House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vessels.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 111Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

With regard to federal spending in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in each fiscal year from 2011 to 2016 inclusively: what are the details of all grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded by the government, broken down by (i) the department or agency that awarded the funding, (ii) municipality, (iii) the name of the recipient, (iv) the amount received, (v) the program under which the grant, loan, contribution or contract was awarded, (vi) date?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 113Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

With regard to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: what was the total cost incurred by the government for any related spending between December 8, 2015, and February 28, 2016, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) travel, (iii) accommodations, (iv) room rentals, (v) meals, (vi) all other expenses?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 118Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

June 6th, 2016 / 3:10 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby South, BC

With respect to the communication of scientific research and government scientists speaking to the public about their research: (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all changes, amendments, or updates made to the communication policies of departments and agencies since November 4, 2015; (b) for each item in (a), (i) what department or agency was it for, (ii) what section of the policy did it pertain to, (iii) on what date was it implemented, (iv) what was the text of the relevant sections before the change, (v) what was the text of the relevant sections after the change, (vi) what was the government’s rationale for it, (vii) is there any evidence that the approval process for scientists speaking to the media has changed; (c) what is the total number of media interviews given by federal scientists for each month since November 2014, broken down by department or agency; (d) what new processes has the government implemented since November 4, 2015, to track and ensure that science-related media requests are responded to in a timely and accurate manner; (e) what new resources or programs has the government provided to federal scientists since November 4, 2015, to assist them in speaking to the public and the media about their research; (f) what is the complete and detailed list of all internal memos, directives, or emails sent to federal scientists since November 4, 2015, concerning the communication of scientific research and the approval process for speaking to the media; (g) for each item in (f), what are the details, including, but not limited to, (i) its title, (ii) who was it sent by, (iii) on what date was it sent; (h) what is the complete and detailed list of all briefing notes prepared for Ministers since November 4, 2015, concerning the issue of scientific integrity or science integrity policies; and (i) for each item in (h), (i) what was its title, (ii) which Minister was it for, (iii) on what date was it prepared?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

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

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. It is a fairly complex matter, but I know you are familiar with the essence of it and I will attempt to be succinct.

It is a point of privilege under Standing Order section 41(1) in that I believe sincerely, having lived through this for the last two and a half years, that a process that has been undertaken by motions in committee is impeding my ability to fully represent my constituents and to fully do my job. That is a matter of privilege and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so it can be dealt with there.

Let me start with some very clear principles, because all of this emanates from my role as a member of a political party recognized under the Elections Act but with fewer than 12 members elected here, and thus falling under a different category of rights and privileges than other members of Parliament.

It is, of course, a clear principle and trite to note that all Canadians are equal, all federal electoral districts are equal, and that, therefore, representing our constituents, all members of Parliament are in theory equal, and even in principle. The Prime Minister is, as the old Latin phrase would put it, primus inter pares, first among equals. We are all equals here.

Not to be Orwellian about it, but it is clear that since 1963, some of us are more equal than others. While the constitution of this country makes no reference to political parties, over time our parliamentary process here has, at the behest of larger parties, enlarged the powers and rights of those members of Parliament who belong to one of the larger parties. In 1963, the only rule was passed that allowed additional funding to go to members of Parliament in parties of more than 12, and they are generally referred to in our rules now as “recognized parties”.

I can skip ahead on a lot of this and just say that until the late 1990s, there was no question as to how rules operated at report stage. Rules changed at report stage as a result of what we could call a 1999 protest effort by an opposition party, the Canadian Alliance party at that time, which did not like the Nisga'a Treaty that was going through the House and put forward 700 really mischievous amendments at report stage. They were not substantive. They did not change the way the treaty would work. They were not designed to work. They were designed to clog up the system.

Of course, it has always been the Speaker's role, and I will not take too much of your time, Mr. Speaker, on some precedents, but it is well understood that the Speaker has the responsibility of protecting members of Parliament and our personal rights while also ensuring that Parliament itself can function properly. I take you to a ruling of March 29, 2007. Speaker Milliken wrote:

The Speaker must remain ever mindful of the first principles of our great parliamentary tradition, principles best described by John George Bourinot, Clerk of this House from 1890 to 1902, who described these principles thus:

“To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse.”

Your predecessor, former Speaker Scheer, commented similarly on the responsibility of the Speaker on April 23, 2013, that an unquestionable duty of the Speaker is “to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.”

