House of Commons Hansard #75 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was religious.

Topics

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues for allowing me to go ahead. The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 10, 81 and 82.

Question No. 10Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

With regard to hospitality expenditures by the president and chief executive officer of Canada Post from 1999 until 2003, including an itemized list of each expenditure: ( a ) what was the amount of each expenditure; ( b ) who was present when each expenditure was incurred; ( c ) exactly what good(s) and/or services(s) were included in each expenditure; ( d ) where was each expense incurred; and ( e ) what was the purpose of the meeting during which the expense was incurred?

Question No. 10Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Markham—Unionville Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, as reported in the Deloitte and Touche Report of the Examination of Management Practices of Canada Post Corporation dated July 23, 2004, during the period 1999 to 2003, the former president was authorized to self-approve expenses in accordance with the Canada Post Corporation delegation of authority instrument. In March 1999, the former president initiated a process whereby a summary of his total annual expenses, based on the fiscal year, was presented to the audit committee for review and approval. In October 2001, on the recommendation of the corporate governance committee of the board of directors, the board formalized this process through a resolution, that the president provides a summary of his travel and hospitality expenses to the audit committee for review. The audit committee reviewed and approved the summary of expenses. The Deloitte and Touche report states that there is no record of the amounts reported by the president in the minutes of the audit committee.

The following summarizes the information that was gathered by Deloitte and Touche from available Canada Post information regarding the travel and hospitality expenses of the president for the period requested, 1999 to 2003.

Expenses by Calendar Year

Deloitte and Touche did not have access to the documents supporting the president's expenses. Canada Post's board of directors has requested documentation from the Honourable André Ouellet supporting the amounts paid. Presently, Canada Post does not have the necessary documentation required to respond to this question in further detail.

Question No. 81Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

With regard to the e-mail sent to all Members of Parliament on December 6, 2004, by the Honourable Roy Cullen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in which he stated: “Moreover, about 6,000 firearms have been traced in gun-crime and firearm-trafficking cases within Canada and internationally.”: ( a ) how many of the 6,000 firearms traced were actually found in the old Restricted Weapon Registration System; ( b ) how many of the 6,000 firearms traced were found in the new Canadian Firearms Registry; ( c ) how many of the 6,000 traces led police investigators to the registered owner of the firearm; ( d ) how many of the registered owners identified were charged with the original crime in which their registered firearm was involved; and ( e ) how many of the registered owners identified were charged with providing their registered firearm to the criminal or criminals involved in the original crime being investigated?

Question No. 81Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the response has been formulated assuming the question is related to the calendar year 2004 as no specific year is mentioned in the question, nor in the original message, which is dated December 2004.

a) In 2004, information was provided on 1,211 firearms still registered in RWRS. This total does not include any firearms that were not traceable for various reasons such as too old to trace, insufficient information, traced to the US or traced through Interpol.

b) In 2004, information was provided on 3,827 firearms currently registered in the Canadian Firearms Registry, CFR. This total does not include any firearms that were not traceable for various reasons such as too old to trace, insufficient information, traced to the US or traced through Interpol.

c) The RCMP is unable to respond to this question as we do not maintain statistics on the outcome of a trace. It is up to the client if they wish to do so. The Firearms Tracing Unit is responsible only for tracing a firearm for clients, both RCMP and non-RCMP, within Canada, the United States, and where possible, internationally. Once the trace results are provided to the client, it is the client’s responsibility to pursue the investigation and lay charges if applicable.

d) The RCMP is unable to respond to this question as we do not maintain statistics on the outcome of a trace. It is up to the client if they wish to do so. The Firearms Tracing Unit is responsible only for tracing a firearm for clients, both RCMP and non-RCMP, within Canada, the United States, and where possible, internationally. Once the trace results are provided to the client, it is the client’s responsibility to pursue the investigation and lay charges if applicable.

e) The RCMP is unable to respond to this question as we do not maintain statistics on the outcome of a trace. It is up to the client if they wish to do so. The Firearms Tracing Unit is responsible only for tracing a firearm for clients, both RCMP and non-RCMP, within Canada, the United States, and where possible, internationally. Once the trace results are provided to the client, it is the client’s responsibility to pursue the investigation and lay charges if applicable.

Question No. 82Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

With regard to the e-mail sent to all Members of Parliament on December 6, 2004, by the Honourable Roy Cullen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in which he stated: “So far in 2004, the Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC) has already produced more than 1100 affidavits to support the prosecution of firearms related crime. A further 1152 affidavits were prepared in 2003 building on 381 affidavits produced in 2002.”: ( a ) how many and what types of “firearms related crimes” were being investigated that prompted the need for these affidavits to be requested and issued; ( b ) how many individuals were charged, what charges were laid and how many convictions were obtained as a direct result of these affidavits; ( c ) what other Criminal Code offences were these persons charged with in addition to their “firearms related crimes”; and ( d ) how many people were charged just because they had failed to obtain the proper licence or registration certificates required by the Firearms Act and not because they had committed any violent crime?

