Kennedy Stewart

[Petitions, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition today that is signed by hundreds of citizens from my riding of Burnaby—Douglas.

The petition concerns the death of Helen Sonja Francis, a registered nurse who was tragically killed by an impaired driver in 2005.

The petitioners note that the perpetrator of this crime was never brought to justice because of an administrative error. All of the evidence in the case, including blood samples, was deemed inadmissible because the required warrant was not approved and signed within the four-hour time limit.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to change the current four-hour time limit by permitting warrants to be approved within a six-hour time limit.

I have had many constituents come into my office to discuss their concerns with what happened in this case, and I would urge the government to take this seriously.

[Petitions, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition about the enactment of Bill C-201. The member for Hamilton Mountain has introduced Bill C-201, which would allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable incomes, so they can secure and maintain employment at construction sites that are more than 80 kilometres from their homes. This is signed by many petitioners from my riding and local ridings, who are all in favour of this.

[Election of Committee Chairs, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise here this evening. I will not take up too much of the House's time because I have already addressed this motion.

I first want to say that I support the motion as put forward and I have jointly seconded it to signify that.

I would also like to say that there is a bit of a spirit of reform in this place. I think all parliamentarians would agree that we have a great democracy in Canada. It is a gem that the world looks to. I know that official delegations from all over the world come to look at Canada to determine how they can construct or make their countries better.

What is happening in the House with the motion by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and the bill by the member from Halton Hills is that we are looking at ways of improving what can be done in the House in a reasonable way. Having this motion go to committee is a good idea. It is an appropriate place for these kinds of ideas to be examined and discussed so that we can bring experts in to make sure that we get this right.

There is a general feeling in Canada that this place could work better. That is what a lot of us in the House are trying to do. Therefore, I stand here this evening in support of this motion. I will be working as hard as I can on this side of the House to make sure it, as well as the bill on democratic reform by the member from Halton Hills, passes.

