Debates of June 16th, 2014

Plant Breeders' Rights

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also tabling a petition on Bill C-18, calling on Parliament to refrain from making changes that would restrict farmers' rights or add to farmers' costs in the context of saving, reusing, selectively exchanging, and selling seeds.

Canada Pension Plan

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from the Municipal Pension Retirees' Association on the Canada Pension Plan death benefits.

Mining Industry

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, lastly I have a petition calling for the creation of a legislative extractive sector ombudsman.

Grenville Canal

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. They are asking the government to help them with the cost of repairing and restoring the shoreline and the walls of the Grenville Canal.

This petition was signed by people from all over the RCM of Argenteuil and several municipalities, including Saint-André-d'Argenteuil, Lachute and Brownsburg-Chatham. They know that the Grenville Canal in Grenville has implications for tourism throughout the Argenteuil region. That is why they are asking the government to help with this project.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 485 to 488 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 485

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

With regard to access to information requests to government departments, institutions and agencies for each year from 2003 to 2013: (a) how many requests were made in total, broken down by department, institution, or agency, (i) what was the average number of days taken to process these requests, (ii) what was the method by which a delay to a request was determined, (iii) is there a formula by which the number of days of delay is quantitatively determined, (iv) what was the number of requests signed by the Minister before being sent out, (v) what was the number of days delayed per request waiting for the Minister’s signature, (vi) what was the number of requests that ministerial staff questioned, requested or demanded modifications to to the Access to Information and Privacy Directorate (ATIP), (vii) what was the number of requests modified after questions, requests, or demands by staff in the Minister’s office, (viii) what was the average delay per request due to questions, requests, or demands by staff in the Minister's office; (b) of those requests identified in (v) and (vi), how many have been reported to the Office of the Information Commissioner, broken down by department, institution or agency; (c) do policies exist to minimize delays, broken down by (i) department, institution, or agency, (ii) are they formal or informal policies, (iii) were there cases where these policies could not be applied and, if so, how many, (iv) of those times in (iii), what was the reason, (v) of those in (iii), what was the length of delay; and (d) did weekly meetings organized by the ATIP Directorate occur, broken down by department, institution, or agency and, if so, (i) did staff from the Minister’s office attend, (ii) did staff from the Minister’s office play an active role, (iii) did staff from the Minister’s office flag files in any capacity and, if so, on what basis, (iv) did staff from the Minister’s office ask questions, make requests or demands to the ATIP Directorate?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 486

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

With regard to on-reserve educational facilities for First Nations in Canada: (a) what requests for capital building expenditure funding for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities have been made from 2008 to the present; (b) which of these requests have been granted by the government and why; (c) which of these requests were denied and why; (d) which of these requests were delayed, by whom (i.e. government or band council), by how long, and why; (e) what funds have been committed by the government for capital building expenditure for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities on-reserve in each fiscal year from 2008-2009 to 2013-2014; (f) what on-reserve educational facilities projects are currently underway; (g) in each year since 2008, what projects have been delayed or postponed, and, if any, what were the justifications for and lengths of these delays; (h) what projects are slated to begin work in the 2014-2015 fiscal year; (i) what portion of the total cost of these projects is being funded by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) through capital building infrastructure; (j) how many projects included additional money from a First Nation to complete the construction or for the equipping of an educational facility; (k) what on-reserve educational facilities projects are slated to begin work beyond the 2014-2015 fiscal year; (l) how many communities with projects identified by INAC as priority capital projects have had letters of approval issued to them; (m) since 2008, what amounts from the "Community Infrastructure" line item have been reallocated either within INAC or to other government departments; (n) with regard to capital building expenditure funding for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities built on First Nations Reserves for each year from 2008 to the present, broken down by (i) year and (ii) community, how much money was planned but not spent on schools and why?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 487

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, since 2011 inclusive: (a) for each province or territory, and for each Census Metropolitan Area or Economic Region, what is (i) the total number of applications for a Labour Market Opinion, (ii) the number of applications approved, (iii) the number of applications denied, (iv) the average length of time between the receipt of an application and the issuance of the decision; and (b) for each province or territory, what is (i) the total number of applications for an Accelerated Labour Market Opinion, (ii) the number of applications approved, (iii) the number of applications denied, (iv) the average length of time between the receipt of an application and the issuance of the decision?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 488

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) what oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor compliance; (b) who conducts workplace inspections; (c) how many persons responsible for inspection have been employed each year since 2006 inclusive; and (d) how many workplace inspections have been carried out each year since 2006, broken down by (i) province or territory of workplace, (ii) Census Metropolitan Area or Economic Region?

(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 Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-6—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the convention on cluster munitions, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stages of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to first of all underline a number that was just mentioned and that is number 73. This is the 73rd time that the government has decided to shut down debate and put time allocation on something as important as our international obligations on a treaty that the government, frankly, has bungled.

I say that with great sadness because this was a treaty that was negotiated years ago. The first attempt that the government made to actually implement the treaty came from the other place, which was another snub to democracy. The government, at one time when it was in opposition, talked about the importance of debate and the importance of having engaged parliamentarians to make sure that everyone was well informed.

What the Conservatives are actually doing is shutting down debate for their own members on something as important as our international obligations. If members from the Conservative Party wanted to debate this and be on the record for how they support the government's own legislation, they are shut down. It is not just about this side. It is about their side.

I remember very well the minister, who is looking over here with great big eyes open, arguing in opposition how important it was that they would have debate. I remember they were so aghast with Mr. Chrétien at the time shutting down debate.

I want to ask the government why it is shutting down debate on a bill. We are talking about report-stage amendments. This is a bill that is so flawed that the International Red Cross, which never speaks publicly on bills, has said it is a flawed bill. The former prime minister of Australia said the same.

How can Conservatives shut down debate on something as important as our obligations? By design, they are muzzling and shutting down debate for their own members to bring up their points of view for this important legislation.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen from the opposition, particularly the official opposition, is members want to debate things forever. They never want things to come to a vote. Their objective is to be able to rail in the House and say we have 77 bills that have had time allocated.

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

Seventy three.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

The reality is that is what they want. I would ask the member for Ottawa Centre how long he would like to debate the bill.

The government listened very closely to the debate on the bill at committee. We brought forward thoughtful and considered amendments. We tried to work with the opposition. We came forward with a substantial amendment. The member opposite pooh-poohs it and that is unfortunate.

The motion calls for 10 hours more of debate. The first time the member had an opportunity to question the minister, all he did was rant about not having enough time to debate it. He did not even use the time available that he had to debate the bill. It is all about process. It is all a big sham.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, currently the debate is about process. We are talking about time allocation being used as a tool to prevent members from being able to engage on important pieces of legislation.

Never before has a government used time allocation in the fashion in which the majority Conservative government has. Ironically, I have been saying that for the 25-plus times that the government has brought in time allocation. Time allocation is a normal part of the process of a majority government attitude in terms of pushing things through.

I want to be sensitive to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in terms of his assertions. Yes, the NDP is almost gleeful every time the government brings forward time allocation for different reasons than us. There are some non-controversial pieces of legislation that should be able to pass without time allocation. There are other pieces for which the government needs to recognize the value of having more time allocated. Some legislation is more controversial than other legislation. I wonder if the member would like to provide comment on that aspect of House negotiations.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before the minister responds, I would remind all members and perhaps those people watching, that what is relevant in this half-hour debate is both the procedural motion that is before us and the bill itself that is also before us.

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.