Julie Vignola

[Privilege, May 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I will again use an analogy to explain how apologies are no cure-all. This will be in response to my colleague`s question.

If I take a sheet of paper and crumple it up, this represents all the harm, all the mistakes, all the ethics breaches and all the lack of judgment a person is guilty of. Then, each time the person apologizes, I try to flatten out the sheet of paper so that it reverts to its original shape. The paper will still be creased all the same. That is what is happening. People will remember, and here in the House, we remember that despite the 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8,000 apologies and some $500 fines here and there, the sheet of paper remains creased and the confidence is still gone.

[Privilege, May 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would have liked my full remarks to be taken into account. I mentioned, and I even repeated it a few times, that the Liberal Party had erred, not just by sending a hyper-partisan release but by failing to ask the member or his team for authorization as to the content.

I also mentioned that a mistake had been made, in that no one followed up and it took six days before someone woke up.

Apologies are fine, but I will use the analogy of a Kleenex box to illustrate my point. Someone takes a pin and pokes hole after hole in the Kleenex box. At some point, someone apologizes, so each of the holes is plugged. When all is said and done, has my box of Kleenex been fixed? The answer is no. The same is true of confidence.

[Privilege, May 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it brings us no joy to speak on a matter like the one we are seized with today, but we must do it, because the Speaker's role is important. The Speaker's job is to maintain order in the House of Commons. He must ensure members do not cross the floor to hit each other, as we have seen in other parliaments. He must make impartial decisions about the operation of the House of Commons.

Today, we are once again debating the Speaker's impartiality. I would like to provide a little historical background, if I may.

We inherited Britain's parliamentary monarchy. The first Speaker was either Sir Peter de la Mare, in 1376, or Sir Thomas Hungerford, in 1377. Back then, the Speaker was considered as much the King's man as the servant of the House. It was not until 1642 that the Speaker broke with the Crown, when Speaker William Lenthall stood up to Charles I as the King sat in the Speaker's chair, demanding the heads of five parliamentary leaders. Despite threats, Speaker Lenthall stood up to the King, thereby cleaving his role from the Crown.

After this, the speakership was still an appointment coveted by the parties in power, since it gave them extra leverage to promote their ideas and ideals. Only in 1728, when Arthur Onslow became Speaker, was the role severed from the party in power and shifted toward impartiality with the establishment of the first standards of independence and impartiality, which are still associated with the role today.

By the time Charles Shaw-Lefevre became Speaker in 1839, the principle that the Speaker should abstain from all political activity was already firmly established. Unlike the United Kingdom, Canada was not obliged to waste much time debating the Speaker's role, since it was spelled out in the Constitution of 1867, the British North America Act. Apparently, not everything was covered, since we are now in a grey area that the rules did not account for.

Now, I would like to talk a little about the impartiality that the Speaker should show. The authority and duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons arise largely from the Constitution and the written rules of the House. Page 317 of Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reads as follows:

The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require the balancing of the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that public business is transacted efficiently and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority. It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself. In ruling on matters of procedure, the Speaker is expected to adhere strictly to this principle, delineating the extent of the Speaker’s authority and in some cases offering suggestions as to matters which the House may see fit to pursue.

Still according to Bosc and Gagnon, it states on pages 323 and 324 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.

In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity....

My colleague has already mentioned a few examples. We see there is a flaw in the Standing Orders when it comes to situations like the one we are dealing with right now, specifically, when activist and partisan activities have taken place outside the House.

True, six days after the activity in which the Speaker took part, the Liberal Party said that the press release was its fault and that the Speaker was in no way involved. I seriously question how this party operates and the kind of planning it does. Certainly the Speaker has a right to thank the party's volunteers. Personally, I would have waited for a time when the House was not in session, such as the Quebec's national holiday, or Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day for francophones, or even July 1. Then impartiality would have been respected.

That said, the Liberal Party sent a press release without even asking authorization from the person concerned regarding the wording. They did it without even asking the team in that riding if it was really what they wanted to disclose, if it was cautious or proper. The party sent press releases about its own MPs and, in this case, about an MP who is Speaker of the House of Commons. However, they did not inform and or consult MPs on the contents of that press release. Apparently some parties are more democratic than others, because I have always been informed about the content of press releases. When I did not agree with the content of a press release, it was changed. The same applies for all my colleagues. Perhaps this is something that needs improvement.

