House of Commons Hansard #316 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-59.

Topics

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1739Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

With regard to expenditures at hotels by the Privy Council Office (PCO) and the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO): (a) what is the total of all such expenditures in (i) November 2017, (ii) December 2017, (iii) January 2018; (b) what are the details of all expenditures in (a), including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of contract or invoice, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number, (vi) indication if expense was incurred by PCO or PMO, (vii) location; and (c) for any blocks or groups of hotel rooms purchased in regards to (a), what are the details of each such purchase, including (i) name of hotel, (ii) number of room nights purchased, (iii) nightly room rate, including any applicable taxes, (iv) total amount?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1741Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada offices and the government’s response to Question on the Order Paper number Q-1550: (a) what was the capital cost incurred in relation to the re-opening of the offices mentioned in Q-1550, broken down by office; and (b) what is the net rent cost being paid for each of the office properties?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1742Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

With regard to recent tax changes by the United States of America that impose retroactive taxes on Canadian dual-citizens who own Canadian corporations with retained earnings: (a) will the amount withdrawn by such individuals for the purpose of paying the new tax imposed by the US be also subject to Canadian income tax; and (b) what specific measures, if any, is the government implementing to ensure that such Canadians are not subject to double-taxation?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1744Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

With regard to projects funded to date under the Atlantic Fisheries Fund: what are the details of all such projects, including (i) project name, (ii) description, (iii) location, (iv) recipient, (v) amount of federal contribution, (vi) riding, (vii) date of announcement?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1746Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

With regard to information sharing between the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Canada Council for the Arts: is being designated a professional artist by the Canada Council for the Arts sufficient proof in order to prevent the CRA from declaring an individual to be a “hobby artist”?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1748Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Harder Conservative Lethbridge, AB

With regard to funding from the Department of Justice through the Victims Fund - Child Advocacy Centres: what are the details of all (a) announced grant funding, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality and address of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was awarded, (iv) date on which the funding was received, (v) amount received; (b) unannounced grant funding, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was awarded, (iv) date on which the funding was received, (v) amount received; and (c) the amounts of the remaining unallocated funding?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1750Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Harder Conservative Lethbridge, AB

With regard to the economic empowerment and equality of females, for the years 2000 to 2018, broken down by calendar year, what are the : (a) hourly wages for full-time employment for females (18+); (b) hourly wages for full-time employment for males (18+); (c) comparison between the hourly wages for full-time employment between females and males (18+) expressed as a percentage; (d) hourly wages for part-time employment for females (18+); (e) hourly wages for part-time employment for males (18+); (f) comparison between the hourly wages for part-time employment between females and males (18+) expressed as a percentage; (g) percentage of females in full-time work; (h) percentage of males in full-time work; (i) percentage of females in part-time work; (j) percentage of males in part-time work; (k) percentage of females in self-employed work; (l) percentage of males in self-employed work; (m) percentage of females not participating in the formal workforce; (n) percentage of males not participating in the formal workforce; (o) total average pre-tax income for females with full-time work; (p) total average pre-tax income for males with full-time work; (q) total average after-tax income for females with full-time work; (r) total average after-tax income for males with full-time work; (s) average transfers from the Federal Government to females (18+); (t) average transfers from the government to males (18+); (u) average transfers from other levels of government to females (18+); (v) average transfers from other levels of government to males (18+); (w) percentage of females in poverty (LICO), (i) percentage of all females in poverty, (ii) percentage of females under the age of 18, (iii) percentage of females between 18 and 64, (iv) percentage of females 65+, (v) percentage of single females with no dependants, (vi) percentage of single females with dependants, (vii) percentage of married females, (viii) percentage of divorced/widowed females, (ix) percentage of females who are a visible minority, (x) percentage of females with a disability; (x) percentage of females in poverty (market-basket-measure), (i) percentage of all females in poverty, (ii) percentage of females under the age of 18, (iii) percentage of females between 18 and 64, (iv) percentage of females 65+, (v) percentage of single females with no dependants, (vi) percentage of single females with dependants, (vii) percentage of married females, (viii) percentage of divorced/widowed females, (ix) percentage of females who are a visible minority, (x) percentage of females with a disability; (y) percentage of females in poverty (LIM), (i) percentage of all female in poverty, (ii) percentage of female under the age of 18, (iii) percentage of female between 18 and 64, (iv) percentage of female 65+, (v) percentage of single females with no dependants, (vi) percentage of single females with dependants, (vii) percentage of married females, (viii) percentage of divorced/widowed females, (ix) percentage of females who are a visible minority, (x) percentage of females with a disability; (z) percentage of businesses owned by females, (i) total number of businesses owned by females, (ii) total number of small businesses owned by females, (iii) total number of medium sized businesses owned by females, (iv) total number of large businesses owned by females; (aa) percentage of females on the corporate boards of private businesses (federally and provincially regulated businesses; (bb) percentage of females on boards appointed by the Governor in Council; (cc) representation of females, as a percentage, in the civil service (employed in the civil service), (i) percentage at the Deputy Minister level, (ii) percentage at the executive level, (iii) percentage at the management level, (iv) percentage at the employee level; (dd) percentage of females in the diplomatic core, (i) percentage of ambassadors/high-commissioners, (ii) percentage of diplomatic postings, (iii) percentage of employees in Canadian embassies/high-commissions abroad?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1751Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

