Debates of Feb. 29th, 2024

Alleged Insufficiency and Inaccuracy of Responses to Order Paper Questions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on January 31 by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the question of privilege raised on February 9 by the member for Edmonton Strathcona concerning the government's responses to their written questions. While they were raised distinctly, given the procedural similarities of the two questions, the Chair intends to provide a single ruling.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan shared his concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the government’s response to Question No. 2155. The member claimed that the response tabled on January 29, 2024, failed to identify the sub-implementing partners who are involved in delivering aid to Palestinian refugees. He argued that his question was seeking information about all organizations providing Canadian aid, which implies both implementing and sub‑implementing partners.

By way of a question of privilege, the member for Edmonton Strathcona made a similar complaint, expressing dissatisfaction with multiple elements of the government's responses to three of her written questions, namely, Questions No. 2068, 2069 and 2070. She argued that the inadequacy of the responses was so glaring that it interfered with her ability to carry out her parliamentary duties, including holding the government to account.

She contended that the government specifically failed to answer several sub-questions embedded in the larger questions and that one response appeared to contain the wrong information. She asked that the Chair review her questions and the responses in conjunction with relevant procedural authorities and precedents in the hope that her complaint rises to the level of a prima facie question of privilege.

On February 12, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tabled a revised response to Question No. 2070, stating that inaccurate information had been provided in the initial response; this was due to an error. He also stated that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had apologized to the member for Edmonton Strathcona for this mistake.

Members have frequently complained to the Chair about their dissatisfaction over government responses to their written questions. There are abundant precedents from past Speakers’ rulings on these kinds of grievances. I would refer members to the Debates of April 25, 2022, at pages 4310 and 4311, for such a similar example.

While the Chair can empathize with the frustration that members may have about not receiving the type of information they think should be included in a response, precedents show that the Chair cannot direct the government to respond in a given way.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 529 and 530, summarizes the situation:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”.

Having reviewed the specific concerns raised by both the members for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton Strathcona, the Chair is not of the view that their complaints deviate from similar ones in the past. As such, I am left with little option but to apply established precedents consistent with the approach my predecessors have taken.

Consequently, I do not find that there is a prima facie case of privilege concerning the request made by the member for Edmonton Strathcona, and I consider the matter closed for both submissions made to the Chair.

That being said, the Chair notes the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House after he supplied a revised response to Question No. 2070. He acknowledged that it is the right of members to have the best information available to do their important work.

As many Speakers before me have done, I would emphasize the essential purpose written questions serve in our parliamentary institution. Not only are Order Paper questions an important part of our accountability mechanisms, forcing the government to justify its choices, but their responses are also instrumental in helping members to better understand the government's programs, activities and expenses. When members receive complete and accurate answers to their questions so they can make informed decisions, it serves everyone, including those who elected us.

The Chair therefore strongly encourages the government to follow through on its statement and provide to members the best information available.

I thank all members for their attention.

Commissioner of Lobbying

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to section 10.5 of the Lobbying Act, a report on investigation from the Commissioner of Lobbying.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 2025, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Main Estimates, 2024-25.

Certificates of Nomination

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed appointment of Konrad Winrich von Finckenstein to the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

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

moved:

That, in accordance with section 81 of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Konrad Winrich von Finckenstein as Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for a term of seven years.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition. This return will be tabled in an electronic format.

Departmental Plans, 2024-25

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the departmental plans for this government, representing 90 departments and agencies, for 2024-25.

Federal Tax Expenditures

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, a document, in both official languages, entitled “Report on the Federal Tax Expenditures” for 2024.

Pharmacare Act

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare.

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

Status of Women

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Act Now: Preventing Human Trafficking of Women, Girls and Gender Diverse People in Canada”. I would like to table this.

Through this study, we saw 55 witnesses, received 57 briefs and travelled the greater Toronto area, including Peel, as well as Vancouver, Sault Ste. Marie and Halifax.

I would like to thank the women who have taken part in this, specifically, the analysts and clerks. We had two incredible clerks who worked on this, Stephanie Bond and Danielle Widmer. We also had incredible analysts who were able to help us: Dominique, Clare and Alexia.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of my Conservative colleagues. We felt that the report did not contain enough regarding training for police and judges, nor did it speak to the absolute torture endured by those who have been trafficked.

I am saddened to report that some of the perpetrators and the users of human trafficking are abusing children as young as nine years old. We need to ensure the laws of these crimes fit. The penalties, right now, do not fit the crimes. We would like to ensure that these measures are reviewed so that we can protect all our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, and those are our children.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to table the Bloc Québécois's supplementary report.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois prepared a supplementary report to reaffirm that health falls under Quebec's jurisdiction and that the federal government needs to respect that.

Consequently, Quebec can implement major programs to raise public awareness of human trafficking, its forms and its impacts on women, girls and gender-diverse people. Quebec can also ensure that educational materials and training manuals are distributed to the province's vulnerable populations, law enforcement and frontline service providers.

