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
41st PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals

No. 81

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

10:00 a.m.



Prayers
Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents

The Speaker laid upon the Table, — Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons (Spring 2014), together with an addendum, pursuant to the Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A-17, sbs. 7(5). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-64-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts)


Presenting Reports from Committees

Ms. LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard), from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, presented the Third Report of the Committee (Main Estimates 2014-15 — Votes 1 and 5 under OFFICE OF THE CO-ORDINATOR, STATUS OF WOMEN). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-72.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 20) was tabled.


Presenting Petitions

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

— by Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands), one concerning the electoral system (No. 412-2642);

— by Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam), one concerning the fishing industry (No. 412-2643);

— by Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan), one concerning the grain industry (No. 412-2644);

— by Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), one concerning budget measures (No. 412-2645) and one concerning science policy (No. 412-2646);

— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning environmental assessment and review (No. 412-2647) and one concerning international agreements (No. 412-2648);

— by Mr. Easter (Malpeque), one concerning the Criminal Code of Canada (No. 412-2649) and one concerning health care services (No. 412-2650);

— by Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York), two concerning budget measures (Nos. 412-2651 and 412-2652) and three concerning the Canada Post Corporation (Nos. 412-2653 to 412-2655);

— by Ms. Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River), one concerning national parks (No. 412-2656);

— by Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine), one concerning the Canada Post Corporation (No. 412-2657) and five concerning VIA Rail (Nos. 412-2658 to 412-2662);

— by Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal), one concerning crimes of violence (No. 412-2663);

— by Mr. Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie), two concerning health care services (Nos. 412-2664 and 412-2665);

— by Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North), one concerning the protection of the environment (No. 412-2666);

— by Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), one concerning Old Age Security benefits (No. 412-2667).


Questions 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-323 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band under the Indian Act, and the administration of the enrollment of applicants in the Founding Members list: (a) how many applications for enrollment in the Band were received by the Enrollment Clerks and by the Enrollment Committee, broken down by month from December 2008 to November 2012; (b) how many applications were accepted for membership by the Enrollment Committee, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (c) broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013, (i) how many applications were rejected for membership by the Enrollment Committee, and of these, (ii) how many were appealed by the applicant to the Appeals Master, (iii) how many were overturned by the Appeals Master, (iv) how many were confirmed by the Appeals Master; (d) how many applications that were approved by the Enrollment Committee were appealed by Canada to the Appeals Master, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (e) how many of the applications were rejected by Canada under the provisions of 4.2.16 of the 2008 Qalipu Mi’kmaq Recognition Agreement, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (f) broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013, (i) how many of the applications which were rejected by Canada, under the provisions of 4.2.16 of the 2008 Qalipu Mi’kmaq Recognition Agreement concerning Canadian Aboriginal Ancestry, were appealed to the Appeals Master, (ii) how many of these rejections were overturned by the Appeals Master, (iii) how many were confirmed by the Appeals Master; (g) how many internal or external audits or reviews were conducted by the government that included matters of the enrollment process between December 2008 and March 2014, (i) what is the government’s document reference number for each of these audits or reviews, (ii) when were these audits or reviews completed; (h) on what date did the government first make contact with the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band or the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to register or express concerns about the enrollment process; (i) what are the total expenses paid to, or on behalf of, Mr. Fred Caron in relation to his work on Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band enrollment process and other issues from December 2008 to March 2014, broken down by (i) professional fees, (ii) travel and related disbursements, (iii) support services, (iv) other expenses; (j) how many applicants were informed that their applications were deemed invalid by reason of failure to provide a long form birth certificate as part of the applicants' application package, broken down by month from December 2008 to March 2014; and (k) how many applications were deemed invalid by reason of the applicant’s failure to sign the application in all required locations of the membership application form, broken down by month from December 2008 to March 2014? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-323.


