Debates of Jan. 29th, 2007

Question No. 120

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

With regard to tender reference PW-TALC-002-13708 – Medium to Heavy Lift Helicopter: (a) how many submissions of statements of capacities did the government receive; (b) what were the names of the contractors which submitted statements of capacities; (c) what are the names of the aircraft submitted in the statements of capacities; (d) has the Boeing CH-47 Chinook been considered to be the only aircraft that met the mandatory capacity requirements prior to announcing the tender, and, if so, which other aircraft were considered before reaching the conclusion that the Boeing CH-47 Chinook was the only aircraft that met the mandatory capacity requirements; (e) if it has been established that the Boeing CH-47 Chinook was the only aircraft that met the mandatory capacity requirements, which criteria were used to make this decision; (f) when is the contract expected to be awarded; (g) what is the expected cost of this contract; (h) which companies gave presentations to the Department of National Defence and/or the Department of Public Works and Government Services in regards to medium to heavy lift helicopters before the announcement of the tender; (i) with which companies were the Department of National Defence and/or the Department of Public Works and Government Services in contact in regards to medium to heavy lift helicopters before the announcement of the tender; (j) where are the aircraft expected to be based; (k) will the decision on where to base the aircraft be dependant on the type of aircraft purchased; (l) have any officials from the Department of National Defence, the Department of Public Works and Government Services and/or the Canadian Forces requested a test flight of any of the proposed aircraft; (m) if test flights have been requested, which aircraft have or will be involved, and on which dates; (n) which product information handbooks did the government receive before the tender was announced; and (o) which product information handbooks has the government received since the tender was announced?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 121

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

With regard to each of the grants and contributions awarded by Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions since the beginning of the fiscal year 2004-2005: (a) which were the recipient organizations; (b) on what dates were they awarded; (c) what were the amounts of the grants and contributions; (d) what were the names of the programs being supported; (e) in what federal ridings were the recipient organizations located; and (f) what was the nature of the grants and contributions?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 122

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

With regard to the leases on the government’s building inventory from the beginning of the fiscal year 2003-2004 to November 2006, for each fiscal year, or month in the case of an incomplete fiscal year, and for each lease: (a) what are the names of the properties for which there were leases; (b) what are the addresses, municipalities and provinces of these properties; (c) the start and end of month dates; (d) the rentable space, in metres3; (e) the original annual contract rent; and (f) the names of the owners?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 123

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

With respect to Passport Canada and the number of passport applications it receives and passports it issues at various centres across Canada: (a) which communities in Canada sharing a border with the United States, i.e. within 15 kilometres of the border, have full Passport offices and how many have Passport desks; (b) how many passport applications and how many passports were issued by Passport Canada in each of its Passport offices and Passport desks in the last reporting year; (c) for Passport Canada's Sault Ste. Marie region, how many passport applications and how many passports were issued in each year since 2000; and (d) for each community with Passport desks, what is the kilometre distance to the nearest Passport office?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 131

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

With respect to Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC), what projects, grants, contributions and any other funding support has HRSDC funded for the riding of Sault Ste. Marie since January 1, 2006?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 132

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

With respect to the provision of humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Lebanon, what has the government, more specifically, the Minister of International Co-operation, done to provide assistance to the people of Lebanon to help them rebuild their shattered lives and to provide assistance to the government of Lebanon to help it rebuild its infrastructure and help clean up the environmental damage?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 133

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

With respect to the listing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as a terrorist organization, on April 8, 2006, what has the government done to ensure that law abiding Canadians of Tamil decent are not being subjected to undue scrutiny?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act.

International Bridges and Tunnels Act

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Before question period the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh had the floor. There are five minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was so pressured with trying to get my speech in before question period that I used up all my points. However, I took advantage of the break for statements by members and question period to come up with a few additional ones and I will be able to use up my final five minutes.

I was remiss in not noting in my opening comments the very hard work that my colleague from Windsor West did on this legislation and the whole issue of border crossings, tunnels, bridges and other methodology. I did not point out the specifics of his work with regard to pressuring the government for amendments to take into account our responsibility at the federal level and the role that the municipal governments and local authorities have with regard to border crossing issues.

He was able to convince the House that it would be appropriate given the proper set of circumstances that the federal government, in particular the minister responsible for the legislation, would consult. I praise him for his success in having amendments made to clauses 7 and 15 of the bill so that local communities and municipal governments in particular would have the opportunity to consult with the minister on issues around construction and operation of border crossings in Canada.

