House of Commons Hansard #350 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to section 79.22 of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer entitled, “The Strategic Personnel Generation Model (SPGM) Version 1.0”.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 15 petitions.

Poverty Reduction ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Québec Québec

Liberal

Jean-Yves Duclos LiberalMinister of Families

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-87, An Act respecting the reduction of poverty.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Forum held in London, United Kingdom, from February 26 to March 1, 2018.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled “Bill C-391, An Act Respecting a National Strategy for the Repatriation of Aboriginal Cultural Property”. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

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

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

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

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

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 agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #927

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

Meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised raised on October 31, 2018, by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, concerning the meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association held on October 30, 2018.

I would like to thank the member for Perth—Wellington for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the members for Chilliwack—Hope, Durham, Cape Breton—Canso, Kitchener—Conestoga, Langley—Aldergrove, Prince Albert, Calgary Nose Hill, Mégantic—L'Érable, Brandon—Souris, Etobicoke-Centre, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Elmwood—Transcona and West Nova for their comments.

When raising the matter, the member for Perth—Wellington explained that during the meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association held on October 30, a point of order was raised about the validity of the meeting. He added that the chair of the association, who is the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ruled that the meeting had not been properly constituted and therefore adjourned the meeting. The member for Perth—Wellington alleged that one of the vice-chairs, the member for Etobicoke Centre, reconvened the group and held an illegitimate meeting during which a motion was passed to remove the chair and elect the presiding vice-chair as the new chair.

With the website of the association having been updated in consequence, the member for Perth—Wellington asked that, pursuant to Standing Order 151, the Speaker order the Clerk of the House to undo the changes made to the parliamentary records on the association's website and to advise the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill would remain the chair and the head of Canada's delegation at the 2018 session to be held in Halifax from November 16 to 19, 2018.

In addressing the matter again on November 5, he explained further in what ways he felt that the provisions of the association's constitution had been violated, including the lack of authority for vice-chairs to call meetings.

In his response, the member for Etobicoke Centre indicated that, as per our parliamentary customs and conventions, in his view, chairs of parliamentary associations are members of the governing party. Accordingly, he argued that, in deciding to become an opposition member, the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill should have resigned her position as chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. In addition, he believed that her decision to rule the meeting out of order contravened rules and procedures and, as a result, the resumption of the meeting, as well as the procedures followed during the resumed meeting, were legitimate.

Essentially, what I am being asked to do by the member for Perth—Wellington is to assume an authority as Speaker to regulate a matter internal to a parliamentary association. The only way to answer that is to understand the role of the Speaker and its inherent limitations, as well as the relationship of parliamentary associations to the House.

Let me begin by saying that I take great pride in the role played by Parliament as an active participant on the international scene and as a leader in parliamentary democracy. This notable work by our parliamentarians is achieved through various avenues, including our well respected parliamentary associations and interparliamentary groups.

Complementary to that is the Speaker’s role in parliamentary democracy, with respect to which House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 311:

…the Speaker is the representative or spokesperson for the House in its relations with authorities or persons outside Parliament.

Does this distinct role of the Speaker then intersect in such a way with Standing Order 151 as to grant the Speaker the authority being sought? That rule states:

The Clerk of the House is responsible for the safekeeping of all the papers and records of the House, and has the direction and control over all the officers and clerks employed in the offices, subject to such orders as the Clerk may, from time to time, receive from the Speaker or the House.

Specifically, does this translate, in this instance, to an authority over parliamentary association matters? Associations, unlike committees, are not “creatures” of the House. In fact, the Standing Orders fall just short of being silent about them, with only Standing Order 34(1) requiring them to report their activities to the House upon their return to Canada following a trip abroad.

Parliamentary committees, in contrast, are created by the House and empowered by its Standing Orders. Even then, as they are generally masters of their own proceedings, the Speaker does not normally reach into the business of committees unless and until a committee sees fit to report a matter to the House and there is a specific mechanism in the rules of the House for them to do just that. The fact that there is not a similar provision for parliamentary associations is telling. Some argued that being an honorary president of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, confers on the Speaker of the House an authority over parliamentary associations which allow, even obligate, me to rule on this matter. But does it?

