SoVote

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Oct/5/23 3:39:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I admit that I was saddened to learn of the departure of Michel Patrice, the deputy clerk of administration, because he is so amazing. Life is short. All kinds of professional and personal adventures come our way and lead us to make decisions. To leave at the height of a career, however, is a big decision. Michel Patrice has had a very long career in both the Senate and the House of Commons. My colleagues in the House have demonstrated this and described his many accomplishments, and I will not repeat them here. It would take a 20-minute speech at least. I want to focus on something very specific. Michel has had a remarkable career. Since 2017—and I believe he is quite proud of this achievement—he has overseen the largest organizational change in the parliamentary life of our MPs. This change has had a very concrete and major impact on our teams and on the members as a whole. He decided to put all of his skills and qualities to use in leading this organizational change because he truly believes that members of Parliament deserve the utmost respect. Members of Parliament, parliamentarians and their teams are at the heart of his professional commitment. That is why, over the past five years, he has wholeheartedly invested a great deal of time and energy. He has mobilized his teams. He has inspired his teams to think, excel, create, innovate, all with the aim of offering the best support to MPs and their teams. It takes an exceptional leader to inspire a great team, one of the greatest teams in Parliament, a team oriented towards the same goal: supporting MPs in their work, in their parliamentary duties so that they feel good, supporting them with a strong administration, and supporting their teams. We know that good MPs are good MPs because they are well supported. People who are hard-working, highly trained and well supported perform well. Michel Patrice deserves credit for his tenacity, sometimes against all odds. Changes of this magnitude do not come without challenges; it is not easy. He is tenacious and persistent, and he succeeded. For the past few years, MPs have benefited from an administration with a clearer understanding that constant support tailored to their needs strengthens Parliament as an institution because its members feel better supported. It is a very personalized approach. That is one of Michel's qualities. He listens, he observes, he is one of the first to grasp what is going on and he comes up with solutions and ways of doing things that make our work easier. We all know his list of achievements is long. He and his teams were crucial to setting up the hybrid Parliament. A good leader always has good people helping him. He surrounded himself with the best. He played a very important role in setting up the hybrid Parliament. He made sure it worked during a time that was not easy for anyone. I have a brief anecdote to share. It is always nice to spice up our speeches a bit. I have been on the Board of Internal Economy since I became whip in 2019. I worked with the deputy clerk of administration a number of times to prepare for our meetings at the Board of Internal Economy. Perhaps better than most, he understood my desire, my insistence and the importance I placed on members having access to robust and competent interpretation services in both languages. He also understood my tenacity and my insistence on having this service at every meeting of the Board of Internal Economy. With a smile on his face and his legendary listening skills, he supported me in my efforts to shed light on the situation with the interpreters. I would therefore like to thank him for his infinite patience, and especially for listening to and supporting us. As I said, Michel Patrice is an exceptional leader, an exceptional senior public servant, and I would even go so far as to say an exceptional person. It is extremely rare to find a senior manager who has so many professional skills but who is still down-to-earth, compassionate, approachable and, most of all, a good listener. One of his greatest strengths is that he focuses on finding solutions. I never saw Mr. Patrice get flustered by a problem, because to him, there is no such thing as a problem. To him, there are only solutions that are tailored to the needs that are expressed. To Michel, there are no problems, only solutions. The best gift we can give him is to carry on and build his legacy. It is a legacy that is greatly appreciated by MPs and their teams. I feel truly privileged to have crossed paths with him. He is a good person, a generous person, who has devoted his entire career to the public service. Honestly, I have no doubt that life will be good to him. I wish Michel the best for what comes next, and I thank him again for everything.

