House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Bilingual view PDF

40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Journals No. 27 Friday, April 16, 2010 10:00 a.m.

The Clerk informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

Whereupon, Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle), Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole, took the Chair, pursuant to subsection 43(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act.

Prayers

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Flaherty (Minister of Finance), seconded by Mr. O'Connor (Minister of State), — That Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

The debate continued.

The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division was deferred until Monday, April 19, 2010, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

The Order was read for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Mr. Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs) for Mr. Toews (Minister of Public Safety), seconded by Mr. O'Connor (Minister of State), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Debate arose thereon.

Statements By Members

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.

Oral Questions

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House proceeded to Oral Questions.

Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Protocol amending the Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the French Republic for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital signed on May 2, 1975, as amended by the Protocol signed on January 16, 1987 and as further amended by the Protocol signed November 30, 1995, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated February 2, 2010. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-403-4.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding Mutual Assistance between their Customs Administrations, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated October 30, 2009. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-403-5.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:

— No. 403-0024 concerning bankruptcy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-19-03;

— Nos. 403-0059 and 403-0060 concerning navigable waters. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-49-01;

— Nos. 403-0152 and 403-0177 concerning the fishing industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-30-02.

Introduction of Government Bills

Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) for Mr. Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources), seconded by Mr. O'Connor (Minister of State), Bill C-15, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Recommendation

(Pursuant to Standing Order 79(2))

Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident”.

Presenting Reports from Committees

Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer), from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented the Sixth Report of the Committee (question of privilege relating to mailings sent into the riding of Mount Royal). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-403-31.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 6 and 7) was tabled.

Mr. Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord), from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented the Seventh Report of the Committee (question of privilege relating to mailings sent into the riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-403-32.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 6 and 7) was tabled.

Motions

By unanimous consent, it was resolved, — That the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented earlier today, be concurred in.

Accordingly, the following recommendation of the Committee was agreed to:

That, in light of the vote in the House of Commons to end the practice of Members sending mass mailings, known as "ten-percenters", into ridings other than their own, and the subsequent decision of the Board of Internal Economy to limit "ten-percenters" to Members’ own ridings, the Committee recommends that the Order of the House adopted March 15, 2010, in relation to the matter of privilege raised by the Member for Mount Royal be discharged without prejudice.

By unanimous consent, it was resolved, — That the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented earlier today, be concurred in.

Accordingly, the following recommendation of the Committee was agreed to:

That, in light of the vote in the House of Commons to end the practice of Members sending mass mailings, known as "ten-percenters", into ridings other than their own, and the subsequent decision of the Board of Internal Economy to limit "ten-percenters" to Members’ own ridings, and in light of the apology by the Member from Saskatoon—Wanuskewin in the House of Commons to the Member from Sackville—Eastern Shore, the Committee recommends that the Order of the House adopted March 15, 2010, in relation to the matter of privilege raised by the Member for Sackville—Eastern Shore be discharged.

Presenting Petitions

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows:

— by , one concerning immigration (No. 403-0392);

— by , two concerning pornography (Nos. 403-0393 and 403-0394);

— by , one concerning foreign ownership (No. 403-0395);

— by , one concerning gun control (No. 403-0396) and one concerning health care services (No. 403-0397);

— by , one concerning transportation (No. 403-0398) and one concerning foreign aid (No. 403-0399).

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answers to questions Q-31, Q-32, Q-38, Q-89, Q-110 and Q-117 on the Order Paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-3 — — With regard to the transitional measures for Employment Insurance economic regions: (a) will the economic regions change after April 10, 2010; and (b) will the transitional measures for the economic regions be completely eliminated after April 10, 2010? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-3.

Q-15 — — With regard to the $25 million in humanitarian assistance that Canada provided to Lebanon over two years, as mentioned in a August 16, 2006, backgrounder on the Prime Minister’s website (http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=5&id=1287): how was this $25 million spent, specifically (i) which United Nations organizations or NGOs received funding, (ii) what was the nature of the projects funded, (iii) how much was provided per project, (iv) in which year were they were carried out? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-15.

Q-16 — — With regard to the additional funding the Government of Canada allocated for Lebanon at the International Conference of Support to Lebanon, held in Paris in January 2007 (http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/lebanon-liban/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/index.aspx?lang=eng&highlights_file=&left_menu_en=&left_menu_fr=&mission=): how has the additional $20 million announced by the Government of Canada been spent thus far, specifically (i) which United Nations organizations or NGOs have received funding, (ii) what was the nature of the projects funded, (iii) how much was allocated to each project, (iv) in which year were the projects carried out? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-16.

Q-17 — — With regard to the Skills Link program of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, which organizations in the Quebec region received funding under this program, how much was allocated per project, what was the duration of the projects and the addresses of the organizations sponsoring the projects (i) in 2007, (ii) in 2008, (iii) in 2009? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-17.

Q-22 — — In the matter of global warming, the thawing of the northern permafrost, and damage to infrastructure: (a) has the government conducted any studies to ascertain the level of potential damage to all government infrastructure in the Territories of Yukon, Northwest and Nunavut; (b) what is the cost associated with this damage to replace, reconstruct, or stabilize this infrastructure; (c) what is the time frame in regard to making these repairs or replacing damaged infrastructure; (d) have municipal and territorial partners been advised of the level of damage as a result of thawing permafrost; (e) have residents of the North been advised of potential hazards resulting from global warming; (f) what are the monetary costs associated with the said study; (g) when was the study conducted and by whom; (h) how is the government monitoring northern infrastructure deterioration from global warming; (i) how frequently is the infrastructure being inspected; (j) is any of the economic stimulus money earmarked for the three territories being directed to repairs or new construction of infrastructure damaged or weakened by thawing permafrost, and, if so how much; (k) what are the names of the projects, the associated costs, the location of the projects and the projected completion dates for all projects funded by earmarked money as specified in (j); and (l) given that the MacKenzie Valley pipeline is a major infrastructure project scheduled for the North, has the government applied its assessment of global warming and permafrost melting damage to this project as well, and, if so (i) what were the results, (ii) what are the government’s plans in this matter? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-22.

Q-58 — — What is the total amount of government funding, allocated within the constituency of in fiscal year 2007-2008, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-58.

Q-59 — — What is the total amount of government funding, allocated within the constituency of in fiscal year 2008-2009, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-59.

Q-60 — — With respect to military contracts between $5 million and $100 million awarded since January 2006 that include industrial and regional benefit (IRB) requirements, for each contract: (a) what is the name of the principal contractor; (b) what is the name of the Canadian company that concluded a partnership agreement with the principal contractor under the IRB Policy; (c) briefly, what is the project’s description; (d) where will most of the project be carried out; (e) how long will the project take; and (f) what is the project’s IRB value in terms of the IRB Policy? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-60.

Q-64 — — With regard to government print advertising: (a) how much has the government spent on dealing with the H1N1 pandemic through advertising in Canada, broken down by province; and (b) when was each advertisement published, and in which publication? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-64.

