House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was products.

Topics

Question No. 65
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Etobicoke North, ON

With respect to the climate summit in Copenhagen and climate change: (a) what criteria needed to be met in order to be part of the Canadian delegation; (b) what were the name and position of each member of the Canadian delegation, what expertise and skills did each bring to the table, and for what time period were each in Copenhagen; (c) what was the total budget for the delegation, from flights to accommodation and living expenses; (d) what, if any, offsets were purchased for the delegation; (e) what was the description, in detail, of the Canadian climate change plan, and when will it be revealed to Canadians; (f) who were all the stakeholders consulted in the development of the plan, and how does each goal/target reflect or does not reflect each stakeholder's views; (g) did the government include the voice of Canadians who are on the “front line of climate change”, and were those who will be impacted by climate change meaningfully involved, and, if so, how; (h) what accountability measures, if any, were in place to ensure that the Canadian delegation would be responsible to those Canadians who will be particularly impacted (e.g., those living in low-lying areas and Aboriginal peoples); (i) what has been the stakeholder response to the plan, particularly from business, NGOs, scientists, and all stakeholders, and if available, what is the actual response of stakeholders' consulted; (j) what were the specific goals of the Canadian delegation, and how do they compare (in advance and afterward) with those of the G20 or OECD in terms of baseline, absolute reductions, and target date; (k) did the Canadian delegation support the notion that climate change is not just an environmental issue, but rather a human rights issue and a justice issue and, if so, what is the description, in detail, of Canada's position; (l) did the Canadian delegation listen to the world's “frontline voice”, such as Bangladesh's and the Maldives', and act upon scientific and humanitarian evidence; (m) what were the projected costs of mitigating acid precipitation and reducing chemicals that destroyed stratospheric ozone, the costs of inaction, and what were the actual costs required; (n) what are the projected costs of adapting to and mitigating climate change in Canada today, and what are the costs of inaction for each year, five years, and decade delayed; (o) will the government commit new research dollars to support global climate research and services; (p) in detail, what percentage of 2009's stimulus was “green”, and how was it a “triple win” for the economy, jobs, and the atmosphere, and going forward, what specific targets in Canada's climate change plan will be a “triple win”; and (q) what are the costs the government is willing to pay to mitigate climate change, and how do these costs compare with the projected economic, environmental and social costs of climate change?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 68
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Etobicoke North, ON

With respect to the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative (CHVI) and the Level 5 Laboratory (L5L): (a) what are the details of the initial request for proposals for the CHVI; (b) what amount were the government and the Gates Foundation planning to invest in the CHVI and what were the scheduled dates for investment; (c) how many bids for the CHVI were submitted and by which organizations; (d) what are the details of the CHVI process for determining suitable award winners; (e) what were the selection criteria for awarding the CHVI bid and who was responsible for identifying the criteria; (f) how many people made up the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids, how were they selected, and from which disciplines and geographic areas were they drawn; (g) were representatives from the pharmaceutical industry invited to be part of the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what date did each representative serve and, if not, why not; (h) what were the results for each of the selection criterion for each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI and how were the bids ranked; (i) did the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids reach a recommendation, and, if so, on what date, and to whom was the information conveyed in the government; (j) was there a steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, who were the members, who was the chair and what was its mandate; (k) were there changes to the steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what dates and for what reasons; (l) was any organization bidding on the CHVI informed, formally or otherwise, that it had been chosen to host the facility and, if so, how and on what date; (m) did the federal government put up a notice on its Web site to announce that the CHVI project had been cancelled or would not proceed and, if so, on what date; (n) was the notice in (m) removed from the Web site and, if so, on what date and for what reason; (o) have each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI seen the results of the peer-review process and, if so, on what date and, if not, why not; (p) what constructive criticism was given to each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI; (q) what specific problems were identified that prevented each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI from being selected; (r) why were bidding organizations not encouraged to redevelop their CHVI bid; (s) why and by whom was the CHVI cancelled; (t) on what dates was the CHVI project cancelled, were the submitting organizations formally informed and was the Canadian public informed; (u) what do “changing needs” and “reallocation of resources” mean in relation to the cancellation of the CHVI project; (v) what post-mortem audit does the government plan to undertake to investigate how Canadian investigators and research centres failed to meet the selection criteria for the CHVI bid; (w) how will the planned CHVI investment monies be spent; (x) what are the details of both the CHVI’s and the L5L’s history from January 2009; (y) what are the organizations involved in the L5L, and what, if any, overlap (e.g., goals, funds, personnel, etc.) exists between the International Centre for Infectious Diseases, who was bidding for the CHVI, and the L5L; (z) what, if any, involvement does the government have in the L5L; and (aa) what, if any, review process is in place for the L5L?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 73
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Denise Savoie Victoria, BC

With respect to the pending sale of the CANDU reactor division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: (a) what analysis, if any, has the government conducted into the impact of this sale on (i) Canada’s national security, (ii) energy resilience, (iii) global nuclear non-proliferation, (iv) human rights, (v) global security, and what are their results; (b) what is the full amount of federal funds dispersed to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, from its inception to present, from 2000 to date, and in the last available fiscal year; (c) what is the amount of federal funds dispersed to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited specifically for the CANDU reactor division, from its inception to present, from 2000 to date, and in the last available fiscal year; (d) what is the government’s estimated surplus or shortfall between the total federal funds dispersed for the CANDU reactor division and the expected sale price of the division; (e) by what other means does the government plan to recover the federal funds dispersed for the CANDU reactor division in the future, and what is the estimated amount to be recovered; (f) what is the division’s net income from its inception to present, from 2000 to present, and for the last available fiscal year; (g) what is the estimated market value of the division; (h) what is the government’s target sale price of the division; (i) what is the government’s full assessment of the present market outlook for CANDU reactor division, including potential for sales and competitive challenges from next-generation light-water reactors; and (j) what steps has the government taken, or will the government take, to ensure that this sale will never result in the enrichment of plutonium to weapon-grade status by any actor as a result of CANDU reactors?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 87
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Cardigan, PE

With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund, since March 2009 to present: (a) how many applications were successful and received funding under this program, and how many were rejected; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by provincial and federal electoral district; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far; (d) how much funding is left; (e) how many major projects under this program will go or went to expand existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects' applications that went towards (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; and (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications that went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communication more accessible?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

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

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Government Orders

April 16th, 2010 / 12:10 p.m.

Prince George—Peace River
B.C.

Conservative

Jay Hill Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill;

and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day designated for the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order. The minister knows full well that the Canada-Colombia agreement is a bad agreement.

The Bloc Québécois wonders why he is fast-tracking a bad agreement.

Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer

I want to inform the House that there are 30 minutes for questions. If the member has a question or comment on this motion, he can use that time.

The motion is moved, so we can start the debate.

If members who are interested in asking questions could stand, I could get an idea as to how to allocate the time accordingly. We will try to keep questions to about one minute and responses to about one minute to accommodate as many members as possible.

The hon. member for Wascana.

Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of a surprise on a Friday afternoon. Would the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons or the minister of trade be so kind as to explain why the government believes this extraordinary measure is appropriate in these circumstances?

If this dubious motion were to pass, could the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons give the House any indication when the day, which is referred to in the motion, would in fact be allocated by the government?

Also, could we have a specific confirmation from the minister of trade that the amendment to this legislation, which was discussed earlier in the debate, as proposed by the hon. member for Kings—Hants, will in fact be accepted by the government at committee stage of this bill?