House his intent to use his office to further his partisan interests. In fact, this pattern of behaviour actually creates more doubt and more questions about how the Speaker wields his power and authority in this chamber.

The Speaker's decision to oust the opposition leader from the chamber for the use of the word “wacko” is quite fresh in everyone's mind. That was a notable ruling from the Chair that stands out even more given the free pass that is regularly given to the Prime Minister for the use of similar language. Given the pattern of behaviour that has been established, are Canadians and we as members of Parliament expected to believe that a decision of that nature was not motivated by partisanship?

The Liberal government seems quite comfortable with the Speaker's behaviour. While his partisan endeavours suit the Liberal government's interests, I think Canadians would have hoped they too understand that a hyperpartisan Speaker undermines the integrity of our democratic institution, an institution that we all have a shared duty to uphold.

Perhaps what is most concerning is the position that the Liberals' NDP partners have taken. The NDP seem to be very forgiving of the Speaker's repeated actions, despite assertions previously made by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. It was not that long ago that after the Speaker delivered his remarks at a Liberal Party of Ontario event, which, as members will recall, was done in his official robes from the Speaker's office using his title of Speaker, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby went on public record putting a line in the sand for the NDP. He told Canadians that the NDP would call for the Speaker to step down if such an incident were to happen again. Well, it has happened again, and the Deputy Speaker's ruling confirms this.

The Speaker has acted in a clearly partisan manner, but that line in the sand from the NDP has now suddenly disappeared and is nowhere to be seen. That empty threat from the NDP was also accompanied by excuses that the Speaker was improperly briefed in his role. In fact, the member went so far as to suggest that this was a shortcoming of our institution itself. That excuse from the NDP somehow suggests that the Speaker could not be expected to know that participating in hyperpartisan activities would be inappropriate, and that in doing so, he would be undermining the institution.

I would expect that any individual who holds the office of Speaker possesses sound judgment. That is a minimal trait that should be expected of the Speaker, who presides and makes rulings in this House. Regardless, the excuse of not knowing cannot be used over and over again. The Speaker must take responsibility for his actions.

While it is not shocking that the NDP is yet again eager to protect its Liberal masters, it is nonetheless shameful. It is absolutely imperative that the Speaker of the House, regardless of their party affiliation, carry out their role in a manner that is impartial and neutral. That neutrality ensures that the Speaker can maintain the trust of all members in the House. It is what fosters good order in this place, and it gives credibility to and confidence in the rulings that are made by the Chair.

That trust has been lost, and the Speaker's continued defiance of the neutrality required of him has shattered any hope of it being repaired. The Liberal government and its NDP coalition partners have a responsibility to protect our democratic institution. They cannot continue to defend the unacceptable partisan conduct of the Speaker. Only with a new, non-partisan Speaker can we restore the trust that has been broken and get on with the important business of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 8:02 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the privilege motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #786

Privilege

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-49. As I have mentioned in the House, I have had the pleasure of living across the country, from one side to the other, from Victoria to northern Alberta and even in Newfoundland for a while. Therefore, Bill C-49 hits a bit close for me, so I am very pleased to speak to it.

To sum up Newfoundland, I will tell members of an experience I had. One day in Edmonton, I was door knocking for the first campaign in 2015. A lot of Newfoundlanders live in my riding of Edmonton West, or as I call it, “Edmonton West Edmonton Mall”. A couple was in the garage. It was a hot day and the garage door was open. They were sitting having a beer inside their garage, and we started chatting. They said they were from Newfoundland, and I said I used to live in St. John's, so we started chatting. They invited me to have a beer, so I sat down with them. We had a nice beer together.

A couple of years later, during the horrible forest fires in Fort McMurray, where, of course, a lot of people from Newfoundland were living, the residents had to evacuate. This couple had taken in a couple from Fort McMurray, who also were Newfoundlanders. I was at an event one night at the Good Shepherd Church. It was a fundraising event. I ran into this couple, and they introduced me to this other couple who they were housing. They were complete strangers, but because they were Newfoundlanders, they were happy to take in this couple. We started chatting and they said they were from St. John's. I said that I used to live there and they asked where. I said I used to live on Bindon Place.

