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 #65 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prorogation.

Topics

LighthousesOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, Cape Spear lighthouse is a symbol of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and is an iconic marker of the most easterly point in North America.

The current government has announced plans to sell off or scrap the Cape Spear lighthouse, along with over 1,000 more lighthouses.

At the same time, the government is building a fake lake and a fake landlocked lighthouse for the G8, a loony boondoggle.

I ask the Minister of the Environment responsible for Parks Canada and national historic sites, how could he put a “for sale” sign on Cape Spear lighthouse?

LighthousesOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Calgary Centre-North Alberta

Conservative

Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a question from the Liberal Party about the environment. I was puzzled about why its members rose today, but upon reflection, it is because this is, in fact, the anniversary of the expansion of the Nahanni National Park sixfold by this Conservative government.

Perhaps that is not the real reason. I think the member rises because this is also the day that the order in council creating the Galapagos of the north, the Gwaii Haanas marine reserve, Canada's first marine national park, was finalized two hours ago.

LighthousesOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, the current government is using the new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act to offload historical buildings. The wholesale dumping of lighthouses shows a complete disregard for these iconic structures.

Instead of protecting lighthouses, the government is identifying those it considers surplus and is expecting others to take responsibility for them.

The Conservatives have a bottomless pit of money for a fake lighthouse in Ontario, yet they turn their backs on heritage structures in the maritime provinces.

How much money has the government budgeted to help those who will be forced to take over a lighthouse rather than see it fall into a state of disrepair?

LighthousesOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Egmont P.E.I.

Conservative

Gail Shea ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that prior to the new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, there was no plan in place to protect heritage lighthouses.

This was a piece of legislation that was supported by all parties. What happened to the Liberal Party? It supported the legislation when it came in.

G8 and G20 SummitsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, at the height of the tourist season, the U.S. just asked its citizens to avoid Toronto. The Toronto Blue Jays, galleries, theatres, and even VIA Rail have been caged up and shut down. All the major Toronto mayoralty candidates have written to the Prime Minister to ask for help.

Yet thousands of small businesses worried about damages are being told to go jump in that fake lake. The government will not compensate Torontonians for property damage caused by the G20 summit. Why will it not do that?

G8 and G20 SummitsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Pontiac Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, as I mentioned before, is not legally bound to pay compensation for losses suffered as a result of international meetings.

Nonetheless, there are precedents whereby compensation has been provided to those impacted by extraordinary security measures. The assessment of all claims will be made in close co-operation with Audit Services Canada.

G8 and G20 SummitsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, there is no money for Canadians in need, but the ShamWow minister is apparently flush with cash.

Highway travellers from Windsor to Toronto have faced shut down rest stops for more than a year. Meanwhile, money is being dumped into outhouses and bathrooms in remote parts of the minister's riding nowhere near the summit site.

The government's G8 and G20 boondoggle is a skid mark on our country's reputation. How much higher must the pile of shenanigans get before we do anything about it?

G8 and G20 SummitsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, as part of Canada's economic action plan, we are making investments in infrastructure in every corner of the country.

I want to inform the House about the riding where we are going to be making the biggest investment in infrastructure in Canada. Does he want to know which it is? It is the member's riding. We are building a bridge to Detroit because the member for Essex has worked hard. We are going to create jobs. We are going to create opportunities, and a lot of those are going to be in the Windsor-Essex region.

Jazz AirOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, we are quickly approaching the summer season, which is the most heavily travelled quarter of the year. My constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country are very concerned that they will not be able to fly to their holiday destinations because of a potential work stoppage by Jazz Air. I know that our government has played an active role in bringing both sides to the table.

Can the Minister of Labour please update the House on the progress of this labour dispute?

Jazz AirOral Questions

3 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Conservative

Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, despite my active engagement, I am disappointed to report that Jazz Air and pilot negotiations have not resulted in a new agreement. Although no formal strike or lockout notice has been given, our government is taking action to prevent travellers from being stranded.

Yesterday I gave notice of intent to table legislation in the House. Our economy remains fragile, and our priority is to protect Canadians who would be negatively affected by a work stoppage. People like business travellers, communities that rely on tourism, rural Canadians, and families planning summer travel will all be affected.

We encourage the parties to return to the table and settle this matter expeditiously.

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, for three years, Mohamed Kohail has been incarcerated in Saudi Arabia for a crime that he did not commit. At his initial trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to death, but the supreme council overruled that verdict and ordered a new trial on the basis of irregularities that denied Mohamed a fair and impartial hearing. Nonetheless, Mohamed could yet again face the death penalty.

Will the Prime Minister use the occasion of the G20 summit to ask King Abdallah if Saudi officials will indeed closely monitor the proceedings of the new trial and if Mohamed could at least be released on bail while the second trial is conducted. Could he do the very same for our friend Pavel Kulisek, who is facing the same situation in Mexico?

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Calgary East Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, Canada has pursued and will continue to pursue all avenues to assist Mohamed and Sultan Kohail. Our government has continuously raised this case with Saudi officials. We continue to raise the case of Mr. Kulisek, as well. We are closely engaged with the Mexican government on that file. We take all these cases very seriously.

Job CreationOral Questions

June 17th, 2010 / 3 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers expect the government at least to maintain existing jobs. But the Minister of Natural Resources is refusing to invite Shell to negotiate seriously with potential buyers. As for Davie Shipyards, the Conservative member for Lévis—Bellechasse is scaring creditors instead of guaranteeing that this company will have access to government contracts.

How can this government claim to be creating jobs in Quebec when the Shell and Davie Shipyards cases prove it—

Job CreationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Job CreationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the workers at the refinery in Montreal. I understand that a union committee has been set up to find a buyer for this refinery.

