Publication Search

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina), seconded by Mr. Aubin (Trois-Rivières), — That this House call on the government to commit in Budget 2013 to a long-term, predictable and accountable federal infrastructure plan in partnership with other levels of government, as recommended by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in order to: (a) improve Canada's lagging productivity; (b) shorten commute times; and (c) fix Canada's crumbling infrastructure.

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

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

Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina), seconded by Mr. Aubin (Trois-Rivières), moved, — That this House call on the government to commit in Budget 2013 to a long-term, predictable and accountable federal infrastructure plan in partnership with other levels of government, as recommended by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in order to: (a) improve Canada's lagging productivity; (b) shorten commute times; and (c) fix Canada's crumbling infrastructure.

Debate arose thereon.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina), seconded by Mr. Aubin (Trois-Rivières), 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, February 27, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario) laid upon the Table, — Document entitled "Intrastructure Funding Study Proposal". — Sessional Paper No. 8530-411-25.

Q-480 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to infrastructure spending since 2008-2009: (a) how much project funding has gone to non-Canadian firms by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) government program; and (b) how much project funding has gone to public-private partnerships by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) government program? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-480.

Q-455 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With respect to the “Projects Map” (located at the following link: http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/map.asp) on the “Canada’s Economic Action Plan” website: (a) what is the total number of place marks, icons or symbols that have been uploaded to the project map since the project map was created; (b) what is the total number of place marks, icons or symbols that remain on the project map since the project map was created; (c) what is the total number of place marks, icons or symbols that have been removed from the project map since the project map was created; (d) for the answers to each of (a), (b) and (c), what is (i) the date it was uploaded to the project map, (ii) the date it was modified on the project map, (iii) the date it was removed from the project map, (iv) the geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude), (v) the location, specifying the address, city, riding, and province, (vi) the Project ID or the name of the project or program, (vii) the name of the related initiative, (viii) the description of the project, (ix) the address of the website containing additional information about the project, (x) the date of the funding announcement, (xi) the total project cost at the time of the announcement, (xii) the value of the federal contribution to the project at the time of the announcement, (xiii) the company or companies who were contracted in association with the program or project, specifying the amount of funding each was to receive for its services and the final amount they received for their service, (xiv) the final amount of the project cost, (xv) the final amount of the federal contribution that was delivered; (e) for all projects or programs listed in (d)(vi), did the projects or program meet the government’s completion deadline and, if not, why; and (f) for all projects or programs listed in (d)(vi), (i) was the government’s approval of any project or program subsequently withdrawn and, if so, why and on what date, (ii) were any of the projects or programs that the government had approved for funding subsequently cancelled and, if so, why and on what date? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-455.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Ms. LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard), seconded by Mr. Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize that the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure plays a vital role in the creation and protection of jobs, and that infrastructure is a strategic asset that supports vibrant, prosperous and sustainable communities; (b) act immediately to counter the crisis of crumbling infrastructure and the very real risks it poses to the economy, security, and the quality of life of Canadians; (c) develop a legislative framework, with clear targets, to provide sustainable, predictable and long term infrastructure funding agreements with provinces, territories, municipalities, First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; (d) cooperate with stakeholders to encourage the use of sustainable and innovative infrastructure design models, and to develop sustainable building codes that favour energy and water conservation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and take into account changing demographics and evolving rural-urban linkages; (e) index the Gas Tax Fund to economic and population growth and increase the existing gas tax transfer by one cent per litre, and consider other alternative funding mechanisms to ensure municipalities, large and small, have the long-term capacity to build and maintain public infrastructure; and (f) acknowledge its exclusive financial responsibility for, and immediately announce its intention to replace, the Champlain Bridge. (Private Members' Business M-270)

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

Q-228 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to the new federal regulations on water treatment systems, issued by Environment Canada, to be implemented in November 2011: (a) what is the estimated cost, separately, for each municipality and province affected by the need to upgrade infrastructure to meet the new requirements; and (b) how much funding has been committed by the federal government to help contribute to the upgrades in the jurisdictions of (i) St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) Montreal, Québec, (iv) Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, (v) Victoria, British Columbia, (vi) Vancouver, British Columbia, (vii) Sydney, Nova Scotia, (viii) Saint John, New Brunswick, (ix) Thunder Bay, Ontario, (x) Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xi) Ottawa, Ontario? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-228.

