Skip to main content Start of content

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
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Journals

No. 111

Monday, December 6, 2010

11:00 a.m.



Prayers
Private Members' Business

At 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Folco (Laval—Les Îles), seconded by Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis), — That Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The debate continued.

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

Accordingly, Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age), was read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Interruption

At 11:53 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 12:00 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson (Minister of Justice), seconded by Ms. Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women), — That Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The debate continued.

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

Accordingly, Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), was read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.


The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKay (Minister of National Defence), seconded by Mr. Kent (Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)), — That Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence.

The debate continued.

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), 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:

— Nos. 403-0948, 403-1027 and 403-1123 concerning housing policy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-29-07;

— No. 403-0953 concerning gun control. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-28-16;

— No. 403-0955 concerning the Employment Insurance Program. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-1-17;

— No. 403-0956 concerning the Federal Courts Act. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-104-01;

— Nos. 403-0966, 403-0971, 403-0972 and 403-0982 concerning horse meat. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-47-11;

— No. 403-1006 concerning the Criminal Code of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-23-12;

— No. 403-1008 concerning the Canadian Human Rights Act. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-70-02.


Motions

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be deemed to have been amended at the report stage as proposed in the report stage motion in the name of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism on today’s Notice Paper; be deemed concurred in at report stage as amended; and that the House be authorized to consider the Bill at third reading later today.

Accordingly, Motion No. 1 was agreed to as follows:

Motion No. 1 — That Bill C-35, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 1 with the following:

“or advise a person for”


Presenting Petitions

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

— by Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake), one concerning sex offenders (No. 403-1170);

— by Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior), two concerning horse meat (Nos. 403-1171 and 403-1172);

— by Mr. Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country), one concerning genetic engineering (No. 403-1173);

— by Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe), one concerning horse meat (No. 403-1174) and one concerning veterans' affairs (No. 403-1175);

— by Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville), one concerning the Criminal Code of Canada (No. 403-1176);

— by Ms. Ashton (Churchill), one concerning the mining industry (No. 403-1177);

— by Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina), one concerning transportation (No. 403-1178);

— by Mr. Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona), one concerning Afghanistan (No. 403-1179).


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-456, Q-463, Q-464, Q-466, Q-470, Q-471, Q-479 and Q-488 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-457 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to government legislation, what is the cost of implementing, for each fiscal year from present until 2020: (a) Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts; (b) Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act; (c) Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code; (d) Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions); (e) Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud); (f) Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service; (g) Bill C-23A, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act; (h) Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; (i) Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Criminal Code; (j) Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; (k) Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act; (l) Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act; (m) Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime); (n) Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts; and (o) An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody), which received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-457.


Q-458 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to government legislation, with which groups or individuals did the government consult before first reading of: (a) Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts; (b) Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act; (c) Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code; (d) Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions); (e) Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud); (f) Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service; (g) Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; (h) Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Criminal Code; (i) Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; (j) Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act; (k) Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act; (l) Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime); (m) Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts; and (n) An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody), which received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-458.


Q-460 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, for each application made under this section since its initial coming into force until today, how many days have passed between the date in which the application was made and the date on which the offender was either granted or denied parole? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-460.


Q-461 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to the Recreational Infrastructure Canada program (RINC), since May 2009 to present: (a) for each of the 308 ridings, how many (i) projects have been approved, (ii) projects have been rejected, (iii) applications for projects have been submitted; (b) where was each approved project located and how much money did it receive from the program, broken down by province and riding; (c) what is the average amount of money allotted to approved projects; (d) for each of the rejected project applications, (i) where was the rejected project to be located, (ii) what was the total funding requested, (iii) what was the rationale for the rejection; (e) for approved projects, what is the average number of days from the start date of the project to (i) the date of disbursement of funds, (ii) the date the project was first publicly announced; (f) what is the average number of days between a project receiving approval and the signing of the contribution agreement; (g) what is the total cost of administering the RINC; and (h) how much funding remains (i) unallocated, (ii) undisbursed? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-461.


Q-467 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to Canada’s Economic Action Plan, what projects have been approved for funding in-part or in-full through Canada’s Economic Action Plan in the Riding of Avalon, including for each project (i) the location of the project, (ii) the name of the applicant, (iii) the amount of funding applied for, (iv) the amount of funding approved, (v) the approval date, (vi) the project title and description, (vii) whether the project is complete and, if not, the expected completion date? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-467.


Q-468 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and more specifically Pilot Project No. 11 (Pilot Project for Calculating Benefit Rate Based On Claimant’s 14 Highest Weeks of Insurable Earning (2)), through the Employment Insurance (EI) program: in the EI economic region of Newfoundland and Labrador, broken down by divisions 1 to 9 and by fiscal year for the duration of Pilot Project No. 11, (i) how many claimants applied for EI benefits (excluding EI (Fishing)), (ii) how many of those applying received an additional benefit rate as a result of qualifying for the calculation rate based on the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings, (iii) what was the total value of extra EI benefits paid out as a result of the calculation using the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings per fiscal year in each of the divisions 1 to 9? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-468.