In balancing this, I turn to a ruling of former Speaker Fraser on April 14, 1987. He said that the principle of protecting minorities from majority tyranny applicable in a number of contexts exceeding the normal interpretation of government opposition could surely be applied there. He also said it should be noted that where the Speaker has ruled in favour of protecting minorities, he tends to do so in the context of protecting their ability to hold the government to account so long as it is not at the expense of the government completing its business in a reasonably timely fashion.

On a different occasion in 1990, Speaker Fraser also spoke about the reality of how members of parties such as the Green Party or, in this House, the Bloc, or any independent members are treated. In denying a request from the Bloc Québécois to receive additional research funding when it fell below 12 seats, he stated:

...it is important to note that the decision does not mean that the members in this group are impeded from full participation in the work of the House or that they are deprived of support necessary to represent their constituencies adequately.

We are in a different situation. I recognize that. However, I have to say that what occurred as a result of that Nisga'a treaty report stage protest in 1999 took several years for the House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to amend the Standing Orders and change the process bills go through at report stage. The rules were changed such that members of parties with more than 12 members, having had an opportunity through their parties at committee stage, could not take basically another kick at the can and come back and repeat the committee process at report stage. Therefore, that process changed report stage. Through the committee on procedure and House affairs, we ended up having to change the Standing Orders around report stage. As I said, that took a couple of years.

When I became a member of Parliament, in reading through O'Brien and Bosc, which is our Bible here, I realized that since I was not in a party of more than 12 MPs I did have the right to make these motions for amendments at report stage. Obviously, the practical application of that was not an opportunity that I welcomed. It is very clear that in fully representing my constituents, they are interested in everything. There is not just one category of issue that interests my constituents. They are interested in all of the bills that go through this place, and they want me to represent them on all of the bills.

Only one bill at a time can be at report stage. However, many bills at a time can be at different committees going through clause by clause. What the previous administration did, and this is the crux of this, was to decide that since the Speaker could not deny my rights at report stage unless so-called opportunities were created elsewhere, a motion was passed through every committee through a period of time that said that I and other members in small parties would be given 48 hours' notice before clause by clause to submit all of my amendments in that period and to then come to committee. However, I was not equal at committee. I did not move my amendments at committee. They were deemed moved and I could make brief comments. The practical application of this motion is that I have had to run occasionally from committee meetings simultaneously doing clause by clause. There have been times when I have had to prepare my amendments to a bill when the witnesses were still testifying on the bill and if new issues arose I did not have the opportunity to submit amendments based on that testimony because it had come in within the 48 hours between my deadline and when the committee moved to clause by clause. In other words, it is impractical, unworkable, and prejudicial to my rights.

My main point today, because I have canvassed the unfairness of these motions to the previous Speaker in the 41st Parliament, is that it is very clear now that these same motions, which are identically worded, have been pushed through every single committee once again, and that what we have here is another issue.

It has always been the case, and it is trite to say because it is found in O'Brien and Bosc and many other rulings by Speakers, which I will not trespass on your time and read back to you, that committees are the masters of their own process. However, this process is a fraud. The committees are no more the masters of this process than I am the master of their process. They all received identical motions. They received them in the Conservative administration and dutifully passed them. Now they have received them from the government House leader, and the government whip followed up to make sure that these motions were passed. It is supplanting the job of the committee on procedure and House affairs by amending the rules by which bills go through the House, through the fiction that each committee has acted independently to come up with this rule that treats members of Parliament who are independents or in parties of fewer than 12 members differently.

If the House committee on procedure and House affairs wishes to review how report stage should be run, then that is where that work should be done. It is very clear under many precedents that a committee cannot exceed its jurisdiction. Committees passing motions that are identical to each other with forced votes of government members is no more the committee being the master of its destiny than it is the case that they are coming up with these motions independently in each committee.

They are supplanting the role of the committee on procedure and House affairs, and impeding on my rights.

As many members of Parliament, through parliamentary tradition have done through the generations, I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to find the right balance, to protect the rights of MPs in smaller parties, to ensure that bills go through this House expeditiously, but that members of Parliament are not denied their rights nor that we allow a backdoor procedure to receive approval in this place which is literally supplanting the role of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House affairs.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member for her intervention.

I see that the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly is rising on the same question of privilege.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to thank my colleague for her speech and say that everyone in the House recognizes the importance of protecting the rights of members so that they can do their job properly and represent their constituents and all Canadians effectively.

I also recall the same issue being raised in the previous Parliament, during similar debates.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your indulgence to allow the NDP team to reply at a later date.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly for his intervention. I had anticipated that his party and the other parties might want to also make representations and comments.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many words expressed by the leader of the Green Party. As the New Democrat Party has just indicated, we too would like to reserve the opportunity to come back before you to report to the House, provide further comment, once we have had the opportunity to peruse the member's comments.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his request, and I look forward to hearing from the members.

