Debates of Nov. 27th, 2012

The Environment

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. Minister of the Environment has the floor.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in comparison to the lip service of the previous Liberal government, we do have a climate change plan, a sector-by-sector plan, which does not involve the carbon tax that they favoured. When I go to Doha next week, we will work to engage other countries to write a new climate change regime.

Tourism Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' narrow-mindedness strikes again. They cut funding for the Forges du Saint-Maurice and shortened the season based on 2011 visitation statistics, so it should come as no surprise that the 2012 statistics were lower. That is typical Conservative funding logic: the more they cut, the fewer people visit; the fewer people visit, the more they cut.

Cut guided tours, and you sound the death knell.

Does Canada's only ironworks interpretation site not deserve to be treated with at least as much respect as the War of 1812, if not more?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member should know that our government has taken significant action to encourage investment in the tourism industry. Indeed, we have improved the economy and economic outlook all across this country. I do not think tourists want to come to Canada to see a $21 billion carbon tax, because that would increase the cost and bring tourism down even further.

National Defence

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is home to some of the world's best soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen. The men and women who serve as search and rescue technicians often operate in dangerous and harsh conditions to save the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Our nation is well served by these courageous individuals who put themselves in harm's way to save countless Canadians every year.

Recently, three search and rescue technicians were recognized by the United Kingdom for their bravery. Could the Minister of National Defence please inform this House of their achievements?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his strong support of the forces and the opportunity to highlight the courageous work of Canadian Forces search and rescue technicians.

Yesterday, the heroic efforts of three members of the 424 Transport and Rescue Squadron in Trenton were recognized for their work. Sergeant Janick Gilbert, Master Corporal Max Lahaye-Lemay and Master Corporal Marco Journeyman received the prestigious International Maritime Organization Award for Exceptional Bravery at Sea for their efforts last year to save two hunters stranded in icy waters near Igloolik, Nunavut. Tragically, Sergeant Gilbert perished during this rescue. Our thoughts are of him and his family. They will be forever remembered by a grateful nation, and we thank them for their dedicated service to Canada.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, B.C. apple growers reject any notion of a genetically engineered apple being introduced into their environment.

They are supported by a resolution of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities calling for legislation to ensure that B.C. remains a GE-free province in respect to all tree fruit products.

The introduction of the GE Arctic apple has the potential to destroy markets for both conventional and organic apple growers.

Will the minister support farmers and commit today to rejecting any application to introduce the Arctic apple into the environment?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, any decisions about GM products are subject to a rigorous, science-based assessment process. Those assessments ensure that the environment and human and animal health continue to be protected.

This government is working hard to ensure that Canadian farmers continue to have access to the best technology in the world.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 37 librarians and library technicians from the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé are condemning the closure of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, the only DFO French-language library. The Conservatives are literally doing away with knowledge.

French-language reference documents that are useful to Quebec researchers will be sent to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The minister says that they will be digitized and accessible. That is impossible. It is false, because copyright will not allow it. It might be easier for the minister to simply burn the books.

Will he reverse the decision to close the only French-language library at Fisheries and Oceans, or will he deprive Quebec scientists of high-quality resources?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, our government is eliminating waste and duplication in government.

Library users are asking for digital information, so it is only logical that Fisheries and Oceans would accommodate that demand by making its collection available in digital format.

The library will continue to deliver services in both English and French.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of the winners of the Governor General's Literary Awards.

The 2012 Governor General's Literary Award recipients here today are: France Daigle, Normand Chaurette, Maude Smith Gagnon, Geneviève Billette, Alain Roy, Aline Apostolska, Élise Gravel, Linda Spalding, Ross King, Julie Bruck, Catherine Banks, Nigel Spencer, Susin Nielsen and Isabelle Arsenault.

Committees of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to briefly supplement the initial response of the hon. government House leader to the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition on proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-45.

