So V ote

May/28/24 5:31:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member thinks we are standing. We are standing in Ottawa in the federal Parliament, not in the Saskatchewan legislature. I have two points on that. First, this fall there is going to be an election in Saskatchewan at the provincial level. Maybe the member should put his name on the ballot if he is so concerned about what is happening in Saskatchewan, and see how the people of Saskatchewan like him. Second, the member used a very important term: “independent”. The Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature actually operated independently. The Speaker of the chamber, who is from the Liberal caucus and was propped up three times by the member right there, continues to violate the chamber as a partisan hack. The Speaker needs to resign. Shame on the member for supporting him.

142 words

May/28/24 5:29:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, strike three and someone is out. That is what needs to happen. I hope that all parties will vote to remove the Speaker. It needs to happen. As I said before question period, it seems like “Oh, we'll give him another pitch, let him have strike four. Oh, maybe we'll let him have strike five.” No, strike three, he is out. It is time for him to resign, or let us vote him out.

81 words

May/28/24 5:27:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, maybe they should both be punished because, as I said in my speech, the only way the Speaker's name can actually end up on an invitation with a specific date, time and location is if he approved it. That is the only way that that could happen. It has been a complete nightmare and disaster ever since he took the chair. Three lapses, three partisan, very deliberate incidents, have happened under his watch. The only character assassination that has gone on has been the assassination of the character of the House, the chamber that the Speaker is supposed to preside over. He has been an absolute failure. He should do the honourable thing and resign.

118 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/28/24 5:21:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was just getting into the relationship between the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister. It is worth noting that in 2023, the Speaker was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. As I was saying, the Prime Minister himself has three ethics reports written in his own name. I was alluding to, and I asked a question of one of the Bloc members earlier concerning it, the fact that it sure seems like there is a contest or a competition between the Prime Minister and the Speaker to see how many ethics violations or breaches of trust they can have and get away with it. The NDP continues to prop them up, despite these things piling up. Let us take a look. Since 2015, there have been no fewer than 10 Liberal ministers and parliamentary secretaries who have been found guilty of violating and breaking ethics laws of this institution. On top of that, there was a PMO staffer. There are also multiple members of the existing cabinet who are still sitting who have ethics violations. One of them happens to be the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. One happens to be the international trade minister, and one happens to be the minister of sport. Therefore, there seems to be a chronic problem within cabinet, which is what the Ethics Commissioner said of Joe Peschisolido, former Liberal member for Steveston—Richmond East, that there was a chronic issue. In 2023, when the Ethics Commissioner specifically wrote about the member for Hull—Aylmer, CBC published an interesting article. In it, the Ethics Commissioner said: “After years of serving in senior government positions, [the member] should have been aware of the rules or should have sought advice. I am quite concerned that someone with the breadth of experience of [the member] would fail to recognize the possibility of a contravention”. The Ethics Commissioner also said: As a parliamentary secretary since 2015 and having served for several years on both the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, [he] should be well versed on the functioning of both regimes and the importance of consulting the Office. I am quite concerned that someone with the breadth of experience...would fail to recognize the possibility of a contravention. Those are pretty damning words from the Ethics Commissioner. What did the member for Hull—Aylmer, now the Speaker of the House, have to say at the time? He said, “I will redouble my efforts to be more diligent in the future to ensure my obligations under the act are fully met.” He has really doubled down, has he not? In fact he has tripled down, with three more violations. They are not so much ethics violations per se, but they are serious lapses in ethics by the Speaker. There is the video, a partisan video for a Liberal fundraiser, which we have talked about in the House already, in which he was wearing his Speaker's gowns in the Speaker's office, giving a speech and a video remark. Then he went to Washington, not just as the member of Parliament for Hull—Aylmer, but as the Speaker of the House, to talk to young Liberals in Washington. That is another one, number two. What should be strike number three and out is the new one that we are debating again here today, where the Liberal Party of Canada had on its website an invitation to have a fine evening with the Speaker of the House of Commons, and it used his name, which I cannot do. If the Conservative Party of Canada is going to use my name on a fundraiser, it is going to ask me about it. It is going to coordinate with me about it. It is going to check with my schedule to see whether it works for me to be able to come and do the event. Of course I will have to say, “Yes, I can,” or “No, I cannot.” The fact that it got this far tells us that the Speaker said “Yes, absolutely, let us do it.” That alone should have been the first thing that came to his mind. I want to finish quickly with one more baseball reference. Angel Hernandez was an umpire in major league baseball; he had been for over 30 years and is widely regarded as one of the worst umpires in major league history. He has finally retired. It is time that the Speaker of the House of Commons follows the example of Angel Hernandez and resigns.