I see that the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston might be wanting to ask the same thing.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

You correctly anticipated that, Mr. Speaker. I will just say exactly the same thing. We would like to be able to come back to you at a later point in time.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Montcalm is rising on the same question of privilege.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, yes, that is right. I would ask you to note that we would like to take part in the debate and we will add our remarks to the important issue raised by my colleague.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member for Montcalm as well. We will proceed now to orders of the day.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Mount Royal has six minutes remaining.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the measures in Bill C-15 to help our seniors. I believe that it is very important to take note of all the measures for seniors in Bill C-15 and in the budget.

I was talking about the guaranteed income supplement and the extra 10% that single seniors can receive, up to $947 per year. However, what is also important is that where seniors are required to live apart because one of their health conditions or one of their circumstances requires that they be in a seniors residence or a care home or other places, we are allowed to now treat them as two separate individuals for the purpose of these supplements. This means that where they were losing money because they were married or living together common law, now they will not be penalized for that. That is also important.

I also want to talk about the $200.4 million that is going to improve social housing for seniors, to renovate apartments to help seniors live in their houses for longer.

As we all know, seniors benefit from residing in their residences for as long as possible. We do not want our seniors to be forced into hospitals or institutions before they need to be there. With proper management, with proper accessibility for the handicapped, and with proper services such as bringing in caregivers from health institutions to bathe seniors, we can leave seniors in their homes longer, and they will have an improved quality of life. I hope we can have agreements with the provinces to ensure that the monies in the budget that we intend to transfer to the provinces for health care go toward helping seniors live in their homes for as long as possible. That will continue to improve quality of life for seniors at home.

I also want to talk about another group of people in my riding who I met with a lot during the campaign who were troubled, which are students. Today, students are struggling, as we all know, with the rising cost of tuition and the massive debt they need to incur. It is low compared with our neighbours in the United States, but still high by Canadian standards. Where students have accumulated more and more debt, they want measures to help them afford to go to college, to university, to vocational training.

We have improved the Canada summer grants program by allowing a 50% increase in the amount of money that all classes of individuals can receive in grants, including part-time students. We are enhancing the Canada student loans program by saying that they do not need to repay student loans until their income reaches $25,000, and introducing more flexibility in terms of repayment measures for Canada student loans.

My NDP colleague was very proud that 320 students were hired in his riding. In my own riding 271 students were hired. Twice as many students were hired to work in our ridings as last year.

I believe that many of my colleagues are very pleased with the investment we made in summer jobs for students.

One other thing is training and apprenticeship programs in this budget. It is great to come out of university, but if students do not find jobs, they are still living in their parents basement. We do not want perpetual living in parents basements for our 20-something and 30-something generation. The monies that are going to enhance finding people jobs, going into apprenticeship programs, going into training, has the potential to help many Canadians of the younger generation.

I also want to point out the investments in our rural communities.

My hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle keeps talking about the lack of Internet in his community. That is also the case for many of my colleagues who live in rural regions in Canada.

I am very pleased and grateful that we invested $500 million to improve Internet service in the regions of Canada that need it.

I also want to talk about our veterans. I think we all appreciate the incredible service that many women have for generations given to our armed forces. Our Second World War veterans are old now. They are in their late eighties, their nineties, or they are over a century old. They deserve not only our respect but our help in order to get the best services to which they should be entitled, more money for front-line services. Reopening the veterans offices is something that is very important to Branch 97 of the Legion, the Frederick Kisch brigade in my riding, and Legions all across the country.

As mayor of Côte Saint-Luc, I was very proud that we found free space for our Legion in the city. I know that all members from all parties want us to make sure that benefits for our veterans are the type of benefits they are entitled to by virtue of the incredible service they have given this country.

In conclusion, I believe the bill will help Canadians, enhance our middle class, and make our Canada a stronger and better place. I am pleased to support Bill C-15.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide some comment in terms of one of the most progressive moves that I have seen in literally 10 or more years; it has been a long time. The Canada child benefit program will lift literally tens of thousands of children out of poverty. I believe it is one of the focal points of this particular budget, which in the years ahead, people will reflect on as the budget that established this fantastic social program.

Could the member provide some comments in terms of what he thinks about this program, and possibly in regard to the increase to the guaranteed income supplement, which supports tens of thousands of seniors in all regions of our country?