Debates of April 24th, 2013

Election of Committee Chairs

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no consent from the author of the motion, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. However, for the member for Oxford, it is possible that he may entertain it at some point in the future in the second hour of the day.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight on the motion of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt on reforming how the House elects committee chairs, Motion No. 431.

I would first like to thank the member for his efforts to improve the vitality of our democracy. It was a real privilege to second his motion on this important subject. I look forward to working in this cross-partisan way in the future.

We should always be open to finding new ways of making Parliament transparent and more democratic. If passed, Motion No. 431 would initiate a comprehensive study by the procedure and House affairs committee of the practices governing the election of committee chairs. It further recommends that the study propose amendments to the Standing Orders so that committee chairs would be elected through a preferential ballot by all MPs. In principle, this is a very good idea.

Let me begin my remarks by outlining some of the virtues of this proposal and why we support the motion as it stands currently.

One of the fundamental challenges facing all Westminster parliaments is how to maintain a balance between the legislative branch and the executive branch. In recent years we have seen a troubling trend of the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet exerting a dominant influence over more and more aspects of parliamentary life, as well as over the activities of private members, especially those in the governing party.

In contrast, committees remain the lifeblood of any legislature. They are a forum where MPs can be free from the partisanship of question period and undertake in-depth, thoughtful studies on pressing policy issues. Some of that freedom is currently in play, but this may open it up even more. That is an important thing to try to do.

Committee chairs serve an essential role as neutral facilitators of committee business, including reviewing and amending bills coming through the House. Allowing chairs to be selected in a democratic fashion has the potential to enhance the independence of all MPs, allowing them more freedom to represent the will of their constituents. After all, that is what we are all here to do: to represent our constituents as best we can. Although we do of course organize ourselves using political parties, in the end it is our local voters who vote for us, and it is their voices that should be heard through us.

The motion, if the study were to be done and passed into law, could also ensure greater accountability, as qualified candidates for each committee would be selected by their peers in a transparent and fair manner. It would prevent party whips from using their discretion to make appointments that were purely political in nature, perhaps as a reward for good behaviour to the party. It would not only allow a lot more freedom for members to choose but also increase accountability as the committees progressed in their work.

The reform would extend the current and long-standing practice of how we elect the crucial position of the Speaker of the House. As mentioned by other speakers today, the United Kingdom recently moved to electing committee chairs in a similar fashion. This came in the wake of the U.K. members' expenses scandal in 2009, which really rocked the U.K. parliamentary system. It was the subject of much investigation and a resignation. A select committee was tasked with studying ways to rebuild public confidence and get citizens more engaged in the workings of parliament.

I was in the U.K. during the time of that scandal, and it really was day-to-day news every day. It really changed the way parties looked at themselves and the way members looked at themselves as parliamentarians. It is very worthwhile taking a lesson from the United Kingdom here.

The select committee recommended chairs be elected by way of a secret ballot using the alternative vote, and this system was put in place in 2010. I would like to quote from a report by the U.K. House of Commons procedure committee that assessed the changes one year after implementation. It stated:

...the move to elect candidates to key posts in the House has been right in principle as a sign of greater transparency, democracy and self-assertiveness on the part of backbenchers, and has also worked well in practice.

Being a political scientist myself, I know we talk a lot about theory. Sometimes practice does not match it, but in this case it seems to have done so, and the idea is very well worth considering. I hope we move toward this system.

Some may have legitimate concerns about how to implement this system in Canada, because we are not exactly like the United Kingdom. For example, we need to ensure that having open elections for committee chairs does not undermine gender equality. That is a very important principle that I would like to see enforced more rigorously, both in this place and outside. Appropriate safeguards must be put in place to preserve what we already have.

We must also preserve the practice that MPs from the official opposition always serve as chairs for those key standing committees that are essential to holding the government to account.

If the ideas in Motion No. 431 are implemented, the dominant influence of the Prime Minister's Office over some aspects of parliamentary life and over members of Parliament would be reduced, and this is a good thing. We can all agree that it is a worthy idea in principle and should be given close study and consideration, as the motion proposes to do.