793 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/28/24 1:54:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand and speak on behalf of the great people of southwest Saskatchewan. Over the weekend, I had a great opportunity to spend some time at the ball diamonds. Baseball season is in full swing in Saskatchewan. A lot of people at the ball diamonds who came up to me have been paying attention to what is happening in the news, what is happening here in Ottawa. They will ask, “What is going on with the Speaker in the House of Commons?” They are seeing what is happening now. The reason why they are paying so much attention to this is that it is not the first time and not the second time but the third time the Speaker has engaged in partisan behaviour. Using a baseball analogy, when a player get three strikes, they are out. Even the House leader for the NDP, after a previous violation by the Speaker, said that if this were to happen again, that would be it. If he were to renege on that now, it would basically be like the umpire's saying that a player had three strikes but that they would give the player another pitch and just see what happens. What is going to happen if there is another strike? Is it going to be the same thing, or will the NDP let the Speaker try again? At what point will the NDP grow a spine and stick true to its words? It is absolutely shameful for the NDP to renege on what happened. The NDP House leader stood in front of the media and said that if it were to happen again, something would have to be done, yet here we are. The NDP is already saying it is going to vote with the government on closure on the bill. We are going to have a vote on this later tonight. It is absolutely shameful. I was first elected in 2019. One of the first speeches I gave in the chamber was actually on the “Peschisolido Report 2020”. A former Liberal member of Parliament from Steveston—Richmond East was found guilty of breaking ethics rules. Actually, the then ethics commissioner, Mr. Dion, said at the time, “Given Mr. Peschisolido's chronic failure to comply with the code's disclosure requirements, there is no doubt in my mind I would have recommended that Parliament impose appropriate sanctions”. In 2023, the current Speaker of the House's title was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. If colleagues will allow me to go back to my baseball analogy, the Prime Minister of Canada himself has three reports in his own name. On the Commissioner of Ethics' website, there are three reports that bear the name of the Prime Minister of this country. Strike one, strike two, strike three, and yet here we are. The Prime Minister actually has been given another strike. We have had a few other issues with the Prime Minister since the last report was written, so he has been given lots of pitches, lots of chances, here, and somehow he is still standing at the plate. Right now the NDP is propping up the Prime Minister and the Liberals, enabling them and allowing this to happen. When I talk to people at the ball diamonds, they ask, “How on earth do these guys get three strikes and they are not out? How does that happen?” Where is the respect for the institutions of this place? As members of Parliament, when a member is part of the government, they are a part of the Crown. There is an “honourable” designation beside the member's name. This place is based and founded on the honour system. When a member has multiple infractions, such as the Prime Minister and the current Speaker of the House have, one would think they would have done the honourable thing by now: accepted responsibility and resigned. That would be the honourable thing to do.

678 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/28/24 1:06:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it seems that the Prime Minister and the Speaker are having a personal competition to see who can break the most ethics laws and continue to get away with it. The Prime Minister has three in his name. The Speaker has one ethics violation in his name, and there are now three instances where he violated the chair with partisan activity. Would my colleague from the Bloc agree that the time has finally come for the Speaker to do the honourable thing and resign?

86 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/28/24 12:08:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that the Speaker learned from the best, because he was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. As we know, the Prime Minister has three ethics violation reports in his own name. Perhaps the Speaker learned this particular type of behaviour from the Prime Minister. I am wondering what my colleague has to say about that.

60 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/27/24 9:31:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50 Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I am on the natural resources committee, and there were two bills that came to our committee. There were Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 came to us first. The government and the NDP were adamant that we had to do Bill C-50 first and then Bill C-49, but we knew that the Supreme Court had made its reference ruling that C-49 had unconstitutional elements to it, so we proposed to get the Impact Assessment Act right first and do that first and foremost. That way we could pass Bill C-49 because we know that the provinces are looking forward to getting something like this done, and then move on to Bill C-50. The Liberals basically programmed the committee so we had to do Bill C-50 first and then do Bill C-49. It was done in such a fast fashion. We had industry representatives come in to say that they were not consulted. It is a complete dumpster fire. I am wondering if my colleague has any explanation as to why the government would want to ram forward something rather than doing our job as parliamentarians, which is to make sure that we get the bill right and make sure we pass a constitutional bill in the first place.

222 words

May/27/24 1:30:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely true that we continue to see the divide-and-conquer approach, and it goes no further than with the Impact Assessment Act. We know how much devastation that has brought entirely across the country, and the Liberals continue to hide behind that and use that as a way to divide people on this bill as well. I know the government said that it fixed that now in the budget, but there really was no effort for committees to get involved and for people to come to talk about what these changes needed to be. The Liberals are continuing to take a sledgehammer approach to a very important part of not just the renewable sector, but also the entire energy system and our nationwide economy as a whole. The Liberals are choosing to divide people over that.

141 words

May/27/24 1:28:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our desire in committee was to ensure that we passed a bill that was constitutional. When the bill came to us, it had over 35 direct references to the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and the government gave us no timeline as to when it would deal with that. Therefore, to us, it seemed absolutely pressing and urgent to ensure that we passed a bill that was constitutional. The Liberals and the NDP wanted none of it, so we ensured that we would set out to get a bill that would be constitutional so that investors in the wind industry would have absolute certainty and confidence when they looked to make proposals on building their industry. Also, we want to ensure that the current users of the waters, the fishers, have the certainty they need so that their industry can continue and flourish. We do not need these two industries combatting each other. There needs to be a way to figure out if they can coexist, and this bill would provide no certainty for that.

