Debates of April 25th, 2022

Question No.384—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

With regard to the processing of applications for a Secure Certificate of Indian Status by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), since 2021, broken down by province, region and constituency: (a) what are the (i) mean, (ii) median, (iii) minimum, (iv) maximum processing times, broken down by applications that met the service standard and applications that did not meet the service standard; (b) what metrics and processes does ISC use to ensure that service times are optimized; (c) how many incomplete applications were received; (d) how many of the applications in (c) were returned for completion to the applicant; and (e) of the applications in (d), what are the processing times?

(Return tabled)

Question No.386—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

With regard to the VIA Rail stations in Brockville, Smiths Falls, Alexandria, Kingston, Belleville, Cobourg, Oshawa, Port Hope, Gananoque, Napanee, St. Marys, Trenton, Wyoming, and Ingersoll, Ontario, and broken down by station: what are the details of all capital investments which have occurred at the station since 2010, including the (i) date of the investment, (ii) project completion date, (iii) project description, (iv) amount of the investment?

(Return tabled)

Question No.387—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

With regard to the government's Defence Procurement Strategy: (a) is the government accelerating the delivery or completion dates of any military related procurement projects following the Russian invasion of Ukraine; and (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each project including, for each, the (i) value of the contract, (ii) vendor, (iii) original scheduled completion or delivery date, (iv) new expedited completion or delivery date, (v) project description, including items procured and number of units?

(Return tabled)

Question No.388—

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

With regard to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for federal public servants: (a) how many employees have (i) been placed on unpaid administrative leave, (ii) had their employment terminated, as a result of not meeting the requirement; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) province or territory, (ii) each of the government's designated Employment Equity Groups, including women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities?

(Return tabled)

Question No.389—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

With regard to the acquisition or loss of ammunition and weapons by government departments and agencies since 2016, broken down by year: (a) what is the total amount spent on (i) ammunition, (ii) weapons, (iii) combined total of ammunition and weapons; (b) what are the details of all ammunition and weapons acquired including, for each purchase, the (i) type, (ii) model, (iii) description, (iv) number of units; and (c) what is the total amount of ammunition and weapons that were lost or stolen, including, for each instance, (i) the date, (ii) the description of items lost or stolen, (iii) whether the items were lost, (iv) whether the items were stolen, (v) whether the items were ever recovered, and, if so, when, (vi) the value of the items, (vii) the description of the incident, (viii) whether the incident was reported to law enforcement?

(Return tabled)

Question No.390—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

With regard to the National Indian Residential School Crisis Line and the Hope for Wellness Help Line, broken down by month and by line since January 2021: (a) what is the total number of calls received; (b) what is the total number of text messages received; (c) how many employees are (i) full time employees, (ii) part-time employees, (iii) temporary employees; and (d) what is the total funding allocated to the operations of the Crisis Line and Help Line?

(Return tabled)

Question No.391—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

With regard to support given to the Bearskin Lake First Nation since they declared a state of emergency on December 28, 2021: (a) when was the Minister of Indigenous Services made aware of the state of emergency; (b) on what dates did the government receive requests for support; and (c) for each of the requests received in (b), (i) what was the nature of each request, (ii) was the government able to fulfill the request, and, if not, what was the reason for not meeting the request in full?

(Return tabled)

Question No.392—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

With regard to public servants who process requests filed under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (ATIP) since March 1, 2020, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity that is subject to these acts: (a) how many employees have been placed on "Other Leave With Pay", also known as code 699, at any point since March 1, 2020; (b) what is the cumulative number of days that were paid out under code 699, broken down by month; and (c) were the individuals on code 699 leave replaced, or did the individuals being on leave contribute to further delays in processing ATIP requests?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 31, 2022, by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman concerning the events reported in the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

First off, the Chair wishes to briefly describe the events that led to the member raising the question.

In June 2021, the committee presented its second report to the House. The report described the difficulties encountered during its study of the questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending. Subsequently, the 43rd Parliament was dissolved, which put an end to the business of the House and its committees. No action was taken by the House during the previous Parliament with respect to this report and the allegations found therein, including the question of privilege raised on June 10, 2021. Members may refer to the ruling of December 9, 2021, found at pages 953 and 954 of Debates for further context.

The Committee recently presented its third report, reiterating its support for the conclusions of the report from the previous parliament, which led the member from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman to raise his question of privilege. He argued that, while dissolution ended the orders for the appearance of witnesses, it did not allow the contempt that was allegedly committed to be purged. The presentation of the report would now allow the House to rule on these questions.

For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons responded that the orders of the previous parliament expired with its dissolution. He argued that, in order to raise a question of privilege, a committee should first order the appearance of witnesses during this Parliament, then those witnesses should refuse to appear and, finally, a report detailing this refusal should be presented. He said that the presentation to the House of a report from a previous parliament is not enough to trigger the process related to a question of privilege.

To deal with this issue, the Chair must determine whether the issues raised in the committee’s report warrant the House to be seized of the matter and give it priority over other business during a new Parliament.