With regard to the costs in legal fees, mediation and compensation for appeals and out of court settlements involving veterans, paid by the government, since 2008: (a) how many legal cases involving veterans were brought to court since 2008, broken down by (i) year, (ii) costs associated with expenses and other fees paid by the government, (iii) number of cases before the courts involving veterans, (iv) types of cases before the courts, (v) length of legal proceedings, in days, months or years; (b) how many legal cases involving veterans were settled out of court since 2008, broken down by (i) year, (ii) number of out of court settlements, (iii) amounts of out of court settlements and agreements, (iv) types of proceedings, (v) other expenses or fees associated with these settlements, (vi) length of talks between parties to reach an agreement in days, months or years; (c) since 2008, how many cases were ruled in favour of the government against veterans, broken down by (i) year, (ii) types of cases won by the government, (iii) total of expenses and legal fees paid, (iv) length of legal proceedings in days, months or year; (d) since 2008, how many cases, ruled in favour of the government against veterans, were appealed, broken down by (i) year, (ii) type of cases, (iii) court decision, (iv) all expenses and fees paid by the government; (e) since 2008, how many cases were ruled in favour of veterans against the government, broken down by (i) year, (ii) types of cases won by veterans, (iii) amounts won and reimbursed to veterans; (f) since 2008, how many cases ruled in favour of veterans against the government were appealed by the government, broken down by (i) year, (ii) types of cases, (iii) court decision, (iv) all expenses and fees paid by the government, (v) length of legal proceedings in days, months or years; (g) what amounts have veterans received in legal aid, since 2008, in legal proceedings involving veterans and the government, broken down by (i) year, (ii) legal aid amounts, (iii) types of cases heard; (h) what fees and expenses were paid by the government, since 2008, for mediation involving veterans or groups of veterans, broken down by (i) year, (ii) number of cases heard by a mediator, (iii) amount of mediation expenses paid by the government, (iv) types of cases heard by a mediator, (v) types of agreements reached between parties, namely the government and the veterans; and (i) since 2008, which law or mediation firms were hired by the government, broken down by (i) year, (ii) name of firms, (iii) amounts paid to each firm?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

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

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Standing Order 69.1—Bill C-59—Speaker's RulingPoint of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised June 11, 2018 by the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters.

The Chair would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this question, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention.