To be clear about the October 31 motion of the finance committee, which the four New Democrats on the committee voted for, for the record, the chair of that committee was asked in paragraph (a) to write to his counterparts on 10 other standing committees “inviting those Standing Committees to consider the subject-matter” on certain provisions of Bill C-45. They were invited to take up a subject matter study, on which the NDP House leader himself admitted yesterday, “any committee has the right to initiate a study on the subject matter that applies to their policy area, including on the elements of Bill C-45”.

Nonetheless, it remained up to those 10 other committees as to how they would respond to the finance committee's invitation. As I understand it, to a committee, they agreed to consider the relevant subject matter of this budget implementation bill. Indeed, pages 1004 and 1005 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, state:

The standing committees may themselves initiate, without first obtaining the prior approval of the House, any study they feel it advisable to undertake, insofar as it falls within the mandate provided to them by the Standing Orders.

Circumstances of a wide variety inform the choices of committees for studies, whether they be legal or procedural in nature or have a political impetus behind them or, in this case, an invitation letter from a fellow committee. Meanwhile, in paragraph (b), the other committees were “requested to convey recommendations, including any suggested amendments...in a letter...”.

The other committees were not instructed to make a report to the finance committee, as the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley suggested yesterday. They did, however, each agree to correspond back to the finance committee chair with their views on the subject matter studied. That the other committees have not reported to the House on these studies is not a matter of concern for a point of order in the chamber.

I will continue reading the passage from O'Brien and Bosc at page 1005, which states:

The committees then undertake to define the nature and scope of the study, to determine how much time they will devote to it and whether or not they will report their observations and recommendations to the House.

As the hon. government House leader pointed out yesterday, the finance committee did not cede any of its authority with respect to Bill C-45 and the finance committee retained the authority to vote on all proposed amendments before the bill was ever reported back to the House. There was certainly no undue delegation of authority here.

Finally, he pointed out that this was not a novel practice. It may be of benefit to point out, for example, the case of Bill C-50, the Budget Implementation Act, 2008, in the second session of the 39th Parliament. As part of its study of that bill, the finance committee adopted a motion to ask the citizenship and immigration committee to consider the subject matter of a portion of it. The immigration committee accepted the invitation and later agreed to a letter in reply to the finance committee, even agreeing to append a dissenting opinion to that letter.

In closing, while it may be infrequent for one committee to write to another committee inviting it to undertake a study within its area of competence and to reply with suggestions, it is not out of order.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend across the way. In particular, I listened to the section that my friend read out about the instructions, because they were instructions coming from the finance committee to the range of committees that I listed yesterday, environment, justice and human rights and so on. However, in section (c) of that instruction was a particular note of concern that I raised with you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend across the way did not alleviate any of those concerns. It says:

—any amendments suggested by the other Standing Committees, in the recommendations conveyed pursuant to paragraph (b), shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45...

For one committee to instruct another to propose a study on the clause-by-clause section, hear witnesses or not, as the case may have been, is an absolute delegation of authority to another committee and instruction to do so.

If the committees then took up that instruction and reported back amendments, as was instructed by the finance committee, by the very definition, the finance committee overstepped the bounds and instructions that came from the House. The authority of those committees to do that work came from this place. It did not originate with the chair of the finance committee or the Prime Minister's Office, or anywhere else. It came from here.

To then have the finance committee go forth and make these types of instructions to other committees and then to hear in the recommendations conveyed, “pursuant to paragraph (b), shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration”, is an absolute delegation of authority. It is handing authority over to another committee.

It points back to our utter dismay and confusion with the government when we proposed an exact recommendation to this massive omnibus bill to divide it into its component parts and allow the committees to hear the witnesses who were specific in their expertise to those sections of the bill, which in our opinion should never have been included in the omnibus in the first place. However, the government chose to do it so we allowed it a path out, a way to allow the committees to do their work that would confer no confusion upon the authorities of the committee and its delegation.

The House can make that instruction. We offered a solution for the House to make that instruction. The government refused it out of hand. It then had the finance committee come up with this mess of a resolution that then instructed committees that they absolutely had to give recommendations as if they existed at the finance committee, which they did not.