Q-324 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the administration of all government departments, crown corporations and agencies as well as other entities within federal jurisdiction that offer goods or services to parliamentarians, to parliamentarians' staff, to the spouses or dependents of parliamentarians, or more generally to the offices of parliamentarians, hereafter referred to as “eligible parliamentary persons”, at either no cost or at a reduced cost compared to the rate normally charged to a member of the general public who might seek the provision of the same or a similar good or service from the government: without consideration or inclusion of any occasional discounts or promotions for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013, and not including those goods or services provided directly to any eligible parliamentary persons under the normal rules of the administration of the House of Commons, the Senate or by the Library of Parliament, (a) which federal entities provided goods or services to those eligible parliamentary persons at either no cost or at a reduced cost; (b) what is each respective good or service thus provided, and what is the rationale for offering such no-cost goods or services or discounts to eligible parliamentary persons; (c)broken down by each such individual product or service, what is the cost to each federal entity, as measured in revenue that would otherwise not have been lost, of providing such goods or services to eligible parliamentary persons, calculated for each fiscal year and using the undiscounted rate that would be normally charged to members of the general public as the comparative basis for such a calculation; (d) what was the net financial position of each federal crown corporation or operating agency providing such goods or services before the provision of federal subsidies are considered in each fiscal year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-324.


Q-328 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to any contracting paid for by the budgets of each Minister's Office since May 1, 2011, what are the details of all contracts over $500 including (i) the name of the supplier, vendor or individual who received the contract, (ii) the date on which the contract was entered into, (iii) the date the contract terminated, (iv) a brief description of the good or service provided, (v) the amount of payment initially agreed upon for the contract, (vi) the final amount paid for the contract? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-328.


Q-331 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the purchase, sale and renovation of diplomatic properties by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development: (a) how many properties have been purchased in each of the last ten fiscal years; (b) how many properties have been sold in each of the last ten fiscal years; (c) what were the locations and prices of all properties valued over $250 000 purchased in each of the last ten fiscal years; (d) what were the locations and prices of all properties valued over $250 000 sold in each of the last ten fiscal years; (e) are property purchases or sales above a certain value subject to ministerial approval, and if so, what is the threshold; (f) for each of the properties in (c) and (d), what were (i) their respective cost at the time of purchase, (ii) the year in which they were purchased; (g) what proportion of properties are rented by the government and what is the average value of all rented properties; (h) what proportion of properties are owned by the government and what is the average value of all owned properties; and (i) how much has been spent on property renovations in each of the last ten years? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-331.


Q-332 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to Elections Canada, what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and Elections Canada since January 23, 2006, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-332.


Q-333 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the government’s consultations about prostitution-related offences: (a) what goals have been established for the consultations; (b) what goals have been established for the online consultation; (c) whose input did the government seek through online consultation; (d) which individuals wrote the discussion paper for the online consultation; (e) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (f) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (g) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (h) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (i) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (j) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (k) which individuals developed the online consultation questions; (l) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (m) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the online consultation questions; (n) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (o) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the online consultation questions;

(p) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (q) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the online consultation questions; (r) how many responses did the government receive through the online form; (s) how many responses were sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca; (t) how many responses were sent directly to consultation-prostitution@justice.gc.ca; (u) what was or will be done with responses sent to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca that are written in whole or in part in a language other than English; (v) what was or will be done with responses sent to consultation-prostitution@justice.gc.ca that are written in whole or in part in a language other than French; (w) why are answers in the online form limited to 500 words; (x) what is the limit to the length of submissions sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca or consultation-prostitution@justice.gc.ca; (y) in what ways did the government make Canadians aware of the online consultation process; (z) how much money was allocated to advertise the online consultation process; (aa) how much money was spent to advertise the online consultation process; (bb) where did each advertisement of the online consultation process appear; (cc) when did each advertisement in (bb) appear; (dd) who has read the responses to the online consultation; (ee) who will read the responses to the online consultation; (ff) will each response to the online consultation have been read by one or more employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ); (gg) which employees of the DOJ have read or will read the responses to the online consultation; (hh) will any responses to the online consultation have been seen in whole or in part by individuals not in the employ of the DOJ; (ii) which individuals not in the employ of the DOJ have seen or will see responses to the online consultation, in whole or in part; (jj) will each response to the online consultation have been read by one or more individuals in the office of the Minister of Justice;