The hon. member argued that Bill C-59 is an omnibus bill as he feels it contains several different initiatives which should be voted on separately. On a point of order raised on November 20, 2017, he initially asked the Chair to divide the question on the motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading. As the Speaker ruled on the same day, Standing Order 69.1 clearly indicates that the Chair only has such a power in relation to the motions for second reading and for third reading of a bill. The Speaker invited members to raise their arguments once again in relation to the motion for third reading.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly pointed out that each of the three parts of the bill enacts a new statute. Part 1 enacts the national security and intelligence review agency act, part 2 enacts the intelligence commissioner act, while part 3 enacts the Communications Security Establishment act. He argued that since each of the first two parts establishes a new entity, with details of each entity's mandate and powers, and since the third significantly expands the mandate of the CSE, he felt they should each be voted upon separately. He also argued that each part amends a variety of other acts, though the chair notes that in most cases, these are consequential amendments to change or add the name of the entities in question in other acts.

The hon. member argued that parts 4 and 5 of the bill should be voted on together. They deal with new powers being given to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, relating to metadata collection and threat disruption, as well as with the disclosure of information relating to security matters between government departments.

As part 6 deals with the Secure Air Travel Act and what is commonly referred to as the “no-fly list”, he felt that this was a distinct matter and that it should be voted upon separately.

Finally, the hon. member proposed grouping together parts 7, 8, 9, and 10 for a single vote. Part 7 deals with changes to the Criminal Code relating to terrorism, while part 8 deals with similar concepts in relation to young offenders. Part 9 provides for a statutory review of the entire bill after six years, while part 10 contains the coming into force provisions.

In his intervention on the matter, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader indicated that the provisions of the bill are linked by a common thread that represents the enhancement of Canada’s national security, as well as the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. In order to achieve these objectives, he mentioned that it is necessary for Bill C-59 to touch on a number of acts, and that the bill should be seen as a whole, with several parts that would not be able to achieve the overall objective of the bill on their own. He concluded that Standing Order 69.1 should not apply in this case.

Standing Order 69.1 gives the Speaker the power to divide the question on a bill where there is not a common element connecting all the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked.

Bill C-59 does clearly contain several different initiatives. It establishes new agencies and mechanisms for oversight of national security agencies and deals with information collection and sharing as well as criminal offences relating to terrorism. That said, one could argue, as the parliamentary secretary did, that since these are all matters related to national security, there is, indeed, a common thread between them. However, the question the Chair must ask itself is whether these specific measures should be subjected to separate votes.

On March 1, 2018, the Speaker delivered a ruling regarding Bill C-69 where he indicated that he believed Standing Order 69.1 could be applied to a bill with multiple initiatives, even if they all related to the same policy field. In this particular case, while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question. Therefore, the Chair is prepared to divide the question on the motion for third reading of the bill.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly has asked for six separate votes, one on each of the first three parts, one on parts 4 and 5, one on part 6, and one on parts 7 to 10. While the Chair understands his reasoning, it does not entirely agree with his conclusions as to how the question should be divided.

As each of the first three parts of the bill does, indeed, enact a new act, the Chair can see why he would like to see each one voted upon separately. However, the Chair's reading of the bill is that these three parts establish an overall framework for oversight and national security activities. For example, the national security and intelligence review agency, which would be created by part 1, has some oversight responsibilities for the Communications Security Establishment provided for in part 3, as does the intelligence commissioner, established in part 2. Furthermore, the intelligence commissioner also has responsibilities related to datasets, provided for in part 4, as does the review agency. Given the multiple references in each of these parts to the entities established by other parts, these four parts will be voted upon together.

Part 5 deals with the disclosure of information between various government institutions in relation to security matters. While the relationship between it and the first four parts is not quite as strong, as the member indicated that he believed that parts 4 and 5 could be grouped together, the Chair is prepared to include part 5 in the vote on parts 1 to 4.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly has not addressed the question of the new part 1.1 added to Bill C-59 by the adoption of an amendment to that effect during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Part 1.1 enacts the avoiding complicity in mistreatment by foreign entities act, which deals with information sharing in situations where there is a risk of mistreatment of individuals by foreign entities. Since the national security and intelligence review agency, created by part 1 of the bill, must review all directions prescribed in this new part, it is logical that this part be included in the vote on parts 1 to 5.