Q-65 — — With respect to the climate summit in Copenhagen and climate change: (a) what criteria needed to be met in order to be part of the Canadian delegation; (b) what were the name and position of each member of the Canadian delegation, what expertise and skills did each bring to the table, and for what time period were each in Copenhagen; (c) what was the total budget for the delegation, from flights to accommodation and living expenses; (d) what, if any, offsets were purchased for the delegation; (e) what was the description, in detail, of the Canadian climate change plan, and when will it be revealed to Canadians; (f) who were all the stakeholders consulted in the development of the plan, and how does each goal/target reflect or does not reflect each stakeholder's views; (g) did the government include the voice of Canadians who are on the “front line of climate change”, and were those who will be impacted by climate change meaningfully involved, and, if so, how; (h) what accountability measures, if any, were in place to ensure that the Canadian delegation would be responsible to those Canadians who will be particularly impacted (e.g., those living in low-lying areas and Aboriginal peoples); (i) what has been the stakeholder response to the plan, particularly from business, NGOs, scientists, and all stakeholders, and if available, what is the actual response of stakeholders' consulted; (j) what were the specific goals of the Canadian delegation, and how do they compare (in advance and afterward) with those of the G-20 or OECD in terms of baseline, absolute reductions, and target date; (k) did the Canadian delegation support the notion that climate change is not just an environmental issue, but rather a human rights issue and a justice issue and, if so, what is the description, in detail, of Canada's position; (l) did the Canadian delegation listen to the world's “frontline voice”, such as Bangladesh's and the Maldives', and act upon scientific and humanitarian evidence; (m) what were the projected costs of mitigating acid precipitation and reducing chemicals that destroyed stratospheric ozone, the costs of inaction, and what were the actual costs required; (n) what are the projected costs of adapting to and mitigating climate change in Canada today, and what are the costs of inaction for each year, five years, and decade delayed; (o) will the government commit new research dollars to support global climate research and services; (p) in detail, what percentage of 2009's stimulus was “green”, and how was it a “triple win” for the economy, jobs, and the atmosphere, and going forward, what specific targets in Canada's climate change plan will be a “triple win”; and (q) what are the costs the government is willing to pay to mitigate climate change, and how do these costs compare with the projected economic, environmental and social costs of climate change? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-65.

Q-68 — — With respect to the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative (CHVI) and the Level 5 Laboratory (L5L): (a) what are the details of the initial request for proposals for the CHVI; (b) what amount were the government and the Gates Foundation planning to invest in the CHVI and what were the scheduled dates for investment; (c) how many bids for the CHVI were submitted and by which organizations; (d) what are the details of the CHVI process for determining suitable award winners; (e) what were the selection criteria for awarding the CHVI bid and who was responsible for identifying the criteria; (f) how many people made up the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids, how were they selected, and from which disciplines and geographic areas were they drawn; (g) were representatives from the pharmaceutical industry invited to be part of the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what date did each representative serve and, if not, why not; (h) what were the results for each of the selection criterion for each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI and how were the bids ranked; (i) did the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids reach a recommendation, and, if so, on what date, and to whom was the information conveyed in the government; (j) was there a steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, who were the members, who was the chair and what was its mandate; (k) were there changes to the steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what dates and for what reasons; (l) was any organization bidding on the CHVI informed, formally or otherwise, that it had been chosen to host the facility and, if so, how and on what date; (m) did the federal government put up a notice on its Web site to announce that the CHVI project had been cancelled or would not proceed and, if so, on what date; (n) was the notice in (m) removed from the Web site and, if so, on what date and for what reason; (o) have each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI seen the results of the peer-review process and, if so, on what date and, if not, why not; (p) what constructive criticism was given to each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI; (q) what specific problems were identified that prevented each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI from being selected; (r) why were bidding organizations not encouraged to redevelop their CHVI bid; (s) why and by whom was the CHVI cancelled; (t) on what dates was the CHVI project cancelled, were the submitting organizations formally informed and was the Canadian public informed; (u) what do “changing needs” and “reallocation of resources” mean in relation to the cancellation of the CHVI project; (v) what post-mortem audit does the government plan to undertake to investigate how Canadian investigators and research centres failed to meet the selection criteria for the CHVI bid; (w) how will the planned CHVI investment monies be spent; (x) what are the details of both the CHVI’s and the L5L’s history from January 2009; (y) what are the organizations involved in the L5L, and what, if any, overlap (e.g., goals, funds, personnel, etc.) exists between the International Centre for Infectious Diseases, which was bidding for the CHVI, and the L5L; (z) what, if any, involvement does the government have in the L5L; and (aa) what, if any, review process is in place for the L5L? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-68.

