Debates of May 5th, 2017

The Environment

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, AECL delivers its mandate to a government-owned, contractor-operated model whereby the operation of its nuclear laboratories, including decommissioning and waste management work, is delivered by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

Under this model, AECL continues to own the land, facilities, assets, and liabilities, whereas the workforce, the licences, and all other aspects of running the site are part of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories' business. AECL today is a small crown corporation whose role is to oversee the contract with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

Softwood Lumber

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, Resolute Forest Products has confirmed what everyone was afraid of: there will be job losses in the forestry industry because of this conflict.

In my part of the country, in places like Chertsy, Saint-Michel-des-Saints, and Saint-Jean-de-Matha, my birthplace, everyone is worried. Today, the Prime Minister promised to support businesses and regions affected by the softwood lumber conflict.

Will the government honour the Prime Minister's commitment to Quebec's forestry communities and act quickly to support the forestry sector by providing loan guarantees?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, supporting the workers and communities that depend on forestry jobs is our top priority. Protecting forestry jobs means moving quickly to provide companies and communities with full access to existing loan guarantees and employment and economic diversification programs and expanding export markets while we fight these unfair tariffs on Canada's forestry industry.

We will continue to work with the provinces through our federal-provincial task force to examine additional measures and to address the needs of affected workers and communities.

Indigenous Affairs

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik uqaqti. Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

The broken nutrition north program continues to fail Nunavummiut. INAC released the “What we heard” report last week, which reiterates the many necessary changes that I and others have been advocating for years.

It is my understanding that there have been further consultations held over the last few days. My question is not about these consultations. It is not about any future meetings or consultations.

When can Nunavummiut expect the much-needed changes to the program to be made?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Nakurmiik, Madam Speaker. I want to recognize the tremendous work and input my colleague from Nunavut has had with regard to nutrition north.

As members know, we have been very engaged in consultations with those across the north. We know it is unacceptable that northerners are struggling to feed their families, and we have every intention of bringing forward a new program that will meet the needs of northerners.

That program review is currently online. We have engaged with 3,500 people and had submissions. We are hoping, very soon, to be able to launch a new program.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following public bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-224, an act respecting payments made under construction contracts.

Admissibility of Amendment to Motion Regarding Bill C-4

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I understand that you are taking under advisement the admissibility of the amendment, moved by the member for Carleton, to the government's motion regarding the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, so I would like to very briefly offer my argument in support of the admissibility of that amendment.

At page 532 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states, “A motion in amendment arises out of debate and is proposed either to modify the original motion in order to make it more acceptable to the House”. I believe that the amendment would do just that.

The Senate has amended Bill C-4 to uphold a fundamental principle of democracy, which is that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority. Why the government wanted to take this away in the first place is perplexing, since it is proposing secret ballot elections in House committees.

At page 533 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states, “An amendment is out of order...if it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion.” Madam Speaker, I believe this may be the reason for your deliberations on the matter.

Would the defeat of the main motion to the Senate amendment made to Bill C-4 have the same effect as voting for the amendment proposed by my colleague? I believe that the answer is clearly no. If the government's motion were to be defeated, I would argue that nothing would happen. The government would need to come back with an alternative motion with a different proposition. However, if my colleague's amendment were to be adopted, both the House and the Senate will have adopted Bill C-4 in an identical form, and it would move to eventually receiving royal assent as amended.

As the Journals of June 6, 1923, at page 437, state, the Speaker ruled that an amendment to alter the main question by submitting a proposition with the opposite conclusion is not an “expanded negative” and may be moved.

This amendment indeed offers the opposite conclusion: that is, to accept the amendment made by the Senate that supports democracy. The government's motion rejects this democratic principle. Voting for or against the government's motion would have a different outcome than would voting for my colleague's amendment. Therefore, I ask that you, Madam Speaker, accept the amendment and allow this House to express its views on preserving a fundamental principle of democracy, which is that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I thank the opposition House leader for the additional comments. I will take them under advisement as I continue to deliberate on this, and I will be back before the House with a response as soon as I can, which should be shortly.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Government Response to Petitions

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

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

Indigenous Affairs

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to table from Albertans.