We discovered just how important that was when we began dealing with the idea, which is all it was at that point, of having a new crossing in our community in order to deal with the congestion and related problems. It was amazing how difficult it was to get any serious attention from both upper levels of government for the local community. There seemed to be a willingness on the part of the federal government and the provincial government to throw away the concerns of the local community, especially with respect to the environment and safety. They seemed to procrastinate, indefinitely at times, on the commercial interests around speeding up the shipment of cargo and enhancing trade opportunities at our crossing.

In that regard, these amendments did not go as far as we wanted them to go. We would have wanted a mandatory consultation process. However, it was as far as we could push the government and the official opposition on the issue. It is one of those we will experiment with over the next few years. If it is wanting, we will be back before the House proposing amendments to the legislation to bring into line the needs of our community at the local level vis-à-vis the issues that are encompassed by the legislation.

I would also like to address the regulations that are coming under the legislation and the need for government regulations to address the issue of the tolls, the fees that are charged at our border crossings. The variation in fees that are charged at various points across Canada is quite shocking. We feel this most particularly in the Windsor area because of the level of fees that are charged at the Ambassador Bridge, which is a privately owned consortium. It is privately managed. Before this legislation, there was very little ability on the part of the federal government to in any way control the operation of that bridge crossing. It has resulted in a huge variance in the fees that are charged for trucks and passenger vehicles as opposed to what is charged across the country. We will be watching as the regulations come down to see that the government addresses this issue.

I want to praise the work that the member for Windsor West has done on this legislation. We will be monitoring the bill on an ongoing basis.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many other members are going to speak, but the member is the second member from the NDP to have spoken. I am still pleased that they are prepared to compliment the previous government's action in this regard but I do want to set some of the record straight.

Much praise is being given for the authority being provided to the minister to consult. The previous government did not need the authority to consult; it actually did it. The member opposite knows quite well that the mayor of the city, every member on the regional council, the member himself and the other member of Parliament for the Windsor area had the opportunity to speak with the minister responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency, the transport minister, the minister responsible for the area, the minister responsible for the environment and the people working with the binational panel on both sides of the border.

What I am trying to get at is that we had a formula in place to take into consideration all of the interests in the area, including the interests of the aboriginal communities and all private citizens. All those opportunities were taken advantage of by those seriously interested in the development of the economic potential of those border crossings, of the economic directions of the industries related in that area and as far away as Montreal as indicated earlier, those in the trucking industry, the auto industry and the service industry. All of them were always brought to the table. There is nothing new here. What is new is that now the minister has the obligation to do it whereas before we were doing it because we believed in good government.

Why did the NDP not support the government of the day? Earlier I heard someone say they did not have the numbers so they could not have had an impact on the government of the day. Because the government of the day did not have the numbers and could not keep the government in place, the NDP decided to support the other side because with them they could have the numbers and defeat the government. The member delayed the opportunity to do something for his own community a year and a half ago. The member should be ashamed.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three comments. One, I am definitely not ashamed. Two, I would ask the member, a former minister of the Liberal government, to stop whining in the House. It is really getting sickening. It was not the NDP, it was not the Bloc, it was not the Conservatives who threw his party out of power. It was the people of Canada who threw his party out of power because of his party's corruption and incompetence. I could go down the list. It really is revolting the amount of whining that goes on in the House by the Liberal Party on that issue. It is time that the Liberals focused on what really happened.

As I was listening to the member I could not help but think of George Orwell's 1984. The member is rewriting history from his own perspective and his own desire of what he thought he would like to have seen go on.

Let me assure him and the House that the consultation process, so-called by the former government, around this issue with the city of Windsor and the county of Essex was almost totally meaningless. Whenever there was any discussion, it was ignored by the Liberal government. I will use one example. At one point the Liberal government dumped on the municipal council of the city of Windsor what was called a nine point plan. It was supposed to be the solution. It was a joke. It had been repudiated by council long before it was ever presented formally, point by point. They said it could not be done for this reason or for that reason, but they went ahead, both the provincial government in Queen's Park and the federal government. That is one example. That was repeated over and over again.

The fact that this legislation will have some mandatory consultation available to the minister is definitely an improvement, but it does not in any way reflect the quality of what occurred under the former Liberal administration. The Liberals did not consult in any meaningful way with the community that I come from.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?