Q-229 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to the new federal regulations on tolerance of fecal matter in areas where shellfish are, as issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what is the estimated cost, separately, for each municipality and province affected by the need to upgrade infrastructure to address the new requirements; (b) how much funding has been committed by the federal government to help contribute to the upgrades in the jurisdictions of (i) St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) Montreal, Québec, (iv) Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, (v) Victoria, British Columbia, (vi) Vancouver, British Columbia, (vii) Sydney, Nova Scotia, (viii) Saint John, New Brunswick, (ix) Thunder Bay, Ontario, (x) Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xi) Ottawa, Ontario; (c) how many times since the new federal regulations took effect have the fishing areas in the above-mentioned jurisdictions been shut down due to fecal matter contamination exceeding the acceptable limits; and (d) what is the estimated economic impact on local fishers of the new federal regulations in the jurisdictions of (i) St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) Montreal, Québec, (iv) Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, (v) Victoria, British Columbia, (vi) Vancouver, British Columbia, (vii) Sydney, Nova Scotia, (viii) Saint John, New Brunswick, (ix) Thunder Bay, Ontario, (x) Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xi) Ottawa, Ontario? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-229.

Q-270 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the Green Infrastructure Fund (GIF): (a) what are all projects that have received funding from the GIF to date; (b) what are all projects that are to receive funding from the GIF in the future; and (c) what transfers of funds from the GIF to other government departments or programs have occurred and, for each transfer, (i) what was the date of the transfer, (ii) what was the amount of the transfer, (iii) what department or program received the transfer, (iv) what was the purpose of the transfer, (v) what was the reason for using the GIF funds, (vi) what projects received funding as a result of the transfer of the GIF money? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-270.

Q-271 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund: (a) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of applications to the fund; (b) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects funded; (c) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the total funding under the program; (d) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what has been the average time in days from (i) the date an application was received to the date the application received approval, (ii) the date an application was received to the date the contribution agreement was signed, (iii) the date the application received approval to the date of the public announcement of the project; (e) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects which required an extension past March 31, 2011; (f) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the amount spent on public announcements of projects; (g) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, how many times were government aircraft used to transport officials to announcements related to the fund; and (h) for each individual project sponsored under the fund to date, (i) what was the project’s internal file number, (ii) what was the name of the project, (iii) on what date was the application received, (iv) on what date was the application approved, (v) on what date was the project announced publicly, (vi) on what date was the contribution agreement signed, (vii) what was the total federal funding received, (viii) what was the cost of any public announcement related to the project, (ix) did the government pay for any federal official to travel to each announcement in (viii) and, if so, what are the names of these officials and was a government-owned aircraft used to transport them, (x) what was the address of the project, including postal code and federal constituency name, (xi) what was the political party affiliation of the Member of Parliament representing the riding on the date the project was announced? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-271.

Q-272 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the Recreational Infrastructure Canada Fund: (a) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of applications to the fund; (b) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects funded; (c) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the total funding under the program; (d) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what has been the average time in days from (i) the date an application was received to the date the application received approval, (ii) the date an application was received to the date the contribution agreement was signed, (iii) the date the application received approval to the date of the public announcement of the project; (e) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects which required an extension past March 31, 2011; (f) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the amount spent on public announcements of projects; (g) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, how many times were government aircraft used to transport officials to announcements related to the fund; and (h) for each individual project sponsored under the fund to date, (i) what was the project’s internal file number, (ii) what was the name of the project, (iii) on what date was the application received, (iv) on what date was the application approved, (v) on what date was the project announced publicly, (vi) on what date was the contribution agreement signed, (vii) what was the total federal funding received, (viii) what was the cost of any public announcement related to the project, (ix) did the government pay for any federal official to travel to each announcement in (viii) and, if so, what are the names of these officials and was a government-owned aircraft used to transport them, (x) what was the address of the project, including postal code and federal constituency name, (xi) what was the political party affiliation of the Member of Parliament representing the riding on the date the project was announced? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-272.

Q-367 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With regard to abandoned oil wells: (a) what is the government's position on the reclamation of abandoned oil wells in Canada; (b) how many abandoned oil wells exist in Canada and where are they located; (c) how many abandoned oil wells have been reclaimed since 2000 by year, broken down by location, date of reclamation and cost of reclamation per well; (d) what is the estimated cost to secure and reclaim all outstanding abandoned oil wells; (e) what oversights are in place to ensure Canadians are not negatively impacted by these abandoned oil wells; (f) what are the titles of the studies or reports done by or on behalf of the government that cover, in whole or in part, the subject of abandoned oil wells in Canada; and (g) which federal or provincial agencies are responsible for covering the costs of well reclamation? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-367.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard), seconded by Mr. Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize that the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure plays a vital role in the creation and protection of jobs, and that infrastructure is a strategic asset that supports vibrant, prosperous and sustainable communities; (b) act immediately to counter the crisis of crumbling infrastructure and the very real risks it poses to the economy, security, and the quality of life of Canadians; (c) develop a legislative framework, with clear targets, to provide sustainable, predictable and long term infrastructure funding agreements with provinces, territories, municipalities, First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; (d) cooperate with stakeholders to encourage the use of sustainable and innovative infrastructure design models, and to develop sustainable building codes that favour energy and water conservation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and take into account changing demographics and evolving rural-urban linkages; (e) index the Gas Tax Fund to economic and population growth and increase the existing gas tax transfer by one cent per litre, and consider other alternative funding mechanisms to ensure municipalities, large and small, have the long-term capacity to build and maintain public infrastructure; and (f) acknowledge its exclusive financial responsibility for, and immediately announce its intention to replace, the Champlain Bridge. (Private Members' Business M-270)

The debate continued.