Investments in support services for victims, such as counselling services that take into account the victims' trauma and cultural realities, legal aid and safe housing for victims of human trafficking also fall under Quebec's jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois strongly opposes the compartmentalization of human trafficking victims because all lives are equal and everyone must have equitable access to services, regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

To wrap up, with respect to the funding of organizations and initiatives that help people, especially indigenous people, Black people and immigrants involved in the sex industry, including victims and survivors of human trafficking, as well as sex workers, the Bloc Québécois insists that this funding be in the form of transfer payments to ensure Quebec’s jurisdictions are respected. These services should therefore cover the much broader areas of law, justice, health, mental health and addiction.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to implementing a procedure to expunge convictions prior to 2014 associated with consensual sex work.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, September 27, 2023, be concurred in.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak on this very important report entitled “Food Security in Northern and Isolated Communities: Ensuring Equitable Access to Adequate and Healthy Food for All”.

Just to give a quick summary, in general, right across the country, no matter where one lives, food security has become a major issue. We see food bank usage at record highs. In fact, some food banks are running out of food before the lines get through the facility. It is a very challenging time for many Canadians, and it is even worse, if members can believe, in the north, especially in our territories.

For example, this report states, “Food insecurity is generally defined as a situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food. In 2017–2018, 12.7% of Canadian households were food insecure”.

As I mentioned right off the top, it is worse in the north. The report states that roughly “4.4 million” households, “12.7% of...households” right across the country, “were food insecure”. Let us look at the north: the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. It has reached as high as “16.9%” in the Yukon, “21.6%” in the Northwest Territories, and “57%” in Nunavut. That is absolutely incredible. It goes on to say that among Northerners, Indigenous peoples are particularly at risk of being food insecure.

One of the recommendations from this study, and what the committee heard, is that, unfortunately, the nutrition north program that is available shows that the program itself and the changes the government has made to it are not meeting the needs of northerners.

As I mentioned, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kenora, who has great insight into this subject as well and who wants to share his thoughts.

One of the biggest factors of the increase in the cost of food is of course the carbon tax. We see the newly elected Premier of the Northwest Territories calling for relief from the carbon tax. We know that when farmers, truckers and grocery stores, etc., are forced to pay the cost, those costs are passed along to the consumer. This continues throughout the chain and increases the cost of absolutely everything. Unfortunately, food prices are impacted by this at a level and at a time when Canadians are struggling to pay their bills. Inflation is out of control. The cost of everything is up, and the government refuses to take any sort of action or to show any kind of compassion for the people who are suffering.

The government says that people will get rebates, but it had to rebrand this rebate because Canadians were not actually buying it. They noticed that somehow the rate at which they were taxed through the carbon tax was quite disproportionate to the rebate, which leaves a very good question: If it is taxing people, raising the cost of everything, giving them a bit back and expecting them to be grateful but not actually helping the environment, why bother taking it from them in the first place? Why not leave that money in their pockets? Why not stop bribing people with their own money? Let them keep it and make the best decisions they can, and they will. Consumers will always make the best decisions based on their own situations.

I think that is one of the key disagreements between the official opposition and the government; the government believes that it knows all and that it is smarter than the 40 million or so Canadians out there. It can have a central plan to make everything work, and eventually, we will reach utopia. This is not happening. Canadians are suffering. They are going hungry. They are skipping meals. They are lining up at food banks at rates we have never seen before. Food banks are running out of food. In the north, the rates of food insecurity are even worse.

When we think about it, why is there no action? We would think the government would act, especially when people are suffering. We listen to the tone of the Prime Minister when he responds. We bring up the cost of a dozen eggs, a loaf of bread or a litre of milk, and all we hear, other than about the so-called rebate, which we know does not equal the amount people are spending, is that the Liberal government is working on it.

We have a report that was tabled in the 43rd Parliament, in June 2021. The program is still not working, and the cost of food is getting is worse. People are suffering even more. However, the government is not impacted by that. Those connected to the Liberal government, those who get the contracts for nothing and for whom money goes out the door, they are not impacted by the price of those items. Regular, everyday people are impacted, and that is the problem.

When pressed on it, the Liberals just ask for three things. They wanted unlimited time, unlimited resources and, of course, unlimited money, and they will eventually figure it out. At the end of the road, will it be worth it? It probably will not be for the average Canadian, but it might be worth it for those who are lobbied and lawyered and connected to government. They will reap the benefits, but the average person will not. We are seeing that again in the north.

I do not think there is anybody who could actually justify paying more in interest on our national debt than we do in transfers of health care dollars to the provinces. I do not think there is an argument that would actually make sense. The government does not seem to think it matters. It keeps spending. It keeps putting the future on the credit card. That is not responsible, despite programs that could easily be looked at.

We talked about the green slush fund many times in the House, in many speeches. The green slush fund is where billions of dollars have been thrown, and it looks like it has just been given out to those who are connected, who are well-lawyered or who lobbied government. The infrastructure bank has yet to produce anything of substance, but it has received ridiculous amounts of funding. The list goes on. We have arrive scam in the news, again and again, where two people in their basement seem to have made off like bandits with no real accountability. We have reports coming out that the indigenous consultation on the arrive scam app was not actually done through indigenous people.

