House of Commons Hansard #131 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was standards.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is with regard to Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.
The petitioners outline a number of concerns with regard to poverty in Canada.
The petitioners call on the government to develop and implement a strategy for poverty elimination in consultation with provincial, territorial, municipal, and aboriginal governments, and with civil society and organizations.
Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to table a petition from concerned Canadians with regard to the government's legislation for the Rouge national park.
The petitioners are very troubled about the government's current plan for the creation of the park because it ignores the ecological vision and policies approved for the Rouge Park plans and provincial greenbelt legislation. As well, it ignores the long-standing plans for a 600-plus metre wide forested Rouge Park main ecological corridor between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Londoners, from both the Christian and Muslim communities. These petitioners are very concerned about what is happening to family and friends in Syria and Iraq.
The petitioners are calling on the Canadian government to highlight the plight of Iraqi Christians, and to use all diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to assist them in their plight.
The petitioners are calling on the government to assist other like-minded governments and organizations that are engaged in this effort to stop the suffering of Iraqi Christians, and to work with all governments and organizations currently engaged in humanitarian and diplomatic assistance.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 655 and 723.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
With regard to the Department of Finance’s Venture Capital Action Plan: for the years for which data are available, (a) what investments were made; (b) what organizations benefited from the funds and what was the total amount invested in each case; (c) was a certain amount set aside for cooperatives; and (d) how many cooperatives benefited from the investments and what amount was granted to each cooperative?
Question No. 655Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
North Vancouver B.C.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and (b) of the question, through the venture capital action plan, or VCAP, the Government of Canada is investing in high-performing funds and in large-scale private sector-led funds of funds being established under VCAP. Of the high-performing funds, Lumira Capital announced in November 2013 that it has closed its fund, Lumira fund II, a life sciences-focused fund. In April 2014, Real Ventures announced the first closing of Real Ventures fund III, its latest web, mobile and Internet-focused fund. Both funds benefited from $10 million each in investments from the Government of Canada. In the last few years, both Lumira Capital, https://www.lumiracapital.com, and Real Ventures, http://realventures.com/en/, have made several investments in innovative companies throughout Canada, and details can be found on their websites.
In January 2014, the Government of Canada invested in the Northleaf venture catalyst fund, the first fund of funds being established in partnership with private sector investors and interested provinces. This fund of funds achieved its first closing with $217.5 million in commitments, including $145 million from private sector investors and $36.25 million from each of the Governments of Canada and Ontario. In August 2014, Northleaf Capital Partners announced the second closing of this fund of funds, bringing the total commitments to date to $233.5 million, including an additional $2.5 million from the Government of Canada. Since the initial closing, this fund of funds has invested $60 million in XPV water fund II and Georgian Partners growth fund II as well as $10 million in Versant Ventures V, helping these underlying venture capital funds to achieve their close and commence investments in innovative, high-growth companies. The Northleaf venture catalyst fund has also invested directly into innovative, high-growth companies, including Wattpad, Vision Critical, Silanis and eSentire.
With regard to part (c), VCAP program has not set aside funds for investments in cooperatives.
In response to part (d), to date, high-performing funds and the funds of funds that have received investments from the Government of Canada under the VCAP have not made any investments in co-operatives.
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
With respect to boat operator licenses issued in the Atlantic provinces by Transport Canada: (a) for each license issued since 2009, (i) on what date was each license issued, (ii) who were the owners or operators, (iii) under what conditions, if any, for the use, retention, or renewal of the license was it issued; (b) for each vessel whose license was suspended, rejected, or for which a renewal was denied, (i) on what date was the license suspended, rejected, or the renewal denied, (ii) for what reason(s), (iii) on whose authority, (iv) what are the file numbers of all relevant ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and all entities, departments, companies, contractors, or individuals, broken down by minister or department, relevant file number, correspondence or file type, date, purpose, origin, intended destination, other officials copied or involved; (c) what are the specific rules for the retention or renewal of any such license; (d) what are all rules, files, and correspondence related to observer and dockside monitoring of these license-holders and users, broken down by (i) all relevant file numbers, (ii) entities, companies, contractors, or individuals, (iii) minister or department, (iv) correspondence or file type, (v) date, (vi) purpose, (vii) origin, (viii) intended destination, (ix) other officials copied or involved, (x) military base, asset, or facility, (xi) type of activity or contract; (e) what differences exist in the conditions for licenses between different regions, zones, or provinces; and (f) what are the rules specific to keeping as opposed to releasing fish caught on boats used for recreational or touristic purposes, broken down by province and number of applicable licensees?
Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) to (e), Transport Canada does not issue boat operator licences. Transport Canada is responsible for pleasure craft licensing, vessel registration, and operator competency.
In response to part (f), this falls under the purview of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if Question No. 654 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
With regard to the proposed Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP): (a) how does the RNUP legislation and strategic plan incorporate the ecological integrity, water quality and quantity, and habitat restoration goals and priorities of (i) the Provincial Greenbelt Plan, (ii) the Rouge North Management Plan Section 4.1.1.2, (iii) the 2007 Rouge River Watershed Strategy and its targeted natural heritage system, (iv) the Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan (2007), (v) the Rouge Park Natural Heritage Action Plan (2008), (vi) the Toronto Great Lakes Area of Concern remedial action plan for Toronto, (vii) the federal report “How Much Habitat is Enough” and the recommendation of more than 30% forest cover and 10% wetland cover per watershed, (viii) the National Parks Act, (ix) the Ontario Provincial Parks Act, (x) the draft Rouge River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan (2011), (xi) the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, (xii) the Endangered Species Act, (xiii) other relevant provincial, municipal and federal legislation; (b) how has the government addressed the issues raised in the unanimous November 2012 City of Toronto Motion on RNUP; (c) why has the promised RNUP “Transition Advisory Committee” not been created, (i) what is the updated timetable for the creation of this committee, (ii) what individuals or entities will comprise the advisory committee, (iii) what mandate will the advisory committee be given; (d) what steps have Environment Canada, Parks Canada and the government taken to assess the water quality, biodiversity, migratory fisheries, climatic, flood and erosion control, public health and ecological service benefits of restoring the majority of the public lands in Rouge Park to forest, wetland and meadow vegetation; (e) will the federally-owned and provincially-designated Greenbelt “Natural Heritage System” and Oak Ridges Moraine lands in north Pickering be included as part of the RNUP Study Area; (f) will the “Federal Greenspace Preserve” lands in north Pickering be included as part of the RNUP study; (g) how much of the land within the RNUP study area is (i) mature native forest habitat, (ii) wetland habitat, (iii) leased land utilized for cash cropping, (iv) leased land utilized for agricultural uses other than cash cropping and what are these other uses, (v) leased for residential purposes, (vi) land within road, hydro, highway, pipeline and other public utility corridors, (vii) land which is accessible to the public, (viii) other, and what are these other categories; (h) for the most recent year available, what are all the leased properties in the 57 km2 NRUP study area, broken down by (i) address, geographic location and approximate boundaries on a map, (ii) description of the buildings associated with the lease, (iii) land area (acres and hectares) associated with the lease, (iv) name of leaseholder and name of the actual tenants, (v) annual lease rate and length of lease, (vi) true annual public cost of property upkeep and lease administration, (vii) public investment in the property needed to address modern building code, safety and energy conservation standards; (i) what provincial, municipal or conservation authority lands have been transferred to the government or Parks Canada within the proposed RNUP, (i) what are the predicted time frames for the various outstanding land transfers, (ii) what compensation or benefits, direct or indirect, have been offered to the province, municipality or conservation authority by the government or its agencies, for the various land transfers; (j) will a RNUP “Trust Fund” be established similar to the existing Rouge Park/Waterfront Regeneration Trust Fund; (k) what provisions and timelines does the draft RNUP legislation and strategic plan outline to (i) reduce cash cropping in RNUP, (ii) transition towards ecologically sound farming practices, (iii) phase-out the agricultural mono-cultures and pesticides which threaten the survival of the monarch butterfly and many other rare and endangered species; and (l) what are the details of all the submissions received regarding the RNUP Concept?