853 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Oct/5/23 3:47:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are blessed in the House with an incredibly dedicated team that provides support for our democracy. We see some of them in the gallery. We know every day that it is because of them, because of their work and their dedication, that we are able to have the sometimes intense debates that we have in this place. We are able to pass legislation. Hopefully working together, we are able to build a better Canada, where nobody is left behind. Among those very dedicated servants of Parliament, servants of democracy, one of the greatest and most dedicated is Michel Patrice. Today, we just heard all the parties express their deep gratitude for and pay tribute to this exceptional man, the deputy clerk of administration, who gave so much to Parliament and our democracy over the past 30 years. As the supervisor of parliamentary precinct operations, Michel Patrice played a major role when the House of Commons moved from Centre Block to West Block. Under his inspired leadership and that of his extremely dedicated team, this complex process went off without a hitch. His commitment to operational excellence ensured a smooth transition so that MPs were able to continue their important work in serving the public. The way he maintained the continuity of Parliament's operations shows Mr. Patrice's dedication to serving democracy and its representatives. It was seamless, as members will remember, when we moved. One day we were in the Centre Block, and the next day we were here in West Block in this magnificent bastion of democracy. It was simple for members of Parliament, but the complexity of the millions of decisions that were needed to renovate this space, to build in this courtyard and then to provide everything that members of Parliament were served with shows not only the immense dedication but also the incredible skill of Michel Patrice. It is also important to mention the key role Mr. Patrice played during the COVID-19 pandemic. Faced once again with an unprecedented challenge, he deftly coordinated the implementation of a hybrid Parliament, which allowed our democratic process to continue despite the extraordinary circumstances, the likes of which had not been seen in a century. His vision made it possible to implement innovative solutions so that parliamentarians could continue to participate in House proceedings while protecting everyone's health and safety. Michel was very adaptable and showed outstanding leadership at times when institutional stability was more vital than ever. The hybrid Parliament remains an important legacy. We are in the world's largest democracy. Tonight I will be flying home 5,000 kilometres to go back to my riding, which is nowhere near as far away as the places many of the members of this Parliament reside. For all of us, when there is a crucial issue with respect to health, a family emergency or even the passing of a loved one, moving forward, we will still always be able to serve our constituents. That is an important legacy of Michel Patrice. We also benefited from his resilience and leadership during the occupation of downtown Ottawa in February 2022. Under difficult circumstances, his unwavering commitment to maintaining parliamentary operations despite the challenges is a testament to his steadfast determination. During this period, Michel Patrice worked literally 24-7. Other whips, House leaders and I can testify to that, as we would sometimes receive calls at 4:00 or 4:30 in the morning. Michel Patrice was still at work as we sought to find solutions to this crisis. We congratulate Mr. Patrice on a well-earned retirement. We owe him a debt of gratitude for his vigilant stewardship of our parliamentary institution. Michel, we hope that we are not embarrassing you with this outpouring of praise and affection, because it shows the difference that you have made in our Parliament every day in your work and dedication to our democracy. Congratulations, Michel Patrice. We will be glad to see you take full advantage of the new adventure that lies ahead of you. Thank you so much.

684 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/5/23 3:52:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an emotional time for everyone. We know full well that our deputy clerk has worked hard for everyone and for the good of our Parliament. For myself, as leader of the Green Party, of course we are not on the Board of Internal Economy, but, Michel Patrice's work has not gone unnoticed. We are all so grateful. My colleagues have already said it. I want to acknowledge the tributes given by the members for Gatineau, West Nova, and Salaberry—Suroît, and by my colleague and friend, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. It is clear that Mr. Patrice worked hard during this unprecedented, challenging time. Obviously, the pandemic and the move of Parliament itself from Centre Block to West Block, as my friend from New Westminster—Burnaby recalls, were not easy. Rather, they were massively challenging. Michel Patrice, you did your work with a generous spirit. As colleagues have said, one wonders when you got some rest, given the challenges faced by the administration. The services on the Hill are incredible, as are all the staff and their teams. These services are nearly invisible, but not to us, the MPs. The work that is done by our table clerks and the team that works on Parliament Hill in many functions can be invisible to most Canadians, but not to us. As members of Parliament, we owe you so much for your 30 years of service, first in the Senate and then in the House of Commons. As all my colleagues have said, you definitely deserve a very good retirement, so I will not take you away from what I hope is a lovely party event. I wish you a very happy retirement. Thank you very much for your work, your career and your service to Canada's democracy.

308 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/5/23 3:55:25 p.m.
Watch

Again, I thank Mr. Patrice for his service to the House of Commons.

13 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/5/23 3:55:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-12

It being 3:55 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-12. Call in the members.

34 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/5/23 4:28:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-12

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Oct/5/23 4:28:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the roll call vote, from the government benches, the member for Fredericton voted and then left the chamber before the vote was reported in the House. I would like to know whether that vote will count under the current voting rules or whether it should be stricken from the record.

60 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/5/23 4:28:41 p.m.
Watch

I believe the member for Fredericton left the chamber before the vote was complete.