I would like to underscore the importance of working across party lines on initiatives such as Motion No. 431. It is imperative for us to find common ground in improving our democratic institutions, despite partisan differences and ideological disagreements. Reforming our democracy in simple ways to make it fair, transparent and accessible is a worthy goal we all share. In this vein, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, as well as the member for Edmonton—St. Albert and many members of my own party, for seconding my motion on democratic reform, Motion No. 428.

My motion would instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to conduct a study and make recommendations, similar to this one, within one year, on how to establish an e-petitioning system in Canada. Similar to Motion No. 431, this represents a practical proposal to reform Parliament in a manner that would enhance the vitality of our democracy. E-petitions would empower citizens to communicate their concerns to their elected representatives and to have the opportunity to set the agenda for debate in Ottawa.

Similar to Motion No. 431, my motion has been endorsed by respected leaders and organizations from across the political spectrum. In the case of my motion, it is Ed Broadbent and Preston Manning, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Samara and Leadnow.

More broadly, there are few issues as critical to parliamentarians as democratic decline. This is a constant theme that comes up in all Parliaments. Periodically we study this, but it is time to get moving and do something about it.

Fewer and fewer Canadians have a favourable perception of our democratic institutions or consider participating in the political process a worthwhile pursuit. In light of these troubling trends, it is incumbent upon all parliamentarians to take immediate action to engage with Canadians and restore public confidence in the strength of our democracy. Achieving meaningful reforms requires taking a realistic approach that identifies small but critical improvements that members from all parties can agree upon. Bringing e-petitions to the House and selecting committee chairs through fair elections both represent positive steps in this direction.

I would again like to thank the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt for his leadership in this area, and I encourage all members of the House to support our efforts. Even if he is forced to amend his motion, or if it is defeated in committee, I commend him for his attempts here, and I hope he continues to fight the good fight.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills will have approximately a minute and a half.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt for introducing Motion No. 431 in this House. The heart of his proposal is to have the procedure and House affairs committee consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all members of this House at the beginning of the session of Parliament.

This motion is very important, because, as Montesquieu once said, what is key to a just society, to an equitable governance system, is the division of powers. In modern western democracies, we have a formal division of powers between the three branches of government: judicial, legislative and executive. Clearly, the judicial branch is separated from the executive and legislative branches. In our system, the legislature holds the executive to account, and a key component of the legislature that holds that executive to account is the committee system of the legislature. Our legislative committees are what we call our standing committees.

Therefore, the proposal from the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt is an important motion, because it concerns the very heart of the governance of the committee system, which is the heart of our legislative system in government.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills will have eight minutes and thirty seconds when we resume this debate.

The time provided for the consideration of private member's business is now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment Insurance

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, further to the question about employment insurance raised in the House a few weeks ago, we understand that the fight against the EI reform continues.

Over a number of months, people right across eastern Canada have joined together to send a clear message to the minister: they want nothing to do with her reform.

We know that, on April 27, there will be a big rally in Montreal with several thousand participants. Once again, we stress that, in eastern Canada, people simply do not want this reform. We are joining forces with others and we want the minister to understand.

No one is against the fact that there is a reform, because we all know that the system is far from perfect, but real consultation with Canadians is needed to implement a reform based on their needs and not on Conservative ideology.

Why does the minister not back off from her reform immediately and engage in real consultation? Why not get this right?

Consultation is of the utmost importance, but reform of this magnitude also requires impact studies. That is really just basic governance, yet the minister still refuses to conduct an impact study. She acknowledged that there never was an impact study. However, the employment insurance reform has serious consequences.

Does she realize that her reform has major implications for thousands of Canadians? Can the minister tell us what exactly she is basing this reform on? Why did she not think it was a good idea to consult people and study the effect this reform would have before she implemented it?

The minister did not consult anyone, nor did she conduct an impact study. She seems to be basing her decisions on ideology. She does not want an employment insurance system that responds to needs. If she did, she would be doing what it takes to support seasonal industries.