It is the fault of the Liberal Party, of the party organization. As I was saying, we can ask questions about the timing of the activity, about any follow-up, about how no one monitored the contents of the publication, about how the party did not consult its own MPs before publishing something and about how the team of the member for Hull—Aylmer failed to follow up to ensure that its own press release could be used instead of the party's highly partisan release. Apparently, the member for Hull—Aylmer's team did prepare a press release.

In closing, the current question pertaining to the House's confidence in the Speaker arose not only as a result of a highly partisan press release from the Liberal Party of Canada, at a time when the Speaker was still sitting, when he could have waited to do another activist activity, but also as a result of the decision that he made and that openly raises the question of partisanship. Had the same event been held when the House was not sitting, it would not have created the problems it is creating now.

An impartial Speaker is essential to the functioning of the House of Commons. The impartiality of this office must be so complete that every time the Speaker opens his or her mouth, no member should be able to recall which party the Speaker comes from. That is what full and total impartiality and neutrality look like.

As things stand now, unfortunately, that is not the case with this Speaker. When he makes a decision, between 44% and 45% of the members of the House wonder whether the decision is truly impartial. No one should ever have to wonder about that, regardless of which side of the House they sit on.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, for a moment, let us imagine that the member who just spoke has a magic wand. I wonder, which provision would the member change, why he would change it and how he would change it?

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, red tape is indeed a rather serious problem. It is a problem not just with the Liberal government, but also with the Conservatives before this and the Liberals before them and so on, back almost to the beginning of time.

Beyond the issue of red tape, what happens sometimes is that the government rushes to introduce botched legislation in an apparent attempt to clear its conscience.

Does my colleague agree with me on that? I would like his answer to also take into account committee work.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, every bill has pros and cons. We agreed in principle, but not one amendment was adopted. If there is no possibility of improving the bill, we do not see the point in passing it.

The thing that I am worried about, and I want my colleague's opinion on this, is the clauses in the bill that would allow the Governor in Council to make changes to the lines marking offshore and provincial boundaries and to certain definitions.

What does that mean for transparency and democracy?

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying in my previous response, a concerted effort needs to be made to protect marine areas, because the Gulf of St. Lawrence is a common environment to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, the Magdalen Islands, Quebec and Newfoundland. We need to work together on protecting these areas from drilling. These are highly fragile environments with a rich biodiversity. The currents could well allow for an oil disaster to reach as far as Quebec City.

At that point, we would literally end up with a dead river. We want to prevent that from happening.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, every province has the right to grow its economic prosperity. Every province has the right to see to what it believes to be best for the future. We are talking about a future of five years, 10 years, or two, three, four or five generations. It is also a question that every parliamentarian needs to ask, either here in the House or in another legislature.

That being said, it is the river that feeds the waters of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. One needs to have basic knowledge of oceanography and coastal geography to understand that if there is a disaster in Newfoundland and Labrador, then the tidal waters and the currents will bring that disaster to Quebec. We want to avoid that too.

Despite our independence, we are interdependent through this river.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, 275 years ago, humankind went from using primarily wood-, peat- and coal-based energy to using steam energy, though it was often still produced using coal. That enabled first England and then other countries to enter the industrial age. The steam was mainly produced using coal. Oil was discovered and mainly used by industry. Today, other energy sources are available, thanks to the ever-changing state of knowledge.

Bill C-49 seeks to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. We are talking here not only about offshore oil and gas development but also about the implementation of offshore energy sources that could accelerate the energy transition. The second part has the potential to be useful.

Nonetheless, it is disappointing too. Our role in Parliament is to study bills, improve them in committee and pass them at various stages. I hope I am not telling anyone here anything new. The purpose of studying bills is to hear different points of view on how to improve the bills so that they meet the needs and realities experienced by our constituents. We represent all the constituents in our ridings, not just those who voted for us. As much as possible, the ideas that are heard have to help in reaching a consensus.