It turned out that they were my former neighbours. This couple lived in the lot right behind our house. Back then, if anyone has ever lived in St. John's, they would know it has very lovely winters with lots of snow. The first year I lived there, we had 22 feet of snow, a record amount of snow. It was not until June that I found out we actually had an eight-foot fence in our backyard. This couple was laughing about living behind us. I had to laugh because, at the time, we had this beautiful dog named Doonesbury. He was the world's greatest dog. He would wander on these huge snowbanks, from yard to yard because, of course, the snow was way above the fence. It turned out that he had often visited their yard to do his business, so it was years later that I had the opportunity to apologize for my dog.

There are a few things I would note about people from Newfoundland. They really never leave the rock. I worked in Fort McMurray for a while, and we had the largest club at the time, the Newfoundland club. When we would meet in Fort McMurray, they all had the same wish; they wanted to be able to go back home to work and to get good jobs, which of course were not available. That is why they were in Fort McMurray. When I lived in Newfoundland, every time I travelled to the mainland or away, usually to Nova Scotia where our regional office was, and then flew back to St. John's, I would land at about midnight at the airport, and there were always about 50 to 70 people, families holding up signs and welcoming back their family members, who were mostly coming from Alberta because of work. Since taking over this job nine years ago, I have probably returned to the Edmonton airport 300 to 400 times, and not once has anyone been waiting there for me with a sign. With Newfoundlanders, it was always like that. It was quite amazing.

It is a beautiful city. I enjoyed my time living there, although I cannot say the same about the weather with the massive amounts of snow. I remember that on the May long weekend, I was flying to Nova Scotia; I think it was May 21. The day before, in Halifax, there was a record high of 36°C. I was waiting in St. John's for my wife to come home with the car and drive me to the airport. We had a snowstorm, and she got the car stuck in the driveway in a snowbank. She walked in with our two kids, who were about one and two years old at the time. With tears streaming, she said that she was leaving me and was moving back to Victoria. That almost sums up the weather. However, I noticed a month later, in late June, that we were shovelling the snow in the driveway, and in the back of the house where there was sun, we were mowing the backyard. That is the weather in Newfoundland.

Everywhere I have lived, I have run into people from Newfoundland who want to get back to the rock, but they want good jobs. Bill C-49 I do not see delivering that. There are quite a few flaws in the bill. I want to go over some of them.

Clause 19 of Bill C-49 would open the door to more red tape and likely to delays. We have heard repeatedly about a lack of investment and productivity in this country. It takes 15 to 20 years to get a mine approval and years to get a housing approval. In Alberta, we see people not wanting to invest in the country because they know the red tape and the approval process make it so slow. Clause 19 is going to add to that and going to discourage investment. It would shift decision-making power and licence approvals to the federal and provincial ministers, while tripling the amount of time the decision can take.

The government often talks about how we need experts to make the decisions, yet this bill will take power away from experts and regulators and put it into the hands of the very partisan and biased natural resources minister. Can members imagine anyone who is involved in resource investment in this country looking at our current environment minister or natural resources minister and saying that Canada looks like a great place to invest in because they can trust their opinions? Of course not.

Clause 28 would give the federal minister, with the approval of the provincial minister, the power to outright ban drilling in certain areas and to even halt projects that are already approved and in progress. That sounds a bit like Kinder Morgan and Trans Mountain. That was approved, and it was going to spend billions of dollars just to find out that the government can retroactively change the rules. Who wants to invest in this environment? Who wants to create good jobs in this kind of an environment? If the bill were to pass with clause 28 as written, it would put an end to offshore petroleum drilling in Atlantic Canada, killing good-paying jobs for workers and further strengthening eastern Canada's dependence on foreign oil imports from dictatorships like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

We have seen how the government treats resource projects in this country. Section 61 and 62 would invariably be abused by the government, and they would attach so many strings that approval for projects would become unfeasible. Does anyone remember energy east? We have TransCanada ready to spend billions of dollars so we can bring Alberta oil and Saskatchewan oil out east to get the eastern provinces off of U.S. oil and off of dictator oil. Instead, the government threw up so many roadblocks and changed the goalposts so many times, it ended up cancelling the project.

Section 61 and 62 would bring the unconstitutional Bill C-69 into the review process, allowing the minister to attach any conditions they see fit to an approval. Sections from the Impact Assessment Act, previously Bill C-69, also known as the no-new-pipeline bill, have been put into Bill C-49. On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled Bill C-69 largely unconstitutional. The federal government has not fixed those sections to date. If Bill C-49 is passed, as written, it would include 32 references to sections of Bill C-69 that the Supreme Court identified as unconstitutional.

