Debates of May 29th, 2018

Proceedings on Government Motion No. 22—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on two points of order raised yesterday by the hon. opposition House leader regarding government Motion No. 22. I would like to thank the hon. opposition House leader for having raised these matters, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

On the first matter, the hon. opposition House leader argued that, since in her view no debate had taken place on the motion on Friday, May 25, the Journals for that day were inaccurate as they state, and I quote, “debate arose thereon”. She asked that the Journals be revised accordingly.

As recognized by the opposition House leader herself, this is a point of order for which I have already ruled on last Friday. At that time, members questioned whether, due to issues with simultaneous interpretation and disorder in the chamber, the motion was properly before the House. I indicated that the motion was, in fact, properly before the House and that interpreters had successfully interpreted the reading of the motion into the record. I also indicated that the wording of the motion was available for examination in the Order Paper in both official languages. I have not changed my view on that question; consequently, the Journals accurately reflect the proceedings of last Friday.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following at page 564, with respect to what is considered debate:

A Member initiates the process of debate in the Chamber by moving (i.e., proposing) a motion.

It also adds at page 566:

If the motion is found to be in order, and has been moved and seconded, the Speaker proposes it to the House. Once the Speaker has read the motion in the words of its mover, it is considered to be before the House....

After a motion has been proposed to the House, the Speaker recognizes the mover as the first to speak in debate. If the mover chooses not to speak, he or she is nonetheless deemed to have spoken (by nodding, the Member is considered to have said “I move” and this is taken as the equivalent of speech in the debate).

I also refer members to a ruling by the Acting Speaker on March 19, 1992, which can be found at pages 8479 and 8480 of the Debates, which provides clarification as to whether a mover of a motion should be counted as forming part of the debate on a motion. The Acting Speaker said:

Since the minister presented the motion, even if he did not speak, according to the Standing Orders his speaking time is deemed to have expired.

He later said:

The first speaker was for the government and is deemed to have spoken, even if he did not actually do so. The government presented a motion to table [a] bill. So that was the first speaker....

These citations confirm that the motion, having been read out by the Chair and the mover having been recognized to speak to it, initiated debate on the item.

In a ruling by Speaker Fraser on April 3, 1990, that can be found at pages 10155 and 10156 of the Debates, on a point of order that questioned whether debate had properly begun on a bill, which in turn could invalidate a notice to curtail debate on a bill, he confirmed that, despite the mover not having the opportunity to rise to speak to the item, debate had started, and the matter was properly before the House:

It is true that the hon. member for Gloucester was not on his feet on debate, but I think I would be stretching things a very long way indeed if I should rule today that the House was not seized of the Order of the Day.

Similarly, it is clear to the Chair that, as I stated on Friday, government Motion No. 22 was properly before the House, and debate on it had commenced.

I would now like to address the second point of order raised by the hon. opposition House leader immediately following the point of order by the government House leader, whereby she gave notice of closure with respect to proceedings on government Motion No. 22.

In her arguments, the opposition House leader questioned the validity of the notice on the basis that, in her view, it had yet to be determined that debate on the motion had commenced. Essentially, she contended that until the Speaker had ruled on the first point of order, notice of closure could not be given.

In his intervention, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons reiterated that page 19702 of Hansard clearly indicated that debate had commenced, and therefore the notice of closure was appropriately given.

At that point, the chair occupant indicated that:

...until such time as the Speaker has given a ruling on this question of whether the debate has begun on Motion No. 22 or not, we will reserve whether the motion for closure on Motion No. 22 is in fact in order. It is not at the moment. We will wait until such time as a decision on the previous point of order earlier today is rendered, at which point, depending on that outcome, the government House leader may then proceed accordingly.

As I have just now confirmed that debate had indeed commenced, it follows that the notice of closure, as given by the government House leader yesterday, was indeed valid.

I thank all members for their attention in this matter.

Main Estimates 2018-19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 25, 2018 by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona regarding the form of the main estimates 2018-19.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona was concerned with vote 40 under Treasury Board Secretariat, also referred to as the budget implementation vote. That vote, in the amount of $7.04 billion, gives Treasury Board the authority to supplement other appropriations in support of initiatives announced in the budget of February 27, 2018.