(Return tabled)
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
There are still seven minutes left for questions and comments for the speech of the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I did not catch all of that excellent speech. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has a renowned reputation in the House for speaking effectively on legislation. Therefore, I would ask him to give us the Coles Notes version of the bill itself. Could he take a couple of minutes and with the deep foundation of knowledge that he brings to the House, just provide the Coles Notes or the 30-second elevator response as to how the New Democrats feel about Bill S-2?
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the NDP is happy to see a bill that is attempting to make the regulatory process more efficient. However, we have some concerns that the way the technique of incorporation by reference appears in Bill S-2 will have some problems from a democratic perspective.
Incorporation by reference can include a method that includes referring to texts that change later and then the later changes end up automatically being part of our regulatory system without any further parliamentary review or review by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. In a nutshell, those two phenomena—of an open incorporation by reference and of future changes that never then actually have an accountability mechanism within Parliament—are the source of my particular concern, and I suspect my colleagues will also share that.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have known the member for Toronto—Danforth, since he first came to the House a couple of years ago, as being extremely effective and meticulous about legislation that is brought forward. We certainly saw that with the changes to the electoral act. On behalf of all Canadians, he did a fantastic job scrutinizing and meticulously going through each of the changes proposed by the government and looking at what was clearly a concern with respect to reducing the level of democratic participation rather than increasing it, which should hopefully be the goal of everyone in the House.
Given the fact that he has already raised the question of incorporation by reference that bypasses the normal scrutiny that should be put into the consideration of any government legislation, I would like to ask the member this. Taking Bill S-2 as an example, can he broaden his frame of reference and respond to the concerns of whether the government would be willing to do the consultation and the transparency that is necessary to make sure that the bill does subject itself to accountability and transparency?
Given his vast experience on the Elections Act, does he feel comfortable that the government understands the importance of consultation and accountability and would understand that it has to bring changes to Bill S-2 in committee so that regulatory changes that are brought in are in the public interest and reflect that transparency and accountability?
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be that I do not have any great confidence that the government will proceed that way. The way in which Bill C-23 was handled suggested that strong consultation was not part of the modus operandi of the government.
The bill may be a bit different. It purports to be technical only but the government acknowledges it is about a very central part of the modern administrative state, the regulatory power, and it is well aware that testimony, as well as some speeches in the other House, have revealed some serious concerns.
In light of the fact that the bipartisan and bicameral Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has repeatedly said that there is a problem with delegating regulatory authority to external bodies through the open incorporation by reference technique in particular, I would hope that the concerns of that standing committee do not get lost simply because the bill ends up before the House, having started in the Senate, with another committee having to scrutinize the bill.
As often happens, we sometimes have moments in the House when it feels very co-operative. It certainly has felt like that the last couple of days for very obvious reasons. I would urge the government to take that approach on this because we are on board with the fact that cleaning up how we deal with incorporation by reference in an extremely important area of law-making. The problem is that the government may inadvertently end up creating some democracy deficit problems.
Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this. I note with irony that yesterday we spoke to a private member's motion that attempted to ban the practice of proxy marriages. We have here an attempt in some ways to provide regulation by proxy. If it is unacceptable to marry someone by proxy, it ought to be just as unacceptable to try and govern a country by proxy and distribute regulation and use proxy in this case to create a simplified legislative tool, but in fact complicate the regulatory regime.
There are significant issues with this legislation. We are profoundly concerned. They range across the legislation as it is presented, but they go to the heart of this issue. In trying to make things simple, sometimes we actually end up making them that much more complicated. In trying to be efficient, sometimes the efficiency creates confusion, legal challenges and complications that actually slow things down and make things less fair. Instead of creating accessible definitions, inaccessible procedures are created, and inaccessible and sometimes even costly regulations come into effect. It is the unintended consequences perhaps of good intention.
However, I return to the notion that if it is unacceptable to do marriages by proxy, why would we create legislation and regulation by proxy and simply choose to proceed in a quick way rather than in the right way?