Question No. 82Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, prior to preparing affidavits, the Canada Firearms Centre, CAFC, ensures that the information is required in the course of a lawful investigation. It confirms the necessity to provide the information and keeps a log of submitted requests for which an affidavit was provided. However, no inventory or summary of specifics is maintained.

Full information relating to charges laid and to the outcome of any court proceedings would be in the hands of police services and prosecutors.

The CAFC prepares these affidavits to support the prosecution of firearm-related offences. In 2004, the Canadian Firearms Registry produced 2,265 affidavits to support the prosecution of firearm-related crime. A further 1,152 affidavits were prepared in 2003 building on 381 affidavits produced in 2002.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 61, 79, 83, 84, 88 and 89 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 61Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC

With respect to spending in Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the Pacific Region in each year for the 1990 to 2003 period: ( a ) what was the total amount spent by the Pacific Region in each year; ( b ) how much of the Pacific Region budget was spent in regions outside of the Pacific Region but was allocated to the Pacific Region budget; ( c ) on an office by office basis in the Pacific Region how much was spent at each office; ( d ) what was the total annual budget for each Branch in the Pacific Region, such as the Conservation and Protection Branch, the Communications Branch, the Aboriginal Affairs Branch and the other branches within the Pacific Region; ( e ) how much was spent on travel within Canada; ( f ) how much was spent on international travel; ( g ) how much was spent on the Operations and Maintenance aspect of the Conservation and Protection program; ( h ) how much was spent on salaries and benefits for Fishery Officers; ( i ) how much was spent on salaries and benefits for all DFO officials on an office by office basis within the Pacific Region; ( j ) how much was spent on the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy; ( k ) how much was spent on the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy by persons or organizations outside of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; ( l ) how much was spent on the management of the public commercial salmon fishery in BC; ( m ) how much was spent on the management of public recreational salmon fishery in BC; ( n ) how much was spent on the management of the aboriginal salmon fishery in BC; and ( o ) what is the total expenditure related to aboriginal fisheries in the Pacific Region by category, for example grants and contributions to Indian bands and aboriginal organizations, enforcement, and administration?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 79Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Werner Schmidt Conservative Kelowna, BC

Since October 23, 1993, did Bombardier (and any of its subsidiaries), Nortel (and any of its subsidiaries) and Pratt and Whitney (and any of its subsidiaries) receive any: ( a ) grants, contributions or loan guarantees and, if so, ( i ) what was the source, value, date made and reasons for providing the funding in each case, ( ii ) what is their present status, whether paid, repaid, or unpaid, including the value of the repayment, ( iii ) what was the total amount each company received; and ( b ) contracts and, if so, ( i ) were the contracts fulfilled, ( ii ) what were their source, value, date made, reasons for providing the funding, ( iii ) were these contracts tendered and if the tendering was limited what would be the reason for the limitation, ( iv ) what was the total amount of contracts each company obtained, and what was the total amount of all the funds provided to these companies?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 83Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

What amounts, if any, were allocated to the “Internationaux du sport de Montréal” by the government, for each department and agency, in the fiscal years from 1998-1999 to 2004-2005, and what amounts, if any, are planned in the years to come?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 84Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

With regard to the Devil’s Lake diversion in North Dakota, will the government commission a scientific analysis and environmental impact review of the water from Devil’s Lake and the impact it will have on the Hudson’s Bay water basin, including Lake Winnipeg, and the Red River watershed before any water from Devil’s Lake is drained into the Red River, and will the government use this study to determine: ( a ) the water quality and chemical composition in contrast to Lake Winnipeg and the Red River; ( b ) the bacteria levels of Devil’s Lake in contrast to Lake Winnipeg and the Red River; ( c ) the difference in marine species and the ecological impact they will have on Lake Winnipeg and the Red River; ( d ) pH levels of Devil's Lake in contrast to Lake Winnipeg and the Red River; and (e) what risk this drainage project poses to Canadian waters?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 88Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