I have already spoken to this motion, so I did not want to take up too much more time. However, I want to say that I very much agree with the spirit of this motion and others that are coming forward.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the subsection of the 2013 Speech From The Throne entitled “Science and Technology”: (a) what accounting methodology was used to determine that, since 2006, the government “has invested more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies”; (b) was the figure of “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” adjusted for inflation since 2006; (c) was the figure of “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” given in current dollars or constant 2006 dollars; (d) if the figure was given in current dollars, what is the value of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” in current 2006 dollars; (e) how much of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” was spent during fiscal year (i) 2005-2006, (ii) 2006-2007, (iii) 2007-2008, (iv) 2008-2009, (v) 2009-2010, (vi) 2010-2011, (vii) 2011-2012, (viii) 2012-2013, and (ix) 2013-2014; (f) how much of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” was spent as part of the Stimulus Phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan between January 2009 and March 2012; (g) what is the complete and detailed spending breakdown of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” since 2006; (h) what portion of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” since 2006 was invested in basic, fundamental, or pure scientific research; (i) what portion of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” since 2006 was invested in applied research, industrial research and development, or commercial applications; (j) what methodology was used to determine that “Canada now leads G-7 countries in post-secondary research investment”; (k) where does Canada rank among the countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in regard to “post-secondary research investment”; (l) has Canada’s ranking among OECD countries for “post-secondary research investment” increased or decreased since 2006; (m) during the most recent fiscal year for which comprehensive data is available, what percentage of Canada’s total “post-secondary research investment” was made by (i) the federal government, (ii) provincial and territorial governments, (iii) municipal governments, (iv) the private sector, (v) charities, (vi) individuals and households, (vii) other sources; (n) what was the government’s total expenditure on “post-secondary research investment,” in current dollars, during fiscal year (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004, (v) 2004-2005, (vi) 2005-2006, (vii) 2006-2007, (viii) 2007-2008, (ix) 2008-2009, (x) 2009-2010, (xi) 2010-2011, (xii) 2011-2012, (xiii) 2012-2013, (xiv) 2013-2014; (o) what was the government’s total expenditure on “post-secondary research investment,” in constant 2006 dollars, during fiscal year (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004, (v) 2004-2005, (vi) 2005-2006, (vii) 2006-2007, (viii) 2007-2008, (ix) 2008-2009, (x) 2009-2010, (xi) 2010-2011, (xii) 2011-2012, (xiii) 2012-2013, (xiv) 2013-2014; (p) what measures or outcomes is the government using to evaluate whether or not the “[t]ransformation of the National Research Council” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (q) what empirical evidence does the government have that the “[t] ansformation of the National Research Council” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (r) what was in the annual budget of the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP), in current dollars, during fiscal year (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004, (v) 2004-2005, (vi) 2005-2006, (vii) 2006-2007, (viii) 2007-2008, (ix) 2008-2009, (x) 2009-2010, (xi) 2010-2011, (xii) 2011-2012, (xiii) 2012-2013, (xiv) 2013-2014; (s) what was in the annual budget of the IRAP, in constant 2006 dollars, during fiscal year (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004, (v) 2004-2005, (vi) 2005-2006, (vii) 2006-2007, (viii) 2007-2008, (ix) 2008-2009, (x) 2009-2010, (xi) 2010-2011, (xii) 2011-2012, (xiii) 2012-2013, (xiv) 2013-2014; (t) what measures or outcomes is the government using to evaluate whether or not “doubling the Industrial Research Assistance Program” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development; (u) what empirical evidence does the government have that “doubling the Industrial Research Assistance Program” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (v) what measures or outcomes is the government using to evaluate whether or not “the new Venture Capital Action Plan” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (w) what empirical evidence does the government have that the “the new Venture Capital Action Plan” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (x) on what date does the government expect to “release an updated Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy”; (y) will the government be conducting open consultations with the Canadian scientific, research, and academic communities prior to releasing “an updated Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy”; (z) what commitments did the government make as part of its previous Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy; (aa) which of these commitments in (z), if any, have not been met; (bb) what “targeted investments in science and innovation chains from laboratory to market in order to position Canada as a leader in the knowledge economy” has the government made since 2006; (cc) what measures or outcomes is the government using to evaluate whether or not its “targeted investments in science and innovation chains from laboratory to market” are effectively positioning Canada “as a leader in the knowledge economy”; (dd) what empirical evidence does the government have that its “targeted investments in science and innovation chains from laboratory to market” are effectively positioning Canada “as a leader in the knowledge economy”; (ee) what measures or investments has the government implemented since 2006 to “promote Canada as a world-class destination for international students”; (ff) how many international students have studied in Canada as a direct result of the measures or investments in (ee); and (gg) how many international students were studying at Canadian universities and colleges during calendar year (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005, (vii) 2006, (viii) 2007, (ix) 2008, (x) 2009, (xi) 2010, (xii) 2011, (xiii) 2012, (xiv) 2013?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to scientific research and the communications policies of Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the National Research Council of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for each of these departments or agencies during the years (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005, (vii) 2006, (viii) 2007, (ix) 2008, (x) 2009, (xi) 2010, (xii) 2011, (xiii) 2012, and (xiv) 2013: (a) how many total media inquiries were received; (b) how many total media inquiries were completed; (c) how many media inquiries relating to scientific issues were received; (d) how many media inquiries relating to scientific issues were completed; (e) how many media inquiries relating to scientific issues were completed within 24 hours of the initial request; (f) how many media requests for an interview with scientists were received; (g) how many media requests for an interview with scientists were denied by or did not receive approval from communications, media relations, or ministerial staff; (h) how many media requests for an interview with scientists were instead responded to by communications, media relations, or ministerial staff; (i) how many media interviews were given directly by scientists; (j) prior to how many media interviews in (i) were scientists required, instructed, or asked to use prepared responses or approved lines; (k) prior to how many media interviews in (i) were scientists required, instructed, or asked by communications, media relations, or ministerial staff to omit scientific information; (l) how many media interviews in (i) were also attended, observed, or recorded by communications, media relations, or ministerial staff; and (m) how many media interviews in (i) were completed within the requested deadline of the inquiring journalists?

[Electronic Petitions, January 27th, 2014]

Why not? This is what a committee does. Again, if it wants to safeguard the House of Commons through this debate, that is a very good way to do it.

In conclusion, a lot of countries use electronic petitions. I feel that Canada is behind. No country has ever shut down an e-petitioning system once it has been installed. Every single legislature that has adopted this innovation has been sufficiently satisfied to keep it.

If we went ahead with the study and implemented this initiative, it would better our democracy, I feel. It would allow northern and rural Canadians to overcome geographic challenges to better access their legislature.

I ask all reform-minded MPs to join me in taking this small practical step to improve our democracy by supporting the motion.

[Electronic Petitions, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak here in the early days of the new year.

Let me begin by thanking all hon. members for participating in this debate on my motion to bring electronic petitions to Parliament. I think the spirit of the debate has been respectful. What I will try to do in my five minutes is to give some more information that might help members decide to support this.