176 words

May/27/24 1:26:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, putting the livelihoods of tens of thousands of fishers and all the spinoff industry that comes from it at the behest of another industry is not the way we build an economy. It is not the way we get more people involved in the economy. As the witnesses, who I referenced in my speech, talked about, they are happy to see more economic development in the region. They just want to see the process done properly. They want to see proper consultation. Many fisher groups, Unifor, talked about how there was a complete lack of consultation with the fishers and the different associations in the fishing community. They are worried that their livelihood will be lost because there is a lack of certainty and clarity in this legislation.

130 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/27/24 1:22:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I look forward to resuming my speech and to hearing what my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has to say, as I am splitting my time with him today. I work on the natural resources committee, and we are the ones who went through the study of this bill. From that perspective, in my speech before, I was setting the record straight, because there was some misrepresentation as to how we went through the entire process of the bill. Having gone through it, as I had said, and I will say it again today, the Liberal government has made a mess and it continues to refuse to clean it up. It did that with its Impact Assessment Act, which the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional, and now those same Liberals are once again right on track to interfere with local industry and provincial jurisdiction. In this case, we are talking about the Atlantic fishing industry. We have heard from many fishing groups that are deeply concerned about a lack of consultation and a lack of protection for their livelihood. They do not feel that enough has been done to rule out the potential for major irreversible damage to their industry. The government is ignoring them, but we need to hear what they have to say for themselves. I am going to continue sharing what a few more witnesses told us at committee. Michael Barron, from the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, said: In an industry that is a major economic driver for Nova Scotia, the lack of consultation has not gone unnoticed by all fish harvester associations throughout Nova Scotia. Dr. Kris Vascotto, from the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, said: Historically, members have relied on the federal government to protect the interests and viability of their enterprises. They have worked to support science and refine rules for the fishery, and they have tried to be part of the solution. In turn, they rely on the government to make good decisions. Perhaps this is why members are surprised and dismayed by the content of the bill before you. Collectively, we understand that, as a planet, we are facing profound challenges related to climate change risk, and we realize that we all have an important role in finding a viable solution. However, rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters and lacks proper safeguards to ensure a viable and resilient coastal economy is myopic. There are some important things that so many fishing groups mention consistently. They made it clear that they were absolutely not against renewable or wind energy per se, but they wanted acknowledgement that there were still many unknown factors and potentially negative impacts on ocean wildlife and their ecosystems. If that happens, it would devastate their industry and it may not be reversible. There is a witness who addressed this concern. Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology, shared his thoughts at the committee. He said: Developing the wind farms will add hard structure, thousands of small islands, throughout these areas, islands that pull energy out of the system. This will change the environment: the sea floor makeup, the current structure, the acoustics both during construction and operation, and the electromagnetic field. All these will impact the associated flora and fauna of the areas. This will happen on the scales of the individual turbine, which is centimetres to kilometres; the wind farm fields, from tens to hundreds of kilometres; and the entire eastern seaboard. It will affect the fisheries. Some will be able to harvest within the wind farms; some will not. All will have to navigate through or around them. Right now, some wind farms are beginning to monitor the marine environment and the animals associated with them, but it is a disjointed effort. There is no overall framework to coordinate the different scientific research or push for broader ecosystem understanding. What we have heard from local witnesses in Atlantic Canada is that Bill C-49 has been rushed and lacks the necessary safeguards for the fishing industry.

697 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/9/24 8:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a little while ago, the member put up on social media an idea that in order to fight climate change, all the indoor hockey rinks in Canada should be shut down. Not only is that extremely un-Canadian, but it also is a radical proposal that would just destroy the heart of what it means to be Canadian. What other radical and extreme ideas does she have for fighting climate change that would be extremely un-Canadian and would destroy the way of life of people?

88 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/9/24 6:31:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is another embarrassing admission by the government that it has completely failed in its role. We have already had one vote on budget 2024, and yet the fall economic statement is before us tonight. Of course, the government is going to time allocate it. It has been months since it was brought up for debate. This is an admission of failure on the government's part. Why is it so bad at managing the calendar and getting things done?

82 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/9/24 2:48:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, over two million Canadians are using a food bank every single month. The CEO of Food Banks Canada says that food banks are becoming unsustainable as more food banks are closing their doors because they are out of food, yet the Prime Minister is as determined as ever to drive up the cost of food as he refuses to listen to the millions of Canadians who want to axe his extreme tax. If the Prime Minister will not listen to us, why will he not at least listen to Food Banks Canada's CEO or maybe the millions of Canadians who are demanding that he lower the price of food by axing his extreme carbon tax.

127 words

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24

May/8/24 6:38:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on that same point of order, my colleague was simply pointing out the government's disdain for the general public. This was not—

26 words