Q-469 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to the government’s August 2010 announcements that new units would be constructed on the grounds of existing federal penitentiaries administered by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as part of its implementation of the Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody): (a) how many new units are being built as part of this accommodation plan; (b) at which institutions will these new units be constructed; (c) what is the timeline, broken down annually, for the building of these new units at existing facilities; (d) how many offenders per unit are the new units designed to house; (e) what were the criteria for selecting the locations of the new units; (f) were the communities in which the facilities chosen for expansion are housed consulted about the planned expansion and, if so, when; (g) has a review of the impacts on host communities of expanding existing facilities been undertaken by CSC and, if so, what were the results; (h) what evidence does CSC have to support their claim that the prison expansion plan will ensure "tangible economic growth”; (i) what are the costs associated with the construction of the new units per year and over their projected life-cycle; (j) what are the costs associated with operating and maintaining the new units per year and over their projected life-cycle; and (k) over the next 20 years, is CSC considering the closure of any facility at which new units are being constructed and, if so, which facilities and what is the timeline for their closure? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-469.


Q-472 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) offender programming: (a) what offender programs, broken down by category, are currently offered by CSC, including for each program (i) the institutions at which they are offered, (ii) the number of spaces available, (iii) the annual cost of running the program; (b) does CSC evaluate the success of their offender programming and, if so, how; (c) what criteria and processes do CSC employ to select which offender programs are or will be offered at each institution; (d) what processes are employed to place offenders in programs; (e) do all offenders who request to take part in a program have access to it and, if not, why not; (f) do all offenders who are required to take part in specific programs as part of their Correctional Plans have access to them; (g) over the last ten years, broken down annually, how many offenders have had as part of their Correctional Plan the participation in CSC programming and in which programs where these offenders supposed to take part, broken down by category; (h) over the last ten years and broken down annually, how many offenders participated in programs that were required as part of their Correctional Plans; (i) if there is a discrepancy between the answers to (g) and (h), what accounts for it; (j) how much of the overall CSC budget has been spent on offender programming, broken down annually over the last ten years and how does that compare to CSC’s other spending categories; (k) over the next ten years, broken down annually, how much of the overall CSC budget will be spent on offender programming and how does that compare to planned spending in CSC’s other spending categories; (l) does CSC have the necessary staff to meet offender programming needs and, if not, what is being done to address this shortfall; and (m) over the next ten years, does CSC plan to expand the number and type of programs offered to offenders in order to meet the rehabilitation needs of the growing prison population and, if so, what are the details of this plan? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-472.


Q-478 — Mr. Pearson (London North Centre) — With regard to Canada’s involvement in United Nations' peacekeeping missions: (a) how many Canadian peacekeepers are deployed at present and to what locations; (b) how long have the peacekeepers in (a) been deployed to these areas; and (c) how much money does Canada contribute to United Nations peacekeeping missions? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-478.


Q-480 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) investigation of cases of possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein: (a) for the 26 cases reassessed by the CRA as of June 10, 2010, what is the breakdown of the $5.2 million (i) in unpaid taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (b) how much of the $5.2 million has been collected; (c) how many of the 26 cases are under appeal; (d) how many of the 26 cases remain open; (e) in how many of the 26 cases has the CRA collected the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties owed; (f) for each case identified in (e) how much was collected (i) in taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (g) how many of the account holders in the 26 cases have made partial payment; (h) of the partial repayments made (i) what was the largest repayment, (ii) what was the smallest repayment, (iii) what was the average repayment; (i) how much does the CRA anticipate it has yet to collect (i) in taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (j) of the amounts of money contained in the Liechtenstein accounts declared to or discovered by the CRA, what was (i) the largest amount, (ii) the smallest amount, (iii) the average amount; (k) on what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein; (l) on what date did CRA begin its investigation; (m) on what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin; (n) of the 106 Canadians identified as having bank accounts in Liechtenstein, how many have (i) had their accounts audited, (ii) not had their accounts audited, (iii) had their accounts reassessed, (iv) not had their accounts reassessed, (v) been the subject of a compliance action, (vi) not been the subject of a compliance action; and (o) how many tax evasion charges have been laid? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-480.


Q-481 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — What was the total amount of Economic Action Plan funding allocated for the fiscal year 2009-2010 within the constituency of Sudbury, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-481.