With regard to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Canadian Firearms Registration System (CFRS) Alternate Services Delivery (ASD) contract that was eventually awarded to Team Centra (a consortium of CGI Group and BDP Business Data Services Limited) in 2002: ( a ) were bidders required to agree to pay a penalty of $30,000 per day for every day their system was not implemented after the Service Effective Date (SED) to defray costs of paying two vendors, E.D.S. of Canada Ltd. (EDS) and Team Centra, at the same time and, if so, was this clause or a similar penalty clause carried forward into the contractual agreement between Team Centra and the Crown; ( b ) what was the official Contract Notification Date (CND) as required by the RFP; (c) what was the exact contracted SED; ( d ) in accordance with the RFP requirement, how much has Team Centra paid to the Crown based on the contracted SED; ( e ) how much has the Crown paid to EDS, Team Centra, CGI Group and BDP since the original SED of the ASD contract with Team Centra; ( f ) what deliverables were provided by EDS in return for these payments; ( g ) what deliverables were provided by Team Centra in return for these payments; ( h ) is the anticipated overlap of the two systems (CFRS I and CFRS II) still in accordance with the requirement in the RFP; ( i ) was the intent of the RFP to ensure no payment was made to the “Systems Integrator” until the system was delivered and, if so, when was the system delivered and what was the ongoing monthly charge to the Crown from Team Centra, CGI Group and BDP and what was the purpose of these charges; ( j ) has the user acceptance testing taken place on the Team Centra Application Code; ( k ) what was the value of the EDS Change Request to incorporate Bill C-10A amendments into the CFRS I system and why was this request needed; ( l ) what is the estimated dollar value and revised end date for the contracts currently under review with Team Centra, CGI Group and EDS; ( m ) why was the interface with the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) considered a change request to the original Team Centra contract if it was expressly stated as a mandatory requirement for all bidders; ( n ) what was the value of the contract amendment, if any, of the Team Centra solution to the CFRO interface; ( o ) what is the contracted cost and actual cost paid to Team Centra for the ongoing maintenance and support for the CFRS II system; and ( p ) what is the contracted cost and actual cost paid to EDS for the ongoing maintenance and support for the CFRS I system, excluding change requests?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 89Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

With regard to the Canadian Cervid Council and the Canadian Deer and Elk Farmers Association: ( a ) broken down by recipient and, in each case, specifying any amount disbursed and any government department involved, what, if any, grants and contributions has the government made to these organizations since fiscal year 1999-2000; and ( b ) what audits has the government done that examine payments to these organizations?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 89Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 89Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Is that agreed?

Question No. 89Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

West Nova Nova Scotia

Liberal

Robert Thibault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments and clarify two things and give him an opportunity to respond.

First, I certainly hope I was clear in my answer to him during question period on behalf of the Minister of Health. When I suggested that there was a unanimous vote of the committee, I was not speaking of this motion. I was speaking of the original motion of the committee asking the government to compensate people pre-1986 and post-1990, which was unanimously adopted and of course was accepted by the minister.

He immediately began discussions. He ordered his officials to begin the negotiations and the discussions, which began immediately and are ongoing with the representatives of those groups. Those meetings and those discussions are of course confidential, as they should be, to encourage resolution in this matter.

The second question he raised was that the government would be limited to the question of the surplus. I do not know where he got that belief.

The motion originally presented by the health committee, which I supported, as did all members of the committee from all parties, stated in light of an eventual surplus or of a surplus; of course the surplus comes into play because it is a surplus that is in the hands of the ailing people, the people who had contracted hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990, in a trust controlled by the court. The discussions and the negotiations are with them. The actuaries, as they should be and as is foreseen in the trust agreement, are doing the consideration as to whether or not there is a surplus, and if there is an actuarial surplus, what its extent is.

That would be one of the options, because the minister indicated that those discussions or negotiations would consider all options for compensating, not limited to or excluding any but all options.

I think the member will be pleased to have clarification of those facts. I know it is difficult to comprehend, because we have explained this to him in the House and in committee dozens and dozens of times but he continues to have difficulty. Some might think that he is making petty partisan assertions by pretending not to understand, but I know, having known this member for quite a few months now, that he probably truly does not understand.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James, MB

Mr. Speaker, what is hard to comprehend is the callous and uncaring position the Liberal Party is taking. The member is right: I do not understand how elected officials can treat victims so terribly.

The member raises important points. He is right that last fall all the members, including the Liberal members, supported a Conservative motion to compensate victims. Just two weeks ago, the same Liberal members voted against a very similar motion. Why would they have done that?

The difference is that for one motion, the one in the fall, they prevented it from going to a vote in the House of Commons. They knew that they would not be held accountable in the larger forum.

This time, there is no hiding from the fact that this is going to come to a vote. I believe that is why the Liberals voted against it. They know that they are going to be caught red-handed in their own hypocrisy. They will have no way to get out of it. It will expose to Canadians once again the fact that the Liberals are uncaring, that they are not compassionate and that they are using these victims as a political tool.

Why will the Liberals not support the motion? I think it may have to do more with internal Liberal politics. They do not want to be shown up for demonstrating their incompetence in dealing with issues of state.

Quite frankly, I think the member should be ashamed of himself for supporting the Liberals. I am sure that anyone with compassion, anyone caring, will support this motion when it comes up for debate. I am sure glad that I am in the party that fights for the rights of victims and is caring and compassionate. I am really glad that we will soon form the government.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Before we continue, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) to inform the House that the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond to Petitions Nos. 381-0241 to 381-0244, presented by the hon. member for Vancouver East, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.