House of Commons Hansard #347 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Ms. Isabel Plá, Minister of Women and Gender Equality of the Republic of Chile.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I would also like to draw to the attention of the hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Heath MacDonald, Minister of Finance for the Province of Prince Edward Island.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, as you know, during question period you cut off an answer by the NDP vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
I am really hoping that you can clarify that decision, since you and every Speaker before you have ruled that the Speaker has no ability to judge the quality or the content of answers given during question period.
In fact, Bosc and Gagnon tells us, at page 516 that:
The Speaker ensures that replies adhere to the standards of order, decorum and parliamentary language, but is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions.
The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford was responding and telling us about some of the very important work being done at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
This is just a question of ours. Is it a double-standard that we see, or is the House now to understand that today's precedent will be applied to answers by the government side of the House from now on? We are hoping that it is the latter.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the point of order by my colleague.
I have now been the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food since the beginning of this year. Before I was cut off, I can quite confidently say that the answer I was giving could be backed up by witness testimony recorded in the evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
I would be more than happy to table that evidence for you, Mr. Speaker, to review. However, I can assure the House and you that the answer I was about to give before I was cut off was perfectly in line with the question by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
The very fact that you, Mr. Speaker, recognized her question allowed me to stand in this place, because the absence of the chair and the second vice-chair showed that I had legitimacy and the proper recognition to speak.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my answer was perfectly in line with the question.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point. I would draw your attention to note 93 on page 513 of Bosc and Gagnon, in which it is stated, referring to Speaker Milliken:
....it is not the role of the Speaker to judge the quality or content of the reply.
That applies specifically to questions asked of committee chairs or, in this case, vice-chairs of committees.
I would also draw your attention to a precedent in the House. On September 26, 2017, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets asked a question of the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and you, sir, allowed her to make an ad hominem attack on the member for Lethbridge.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order. Members should be careful about challenging the Chair.
The hon. member for Durham wishes to add something on this point of order?
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was going to reference that exchange with the vice-chair of the status of women committee.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. members for their interventions.
Let me just read, first of all, what it says at page 512 to 513 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:
Questions seeking information about the schedule and agenda of committees may be directed to Chairs of committees. Questions to the Ministry or to a committee Chair concerning the proceedings or work of a committee, including its order of reference, may not be raised. Thus, for example, a question would be disallowed if it dealt with a vote in committee, with the attendance or testimony of Members at a committee meeting, or with the content of a committee report.
I thank the members for their interventions and the arguments they have made, which I will consider. My impression at the time was that, although there was a fair bit of noise, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford had strayed from what is allowed by the rules that apply. My impression at the time was that he had left the question of the scheduled agenda of the committee to go on to other matters. However, I will review Hansard and the record in the event that I may have been mistaken about that.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, the question was regarding the mental health challenges study the agriculture committee is currently engaged in. It is ongoing, and the question was regarding future meetings. From my understanding of the schedule of that standing committee, of which I am the second vice-chair, we have at least two more meetings regarding this particular study.
I was referencing what had happened in the past, yes. However, do I expect more answers to fall in line with what we have heard in witness testimony? Absolutely. My answer was completely in recognition of those facts and what I expect to hear from witnesses in the future.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his clarification, and I will come back to the House on this matter.
The hon. member for Perth—Wellington is rising to ask the usual Thursday question.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to ask the leader of the government in the House of Commons what business she intends to call for the remainder of this week and what business she plans to call for next week.
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, tomorrow and next Tuesday, we will continue debate at second reading of Bill C-86, the second budget implementation act, 2018.
Next Monday shall be an opposition day.
On Wednesday, during routine proceedings, under ministerial statements, the Prime Minister will deliver a formal apology to the Jewish refugees of the MS St. Louis and its passengers.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege with regard to alcohol and the use of substances at this place on Parliament Hill. I wrote to you on January 29th, 2018. Specifically, I asked for your intervention at the Board of Internal Economy to address the use of alcohol on Parliament Hill.
