Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am very sorry; I was supposed to say that I am sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay. I look forward to his remarks very much.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am not totally clear on the question that is being raised, but I certainly can attest to the fact of sharing the frustration of rarely, if ever, getting a genuine fulsome response to any of my questions. I and my colleagues in the opposition have been raising some very serious questions on serious matters, such as the potential of engaging in war, the rights of Canadian workers, the treatment of temporary foreign workers, the health of Canadians, and the protection of the environment. These are serious questions that we raise on behalf of our constituents and all Canadians; therefore, it is incumbent upon the ministers to respond seriously to those questions. As we have been reminded by previous speakers, Canadians are watching and the failure to give respect to those questions further erodes their confidence in the role of elected officials.

We encourage that all members support this motion and proceed with making whatever reforms are necessary. It would be nice if they self-governed, but they have shown in their time in office that they are simply not self-governing in the public interest.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member will support the motion.

I appreciate the suggestions the hon. member made. I think the time for that kind of discussion is during the time the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has suggested he is considering many changes to the Standing Orders. We are hopeful that this will done with all parties and that the changes will be unanimous or with the consent of all parties. That is one of the many proposals.

The concern I have is that sometimes these questions are urgent. That is one of the four principles. The questions should deal with matters that are urgent. Therefore, there should be flexibility when we raise those.

The important thing is that the ministers stand and respond to the questions and that they in fact respond to the questions.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion tabled by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. As my colleague, the member for York South—Weston, has clarified, the intent of this motion presently being debated is to empower the Speaker to address the breakdown in question period, and consequently, the continued erosion of respect for this place.

Our concern about the lack of serious, informative answers to questions is but one of a litany of concerns we have about the erosion of respectful debate in this place. For example, we have an increasing number of omnibus bills, allowing for very limited debate. Second is the tabling of significant bills, including amendments to criminal law, by private government members, with the consequence of limited debate.

Also, as the member clarified, question period is in fact intended to be a one-way street. It is the time in this place when the opposition is provided specific time on the agenda to ask questions of the government of the day, and there is a reasonable expectation that the government will provide timely, informed responses.

How have government members responded to this motion? They have responded by alleging that our motion is one-sided, because it only talks about responses to questions and not the questions themselves. Incredibly, they have proffered that the opposition members merely seek to change question period to their own advantage. If the Conservatives cannot recall similar frustrations they faced while in opposition, perhaps they might give a care to a time in the future when even they are no longer the governing party.

Government members have also proferred that the Speaker has the current power to rule on the content of questions but not on answers. Indeed, the Speaker confirmed this view in his ruling on January 28, 2014, yet added his support for the principles laid down by previous Speakers, including, “But the Speaker must adhere to the longstanding principle that question period is intended to hold the government to account”.

The Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification has argued that granting a power of scrutiny to the Speaker to command relevant responses to questions is unnecessary, as the standing rules were previously amended to allow for late shows. With all due respect to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I can attest from personal experience that this opportunity has been reduced to a hollow right. The ministers choose not to attend to respond, and in my experience, the responses have tended to be uninformative, despite the clear opportunity for the minister to become better informed and respond at this later opportunity.

Incredibly, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre objected to addressing “one-off” amendments to the Standing Orders, this from a member who has repeatedly defended the tabling by his party of one-off reforms to important statutes. He then went on to advise that he is working on comprehensive changes to the standing rules.

As the member for Toronto—Danforth has pointed out, our party is more than enthusiastic about participating in an all-party, thorough review of the Standing Orders. Will the government undertake any or all such reforms, and will they be by unanimous consent and not imposed through government majority, as has been its practice? As the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has suggested, will his substantive review of the Standing Orders proceed with all parties and be agreed upon by unanimous consent? That is what is important.

It is important to consider that when the OGGO committee tabled a close to unanimous list of recommendations for the government to reform the estimates and spending reviews in this place, the minister rebuffed a good number of the recommendations that could have ushered in a more thorough, inclusive review process.

Finally, a number of government members objected to the practice of opposition members posing questions repeatedly on the same subject. Would it not be terrific if more ministers provided a full response at the outset?

My colleagues and I take very seriously our duty to both our constituents and all Canadians to raise questions to the ministers of the crown on critical matters, matters of great importance to Canadians. Far too often members of Parliament have raised questions in the House, on behalf of constituents, regarding the failure of the government to respond to inquiries.

That is regrettably the situation that has arisen in this place that has required the official opposition to bring forward a formal motion explicitly proposing a change to the House procedural rules to explicitly empower the Speaker to require relevant responses to questions.

The Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification has today expressed her preference for self-governance of behaviour by the ministers in tailoring their responses to questions. At least this is consistent with the government's policy on self-governance in all other ways.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice complained that members of Parliament too often repeat the same question. Why is that? It is because of the failure to respond to the prior questions.