Q-482 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to Infrastructure Canada's programs: (a) under the Public Transit Fund (PTF), how much funding was committed for each province and how much funding was spent to date under the PTF; (b) under the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund, (i) to date, what applications for projects have been approved for funding, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what was the economic benefit, (v) for each project, what is the anticipated completion date, (vi) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Border Infrastructure Fund, (i) to date, by province, what applications for projects have been approved for funding, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what was the economic benefit, (v) for each project, what is the anticipated completion date, (vi) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (MRIF), (i) by province, how many municipalities submitted applications and how many projects were approved, (ii) for every fiscal year since the program was launched, up to and including the current fiscal year, how much funding has the MRIF disbursed and to whom, (iii) for each approved project, what was the municipality’s contribution; (iv) were consulting companies hired to support program delivery and, if so, what are their names; (e) under the Infrastructure Canada Program (ICP), (i) by province, how many applications were submitted, (ii) by province and riding, how many applications were approved, (iii) for every fiscal year since the program was launched, up to and including the current fiscal year, how much funding has the ICP disbursed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what was the municipality’s contribution, (v) were consulting companies hired to support program delivery and, if so, what are their names, (vii) when is the anticipated sunset of the program; (f) under the Building Canada Fund - Communities Component, (i) to date, by province and riding, what applications have been approved, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (g) under the Building Canada Fund - Major Infrastructure Component, (i) to date, by province and riding, what applications have been approved, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what is the anticipated completion date, (v) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (h) under the Public Private Partnership Fund, (i) to date, how many project applications have been submitted, (ii) to date, by province and riding, how many projects have been approved, (iii) for each project, who are the partners involved, including private companies, and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iv) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, including private companies, (v) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (i) under the Gateways and Border Crossing Fund, (i) to date, by province and riding, what applications have been approved, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what is the anticipated completion date, (v) how much funding will be committed to the Atlantic Gateway Initiative and the Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative during fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, (vi) how much funding remains available in the Fund, (vii) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (j) under the Gas Tax Fund, (i) to date, by province and territory, how much funding has been committed and how much funding has been dispersed, (ii) which municipalities received funding under this initiative and when, (iii) what are the funding criteria under this initiative; (k) by province, how much funding was reimbursed to each municipality under the GST rebate program; (l) how much funding was provided by Infrastructure Canada to partner federal departments during fiscal year 2007-2008 to date; and (m) how much funding was spent to promote each Infrastructure Canada program since fiscal year 2007-2008 to date? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-482.


Q-483 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to the hospitality expenses of government agencies, boards and commissions, for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) how much was spent on leasing expenses, catering services, restaurants, coffee and beverages, bottled water and petty cash; (b) how much was spent on overseas travel, (i) in which countries, (ii) on what dates did these trips occur, (iii) what was the purpose of each trip, (iv) what was the purpose of each expense; (c) what companies received sole source contracts to provide hospitality services; and (d) how much was spent on limousine services, private air service, executive class commercial air service, economy class commercial air service and car rentals? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-483.


Q-484 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to the government's expenditures related to the 19th Commonwealth Games: (a) for each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, what was the total amount spent on preparation of Canadian athletes by each federal department, agency or commission; (b) for each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, what was the total amount spent on sporting equipment for Canadian athletes participating in the 19th Commonwealth Games by each federal department, agency or commission; (c) what was the total amount spent by each federal organization to support the Canadian official delegation visit and how much was spent on (i) hospitality expenses, (ii) travelling expenses, (iii) accommodation, (iv) alcohol, (v) beverages, (vi) food; (d) what was the total amount spent to promote Canada during the 19th Commonwealth Games; (e) what are the names of the people who were part of Canada’s official delegation to the 19th Commonwealth Games; and (f) what private sector company representatives were part of Canada's official delegation and how much money did the government pay for their trips? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-484.


Q-486 — Mr. Silva (Davenport) — With regard to the government’s aid funding for Haiti in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, for every project funded, what is: (a) the name of the project; (b) the location of the project within the country of destination; (c) the amount of funding received by the project broken down as (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan; and (d) the department where the funding originated? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-486.


Q-489 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to the recent request by the Department of National Defence for bids for new fire trucks: (a) how many companies bid; (b) how many of these companies were from Canada; (c) what was the winning bid; and (d) why wasn’t a longer tendering period used for such a large procurement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-489.

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKay (Minister of National Defence), seconded by Mr. Kent (Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)), — That Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence.

The debate continued.

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

Accordingly, Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, was read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence.


The Order was read for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Mr. Kent (Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)) for Mr. Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities), seconded by Mr. Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Debate arose thereon.

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

Accordingly, Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, was read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House

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

— by Mr. Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) — Interim Order No. 3 Respecting Mail, Cargo and Baggage (JUS-81100-2-92), dated December 6, 2010, pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, R.S. 1985, c. A-2, sbs. 6.41(5) and (6). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-926-07. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

Adjournment Proceedings

At 5:43 p.m., by unanimous consent, the question “That this House do now adjourn” was deemed to have been proposed.

After debate, the question was deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, at 5:50 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).