For example, if an incorporated document is protected by copyright and that copyright document regulation is referenced in the legislation, it may actually cost people to get the information they need to comply. Willing individuals, willing corporations and willing institutions are prepared and attempting to participate properly and legally. Yet because of the way the legislation is constructed, they have to pay to get public information.
We have talked a great deal about the value of an open democracy and open government, but our regulations, our rules and our laws must also be just as open. When we short-circuit that process, as cumbersome as it may be, as rooted in tradition as it may be, it provides us with positive thought and in this case with cause for concern sufficient enough to stand in opposition.
Section 18.6 says:
A person is not liable to be found guilty of an offence or subjected to an administrative sanction for any contravention in respect of which a document, index, rate or number—that is incorporated by reference in a regulation—is relevant unless, at the time of the alleged contravention, it was accessible as required by section 18.3.
In other words, what it is saying is if the rate is done by proxy, or in this case defined in the way it is in this legislation, the numeric figures that must be complied with are suddenly just beyond the reach of someone acting within what they think are the bounds of the rules and regulations. In fact, because they have not had access to those exact data files, they actually do not know what rate they may be governed by.
Additionally crown corporations may have their rates changed. We have a situation where the details of the rules and regulations are hidden by the provisions in this document we are debating today.
This is critically important for a country that is bilingual. We have no guarantee that the proxy regulations, especially if they are overseas or outside the jurisdiction of Canada, are translated in real time into either official language. That is significant because under Canadian law, we have an obligation to treat both language groups equally and fairly. If outside organizations, which do not have an obligation to meet, are the ones having their rules and regulations referenced, that lag time between having equality of languages creates an unfair condition and such a troubling precedent in this country. It is again, something with which we really need to be concerned.
In a globalized world of complex trade agreements and trade treaties, in a world that wants to speed up and in a complex federal system, we understand the impulse of what is being proposed here. What we are doing, as I said, is circumventing the proper process, a good process and a sound process. We are substituting it with something that creates glaring inequities and gaps.
When we draft laws and knowingly draft laws that have these gaps, we are inviting court challenges and non-compliance, even through good intent. We are also opening the door to potential exploitation of that, which is perhaps the most serious of all of the concerns.
We are concerned to the point of opposition to Bill S-2, and the Liberal Party will not be supporting it.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for his, as usual, very articulate analysis. I find this notion of regulation by proxy particularly helpful. It is a more accessible idea than what I was referring to, which was the problem of subdelegation of authority, which is maybe a more technical way to speak of it.
I wonder if he could talk a little bit more about a couple of the examples of why he would see that referring out the power to regulate to external bodies might just be some sort of problem for democracy.
Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get too specific in the legislation only insofar as the colleague who asked me the question is a much more learned professor of law than I am.
The issue is that there is this handing off at arm's length and referencing at arm's length to other organizations. We understand why it happens. We understand that sections of existing laws get drafted into new laws, treaties or agreements. We understand how the law evolves and lives over time.
The trouble is that as we enter into a world where international law governs much of our trade, much of our economic activity and much of our obligations, and as we short-circuit the detail and definitions, we enter into areas where other legal practices, conventions and terminology start to enter into, and at times, confuse, contrast or even contradict very similarly phrased legal agreements. We start to look at some of the agreements that govern down into the provinces and into the municipal level around trade. The CETA agreement is one of those issues where these concerns are being raised.
We take a look at non-parallel situations that may exist in a continent such as Europe, where trade agreements have been put in place. We have the European Parliament governing it. We have individual nations governing it, and subregions, provinces, cities and other legal entities providing governance. When we start extrapolating all of the different variations that may exist around a certain set of regulations, customs, practices, and most importantly, laws, the opportunity for gaps in understanding, for clarity to be replaced by confusion, is a real and significant possibility.
Writing into and codifying directly into laws that govern and regulate Canadian practice needs to be done in the context of Canada. That means in both official languages simultaneously. It also means taking the time to make sure that the language is right, because language is at the root of law-making.