As members well know, the scope of the Speaker’s ability to enforce and interpret the rules and practices of the House is confined to those deliberations defined as parliamentary proceedings, that is, those that are found to be what is truly necessary to the role of members as legislators. Erskine May’s 24th edition at pages 235 and 236 states:

The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term…is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity.... An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognized forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking.

The work of parliamentary associations, while important in many respects, falls outside this definition of a parliamentary proceeding. This imposes a distinct relationship between associations and the House, through the Speaker.

Speaker Parent pointed out in his April 23, 1998, ruling, found at page 6035 of the Debates, and I quote:

The creation of Canadian interparliamentary groups is governed by certain administrative bodies within the House of Commons and the Senate. ... Interparliamentary relations are carried on under the responsibility of Parliament. There are decision making processes governing their administration.

Specifically, these processes lie first and foremost with the Joint Interparliamentary Council, commonly referred to as JIC, as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy. The latter two not only created the JIC in 1995 but continue to be the bodies through which the JIC derives its authority. In practical terms, the Joint Interparliamentary Council receives its funding from both Houses but is the governing body empowered to determine all budgetary and administrative matters relating to parliamentary associations.

The meetings and activities of associations are framed by constitutions containing rules specific to each association, ones that typically specify the mandate of the association, its composition and its rules of procedure, amongst others. In no way is the House, or am I as its Speaker and servant, involved in the establishment or adjudication of these rules, even if they mirror or are inspired by certain rules of the House. This independence of associations from the House is reflected in the fact that the rules and practices governing each association are decided by their members.

It is clear to the Chair that the disputed matters relating to the October 30 meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association should be resolved in a forum other than the House. A general assembly of the association or, alternatively, a meeting of its executive committee, both that can be convened at the request of members, are such forums. Should these avenues fail to settle the matter, any recourse clearly falls under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy, and specifically the Joint Interparliamentary Council, the governing body which reports to the Board of Internal Economy.

Speaker Parent reminded members in the April 23, 1998, ruling referenced earlier, that the matter would be better raised in another forum. He said at page 6035 of the Debates:

My duty however is to confine myself to the jurisprudence which exists and governs the operation of privilege. Given the preoccupation over these matters, I would suggest that this particular issue must be handled through a different avenue, namely the Board of Internal Economy, which holds statutory responsibility for such matters.

It was made clear even then, that while interparliamentary relations are carried on under the responsibility of Parliament, certain decision-making bodies governing associations are in place, namely the Joint Interparliamentary Council and the Board of Internal Economy. That aside, it would be regrettable if this procedural and, some might say, political impasse was to injure in any way the ability of parliamentarians to pursue together their important role in promoting and defending the interests of our country abroad.

I thank all hon. members for their attention in this matter.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

10:55 a.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-86, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Carleton.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, today we rise of course as the government is shutting down debate on its 851-page omnibus budget bill.

This fall, the government released its financial statement, in which it revealed that it had received a $20-billion windfall that resulted from factors completely out of its control. One, the world and U.S. economies are roaring. Two, oil prices have gone up by more than 100%. Three, interest rates, which are not controlled by government, are at near record lows. Four, there has been a housing bubble in Vancouver and Toronto.

All of these factors are, first, out of the control of government, and second, here today and potentially gone tomorrow. In other words, the government cannot rely on them permanently in order to fund its spending, yet that is exactly what it did. It got $20 billion in new windfall revenue, and it blew every penny of that. Plus, the deficit was twice what the government promised it would be in the most recent fiscal year.

The government said it would run three small deficits of no more than $10 billion and then balance the budget in the year 2019. That is only a few months from now. The minister has never once said when he will balance the budget, not since the election, when he promised it would happen in 2019. Will he please rise now and tell us in what year the budget will be balanced?

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

11 a.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand before this House and talk about some of the things that our government has done over the last number of years. I am also looking forward to November 21, when I will be able to provide the fall economic statement and an update on the country's finances.