Bill C-49 also includes the discretionary decision-making power of the minister and the entirety of the designated project scheme, both of which are unconstitutional, so components of Bill C-49 may also be unconstitutional. Section 64 of Bill C-69 was deemed unconstitutional, and is referenced throughout Bill C-49, which allows the minister to interfere in a project they think is in the public interest and create any conditions they deem necessary to which the project proponent must comply.

We, in Alberta, know full well what the government does to resource projects. We know full well how it works against resource projects. Of course, we had Bill C-50, the so-called just transition bill, which we called the unjust transition bill. It would be absolutely devastating to Alberta.

I want to give members some numbers the conference board put together. Bill C-50 would destroy 91,000 jobs in Alberta. That is a 58% increase in Alberta's jobless rate. There would be a decline in our GDP of almost 4%, and a 50% bigger hit than the 2008 financial crisis. Alberta revenue would be chopped up to $127 billion over 10 years. That is almost a 20% drop per year.

We see very clearly the Liberal government's intention toward our natural resources. It is kill the resources at all costs, send Canadians into poverty, hurt Alberta, hurt Newfoundland, and hurt resource-producing provinces, which is why we will not vote for Bill C-49.

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

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservatives would not recognize the opportunities that they are denying Atlantic Canada. We know that we are talking about the generation of potentially billions of dollars of future investment. We have Conservatives, in particular Conservative members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, denying that we have premiers in Atlantic Canada, a Progressive Conservative premier and a Liberal premier, who are waiting for this legislation to pass, and then they pass mirroring legislation.

Why is the Conservative Party of Canada today denying Atlantic Canada the opportunities that this legislation would provide?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an amusing question from the member for Winnipeg North. If we could hook up a windmill in front of him, his speaking time, I am sure, could power most of what the Liberals are proposing.

No one believes the Liberals have any intention of helping resource-developing provinces. Whether it is Bill C-50, which is going to have the emission cap and punish Newfoundland as well, Bill C-69, the no-new-pipeline bill, or banning ships off the B.C. coast, the Liberals have zero believability when they say they are there for resource-producing provinces. It is no different in this bill.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the interesting thing about the proposed bill and the member's speech is that, in addition to the four elements of the IAA being incorporated into it, it was introduced in June of last year, and within four weeks, the Newfoundland government was issuing tenders for exploration licences. They do that every summer, and every summer they get responses. Last year, after the bill was introduced, the “no-capital bill”, as I call it, there were zero applications in Newfoundland, and those applications went to the Gulf of Mexico.

I know the member has a lot of experience with what the IAA can do to destroy energy projects out west. Does he think it is going to continue that trend that we saw last summer?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is right. Investors are looking at Bill C-49 and they are looking at Bill C-69. They see provisions in the bill before us that would give the very anti-resource Minister of Environment and the anti-resource Minister of Natural Resources power to arbitrarily kill projects, even after investors have invested billions. Who would invest billions into the country on any project knowing that at any time the same government that says it wants to phase out oil and gas can step in and kill a project on a whim for political gain?

This issue is no different, and we will continue to see a lack of investment in Canada while we have the current government in power.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear from the member about the long-standing tradition of the Conservative Party of Canada standing against renewable energy in the Atlantic provinces. I represent Prince Edward Island. When I first ran in 2011, Stephen Harper was the prime minister. He repeatedly and steadfastly refused to invest in a third cable that would have allowed power to come from Point Lepreau in New Brunswick over to Prince Edward Island, a place that did not have its own resources except for wind. As soon as we came into power, we fixed that. Here we are, 14 years later, and the Conservative Party is upholding its tradition of opposition for renewable energy in Prince Edward Island.

Could the member elaborate a bit on that rich tradition of the Conservative Party of Canada?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think we just have to look to the people of P.E.I. and ask whom they chose for their government. They threw out the provincial Liberal government and put in a Conservative government. We can look at Newfoundland. A Liberal riding last night held a by-election, and they went to the people and asked whom they trust on jobs. The Liberal vote dropped 50%. The Conservative vote went up to a point that Kim Jong-Un in North Korea would be envious of. The people decided, and they are deciding for the Conservatives.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 9:02 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 27, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, the motion is deemed adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Wednesday, May 29, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). I hope everybody has a great evening.

(The House adjourned at 9:05 p.m.)