House of Commons Hansard #98 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senators.

Topics

(Return tabled)

Question No. 404
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to the government’s 2008 report, “A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety”, aimed at reviewing the operations of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC): (a) how much of the $478.8 million over five years set aside in the government’s 2008 Budget has thus far been allotted to the CSC with regards to implementing each of the Roadmap’s five recommendations; (b) of the amount that has thus far been allotted to the CSC since Budget 2008 for the purposes of implementing the Roadmap’s recommendations, what is the breakdown of funding allocated to each of the programs, initiatives, services, inquiries or other undertakings for the 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 fiscal years; (c) what is the amount reserved for programs, initiatives, services, inquiries or other undertakings for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 fiscal years; (d) what is the amount reserved for each of the Roadmap’s five recommendations for the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 fiscal years; (e) since the first increment of government funding to the CSC for the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Roadmap, is there any empirical (statistical or otherwise) evidence indicating that eliminating statutory release will result in greater rehabilitation of prisoners; (f) what are the projected financial costs of eliminating statutory release in Canada; (g) of the total estimated financial costs of eliminating statutory release, how much funding has the government set aside to pay for the costs; (h) what is the criterion used by the government to determine whether the implementation of the Roadmap’s recommendations is successful or reaches its intended results; (i) since the first increment of government funding to the CSC for the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Roadmap, what available statistical indicators permit an objective assessment of the success or failure of each of the programs, initiatives, services, inquiries or other undertakings; (j) since the first increment of government funding to the CSC for the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Roadmap, what has been the amount allotted to correctional programs aimed at the rehabilitational needs of Aboriginal offenders; (k) what are the statistical indicators permitting an objective evaluation assessing whether the building of regional complexes will provide superior results for offender rehabilitation and accountability than the facilities currently used to house offenders; (l) of the amount that has thus far been allotted to the CSC since Budget 2008, for the implementation of the Roadmap’s recommendations, how much funding has been allotted to studying the building of regional complexes, their benefits, and the geographical locations in which these complexes would be situated; (m) what is the anticipated cost of implementing the Roadmap’s recommendation of building regional complexes, and how does the government intend to pay for the construction of these complexes; and (n) since the first increment of government funding to the CSC for the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Roadmap, what progress has the government made towards the construction of regional correctional complexes?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

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

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Is it agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for Papers
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for Papers
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Is it agreed?

Motions for Papers
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Rejection of Bill C-311 by the Other Place
Request for Emergency Debate
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Bruce Hyer Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed to learn last night that just days before Canada attends international climate change negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, the government's unelected appointees in the other place have ambushed this country's only federal climate change legislation and killed it without hearing evidence or giving it due consideration.

I am asking for an emergency debate of this urgent situation for two reasons.

First, Canada will show up at the Untied Nations negotiations without any laws on the books, or now even any legislation before Parliament, to control our rising greenhouse gas pollution. In fact, the government will arrive on the international stage having just killed the country's only federal climate change legislation in the most undemocratic way possible.

Second, this sets a deeply disturbing precedent for our entire democratic system. When members in this House, elected by the people of Canada, work diligently to pass good legislation, they at least expect the other place to study it carefully and give it due consideration.

Unaccountable appointees killing legislation outright, without even hearing evidence, puts our entire parliamentary system into question. Canadians are wondering what just happened to their democracy.

These are fundamental and urgent questions that must be considered without delay.

Rejection of Bill C-311 by the Other Place
Request for Emergency Debate
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I thank the hon. member for his diligence in pursuing these matters.

The Chair has considered what he has had to say and, of course, the contents of his letter on this subject indicate he wished to raise it this afternoon.

While I am sure the question of the rejection of a bill in the other place is something that might provoke some discussion, it is not unprecedented and it is part of the legislative process. However much one may disagree with what may happen, I do not believe it constitutes an emergency within the meaning of the Standing Order. Accordingly, I do not feel I can accept the hon. member's request at this time.

Royal Recommendation—Bill C-449
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, you made a statement with respect to the management of private members' business. In particular, you raised concerns about four bills that, in your view, appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. One of the bills you mentioned was Bill C-449.

I am, therefore, rising on a point of order regarding Bill C-449, An Act regarding free public transit for seniors.

Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I submit that Bill C-449 effects an appropriation by spending or authorizing the spending of public funds in a manner not currently authorized in legislation and, therefore, requires a royal recommendation.

Bill C-449 would allow the Minister of Finance to make direct payments to a trust established to help provinces, territories and municipalities to offer seniors free local public transit, anywhere in Canada, during off-peak hours.

Page 834 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered.

Precedents demonstrate that a royal recommendation is required for the creation of a new fund outside the consolidated revenue fund.

On June 13, 2005, the Speaker ruled, in the case of Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act , that:

...Bill C-280 effects an appropriation by spending or authorizing the spending of public funds by transfer of the funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to a separate EI Fund with the result that these monies are no longer available for other appropriations Parliament may make. ... Such a transfer...constitutes an appropriation within the meaning of section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and for this reason a royal recommendation is required....

Bill C-449 seeks to accomplish by similar means proposed in Bill C-280, which was found to require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I submit Bill C-449 must also be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Royal Recommendation—Bill C-449
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his submissions on this matter and will return to the House in due course with a ruling.

The House resumed from May 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate term limits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits)
Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Sherbrooke had the floor. He has six minutes to conclude his remarks.