There were four major components. I will not get into the full details, but they were to provide a more holistic approach and a more consistent approach to the use of alcohol on the Hill, similar to the Province of Ontario.
In a response to me, you referred me to my House leader and it being raised at the Board of Internal Economy. I would like to thank all the House leaders for doing that. It has been discussed, and there has been some work in that regard. However, we are members who do not have a House leader with the ability to do so.
Since that time, there have been several incidents on the Hill that show that there is some question with regard to activity and consistency with Ontario law and the use of alcohol on Parliament Hill.
I would ask that you consider this a point of privilege in your intervention at the Board of Internal Economy. I believe that recent events show that perhaps an investigation of security, which is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, would be appropriate at this particular juncture. I believe that this should be a safe workplace. I believe that the past practices of this place have required change, and it has not been easy to do so.
Therefore, I ask, as a point of privilege, for safety, my ability to carry out my duties, and the security of this place, that you review the role of the Speaker with regard to the use of alcohol and the issues I identified in my previous letter to you and that you report back to this chamber. Again, there are members who do not have a House leader.
I appreciate your attempts to deal with this issue. There is no doubt that the public and people who use this space do not need to be impeded, let alone members of Parliament, with regard to some of the things that take place that are inconsistent with provincial laws and certainly inconsistent with being a good place to work.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for his submission. I will consider the matter and return to the House in due course.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I have the honour to lay upon the table the “House of Commons Report to Canadians 2018”.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders
Dan Vandal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in today's debate. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on traditional Algonquin territory.
Our government is committed to renewing the relationship with indigenous peoples based on the principles of the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.
We are also committed to growing the middle class by creating opportunities for people that will help them join it. Everyone knows that indigenous peoples have long been faced with some of the most severe economic disadvantages in this country.
This problem has deep roots in the history of colonialism, including in strict measures written into legislation like the Indian Act. Let me give an example. Ed Metatawabin is a residential school survivor from Fort Albany First Nation who attended St. Anne's residential school and became a chief in his community. After he became chief, he started a small sawmill business so that people in his community would have work and the sense of purpose that accompanies work. However, because it was illegal under the Indian Act for him to own the land, he could not get insurance on his business, so he had to keep his business small to minimize any potential liabilities. Any investment he made was a personal risk to him and his family. A lot of Canadians do not understand this. They do not understand the daily barriers first nations people face on reserve.
Today we have an opportunity to rectify some of these measures and to unlock economic growth for indigenous peoples. We have a chance to create an environment that supports self-determination. This will not only be good for indigenous peoples, it will be good for Canada.
The National Indigenous Economic Development Board has estimated that engaging indigenous people in the economy at the same rate as non-indigenous people would boost Canada's GDP by 1.5% and create almost $28 billion in economic growth. Several others have suggested that the number is actually much higher.
Today we are seeing a wellspring of indigenous-led innovation and sound business practices. There are now over 40,000 indigenous-led small and medium-size businesses in Canada. That is why I say we need to build on these successes. Let us remove barriers to further success and self-determination. That is the objective of the new legislative measures set out in the proposed budget implementation act.
I want to clarify that these amendments are not top-down solutions. We developed them in consultation with our first nations partners and by asking for their contribution and their participation from the outset.
The Government of Canada is proposing amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act that would provide greater clarity around language, streamline organizational operational issues, and expand access to the program to complement new budget 2018 funding of $50 million over five years and $11 million per year ongoing. The act is opt-in and enables first nations to implement taxation and financial management systems.
First nations are supported by three fiscal institutions operating under the act: the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Finance Authority, and the First Nations Financial Management Board. These institutions build capacity among first nations and bring them together to access long-term financing, and it has been a very effective approach.
For example, the First Nations Finance Authority fifth debenture of $138 million, issued in September 2018, brought its total bond issuances to $514 million. This bond is being used by first nations across the country to invest in community infrastructure and economic development, such as the new school for Siksika Nation, a power project in Chehalis, and housing for Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation.
The new budget 2018 investments would enable the fiscal institutions to work with nearly twice as many first nations to develop their capacity and have greater access to capital. To date, 239 first nations are scheduled in the act.
