Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2014

Question No. 663

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

With regard to the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section; (b) how many appeals currently waiting to be heard pertain to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals have been heard by the Income Security Section; (d) how many appeals were heard by the Income Security Section in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (e) how many appeals were heard by the Income Security Section relating to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals heard by the Income Security Section were allowed; (g) how many appeals heard by the Income Security Section were dismissed; (h) how many appeals to the Income Security Section were summarily dismissed; (i) how many appeals allowed by the Income Security Section pertained to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (j) how many appeals at the Income Security Section have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (k) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (l) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (m) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (n) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard in writing have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (o) how many members assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit cases have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, or a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physiotherapy, or psychology, and how many have (ii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (p) what is the Tribunal’s protocol with regard to urgent hearing requests for Canada Pension Plan Disability cases; (q) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division; (r) how many income security appeals currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division pertain to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (s) how many income security appeals have been heard by the Appeal Division; (t) how many income security appeals were heard by the Appeal Division in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (u) how many income security appeals were heard by the Appeal Division relating to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (v) how many income security appeals heard by the Appeal Division were allowed; (w) how many income security appeals heard by the Appeal Division were dismissed; (x) how many income security appeals to the Appeal Division were summarily dismissed; (y) how many income security appeals allowed by the Appeal Division pertained to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (z) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (aa) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (bb) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (cc) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (dd) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard in writing have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (ee) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section; (ff) how many appeals have been heard by the Employment Insurance Section; (gg) how many appeals were heard by the Employment Insurance Section in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (hh) how many appeals heard by the Employment Insurance Section were allowed; (ii) how many appeals heard by the Employment Insurance Section were dismissed; (jj) how many appeals to the Employment Insurance Section were summarily dismissed; (kk) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (ll) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (mm) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (nn) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed and (ii) dismissed; (oo) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard in writing have been (i) allowed and (ii) dismissed; (pp) how many Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division; (qq) how many Employment Insurance appeals have been heard by the Appeal Division; (rr) how many Employment Insurance appeals were heard by the Appeal Division in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (ss) how many Employment Insurance appeals heard by the Appeal Division were allowed; (tt) how many Employment Insurance appeals heard by the Appeal Division were dismissed; (uu) how many Employment Insurance appeals to the Appeal Division were summarily dismissed; (vv) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (ww) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (xx) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (yy) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (zz) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard in writing have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (aaa) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section; (bbb) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section; (ccc) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Appeal Division; (ddd) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Appeal Division; (eee) of new Appeal Division members hired since May 2014, how many are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (fff) of new Income Security Section members hired since May 2014, how many are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (ggg) of new Employment Insurance Section members hired since May 2014, how many are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; and (hhh) what is the Tribunal’s protocol with regard to requests for urgent hearings due to financial hardship?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 664

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (b) what was the average EI applications processing time broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs at EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (k) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (l) what is the rate of sick leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees, broken down by year; (m) what is the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long term disability; (n) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year; (o) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; (p) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; and (q) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 665

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

With regard to funding applications submitted to the government, broken down by department and fiscal year, since 2003-2004, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what is the total number of funding applications submitted to the government from the constituency of Sudbury; and (b) what is the total number of successful funding applications submitted to the government in which money was allocated to an individual, business, or non-governmental organization in the constituency of Sudbury?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 666

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

With regard to public private partnerships financed by the government: (a) what are all the projects so financed; (b) how long did it take to design the bidding process; (c) what was the length of the bidding process from initial expression of interest to close; and (d) what was the cost of a bid for proponents?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 667

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

With regard to the former Environment Minister's intention stated on January 20, 2012, to “invest an additional $78.7 million over the next five years to further enhance weather and warning services across the country” and his intention stated on May 27, 2013, to invest “an additional $248 million over five years to further strengthen Canada's meteorological services”: (a) in what manner have these commitments been fulfilled to date; (b) what plans exist to implement these commitments in the future; and (c) what are the details, in (a) and (b), of each project related to the commitments including (i) its title, (ii) a summary of the project, (iii) its location, (iv) its estimated cost, (v) its targeted start date, (vi) its estimated completion date?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 669

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

With regard to the Cape Breton Regional Municipality and Victoria County: (a) what were the numbers of employees, broken down by all departments, working in that region in 2005; (b) what are the numbers of employees, broken down by all departments, working in that region currently (in 2013, if current data is not available); (c) how much will be spent, broken down by all departments, on infrastructure in that region in 2014 (in 2013, if current data is not available); and (d) how much was spent, broken down by all departments, on infrastructure in that region in 2005?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege. I will recognize the members in the order in which I received the letters. I will go first to the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

Member for Peterborough

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about our question of privilege.

Today we must deal with an unprecedented problem. The member for Peterborough, who was also the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, was recently found guilty by the Ontario Court of Justice, under the Canada Elections Act, of several offences connected with the 2008 federal election.

A judge found the member guilty of the following. First, he was found guilty of personally paying an election expense and thereby wilfully exceeding his contribution limit contrary to subsections 405(1), 497(3) and 500(5) of the Elections Act. Second, he violated, by willingly incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense limit, subsections 443(1) 497(3) and 500(5). Third, he was found guilty of providing an election campaign return containing a false or misleading material statement in omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(a) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5) of the Elections Act, and violating by providing a campaign return that did not substantially set out the required information by omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(b) and 597(3)(v) and subsection 500(5).

