Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2017

International Trade

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

Standing Order 69.1--Bill C-63

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 69.1 in regard to omnibus bills. The Standing Order reads:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

I point your attention now to a recently introduced omnibus budget implementation act. The proposal was tabled in the House of Commons on October 27, 2017. That act combines a number of unrelated provisions that were not included in the original budget presentation. The long title is the first clue: A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures. The summary notes indicate that the bill also implements a GST/HST measure announced on September 8, 2017. Other items include the income tax amendments, part 1, related to farmers and fishers selling to cooperatives; part 3's amendments to the Excise Act related to beer made from concentrate; division 5 of part 5, which amends the Bank of Canada Act concerning loans and advances made to members of the Canadian Payments Association; division 11 of part 5, which makes a series of amendments to the Judges Act; and division 13 of part 5, which amends the Financial Administration Act in respect of payments to discharge a debt.

Returning to the original Standing Order I cited at the outset, you, as Speaker, have the ability to break this bill into separate bills if its various provisions concern unrelated matters and if they are then linked in the same bill. Clearly, the matters I have just mentioned, their merits or demerits notwithstanding, are not directly related to each another. For example, the Judges Act is not related to the Financial Administration Act, the Judges Act is not related to the Excise Act, and the Bank of Canada Act is not related directly to the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the bill combines a number of different acts in one single bill, which gives you, Mr. Speaker, the power to separate the various component parts of the act.

In fairness to the government, there is an exception to that role. Under 69.1 of the Standing Orders, budget implementation roles can be excluded from the Speaker's power to divide a bill that contains numerous unrelated parts. Standing Order 69.1(2) reads:

The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

I have just finished listing at least five provisions that were included in the omnibus budget implementation act but were not included in the original budget presentation. Therefore, this BIA and its component parts are not exempt from the Speaker's authority to divide into separate bills matters that are unrelated to one other but, nevertheless, were introduced as one piece of legislation.

There is another matter that was included in the budget implementation bill that was not fully included in the original budget presentation. I refer now to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. As I said at the outset, the Standing Order calls for bills to be separated into their component parts if a provision in a budget implementation bill had not been fully present in the original budget presentation. Now, the budget presentation did provide for funding for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. However, it did not provide for the same amount of money that was later included in the budget implementation bill.

Let me quote directly from the presentation the minister made on March 22, 2017:

Budget 2017 proposes to invest $256 million over five years for Canada to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

It was $256 million. That was the provision the government made for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in the budget presentation of last March. However, the legislation introduced just last week has a different and much larger provision. It provides for an amount of not more than $375 million U.S., which equals $480 million Canadian.

The word “provision” comes from the root word “provide”. The original budget presentation would provide $256 million. This omnibus budget bill provides $480 million. In other words, there is roughly $230 million provided in the budget implementation bill that was not provided in the original budget presentation. In other words, the BIA, the omnibus budget bill, attempts to provide something that was not provided for at the outset. Therefore, it is not exempt from your powers, Mr. Speaker, to divide the bill up in separate component parts so that the measures can be debated on their separate merits.

The government has introduced a very complex web of legislative amendments to the statutes of Canada that are unrelated and disconnected, all in one single bill, after having promised to end omnibus bills forever. The government also gave you, Mr. Speaker, the power to end those omnibus bills for them. I described how you can use that power and why it would be appropriate to do so in this particular case.

Let me say, on behalf of the official opposition, that while we are concerned that the government has broken its promise to end all omnibus bills, we are not particularly troubled by the fact that some of these measures are being voted on together.

It is your power to divide them up, but it is not necessarily of substantive importance to us that all of them be divided up, if the Speaker were to find that it would be in the interest of efficiency for them to be voted on and debated together. Some of these measures would not be troublesome to marry into one such vote and one such debate, except one. That one is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It is particularly important, and its quiet and surreptitious inclusion in this bill is particularly concerning for multiple reasons.

First, in less than half a year, the amount the government wants to spend on this initiative has gone up by almost 100%. Originally it was $250 million; now it is almost half a billion dollars. That is an eye-popping increase in an expense for a new initiative on which no Canadian government has ever spent money in the past. Less than a year ago, the Government of Canada was committed to spending zero on this initiative. Then it was $250 million, and now, quietly, that amount has been raised to half a billion dollars.