(kk) which individuals in the office of the Minister of Justice have read or will read responses to the online consultation; (ll) has the Minister of Justice read any of the responses to the online consultation; (mm) will the Minister of Justice read any of the responses to the online consultation; (nn) what proportion of the responses to the online consultation does the Minister of Justice intend to read; (oo) will submissions sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca or consultation-prostitution@justice.gc.ca be read in their entirety, regardless of length; (pp) by what means are submissions assessed; (qq) by what process or processes are responses to the online consultation reviewed; (rr) who has assessed or will assess the responses to the online consultation; (ss) what metrics have been or will be applied with respect to the online consultation as a whole; (tt) broken down by question for the online consultation, what scoring or metrics have been developed with respect to assessing responses; (uu) have responses to the online consultation been screened, evaluated, reviewed or monitored by computer in any way; (vv) will responses to the online consultation be screened, evaluated, reviewed or monitored by computer in any way; (ww) what keywords or standards have been or will be used in computer screening, evaluation, review, or monitoring of responses to the online consultation; (xx) what scoring mechanisms or criteria have been or will be applied with respect to the screening, evaluation, review or monitoring of responses to the online consultation; (yy) how is the value of responses to the online consultation determined; (zz) by whom or by what is the value of responses to the online consultation determined;

(aaa) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the value of responses to the online consultations; (bbb) how is the relevance of responses to the online consultation determined; (ccc) by whom or by what is the relevance of responses to the online consultation determined; (ddd) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the relevance of responses to the online consultations; (eee) how is the probative value of responses to the online consultation determined; (fff) by whom or by what is the probative value of responses to the online consultation determined; (ggg) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the probative value of responses to the online consultations; (hhh) how is the legal validity of suggestions received through the online consultation process be assessed; (iii) how are responses to the online consultation evaluated for factual accuracy; (jjj) have any responses to the online consultation been discarded or ignored; (kkk) will any responses to the online consultation be discarded or ignored; (lll) based on what criteria are responses to the online consultation discarded or ignored; (mmm) are responses to the online form considered if not all of the questions are answered; (nnn) what processes, metrics, or other criteria are used to determine whether a response to the online consultation constitutes spam; (ooo) what process exists to verify the identity of an individual or group that has responded to the online consultation;

(ppp) what process or measures exist to determine whether an individual or group that responds to the online consultation is Canadian; (qqq) in what way does the government consider responses to the online consultation by individuals or groups that are not Canadian; (rrr) by what date does the government intend to have reviewed all of the responses to the online consultation; (sss) will all of the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public in their entirety; (ttt) who determines whether certain responses or parts of responses to the online consultation will not be made available to the public; (uuu) based on what criteria are the determinations in (ttt) made; (vvv) how will the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public; (www) when will the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public; (xxx) since 2006, apart from this year’s online consultations on the DOJ website, with what groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments has the government consulted; (yyy) when did each of the consultations in (xxx) occur; (zzz) through what medium did each of the consultations in (xxx) occur; (aaaa) who within the government carried out each of the consultations in (xxx); (bbbb) apart from online consultations on the DOJ website, with what groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments does the government intend to consult before introducing new legislation in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada; (cccc) when will the government carry out the consultations in (bbbb); (dddd) through what medium will the government carry out each of the consultations in (bbbb);

(eeee) who within the government will carry out the consultations in (bbbb); (ffff) based on what criteria does the government select the groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments with which it consults; (gggg) since the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada, which groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments have asked to be consulted by the government; (hhhh) with which groups, government agencies, individuals or other governments in (gggg) has the government agreed to consult; (iiii) with which groups, government agencies, individuals or other governments in (gggg) has the government declined to consult; (jjjj) what studies has the government ordered; (kkkk) what studies does the government intend to order; (llll) what studies has the government consulted; (mmmm) what studies does the government intend to consult; (nnnn) based on what criteria does the government determine whether to conduct online public consultations on a given subject; (oooo) does the government have the capacity to record the individual IP address of each user who visits the online consultation page; (pppp) has the government stored the IP address of each submission through the online consultation, and, if so (i) for what purpose, (ii) how long will such data be stored, (iii) who will have access to it, (iv) what privacy protections are in place, (v) how was the decision to track such data made, by whom, on what date, and with what authority; (qqqq) have any submissions been rejected on the basis of IP address; (rrrr) for what reasons were the submissions in (qqqq) rejected; (ssss) were multiple submissions received from any IP addresses; (tttt) is each submissions from a single IP address considered individually; (uuuu) what efforts did the government make, if any, to assist sex workers in participating in or completing the online consultation; (vvvv) is the government aware of any groups that assisted sex workers in participating in the online consultation;