The hon. member contended that this vote was not in the proper form, in that it failed to provide sufficient information regarding the government’s spending plans. He pointed out that many of the initiatives which vote 40 might fund are not addressed in the various departmental plans, which are considered part III of the estimates. He also felt that it was improper that the breakdown of the proposed spending is referenced in an annex to the budget documents rather than in the estimates themselves.

The hon. opposition House leader, who supported the point of order raised by the member for Elmwood—Transcona, argued that, when the Standing Orders were amended to delay the tabling of the main estimates, it was with the expectation of receiving more complete and accurate information. She did not feel that was the case with vote 40 and feared that its wording would allow the government to allocate funds without sufficient scrutiny by Parliament.

When the matter was raised, I expressed concern about whether the timing of the point of order was appropriate. I recognize that questions relating to the estimates are occasionally complex, and that my predecessors have sometimes agreed to hear arguments early to allow sufficient time to properly consider them. While the estimates are still before committee at this time, I am prepared to rule on the point of order now.

When the government presents estimates to the House, each vote contains an amount of money and a destination, which describes the purpose for which the money will be used. In some cases, the description is quite detailed and in other cases it can be rather general. That said, the estimates are referred to committee specifically to allow members to study them in further detail, which can involve calling witnesses or asking for further information regarding the government’s plans. While committees have no power to change the destination of the spending, as this would violate the crown’s right to initiate spending requests, they do have the power to reduce or even reject the amount of a vote if they are not satisfied with the information provided.

The authority of the Speaker to intervene as sought by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is more limited than he might wish or believe. In fact, when past Speakers have found procedural irregularities with items in the estimates, these have generally been cases where the funds requested depended on an authority that required supporting legislation.

In the present case, the hon. member is asking the Speaker to rule vote 40 out of order on the basis that it does not contain sufficient information about the proposed spending. This is not so much a procedural issue on which the Speaker can rule, but rather a policy disagreement with the government over the way it has chosen to request these funds.

The member's objection to vote 40 seems to mainly be that it is a central fund granted to Treasury Board, which has the authority to then allocate monies to various other departments.

I concede that the use of a budget implementation vote is unusual and I can understand why members may have preferred that these funds be requested in a different manner, under each of the specific departments, for example. That said, I cannot conclude that proceeding in the manner provided for in vote 40 is out of order. There are ample precedents of monies being granted to a central fund. The most well-known of these is vote 5 under Treasury Board for government contingencies.

Ultimately, the government determines the form its request for funds will take. While the government does have a responsibility to provide Parliament with sufficient information to allow it to make an informed decision, I do not believe it is for the Speaker to determine if the explanation of the particular request is sufficiently detailed or if the destination is the appropriate one. These are matters for members to consider when studying and voting on the estimates.

The Speaker’s role is limited to determining if the request for funds is in a form that does not require any separate legislative authorization, and if it respects the limits of the supply process. With that in mind, there are no grounds for the Chair to rule vote 40 out of order.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Auditor General of Canada

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the spring 2018 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development 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. The committee has studied the bill and is pleased to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I want to thank the many organizations and individuals who provided information and recommendations for consideration. Many have been incorporated in the amendments adopted.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-404, an act to amend the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, today on the Hill we are joined by Leia Swanberg and a group of intended parents, donors, surrogates, doctors, attorneys, and people involved in the fertility industry across Canada. It is an honour to present before them a bill to amend the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down many provisions of the act, and since then it has become untenable. It is an act that does not allow the federal government to work, and we need to step out of the way and let provinces properly regulate in this area. We also need to make sure to protect the vulnerable.

The bill I am putting forward would decriminalize payment for donors and surrogates, but it would remain illegal to assist someone to donate or be a surrogate if they are underage, if they lack capacity to consent, or if they are being coerced.

I look forward to working with members on all sides of this House to advance the bill forward, and to make sure that our laws in Canada related to assisted human reproduction are from 2018 and not from 1988.

