Debates of Nov. 27th, 2012

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.

Museums Act

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Natural Resources

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources entitled “Resource Development in Northern Canada”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I want to commend all members of the committee for putting together a report that really does reflect what witnesses said, and will lead to better things for this industry in the future.

Access to Medicines

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by numerous residents of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and many other parts of the province in support of Bill C-398.

The petitioners are calling upon the House to pass Bill C-398 without significant amendment to facilitate the immediate and sustainable flow of life-saving, generic medicines to developing countries.

This is a reform to Canada's access to medicine regime, which is intended to provide affordable, life-saving, generic medicines to developing countries. However, the provisions were unnecessarily complicated and the regime has been used only once. To provide for this, there needs to be reform. This needs to happen. It is a part of the drugs for all campaign, which deserves consideration by this House.

Motherwell Homestead

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to file today. There are three petitions signed by hundreds of people from all across Saskatchewan with respect to the historic Motherwell Homestead, the national historic site near Abernethy, Saskatchewan.

These petitioners are commenting on the huge importance of that historic site and calling upon the Government of Canada to continue funding for the Motherwell Homestead.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions, again signed by hundreds of people from across Saskatchewan and, in this case, from different parts of the country as well, draw to the attention of the House the importance of the Prairie shelterbelt program and the historic tree farm at Indian Head, which has been functioning there since 1901.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to continue adequate funding for the shelterbelt program and for the tree farm.

Abortion

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present, on behalf of constituents, a petition calling for some restrictions to be put on abortion in Canada.

The petitioners note that Canada is the only country in the western world, in the company of China and North Korea, when it comes to having no restrictions on abortion legislation.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.

Gatineau Park

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to present a petition signed by many people entitled “Together, let's protect Gatineau Park”. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to pass legislation to provide Gatineau Park with the legal protection it needs to preserve it for future generations.

Abortion

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the House of Commons, signed by a number of petitioners mainly from Orangeville in my riding, but also from Grand Valley, Waldemar and Hillsburgh.

The petitioners are saying that whereas Canada is the only nation in the western world, in the company of China and North Korea, without any laws restricting abortion; and whereas Canada's Supreme Court has said it is Parliament's responsibility to enact abortion legislation, these petitioners call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.

Access to Medicines

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to table a petition organized by the Grandmothers' Advocacy Network.

The grandmothers point out that in sub-Saharan Africa their sister grandmothers are burying their adult children and caring for many of the 15 million children who have been left orphaned by AIDS.

The petition talks about Canada's access to medicines regime and says that CAMR was intended to provide affordable life-saving generic medicines to developing countries, but because its provisions are unnecessarily complicated, it has been used only once since 2004.

The petitioners are asking that the new bill that is before the House, Bill C-398, which would correct these problems, be passed with support from across the House. The petitioners are calling upon all MPs to do that work.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 959 and 981.

Question No. 959

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

With regard to corrections, since January 1, 2000, (a) has any department or agency conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter, pertaining to (i) the Baffin Correctional Centre in Iqaluit, Nunavut, (ii) correctional services in Nunavut in general; and (b) what are the details, including dates and file numbers, of each review or assessment?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, Public Safety Canada has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to the Baffin Correctional Centre or any other correctional services in Nunavut. This is a territorial institution, not a federal institution.

With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada and (a)(i) specifically, since January 1, 2000, the CSC has not conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter, pertaining to the Baffin Correctional Centre in Iqaluit, Nunavut. This is a territorial institution, not a federal institution.

With regard to (a)(ii), in April 2012, in accordance with the provisions of the exchange of service agreement, ESA, between CSC and the Territory of Nunavut, a review of the ESA was completed to enable CSC to measure the results achieved against objectives set forth in the ESA.

With regard to (b), this review focused on the continued relevance of the ESA, whether the agreement is effective in meeting its objectives within budget and without unwanted outcomes, whether it is cost effective, and whether it has been implemented as designed.

While this review did not focus solely on territorial corrections, it did conclude that the goals and objectives of the territory are consistent with CSC and that initiatives and practices in Nunavut have enhanced Inuit programs and services for federal offenders.