She is imposing quotas of more than $40,000 per month per public servant. These quotas are not flushing out fraudsters, as she would have us believe. They are creating false economies on the backs of the unemployed and workers. The public servants that need to meet these extremely high quotas are not targeting fraud. They need to find ridiculous reasons for taking employment insurance benefits away from people who really need them, like the claimant who had his benefits taken away because he missed two phone calls from Service Canada.

Le Devoir released a Service Canada document that proves that the minister just wants to slash employment insurance. The document states that seasonal workers present a high risk of fraud. Now we know exactly what the minister thinks of seasonal workers. She thinks they are lazy and they scam the system. She simply does not understand that it is the work that is seasonal and that in resource regions, there is no year-round work. She would understand that if she had conducted consultations and an impact study.

I will ask my question again: will the minister share the studies that were conducted or will she conduct real impact studies immediately?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the question posed by the member.

When it comes to the improvements we are making in employment insurance, I want to remind the hon. member that we did consult with stakeholders when implementing these changes.

We talked to people all over the country, including what he calls the resource regions.

We continue to do so. In my own travels, I regularly meet with stakeholders, including individuals, employers, employee associations, labour groups and academics to talk about the important subject of EI.

For example, in the year before the changes were announced in employment insurance, I and my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, consulted with Canadians across the country about how to improve the EI rate-setting mechanism system.

Canadians told us they need stable and predictable EI premium rates, and a transparent rate-setting process.

Every year, the minister and I hold extensive consultations across the country in advance of the budget to consult with employees, employers, and other stakeholders about many topics, including employment insurance. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development travelled to all regions of the country on studies related to skills and labour shortages still being experienced across the country. I can assure the House that employment insurance was discussed by many stakeholders. All of these consultations were considered as part of the ongoing policy process by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Our government strongly believes that a person is always better off working than not. Through our various initiatives to connect Canadians with available jobs, we have increased the labour market information to employment insurance recipients, including skills training, and now with the Canada jobs grant, we are providing direct support to employers to train Canadians for jobs that currently are unfilled. We are confident that under the new rules, employment opportunities will increase as many more people work, leading to greater economic opportunities.

I am sure that is what the hon. member would like to see in his own region.

The updates we have made to the EI program encourage and help Canadians to find jobs in their local area that match their skills.

Our common sense approach to EI is in keeping with our government's direction with respect to job creation, economic growth, and long-term prosperity.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her interesting response.

We are aware of the fact that perhaps there were some informal consultations with Canadians in some parts of the country. The problem we have with the reform is that the results of those consultations were never made public. The studies, if there were any, were never released. We are asking once again if any studies were conducted and, if so, we would like to see them. We are particularly concerned about the economic impact of this employment insurance cut.

The Conservatives have made all kinds of cuts affecting workers and benefits, and they have reduced the availability of benefits.

We are not talking about a simple reform whereby people who need EI still have access to their benefits. There are simply not enough benefits to go around all year long. In resource regions, people are terribly worried because they simply do not have enough income to make ends meet throughout the year.

Why this attack on resource regions?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the changes to the EI program were made to help EI claimants get back into the job market, not to make life more difficult for those who are already facing challenges.

We understand that people who want to work at times lose their jobs, through no fault of their own. Employment insurance is there for them, providing temporary income support while they look for jobs or upgrade their skills. The updates that we have made are fair and supportive and are helping Canadians find jobs as quickly as possible.

As I have said many times in this place before, personal circumstances will always be considered and for those who require EI, it will always be there for them, as it always has been.

The Environment

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to shale gas, the government's inaction is irresponsible and very dangerous. We know that the industry uses different techniques, such as hydraulic fracturing, to extract this gas. In this process, chemicals are injected into the ground along with very large quantities of water. However, we do not know exactly which chemicals are used. That is a major problem because some of these products are considered toxic, which makes this an even more serious concern.

That is what the former Commissioner of the Environment, Scott Vaughan, revealed in his last report, which was published in February. We also know that shale gas production could double over the next 20 years, but we do not know the extent to which the chemical products used by the industry are harmful to health and the environment. The commissioner has received petitions from concerned Canadians. These dangerous extraction techniques caused an oil well blowout in Alberta and seismic activity in Ohio.

