House of Commons Hansard #47 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was elections.

Topics

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

Child Care
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

September 18th, 2006 / 3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House.

The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to honour the funding agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba as signed on November 18, 2005. This agreement deals with a child care agreement called “Moving Forward on Early Learning and Child Care”. It addresses a very concrete plan in the province of Manitoba to provide child care spaces in Winnipeg, rural Manitoba and northern Manitoba. These will not be put into place and this has a significant consequence on my community.

Age of Consent
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the government assembled in Parliament to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Age of Consent
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition today by constituents from across my riding who support an increase in the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

The petitioners feel that children under 16 years of age are those who are most vulnerable to sexual exploitation and need our protection. They call upon all members of parliament to support the government in its effort to bring forward legislation.

Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have yet another petition on labels warning people about the dangers of fetal alcohol syndrome.

The petition has another couple of hundred names of people who have called upon the government repeatedly over the last five years to honour a motion that was passed by Parliament, to put the motion into effect, to get the labels on the bottles warning women that when they drink during pregnancy it could cause problems in terms of the baby. It is a simple request. The petitioners just want it to happen.

Through these petitioners, I implore the government to finally act on this sensible motion.

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, in question period today, the Minister of International Trade called me dishonest for raising facts that came out this summer in the international trade committee hearings on softwood lumber. He said it twice. It is unparliamentary and inappropriate language for the House of Commons. The minister may disagree with me, but his comments were completely inappropriate.

I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to withdraw the comments as soon as possible.

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I thank the hon. member for raising the matter. I must say I think I may have heard the word, but I did not realize, from what I could hear, that it was directed to the hon. member. I certainly will look at the blues. If some intervention by the Chair is required, I assure the hon. member that I will take the necessary steps. I will look at the matter first and determine what transpired.

I thank him for drawing that to the Chair's attention.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 31, 36, 44, 45, 56, 57, 59, 63, 65, 68, 69, 72, 73, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86.

Question No. 31
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd St. Amand Brant, ON

With respect to the money required to clean the Greenwich-Mohawk brownfield site located in the riding of Brant (Ontario): (a) has the government approved the allocation of any government funds for the clean-up of the site; (b) has the government taken any steps to stop or reduce the previous allocation of any government funds for the clean-up of the site; (c) what steps have been taken by the government to determine whether to fund the clean-up of the site; (d) are there any funds available in either the estimates tabled by the government in April 2006, or the budget tabled by the government in May 2006 to fund the clean-up of the site; (e) has the government received any advice from the public service on whether it would be appropriate to provide funding to clean up the site; and (f) are there any proposals to fund the clean-up of the site currently being studied by cabinet, a cabinet committee, or any department and, if so, at what stage are each of the proposals, and what steps need to be taken before a final decision is made?

Question No. 31
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Beauce
Québec

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Minister of Industry

The budget presented to the House of Commons on May 2, 2006 included an amount of $12 million for Industry Canada to support the City of Brantford's economic development priorities. Industry Canada officials are working with the municipality to finalize the necessary details. An announcement will be made in due course.

Question No. 36
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

With regard to the agreement with the government of the United States of America concerning the handling of detainees in Afghanistan: (a) is there a Canada-USA detainee transfer agreement and, if so, (i) does that agreement remain in force notwithstanding the existence of the Canada-Afghanistan agreement and (ii) how do the two agreements relate to each other, especially in a situation where an individual detainee is specifically requested by the USA; and (b) have any detainees been transferred to USA custody since the Canada-Afghanistan arrangement was signed

Question No. 36
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Carleton—Mississippi Mills
Ontario

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), prior to the signing of the arrangement between the Canadian Forces, on behalf of the Government of Canada, with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on 18 December 2005, Canadian Forces transferred detainees to U.S. authorities. There is no written arrangement on transfer of detainees between Canada and the United States of America. The United States has provided public assurances that the detainees in its custody are being treated humanely and in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions, and Canada was satisfied with such assurances and is confident that the detainees who have been transferred to U.S. authorities have been, and will be, treated in accordance with international law. These assurances have been reinforced by the comments made by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States complies with its treaty obligations in the treatment of detainees and neither permits nor condones torture under any circumstances. The United States Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 is another positive development which confirms the public assurances by the United States government that detainees in the custody of the United States will be treated humanely. This act establishes uniform standards for the interrogation of people detained by United States military personnel and also prohibits “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” of persons in custody or under the physical control of the United States Government.

Item (i) is not applicable.

Item (ii) is not applicable.

In response to (b), no. Individuals detained by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan have been transferred to Afghan authorities since the signing of the arrangement on 18 December 2005.

Question No. 44
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar Ottawa Centre, ON

With regard to the lease-purchase agreement between Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and Minto Developments for the property at 3000 Merivale Road: (a) what financial details have gone to Treasury Board to support this agreement in principle; (b) was the search for a lease agreement publicly tendered; (c) what are the details of the tendering process for the relocation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters from 1200 Vanier Parkway; (d) what are the details of the analysis for all of the options considered by PWGSC prior to the agreement in principle with Minto Developments; and (e) was the City of Ottawa’s 2001 policy of stimulating growth by encouraging the location of “future federal workplaces near Transitway Stations and give particular consideration to the east-end part of the City” considered in this decision and, if so, how?

Question No. 44
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
B.C.

Conservative

James Moore Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), all of the financial details required to obtain Treasury Board approval, including a detailed business case, were submitted. The financial details submitted to Treasury Board cannot be disclosed.

In response to (b), 3000 Merivale Road, the former headquarteres of JDS Uniphase, became available and was offered to the Government as a result of the downturn in the high tech business. Minto purchased the complex from JDS and offered this unique facililty to the government at rental rates subvstantially less than those reflecting its replacement cost. PWGSC posted an Advance Contract Award Notice, ACAN, to provide an opportunity for other potential suppliers to submit bids. No suppliers came forward. The results demonstrate that the proposal from Minto Development Inc. to lease-purchase 3000 Merivale Road was the best accommodation option, since it provides the least disruptive, most cost-effective solution to meet the long term needs of the RCMP.

In response to (c), as in (b) above, there was no tender process, but the lease-purchase was subject to an Advance Contract Aware Notice.

In response to (d), before issuing the Advance Contract Award Notice, the government did a comprehensive 25-year present value cost analysis of different options, ranging from partial renovation of the current buildings, demolition and development of new buildings on the 1200 Vanier site, to complete replacement with a new building on an undeveloped site. After analysis, all these other options proved to be more costly by at least $70 million.

In response to (e), the proposed acquisition arose from an unsolicited proposal for an existing building, not for future development. Municipal growth strategies will be considered in situations involving new development. 3000 Merivale is near an existing transit node, and has a bus stop on the site. It is in close proximity to the proposed future light rail route. Both the RCMP and PWGSC have committed to work with OC Transpo to enhance public transit service to suit the increased population. This is consistent with the city's goal to intensify development and thus limit urban sprawl. In addition, the backfill of the 1200 Vanier campus with regional RCMP functions will help to maintain the RCMP's strong presence in the eastern part of the city, as well as provide opportunities for other federal government clients.

Question No. 45
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow Trinity—Spadina, ON

With respect to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has the CMHC had a budget surplus during the last five years and, if so, what was the surplus for each year; and how has the government spent these surpluses?