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

Banking Services

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table a petition signed by many residents of Dubreuilville who are concerned about the fact that the only financial institution in their community, the RBC, closed its doors last fall. They are calling on the government to work with financial institutions to implement a federal regulation to guarantee consumers and businesses in rural areas access to a physical financial institution in their community. They are also calling for the introduction of a three-month penalty-free period to move financial business elsewhere when closures occur. They added that many members of their community do not have access to cell phone or broadband Internet services, and those who do cannot count on reliable service. I am proud to table this petition.

Canada Summer Jobs Program

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from the residents of Sarnia—Lambton regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identifies, among other things, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of belief as fundamental freedoms that the Government of Canada must defend. The petitioners call on the Prime Minister to defend the freedoms of conscience, thought, and belief and withdraw the attestation requirement for applicants to the Canada summer jobs program.

Rail Transportation

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to VIA Rail's high-frequency train project, it is safe to say that there is a very broad consensus, and perhaps even unanimity. When he was last in Trois-Rivières, the Minister of Transport asked residents whether they intended to use the high-frequency train. Since then, hundreds of my constituents have written to me and signed this petition calling on the government to make public transportation between large urban centres a priority. This would contribute to the economic development of the region, help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ensure a healthier environment for everyone. Once again, I am pleased to present this second phase of the petition in support of VIA Rail's high-frequency rail project in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.

Housing

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, my riding, Gatineau, and many parts of western Quebec and eastern Ontario were devastated by spring floods. Hundreds of properties in my riding were seriously damaged. One of my constituents, Silvy Lemay, initiated this petition calling on the government to allow Canadians who wish to rebuild or renovate their homes to do so using their savings and their RRSPs without penalty, as is done under the program for first-time home buyers. I support this petition and wish to formally present it in the House of Commons.

Democratic Reform

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago I received a petition about unilateral changes to our electoral system, which should not seem immediately apropos after the government backed off its initial plan to make unilateral changes to our electoral system, but in light of Bill C-76, it seems apropos again. I am pleased to table today a petition from people who are concerned about the Liberal Party trying to unilaterally change aspects of our elections to its own advantage. In particular, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass a motion affirming the need for a national referendum on any proposal to change Canada's current method of electing members of Parliament before the proposal is implemented into law.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-57—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the third 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 stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[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 Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous life, I used to manage a sustainable development fund and process for the Manitoba government. I was very much struck by the concept of sustainable development. However, I am deeply troubled by how the government misunderstands the concept of sustainable development. I will provide a short history lesson.

The term “sustainable development” was popularized by the Brundtland commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, the then prime minister of Norway. The report came out in 1987, “Our Common Future”. The people who wrote “Our Common Future” stated very clearly that poverty causes environmental degradation. Environmental degradation is caused by a lack of economic development.

However, the current government, through its various processes, such as the proposed impact assessment act and other processes, is processing natural resource projects to death and eliminating any hope for small rural communities to advance our economic future.

Why does the minister have a sustainable development bill that the words “wealth creation” are not even a part of, when a lack of wealth creation in Canada would be a major cause of long-term environmental degradation?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to talk about this bill. Canadians have said they want a sustainable future for Canada. They also understand that the environment and the economy go together.

In June 2016, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development issued a report with recommendations for legislative amendments to strengthen the act. In October 2016, as the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I agreed with the recommendations and committed to report back within the year on action taken.

I am very proud that this bill supports our government's commitment to put sustainable development and the environment at the forefront of government thinking and decision-making. It also supports shared commitments in mandate letters, including delivering real results, pursuing goals with a renewed sense of collaboration, and setting a high bar in transparency.

As we have always said, we understand that the environment and the economy go together.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the environment minister a question. I know that we are both alumni of the London School of Economics, and this is truly a Jim Hacker-level move that we are seeing.

The government has been running down pipelines repeatedly. It has been doing everything it can to prevent the private sector from succeeding. It turns out that it was all about the Liberals trying to get a good price on pipelines. They wanted to run them down so they could buy one.