The first is a petition from Edmontonians calling on the government to comply with the historic Human Rights Tribunal ruling to fund systemic shortfalls in first nations child welfare and to end systemic discrimination against first nations children.

Genetically Modified Food

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from people across Alberta calling on the government to introduce mandatory labelling of products containing ingredients that are genetically modified and to undertake more balanced approvals for the use of GMOs.

Canada Post

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, third is a petition from over 900 Albertans from many Alberta rural communities, from Cold Lake to Vegreville and Wetaskiwin to Wainwright, asking the government to reverse the cuts to Canada Post services and to consider innovation, including postal banking.

The final petition is from Albertans calling on the government to instruct Canada Post to halt plans to downsize and downgrade public post offices and to instruct Canada Post to consult the public in improving the Canadian Postal Service Charter to develop better processes to change retail and delivery services.

Impaired Driving

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present three petitions in the House today.

The first petition highlights that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was tragically killed by a drunk driver, a person who foolishly chose to drive while impaired. Kassandra's family is devastated. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians whose loved ones were killed by impaired drivers. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They have provided a letter from the Prime Minister saying that he would support legislation similar to the last Parliament's. The petitioners are calling on this Parliament to keep those promises of the Prime Minister and to pass legislation to toughen up our impaired driving laws.

Sex Selection

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

Madam Speaker, the second petition I am honoured to present regards sex selection. It highlights the fact that ultrasounds are being used to determine the sex of a child, and if it is a girl, the pregnancy is ended. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians say that it is abhorrent and should not be happening, and they are calling on the House to condemn that practice.

Freedom of Conscience

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

Madam Speaker, the last petition is about conscience protection. In Ontario, physicians are being forced to do medical procedures against their consciences. The petitioners are saying that this should not be happening in Canada and that we need to change the laws in Canada and make sure that the conscience rights of all Canadians, including physicians and health care professionals, are being protected.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 924, 929 to 932, and 936.

Question No. 924

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

With regard to the Canada 150 Fund administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) how many applications (i) were successful and awarded funding under this program, (ii) were rejected; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) corresponding file and reference number, (iv) recipient, (v) amount, (vi) project description, (vii) date of award; and (c) with respect to rejected applications, what was the location and value of each proposal, broken down by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) corresponding file and reference number, (iv) reason for rejection?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the information in the requested format is not readily accessible in the Department of Canadian Heritage’s financial systems. Extensive manual research would be necessary to provide a comprehensive response. This operation cannot be completed within the allotted time frame. However, grants and contributions awarded by PCH, Canadian Heritage, since April 1, 2015, are available on the departmental proactive disclosure website at: http://canada.pch.gc.ca/ eng/1453476384672/1453476482298.

With regard to (c), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. The requested information has been withheld on the grounds that the information is considered sensitive third party information.

Question No. 929

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

With regard to the “Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons” discussion paper, published by the Government House Leader on March 10, 2017: (a) why was it not laid upon the Table of the House of Commons prior to being published; (b) were any parliamentarians or political parties consulted in the preparation of the discussion paper and, if so, (i) who was consulted, (ii) when were they consulted; (c) were any Clerks at the Table or Procedural Services staff from the House of Commons consulted in the preparation of the discussion paper and, if so, (i) who was consulted, (ii) when were they consulted; and (d) were any academics, experts, or any other outside advisors consulted in the preparation of the discussion paper and, if so, (i) who was consulted, (ii) when were they consulted, (iii) were they paid in relation to the consultation?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the discussion paper entitled “Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons”, the government House leader published the discussion paper on the Government of Canada website to foster discussion with parliamentarians and all Canadians on ways to modernize the House and make it a 21st century workplace.

The paper was prepared in the office of the government House leader and the public engagement process followed the public release of the paper.

