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.
| 41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION | |
|
|
|
JournalsNo. 136 Thursday, June 7, 2012 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
| Prayers |
| Vacancies |
|
The Speaker informed the House that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in the House of Commons, for the Electoral District of Calgary Centre, in the Province of Alberta, by reason of the resignation of Mr. Lee Richardson, and that, pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, he had addressed, earlier today, his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy. |
| Daily Routine Of Business |
Tabling of Documents |
The Speaker laid upon the Table, — Report of the Commissioner of Lobbying for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, pursuant to the Lobbying Act, R.S. 1985, c. 44 (4th Supp.), s. 11. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-411-1017-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics)
|
|
|
|
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 response, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petition: |
— No. 411-0847 concerning suicide prevention. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-65-06.
|
Presenting Reports from Committees |
|
Mr. Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc), from the Standing Committee on Finance, presented the Ninth Report of the Committee, "Report on Part 3 on Bill C-38 (Responsible Resource Development)". — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-112. |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requested that the government table a comprehensive response. |
|
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 69) was tabled. |
|
|
|
Mr. Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc), from the Standing Committee on Finance, presented the Tenth Report of the Committee (Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, without amendment). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-113. |
|
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 58 to 70) was tabled. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke), from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented the Fourth Report of the Committee (expenses of the members of the Board of Directors and of senior management of the Old Port of Montréal Corporation). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-114. |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requested that the government table a comprehensive response. |
|
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 38, 41 and 43) was tabled. |
Presenting Petitions |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions was presented as follows: |
— by Mrs. Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton), one concerning the Criminal Code of Canada (No. 411-1276).
|
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-614, Q-615, Q-620 and Q-623 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-610 — Ms. Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry) — With respect to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): (a) does the 2012 Economic Action Plan (Budget 2012) provide for decreases or increases in the financial and human resources allocated to the CFIA; (b) what impact will Budget 2012 have on the financial and human resources allocated to Canada’s food safety system; (c) what impact will Budget 2012 have on the number of employees at the CFIA; (d) what impact will Budget 2012 have on the CFIA’s services; (e) what are the government’s plans to streamline and accelerate the food regulatory process; (f) will these plans have an impact on the number of employees or the availability of CFIA programs and services; (g) how will the introduction of a label verification tool for consumers affect CFIA employees and services; (h) will the introduction of the label verification tool for consumers enable the CFIA or the department to save money; and (i) is the CFIA still responsible for food labelling and for reporting labelling errors to the companies concerned? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-610.
|
|
|
Q-611 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the government’s plans for resource development, as described in the section entitled “Responsible Resource Development” in Chapter 3.2 of Budget 2012: (a) what are all examples of federal environmental laws that are stronger than provincial laws and how will the proposed legislative changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) affect the assessment of environmental impacts of industrial projects that cross provincial borders; (b) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken to study impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) risk mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (c) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (d) will the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA give any consideration to (i) measuring negative impacts of development, (ii) managing negative impacts of development; (e) by what date will the government bring forth new “legislation to streamline the review process for major economic projects” (Budget 2012, p. 89); (f) what are the projected costs of changes to the CEAA for each province and territory;
|
(g) what assessments of the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory have been conducted, (i) what were the dates of any such assessments, (ii) what were the recommendations and conclusions; (h) what are the details of any research or evidence in the government’s possession indicating that the proposed “modern regulatory system” will contribute to (i) “better environmental outcomes”, (ii) “offer new opportunities for Aboriginal businesses”, (iii) “generate well-paying jobs for Aboriginal peoples near their communities”, (iv) “improve consultations with Aboriginal peoples” (Budget 2012, p. 91); (i) what is the government’s rationale for extending support for consultations with Aboriginal peoples for a period of only two years; (j) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken regarding how changes to the current environmental review process may impact the Northern Gateway pipeline project, including (i) intervenors in the project, (ii) project proponents, (iii) regulators of the project; (k) given its plan for resource development, how does the government plan to ensure that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board (NEB) will have adequate financial and technical resources, and how will the resource levels of these organizations change given the expected growth in