As my colleague has clarified, this motion we are debating relates specifically to question period, when the Prime Minister and his executive, the cabinet, has the responsibility to provide constructive responses to questions presented about matters impacting Canadians.

It is important to consider that this motion for expanded powers for the Speaker to intervene during question period is not so untoward. The Speaker already has the recognized power to intervene during question period, such as in response to a point of order made following question period that raises an issue about the nature of the question or response, including the use of unparliamentary language.

Second, in practice, the Speaker from time to time intervenes immediately during the course of questions, or even answers, to seek clarified or better use of language.

As laid out in the second edition, 2009, of O'Brien and Bosc, Speaker Bosley, in 1986, when addressing this very issue of guidelines for question period, called for recognition of four principles. I would like to reiterate one of those four principles, the third:

While there may be other purposes and ambitions involved in Question Period, its primary purpose must be the seeking of information from the government and calling the government to account for its actions.

It is pretty clear.

I have long suggested to my constituents, who have expressed frustration to me about the lack of credible, cogent responses during question period, that I may need to table a motion calling for a name change from “question period” to “answer period”. I used to think that this was an amusing concept, but it has become the reality, and I am pleased that this motion is exactly addressing that issue.

I am hopeful that all members in this place will recognize the seriousness of our motion and will vote to restore the credibility of this place in the minds of Canadians and those elected to represent them.

[Employment, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Federation of Labour has released information revealing that the government routinely grants labour market opinions to Alberta companies who significantly underpay temporary foreign workers. Some LMOs are being granted without even listing a prevailing wage, which is a violation of the law. Far too many companies have been allowed to significantly increase their percentage of temporary foreign workers for skilled jobs.

Why is this minister not enforcing the law in Alberta to protect Canadian workers?

[Employment, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my question is this: are they visiting?

Finally this minister has responded to our call for a credible enforcement compliance strategy for this program, and our call for consultation. However, a quick review of the strategy, in consultation with the skilled workers, indicates remaining problems, including continued reliance on complaint lines and refusal to publish the names of all violators.

Can the minister commit today to increased enforcement action for major constructions sites, including in the oil sands?

[Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, September 26 will be the first observance of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The intent is to raise awareness of the more than 16,000 nuclear weapons still in existence and the urgent need for global action.

In 2008, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a five-point proposal on nuclear disarmament.

In 2010, the Conservative government supported an NDP motion endorsing the UN plan and committing to engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention and to deploy a major worldwide Canadian diplomatic initiative to prevent nuclear proliferation.

A model nuclear weapons convention already exists as a UN document, and three-quarters of the states have voted to commence comprehensive negotiations. Canada should join this majority initiative.

More than 700 recipients of the Order of Canada have voiced support for the initiative.

I urge the Prime Minister to show leadership and act on this commitment.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, September 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that last spring, the Ministers of Transport and Agriculture crossed the country talking tough, announcing fines of $100,000 a day, but when it came to cracking down on rail companies that failed to deliver Canadian grain, Conservatives just rolled over.

Now we have learned that the actual fines are only a fraction of that amount. Prairie farmers are saying that this is just par for the course; the intervention was too little, too late.

Can the minister tell our farmers why the minimal penalties?

[Committees of the House, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I just spoke with Tanya Kappo. Tanya Kappo is a first nation mother and lawyer who is working on residential school settlements. Her observation that she had wanted to share today in the House—and it is a very good one because she has been working with women trying to get action on missing and murdered aboriginal women for quite some time—is that she is concerned that the government remains far too focused upon domestic violence within first nation communities. She shared with me that, yes, domestic abuse occurs in first nation communities, like all Canadian communities, but in her view and those of her colleagues, the root causes go far beyond family domestic violence.

She has two questions that she would like me to put to the government today. First, why either an inquiry or action? Why can they not occur simultaneously?

Second, what are the actual indicators or measurements that the government is using in evaluating whether or not its action plan is going to reduce the incidents of missing and murdered aboriginal women and the detection of those lost women?

[Employment, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed yet again. None of my questions have been answered. All we hear are generalities.

I would put again to the parliamentary secretary, and on to the minister I hope, where is the overhaul of the skilled worker program? By and large, all the reforms that were made were to the lesser-skilled program. We are still waiting.

As the member is likely aware, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers has now entered the fray and joined forces with the ironworkers and other workers, including welders, who are deeply upset with the way the temporary foreign worker program is being applied to their areas of work. The boilermakers have put forward ideas for reform. They would like to replace the international broker companies with the unions actually running the temporary foreign worker program to make sure Canadian workers are not displaced.

I look forward to hearing a response to what they are saying to the boilermakers.

I would like to also put a final request to the parliamentary secretary to pass on to the minister. Would he be willing to table in the House what enforcement actions have been taken against the owners, operators and brokers in the oil sands regarding the violations of the temporary foreign worker program?