Debates of May 10th, 2017

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #269

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Women; the hon. member for Essex, International Trade; and the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, Multiculturalism.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to speak on this important concurrence motion in the House.

Let me begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the member for Langley—Aldergrove for raising this concurrence motion. He is a strong member of the House, and he is our critic for seniors as well. That is one area where we know that the Liberal government is failing Canadians, and that is in its respect for seniors. In fact, the Prime Minister has not even named a minister responsible for seniors. Let that sink in for just a minute. The government and the Prime Minister have failed seniors, the fastest growing segment of our population. They have not seen fit to appoint a minister responsible for seniors.

On this side of the House, I am proud have colleagues like the member for Langley—Aldergrove and the former minister responsible for seniors, the member for Richmond Centre, who has done so much in promoting seniors, and their contributions to Canadian society.

Before I get into the heart of my comments, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, for his eagerness as well to speak to this concurrence motion. I know he has a lot to say on this important report, and I am sure as the debate goes on the House will see fit to provide him with that opportunity to speak on this important issue.

The matter before the House is the concurrence motion on the committee's report. This is the fifth report tabled by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities titled “Exploring the Impact of Recent Changes to Employment Insurance and Ways to Improve Access to the Program”.

Our former Conservative government undertook changes to the employment insurance program in 2013. I was not a member of the House at that time, but I experienced being an assistant in a member of Parliament's office, and in the last year and a half since I was elected, working with the employment insurance program through my office and assisting constituents who, through no fault of their own, ran into challenges with the employment insurance program.

I personally have paid into the employment insurance program for as long as I have had paid employment. I have never collected from the program, and most Canadians would prefer not to ever have to collect from the program. Nonetheless, working Canadians pay into the program. In our current position as parliamentarians we are exempt from the employment insurance program which is one of those interesting quirks of the employment insurance system.

I often come across Canadians through my work as a parliamentarian and my past work as an assistant of people running into challenges with the employment insurance program. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to ensure that we serve and help them in every way we can. That is what we undertook in 2013 with those changes. We tried to make it more responsive, more available for Canadians to find a job and get off employment insurance. The goal of anyone who receives regular benefits is to return to work and find meaningful employment.

I should note as well that regular benefits are not the only form of employment insurance. Maternity and parental benefits, which my wife has made use of, provides flexibility for families in making decisions on the birth of a child. There are compassionate care benefits which is one of the most important and lasting benefits that our former government brought into the program during our time in government. It allows someone caring for a loved one to have the ability to take time off work and receive employment insurance benefits for a period of time.

At the end of the day, we need to make sure that when we are dealing with employment insurance, it is responsive, equitable, and fair, and that it allows Canadians to find employment, perhaps even to find the skills they need to find new employment. In my riding of Perth—Wellington, I am proud to have a beautiful riding, and a beautiful area with many large, small, and medium-sized employers. One of the challenges we find in our riding is actually a skills mismatch. We have a high availability of jobs. We have a high number of jobs available, but not necessarily the skills to link with those jobs, both in terms of small businesses, but also larger employers as well. Therefore, one of the things we need to be cognizant of as a Parliament is ensuring that we have the skills training available to help Canadians meet the challenges of 21st century jobs.

One area in particular that I find in my riding where that skills mismatch is occurring is welding. We have a large number of welding positions that have gone unfilled because people do not have the training for that particular job. These are relatively high paying jobs, but people simply do not have the training to fill those positions. The way in which we can fill some of these skills shortages is one area that, going forward, we ought to look at as a Parliament. I do not think it is a surprise to anyone in this House that there could be as many as one million unfilled skilled labour jobs going forward in this country. That is a real detriment to our economy, and to the Canadian economy as a whole if we are not able to fill jobs that need to be filled.

On the specific report that has been tabled, and that we are debating concurrence on, there are some concerns. That is why the members of our party, the official opposition, saw fit to table a dissenting report. I know that our colleagues, the New Democrats, tabled a supplementary report as well, because there are opportunities that they felt as well that ought to be explored. Among the many concerns that our official opposition members had with the report were some of the things that were left out, some of the things that just simply were not there.

The most important part we have to remember is why we introduced the 2013 reforms. We introduced them to encourage, and make it easier for unemployed individuals to return to work, to help them, and provide them with the tools to find a job. Anyone who is receiving benefits through employment insurance truly wants to be able to find a suitable job prospect. In fact, it was mentioned in the committee by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. It said, “We believe that a system that is too generous can create disincentives for people to seek or accept work when they otherwise might do so.” We support its position. Certainly, that is something we as Conservatives want to encourage. We want to see a way in which we can encourage people to get back to work and find a job.

