House of Commons Hansard #278 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fisheries.

Topics

Question No. 1506Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

With regard to VoxPop Labs and business conducted for the government, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many projects are currently underway with VoxPop Labs; (b) how many projects have been completed with VoxPop Labs; (c) what are the details of the projects that have been undertaken, broken down by (i) title, (ii) cost, (iii) region targeted, (iv) number of text group; and (d) of the projects in (c), what were the results of each project?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1507Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

With regard to the Prime Minister’s YouTube channel since, November 4, 2015: (a) how many full-time equivalents manage the channel; (b) what are the titles and corresponding pay scales of the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (c) how much has been spent on overtime pay for the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (d) how much has been spent on developing content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2017-18 fiscal year; (e) how much has been spent on promoting content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2017-18 fiscal year; (f) is there a cross-platform promotion plan to share content from the channel to other digital media platforms; (g) are the costs associated with (f) included in the YouTube budget, or do they fall within the budget of the other platforms; (h) what are the digital media platforms used to promote or share the Prime Minister’s YouTube content; (i) what is the monthly expenditure on the channel, broken down by month; and (j) what is the annual expenditure on the channel, broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1508Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

With regard to the usage of the government’s fleet of Challenger and Airbus aircraft during the 2017 calendar year: what are the details of each flight, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) time of takeoff, (v) time of landing, (vi) names and titles of passengers, excluding security staff, (vii) type of aircraft?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1509Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

March 29th, 2018 / 12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

With regard to expenditures on “bots”, algorithms, or other technology related to controlling or spreading messages on social media, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all related expenditures, including for each expenditure the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) details of social media accounts, including format and handle or username, (v) purpose or objective of the bot or algorithm?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1510Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

With regard to the acquisition of land by the government, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of each acquisition, including for each the (i) landowner or entity the land was acquired from, (ii) amount paid, (iii) size and description of the land, (iv) location, (v) date, (vi) reason for acquisition?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

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

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, we were not quite sure if we were going to get a Thursday question. We know today is seen as a Friday but it actually is Thursday. I am thankful for the opportunity.

While I am on my feet, I want to wish all my colleagues and everyone a good two-week constituency break and a happy and joyous Easter.

I would like to ask the government House leader if she could let us know what we will be doing when we return after the April break.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will continue second reading debate of Bill C-68 concerning the Fisheries Act. The House will then adjourn for the Easter break and allow members to return to work in their constituencies and also spend some time with family and friends.

Upon our return on April 16, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, and continue that debate for the remainder of the week.

I want to take this opportunity to wish all my colleagues, their families, and everyone who works and helps us in this place a happy Easter and a pleasant break.

Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of order raised on March 21 by the hon. member for Carleton concerning information provided to the House by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. I would like to thank the member for Carleton for having raised this matter.

The member for Carleton explained that a report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled in the House stated that no plan existed for the government's expenditure of $186.7 billion on infrastructure but that, conversely, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities stated during oral questions on March 21 that such a plan did exist. The member argued that if such a plan existed and the Parliamentary Budget Officer had been denied it, the government would be in contempt, but if the plan did not exist, then the minister had provided false information to the House.

In essence, the Chair is being asked to weigh in about the correctness or exactness of the answer provided by the minister to the House. Members are, of course, aware of the well-defined limits that are placed on the Chair in this respect. As such, the Chair cannot unilaterally assume a role in the interpretation of these facts or, more particularly, decide even if the plan alluded to by the minister is the same plan that is referred to in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report “Budget 2018: Issues for Parliamentarians”, which was tabled in the House on March 19.

Additionally, as the previous speaker reminded the House on April 30, 2014, at page 4753 of the Debates:

[I]t is not sufficient for members to simply make allegations based on their perceptions of what is or is not factually correct. Members must recognize and accept the existence of differences of fact and interpretation, which have always been a part of the normal cut and thrust of debate and question period.

Thus, any question concerning the existence of infrastructure plans is a matter better defined as debate.

However, the Chair notes that this matter also speaks to the unwavering need for accuracy and clarity in the information that members of Parliament receive, as well as the need for those providing that information to shoulder this responsibility in a serious and consistent way. The House would be well served by this being remembered in all exchanges of information.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. member for St. John's East was about to start a question and comment period of five minutes. We will start with that now.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question in relation to how important it is that we have this legislation. We often talk about the importance of issues that face our constituents. This is one of those issues which, if not directly, indirectly has an impact on all of us.

I wonder if my friend and colleague across the way could expand on why he believes it is important that this legislation pass.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that open-ended question which allows me to continue with my earlier remarks.

One of the main pillars of our election campaign was to revisit the nature in which environmental assessment and protection of our natural resources are undertaken in Canada. In that context, there was a review of transportation, natural resources, environment and climate change, and also the Fisheries Act. When I look at Bill C-68, I consider it in the context of changes that are also put forward with respect to CEAA . I look at it in the context of the broader national consultation that was undertaken with the NEB, the offshore petroleum boards, the CEAA process generally, and of course our international obligations and our commitment to protect 10% of offshore resources under our Aichi targets.

This is really a national undertaking. When people think of fisheries in Canada they think of the north, British Columbia, the Great Lakes, Quebec, the maritime provinces, and then of course Newfoundland and Labrador. It is really the sum of what makes Canadians Canadians in understanding that we have a place in the world, that we have a role in protecting our natural resources. There are changes in this legislation that would both allow us to protect our national resources and also to develop them sustainably so we can enjoy the high standard of living that we have.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member is from Newfoundland. I visited Grand Bank the other day and I spoke with many of the families who are going to be impacted by the minister's decision to award a lucrative surf clam quota to the brother of one of his Liberal colleagues. That indeed is going to mean job losses and layoffs within the town of Grand Bank. The message we heard was that they do not want EI. They want to work. They want to know where their members of Parliament are.

We have heard from the Prime Minister. We have heard from the minister. We have heard from the parliamentary secretary. I am going to give the member of Parliament from St. John's, Newfoundland an opportunity to provide comments for those friends and family from Grand Bank who are listening, on the minister's decision to arbitrarily take away their livelihoods and award to the brother of one of their Liberal colleagues a lucrative surf clam quota worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, normally the Newfoundland and Labrador caucus team works together, and we look to the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity to lead us on this topic. However, I am happy to provide comments. Nobody has been a stronger advocate for his area than that member. He has been there and worked hard on the issue during the campaign. He has been advocating hard with us since his election.

There are many species that can be processed in the plant in Grand Bank. I understand that, for this year, given the timing of the decision, there should be no change. The company that currently holds the quota for processing of surf clam does about half of its processing there and half of its processing in Nova Scotia. We are well apprised of that issue—

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I just want to remind the hon. members that when they are heckling across the floor, it is annoying. When they are heckling right next to the person who is speaking, I would venture to say that it might be unparliamentary. I will leave it to the individual members to kind of muzzle themselves and respect the others who are speaking.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, at least for this fishing season, my understanding from our meetings and our consultations with the department and with the minister is that there is unlikely to be any change.

I do want to reassure the people of Grand Bank, many of whom I know. I spend most of my summers travelling back and forth to the Burin Peninsula playing soccer. Many people from the Burin Peninsula have moved into St. John's to pursue their livelihoods. We are all a family in this.

We want to see other opportunities arise for exploitation of the fishery in that area. One of the pillars of this change is to examine the monopolies that exist in our fishery and to make sure that indigenous people have a fair opportunity to participate. That had not happened to date. These changes allow that. Although I perhaps would have preferred other proponents, as it turns out, I did not have access to all the information. The minister assures us that the most beneficial proposal to indigenous people was selected, and I trust the minister.