14 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/5/23 4:29:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, given where we are in the session, we are not going to argue the member's vote should count, unless there is unanimous leave to count it this time around. We will ensure that it will not happen again in the future.

44 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/5/23 4:29:21 p.m.
Watch

Do members agree to allow the vote from the hon. member for Fredericton to stand? Some hon. members: Nay.

19 words

Mr. George Chahal

Oct/5/23 4:29:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Heritage also left his seat while the vote was under way. I think we should allow the votes of both members to count and not play these petty politics.

36 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/5/23 4:29:51 p.m.
Watch

We will strike them both. I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders is extended by 16 minutes.

25 words

All Topics

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC)

Oct/5/23 4:30:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is customary that on Thursdays we ask the government what it has planned for next week, but next week is a constituency week. I know members of Parliament will be heading back to their ridings and will have the opportunity to celebrate with their loved ones on Monday, followed by constituency work throughout the rest of the week. Could the House leader tell the House what the government has planned for the week that follows, when we return to Parliament?

83 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/5/23 4:30:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act. Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day. Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.

88 words

Hon. Filomena Tassi

Oct/5/23 4:31:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it has already been mentioned, but I would like to confirm that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.

22 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Oct/5/23 4:32:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a response to Order Paper Question No. 1417 and one additional matter with regard to the same. Out of respect for the time of the members present, I will not read the entirety of the question put to the government; instead, I will cut to the heart of the matter. I request that you examine two matters at hand. On the first matter, this morning, the CBC reported having obtained information clearly demonstrating that the government misled the House of Commons in response to Order Paper Question No. 1417 and, thus, breached members' privileges. The CBC report stated that the Prime Minister's trip to Montana over Easter cost far more than the government reported to the House of Commons through Question No. 1417. The government reported to the House that the trip cost $23,846. However, the information obtained by the CBC discovered that the trip actually cost $228,839. Part of the cost of this trip is the provision of security for the Prime Minister, which is a necessary function of this role. To be clear, no one here is questioning the need for the Prime Minister to have access to security. However, the issue at hand is that, from the CBC story, the government appears to have hidden the total cost from a member of Parliament in an official request for details of this expenditure. Canadians have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent and if they are spent wisely. In the instance of the story at hand, this principle translates to the public having a right to know such things as why the cost of the Prime Minister's trip was so high and whether, as it was a personal trip, he personally paid for the full value of his accommodations. It is impossible for members to debate this issue without the information, which is why it was requested from the government via an Order Paper question. As a member, I was not able to make an accurate determination on this matter, as I was misled by the government's response to Question No. 1417. Recourse on this breach of privilege should be explored. Recently, the government has been castigated by your immediate predecessor for its response to Order Paper questions. On June 20, your predecessor made a ruling on a question of privilege that I raised when I received an ATI showing how the natural resources department sought not to fully respond to an Order Paper question I posed. When I rose in the House on June 15 to explain this question of privilege, I noted: In the ATI, the minister's regional adviser for Quebec asks in an email, “What is the jurisprudence on those [types] of Points of Order?” The minister's deputy chief of staff, Kyle Harrietha, responds: “Thanks, heard it after QP and did the inbox search of Q-974. Already in touch with GHLO. I'm expecting the Speaker to tut tut and then say it is not for him to judge the quality of a response. In your predecessor's response to me on June 20, he did not seem to take too kindly to the statement. He chastised the government, saying: However, the Chair would like to note that it finds the remarks of public servants reported by the member very troubling. I am especially troubled by the comments from the public servants to the effect that the Chair could not intervene in case of a point of order and that this could justify an incomplete response. Your predecessor went on to say: It is true that, based on many precedents, the Chair does not judge the quality of responses, and the reasons for that fact are understandable. However, my predecessors and I have repeatedly emphasized the importance of providing members with the information they need to do their work properly. Your predecessor continued on and concluded by saying: In the meantime, the Chair encourages ministers to find the right words to inspire their officials to invest their time and energy in preparing high-quality responses rather than looking for reasons to avoid answering written questions. However, in the case of Question No. 1417, it appears the government not only did not heed the advice from the Speaker but also went one step further and, per the information disclosed in the CBC article, misled the House. In doing so, it both violated members' privileges and demonstrated blatant disregard for the Speaker's words. There is precedent for this situation. On December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker said: While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstance could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this is one of those circumstances. However, there is another problem related to this matter that