Q-73 — — With respect to the pending sale of the CANDU reactor division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: (a) what analysis, if any, has the government conducted into the impact of this sale on (i) Canada’s national security, (ii) energy resilience, (iii) global nuclear non-proliferation, (iv) human rights, (v) global security, and what are their results; (b) what is the full amount of federal funds dispersed to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, from its inception to present, from 2000 to date, and in the last available fiscal year; (c) what is the amount of federal funds dispersed to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited specifically for the CANDU reactor division, from its inception to present, from 2000 to date, and in the last available fiscal year; (d) what is the government’s estimated surplus or shortfall between the total federal funds dispersed for the CANDU reactor division and the expected sale price of the division; (e) by what other means does the government plan to recover the federal funds dispersed for the CANDU reactor division in the future, and what is the estimated amount to be recovered; (f) what is the division’s net income from its inception to present, from 2000 to present, and for the last available fiscal year; (g) what is the estimated market value of the division; (h) what is the government’s target sale price of the division; (i) what is the government’s full assessment of the present market outlook for CANDU reactor division, including potential for sales and competitive challenges from next-generation light-water reactors; and (j) what steps has the government taken, or will the government take, to ensure that this sale will never result in the enrichment of plutonium to weapon-grade status by any actor as a result of CANDU reactors? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-73.

Q-87 — — With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund, since March 2009 to present: (a) how many applications were successful and received funding under this program, and how many were rejected; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by provincial and federal electoral district; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far; (d) how much funding is left; (e) how many major projects under this program will go or went to expand existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects' applications that went towards (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; and (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications that went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communication more accessible? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-87.

Government Orders

Notice having been given at a previous sitting under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), Mr. Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), seconded by Mr. O'Connor (Minister of State), moved, — That, in relation to Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, the House proceeded to the question period regarding the moving of the time allocation motion.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 26 -- Vote n^o 26)
YEAS: 50, NAYS: 44
YEAS -- POUR Abbott Aglukkaq Albrecht Anderson Baird Bezan Boucher Boughen Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Cadman Calkins Cannon (Pontiac) Carrie Davidson Day Dechert Del Mastro Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Finley Fletcher Glover Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hill Holder Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Kent Komarnicki Lake Lauzon Lemieux Lukiwski MacKenzie Mayes Menzies Norlock O'Connor Payne Petit Raitt Reid Schellenberger Shipley Van Loan Warawa Warkentin Total: -- 50
NAYS -- CONTRE André Andrews Asselin Bélanger Bigras Carrier Christopherson Cotler Davies (Vancouver East) Dewar Dion Dorion Dryden Dufour Duncan (Etobicoke North) Easter Faille Goodale Gravelle Guay Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord) Holland Hyer Laforest Laframboise Lee Maloway Mendes Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe) Pacetti Pomerleau Proulx Ratansi Russell Scarpaleggia Silva Simms St-Cyr Stoffer Tonks Trudeau Valeriote Wrzesnewskyj Zarac Total: -- 44

Private Members' Business

At 1:27 p.m., by unanimous consent, the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex), seconded by Mr. Menzies (Macleod), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (Private Members' Business M-460)

The debate continued.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on division.

Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were laid upon the Table as follows:

— by — Summaries of the amended Corporate Plan for 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 and of the amended Capital and Operating Budgets for 2009-2010 of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-403-855-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology)

— by — Order in Council approving an appointment made by the Governor General in Council, pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), as follows:

— P.C. 2010-295. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-403-13-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights)

— by — Report of Ridley Terminals Inc., together with the Auditor General's Report, for the year 2008, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-770-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Report of Ridley Terminals Inc., together with the Auditor General's Report, for the year 2009, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-770-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summaries of the Amended Corporate Plan for 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 and the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2009-2010 of the Canada Lands Company Limited, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-403-840-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

Adjournment

At 2:18 p.m., the Deputy Speaker adjourned the House until Monday at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).