Debates of March 21st, 2003

Committees of the House

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding that the House leader for the government stood up, my colleague did ask for you to ask for unanimous consent and we would request that you do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member obviously did not hear the Chair. I did ask for unanimous consent. Unanimous consent was not given by the House. It was denied. It is on the record.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, there may have been a change of heart. I would ask once again, due to the unavoidable absence of my colleagues, that you seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the member for Wetaskiwin be permitted to introduce the private member's bills on behalf of the members for Calgary—Nose Hill and Macleod.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Chief Actuary Act

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, for Mrs. Diane Ablonczy]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-421, an act respecting the establishment of the Office of the Chief Actuary of Canada and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.

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

Food and Drugs Act

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, for Mr. Grant Hill]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-422, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

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

Petitions

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people in eastern Ontario, particularly Fitzroy Harbour, Stittsville, Pakenham and Rockland, I am asking Parliament to recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations, that the facility should stay in Arnprior, and that the government should upgrade the facilities, as promised, in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 139 and 140.

Question No. 139

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Since the creation of the Firearms Registry, on what dates and in what amounts has the Treasury Board authorized funding for or loans to the said registry, and which members of the Board were in attendance at each of these meetings?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Treasury Board meeting agendas and decisions are confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council and are exempt from release under section 69 of the Access to Information Act. We therefore cannot provide the dates of Treasury Board meetings nor with a list of members in attendance.

The following charts detail the funding provided for the Canadian firearms program, CFP, in the main and supplementary estimates by fiscal year.

Main Estimates

Supplementary Estimates

Question No. 140

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

What internal audits or evaluations have been conducted since January 31, 2002 on the Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC) programme and what is the expected completion date for any planned or on-going audits or evaluations?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

The approved 2002-03 audit and evaluation plan called for an internal audit and an evaluation to be carried out of Technology Partnerships Canada, TPC. Both projects have commenced and are expected to be finalized during the first quarter of the 2003-04 fiscal year. In addition, as part of its approved audit plan, the audit and evaluation branch, AEB, of Industry Canada is conducting a department-wide audit of grants and contributions, advances, loans, receivables and unamortized discounts to provide assurance of the integrity of the amounts reported in the departmental financial statements. This audit, which includes a sample of related transactions for TPC, is also expected to be finalized during the first quarter of 2003-04.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 101 and 132 could be made orders for returns, these returns will be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 101

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

With regard to Indian fisheries policies and the effect of the government’s responses to the Marshall decisions, the van der Peet decision and the Sparrow decision of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding special aboriginal rights to fish: ( a ) what Indian Bands and other related organizations have been authorized to undertake a so-called Sparrow food fishery in each of the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002; ( b ) what were the species and quantities authorized for each such fishery named in (a) and what was the value of the fish harvested for each year; ( c ) what was the amount of the grant or contribution to each Indian Band or other related organization in each year for the fishery named in (a); ( d ) what were the costs or expenditures by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to manage and monitor the fisheries named in (a); ( e ) which Indian Bands and other related organizations and which fisheries identified in (a) meet the test established in Sparrow and van der Peet for the recognition of such an aboriginal food fishery; ( f ) which Indian Bands, communities and other related organizations have received fishing licences, vessels, other equipment and grants and contributions as part of the government’s response to the Marshall decisions in each of the following years, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002; ( g ) what were the species involved and what were the quantities harvested by each Indian Band, community or related organization in (e) and what was the value of fish harvested for each species in each year; ( h ) what was the cost of licences transferred to each Indian Band, community and related organization in (e); ( i ) what was the cost of vessels transferred to each Indian Band, community and related organization in (e); ( j ) what was the cost of other fishing and related equipment received by each Indian Band, community and related organization named in (e); ( k ) what was the value of all grants and contributions to each Indian Band in (e); and ( l ) which Indian Bands, community and other related community organization named in (e) meet the tests established by the Marshall decisions (for example, having regard to having signed a treaty in 1760-61, having a traditional fishing area, having fished these species in their traditional fishing areas prior to or at the time the so-called Halifax or Marshall treaties were signed in 1760-61, and that such a fishery was in the reasonable contemplation of the parties that signed the treaty)?

(Return tabled.)

Question No. 132

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

For each year from 1993 to 2001 what was the total amount billed to the government and it agencies by EKOS Research Associates?

(Return tabled.)

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

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

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business of the House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place among the parties and there is an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further defer the recorded division scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Monday, March 24 on second reading of Bill C-26 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, March 25, 2003.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.