The details, including dates and file numbers of each discussion between CSC and the Government of Nunavut, are not readily available.

With regard to the RCMP, it has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to the Baffin Correctional Centre or any other correctional services in Nunavut. This is a territorial institution, not a federal institution.

Question No. 981

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

With regard to the programs of the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec: (a) for each program, (i) have there been any changes in the eligibility criteria, (ii) if so, what are they, (iii) how much is the budget for 2012-2013, (iv) is this a decrease from the 2011-2012 budget, (v) if so, by how much; (b) since the start of the current fiscal year, for each of Quebec’s administrative regions, (i) how many proposals have been submitted, (ii) how many proposals have been rejected, (iii) what was the amount of each proposal submitted, (iv) what was the amount of each proposal rejected, (v) what was the amount of each proposal approved, (vi) how many co-operatives have submitted a proposal, (vii) how many proposals submitted by a co-operative have been rejected, (viii) how many non-profit organizations have submitted a proposal, (ix) how many proposals submitted by a non-profit organization have been rejected, (x) how many rejected proposals had been recommended by a regional office, (xi) what were these proposals, (xii) which organizations, businesses or co-operatives have submitted a proposal, (xiii) what have been the application processing times; (c) how many positions have been cut in each regional office; (d) how many positions have been cut at headquarters; (e) how many have been transferred from one office to another; and (f) from which office to which office have the transfers referred to in (e) occurred?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), no changes were made to the eligibility criteria of any of the programs of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, including the community futures program, the program to fund the construction of a gas pipeline between Vallée-Jonction and Thetford Mines, and the Quebec economic development program, launched on April 1, 2012.

Budget information on the agency’s programs can be found in the report on plans and priorities at the following addresses: for 2011-2012, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2011-2012/inst/frd/st-ts01-eng.asp, and 2012-2013, at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2012-2013/inst/frd/st-ts01-eng.asp.

With regard to (b), information related to submitted and rejected projects could be considered third party confidential information under the Access to Information Act and thus cannot be disclosed. Information related to disclosed projects can be found in the proactive disclosure section of the agency’s website at http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/disclosure/grant-contribution-awards/quarters.html.

The agency’s service standards require between 35 and 65 days to process a complete application from the day it is submitted until an answer is rendered.

With regard to (c) to (f), in view of the current state of the global economy, the government has to make a special effort to re-establish its budgetary position.

The agency contributes to the government’s goal of attaining a balanced budget by simplifying its programs and clients’ reporting, reducing its processing times and cutting red tape, and reorganizing its internal services for greater efficiency.

The agency’s contributions budget will return to much the same level as before the allocation of temporary programs.

The agency’s mandate to promote the economic development of Quebec’s regions remains aligned with the government’s priorities of the economy and employment. Its approach is geared to the challenges and assets of businesses and regions to enable them to participate fully in the economy.

The agency will continue to support the economic development of Quebec’s businesses and regions while enhancing client services and will continue to be present locally to work with organizations and partners.

To serve its clientele more effectively with advisers who are even more present in the field and to enhance its efficiency, the agency has consolidated its regional expertise according to the following: responsibility for northern Quebec has been assumed by the business office in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, since Val d’Or is a central point of connection with the north; the greater Montreal area is now served by a single business office, which will lead to the development of synergies in the delivery of programs and services in the metropolitan area; promoters from certain regional county municipalities in the Lanaudière, Laurentides and Montérégie regions are now served by business offices whose socio-economic issues are similar, in order to meet their challenges more effectively.