(wwww) in what way, if any, are submissions from groups considered differently than submissions from individuals; (xxxx) does the government have the capacity to track the number of individuals who visited the online consultation page each day; (yyyy) with respect to the online consultation page, (i) how many visits did the page receive during each day of the survey period, (ii) how many visits did the English version of the page receive during each day of the survey period, (iii) how many visits did the French version of the page receive during each day of the survey period, (iv) how many submissions were submitted on each of those days, (v) how does the government account for any fluctuation in visitation or participation rates; (zzzz) with respect to in-person consultations, (i) in which cities have such consultations occurred, (ii) on what dates did such consultations occur, (iii) in which cities will such consultations occur, (iv) on what dates will such consultations occur; (aaaaa) with respect to the consultations in (zzzz), broken down by city and date, (i) which groups and individuals were invited, (ii) which groups and individuals attended; (bbbbb) how are groups selected for participation in in-person consultations; (ccccc) for each consultation in (zzzz), who attended from the DOJ and on behalf of the Minister of Justice; (ddddd) what was the format of each in-person consultation; (eeeee) what specific questions were given to participants to discuss, if any; (fffff) how much time was allotted for each in-person consultation; (ggggg) given the number of individuals and groups at each consultation, approximately how much time did each group have to speak (i) to each question, (ii) in total; (hhhhh) with respect to answers or submissions at in-person consultations, (i) how were they recorded, (ii) by whom, (iii) will they be made publicly available in their entirety; (iiiii) what weight are comments from the in-person consultations given relative to responses from the online consultation; (jjjjj) how was the period of time for the online consultation determined; (kkkkk) on what basis was the length of time for the online consultation determined to be adequate; (lllll) how long does the government estimate that it will take to compile and analyze the results of (i) in-person consultations, (ii) the online consultation, (iii) the totality of its consultative efforts on this file; (mmmmm) will the government produce a final report on its consultative efforts; (nnnnn) when does the government expect that the report in (mmmmm) will be made publicly available; (ooooo) what will be included in the report in (mmmmm); (ppppp) by when will a bill be introduced in the House of Commons or Senate reflecting the result of consultations; (qqqqq) in what ways will the consultations influence the government’s policy-making in this regard; (rrrrr) has any percent or measure been set as a threshold beyond which a particular approach, enjoying plurality favour by those consulted, will automatically be reflected in the government’s legislative response to Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada; (sssss) under what circumstances would the government’s approach differ from that recommended by the plurality of consultation participants; (ttttt) what measures are in place to ensure that the government’s legislative approach is reflective of the consultation results; (uuuuu) what is the total cost of consultations thus far, and what is the breakdown of this figure; (vvvvv) what is the projected total cost of consultations, and what is the breakdown of this figure; and (wwwww) what alternatives to online and in-person consultations were considered and why were these found inadequate? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-333.


Q-334 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to bijuralism and harmonization: (a) what measures are in place to ensure legislative bijuralism across all departments; (b) since the adoption of the “Policy on Legislative Bijuralism”, how has the Department of Justice (i) ensured that all legal counsel in the Department are made aware of the requirements of legislative bijuralism in order for them to be able to take it into account when advising client departments on legislative reforms, (ii) enhanced the capacity of the Legislative Services Branch to draft bijural legislative texts, (iii) undertook, in drafting both versions of every bill and proposed regulation that touches on provincial or territorial private law, to take care to reflect the terminology, concepts, notions and institutions of both of Canada’s private law systems; (c) since the adoption of the “Policy for Applying the Civil Code of Quebec to Federal Government Activities”, what measures are in place to ensure (i) changes to Quebec’s Civil Code are known and monitored by the government, (ii) assessment of federal legislation relative to changes to Quebec’s Civil Code, (iii) federal legislation is introduced to reflect, where necessary, changes to the Civil Code of Quebec; (d) with respect to the “Index of Bijuralism and Harmonization Caselaw” found online and indicating its most recent update was June 12, 2012, (i) how often is this page updated, (ii) given that some cases thereupon are from 2013, when was this page last updated, (iii) whose responsibility is it to update this page, (iv) what cases are currently being monitored for potential addition to this page; (e) with respect to cases involving bijuralism and harmonization, (i) in what ways are these made known to the Department, (ii) whose responsibility it is to monitor these cases, (iii), what role does the Federal government play in these cases if a party, (iv) what role does the government play if not a party, (v) who makes the determination and as to when the government should intervene if not a party and how is this decision made;

