This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was billion.

Topics

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

That marks the end of question period.

Some members wish to rise on points of order.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, during the answer by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, he indicated that the Conservatives had actually called for hearings first. However, the fact of the matter is that on February 24, I called for hearings. It is very clear and it is public.

I would like to offer the minister an opportunity to correct the record, if he would like, because this is well known publicly.

Just a day prior to that, the Conservatives were denying hearings, which is rather interesting. I would offer the opportunity to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities because the record clearly shows that on February 24, we had already called for hearings.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I am not sure that is a point of order.

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, late yesterday I electronically made public some information from an earlier in camera meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Stated simply, I should not have done this.

I take full responsibility for my error and impulsive behaviour, and I apologize without reservation to the House and, specifically, to the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I can assure the House that this error will not happen again.

Statement by Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—LachinePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning a statement made earlier today by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine regarding a decision rendered by a court in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the section of O'Brien and Bosc on page 616, which I know you are familiar with and that I believe is quite clear on this issue. I would like to quote the section, if I may. The quote reads as follows:

Attacks against and censures of judges and courts by Members in debate have always been considered unparliamentary and, consequently, treated as breaches of order.

A similar doctrine is set forth in citation 493 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to carefully review the statement made by the member and if you find, as I believe, that it was indeed unparliamentary language, that you would rule such and ask the member to immediately withdraw it and apologize for her unparliamentary remarks.

Statement by Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—LachinePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think the member might want to read the statement I made because the statement I made in no way attacked the judgment rendered by the judge. I actually questioned the fact there is a stunning silence on the part of the Conservatives, who have made their mantra, “If you do the crime, you do the time”.

Conservatives are tough on crime and have never shied away from publicly criticizing sentences they feel are too lenient. In fact, the Prime Minister last January publicly criticized a court judgment that he felt was too lenient, and he did so publicly.

The criticism in my statement was of the Conservatives' hypocrisy when it comes to one of their own receiving what they would normally deem to be a lenient sentence and what they would publicly cite as another case where the judgment has been too lenient and the defendant has not been given the severe sentence he or she should have been given. There is a stunning silence on their part.

I understand very well the principle that one should not criticize judgments that come down from our judiciary. I do not. They do, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the deputy House leader or deputy whip. They have not shied away from publicly criticizing criminal sentences that are tabled. I do not do so, but I will criticize their hypocrisy. I will criticize their silence now when one of their own gets a slap on the wrist for driving drunk and having illicit drugs in his car while driving.

Statement by Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—LachinePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the rasp that continually comes from the member opposite but she should check parliamentary procedure which talks about debate in the House.

I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, by the member's own statement just a few moments ago, that she is criticizing the decision rendered by a court. She said that it was too lenient, that someone who was apparently impaired and had drugs in the car, which, of course, is not fine, should be treated more harshly than the decision that was rendered by that court.

That is a clear admission by the member just a few short moments ago that she was critical of the decision, which is completely unparliamentary to do so in the House.

Statement by Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—LachinePoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for their submissions on this point and I will look at her earlier statement that was complained about to see if there was something that apparently breaches the guidelines that affect debate in the House referred to by the hon. parliamentary secretary in his initial submissions. If there is a problem of course I will come back to the House in due course.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the house a report from the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the parliamentary committee's workshop that was held in the Port of Spain from November 9 to 13, 2009.

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

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 delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region held in Helsinki, Finland, November 18 to 19, 2009.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a matter arising out of question period. You will find and the record will show that the leader of the New Democratic Party referred in his question today to the Prime Minister about the fact that I had indicated that our government had been aware of torture in Afghan prisons since taking office.

I think you will find that that is patently false. I have in fact said, outside the House, that we were aware of general concerns about conditions inside Afghan prisons and allegations of abuse.

Given the fact that the member of the New Democratic Party has made a statement that is patently false and attributed to me, I would ask that he withdraw that comment.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I am sure that the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party will examine the record and if necessary come back to the House in respect of the minister's point of order.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of the committees of the House.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this motion later this day.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) that the following motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.

That the Committee hold a commemoration ceremony each year on December 5, or on the day closest to December 5 if the House is not sitting that day, in remembrance of the date that Bill C-68 (An Act respecting firearms and other weapons) was passed by the Senate and received Royal Assent in 1995.

A copy of the relevant minutes of proceedings is tabled.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-494, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (nanotechnology).

Mr. Speaker, the bill purports to include nanotechnology in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and requires the health minister and the environment minister to act.

There is a need for public policy that is governed by the precautionary principle, and we need a proper balance between protecting Canadians from potential harmful consequences and allowing us potential benefits of nanotechnologies. The bill would fulfill that need for sound legislative guidance.

The proposed amendments to the act would help implement a national strategy to guide the development of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is the application of science and engineering to the design and manipulation of materials at the atomic, molecular and macromolecular scale with the view of enhancing performance or quality.

The bill includes risk assessment procedures prior to nanomaterial or nanoproduct release into the marketplace, the environment or to Canadians. A public inventory of nanotechnology and nanomaterials in Canada would be established. The bill would complement regulatory initiatives underway in the E.U., Australia, the U.K. and the U.S.

Since 2005, Canadians and international scientific organizations have been calling for legislation as hundreds of new nanoproducts enter the global marketplace. Canada's New Democrats are acting by proposing this bill.

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

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. member for Elgin--Middlesex--London have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

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

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

(Motion agreed to)

Canada PostPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of residents, I would like to present two petitions to the House today.

As members know, postal services are critical to the delivery of services, particularly in rural areas. Canada Post has recently announced that the time for information dispersal on the closure of a postal agency in a particular area will be reduced to one month.

The petitioners ask that Canada Post make it very clear that more time is required when notice is given to close down a post office.

Animal WelfarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to a universal declaration on animal welfare.

The residents who have signed this petition point out that animal husbandry is extremely important, particularly in rural and agricultural areas, and that animals should be protected from the harm that is done when they are subjected to testing beyond reasonable and accountable controls.

The petitioners are asking for a universal declaration with respect to animal welfare.

Air Transport Association of CanadaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

March 10th, 2010 / 3:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.

In the first petition the petitioners claim that they support the Air Transport Association of Canada in its efforts to obtain compensation for the aviation businesses that were affected by the restrictions on air space during the Olympic Games in Vancouver. Those businesses were shut down from January 29 to March 24, almost a two month period.

The flight businesses, in particular flight training businesses at Boundary Bay Airport and at Squamish, are hurting desperately. They would like compensation similar to that which was provided to businesses that were hurt during the G8 meetings in Kananaskis.