House of Commons Hansard #272 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was women.

Topics

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Québec Québec

Liberal

Jean-Yves Duclos LiberalMinister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake and all members of the House who have worked so hard on this issue in recent weeks.

We signed an agreement with the Government of New Brunswick this morning to support workers in seasonal industries and provide them with assistance through income support, professional training, and work experience for the benefit of their families, their businesses, and their communities.

We will continue to support middle-class families and those working hard to join the middle class.

Fisheries and OceansOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, according to the Liberal fisheries minister of Newfoundland and Labrador, this minister's Arctic surf clam decision is “far from reconciliation”. He says, “It has pitted First Nation against First Nation, and community against community.” He and numerous indigenous groups are demanding a full review of the whole process and transparency in all the bids.

For the sake of transparency and confidence in the process, would the minister commit to tabling all the surf clam bids and the criteria he used in selecting his colleague's brother for the winning bid?

Fisheries and OceansOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Fisheries

Mr. Speaker, let me first welcome our colleague back to the House of Commons. It is great to see him with us in good health.

As he knows, our decision to introduce indigenous participation is consistent with our government's commitment to developing a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. The selected proposal was one submitted by the Five Nations Clam Company. It was selected because of its inclusion of indigenous communities across Atlantic provinces and Quebec, allowing the benefits of this lucrative fishery to flow to the greatest number of people.

He understands that tabling the commercial confidences that our department received by competing bidders would be inappropriate.

PrivacyOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, 50 million Facebook users had their data harvested by a British company. We are not talking about a small attack. It is absolutely huge. The NDP has been pushing for better protection of Canadians' personal data for years, but the Liberals refuse to act.

How many more cases will the Liberals wait for before protecting Canadians?

PrivacyOral Questions

3 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, protecting Canadians' money and Canada's democratic institutions from cyber threats and foreign interference is a top priority for this government. We work with platforms to ensure that they fulfill their responsibilities to protect the integrity of our democracy and our elections.

SportsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, like many of us, I watched the Pyeongchang Paralympic Games, which wrapped up on the weekend. It is fair to say that excellence is in the genes of our Paralympic athletes. The Canadian Paralympic committee's slogan for the games was “Greatness is Rare”. Like everyone who watched the Paralympic Games, I can also say that greatness is magnificent.

Can the Minister of Science and Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities tell us how our athletes did in Pyeongchang?

SportsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan LiberalMinister of Science and Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to be in Pyeongchang to see our Canadian athletes give their best. It was an experience I will never forget. Our athletes delivered an incredible performance, placing in the top five 42 times and winning 28 medals. It was our best showing ever. We are very proud of our Paralympians. They are an inspiration to all Canadians.

Public Services and ProcurementOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, “Davie will have exclusive rights over the sale of its four icebreakers”. Who said that? It was the Prime Minister himself when he was in Quebec City on January 19 with his entourage. Now we have learned that Public Works will be negotiating for only three medium-sized icebreakers. Why?

Why is the Prime Minister breaking his promise? What is he waiting for? When will he help the shipyard workers get back to work?

He must not deprive the Coast Guard of the MS Aiviq, an icebreaker that is available and that would help the Coast Guard fulfill its mandate.

Public Services and ProcurementOral Questions

3 p.m.

Delta B.C.

Liberal

Carla Qualtrough LiberalMinister of Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our discussions with Davie to meet the Coast Guard's need for icebreaker services. We will inform the House when those discussions and negotiations are complete, but right now we are looking at the numbers and working with Davie.

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Québec debout

Luc Thériault Québec debout Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, as recently as March 13, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec informed us that, last year, 2,332 young Quebeckers between the ages of 12 and 24 were hospitalized for acute alcohol intoxication. We are talking about 7 to 10 young people a day. The minister wants to consult and regulate because she knows full well that highly sweetened, high-alcohol beverages are dangerous.

Will she use her common sense and suspend the sale of these beverages until new regulations are put in place?

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe New Brunswick

Liberal

Ginette Petitpas Taylor LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians is our top priority. As I said yesterday, our thoughts are with Ms. Gervais's family. I instructed Health Canada to immediately take action with regard to the proposal to restrict the amount of alcohol in highly sweetened, high-alcohol beverages. We are also going to meet with our provincial and territorial partners to discuss how these products are advertised and marketed and how to make them less attractive to young people.

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Québec debout

Luc Thériault Québec debout Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, under the law, the minister can take immediate action. It is a question of political will. It is that simple. In the past 24 hours, we have visited convenience stores in our ridings, and several of these brands can still be bought by our young people.

Why is the minister refusing to act responsibly and suspend the sale of these products while regulations are being drafted?

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe New Brunswick

Liberal

Ginette Petitpas Taylor LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, banning a specific product will not resolve the general problem they pose. I am also deeply troubled by the availability of highly sweetened, high-alcohol drinks that are sold in large, single-serve containers. That is why I have asked Health Canada to immediately hold consultations, over a 45-day period, to finally make a concrete decision on this matter.

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in reference to a question that was answered by the Minister of Public Safety. I have in my hands a report from the Canada Border Services Agency, from November 2017, that says the number of deportations has declined dramatically in the last five years: 18,992 in 2012, with the good government, and 7,364 in 2016. I would like to table the document.

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to table the document?

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, we are sent here on behalf of constituents to get answers for them on issues they are facing in their dealings with the government.

On behalf of Evan Palmer, a 10 year old suffering from spinal muscular atrophy, I would like to table in the House the letter he sent to me as well as the letter from his parents Kira and Justin, explaining all the difficulties they have had dealing with the minister's department.

I am asking for unanimous to table this.

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to table the document?

HealthOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Access to Briefing on Bill C-69—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 26 by the hon. member for Abbotsford concerning briefings held by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in relation to Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to thank the member for Abbotsford for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for their comments.

In raising the matter, the member for Abbotsford explained that within an hour of having introduced Bill C-69 in the House on February 8, a briefing on the bill was offered to the media and to stakeholders. This briefing was more than five hours before members of Parliament were offered the same. With members unable to respond immediately to media and stakeholder inquiries, he contended that this was a profound act of disrespect on the part of the minister that constituted a contempt of the House.

The parliamentary secretary disagreed, saying that the minister had not deliberately tried to impede members’ access to information on the bill and would offer additional briefings, if requested. Noting that the bill was not debated in the House until days later and that departmental briefings are beyond the purview of the Chair, the parliamentary secretary said that no breach of privilege had occurred.

As I already noted, the Chair is concerned that this question of privilege was not brought up at the earliest opportunity. Members know that in determining a question of privilege prima facie, the Speaker must consider whether the two requisite conditions have been met; that is, whether the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity and whether, in the Speaker's view, it constitutes, at first view, a breach of a parliamentary privilege.

With respect to timeliness, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 145:

...the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

In this particular case, I note that between February 8, the date of the alleged contempt, and February 14, the date on which the member raised his complaint in the House, several sitting days had elapsed during which the member was aware of the situation that gave rise to his question of privilege. This is cause for concern for the Chair, particularly as the member did not provide an explanation as to why the condition of timeliness was not satisfied. While I am prepared to be flexible on this point this time and not dismiss his question of privilege for this reason alone, it is a condition that must be taken into account in assessing the alleged question of privilege.

Now, turning to the substantive elements of the member’s question of privilege, there have been past instances where members have raised concerns about departmental briefings. Speaker Milliken, in a ruling on November 21, 2002, stated, at page 1742 of the Debates:

It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference, or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that....The same thing goes for those who are invited to meetings and for the way people are notified of meetings. Whether there is one meeting, or three or four, makes no difference. In my opinion, it is impossible for me to intervene in this case.

It is equally important to understand that the House’s right to first access to legislation was respected in this instance since, as the member acknowledged, Bill C-69 was introduced in the House before either of the briefings in question took place. Thus, this situation cannot be characterized as one of premature disclosure of a bill, even if Members were excluded from the first briefing, that of the media.

The member stated that a contempt may occur if, by diminishing the respect it is due, the House’s ability to perform its functions is impeded. Speaker Sauvé, in a ruling on October 29, 1980, at page 4214 of the Debates, said:

…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

This points to an essential truth that to constitute a contempt, it is necessary to demonstrate that a proceeding in the House, or the ability of members to fulfill their parliamentary duties, was in some way impeded. In response to a similar complaint, on December 4, 2014, at page 10168 of the Debates, my predecessor reminded the House:

That is not to say, however, that every proceeding or activity related to delivering or accessing information by members implicitly involves their parliamentary duties.

He also had cause to state on March 3, 2014, at pages 3429 and 3430 of Debates:

When a situation is brought to the Chair’s attention, it must be assessed within the somewhat narrow confines of parliamentary procedure and precedents. ...the Chair must assess whether the member has been obstructed in the discharge of his responsibilities in direct relation to proceedings in Parliament. ...a member who is preparing to participate in proceedings—whether through a technical briefing or some other means—is not participating in the proceedings themselves. While such preparation is no doubt important, it remains ancillary to, rather than part of, Parliament's proceedings.

That being said, as Speaker, I understand the member for Abbotsford's frustration and the sense of disrespect that he feels in not having had priority access to a briefing on such a complex piece of legislation. In fact, the Chair not only finds this matter to be unfortunate, but also entirely avoidable. While no parliamentary rules may have been broken or privileges breached, respecting members’ needs for timely and accurate information remains essential. There is no question that the work of members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.

Having examined the evidence and given the limited parameters of the Chair in this matter, I cannot conclude that the House or its members were unable to fulfill their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that the question raised constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House, and thus there is no case of privilege.

I thank all honourable members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has a minute and a half remaining.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Mr. Speaker, I had two and a half minutes remaining, but since you are giving one minute and a half I will make it snappy.

I want to talk about veterans and the medical expense credit for service dogs. This has been very important to veterans for a long time. In my constituency, Mr. Cousineau, a veteran, has been a strong advocate for this. He not only met with the minister and many people about the service dog tax credit, but he walked from my riding to Ottawa so he could make his point. I am extremely pleased, as he is, that this was approved in our budget.

Lastly, I want to address a very important matter, that of investing in official language minority communities. For 10 years, the Conservative government maintained the status quo and did not invest a penny in these communities.

Under budget 2018, our government is making a $400-million investment in a roadmap and an action plan to ensure the vitality and future of official language minority communities. That is something that these communities have been looking forward to for a long time, and our party is going to meet their expectations.

Budget 2018 is a very strong budget for Canadians right across Canada.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I would not want to unjustly take away any speaking time from an hon. member, much less my neighbour.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was very optimistic and glowing in his remarks about the budget. I was reading through some of the preamble in the introduction of the budget. It talks about our towns and cities being better, cleaner places to live, yet we know that just recently another 46 million litres of raw sewage was released into the St. Lawrence river from Quebec City. Earlier in the Liberals' mandate, eight billion litres of sewage went into the river. I do not see how we can say those are better, cleaner places to live.

The budget also states that Canadians are optimistic about the future, about owning their own homes. Recently, I have held a number of round tables both in my riding and in Sault Ste. Marie. Mortgage brokers, real estate agents, and homebuyers are not optimistic about being able to own a new home.

How can my colleague feel optimistic when some of the economic data that we see on the ground in our communities is so negative?