(f) with respect to Bijurilex, whose website at http://www.bijurilex.gc.ca/ appeared not to function as of March 17, 2014, (i) is this website still available, (ii) if not, when was it taken off-line and why, (iii) where can its former contents be found; (g) what resources exist to provide information about the implications and challenges of bijuralism as it relates to legislation; (h) with respect to the bijuralism publication of the Department entitled “THE LINK”, (i) how often is it published, (ii) when is it next expected, (iii) what causes it to be published, (iv) who prepares it, (v) how is it disseminated and to whom; (i) what specialized consultative services are offered to the government with regard to bijuralism issues; (j) when were the most recent services in (i) sought and provided, and at what cost; (k) what studies have been undertaken within the last five years regarding (i) the relationship between federal law and the law of the provinces and territories, (ii) between the common law and civil law legal traditions, (iii) between these legal traditions and Aboriginal law; (l) what studies are presently being undertaken regarding (i) the relationship between federal law and the law of the provinces and territories, (ii) between the common law and civil law legal traditions, (iii) between these legal traditions and Aboriginal law; (m) what training courses on bijuralism and comparative law have been developed for Justice Canada’s legislative drafters, (i) how often are they offered, (ii) how many participate, (iii) are they open to individuals from other departments; (n) what bijural drafting notes and course material for training on bijuralism have been developed in the past five years and by what means are these accessible (i) within the Department of Justice, (ii) across the government, (iii) to the legal community, (iv) to the public; (o) what issues and challenges of legislative bijuralism has the government most recently identified and how does it seek to address these; (p) what issues and challenges of harmonization has the government most recently identified and how does it seek to address these; (q) what is the content of the departmental policy on the application of Quebec civil law to the government; (r) what was the mandate and role of the Civil Code Section upon its creation and how did the role and mandate change over time; (s) in what ways does the government review any situation in which legal rights are in issue or proceeding under Quebec civil law which concerns the government;

(t) in what ways has the government ensured inclusion of Quebec civil law in the curriculum of the Departmental continuing education programs; (u) with respect to the Department’s recognition that “si le bijuridisme vise d’abord le respect et la prise en compte du droit civil et de la common law dans le contexte fédéral, notamment en matière de rédaction et d’interprétation des textes législatifs fédéraux, il n’exclut aucunement le respect et l’intégration d’autres règles propres au droit fédéral, la prise en compte d’autres sources, notamment en matière de droit international, ni le respect d’autres cultures juridiques, plus particulièrement les cultures autochtones” (i) what other rules has the government found to apply to it, (ii) what sources of law has the government recognized other than civil, common, aboriginal, and international law, (iii) what other cultures has the government sought to respect in this regard and how; (v) with which international law sources has the government sought to harmonize its laws and how so; (w) with what aboriginal law sources has the government sought to harmonize its laws and how so; (x) how may the Bijural Terminology Records Research Index be accessed and how often is it updated; (y) of what cases is the government currently aware where the matter at issue is one of bijuralism or harmonization; (z) what statutes would benefit from modification to respect best practices with respect to bijuralism and harmonization; (aa) what statutes have been identified as having bijuralism issues and how have they been so identified; (bb) what statutes require amendment to conform with the solutions proposed in the Bijural Terminology Records Research Index; (cc) is a new Federal Law – Civil Law Harmonization Act being prepared;

