Debates of Dec. 15th, 2010

The House resumed from December 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-510, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (coercion), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It being 3:15 p.m. pursuant to order made on Tuesday, December 14, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-510 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #151

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from December 14 consideration of Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, December 14, 2010, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-429 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #152

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion lost.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit deterred by how the vote was actually occurring. I would like my vote, which was not recorded during the previous recording of the votes, to show that I was in favour of it, please.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it agreed that the member's name be added to the list?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

Order Paper Question No. 614--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on December 8, 2010, by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning the length of Order Paper Question No. 614, standing in the name of the member for Honoré-Mercier.

I would like to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and the members for Honoré—Mercier, Windsor—Tecumseh, and Kitchener—Conestoga for their contributions.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that Question No. 614 was too lengthy to meet the definition of “concise”, as required by our rules, and emphasized the difficulty the government would have in responding to so lengthy a question in its current form within the prescribed 45 days.

As all hon. members know, written questions are one of the key tools that members have at their disposal to help them seek detailed information from the government. At the same time, the practice of submitting lengthy written questions has become commonplace, particularly since the implementation of the recommendation of the 1985 report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House, the McGrath committee, to limit members to a maximum of four written questions on the order paper at any given time.

It is in this context that the parliamentary secretary has raised the issue of what constitutes a “concise” question for the purposes of Standing Order 39(2). The Standing Order confers upon the Clerk of the House, acting for the Speaker:

...full authority to ensure that coherent and concise questions are placed on the Notice Paper in accordance with the practices of the House, and may, on behalf of the Speaker, order certain questions to be posed separately.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 520, specifies that:

Since questions must be coherent and concise, the Clerk may split a question into two or more questions if it is too broad or if it contains unrelated subquestions.

Speaker Parent added further clarification to what defines coherent and concise when, in relation to the procedural acceptability of a written question, he pointed out, on February 8, 1999, at page 11532 of Debates, that:

The issue was not the length of the question but rather the fact that it contained unrelated sub questions.

Indeed, when ruling on a similar matter on October 18, 2006, at page 3934 of the Debates, I found that very interpretation to still be valid and in keeping with our practice, noting that:

...the term concise in Standing Order 39(2) has evolved since this rule was first adopted. It is no longer interpreted to mean short or brief but rather comprehensible. Undoubtedly, this practice has evolved as a means of getting around the limit of four questions per member.

I also emphasized that in order for a question with multiple subquestions to be found admissible, there must be a common element connecting the various parts. Thus, we see that conciseness is not a matter of length, but rather of breadth and the absence of unrelated subquestions.

When written questions are submitted to the Journals Branch for inclusion in the notice paper, they are examined with a view to ensuring that all of their parts are interrelated, that they are not too broad, and that they meet various other criteria for written questions.

Because of the concerns raised with respect to Question No. 614, I took it upon myself to review it with care in light of how our practice has evolved in this regard. I am satisfied that its subquestions are indeed interrelated and that therefore there were no procedural impediments as to form and content in placing the question on the notice paper.

In short, the scope of this question is sufficiently narrow to satisfy established procedural requirements. Accordingly, the question will be allowed to stand in its present form on the order paper.

I thank hon. members for their attention to this matter.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills.

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) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the visit of the Defence and Security Committee held in Denmark, Greenland and Iceland, August 30 to September 4, 2010.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the visit of the Science and Technology Committee held in Paris, Aix-en-Provence and Toulon, France, from September 27-30, 2010.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association on its participation in the association's 37th annual meeting held in Edmonton and Calgary from August 29 to September 4, 2010.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, concerning its participation in several events: first, the 63rd convention of the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française held in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, from September 30 to October 2, 2010; second, the seminar on the role of women parliamentarians in including a gender perspective in the preparation of national budgets, and on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which was held in Lomé, Togo, on October 6 and 7, 2010; and third, the seminar on including a gender perspective in the preparation of national budgets: putting it into practice, which was held in Bitola, Macedonia, on November 4 and 5, 2010.

Status of Women

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, in relation to the training mission in Afghanistan and its compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

The committee recommends that the government ensure that the benchmarks currently being developed for any future training mission in Afghanistan are compliant with United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development entitled, “The Referendum on Sudan: Where to after 2011?”

This report is a result of the study conducted by the committee with respect to the implications and ramifications of the referendum vote that will take place in Sudan in January 2011.

Criminal Code

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-608, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (failure to inform).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill on behalf of all of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence not to report physical or sexual abuse against a child to the proper authorities. It refers to minors under the age of 18. We hope to target cases in which someone witnesses such abuse in his or her immediate surroundings or someone in a position of authority within an organization, who, in order to protect that organization, refuses to report either physical or sexual abuse.

It is my hope that this bill will easily reach consensus in the House and that it will pass in order to protect children and the victims of physical and sexual abuse.

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

Public Health Agency of Canada Act

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-609, An Act to amend the Public Health Agency of Canada Act (National Alzheimer Office).

Mr. Speaker, my bill, an act to establish a national Alzheimer office within the Public Health Agency of Canada, aims to reduce the rising tide of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in Canada.

The bill calls for the office to: develop a national plan to address dementia, in conjunction with the provincial and territorial health departments, with specific goals and an annual report to Parliament; take necessary measures to accelerate the discovery and development of treatments that would prevent, halt or reverse the course of dementia; encourage greater investment in all areas of dementia research; coordinate with international bodies to contribute to the fight against dementia globally and to build on Canada's existing contributions in this field; assess and disseminate best practices, improving the quality of life of people with dementia and their caregivers; and make recommendations to support and strengthen Canada's dementia care workforce.

I hope all hon. members will support the bill.

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

Protection of Beneficiaries of Long Term Disability Benefits Plans Act

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-610, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (protection of beneficiaries of long term disability benefits plans).

Mr. Speaker, in March of this year, Senator Art Eggleton presented Bill S-216 in the Senate. In simple terms, that bill would have made certain that hundreds of sick, disabled and dying Canadians had their medical benefits protected in the wake of the collapse of Nortel.

Despite expert testimony of the Senate Banking Committee, which stated that Bill S-216 was both financially sound and legally prudent, partisan considerations in the Senate defeated it last week. Today I am presenting a legislative package that is identical to S-216.

Every now and again, we as legislators are given the opportunity to do something truly good for the people we are here to represent, something that is far bigger than partisan politics. In my mind, this is one of those opportunities.

Together, all of us can prevent these people from being evicted from their homes when their benefits are revoked this Christmas. I ask my colleagues in all parties to do the right thing. Together we can help these desperate and disabled people.

As time is of the essence and this is an urgent situation, I would ask the House for unanimous consent to pass the bill at all legislative stages and to refer it to the Senate for concurrence today.

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

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I again ask for unanimous consent. This affects 400 Nortel people, at minimum, who are on long-term disability. Their benefits are finished on December 31. The bill has gone through the Senate. It has had hearings there. Unfortunately, it was rejected at the Senate, but the House could pass it today and refer it to the Senate for concurrence and help those 400 people.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the hon. member seeking unanimous consent to read the bill a second time now?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.