One of the other concerns we had with this report was that there were few people who actually lost benefits based on changes in the new definitions in 2013 that were brought in. I would like to read one quote. Hans Marotte, a representative for the Inter-Provincial EI Working Group said, “It is true that I didn't handle a great many cases stemming from the Conservative reform.” There was not much of a change. It is important to highlight the fact it was a very small number of people who were affected by this change. In fact, I would dare say more people were helped by these changes in the benefits and the pilot projects that were introduced at that time when this was changed. This is an absolutely important thing that we need to recognize.

Finally, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #270

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion lost.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My committee business prevented me from getting here on time. It is not a question of privilege, it is just that I was not able to vote because the committee is preparing for the Auditor General's report next week. If I had been here, though, I would have voted to adjourn, because even today, we have noticed we have a Prime Minister—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member is getting into debate, as he knows.

I have notice of a question of privilege.

Proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to seek your ruling on what I believe to be a contempt of this House that constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. Should you rule in my favour, I would be prepared to move the usual appropriate motion. This relates to Bill C-44, the government's omnibus budget implementation act, that is currently making its way through the legislative process of this House and which will be followed by the often lengthy legislative process in the other place.

For Canadians watching at home, last night the House passed Bill C-44 at second reading, which is the second stage of a five-stage process that must be completed even before the bill heads to the Senate for study. The bill still needs to be studied at a House committee, reported back to this House, concurred in at report stage, and then, of course, adopted at third reading.

The summary of Bill C-44 is very informative. I will not read the whole thing, because even the summary of this massive omnibus bill is multiple pages in length, but the portion of the bill that I would like to focus on today is contained in part 4, “Various Measures”. The summary states:

Division 18 of Part 4 enacts the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, which establishes the Canada Infrastructure Bank as a Crown corporation. The Bank’s purpose is to invest in, and seek to attract private sector and institutional investment to, revenue-generating infrastructure projects. The Act also provides for, among other things, the powers and functions of the Bank, its governance framework and its financial management and control, allows for the appointment of a designated Minister, and provides that the Minister of Finance may pay to the Bank up to $35 billion and approve loan guarantees. Finally, this Division makes consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act.

The idea that Canada's public infrastructure should be used as a tool to financially enrich private investors rather than as a way to enrich the lives of middle-class Canadians and those struggling to join it is bad enough, but the government has now gone beyond making bad policy decisions. It is actually discounting the need of this House to pass legislation before it rolls out appointments for this institution.

I would like to read from a Canadian Press news story dated May 8, 2017, with respect to the new infrastructure agency. After noting that it has been decided to locate this agency in Toronto, it states:

The Liberals are also starting a search to find a chair for the agency’s board of directors, the directors themselves and the chief executive officer. Anyone is able to apply for one of the appointments, but there are few people internationally with the expertise and job experience for the positions.

I reviewed the government's appointment website, and it advertises these appointments with a closing date of May 23 of this year. The government expects the agency to be up and running by the end of the year.

The enabling legislation has not been passed in this House—

[Brian Masse]

Nor the Senate.

[Murray Ranking]

—nor the Senate, and it certainly has not come into force.

Speaker Milliken made a ruling on a similar case raised by the opposition under the Liberal minority government of 2005. I will highlight some of the similarities and differences now as regards his ruling and the present situation.

In 2005, the House defeated a pair of bills that would enshrine the separation of one department into two. The opposition defeated those bills, and yet the Liberals plowed ahead with the change, citing their legal ability to do so under an order in council enacted under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act.

In his ruling on this matter, Speaker Milliken stated:

In the opinion of the Chair, the authority to begin the process of separating the departments rests on the series of orders in council adopted December 12, 2003 pursuant to existing statutory authorities granted to the government by Parliament. That authority is set out in the law and it is not for me to judge whether it is sufficient in this case.

In today's example, no order in council exists for the infrastructure bank of Canada to be established, at least according to a thorough search conducted of the government's order in council database.

In his ruling, Mr. Speaker Milliken also cited the authoritative text Organizing to Govern, Volume 1, by the Hon. Gordon Osbaldeston, former clerk of the Privy Council.