Dissolution put an end to all business of the House and its committees. Consequently, the order adopted by the House on March 25, 2021, expired and the persons summoned to appear were relieved of their obligations. The order to appear from the previous Parliament mentioned in the committee’s report is no longer before the House.

The Chair has no doubt that the House or its committees can order a particular witness to appear. Any such order must be respected as long as it is in effect. However, a new question of privilege may not be raised regarding a failure to testify unless the witnesses fail to comply with a new order to appear adopted by the House or one of its committees during the current session.

The question that now arises is concerning the alleged contempt and dissolution's effect on it. Only the House can determine that contempt has been committed and decide to punish in accordance with its gravity as it sees fit. Until the House has ruled, the facts remain alleged.

As was mentioned previously, and in the ruling of December 9, 2021, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 81, “Instances of contempt in one Parliament may even be punished during another Parliament.”

This sentence is taken from an earlier edition of Erskine May, the procedural authority in the United Kingdom. However, the Chair would like to point out once again that the circumstances in which a question of privilege may be raised on an alleged case of contempt that occurred during a previous Parliament are much more limited than this quote suggests.

The rare instances in which this concept was invoked by my predecessors always involved incidents that were brought to the attention of the House for the first time in light of new facts. They were not a continuation of proceedings interrupted by dissolution.

A 1967 report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the U.K. House of Commons clearly illustrates the rare circumstances in which this concept could apply. It states, at page 95 of the report:

However flagrant the contempt, the House can only commit to the close of the existing session. If, however, the House consider that an offender, who has been released on Parliament being prorogued, has not been punished sufficiently, it may commit him again in the following session.

Thus, when an allegation of contempt is brought to the attention of the House, it must be dealt with during the session in which it was raised. Any sanction applied by the House is valid only until the end of the session. However, in the very specific case in which contempt was recognized by the House and punished, but prorogation or dissolution put a premature end to the punishment or sanctions, the House may decide to continue its efforts in the subsequent session to remedy it. The issue would not therefore be to reopen a discussion on the merits of the allegations raised in the previous parliament, but rather to decide to reimpose a sanction that had not been fully applied.

In the case before us, the issues raised in the committee’s third report do not constitute new facts. The report raises the same elements that were presented in June 2021. In fact, this third report, reiterating the committee’s second report from the previous Parliament, deals with the proceedings of the 43rd Parliament, which all ended with dissolution.

Since the House did not have the opportunity to decide on the merits of the alleged instances of contempt nor to reprimand them before dissolution, it now seems to be too late to do so in this new Parliament.

By itself, the presentation of the committee's third report is not sufficient to conclude that this question must have priority over other House business. Consequently, the Chair cannot conclude that there is a prima facie case of privilege and give it priority over other House business.

I thank the members for their attention.

Government Response to Question No.351—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 4, 2022, by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan concerning the government's response to written Question No. 351.

When he raised his point of order, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan argued that the government response tabled the same day was incomplete and did not respond to all elements of his written question. According to the member, the government is required to respond not only to the question in general, but to the specific elements contained in that question.

Written questions are one of the means that members have at their disposal to gather detailed or technical information from the government. Over the years, a number of interventions have been made in the House about the quality, accuracy and completeness of the government’s responses to written questions.

The Chair is of the view that ruling on the completeness of responses to written questions is tantamount to ruling on their content, and that is not the Chair's role. At page 529 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, it states, “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.”

In a ruling on a similar issue rendered on April 3, 2012, found at pages 6856 to 6858 of Debates, one of my predecessors also indicated that it is not the Chair’s role to determine whether the content of these documents is “complete”.

On February 15, 2017, Speaker Regan mentioned the following in a ruling found at page 8,974 of Debates: “By raising their dissatisfaction with the responses to their written questions, both members are in effect asking the Chair to assess the quality and completeness of answers provided to written questions.”

The Chair continues to encourage communication and co-operation between members and the responsible ministers as a way of obtaining more information.

I thus consider this matter closed and thank members for their attention.

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

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

When this was last before the House, we were two minutes into questions and comments of the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about the budgetary policy of the government. I wonder if the member could comment specifically, though, on the issues around the government's intention with respect to direction and control regulations. The government has finally recognized that there is a problem with direction and control, but there is still a lot of concern among stakeholders about what remedy the government will put forward. The budget refers to changes that are in the spirit of Bill S-216, which is a bill sponsored by a colleague of mine in the Conservative Party, but it does not address the specific measures.

I wonder if the member, who I know has some expertise in this area, can clarify for the House, and for stakeholders in the development community and elsewhere who are following this issue with great interest, what precisely the government intends to do on direction and control and when we will see those changes formally brought in.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the direction and control issue, obviously our government listens to stakeholders and consults with stakeholders. That is what we will continue to do. There was a nod in the budget to do that. We will continue to do that and go down that path.

As for a specific time period, I cannot answer that. I would defer to the parliamentary secretary or the minister on that direct question.

It is great to see that from day one, we consult, we listen and we will get to a solution that is optimal for all stakeholders.