This count was stayed at the Crown's request following the finding of guilt.

Each count carries a maximum penalty of $2,000, a year in prison, or both. I am sure the Speaker has already read the document dealing with this conviction.

These are extremely serious offences. By being found guilty of breaking the very electoral laws that put him in this place, the member has shown contempt for our democratic institutions and has undoubtedly tarnished the dignity of the House.

The second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Bosc and O'Brien, states at page 134:

Parliamentary privilege holds Members responsible for acting in character with the function they fulfil as elected representatives.

It also quotes Bourinot, 4th edition, page 64, stating that:

The right of a legislative body to suspend or expel a member for what is sufficient cause in its own judgement is undoubted. Such a power is absolutely necessary to the conservation of the dignity and usefulness of a body.

Page 135 contains other references to Maingot, second edition, page 211, which states that expulsion is advised and “extends to all cases where the offence is such as, in the judgement of the House, to render the Member unfit for parliamentary duties.” Nothing exemplifies a member's unfitness more clearly than being found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act.

As I said before, this is an unusual matter. There have only been four cases since Confederation where members of the House were expelled for having committed serious offences. We can look to the more recent events in the Senate where three appointees of the present Prime Minister were suspended without pay, and they have not even been found guilty of criminal acts in a court of law.

The second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice clearly sets out, on pages 244 and 245, all the details of the next steps to be taken by the House of Commons:

By virtue of parliamentary privilege, only the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership. Indeed, the House decides for itself if a member should be permitted to sit on committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat.

It also states:

The power of the House to expel one of its members is derived from its traditional authority to determine whether a member is qualified to sit.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to our collective privilege that requires us both to act in a manner that upholds the dignity of the House as well as to regulate our own internal affairs and membership, I am asking that you agree that this matter constitutes a prima facie case of privilege and that you invite me to move the appropriate motion. Should you do that, Mr. Speaker, I would propose a motion that would seek to immediately suspend the member for Peterborough, without salary, and refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study on the status of his membership in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that a member of this government has faced charges of election fraud. However, it is the first time that a member has been found guilty by the court of these offences and has publicly stated that he intends to keep his seat in the House of Commons, as well as all the inherent privileges.

The in-and-out scandal of the Prime Minister's senior electoral advisors, the voter suppression through illegal robocalls by Conservative Party staff, the electoral fraud of the Prime Minister's disgraced former minister of intergovernmental affairs, and the spending scandal involving the Prime Minister's appointments to the Senate all advanced Conservative interests and asked the Canadian public to pick up the tab. These are all cases that have been raised in this House.

However, this is the first time that a member has been charged and found guilty.

In closing, although the Prime Minister expelled his former parliamentary secretary from the Conservative caucus as soon as he was charged with these serious offences, other measures are required now that he has been found guilty of four counts of election fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will agree that this matter constitutes a clear prima facie question of privilege, a question on which this House ought to debate and make a decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course we on the government side have spent some time contemplating these very same questions, as they are matters of great import for this House. My concern is that in the point of privilege raised by my friend and his intention to ask in this House for an immediate suspension of the member, we are perhaps a bit premature.

The reason I state this is because the current state of the judicial proceedings in this matter is that the judge, Justice Lisa Cameron, pronounced her verdict in the Lindsay provincial court on Friday. A sentencing hearing has been scheduled for Friday, November 21. As those of us who are familiar with the law know, two of the alternatives on sentencing could theoretically give the member for Peterborough an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge.

Subsection 730(3) of the Criminal Code explains the effect of a discharge:

(3) Where a court directs under subsection (1) that an offender be discharged of an offence, the offender shall be deemed not to have been convicted of the offence [...]

Going back to section 502 of the Canada Elections Act, paragraph 1(c) states:

Every person is guilty of an offence that is an illegal practice who [...]

(c) being...a candidate...wilfully contravenes section 443....

I have skipped some irrelevant words there.

Subsection 3 provides that, “Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice...during the next five years...after the date of their being so convicted...”.

That relates to the disqualification. It would appear that a discharge would have the effect of negating the condition and precedent under the act for disqualification.

I have placed a new notice of our intention to raise a question of privilege today on this matter. I believe the approach that I would put forward provides an elegant solution to the challenge we have, that sentencing has not yet occurred and that this option exists. It would allow us to take an appropriate action at this time without acting in a way that would legally be premature.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you reserve on this and that you please hear my question of privilege that I would like to raise.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to be very clear on the point that a conviction has actually occurred. There is a great deal of interest throughout the country in regard to what is taking place here. We have a responsibility to ensure that we do the right thing.

The Canada Elections Act is clear: a member cannot sit in the House for a minimum of five years if there is a conviction. Obviously there is a conviction here. Our primary concern should be dealing with whether the member should be able to sit and vote in the House. There appear to be some different possible opinions. From the Liberal Party's perspective, we believe it is best that the member not sit in the House until there has been a decision made, based on a consensus as to where to go from here.

Having said that, I would suggest that we reserve the right to add more comments to this particular point of privilege.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

On a point of clarification, is the hon. House leader requesting that I hear him on his point, and is he prepared to make those submissions now?

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

Yes.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will hear the hon. government House leader. Other members have added their contribution and I will hear him as well.