I have a serious question for the minister. Why have the Liberals refused to support private sector development and have put every barrier in place for private sector development of pipelines? Why will they not allow the energy east pipeline, for example, to be considered on the basis of the same rules that were used in the case of Trans Mountain?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to hear that my hon. colleague is also a graduate of my alma mater. However, we clearly have a diversity of views coming out of that institution.

We are here to talk about Bill C-57. I can only surmise, based on the comments from the member opposite, that he supports Bill C-57, which I think is great. As I noted, it was supported by a vote of 244 to zero at second reading and was passed at committee.

We believe it is a very important step that we need in order to make sure that we make decisions about a sustainable future in Canada, focus on results, and increase the accountability of departments and agencies for setting and achieving ambitious sustainable development targets. The bill would modernize the Federal Sustainable Development Act and incorporate into legislation our government's strong focus on results. The bill also promotes close collaboration and coordinated action across government through a whole-of-government approach.

We are very pleased that we are moving forward on Bill C-57.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that we are having closure of debate and time allocation on sustainable development the same day the government is choosing to purchase a private pipeline, which will be used to subsidize oil production to compete against other industries in Canada.

Does the minister find it ironic that this is happening on the same day?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can only surmise that the other party opposite supports Bill C-57.

Once again, we understand that the environment and the economy go together. We have one party that is not concerned about the environment and one party that is not concerned about the economy. However, we need to do both.

Bill C-57 is extremely important, to make sure that we look at sustainable development. We know that Canadians want a sustainable future for Canada. This bill would increase the focus on results and increase the number of departments that are reporting. It would also provide a whole-of-government approach and set a higher bar for sustainable development. We believe that this is a very important thing. This is a very good step, and I am very proud to support it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am definitely a supporter of sustainable development and the goals of the bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to be more open and transparent in the way projects are going forward.

However, the people who have audited the projects that the government has conducted have said that, first of all, those principles are not applied across all projects, that there have been no openness and transparency, and that, in fact, the government is not going to meet the targets of its plan.

If the minister is serious about the bill and this is not just lip service, would she be open and transparent and tell us how much the carbon tax will cost average Canadians? How would her plan affect greenhouse gas emissions?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not entirely sure where that question was going because the focus, of course, is on Bill C-57. I assume, once again, that the party opposite supports this important bill.

The proposed principles that we are looking at were guided by a number of factors. First of all, the very helpful input from the standing committee provided insights, which were clear on specific principles, and also on where improvements could be made. In addition, some of the principles are fundamental to sustainable development and are reflected in most major international initiatives, such as the Rio Declaration and the very important 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which are missing from the current act. We also identified principles whose inclusion, while absent from the current act, would codify several key elements of the intent of the act.

Overall, we understand that the principles make explicit many of the key principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, such as transparency, accountability, and public engagement.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for recognizing the work that the environment and sustainable development committee did on Bill C-57. We did a study and made some recommendations to the government, and I am really pleased to see that this bill captures the essence of those recommendations. I believe it is very strong legislation that responds to much of the testimony that we heard from Canadians.

I wonder if the minister would have a moment to provide a comment respecting the scope of Bill C-57. Could the minister perhaps give us an idea of how Bill C-57 would provide a whole-of-government approach? As well, I wonder if she could provide a comment on how the bill would apply to federal entities, because that is an important piece of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. If the minister could comment on the whole-of-government approach and federal entities, it would be appreciated.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question and for the very hard work of the environment and sustainable development committee. There was a unanimous report. I think everyone worked in a cross-partisan way, which is extraordinarily important. I have always said that the environment should not be a partisan issue. We need to protect our planet.

In terms of the scope, the bill would extend the coverage of the Federal Sustainable Development Act from 26 to more than 90 departments and agencies. It would formalize the role of the Treasury Board in leading efforts to green government operations, enabling the consistent application across government of Canada's policies affecting sustainability.

It is incredibly important that we have a whole-of-government approach. While I might be the minister of environment and climate change and be responsible for my portfolio, clearly a federal sustainable strategy has to apply across government. I am very pleased that the bill would now cover more federal entities not previously subject to the requirements of the act. It would increase the number of federal organizations from 26 to more than 90. It would allow for the addition of crown corporations to the schedule of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which would make them subject to the requirements of the act.