Debates of Dec. 12th, 2016

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 581

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

With regard to official diplomatic communications regarding the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the Minister of International Trade and her European counterparts: what are the details of all official diplomatic communications since November 4, 2015, including the (i) date, (ii) titles of individuals participating in the communication, (iii) location, (iv) type of communication (in person, phone call, etc.)?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 583

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

With regard to the Firearms Reference Table (FRT): (a) what information is contained in the FRT; (b) how many entries are there in the FRT; (c) what is the threshold for changing information in the FRT, including (i) the information required to necessitate a change, (ii) the process for drafting changes, (iii) the stakeholder engagement process, (iv) the approval process, (v) the approval authority; (d) who has access to the FRT, including (i) federal government entities, (ii) provincial government entities, (iii) foreign government entities, (iv) Canadian businesses, (v) foreign businesses, (vi) Canadian institutions, (vii) foreign institutions, (viii) Canadian individuals, (ix) foreign individuals; (e) does the government consider the FRT a quasi-statutory instrument due to the potential impact on the property rights of Canadians; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what is the legislative basis for the FRT; (g) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, were there any outside legal opinions sought regarding the FRT as a quasi-statutory instrument due to the potential impact on the property rights of Canadians; (h) has the government conducted an analysis as to the application of the Statutory Instruments Act to the FRT; and (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, what was the conclusion of the assessment?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 585

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

With regard to the development of apps for smartphones by the government or for the government, since November 4, 2015: (a) what amount has been spent developing apps; (b) what is the list of apps developed; and (c) for each app developed, what are the details, including (i) the amount spent on development, (ii) the date of launch, (iii) the current usage rates, (iv) the monthly download statistics, (v) the list of operating systems for which the app is available, (vi) whether the app is for public or internal usage?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 586

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

With regard to contracts granted by any department, agency, crown corporation, or other government entity, since November 4, 2015, to The Gandalf Group or any of its partners: (a) what are the vendors' names; (b) what are the contracts' reference and file numbers; (c) what are the dates of the contracts; (d) what are the descriptions of the services provided; (e) what are the delivery dates; (f) what are the original contracts' values; (g) what are the final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values; and (h) what are the details of any research, polling, or advice provided to the government as a result of such contracts?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 587

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

With regard to trade negotiations: (a) what is the list of trade negotiations which are currently ongoing; (b) what is the current status of each trade negotiation; (c) what is the list of trade negotiations which have ceased or been suspended since November 4, 2015; (d) on what date did each of the trade negotiations referred to in (c) cease or suspend; and (e) for each negotiation referred to in (c), what was the reason for the negotiation ceasing or suspending?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 588

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to New York in September 2016 to address the United Nations General Assembly: (a) what were the total costs for the government delegation’s trip to New York; (b) what is the itemized breakdown of each expense related to the trip; (c) broken down by individual expense, what amount was spent on (i) air transportation, (ii) meals, (iii) per diems, (iv) ground transportation, (v) hotels, (vi) mints and candies, (vii) bottled water, (viii) alcohol; and (d) what were the titles of all members of the government delegation?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 601

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement in January 2016 that the Member for Ottawa South will serve as Chair for the yet to be formed National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians: (a) has the Member for Ottawa South received pay for serving as Chair of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians; (b) what are the detailed expenses for the Member for Ottawa South’s international travel with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in January 2016; (c) how were the expenses in (b) paid; and (d) was the Member for Ottawa South reimbursed for expenses incurred during his international travel with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in January 2016?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Employment in Alberta

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The Chair has received a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52(2), I am asking for an emergency debate on the Alberta jobs crisis. I know that you have received requests of this nature before, and I will be brief, but there is a vital need for us to have this emergency conversation.

As others have pointed out, the number of unemployed Albertans has nearly doubled since 2014, from 112,000 in January of 2015 to close to 210,000 in August of 2016. We are not just talking about oil and gas. Our province has lost one in five resource jobs, one in four manufacturing jobs, and one in five agriculture jobs. Over 120,000 energy workers have lost their jobs, and our unemployment rate is now at 9%, which is a 22-year high.

While the government is failing to propose anything to address this terrible situation, we need to discuss these issues in the House as soon as possible. Rather than fixing the problem, the government is doing everything it can to make matters worse. It is raising taxes in every way possible, on small businesses, on individuals, and on consumers. It is even raising payroll taxes. It talks about jobs, but it is raising the tax on jobs. This is making the jobs crisis in Alberta worse, not better.

There is a vital role for government here, and we need the government to act. I ask that you grant this debate so that we have the opportunity to finally discuss what needs to be done to respond to the Alberta jobs crisis.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his intervention. As he certainly may know, based on the previous interventions of a similar nature, the request does not in fact meet the requirements for an emergency debate. I would certainly recommend for his consideration that he consider other avenues that might be available to him in respect of bringing these matters before the House for its consideration.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House was last debating the motion, the hon. member for Jonquière had four minutes remaining.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to continue debating the motion.

As I was saying earlier, I wonder if the government has a grudge against the hands that feed it every day. I am talking about the people who work on the farms, the dairy producers—in fact, those who feed our children.

The announced program of $50 million per year offers no real compensation and will not provide satisfactory protection for our supply management system. Indeed, the industry estimates that the annual losses to Canada’s dairy producers will be $116 million. Those losses come at a time when the Liberals are still missing in action on the diafiltered milk issue despite the fact that they have been promising a solution for over a year now.

More cracks are starting to appear on the issue of supply management, a system that Canada has chosen as a society to guarantee the survival of our family farms and proper land use. The region’s milk producers were not very excited by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's announcement.

Mr. Daniel Côté, president of the Producteurs de lait du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, has said that his association was extremely disappointed at the plan announced by the government. It was clear that the Liberals had failed in their job. They had promised a comprehensive program to solve all of the sector’s problems, including diafiltered milk, but the announcement was only concerned with CETA, and it was for very insignificant amounts. The government says it consulted producers, but it would seem to be hard of hearing because the results are far from what our dairy producers expected. As Mr. Côté has said, the government owes it to the region’s producers to shoulder its responsibilities and keep its promises.

The agreement before us today also has shortcomings with respect to government purchasing and procurement. Many witnesses have said that they are afraid of the impact the Canada-Europe agreement will have on the flexibility of the government’s internal supply and services structures.

Witnesses representing the municipalities have pointed out the important role played by government supply policies in local economic development initiatives. They believe that the provisions of CETA risk undermining local development plans by granting new rights to European companies.

I will conclude by saying that New Democrats support trade agreements that reduce customs duties and stimulate exports but firmly exclude elements that threaten sovereignty, such as the provisions concerning investor-state disputes. We believe it is the government’s responsibility to conclude better trade agreements, particularly as regards human rights and labour standards, as well as protection of the environment and Canadian jobs.

I have serious reservations about the so-called progressive trade program of the Liberal government. When all is said and done, a trade agreement has to be assessed based on the costs it entails and the net benefits it affords.

In the past, we New Democrats have always stood in very clear opposition to agreements liable to have a negative impact on Canadians, such as the agreement with Honduras and the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, or FIPA, with China.

Allow me to add that better processes lead to better agreements. Far too often, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have negotiated behind closed doors and kept Canadians in the dark about the process. That is notably what happened with the negotiations of the trans-Pacific partnership.