House of Commons Hansard #72 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rights.
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure responsible conservation management of sharks. They call on the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions.
The first concerns the creation of a legislated ombudsman mechanism for more responsible mining.
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
The second petition calls for the resumption of VIA Rail's daily service between Montreal and Halifax passing through Campbellton and Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present two complementary petitions. They are both broadly about the preservation of agricultural lands for agricultural purposes.
The first calls on the Government of Canada to rescind all plans for an airport and non-agricultural uses on the federal lands in the Durham Region.
Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Government of Canada to implement a Canada-wide strategy on local food and to require the Department of Public Works to develop a policy for purchasing locally grown food for all federal institutions.
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am here to present a petition that seeks to stop violence against bus drivers. In light of the large number of assaults of bus drivers every year, the petitioners are calling on the House to amend the Criminal Code to create a separate offence for assaults committed against bus drivers while they are working and to set harsher penalties for the attackers.
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people from Thunder Bay and across Canada who want our government to recognize the importance of study of aquatic ecosystems and to continue to financially support science, particularly science in the Experimental Lakes Area.
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, if Questions Nos. 305, 306, and 308 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
With regard to funding of Quebec City's Jean Lesage International Airport, what is the total amount of government funding allocated to the airport from fiscal year 2006-2007 to the current fiscal year, broken down (i) by department or agency, (ii) for each department or agency, by initiative or project?
(Return tabled)
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
With regard to the Manolis L. shipwreck: (a) what activities have taken place to monitor all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (b) what activities are currently taking place to monitor all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (c) what activities are planned or anticipated to take place to monitor all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (i) department involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (d) what activities have taken place to remediate all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (e) what activities are currently taking place to remediate all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (f) what activities are planned or anticipated to take place to remediate all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (g) what are the details of all plans that are in place by the government to prevent the shipwreck from shifting; and (h) what is the timeline to recover all oil from the ship and end this unfolding disaster?
(Return tabled)
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) Program: (a) since 2003, in Canada and for each province, (i) how many overpayment recovery decisions were made by Service Canada, (ii) how many of these decisions were made concerning a problem with a beneficiary’s marital status; (b) under which policy, government directive, legislation or regulation is the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) authorized to share personal information with Service Canada about the marital status of taxpayers regarding their GIS file, and where can it be accessed; (c) since 2002, in Canada and in each province, how many individuals, annually, receive GIS benefits; (d) since 2002, in Canada and in each province, how many individuals, annually, qualify for GIS benefits but do not receive them, regardless of the reason; (e) why, between July 2003 and 2011, did Service Canada not have access to the marital status of GIS beneficiaries despite the information sharing protocol it has with the CRA; (f) why did Service Canada (or the department at the time) set aside certain notices of debt regarding overpayment recovery decisions involving GIS beneficiaries between June 1995 and July 2003; and (g) between 2003 and 2013, were there any cases where Service Canada reviewed GIS benefit files to determine whether the government owed amounts to individuals for whom the change in marital status was to their advantage financially, and if so, how many cases per year?
(Return tabled)
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
Motion No. 12Ways and MeansGovernment Orders
Madawaska—Restigouche New Brunswick
Conservative
Bernard Valcourt ConservativeMinister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
moved:
That a ways and means motion to introduce an act to give effect to the Tla'amin Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other acts be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Remarks by Minister of State for Finance--Speaker's RulingPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 31, 2014, by the hon. member for Victoria regarding statements made in the House by the Minister of State for Finance during debate on an official opposition motion on December 9, 2013, regarding the New Democratic Party's proposal to phase in increases to basic pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Victoria for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North for their comments.
In presenting his case, the member for Victoria claimed that documents recently obtained through an access to information request had revealed that the Minister of State for Finance had deliberately and repeatedly misled the House by providing misleading numbers and deliberately drawing false conclusions with respect to his party's plan for CPP reform.
The Minister of State for Finance, he suggested, had knowingly cited information about potential job losses from a Department of Finance study, which he linked to the NDP's plan for pension reform, even though the study itself did not do so and even though the Finance study was based on a different basic assumption than that of the NDP plan.
As a result, the member for Victoria concluded that the three conditions for establishing a case of contempt for misleading the House had been met, since the minister of state's statements were misleading, he knew when he made the statements that they were incorrect and, finally, that he had intended to mislead the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that, given the existence of many studies by many organizations on this matter, with the Minister of State for Finance having used numbers prepared by the Department of Finance, the conclusions to be drawn are bound to vary. He also stated that:
The hon. member for Victoria was at pains to point out that the finance department's analysis covered a one-year implementation window, not his seven-year phase-in period. In fact, the Department of Finance uses one year as a simplifying assumption adopted to compare the economic impact of various CPP expansion proposals.
Thus, he felt that this was nothing more than a matter of debate and perspective.
At page 145 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, it is stated:
If the question of privilege involves a disagreement between two (or more) Members as to facts, the Speaker typically rules that such a dispute does not prevent Members from fulfilling their parliamentary functions nor does such a disagreement breach the collective privileges of the House.
The member for Victoria was clear that this was not a matter of whether the studies in question are accurate, but whether the minister of state misrepresented the studies he cited. In fact, he spoke to the importance of accuracy of information brought forward in the House when he stated:
Mr. Speaker, members need to be certain that they are receiving the information they need to adequately represent voters, and they must be able to have confidence in the information provided, especially when it is provided by ministers and ministers of state.
As has been suggested, the information shared in this House does hold extraordinary value as it forms the basis upon which decisions are made in the House. As Speaker Milliken reminded the House on December 6, 2004, on page 2319 of the Debates:
Disagreements about facts and how the facts should be interpreted form the basis of debate in this place.
It is not surprising, then, that the threshold in determining that a member has deliberately misled the House is purposely high. The member for Victoria referred to the three-part test, which I most recently reiterated on March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates:
...one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.
He then argued that the situation at issue fulfills the three conditions that must be met in order for the Chair to find that there is appearance of contempt for deliberately misleading the House.
The Chair has thoroughly reviewed the relevant information provided with this in mind, and it is clear to me that there is no parallel to be drawn between the present case and the cases from February 1, 2002, and March 3, 2014, as has been suggested, nor has the three-part test been met.
Instead, the Chair has before it two interpretations of the issue. On the one hand, the member for Victoria has explained that he believes the statements of the Minister of State for Finance are deliberately misleading because the minister improperly claimed that a Department of Finance study referred to potential job losses due to the NDP pension reform proposal. On the other hand, the parliamentary secretary rejects that characterization, arguing that the minister believes he is justified in linking the finance department report and the NDP pension proposal. Thus, I can only conclude that the Chair is confronted with a matter of debate and a dispute as to the facts in this case.
It should be noted that in my ruling of March 3, 2014, I reminded the House of Speaker Parent’s ruling on October 19, 2000, at page 9247 of the Debates, which states:
Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members.
For all these reasons, I cannot conclude that this qualifies as a prima facie question of privilege. I thank hon. members for their attention.
Message from the SenateGovernment Orders
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations.