Debates of Nov. 8th, 2018

Parliamentary Budget Officer

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to subsection 79.2(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present the House a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, entitled, “Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19”.

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 11 petitions.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-88, An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, entitled, “Confronting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing: Moving Canada Forward”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. This report accomplishes the five-year statutory review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. I have to send a heartfelt thanks to all members of all parties of the committee for their hard work in producing this report. This was a study where partisanship really did not intervene. I also want to thank the Library of Parliament staff who worked long hours to produce this end product.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 75th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled, “Approval and Updating of the House of Commons Electronic Petitions System”. As members know, a couple of years ago, Parliament had the idea to add electronic petitions as an option to paper petitions, so a provisional test project was conducted for a couple of years. After that time, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs did a review and suggested that it be permanent and made improvements to the petitions system. If this report is implemented, it will make electronic petitions permanent and more efficient.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 76th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I would like to move concurrence in the report now.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member for Yukon have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

(Motion agreed to)

Eating Disorders

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again rise in this House to table petitions concerning a pan-Canadian strategy on eating disorders.

Eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, have the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses. However, the sooner someone receives treatment, the better the chance of recovery.

Currently there are children as young as seven who are affected by eating disorders, have been diagnosed and are being hospitalized for these eating disorders. More than one million Canadian sufferers and families have been negatively affected physically, emotionally and financially by these struggles.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 117, which happens to be my motion. They are asking that the government initiate discussions with the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for health and all stakeholders to develop this comprehensive, pan-Canadian strategy for eating disorders, and that it should include prevention, diagnosis, treatment and support, as well as research.

Postal Banking

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in support of postal banking.

Nearly two million Canadians desperately need an alternative to payday lenders, whose crippling lending rates affect the poor, marginalized, rural and indigenous communities most.

The petitioners point out that 3,800 Canada Post outlets already exist in rural areas where there are few or no banks at all. Canada Post has the infrastructure to make a rapid transition to include postal banking.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to create a committee to study and propose a plan for postal banking under the Canada Post Corporation.

Military Volunteer Service Medal

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is timely in light of Remembrance Day on Sunday.

The petitioners, citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the fact that at one time the Government of Canada issued the Canadian volunteer service medal to recognize Canadians who served voluntarily in the Canadian Forces. This medal was stopped in 1947.

The undersigned citizens call on the Government of Canada to recognize, by means of the creation and issuance of a new Canadian military volunteer service medal to be designated the Canadian military volunteer service medal, for volunteer service by Canadians in the regular forces, reserve military forces and cadet corps support staff, all who have completed 365 days of uninterrupted, honourable duty in service to this country.

The petitioners wish that this be presented in perpetuity.

Seniors

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a petition signed by a number of people in my riding, Hochelaga, who are asking the Parliament of Canada to work with the provinces, territories, municipalities and seniors' organizations to develop a national strategy on aging that will secure high-quality public health care and reduce out-of-pocket health expenses for all seniors, ensure that affordable and appropriate housing that adapts to changing needs is available to seniors, increase income security for seniors, develop policies that secure quality of life and equality for all seniors, and create a seniors' advocate to ensure that these measures are undertaken and maintained.

Justice

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today of presenting a petition from more than 150 Edmontonians. Those petitioners remind us that the Canadian government has publicly committed itself to the defence of human rights internationally and that the Magnitsky act was passed a year ago, allowing for restrictive measures to be taken against foreign nationals responsible for gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. They remind us that today the Canadian government has taken no action against Russian authorities responsible for the unlawful imprisonment and brutal ill treatment of three Ukrainian hunger strikers, Oleg Sentsov, Oleksandr Kolchenko, Volodymyr Balukh, and approximately 60 other Ukrainian political prisoners. The Magnitsky act has not been invoked against Russian officials responsible for these violations. The petitioners call on the House of Commons to demand the release of those political prisoners and the dozens of others illegally detained by the Russian government and to employ all possible sanctions, including measures under the Magnitsky act.

The Environment

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, marine plastics are spreading all over B.C.'s coasts, entering salmon and littering beaches. A lot of it is coming from British Columbia but some is also coming from overseas. Petitioners from Nanaimo, Parksville and Lantzville have asked me to convey to the House their strong call for the government to develop a national strategy to combat marine plastic pollution, which would particularly involve regulations on the single use of plastics to prevent plastics from entering the marine environment in the first place and also to fund in a permanent ongoing way some of the pieces we have been unable to tackle like ghost nets, which move across the ocean capturing fish, dolphins and so on. It is a terrible emergency. We call on the government to act.

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. 1931 and 1932.

Question No. 1931

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

With regard to government expenditures on roadside testing devices for drug impairment, since January 1, 2017: (a) how many devices has the government provided to police departments, broken down by department; (b) what is the total amount spent on the devices; (c) how many devices does the government recommend each department have; (d) how many devices does each department currently have, according to latest information obtained by the government; and (e) what are the details of any specific funding which is currently in place to address the difference between how many devices each department currently has and how many devices each department is recommended to have?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), currently, Public Safety, PS, has not provided any drug screening equipment to police departments. PS is working with all provinces and territories to determine their requirements and deployment plans for roadside testing devices in order to finalize funding levels and arrangements. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice in their jurisdictions and determine their operational requirements. It is important to note that investigating drug-impaired driving is not dependent on roadside testing devices. They are an additional tool available to law enforcement. Many frontline law enforcement officers already have training to detect the signs and symptoms related to drug-impaired driving.

With regard to (b), the first drug screener was approved for use by the Attorney General of Canada on August 22, 2018. While notional funding allocations are being discussed with all provinces and territories, funding has not yet been finalized.

With regard to (c), the government does not make recommendations on operational policing matters. This is the responsibility of provinces and territories and law enforcement.

With regard to (d), information is not available.

With regard to (e), it is not applicable.

PS and the RCMP, in collaboration with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, and law enforcement from across Canada, undertook a pilot project to test the use of oral fluid drug screening devices as tools to enhance the enforcement of drug-impaired driving. For the purposes of this project, drug screening devices and associated test kits were ordered for a total cost of $198,968.14.

For further information please visit the following website for information on the pilot project: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rl-fld-drg-scrnng-dvc-plt/index-en.aspx

In addition, the RCMP purchased 20 drug screeners to provide initial training on the use of drug screeners to a cohort of trainers and frontline users in advance of October 17, 2018, for a total of $122,640.00.

Question No. 1932

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

With regard to the current lack of construction occurring on the TransMountain Pipeline Expansion: what are the contents of any estimates or analysis the government has conducted on the financial impact resulting from the delay in construction?

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

Mr. Speaker, on August 30, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the Trans Mountain expansion project’s federal certificate. The Government of Canada accepts the effect of the court’s decision and is committed to moving the project forward in the right way. In this regard, on September 20, 2018, the government directed the National Energy Board to reconsider its recommendation on the project in relation to environmental effects of project-related marine shipping.

On October 3, 2018, the government announced its intent to correct flaws noted by the court in the existing consultation with Indigenous peoples. Once those steps are complete, the government will consider all of the evidence, including new analysis by the National Energy Board and new information collected through indigenous consultation, and make a new decision on the project. It would be inappropriate for the government to prejudge the outcome of that decision until it can review all of the evidence.

When appropriate to do so, Trans Mountain Corporation will formally update the planned construction schedule and costs estimate for the expansion project. Accordingly, no estimate of the financial impact of the court’s decision is available at this time.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 1, by the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé concerning the response to the New Democratic Party Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food during oral questions.

I would like to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for having raised the matter, as well as the members for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Perth—Wellington and Durham for their observations.

Essentially, the member is asking for clarification on the Speaker's role with respect to oral questions, given that the NDP vice-chair was not permitted to finish his reply about committee business.

As I reminded members when this point of order was first raised, questions about committees are quite restricted. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, at pages 512 and 513, is clear in this respect, stating:

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.

Speaker Lamoureux, in a ruling on May 20, 1970, which can be found at page 7126 of Debates, explained the only questions that are acceptable when directed to the chairman of a committee are questions that relate to procedural matters, whether a meeting is to be held, whether a committee will be convened, at what time a committee will be held and so on.

The answers to such questions about committees must fall within these same prescribed limits. As indicated at page 1041 of Bosc and Gagnon:

During Oral Questions in the House, a committee Chair may answer questions, provided they deal with the committee’s agenda or schedule and not with the substance of its work.

The Speaker has the authority to judge the admissibility of questions, including those put to a committee chair. Deputy Speaker Blaikie informed the House on April 3, 2008, at page 4406 of Debates, that:

...in future when considering the procedural acceptability of such questions, the Chair intends to demand strict adherence to the intended practice, namely, the scheduling and agenda of committee meetings.

However, it is not up to the Chair to judge the quality or content of answers, save for unparliamentary language. The constant challenge for the Chair is, on the one hand, to uphold the limits placed on questions asked about committees, and on the other hand, to refrain from judging the quality of the answers. Perhaps it is this that explains, at least in part, the approach of the Chair in according chairs and vice-chairs the benefit of the doubt. It is an approach the Chair will uphold going forward.

The rapid pace of question period, given the 35-second limit on both questions and answers, requires the Chair to make quick decisions, and it is always with the intent of respecting our rules and practices. It is in this context that I, as Speaker, look forward to working with all members to ensure that our practices are followed in any exchanges of information about committees.

I thank members for their attention.