Access to funding is one thing, but we can all agree that access to the land is critical for economic empowerment. The Government of Canada is proposing $143 million in budget 2018 to strengthen the First Nation Land Management regime and support 50 additional first nations in becoming signatories to the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management over the next five years.
As well, the proposed amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act before us today would ratify changes to the framework agreement, changes that were co-developed with first nations. These fixes address voting thresholds and other administrative improvements that will better support first nations that are signatory members to develop their own land codes, or laws, to exit section 33 land-management-related provisions of the Indian Act. That’s one-third of the Indian Act.
The fixes will also eliminate federal oversight and enable first nations to “move at the speed of business” on investment and development opportunities.
For example, Stz’uminus First Nation, which has been operating under its own land code since 2014, has been able to create Oyster Bay Development—a 65 acre, multi-million dollar site that includes a hotel and a commercial area along the TransCanada Highway—without any need for Indian Act approvals.
Another mechanism to improve the relationship between Canada and first nations and move toward enduring reconciliation is the return of land that is owed to first nations under historical treaties and specific claim settlement agreements. With additions to reserves, ATRs, first nations can also add land to an existing reserve land base or create new reserves for the use and benefit of their members for community and economic development.
The Government of Canada is proposing this legislation to streamline the ATR process, building on the benefits of legislation that is currently only available to some first nations in the prairie provinces. These changes are long overdue. They are part of a number of actions the government committed to take when it adopted a new ATR policy directive in 2016, after several years of engagement and joint work with first nation communities and organizations. The biggest proposed change is that ATRs would now be able to be approved by ministerial order rather than by Governor in Council, which would result in significantly more timely decisions.
The proposed legislation would also speed things up by letting first nations pre-designate land being added to a reserve, similar to zoning in a municipality, and begin to put in place arrangements, such as leases or permits, prior to the land being added, a vital requirement for investment opportunities. This would help create reserve lands that are ready for economic development.
ATRs support economic development opportunities, self-reliance and growth in first nation communities. For example, in September 2018, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation added 79 acres of land to its reserve. The land is currently home to a gas bar and a convenience store, with future plans for a restaurant, a hotel, commercial space and an outdoor stage.
Collectively, these amendments regarding finances and land support reconciliation with indigenous peoples would result in greater long-term benefits for Canada. I encourage all members to support them.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I noticed in the budget implementation act is infrastructure spending. One of the things I also noticed was that the infrastructure spending has not gone out yet. Coming from northern Alberta, when the government made the big announcement about infrastructure spending, we were definitely looking forward to having a bunch of roads re-paved or paved and roads to some of our communities built.
Could the hon. member comment on why it has taken so long to get that infrastructure money out?
Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, having been a city councillor for several years and a candidate in 2015, I can say that one of the policies that was most attractive to the city I come from, Winnipeg, and I imagine many rural areas, was the enhanced infrastructure spending our government was embarking on. Across the country, we are rebuilding cities, we are rebuilding rural areas, we are investing in rural municipalities. I cannot speak precisely to the situation where the hon. member resides, which I believe is northern Alberta, but I can say without a doubt that in Manitoba, in Winnipeg, the money has definitely flowed. Roads are being rebuilt. Water systems are being rebuilt. I think that some of the happiest constituents in Canada today are mayors, city councillors and rural aldermen.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, of course we are still going through this bill as it has many different divisions. Therefore, if the member cannot answer I would certainly understand.
Under division 17 of part 4, basically in order to better communicate Canada's international development efforts, it will be repeal the definition of official development assistance in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act and confer this power to be done through regulation. The Liberals are taking out the definition of one of the most important terms in that piece of legislation and simply allowing ministerial officials, through regulations, to then further define it. Does the member believe that puts this place, this House, in the driver's seat, or are he and his government simply deferring on such important matters as official development assistance to bureaucrats who will obfuscate and evade the proper scrutiny of this House?
Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, my speech was about indigenous issues, northern issues and first nations issues. Therefore, I will take the information under advisement and get back to the hon. member.