The good news we will be able to bring on November 21 is really a product of the work that we have done on behalf of Canadians for the last few years. We started out saying that we wanted to make sure we invested in the success of middle-class Canadians. That was critically important. We saw in the decade before that people were falling behind, that the previous government was not making the kinds of investments needed to ensure that our economy did well and that middle-class Canadians felt the benefits of that growth, so we started right in.

After getting into office, we lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. That was critically important. Then we moved forward with the Canada child benefit. Looking at 2019 versus 2015, the average middle-class family is going to be $2,000 better off. That is important for those families, because they can spend the money on the things they need to raise their children, but it is also important for our economy.

What did we see? We actually saw that people took that disposable income and put it back into the economy. What that led to was not a global economic change, a world change, but in fact a Canadian change, reflected most demonstrably in the fact that the Canadian economy grew at the fastest rate among G7 countries in 2017.

What does that mean for Canadians? That means we are in a better position, a more resilient position, to deal with what we see in the future. Most importantly, middle-class Canadian families across this country are better off, because they will have more money to spend on what matters to them. That is helping our economy.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if the minister is so proud of his 800-page bill, he would welcome expanded time to be able to discuss and debate it and give it the transparency it needs.

Women in Canada have been waiting 42 years since pay equity was promised by a previous Trudeau Liberal government, and finally we have pay equity legislation embedded within this 800-page bill. I was at the finance committee this morning, where a witness testified that this legislation means that women will have to go to court all over again. Other witnesses called the pay equity provisions unconstitutional. A further witness said that it offers less protection than existing provisions for part-time and temporary workers.

Given that testimony, why would we ever want to rush through passage of this vital bill? We have to get it right so that women are paid equally for work of equal value.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her advocacy in this regard.

We know that moving forward on legislation to ensure that women get paid equally for work of equal value is critically important. This is something we have been focused on since we came into office. Our government has been very focused on how we can ensure that outcomes for women are consistent with outcomes for men in this country. This has been an important and ongoing focus of our budget in 2018 and multiple measures.

The measure under question, the pay equity portion of the bill, is critically important. We know that women in our country are not paid at the same rate as men. In fact, for similar kinds of work, they are paid about 88.5 cents on the dollar of what a man earns. When we look at it more broadly, comparing women's pay with men's pay overall, it is about 68 cents on the dollar when we incorporate part-time work. We have made it clear that this is not acceptable, which is why we believe it is critical that we move forward with the pay equity legislation in federally regulated sectors, which we have included in this budget implementation act.

We are looking forward hopefully to seeing the member on the opposite side vote for this so that we can see this equity in future.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada sounded the alarm last week for all Canadians. Gone are the days of running deficits without a care in the world, because interest rates are rising and could rise even further over the next year.

We also know that investments are plummeting in Canada. Canadians prefer to invest in the United States. The government is reporting that Canadian investment in the U.S. is up by 65% while American investment in Canada has dropped by 52%. That is the current situation. This is why we need to have a full and thorough debate on the government's budget measures, but since it is limiting the time allowed for debate, my question is very simple. When will Canada return to a balanced budget?

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important issue.

It is important to attract investment in our economy. Looking at the current situation, we find that business investments have been increasing over the past year and a half. We need to make sure that continues. That is why it will be my great pleasure to introduce our fall economic statement on November 21. That will be a great opportunity to explain how we can continue to maintain a high level of investment in our economy.

The investments we have made, of course, have been important for economic growth. We will continue to invest to ensure that people across the country are well positioned for the future.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I just want to clarify that in the rules it does refer to being “concise”, but does not state the exact amount of time. However, I appreciate people who are concise, and I want to encourage hon. members to be precise in their questions and answers.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record what the hon. member for Regina—Wascana, the current Minister of Public Safety, said about the Conservative's budget implementation act in 2012, which was 443 pages long:

It is a complete dog's breakfast, and deliberately so. It is calculated to be so humongous and so convoluted, all in a single lump, that it cannot be intelligently examined and digested by a conscientious Parliament.

I have two questions for the minister. Does he agree with his cabinet colleague, and does he not think it is the height of hypocrisy for the Liberals to engage in a practice they once railed against so feverishly in previous Parliaments?