A minority government is wonderful because it is the most democratic of governments. Under such a government, everyone must sit down at the table and negotiate in good faith, and that is what we did. We negotiated in good faith. We voted for Bill C‑49 at second reading so we could improve it to create a vision for the future, a gateway to the future. Unfortunately, during the study in committee, the supposed benefits of a minority government did not pan out. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the bill at second reading, but all our amendments were rejected in committee.

Admittedly, the bill puts forward some interesting energy transition ideas. However, the oil and gas elements remain problematic for us. Some say that Canada is just a tiny drop in the world's ocean of greenhouse gas emissions, but our oil and gas are intended for export. They are intended to encourage the rest of the world to waste even more resources and further pollute the atmosphere. That is not how we envision the future, and that is one of the problems.

I would like to point out some other problems. Some examples include clause 4, which changes section 2.1 in the original act, and paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b), which give powers to the Governor in Council, including “amending the definition offshore renewable energy project” and “prescribing lines enclosing areas adjacent to the Province”. This can be done without consulting the elected representatives of these provinces, particularly if they are not part of the government of the day. These decisions can be made by the Governor in Council without any democratic consultation, either with parliamentarians or with the provinces concerned. That lacks transparency.

How can anyone believe that this is going to be done transparently? The government can tell me that this process will be transparent, but during the pandemic, drilling permits were issued in protected areas without consultation. What is more, the government said that it was going to resolve that problem by changing the boundaries of the protected area. From what we have seen in the past and from what we can read in the bill, we know that we will be seeing the same things today.

There are also some consistency issues. Perhaps I can expand on the answer that my colleague gave earlier.

This government claims to be green. It says that it will plant two billion trees and that it is encouraging the country to make the transition, and yet it continues to invest heavily in petroleum development and open the doors to that industry.

I think that we can all agree that we will continue to need petroleum because hospitals, especially, cannot do without it. It is used to create plastics that have helped us to save a tremendous amount of time when it comes to sterilization and safety in hospitals.

However, just because we still need petroleum does not mean that we have to continue with large-scale oil development until we are down to the last drop, just so we can make a pile of money. The day when we can eat money instead of food, then we can talk about it. Perhaps money will become more important than everything else, but that is a long way off.

Quebec, on the other hand, was the first government in North America to ban oil and gas exploration and development in its jurisdiction. It was a societal choice. Was it an easy choice to make? Of course not. Every government wants royalties and more money, but at some point, being a statesperson means protecting the dignity of the weak. There is no one weaker than a fetus, than an unborn child, than the future generation or generations to come. There is no one weaker than that. We must ensure they are protected. We must ensure they have a future. If we develop every last drop without consideration for the next two, three, four and five generations, we are no longer worthy of being called statesmen and stateswomen.

I am still talking about consistency. On the one hand, the government wants to implement slightly greener energies. On the other, it wants to continue developing oil and gas. Developing oil and gas to send to international markets will cancel out any transition efforts. If the government want to be consistent, it needs to invest in the transition first and in oil and gas if necessary.

It is of the utmost importance, but I am not sure that people understand that. Speaking of inconsistency, Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador have a plan to double oil and gas production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels a year. That is nearly one million barrels a day. That takes 100 new wells. How many offshore wind turbines will it take to make up for that? It simply boggles the mind. I could point to Bay du Nord, Trans Mountain and so on.

Offshore wind turbines, yes, but not just anywhere or any which way. There needs to be impact assessments and those assessments need to be done by independent organizations that are free from influence. Where is the promise to protect 30% of the oceans? How are we going to protect them, by drilling wells? How are we going to protect them when the definitions can be changed depending on which influences are being exerted on the governor in council or according to ideologies that are not based in facts?

Our role is to prepare and protect the future for future generations. Bill C‑49 could have lined up with our role of preparing and protecting the future, but it is unfortunately rooted in the past. It is a flying Dutchman that will cripple future generations and their quality of life.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, May 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that air pollution has been on the rise for several years now. Increased air pollution leads to an increase in health problems, particularly lung problems and, by extension, heart problems and other conditions. This leads to higher health care costs, which are also linked to age, but also to the problems that arise from increased pollution.

Despite all this, Canada is not responding to the demands of Quebec and the Canadian provinces when it comes to health transfers. What is more, Canada is adding more funding and tax breaks for the oil and gas industries. Would my colleague say that Canada is a little backward in the way it thinks about its budget and the population's actual needs?