Despite all of these concerns, shale gas drilling and export are not bound by the rules in Canada. Under federal law, pollutant releases must be declared, but this requirement does not apply to shale gas. Why? Should the precautionary principle not apply given all of the unfortunate incidents in the past? What is the reason for this lack of leadership? Is the federal government not responsible for protecting the environment and the health of Canadians? Is it waiting for yet another accident?

The University of Victoria and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives published a report by researcher Ben Parfitt stating that neither the National Energy Board nor Environment Canada studied the implications of shale gas drilling, including its impact on water quality and quantity.

The government keeps shirking its responsibility even though everything points to the fact that Ottawa can and must do something to regulate the industry. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act states that the federal government is responsible for water quality—contrary to what the Conservative government says—and the impact of pollutants on fish and federal and aboriginal lands. It is also up to the federal government to regulate toxic substances.

A working group at the Department of Natural Resources looked at this industry and came to the conclusion that the Government of Canada must better regulate the extraction of underground shale deposits through hydraulic fracturing.

In response to a question that I asked in the House on May 28 of last year in this regard, the Minister of Natural Resources chose to repeat that the issue falls under provincial jurisdiction, when we know full well which federal programs apply.

Nevertheless, a memo written by a senior official from Environment Canada last year recommended that the Minister of the Environment do more scientific research in this area. Departmental staff pointed out that the industry uses millions of litres of water and hundreds of unidentified chemicals.

Finally, the environment minister himself admitted in the House on June 16, 2011, that his department was responsible for regulating toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and that the department would intervene where required. His predecessor promised to better regulate this industry.

I am therefore asking the question again today: will the government make it mandatory for companies to disclose the dangerous chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing or not?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with my colleague in the House and on the environment committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to share with the viewers of these proceedings tonight that the environment committee recently published a study on urban conservation that was an excellent exercise in committee and a good piece of work that I think anybody watching tonight would want to read because it has some very good principles in it.

On the question put this evening with regard to shale gas, my colleague has made a very long list of different issues. However, I would remind her that for the most part the fact remains that when we look at policy and procedure, oil and gas drilling and production fall primarily within provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, we have to respect the land use planning frameworks that are being adopted across the country and the different regulatory frameworks that fall within provincial jurisdiction with regard to these practices. As an Alberta MP, I have been closely watching the process of land use planning in Alberta. There are numerous other frameworks that regulate and discuss how natural resources are developed. Certainly, this is an area that is of provincial jurisdiction.

That said, there are many implications in my colleague's speech that somehow the federal government was not working to protect the quality of water, air, and the like. There are numerous frameworks in which the Government of Canada has actually put forward policy to ensure health and safety in general, at a macro level, including the Great Lakes water quality initiative, and funding that we have put in place to look at Lake Winnipeg, a water basin that is very near and dear to my heart. Therefore, there are many different frameworks that the government uses to ensure that Canadians have clean air and clean water. However, it is very important to note that this particular issue falls under provincial jurisdiction.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that the Minister of the Environment himself admitted to the House that his department was responsible for regulating toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

We need to adopt higher Canadian standards regarding the use of water in fracturing. For example, we should require companies to disclose which chemicals and toxic products they use and we should impose safety measures for things such as seals on wells.

In 2011, the minister announced that he had asked the Council of Canadian Academies to bring together a group of experts to conduct an independent study on the state of scientific knowledge on shale gas. I asked the committee of the whole what became of that study.

I repeat my question. When will the federal government reveal the results of this study and will it commit to regulating the shale gas industry?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we close the proceedings here in the House today, it is worth noting and repeating, as I have done many times before in the House, that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

To correct my colleague slightly, it is also worth noting that the government does have a large framework in other areas to ensure the health and safety of Canadians when it comes to assessing chemicals. It is called the chemical management plan. This is an initiative that our government put forward, has managed, and has included extra funding for.

We have a good track record where our jurisdiction applies. However, with regard to this particular issue, it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:33 p.m.)