(dd) what efforts have been made to identify whether a new Federal Law – Civil Law Harmonization Act is necessary and what determines its necessity; (ee) how is proposed legislation vetted or otherwise checked to ensure conformity with bijuralism and harmonization best practices; (ff) in what ways are existing statutes checked to ensure conformity with bijuralism and harmonization best practices; (gg) what prompts the introduction of legislation to address an issue of bijuralism / harmonization; (hh) in what Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT)) meetings have bijuralism issues been raised and in what context; (ii) in what FPT meetings have harmonization issues been raised and in what context; (jj) in what ways is Quebec’s new Code of Civil Procedure being analysed by the government, (i) by whom, (ii) with what mandate, (iii) with what purpose; (kk) does Quebec’s new Code of Civil Procedure – fully coming into force in 2015 – suggest any need for legislative response on the part of the Government of Canada to ensure federal law harmonization with civil law practice in Quebec; (ll) does the review of government legislation under the Department of Justice Act include in any way the review of legislation for any issues of bijuralism and, if so, how and to what extent; (mm) does the review of government legislation under the Department of Justice Act include in any way the review of legislation for any issues of harmonization and, if so how, how and to what extent; (nn) to what extent and in what ways are regulations reviewed to ensure conformity with bijuralism best practices; (oo) to what extent has cabinet been informed of the importance of bijuralism, by what means and on what dates; (pp) is bijuralism assessed in any way when filling vacancies at the Department of Justice and, if so, how; (qq) what grants and other programs exist to promote bijuralism (i) within the Department of Justice, (ii) across government, (iii) within the legal community, (iv) at law schools, (v) to the broader public; (rr) what involvements and engagements are being undertaken with respect to bijuralism internationally;

(ss) in what ways and forums has Canada shared its bijuralism expertise and experience with other countries; (tt) does a review of legislation for harmonization issues include any consideration of provincial implementation cost; (uu) in what ways are coming into force provisions used, if any, to assist with harmonization; (vv) is there any federal legislation that has not been reviewed for bijuralism or harmonization issues in any way and, if so, how and why is this so; (ww) are private member’s bills reviewed for issues of bijuralism and harmonization and, if so (i) by whom, (ii) in what context, (iii) with what mandate, (iv) to what extent, (v) reporting to whom, (vi) with what work product, (vii) at what point or points in the Parliamentary process, (vii) with what consequence if an issue is spotted; (xx) with respect to the gap between publications dated 2006 and prior and the most recent publication in 2013 on the “Bijuralism and Harmonization” webpage at http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/harmonization/index.html, (i) why does this gap exist, (ii) were any reports or studies conducted during this time, (iii) if so, were they published and if not, why not, (iv) what materials are being presently prepared or research that may be published on this page; (yy) in what ways does the Department seek to promote contact between the civil law and common law traditions; and (zz) with respect to Canada’s four legal audiences (anglophone common law lawyers, francophone common law lawyers, anglophone Quebec civilian lawyers and francophone Quebec civilian lawyers), in what ways does the department ensure it has the means and resources adequate to address the unique concerns of each with respect to bijuralism and harmonization, and what issues and challenges have been identified? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-334.


Q-336 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With regard to the value and condition of real property held by the government and with respect to any and all built structures, including but not limited to, offices, military bases, armouries, laboratories, canals, depots, residences, garages, communication towers, storage facilities, lighthouses, bridges, hospitals, wharves, weather stations, warehouses, data centres, prisons, border crossings, etc., what are, for each department listed in Schedule I of the Financial Administration Act, and for Parks Canada, Revenue Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Canada Border Services Agency, the following: (a) the number and current value of all built structures; (b) the number and percentage of the facilities referenced in (a), with building condition reports conducted in the past five years; (c) the number of building condition reports and the number of facilities they reference, by Treasury Board category (good, fair, poor, critical, unknown); (d) the list of, and addresses for, all facilities in “poor” or “critical” condition; (e) the annual departmental expenditures for real property repair and maintenance for fiscal years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (f) the annual budgets for real property repair and maintenance for fiscal years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; and (g) estimates of costs to bring all facilities/built structures in each department’s inventory, to “good” condition within 5 years? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-336.