I appreciate the government House leader's instruction constantly through my intervention in this debate, but I would ask him that in 15 minutes we have a House leaders meeting in private and we can have the conversation there, rather than on the floor of the House of Commons.

Again, I listened for any remediation of our concern that was raised in section (c) that came from the finance committee from my hon. colleague across the way. I did not hear any. We await your ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker, because it is an important one, not just in its bearing on this bill, but in how all committees conduct themselves going forward.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, not to repeat my intervention of a few moments ago, but I want to point out and emphasize, as I did in my first intervention, that the four members of the New Democratic Party sitting on the finance committee agreed with the process undertaken by the finance committee, extending an invitation, not an instruction, to the other committees.

As I also pointed out in my intervention, there was clear precedence for the actions taken by the finance committee. The opposition House leader and I agree on one thing, and that is to ask you, Sir, in your capacity as Speaker of the House, to give us your ruling at your first and earliest opportunity.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not always agree with the parliamentary secretary on every procedural issue, but I share with him some level of difficulty in understanding why the NDP voted for the motion on October 31 and then today says that it disagrees with the motion and considers it out of order and beyond the scope. It does not make a lot of sense.

There was one member of the House of Commons finance committee who on October 31 voted against the motion. That was myself. However, the NDP voted with the government on October 31 and is now saying that somehow perhaps it was mistaken. It is certainly able to say that it messed up and ought not to have done that and we could all live with that and move on happily every after. However, it is not consistent for the NDP to say today that it disagrees with the government's motion when in fact it voted for it.

Oral Questions

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to clarify the answer that I gave yesterday in the House regarding members of the public attending committee meetings, and particularly in the incident relating to the defence committee.

As I said, the government believes committee hearings should be open to the public, and I want to ensure that the information I provide to the House is complete and accurate insofar as the defence committee is concerned.

Now while Senate security, and that is where the meeting was taking place, in East Block, which is under Senate jurisdiction, initially advised the chair that the individual in question should not be admitted, after initial reflection the chair did ultimately advise Senate security that the individual should be admitted. However, by that point, the individual had left.

The chair, I should advise the House, has also subsequently met with the Sergeant-at-Arms to clearly establish that the individual should be permitted to attend, as a member of the public, meetings of the defence committee in the future.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. government House leader for the clarification.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is important, if the government House leader could provide on what grounds a chair would approach someone and indicate that he or she was not welcome to participate or be in the audience of a public committee meeting. What made that determination for the chair to approach that person?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I feel we are getting a little away from normal points of order, but given the circumstances, I will allow the government House leader to respond. Then we will move on.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the purpose of my rising on this was simply to clarify the record as I had provided an answer to the House that was not complete previously, and I did want it to be complete.

However, my understanding of the incident, and I was not there or involved, was that it was actually Senate security who provided the advice to the chair that the member should not be admitted for whatever reason or history. That was the advice that he followed and then later took the decision that perhaps there were ways of managing the issue and that he should be admitted.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order which emanates from question period.

During question period, the Minister of Finance said that the books would be balanced in this Parliament, and he said that was consistent with what was in the fall economic statement.

I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table, for the House, Table 3.3 on page 46 of the November 13 fall economic statement, which clearly shows that the country will still be in deficit the year of the fixed election date as set out by the government's own law.

I am seeking unanimous consent to table this, such that all members of Parliament, including the Minister of Finance, can have the benefit of reading his fall economic statement.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

No.

Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 5, 2012 by the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie and the House Leader of the Liberal Party, regarding the nature of an answer given to a written question.

I would like to thank the House Leader of the Liberal Party for having raised the matter, as well the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

During question period on November 5, the member for Etobicoke North asked the Minister of Public Safety why the government had not provided a substantive response to her written Question No. 873, a very lengthy and complicated question about disaster risk reduction and recovery. The minister replied that it had cost more than $1,300 just to determine whether an answer was possible, and suggested that the cost of preparing a comprehensive response would be prohibitive.