The second reason why this is particularly objectionable to the official opposition is this. The government is behind on all of its commitments to build infrastructure in Canada. Now it is proposing to spend Canadian tax dollars to build infrastructure in another continent. In fact, the legislation that the government proposes is explicit, that the purpose is to build infrastructure in a different continent than our own.

Let me read directly from the bill that the government tabled. It states:

The purpose of the Bank shall be to: (i) foster sustainable economic development, create wealth and improve infrastructure connectivity in Asia by investing in infrastructure and other productive sectors;

It then defines Asia not to include Canada, it goes without saying, which means that this half billion dollars will be paid by Canadians but will not be spent to their benefit. This very unusual use of infrastructure money is worthy of some debate on the floor of this House of Commons, particularly given the fact that, prior to even implementing the initiative, it is almost 100% over budget.

Therefore, we call upon you to exercise the legitimate authorities vested in you by the Standing Orders, in particular Standing Orders 69.1(1) and 69.1(2), to divide the Asian infrastructure bank from the rest of the budget implementation act, so that Canadians can witness a debate in this chamber on the merits of sending a half a billion dollars to build infrastructure in Asia, and on the merits of giving loans and loan guarantees to extremely wealthy titans of finance on the world stage, all at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

So far, the House has had no stand-alone debate on this massive new and unprecedented expenditure. The government seems to want to keep it that way by burying this measure at the back of a very large omnibus bill, making no mention of it either in the minister's original speech in the House of Commons or in subsequent ministerial declarations that we have been able to find in the Hansard record. It is clear that the government did not want this measure to even be noticed. That is why it was buried, almost like a secret, at the back of the bill.

You now have the authority to remedy that problem, to separate out this section, and allow Canadians to debate this half-billion dollar expenditure on the floor of the House of Commons and at committee, and then to exercise the will of all of our constituents by voting on it here in this chamber and then later in the other place.

Therefore, we call upon you, Speaker, to exercise the powers vested in you in the Standing Orders to uphold the principle of no taxation without representation. That is, Canadians must have the ability to rely on Parliament to approve every expenditure that the government taxes fund, independently and separately from other matters, and to instill a sense of integrity in the budget process so that all Canadians can have confidence in how their money is spent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for his intervention. We will take it under advisement.

We have another intervention on this. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I listened with great interest to the hon. member from Carleton.

The NDP is also concerned about the abusive use of omnibus bills that we have been seeing from this government over the past two years, despite the promises that it made. As a result, we have an interest in speaking to this point of order. I simply want to tell you that we will do so as soon as possible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I would like to thank the members for their comments. We will take what they said under advisement and come back to this issue at a later date.

Office of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two copies of the 2016-17 annual report of the Office of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.

Freedom of Religion

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition calling upon Parliament to permit Christians to exercise their religious beliefs and conscience rights, both in their private and public acts, without coercion, restraint, or discrimination, by amending section 241 of the Criminal Code, and to enact a policy to provide a review of any new legislation that may be brought forward by the government to ensure it does not impinge upon the religious rights of Christians, in accordance with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1125 to 1128, 1133, 1134, 1144, and 1148.

Question No. 1125

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

With regard to the government’s plan to legalize marijuana: (a) will it be a violation of the Criminal Code for 18 or 19 year old students to bring marijuana to high school; and (b) what specific measures is the government taking to prevent the usage of marijuana by high school students?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Government of Canada’s position is clear: youth should not have any amount of cannabis. Under Bill C-45, there would be no legal means for a young person under 18 years of age to obtain recreational cannabis. C-45 would also, for the first time, make it a criminal offence to sell cannabis to a minor and create significant penalties for those who engage youth in related offences.

As such, if a person is convicted of selling or distributing cannabis or possessing it for the purpose of sale or distribution, in or near a school, on or near school grounds, or in or near any other public place usually frequented by young persons under 18 years of age, such would be an aggravating factor that the court must consider upon sentencing of the individual.

Furthermore, under the proposed cannabis act, provinces and territories, under their own authorities, would be able to set additional restrictions and local requirements related to cannabis. Additionally, school boards would continue to have the ability to set their own policies in relation to the possession of cannabis on school grounds.

With regard to part (b), protecting the health and safety of Canadians is a top priority for our government. This commitment recognizes that the current approach to cannabis is not working. In 2015, the highest use of cannabis in Canada was among youth, 21%, and young adults, 30%.