you must address. There is one more element to this question of privilege that is completely unprecedented, which I checked, in the history of our House of Commons. Typically, the task of examining evidence on this matter would fall to you. However, the problem now facing the House of Commons, and your office, is that the government representative who provided and signed off on the potentially misleading response was yourself, in your former role as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. Question No. 1417, the Order Paper question at the heart of the CBC story about the cost of the Montana trip, concerns the Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister's Office and the cabinet. The PCO was asked to disclose the cost of the trip; however, per the CBC story, it did not. The Privy Council Office would be responsible for planning the logistics around travel and have oversight on budgetary matters. Again, in your role as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, you signed off on the response to Question No. 1417, which the CBC reported on today. I believe this situation may present concerns with regard to your ability to impartially rule on this matter. With deep respect to you and the institution of the Chair, I will now argue why this is so and what action I believe you must take in considering a matter in which you may have a conflict of interest. Prior to making these arguments, I want to be clear that I bear you no ill will, nor am I challenging your office. At the time of your election, there were no rules preventing parliamentary secretaries from occupying the Speaker's chair during the same Parliament. I respect that you occupy the Speaker's chair by virtue of your legal election to it, but here is the rub of the matter: Under normal circumstances, it would be virtually impossible for the Speaker of the House of Commons to ever be in a potential conflict of interest situation when making one of these rulings. That is because the Speaker is a member of Parliament elected to the office by their peers at the start of a Parliament, immediately after an election. Elections wipe the slate of Parliament clean. However, this week, members had to elect a new Speaker in the middle of a Parliamentary term. The problem in this instance is that you, prior to your election as Speaker, held several official governmental roles. Until September, you served as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, and you signed off on Question No. 1417. Now you have to rule on whether there is enough evidence for the House to consider if you, in your former role as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, potentially breached members' privilege by misleading the House when signing off on Question No. 1417. We both know that the occupant of the Speaker's chair must be viewed as an unimpeachable, neutral arbiter of House proceedings. A Speaker having to rule on a question of privilege on a matter caused by them during their former role in government is an incredible matter without precedent. To re-emphasize, I am honour bound to afford you the respect you deserve in the role of Speaker, out of respect for the office of the Speaker and its essential functions within the institution of Parliament. However, out of that same responsibility, I believe you are also honour bound to recuse yourself from ruling on this matter. This is a matter that affects the privilege of all members. Speakers' rulings set precedents, and it could breach all members' privilege if you make one ruling for which you cannot conceivably be impartial because of the nature of your previous government roles and your actions within them. Mr. Speaker, you have the ability to recuse yourself by allowing the House to consider the matter at hand. In this instance, the correct course of action should be to allow a motion to be moved on the matter and allow the House to determine the outcome. Then the outcome would be a decision of the House, not the Speaker, and a perception of loss of neutrality and a further potential breach of privilege could perhaps be avoided. After the last couple of weeks, the Speaker could use a bit of a boost. There is some relevant precedent on this matter. On December 12, 2021, on a question of privilege concerning allegations pertaining to the former clerk, the Speaker pointed out at the beginning of his ruling that the clerk recused himself from the matter and did not participate in the preparation of the ruling. This would be in keeping with the reference from Bosc and Gagnon, at page 323, which states, “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.” Representative democracy only functions when ordinary people have confidence that the institutions that uphold their representatives' ability to make decisions on their behalf are working. Any issue that erodes that confidence should be immediately and forcefully addressed. Out of respect for Parliament, I ask that you recuse yourself from this matter and allow the House to debate it. Doing so would not be an admission of anything other than your deep respect for the necessity of perception of neutrality by the Chair. However, failure to do so could present problems in this regard, at a time when all of us here need to do our utmost to respect the dignity of Parliament. In any event, should a case of privilege be found, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

1829 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/5/23 4:41:45 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for her presentation. I trust members will respond at a later date, hopefully as quickly as possible, on this particular matter. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

34 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/5/23 4:42:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an assurance that we will review what the member said and report back at some point with regard to her statement.

28 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Oct/5/23 4:42:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we would like to review the blues as well, and we may choose to come back to the House on this matter.

24 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/5/23 4:42:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to review the blues. I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill had to say. She presented a cogent, thoughtful and respectful argument. I hope you will take it into consideration and decide that it is the wisest course for the Speaker to recuse himself from this role for this particular matter of privilege.

64 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 230