In raising this point of order, the House Leader of the Liberal Party objected to the Minister of Public Safety's reference to the cost of preparing a response to the question, claiming that this was contrary to our practices, as described at page 522 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states:

—it is not in order to indicate in a response to a written question the total time and cost incurred by the government in the preparation of that response.

However, the Liberal House Leader’s main complaint was about the nature of the response provided to the written question itself. Specifically, he expressed concern that the nature of the response—a brief statement about why the question would not be answered—was setting a “dangerous precedent”.

In response, the government House leader stated that the government's response to Question No. 873 made no references to the cost of its preparation, and that the costing information had been provided by the Minister of Public Safety only in the response to an oral question.

It may be useful at the outset to remind all members of the purpose of oral and written questions to the government. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 491 states, and I quote:

The right to seek information from the ministry of the day and the right to hold that ministry accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary government. Members exercise these rights principally by asking questions in the House. The importance of questions within the parliamentary system cannot be overemphasized and the search for or clarification of information through questioning is a vital aspect of the duties undertaken by individual members. Questions may be asked orally without notice or may be submitted in writing after due notice.

While members are well aware of our practices as they relate to oral questions, they may be less familiar with those that regulate written questions. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition states at page 519 and 520, in relation to questions:

In general, written questions are lengthy, often containing two or more subsections, and seek detailed or technical information from one or more government departments or agencies....Given that the purpose of a written question is to seek and receive a precise, detailed answer, it is incumbent on a Member submitting a question for the Notice Paper “to ensure that it is formulated carefully enough to elicit the precise information sought”.

Practices that regulate answers to written questions are similarly referenced at page 522, and I quote:

The guidelines that apply to the form and content of written questions are also applicable to the answers provided by the government. As such, no argument or opinion is to be given and only the information needed to respond to the question is to be provided in an effort to maintain the process of written questions as an exchange of information rather than an opportunity for debate. As with oral questions, it is acceptable for the government, in responding to a written question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer. On occasion, the government has supplied supplementary or revised replies to questions already answered. The Speaker, however, has ruled that it is not in order to indicate in a response to a written question the total time and cost incurred by the government in the preparation of that response.

Let me assure the House that I realize full well that over the years Speakers have recognized that they exercise little oversight in the matter of written questions. As always, however, the Chair remains attentive to these matters and is ready to assist in any way it can in ensuring that written questions continue to serve members as an important channel of genuine information exchange.

So I take this as an opportunity to ask the House to bear in mind the underlying purpose of a written question, namely the seeking of information. In my view, it is incumbent on the member who submits it to formulate it in such a way that it is in fact answerable. As such, it is not unreasonable to expect, particularly where the member submitting a question attaches to it the 45-day time limit, that it would be worded in such a way as to allow the government to provide the information requested within the time allotted. Not surprisingly, a question that fails to do so is more likely to yield an answer that fails to meet the questioner's expectations.

Likewise, the Chair believes that it is not unreasonable for members submitting a written question to expect that the government would make an attempt to provide as much information as possible in response in the time available.

If, perhaps due to a request for a reply within 45 days, all of information being sought cannot be produced in time, it is also always open to the government to return later with a supplementary reply to a question already answered.

However, on careful examination of written Question No. 873 and the reply it received, it would seem to the Chair that both the member asking the question and the government might yet find a way to achieve a result that would satisfy both parties. Is it possible that a differently worded question, resubmitted, could elicit a substantive reply about the government's disaster management activities and policies? The Chair would like to think so. This would help allay the fears expressed by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie that answers, such as the one provided to written Question No. 873, could recur and become a standard response. In the meantime, I can assure the member that having looked into the matter, the Chair can report to the House that this is not at present part of a pattern that it can find in responses to written questions.

Meanwhile, in the case at hand, the Chair does not find that the rules that apply to the content of replies to written questions also apply to responses given during oral questions, even if the oral question relates to a written question. Accordingly, the Chair cannot find that the reply by the Minister of Public Safety during oral questions is out of order or has in any way offended our practices as they relate to written questions.

I thank hon. members for their attention.