The proposed cannabis act contains a number of specific provisions designed to help keep cannabis out of the hands of children.

The cannabis act would establish serious criminal penalties with maximum sentences of 14 years in jail for those who sell or provide cannabis to young persons under the age of 18 years, and new offences and strict penalties for those who exploit youth to commit a cannabis offence. The provinces and territories would have the flexibility to raise the minimum age should they wish to do so.

The law would prohibit advertising, sponsorships, endorsements, or other forms of promotion that might encourage young people to use cannabis, and serious penalties for those who break the law, especially those who advertise to youth. The cannabis act, like the Tobacco Act, would also prohibit any products, promotion, packaging, or labelling that could be appealing to youth. The government would moreover be allowed to make regulations that would require such things as childproof packaging and a universal THC symbol.

Penalties for violating these prohibitions would include a fine of up to $5 million or three years in jail or both The government has been regularly engaging with provinces and territories to encourage them to create administrative offences, a ticketing regime, to prohibit youth from possessing any amount of cannabis, similar to what is now done for alcohol and tobacco. This approach would provide police with the authority to seize cannabis from youth with small amounts.

In addition, the government is undertaking a broad public education campaign to inform Canadians of all ages about the new proposed legislation, including the penalties for providing cannabis to youth, and the risks involved with consuming cannabis. This public education campaign is focused on helping young Canadians make the best possible choices about their future and will help them to understand the risks and consequences of, for example, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. To that end, the government has committed, through budget 2017, $9.6 million to public education and awareness to inform Canadians, particularly young people, of the risks of cannabis use, as well as surveillance activities. The government will monitor patterns of and perceptions around cannabis use amongst Canadians, especially youth, on an annual basis through the Canadian Cannabis Survey to inform and refine public education and awareness activities and to mitigate the risks and harms of use. This public education and awareness campaign will be a continuing priority for the government.

Question No. 1126

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

With regard to lifetime non-disclosure orders for employees of the Privy Council Office, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many employees were subject to lifetime non-disclosure orders; (b) what are the titles of each employee subject to such an order; and (c) what is the maximum penalty for breaking the lifetime non-disclosure order?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2016, 79 employees of the Privy Council Office have been permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act. The maximum penalty for contravention of the act is no more than 14 years in prison. With regard to the titles of each employee subject to such an order, this information cannot be provided. In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and this information has been withheld on these grounds for security reasons.

Question No. 1127

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

With regard to government expenditures and payments for out of court legal settlements: (a) what is the total amount paid out between June 15, 2017, and July 15, 2017; (b) how many payments were made during the time period referred to in (a); and (c) what is the largest single payment made during the time period referred to in (a)?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this information is protected by settlement privilege.

Question No. 1128

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

With regard to the new citizenship guide from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada titled “Discover Canada”: (a) why were the warnings against female genital mutilation removed; (b) why were the warnings against honour killings removed; (c) what specific actions is the government taking to ensure that new Canadians are made aware that female genital mutilation and honour killings have no place in Canadian society; and (d) what is the title of the individual who made the decision to remove the warnings in (a) and (b) from the citizenship guide?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), there is no new citizenship study guide, therefore no content has been added or removed.

The citizenship study guide is being revised to produce a product that is balanced, accessible to all readers, and reflects Canada’s diversity. It will cover subject matter that would be included in the citizenship test that applicants take when they apply for citizenship, as outlined in the citizenship regulations.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is consulting a wide range of stakeholders over the next several months to ensure the revised content of the guide represents all Canadians, including women, indigenous peoples, LGBTQ2 individuals, minority populations, francophones, and Canadians with disabilities.

As consultations progress, the content of the guide continues to evolve to incorporate ongoing feedback. As such, given the new guide is still under development, the content to date should not be considered final or complete.

With regard to part (c), the revised citizenship study guide will highlight the importance of Canada’s democratic institutions and principles. It will emphasize the importance of obeying the law as a responsibility of citizenship and that gender-based violence is illegal. It will be representative of all Canadians and their rights, including women, minority populations, francophones, Canadians with disabilities, and indigenous peoples, as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

With regard to part (d), no such decisions have been made.