Question No. 930

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

With regard to the “Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons” discussion paper, published by the Government House Leader on March 10, 2017: (a) how many employees of the Privy Council Office, and any other departments, were involved in (i) preparing and writing the discussion paper, (ii) editing and publishing it; (b) with respect to the answers in (a), what are the titles, occupational groups and levels of the employees involved; (c) how many contractors of the Government House Leader’s Office, Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, and any other departments, were involved in (i) preparing and writing the discussion paper, (ii) editing and publishing it; and (d) with respect to the answers in (c), (i) what are the titles of the contractors, (ii) what services were contracted, (iii) what is the value of the services contracted, (iv) how much were they paid for their services?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the discussion paper entitled Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the government House leader’s discussion paper was prepared by the office of the government House leader, the GHL. The paper and accompanying news release were posted on the GHL’s website at www.canada.ca/en /leader-government-house-commons.html by the Privy Council Office in accordance with the directive on the management of communications.

Question No. 931

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

With regard to the “Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons” discussion paper, published by the Government House Leader on March 10, 2017: (a) what reports, texts, treatises, or other published authorities, were reviewed in respect of the preparation of the discussion paper; (b) which parliaments and legislatures’ rules or standing orders were reviewed in respect of the preparation of the discussion paper; (c) with respect to the reference to written questions being divided, pursuant to Standing Order 39(2), what are the last five occasions when that authority was used, according to the government’s records; and (d) was any research undertaken with respect to the preparation of the discussion paper?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the following sources were consulted in the preparation of the discussion paper: from the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, SMIP, September 2002 to November 2003, its fifth report, on taking of divisions by electronic means, presented to the House on Thursday, June 12, 2003; its fourth report, presenting recommendations on the modernization and improvement of the procedures of the House of Commons, concurred in by the House on Thursday, September 18, 2003; and its third report, regarding private members’ business and recommending the implementation of the first report as adopted by the House on February 20, 2003 and concurred in by the House on Monday, March 17, 2003; from the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, its third report; from the U.K.’s Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons’ first report, found at https://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmmodern/589/58902.htm, of April 2, 2001, session 2000-2001, “Programming of Legislation” , HC 382, and second report, found at https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa /cm200001/cmselect/cmmodern/382/38202.htm, of September 5, 2002, session 2001-2002, “Modernization of the House of Commons: A Reform Programme”, HC 1168 also at https://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa /cm200102/cmselect/cmmodern/1168/1168.pdf and https://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa /cm200809/cmselect/cmrefhoc/1117/1117.pdf; from the U.K.’s House of Commons Procedure Committee, found at https://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa cm201314/cmselect/cmproced/767/767.pdf, December 5, 2013, the third report of session 2013-2014, “Programming”, HC 767; the sixth report, found at https://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/ cm201314/cmselect/cmproced/1220/1220.pdf, April 7, 2014, “Programming: proposal for a trial of new arrangements for tabling of amendments to bills at report stage”, HC 1120; and fourth report, found at https://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/ cm201516/cmselect/cmproced/823/823.pdf, May 5, 2016, of session 2015-2016, “Programming: evaluation of the trial of new arrangements for tabling amendments”, HC 823.

With regard to (b), reviews of procedures and practices of the following legislatures were reviewed in the preparation of the discussion paper: British House of Commons, Swedish Parliament, Scottish Parliament, National Assembly of Wales, New Zealand Parliament, Parliament of Ireland, Parliament of Australia, U.S. House of Representatives, and all provincial and territorial legislatures.

With regard to (c), the authority to split a written question resides with the Speaker and is carried out by the Office of the Clerk of the House of Commons. Furthermore, the archives where such questions can be found are held by the Library of Parliament and are available for public consultation.

With regard to (d), yes. As outlined above, many sources were consulted in the preparation of the discussion paper. It was based upon best practices in provincial and international legislatures.

Question No. 932

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

With regard to the government’s plan to mandate plain packaging for cigarettes: what are the details of any memorandums or briefing notes on plain packaging since November 4, 2015, including (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number?