resource development projects; (l) what is the cost of having enforceable environmental assessment decision statements, (i) what resources will be allocated to ensure that these decision statements will be enforced, (ii) what will be the consequence if a proponent does not comply with required mitigation measures to protect the environment; (m) will there be Criminal Code penalties for violating the CEAA and the NEB Act; (n) how will the government define whether or not a provincial process is equivalent to the federal process; (o) how will the government determine which major projects will continue to receive oversight from the federal assessment process; (p) what proportion of current assessments will no longer receive federal oversight given the proposed changes; (q) what is a detailed accounting of the investments being made in the Major Projects Management Office Initiative versus the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; (r) by what dates will the government bring forth (i) legislation to “enhance the existing tanker inspection regime” (Budget 2012, p. 98) and what specific actions will be taken to ensure enforcement of the legislation, (ii) “appropriate legislative and regulatory frameworks related to oil spills, and emergency preparedness and response” (Budget 2012, p.98) and what specific actions will be taken to ensure enforcement of the legislation;
|
(s) how will an independent international panel of tanker safety experts be chosen and, specifically, (i) why was it decided that an international panel is needed to assess handling processes, (ii) what will be the specific process for, and who will be involved in, choosing the members of the international panel, (iii) who will have the ultimate decision-making authority on the appointments to the international panel, (iv) when will the international panel be chosen, (v) what will be the selection criteria for the panel, (vi) how will all potential conflicts of interest of members of the international panel be recorded, confirmed, and publicly declared; (t) by what date will the government bring forth “new navigational products, such as updated charts for shipping routes” (Budget 2012, p. 98) and, specifically, what other navigational products will be provided; (u) what monies will be provided for “research to improve our scientific knowledge and understanding of marine pollution risks, and to manage the impacts on marine resources, habitats and users in the event of a marine pollution incident” (Budget 2012, p. 98), (i) when will the monies be available, (ii) to whom will monies be available; (v) what is the government’s rationale for implementing funding for strengthening pipeline safety for a period of only two years; (w) will funding for strengthening pipeline safety include funding for the NEB to (i) monitor whether regulated companies have prepared emergency-procedures manuals according to established legislation, standards, and NEB expectations, (ii) communicate any deficiencies to the regulated companies, (iii) ensure any deficiencies are corrected; (x) how does the role of the Northern Pipeline Agency compare to that of the NEB and, specifically, (i) what is the Agency’s mandate, (ii) what is its organizational structure, (iii) who are its key people, (iv) to whom will the Agency report and how often; and (y) what is a detailed accounting of the government’s investments in environmental monitoring, protection, and enforcement as it compares with the government’s investments in promoting Canada’s oil and gas industry? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-611.
|
|
|
Q-612 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to changes to environmental programs resulting from the announcements in Budget 2012: (a) specifying how each identified cut is projected to impact the government’s access to scientific information required for the development of public policy, the number of people to be cut, and the amount of money to be cut, what are all areas of scientific research and partnerships to be cut, including, but not limited to, (i) air pollution, (ii) emergency preparedness and response, (iii) industrial waste, (iv) water quality; (b) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of research and partnership cuts on the government’s access to scientific information required for the development of public policy; (c) what, in detail, does “sufficient data is available to support the dissemination and validation of the UV Index forecast” mean, (i) what does “we will continue to have enough data for EC to track and report on ozone” mean, (iii) in detail, will the government maintain the integrity of the ozone monitoring program, (iv) in detail, will the government maintain Canadian contributions to the global observing system for climate in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), (v) what studies have been undertaken to assess the impact of streamlining ozone monitoring on Canada’s international reputation, and what were any findings and recommendations; (d) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding (i) impacts of streamlining ozone data collection, (ii) the integrity of the ozone monitoring program, (iii) Canada’s contributions to the UNFCCC, (iv) Canada’s international reputation; (e) what studies have been undertaken to assess the impact on Canada’s international reputation of the decision to no longer house and manage the Global Environmental Monitoring System Water Program of the United Nations Environment Programme, and what were any findings and recommendations;
|
(f) what, in detail, is the government’s rationale for eliminating the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, (i) what other organization has a direct mandate from Parliament to engage Canadians in the generation and promotion of sustainable development advice and solutions, (ii) which organizations will provide domestic, independent research and analysis on sustainable development and what are the sources of their funding; (g) what monies are to be spent on the two dimensions to clean energy, namely (i) the clean-up of non-renewable sources of energy such as coal and the oil sands by reducing their environmental and climate change impacts, (ii) opportunities to compete in renewable energy production and more efficient energy consumption; and (h) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken to identify those investments which are necessary (i) to develop a clean energy industry in Canada, (ii) to help Canada to transition to the green economy, (iii) to have Canada be a leader in the green economy? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-612.