Q-146 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With respect to the Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, in the riding of Newton—North Delta, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (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; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component, in the riding of Newton—North Delta, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (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; (c) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component top-up, in the riding Newton—North Delta, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (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; (d) under the Building Canada Fund – Major Infrastructure Component, in the riding of Newton—North Delta, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (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; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Newton—North Delta, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (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; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Newton—North Delta, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-146.

Ms. LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard), seconded by Mr. Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges), moved, — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize that the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure plays a vital role in the creation and protection of jobs, and that infrastructure is a strategic asset that supports vibrant, prosperous and sustainable communities; (b) act immediately to counter the crisis of crumbling infrastructure and the very real risks it poses to the economy, security, and the quality of life of Canadians; (c) develop a legislative framework, with clear targets, to provide sustainable, predictable and long term infrastructure funding agreements with provinces, territories, municipalities, First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; (d) cooperate with stakeholders to encourage the use of sustainable and innovative infrastructure design models, and to develop sustainable building codes that favour energy and water conservation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and take into account changing demographics and evolving rural-urban linkages; (e) index the Gas Tax Fund to economic and population growth and increase the existing gas tax transfer by one cent per litre, and consider other alternative funding mechanisms to ensure municipalities, large and small, have the long-term capacity to build and maintain public infrastructure; and (f) acknowledge its exclusive financial responsibility for, and immediately announce its intention to replace, the Champlain Bridge. (Private Members' Business M-270)

Debate arose thereon.

Pursuant to Order made Thursday, September 29, 2011, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Ms. Leslie (Halifax), — That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) take immediate action to promote job creation and address the persistently high unemployment rate among Canadian workers, particularly high among young Canadians, in the context of the International Monetary Fund prediction of yet higher unemployment rates in the future unless swift action is taken; (b) take immediate action to ensure all Canadians can rely on a stable and guaranteed pension as they plan their retirement in a period of record household debt and declining stock markets; (c) take immediate action to fix the crumbling infrastructure essential to our economy and the security of Canadians; and (d) maintain the full public sector contribution to the Canadian economy so as to take advantage of low interest rates, undertake strategic public investments, increase Canada’s competitiveness, avert another serious recession and create jobs in Canada.

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

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

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Ms. Leslie (Halifax), moved, — That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) take immediate action to promote job creation and address the persistently high unemployment rate among Canadian workers, particularly high among young Canadians, in the context of the International Monetary Fund prediction of yet higher unemployment rates in the future unless swift action is taken; (b) take immediate action to ensure all Canadians can rely on a stable and guaranteed pension as they plan their retirement in a period of record household debt and declining stock markets; (c) take immediate action to fix the crumbling infrastructure essential to our economy and the security of Canadians; and (d) maintain the full public sector contribution to the Canadian economy so as to take advantage of low interest rates, undertake strategic public investments, increase Canada’s competitiveness, avert another serious recession and create jobs in Canada.

Debate arose thereon.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Ms. Leslie (Halifax), in relation to the Business of Supply.

The debate continued.

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Parkdale—High Park, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Monday, October 3, 2011, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Ms. Leslie (Halifax), in relation to the Business of Supply.

The debate continued.

Pursuant to Order made earlier today, the question was deemed put on the motion and a recorded division was deemed requested and deferred until Monday, October 3, 2011, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Q-14 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to infrastructure project applications made under Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) what is the total number of project applications approved, broken down (i) by municipality, (ii) by electoral district in each municipality; (b) what is the total number of project applications rejected, broken down (i) by municipality, (ii) by electoral district in each municipality; and (c) broken down by municipality, what project applications were rejected and, for each, what was (i) the reason for the rejection, (ii) the amount of funding requested, (iii) the electoral district in which the project would have been completed? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-14.

Q-34 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to infrastructure funding requests since 2006, broken down by infrastructure funding program, including but not limited to the Public Transit Fund, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, the Border Infrastructure Fund, the Infrastructure Canada Program, the Green Infrastructure Fund, and the Building Canada Fund: (a) how many applications for funding have been received; (b) how many applications have been rejected; (c) what is each application that has been rejected, including the date of application; (d) for applications identified in (c), what was the reason for rejection; (e) for applications identified in (c), what was the electoral district of the proposed project; and (f) how many applications are pending decision? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-34.