The Chair agrees with the hon. member that part 6 dealing with the “no-fly list” is a distinct matter and that it should be voted upon separately. The Chair also agree that parts 7 and 8 can be grouped together for a vote. Both largely deal with criminal matters, one in the Criminal Code and the other in the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Chair has wrestled with where to place parts 9 and 10. They are, in the words of the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly, largely procedural elements, but they apply to the entire act. Part 9 provides for a legislative review of the act, while part 10 contains the coming into force provisions for the entire act. The Chair also must ensure that the title and preamble of the bill are included in one of the groups.

There is an obvious solution for coming into force provisions in part 10. Since clauses 169 to 172 relate to the coming into force of parts 1 to 5 of the bill, they will be voted on with those parts. As clause 173 deals with the coming into force of part 6, it will be included in the vote on that part.

This leaves the title and the preamble as well as the legislative review provided for in part 9, which is clause 168. Though these apply to the entire bill, the Chair has decided to include them in the largest grouping, which contains parts 1 to 5 of the bill.

Therefore, to summarize, there will be three votes in relation to the third reading of Bill C-59. The first vote will deal with parts 1 to 5 of the bill, as well as the title, the preamble, part 9 regarding the legislative review, and clauses 169 to 172 dealing with coming into force provisions. The second vote relates to part 6 of the bill and the coming into force provisions contained in clause 173. The third vote relates to parts 7 and 8 of the bill. The Chair will remind hon. members of these divisions before the voting begins.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Impact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

The proposed legislation before us is very concerning for me, and I will tell members why.

I am a member of Parliament who is very fortunate to have grown up in my riding of Calgary Midnapore and to represent the place where I grew up. Calgary Midnapore is a beautiful riding in the south-central part of Calgary. It is home to five beautiful lakes. I was very fortunate to have grown up in one of these lake communities, called Lake Bonavista. In addition to Lake Bonavista, there is Lake Midnapore, Lake Chaparral, and Lake Sundance. We are so very fortunate to have come from these communities, which are lovely family environments. People grow up in the summer swimming in these lakes and in the winter skating on them. These communities really are the backbone of the riding.

These communities were built on the back of the energy sector, the oil and gas sector. It is something everyone in the community recognizes. Everyone is very proud that these lovely communities were built with the oil and gas sector. When we went to school in Calgary Midnapore, it was with the hope that one day, we would go on to high school and perhaps the University of Calgary, where we have prestigious business and engineering programs. I am a very proud graduate of the University of Calgary.

When I went to my niece Samantha's grade 4 graduation six years ago, all the students who were moving on to middle school went to the microphone and said what they hoped to do. Outside of many young people there wanting to be hockey players, so many said that they wanted to be accountants or engineers like their moms and go on to work in the oil and gas sector.

This was just part of who we were and our upbringing. We would grow up in these lovely communities and get an education with not only the hope but the confidence that we would have good jobs in the oil and gas sector when we were finished our education. We would get married, raise families, and have confidence that we would be able to provide for our families as a result of the oil and gas sector, which was so relied upon by this community for so long. It was such a backbone of not only Calgary Midnapore but of Calgary itself, Alberta, and beyond. It is similar, perhaps, to how people in our capital might reference the public sector.

In addition to that, there was an appreciation of the National Energy Board. It was seen as an institution in Calgary. It was well understood that the decisions that came out of the National Energy Board had gone through a rigorous process, with proper consideration of all the factors necessary to support a thriving oil and gas sector and a prudent oil and gas sector, one that took into account the many needs and considerations of project approval.

These are two sacred cows in the riding I represent and grew up in: the oil and gas sector, and the confidence within that sector; and the National Energy Board. Unfortunately, with Bill C-69, we are seeing these concepts, these things Calgarians count on, thrown out the window entirely. These things will not exist any longer as we knew them before.