The impact of these measures on the agency’s number of full-time equivalents will be disclosed through the usual reporting mechanisms to Parliament, such as the 2012-2013 departmental performance report and the report on plans and priorities for 2013-2014.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 958, 960, 966, 973, 974, 977 and 979 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 958

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

With regard to First Nations health: what are the dates, titles and file numbers of all reports, studies, files or dossiers concerning substance abuse or addictions in the communities of Sheshatshiu or Natuashish, created or prepared since January 1, 2006, by or on behalf of (i) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, (ii) Health Canada, (iii) the Public Health Agency of Canada?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 960

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

With regard to Aboriginal affairs: what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any reports, studies, files, or dossiers held by any department or agency, concerning the Labrador Metis Association, Labrador Metis Nation, or NunatuKavut?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 966

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

With regard to torture: (a) what is the government’s policy on art. 1(1) of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; (b) is it the policy of the government and its agencies that Canada is opposed to any violation of the article cited in (a); (c) is it the government's policy that s.269.1 of the Criminal Code, including, but not limited to, subsection 4, is consistent with art.1(1) and (2) of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and (d) is it the government's policy that information obtained by means of torture and provided to Canada by a third party deemed a non-state, or provided by a state as defined by the United Nations, is contrary to the article cited in (a) and a potential contravention of Section 269.1 of the Criminal Code?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 973

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

With regard to the government's proposal to double the victim surcharge and limit judicial discretion in sentencing as is currently provided for by section 730 of the Criminal Code, and to eliminate the “undue hardship” defense: insofar as the victim surcharge is used to fund provincial and territorial victims' services, (a) on what data did the Minister of Justice rely in determining the specific amount by which the government proposes to raise the surcharge, in particular, did the Minister rely on data directly provided by (i) the province of Alberta, (ii) the province of British Columbia, (iii) the province of Manitoba, (iv) the province of New Brunswick, (v) the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, (vi) the province of Nova Scotia, (vii) the province of Ontario, (viii) the province of Prince Edward Island, (ix) the province of Saskatchewan, (x) the province of Quebec, (xi) the Yukon, (xii) the Northwest Territories; (b) did the Minister rely on data either provided or collected by the provinces or territories, (i) if so, did the Minister rely on data from the provinces and territories, (ii) did the government request this data from the provinces or was it provided to the government voluntarily, (iii) what individual or agency was responsible for the collection and analysis of any data regarding provincial and territorial victim services funds, (iv) has the government engaged in any dialogue with the provinces, territories, or any other private or public sector organizations involved in the provision of victim services in drafting the proposed amendments; (c) has the government reviewed any data indicating that there is a deficit in funding levels of provincial and territorial victim services programs and, (i) if so, on what basis has the government determined the extent of any deficit in the funding of victim services, (ii) if the government has determined there to be a deficit in the funding of victim services, has it been found to be consistent nationwide or to vary by province or territory, (iii) in reliance on what data has the government determined the doubling of the victim surcharge to be the appropriate level of increase, (iv) where the government has not relied directly on data provided by the provinces or territories, on what basis has any data actually relied on been deemed reliable, (v) insofar as the government has determined there to be a deficit in provincial and territorial victim services funds, on what basis has the government determined increasing the victim surcharge to be a sufficient response, (vi) has the government generated, or relied upon, any data indicating future projections of victims' services funding levels and, (vii) if so, will the doubling of the surcharge amount be sufficient to maintain adequate funding levels of victims' services in all provinces and territories; (d) has the government found any evidence indicating that increasing victim surcharge will affect the accountability of offenders, (i) has the government found any evidence indicating that the increase of the victim surcharge will deter specific offenders from re-offending, (ii) has the government found any evidence indicating that increasing the victim surcharge will have a deterrence effect on crime in general; (e) on what criteria did the government base its proposal to eliminate the “undue hardship” defense currently provided for by section 737(5) of the Criminal Code, and did the government consult with bar associations in deciding to advance this proposal in (i) Alberta, (ii) British Columbial, (iii) Manitoba, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Newfoundland and Labrador, (vi) Nova Scotia, (vii) Ontario, (viii) Prince Edward Island, (ix) Saskatchewan, (x) Quebec, (xi) the Yukon, (xii) the Northwest Territories; and (f) on what basis did the government determine that it is appropriate to maintain judicial discretion to increase a victim surcharge, pursuant to section 737(3) of the Criminal Code, but not to implement an exemption based on undue hardship pursuant to section 737(5)?