I believe that we all want to find practical ways to make Parliament more accessible for our constituents. My motion is in the spirit of what I see as an emerging trend of cross-partisan efforts to reform Canadian politics.

Next week, we will vote on a measure by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt regarding committee reform. We will also soon consider Bill C-599, the reform act, put forward by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I am proud to say that I have jointly seconded both of these efforts. In fact, I view these three proposals as somewhat of a package that would bring real change to how we do business in this place.

It appears that this cross-partisan spirit is infectious. Former reform party leader Preston Manning and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent have endorsed my e-petitions motion, as have the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Moreover, as my colleagues mentioned, Canadians want electronic petitions. An Angus Reid poll shows that over 80% of Canadians support bringing electronic petitioning to Parliament.

Again, though, my motion is just one step in the larger process. I would like to say that what I am proposing here is only a study. This is not a motion to bring e-petitions to Parliament; it is a motion to study this before we move to bringing e-petitions to Parliament. It is a study on how we might implement electronic petitioning only to supplement our current paper-based system.

If it is the will of the House to modernize our democracy in this simple way, then it would be the responsibility of the procedure and House affairs committee to conduct this study and make recommendations as to how we would best accomplish this goal.

It has been suggested that perhaps I should have introduced a bill rather than a motion. However, the respective procedures of this House are such that that Standing Orders are usually amended using motions. That is why I used this method. More important, the best laws and rules are often only reached after careful consideration and consultation. An in-depth committee study would allow us to hear from experts in civil society to ensure that we get this right. That is important.

The issue of costs has been brought up a number of times. I have asked the Library of Parliament to look into how much it would cost if we decided to move ahead with these reforms. These costs would not be onerous at all.

As my colleague said, the National Assembly in Quebec has looked at this. It reports that their e-petition system was developed and is maintained through existing resources. So there are no extra costs.

In the Northwest Territories, the initial start-up cost was $8,000. However, the year-to-year cost is only $800. So it is a very low-cost way to bring thousands, if not millions, of people into this process.

It might actually save money as well, because it might reduce the burden upon MPs who are now inundated with hundreds of electronic petitions that we cannot present here in the House but that we have to sift through and reply to.

In the U.K. and in the U.S., citizens can create an account, and once their identity is verified they can sign on to whatever petitions they choose. That might be something we would choose to do here. Again, it would give people an official way to get into the process and, once registered, they could do it over and over again.

Some members have expressed to me their concerns about my idea of building in a safeguard of having five MPs sign on to any petition receiving sufficient signatures to trigger a take-note-style debate. They think perhaps five members is not enough. However, the procedure and House affairs committee could certainly sort that out and might conclude that maybe 10 MPs would be the proper number.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the speech of my neighbour about which I have some questions.

I am particularly interested in the National Research Council. There are changes mentioned in Bill C-4. However, I do have other questions about the National Research Council. For example, there have been hundreds and hundreds of scientists for the National Research Council fired over the last years and the council has taken an entirely different direction without really consulting any of these scientists.

We have heard of the muzzling that is going on in federal agencies. I smell a bit of mismanagement there. I do not have confidence that the new president, Mr. McDougall, really has a handle on what he should be doing in the NRC. Could the member comment on that and does Mr. McDougall enjoy his complete confidence?

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the way I look at Canada and all parts of Canada is that all Canadians should be equal, both constitutionally and administratively. The bill is a move in the right direction.

However, I am sure that this issue will come up again and I really hope that we do not take as much time as we have in the past. This has been dragging on way too long. Oddly, there has not been a lot of consultation. Although it has taken a long time under the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government to get the ball rolling on this issue, there has not been as much consultation as there should have been. The Conservatives have had lots of time, but they have not talked to enough people.

We should reverse that next time, make it shorter but make sure that we include more people in the process.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution, we are all Canadians. We enjoy the rights that are given to us in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, we are not all equal administratively. That is because in the territories, the territorial governments have fewer powers than the provinces.

This is a crucial part of the debate. Where Albertans, British Columbians or people from Ontario have provincial governments that have complete discretion over their resources, the people who live in the territories do not. This has not really been addressed adequately in the bill.

We have mentioned this on a number of occasions. There are, perhaps, pending lawsuits over this in the north, and that worries us greatly. We want to make sure that we get this right, but we want to make sure that we treat all Canadians equally. Again, this is a concern that we have brought up and would like to discuss more with the government.