He explains, as follows, on page 24:

For a variety of reasons—ministerial preference, better organization fit, or other reasons...governments may decide to rearrange their organizations. The chief legislative tool for accomplishing this type of organizational change is the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. Orders in council pursuant to this act are used principally for two purposes....

On page 25, he goes on to say:

Strictly speaking, these tools are meant only to reorganize existing functions of government for which Parliament has voted funds—any new activities must be authorized by Parliament.

That is what Speaker Milliken cited. These tools are meant only to reorganize existing functions of government for which Parliament has voted funds. All new activities must be authorized by Parliament. Therefore, a reorganization, like the proposed creation of the Canada infrastructure bank, must follow a vote in Parliament to appropriate the funds necessary, and its activities are authorized by Parliament only after Parliament has voted on a bill to authorize these new activities.

It seems clear to me that the bill that creates the bank and its governance structure, which has passed only two of five stages in this House and has not even been studied in the other place, is the authorization by Parliament that is necessary before action can be taken to implement it. The fact that these actions are being taken before the bill receives royal assent is a contempt of the House and the work we do in reviewing, amending, and voting.

Mr. Speaker, you will know very well that House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 84, states:

Contempts may vary greatly in their gravity; matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that taking for granted that the House and Senate will merely rubber stamp a 300-page-plus omnibus bill that creates this bank would land on the much more severe end of that spectrum, constituting a “grave attack” against the authority of Parliament. More to the point, it may very well be illegal.

As you are also aware, Mr. Speaker, contempt of this sort remains a question of privilege, and for the benefit of parliamentary procedure keeners at home or in the gallery, I will cite the same procedural tome, at page 82, where it states:

Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House....

In my view, there is no question that the government's action with regard to the Canada infrastructure bank constitutes exactly that kind of offence against this House's authority.

I am aware of the fact that the Interpretation Act authorizes certain things to be done and regulations made pursuant to an act that is not yet in force. According to the Library of Parliament, in publication PRB0903, of May 15, 2009, normally the relevant provision of the Interpretation Act is limited to authorizing matters effective on an act's commencement. It states:

...these preliminary powers can be exercised only pursuant to an Act, and they cannot be exercised in relation to powers that could be granted by a bill that is still before Parliament.

The appointment of the first and current Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is an example cited, which I will not take the time with today, but is an illustration of the difference.

I will not take up any more time of the House except to say, in conclusion, that the kind of arrogance and presumption the government is demonstrating with its behaviour here should be a concern to all members of the House, and indeed, all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your review of the matter and ruling on this case.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege raised by our colleague from Victoria, the NDP House leader. As one of those parliamentary keeners, I suppose I would like to add a few points on this important question of privilege.

On October 10, 1989, Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding misrepresentation of Parliament's role in government communication respecting the proposed goods and services tax. The government was advertising details of the tax as if Parliament had already adopted it. While the Speaker did not rule the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at the time, he did say:

However, I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.... we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.

In the Ontario legislature, Mr. Speaker Stockwell dealt with a question of privilege concerning a pamphlet issued by the minister of municipal affairs and housing regarding the government's program for reforming municipal government in metropolitan Toronto. On January 22, 1997, Mr. Speaker Stockwell ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, since the pamphlet gave the impression that passage of required legislation was not necessary.

On November 6, 1997, on a similar matter, the Speaker ruled:

...the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department...are of some concern....

This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices....

I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

The Prime Minister and the government's dismissive view of this Parliament should not and ought not be tolerated. If he is going to try to change the rules to suit himself, to attempt to circumvent the entire legislative process and give the impression that this Parliament has no role to play in the plans of the government to establish an infrastructure bank, that is wrong.

If he wants to establish his own version of Prime Minister's question period every Wednesday but then does not actually answer the questions, that is wrong.

He promises that he will not use omnibus bills, yet Bill C-44 is brought in and rammed in.

Mr. Speaker, reflecting on the citations I have raised and those raised by my colleague from Victoria, you ought to find that a prima facie question of privilege does exist in this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, the temptation is to provide some thoughts at this point. However, I think it is best if I reserve and get back to you with a more articulated position so that members opposite will appreciate the fact that we have a Prime Minister, and a government, that are true parliamentarians and do respect the rules.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Victoria for raising this question and the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for his comments, and I will look forward to the comments of the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader or someone else from the government side. I will take the matter under advisement and return to the House in due course.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting afternoon, to say the very least--