The government keeps saying one thing after another, not actually living up to what it should be doing, yet food insecurity in the north continues to get worse. Money is being spent in higher amounts than ever, especially when we look at Crown-Indigenous Relations and look at Indigenous Services Canada. The spending is up, but the outcomes are down. There is actually more money going into those two departments, but Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, is only hitting 27% of its actual targets in its own departmental plan. It just tabled a new departmental plan today. We will have to see if it is any better. What private sector corporation would be able to succeed if it was only hitting 27% of its goals? I do not think many would. The government is looking at it and proudly saying it is throwing x amount of dollars at x amount of programs, but lives are not improving.

Going back to the study recommendation, it is recognizing that the nutrition north program will not solve food insecurity in the north. We have to look at other options. Economic reconciliation is something we talk about in a great capacity on this side of the House, because we believe that indigenous peoples have been left out of this conversation for far too long.

Having indigenous participation in the economy is key to its success as a nation. We are talking about an indigenous population that is motivated, well-educated and, according to the stats, a very young population. They want to be included, but have been left out for far too long. Therefore let us unleash the powers of these entrepreneurs. Let us stop with the government-knows-best, Ottawa-knows-best approach that we have had for 150-plus years and that has failed for those 150-plus years.

We have put forward a potential option for first nations communities that want to participate in their own economy. As I said, many do; they are just constrained by the Ottawa-knows-best approach. There is the first nations resource charge, which allows companies that are doing business on first nations lands to, instead of paying Ottawa for the federal taxes, pay the first nation directly. It is a far more efficient way for tax dollars to have maximum effect, the velocity of the tax dollar, than the current method. Currently, a resource company does business on first nations lands, leaves the community, comes to Ottawa and goes around the cotton candy machine. First nations have to come to Ottawa and ask for the tax dollars back in the form of programs and services that are not working, and then they get only a share of the funding back.

Therefore let us eliminate parts of the broken system, for one thing with the optional first nations research charge, which was actually developed by the First Nations Tax Commission. It was an indigenous-led proposal that we were able to have great success adopting and promoting. I know that when we are in government, very soon, we will be able to implement this and actually create a difference in the lives of indigenous peoples.

When we look at the north, we look at food insecurity. Processing is an issue—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is sharing his time, so his time is up.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the member feels that the government should be listening to indigenous community leaders, considering the lack of attention that was given by the former Harper regime. The member commented a great deal on the nutrition north program, which delivers literally tens of millions of dollars of support to make things like groceries a whole lot more affordable.

Could the member reflect on what he believes would make a difference, given the dramatic change in life as a direct result of climate change?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, actually that is where I was going in my speech. As I was just about to say, in Yukon, for example, there is very little processing capacity, so if people have an agricultural operation in Yukon, there is nowhere to actually process the product. If someone has a chicken operation for meat, they have nowhere to send the chickens to be processed. They have to either do it on site or truck them elsewhere, which can be very stressful on the animals.

That inability to have local processing also contributes to the cost. Of course if people are trucking the animals, they also have to pay the carbon tax. Of course when they heat the barn, they pay the carbon tax. All of these layers add to the cost. I could go on, but hopefully I will get more questions on that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, on Monday evening, I attended the parliamentary reception of the National Aboriginal Capital Corporation Association, because at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women we are currently conducting a study on women entrepreneurs. Right now, we are seeing a problem, both for women and for others. The recurring theme is the difficulty in accessing credit. That is what we are being told in committee and that is what I was told on Monday evening. That is particularly true for northern indigenous women.

We hear about wanting to develop projects and costs adapted to the needs of communities. How is it that in 2024 access to credit for these communities is so difficult under federal funding programs?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was at the same reception for the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association event to talk about its 35 years of success in providing funding, capital and mentorship to young indigenous entrepreneurs looking to create jobs, wealth and opportunity in their community, either on reserve or off. I think it is great work the organization is doing, but one of the barriers we talk about often on this side is economic reconciliation; that is a key.

There is a very young population in indigenous communities. There is a very educated population and a motivated population, and all it wants to do is have equal opportunity and access to the programs that are available. Unfortunately there are often roadblocks in place, so what we are trying to do, what we are proposing on this side of the House, is to remove the roadblocks and the gatekeepers and to make more economic participation for indigenous peoples available.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. There has been a total lack of funding for nutrition north.

I want to ask about the economic reconciliation I often hear the Conservatives talk about. I just want to translate what that means: It is economic reconciliation if one believes in their economic and political agenda, but if one does not, they will send in militarized police, as many people recommended in B.C. when we saw some of the blockades happening in opposition to resource extraction. To that point, it is about free, prior and informed consent.

I am wondering whether the Conservatives would have the same enthusiasm for communities or nations that do not want resource extraction or that propose resource extraction with conditions.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe she is talking about the Coastal GasLink program, but she did not mention it off the top. In that, the elected chiefs of the bands within the Wet'suwet'en First Nation supported resource development. In fact they had band elections, and all the pro-energy candidates actually won those elections over anti-energy candidates, so there was a desire for economic activity to be part of economic reconciliation. Yes, there will be disagreements, but at the same time, there are elected bands saying that they want that to happen. However, we do have to listen to all voices as well.