Q-337 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill) — With regard to women in Crown Corporations: (a) what is the total number of women currently serving as the head of a crown corporation appointed through a governor in council appointment, broken down by organization; (b) for each of the last five years, what is the total number of women appointed as the head of a crown corporation though a governor in council appointment, broken down by organization; (c) for each crown corporation, what is the total number of positions on the senior management team and how many of those positions are currently staffed by women; (d) what is the total number of women currently serving as the chairperson of the Board of Directors appointed through a governor in council appointment, broken down by organization; (e) for each of the last five years, what is the total number of governor in council appointments for chairperson and how many of those positions were filled by women; (f) for each crown corporation, what is the total current number of positions on the board of directors and how many of those positions are currently staffed by women; (g) for each of the last five years, how many vacancies on the board of directors were filled through governor in council appointments and how many vacancies were filled by women; (h) what is the total percentage of women currently serving on crown corporations appointed though governor in council appointments; and (i) what is the total percentage of women appointed through governor in council appointment for each year of the last five years? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-337.

Business of Supply

The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply.

Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville), seconded by Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan), moved, — That the House recognize that the current Temporary Foreign Worker Program is broken, and call on the government to implement measures to significantly reduce the intake of Temporary Foreign Workers over time and return the program back to its original purpose, which should include: (a) an immediate and full review of the program by the Auditor General; (b) the disclosure of Labour Market Opinion applications and approvals for Temporary Foreign Workers; (c) a tightening of the Labour Market Opinion approval process to ensure that only businesses with legitimate needs are able to access the program; and (d) the implementation of stronger rules requiring that employers applying to the program demonstrate unequivocally that they exhausted all avenues to fill job vacancies with Canadian workers, particularly young Canadians.

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.

Motions

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House adjourns on Thursday, May 8, 2014, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 12, 2014, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, May 9, 2014.

Business of Supply

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville), seconded by Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan), in relation to the Business of Supply.

The debate continued.

At 5:15 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 81(16), the Speaker interrupted the proceedings.

The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, May 7, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Deferred Recorded Divisions

Business of Supply

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Ms. Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville), seconded by Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should follow the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and make public the number of warrantless disclosures made by telecommunications companies at the request of federal departments and agencies; and immediately close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of the personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant.

The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following division:

(Division No. 111 -- Vote no 111)
YEAS: 131, NAYS: 148

YEAS -- POUR

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Day
Del Mastro
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Fortin
Freeland
Freeman
Fry
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Larose
Latendresse
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Rathgeber
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Turmel
Valeriote
Total: -- 131

NAYS -- CONTRE

Ablonczy
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Falk
Fantino
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lebel
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Ritz
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Strahl
Sweet
Toet
Trost
Trottier
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer
Total: -- 148

PAIRED -- PAIRÉS

Nil--Aucun
Motions

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, during the debate on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 on the Business of Supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and, within each 15-minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its Members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the Minister's answer approximately reflect the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, Members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

Private Members' Business

At 6:02 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Goldring (Edmonton East), seconded by Mr. Payne (Medicine Hat), — That, in the opinion of the House, one nationally standardized “point in time” should be recommended for use in all municipalities in carrying out homeless counts, with (a) nationally recognized definitions of who is homeless; (b) nationally recognized methodology on how the count takes place; and (c) the same agreed-upon criteria and methodology in determining who is considered to be homeless. (Private Members' Business M-455)

The debate continued.

The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, May 7, 2014, 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 Ms. Raitt (Minister of Transport) — Report of VIA Rail Canada Inc., together with the Auditor General's Report, for the year ended December 31, 2013, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-128-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by Ms. Raitt (Minister of Transport) — Report of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the year 2013, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-416-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

Petitions Filed with the Clerk of the House

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

— by Mr. Duncan (Vancouver Island North), two concerning the grain industry (Nos. 412-2668 and 412-2669);

— by Mrs. Glover (Saint Boniface), two concerning the Divorce Act (Nos. 412-2670 and 412-2671).

Adjournment Proceedings

At 6:55 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 38(1), 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 7:24 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).