|
|
|
Q-625 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to Canadian Forces operations since January 1, 2006, how many times have Canadian Forces aircraft been dispatched, at the request of provincial authorities, to conduct an emergency medical transportation and, for each such dispatch: (a) which provincial authority made the request; (b) which aircraft asset was involved; (c) from which Canadian Forces establishment was the aircraft dispatched; (d) from what location was the patient or patients picked up; (e) to what location was the patient or patients transported; (f) what was the date of the medical transportation; and (g) was a news release or other statement issued to the media concerning the incident, and, if so, on what date was the release or statement made? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-625.
|
| Government Orders |
|
Notice having been given at a previous sitting under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), seconded by Mr. Menzies (Minister of State (Finance)), moved, — That, in relation to Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and |
|
that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third 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. 274 -- Vote no 274) | |
| YEAS: 147, NAYS: 126 |
|
|
YEAS -- POUR Ablonczy Clement Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Seeback Total: -- 147 |
|
|
NAYS -- CONTRE Allen (Welland) Cotler Julian Papillon Total: -- 126 |
|
|
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun |
|
|
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Flaherty (Minister of Finance), seconded by Mr. O'Connor (Minister of State), — That Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts, be now read a third time and do pass; |
And of the motion of Mr. Menegakis (Richmond Hill), seconded by Mr. Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook), — That this question be now put.
|
|
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. |
| Government Orders |
|
Notice having been given at a previous sitting under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), seconded by Ms. Raitt (Minister of Labour), moved, — That, in relation to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, not more than seven further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and |
|
that, at the expiry of the seven hours provided for the consideration of the 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. 275 -- Vote no 275) | |
| YEAS: 145, NAYS: 114 |
|
|
YEAS -- POUR Ablonczy Clarke Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Schellenberger Total: -- 145 |
|
|
NAYS -- CONTRE Allen (Welland) Cotler Jacob Papillon Total: -- 114 |
|
|
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun |
|
|
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway), seconded by Mr. Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform)), — That Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade; |
And of the motion of Ms. Raitt (Minister of Labour), seconded by Mr. Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country), — That this question be now put.
|
|
The debate continued. |
| Private Members' Business |
|
At 5:30 p.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 Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants), seconded by Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra), — That the Standing Committee on Finance be instructed to undertake a study on income inequality in Canada and that this study include, but not be limited to, (i) a review of Canada’s federal and provincial systems of personal income taxation and income supports, (ii) an examination of best practices that reduce income inequality and improve GDP per capita, (iii) the identification of any significant gaps in the federal system of taxation and income support that contribute to income inequality, as well as any significant disincentives to paid work in the formal economy that may exist as part of a “welfare trap”, (iv) recommendations on how best to improve the equality of opportunity and prosperity for all Canadians; and that the Committee report its findings to the House within one year of the adoption of this motion. (Private Members' Business M-315) |
|
The debate continued. |
|
The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, June 13, 2012, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business. |
| 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 Mr. Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources) — Report of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology (including supplements I and II), together with the Auditors' Report, for the year 2011, pursuant to the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act, S.C. 2001, c. 23, sbs. 30(3). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-411-823-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)
|
— by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources) — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2012-2013 of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-411-824-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)
|
| Adjournment Proceedings |
|
At 6:08 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 6:27 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). |