House of Commons Hansard #173 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was violence.

Topics

Chief Electoral Officer of CanadaRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Chief Electoral Officer on alternative signatures.

This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of the committee, and if the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 32nd report later today.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-China Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the co-chairs' annual visit to China of the Canada-China Legislative Association held in Beijing, Shanghai, Wuxi, and Nanjing, the People's Republic of China, August 30 to September 6, 2014.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I believe that report should have been tabled in the reports of interparliamentary delegations. Does the House give its consent to allow it to be tabled at this time?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier today, be concurred in.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

(Motion agreed to)

International TradePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions today; two petitions are on the same subject.

We continue to receive petitions calling on the government to refuse to ratify the Canada-China investment treaty. We know that it was in fact ratified in September 2014, but the concerns remain.

For the interest of the House, I feel it is important to table the petitions of concern about the way this treaty undermines our sovereignty.

JusticePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, this petition signed by residents of my riding throughout the Saanich Peninsula calls on Parliament to review legislation that includes mandatory minimums, to assess whether these mandatory minimums will result in the construction of additional prisons and will offend the charter.

Canada PostPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of people from my riding who are defending the common good.

This first petition is in support of Canada Post's postal service. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan to reduce service by eliminating home mail delivery to five million households, and to explore other options for updating the crown corporation's business plan.

CBC/Radio-CanadaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of the future of the CBC.

The petitioners are calling on the Conservative government to guarantee stable, multi-year funding to ensure that our public broadcaster can continue providing services and fulfilling its mandate across the country.

Student LoansPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians from B.C. and from coast to coast concerned about student loan fairness. They want to see us create a federal need-based grant system for Canada's student loans that reduces the federal student loan interest rate, creates the federal student loan ombudsperson, and helps defer payments for those who have massive student loans through their undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral work.

Citizenship and ImmigrationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

The first petition is signed by people all across the country calling on the Canadian government to negotiate with the Chinese government 10-year multiple-entry tourist and business visas for Canadians visiting China, and five-year multiple-entry visas for students entering China.

They point out that the U.S. and China have negotiated a reciprocal agreement benefiting the citizens of both of those countries, and they would like Canada to have a level playing field with their American and Chinese citizens.

International TradePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is to the House of Commons. It has been discovered in the last several months that Canada is being used as a conduit to ship endangered whale meat across Canada from Halifax to Vancouver.

Canada is signatory to an international convention banning the trade in whale meat, and this is a loophole that is being exploited, which Canadians would like to see closed, because Canadians do not want to see endangered species being traded.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people across the country to support the climate change accountability act. This is very important to people in Vancouver Kingsway. They would like to see the government deal with climate change and Canada to take a leading role on the world stage as we deal with this very pressing, important, and vital issue.

DementiaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition calling for a national dementia strategy. The petitioners are asking the government to call on the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to pass Bill C-356, an act respecting a national strategy for dementia, which was introduced by the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt.

The bill calls on the minister to initiate discussions with provincial and territorial ministers to develop a comprehensive national plan to address all aspects of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia, and to provide an annual report based on an annual assessment of Canada's progress to meeting the various objectives that this calls for.

AnaphylaxisPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition whereby the petitioners would like to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that, in May 2013, members of Parliament voted unanimously in support of Motion No. 230, because anaphylaxis is a serious concern for an increasing number of Canadians, and it is very often deadly.

Those who are travelling, particularly by public transit, like airplanes, are at particular risk at 35,000 feet because medical care is not available. The petitioners request that Parliament enact a policy to reduce the risk of harm to anaphylactic passengers, applicable to all forms of passenger transportation falling within federal jurisdiction.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

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 questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions on the Order Paper—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on January 26, 2015, by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard related to the government’s response to written question Q-393, which was given to the House on May 14, 2014.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for having raised this matter, as well as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the hon. opposition House leader for their comments.

In raising this matter, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard expressed concerns about the response she received to her question, Q-393. She argued that there was interference by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, she claimed, ordered officials in the department to stop preparing a response and, instead, use the same answer that was given in response to written question Q-359 on May 12, 2014. She asserted that that answer constituted a non-answer to a question submitted by the member for Markham—Unionville. Having received the same non-answer, she contended that this impeded her in the performance of her parliamentary duties since she was not provided with a satisfactory response to her question. From this she argued that a breach of privilege had occurred.

In response, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explained that it was the length and breadth of the member's very extensive question that was preventing departmental officials from being able to comply with the 45-day response deadline. Once advised of this, he provided the response that the member received.

Members will be familiar with the provisions of Standing Order 39(5)(a), which states:

A Member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific question within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or her question.

In essence, the member is seeking redress with respect to perceived ministerial interference, which in her view, prevented departmental officials from responding to her question.

On previous occasions, the Chair has been asked to rule on issues related to the government’s responses to written questions. In each instance, the Chair has sought to remind members of the clear limitations of the role of the Speaker in this regard.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states, at page 522:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.

Speaker Milliken also noted on February 8, 2005, on page 3234 of Debates:

Any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of this response is a matter of debate. It is not something upon which the Speaker is permitted to pass judgment.

This applies as well when the government indicates that it is unable to provide an answer. O'Brien and Bosc confirms this approach at page 522, where it states:

As with oral questions, it is acceptable for the government, in responding to a written question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer.

How or why the government chooses to provide such a reply, or non-reply as some see it, is not something to be questioned by the Chair. Nor is it for the Chair to question the decision of members to ask for a response to a written question within a 45-day limit, as per Standing Order 39(5)(a), even when the question is lengthy and complex.

Specifically, as Speaker, I must assess the role the government played in the preparation of responses within the limited scope that is granted to me by our practice and precedents. As I indicated in my ruling of April 3, 2014:

The Chair understands that the member is not asking for judgment on the accuracy of the answer provided. However, he is asking the Chair to judge the actions of the minister and the effect these have had on his ability to function as a member of Parliament. To do so would require the Chair to judge not only the content of answers provided, but also to delve into internal departmental processes past and present. Regardless of whether the department's internal processes on written questions have changed or not, it remains beyond the role of the Chair to undertake an investigation into any such matter or to render any judgment on it.

In view of the particular jurisprudence cited by the Chair with regard to written questions, I cannot conclude that the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard has been impeded in the performance of her parliamentary duties. Therefore, I cannot find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

That being said, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard does have one other avenue she could pursue. She could consider resubmitting her question without requesting an answer within the forty-five day deadline, particularly in light of the Minister’s comments regarding the question's length and complexity.

I thank honourable members for their attention.