It is because of these considerations that provide so much more uncertainty in this sector, not only for the citizens of Calgary Midnapore, but in Calgary and beyond. Of course, the considerations I am referring to are numerous, but they include health, social issues, gender issues, and indigenous rights.

Therefore, going forward, everything has changed as we know it in the oil and gas sector for my constituents of Calgary Midnapore. We are seeing this take place in a number of ways, and one is in the uncertainty of project approval. I have a quote from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

CEPA is very concerned with the scope of the proposed new Impact Assessment process. From the outset, CEPA has stated that individual project reviews are not the appropriate place to resolve broad policy issues, such as climate change, which should be part of a Pan-Canadian Framework. Including these policy issues adds a new element of subjectivity that could continue to politicize the assessment process.

That is what I said when the NEB review came out last year. I said that the right hon. Prime Minister wrote the report he wanted, and he got the outcomes he wanted in regard to what I believe is essentially destroying the NEB. Everything certainly has changed.

We are hearing a lot of other things in regard to project approvals from industry members themselves, who are very concerned. Here is a quote from a land manager at Cona Resources, a foreign investment company that has left Canada. I will talk a little more about this later, but it is not alone in its exodus. It said, “To a certain extent, Canada will remain a higher cost country because of the social infrastructure that we have in place and our social licence to operate. While there is some opportunity to reduce some of those, the costs are not a net benefit to the country. I don't think that is what is deterring foreign investment. I think if we had greater consistency in both the royalties and taxation structure, people would be more comfortable. The uncertainty is what drives away project approval and foreign investment, and you have to sort of rely on your desire. If the project is a net benefit to Canada as a whole, you have to trust that the federal government will be able to enforce the decisions that were made, and trust that they are making the right decisions.”

Therefore, Bill C-69 is very concerning to industry members as well.

With regard to uncertainty to market access, we have seen that in a number of projects recently. Petronas LNG, a $36-billion project, has left Canada as a result of the uncertainty of project approval, and therefore market access. Keystone, with 830,000 barrels of oil a day, an $8-billion project, is at this time not going forward. Energy east, a $15.7-billion project, was abandoned, squarely on the NEB decision to consider direct and indirect greenhouse emissions. Northern gateway would have provided close to 4,000 jobs.

What else are we seeing? We are seeing foreign investment fleeing, as I mentioned previously. The corporations are too numerous to mention, but I will name a few of them. There is Royal Dutch Shell. It has gone. Growing up in Calgary Midnapore, I remember during the 1988 winter Olympics, people wearing their Shell jackets with pride. There is Statoil, a Norwegian company. We have heard a lot about Norway in our conversations here. Marathon Oil is out the door, as is ConocoPhillips. Investment is simply not attractive in Canada at this time, and we continue to see these investments leaving Canada.

I mentioned previously an event I went to called SelectUSA, where the U.S. consulates network is working very hard to attract even Canadian investment outside of Canada to the States. That is because that environment is providing a more competitive environment and better place for corporations to do business at this time.

In conclusion, I will say for Calgary Midnapore and Canadians that things will never be the same after Bill C-69.

Impact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, when I saw this bill, I happened to be sitting in on committee one night when the committee members were voting on over 300 amendments that were put forward, and half of the amendments came from the Liberals on their own bill. I could not believe it.

Does the member feel that the foreign investment and the investment fleeing from Canada is because of the extra regulation that this bill would put in place? Is investment fleeing because of the extra taxation that the Liberal government is putting in place? Is it because of the uncertainty that the Liberal government is putting in place? Is it all of the above? I give you a multiple-choice question; I am sure you will have multiple answers.

Impact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Before we go to the hon. member, I want to remind everyone to place their questions through the Speaker and not directly, even if the person is right behind them. It just makes it that much easier if one goes through the Speaker.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.