Question No. 1133

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

With regard to the proposed tax increases for small businesses announced by the Minister of Finance on July 18, 2017: (a) prior to the announcement, what consultations, if any, were done with the Canadian Medical Association regarding the proposed tax increases; (b) what studies has the government conducted on the impact of the tax increases on doctors, particularly in rural areas; (c) broken down by province, what is current estimated number of doctors per capita; and (d) broken down by province, what does the government anticipate will be the projected number of doctors per capita in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021, if the tax increases are implemented?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, when analyzing the tax system, the department relies on a range of approaches and information sources to develop an in-depth understanding of potential issues, including the statistical analysis of tax return data, the monitoring of the tax literature, and consultations with the Canada Revenue Agency, academics, tax professionals, and other stakeholders.

When the analysis identifies a need for action, the department develops options and assesses these options against a range of criteria, such as their impact on the fairness of the tax system, on economic efficiency, and on the ease of administration of the tax system.

This process was followed in the development of the three proposals that were unveiled on July 18, 2017. Draft legislation was also released for two of the proposals and stakeholders were invited to comment on the proposals and the draft legislation. Feedback was received from many Canadians, including small business owners, doctors, professionals, and farmers and fishers. The department consulted with the Canadian Medical Association prior to July 18 on tax planning strategies involving the multiplication of the small business deduction, which have interactions with the strategies addressed in the July 18 consultation paper.

On October 16, 2017, the Government announced that the small business tax rate would be reduced to 10% as of January 1, 2018, and then to 9% as of January 1, 2019. To support this tax reduction, the Government also announced that it would be moving forward with its plan to ensure that private corporations are not used to obtained unintended tax benefits.

The department does not prepare estimates of the number of physicians in Canada. Such information can be obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Medical Association.

Question No. 1134

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

With regard to the attendance by officials from the Department of Finance to the Liberal caucus retreat in Kelowna, British Columbia in September, 2017: (a) what information was presented to the Liberal caucus; (b) how many officials attended the retreat and what are their titles; and (c) what are all travel costs related to the retreat incurred by the Department of Finance, including (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and per diems, (iv) airfare, (v) other expenses?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, no officials from the Department of Finance attended the Liberal caucus retreat in Kelowna, British Columbia in September, 2017.

Question No. 1144

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

With regard to meetings and correspondence between the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, or his office and Dream Unlimited Corporation, formerly known as Dundee Developments, since November 5, 2015: (a) what are the details of all meetings including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) participants, (iv) topics or agenda items, (v) file number of any related briefing material and; and (b) what are the details of all correspondence including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) file number, (v) title, (vi) topic?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to meetings and correspondence between the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, or his office, and Dream Unlimited Corporation, formerly known as Dundee Developments, since November 5, 2015, Infrastructure Canada has nothing to report.

Question No. 1148

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

With regard to the consultations led by the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie on renewing Canada’s international assistance: (a) what is the total of expenses incurred for the consultations, including the breakdown by (i) cost of airfare, (ii) cost of food and beverages, (iii) cost of accommodations, (iv) cost of travel expenses, (v) cost of photos, (vi) details of each contract or expenditure, (vii) supplier, (viii) amount, (ix) contract details and length, (x) date, (xi) number of photos or images purchased, (xii) where the photos or images were used (internet, bulletin boards, etc.), (xiii) advertising campaign description, (xiv) contract file number; (b) what is the total of exempt political staff expenditures, broken down by (i) cost of airfare, (ii) cost of food and beverages, (iii) cost of accommodations; (c) what is the total number of consultations, broken down by (i) number of individuals, (ii) number of organizations, (iii) number of countries; (d) who was on the delegation, other than reporters and security personnel; (e) what was the title of each member of the delegation; (f) what were the contents of the Minister’s itinerary; (g) what are the details of each meeting attended by the Minister during this trip, including (i) date, (ii) summary or description, (iii) attendees, including the organizations and the list of their representatives, (iv) topics discussed, (v) location; and (h) what are the details of all agreements signed during this trip?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), and (g), no international assistance review, IAR, allocation was created by the department. Teams at headquarters and at missions abroad absorbed the consultation costs within their respective budgets.

GAC undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. GAC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

With regard to part (c), for details regarding the total number of completed consultations, please refer to the following link:

http://international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/what_we_heard-que_nous_entendu.aspx?lang=eng.

Following the 2016 international assistance review consultation process, the department published the “What we heard” report. This report can be found at the following link:

http://international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/what_we_heard-que_nous_entendu.aspx?lang=eng.