I know full well that the minister has been working full time on this, and he has been working with both sides. We expect them to come to some resolution on this issue.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I would like to ask the government House leader about his plans for the period immediately ahead: tonight, tomorrow and until at least Wednesday of next week.

I wonder, in answering the question, if he could indicate exactly how he proposes to dispose of the issue concerning pardons, which was previously known as Bill C-23. I think the House would be anxious to know the plan for bringing that matter to a conclusion where I believe there is agreement.

Finally, could he be a little more precise on the matters pertaining to the industrial dispute in the air travel industry in Canada? The Minister of Labour answered a question during question period and it would be helpful to know if the government House leader has anything further to say.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Prince George—Peace River B.C.

Conservative

Jay Hill ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, first of all, perhaps to deal with the issue that was raised by one of my colleagues, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, about Jazz Air, the Minister of Labour, who has been working diligently on this file for weeks now and certainly at an intensified rate over the last 48 to 72 hours, has addressed that issue.

As she noted, the government filed a notice that appeared on the order paper this morning, indicating that were there to be a work stoppage that would threaten our communities serviced by Jazz Air, threaten the livelihoods of many Canadians, indeed inconvenience business, threaten the fragile economic recovery that we are seeing in all parts of Canada, but obviously would severely threaten the economic recovery in those parts serviced by that airline, the government is prepared to act expeditiously to ensure that work stoppage would be of the shortest possible duration.

As for the business of the House, as it is the Thursday question, today we will continue to debate the opposition motion and then later this evening, the business of supply.

In a few minutes, to address the other question that the official opposition House leader asked, I hope to create and complete, at all its remaining stages, Bill C-23A, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act. We will also be adopting, at all stages, Bill C-40, celebrating Canada's seniors.

When the House meets again, we will continue to debate on Bill S-2, the sex offender registry, and Bill S-9, tackling auto theft.

As we near the end of this sitting, I want to thank my colleagues for their co-operation, particularly in these last few weeks. We have had many challenges and I think we have met most of them. Most notably was the challenge of these two five-week sitting blocks. I would point out, however, that anyone who just watched question period would have to draw the conclusion that it truly is silly season here in the House of Commons, given the level of the debate.

However, the challenge being that we had to be absent from our constituents and families, the upside of course was that we as members had the opportunity to spend so much quality time together. Just like any good family visit, unfortunately all good things must come to an end.

I would also like to speak briefly to express my appreciation to the House staff who serve us so well.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Truly there are good feelings across the aisle here this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, in recognizing you, your staff, Madam Clerk, and all the staff that serve us so well, I would note that sometimes toward the end of these sessions, we see an accelerated rate of activity in trying to complete a lot of government business. I have certainly appreciated that. The staff, as always, has stepped up to the mark and even surpassed it, as usual, in getting the job done for Canadians.

Bill C-23--Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Prince George—Peace River B.C.

Conservative

Jay Hill ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have two motions. The first one is a rather lengthy one. It deals with the new Bill C-23A. My counterparts in all the parties have copies of the proposed motion because it is quite lengthy. I will now table it and ask consent for it to be printed in Hansard as if it had been read to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will find unanimous consent for its adoption.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that it divide Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, into two bills, namely Bill C-23A, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, and Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts;

that Bill C-23A be composed of

(a) a clause that sets out the short title as Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act;

(b) clause 9 of Bill C-23, amended

(i) to renumber subsection 4(1) as section 4;

(ii) to amend sections 4 and 4.1 as follows:

Restrictions on application for pardon

4. A person is ineligible to apply for a pardon until the following period has elapsed after the expiry according to law of any sentence, including a sentence of imprisonment, a period of probation and the payment of any fine, imposed for an offence:

(a) 10 years, in the case of a serious personal injury offence within the meaning of section 752 of the Criminal Code, including manslaughter, for which the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years or more or an offence referred to in Schedule 1 that was prosecuted by indictment, or five years in the case of any other offence prosecuted by indictment, an offence referred to in Schedule 1 that is punishable on summary conviction or an offence that is a service offence within the meaning of the National Defence Act for which the offender was punished by a fine of more than two thousand dollars, detention for more than six months, dismissal from Her Majesty's service, imprisonment for more than six months or a punishment that is greater than imprisonment for less than two years in the scale of punishments set out in subsection 139(1) of that Act; or

(b) three years, in the case of an offence, other than one referred to in paragraph (a), that is punishable on summary conviction or that is a service offence within the meaning of the National Defence Act.

Pardon

4.1 (1) The Board may grant a pardon for an offence if the Board is satisfied that

(a) the applicant, during the applicable period referred to in section 4, has been of good conduct and has not been convicted of an offence under an Act of Parliament; and

(b) in the case of an offence referred to in paragraph 4(a), granting the pardon at that time would provide a measurable benefit to the applicant, would sustain his or her rehabilitation in society as a law-abiding citizen and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Onus on applicant

(2) In the case of an offence referred to in paragraph 4(a), the applicant has the onus of satisfying the Board that the pardon would provide a measurable benefit to the applicant and would sustain his or her rehabilitation in society as a law-abiding citizen.

Factors

(3) In determining whether granting the pardon would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the Board may consider

(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the offence;

(b) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence;

(c) information relating to the applicant's criminal history and, in the case of a service offence within the meaning of the National Defence Act, to any service offence history of the applicant that is relevant to the application; and

(d) any factor that is prescribed by regulation.

(iii) to delete the remainder of clause 9 of BIll C-23;

(c) clause 10 of Bill C-23, amended

(i) to amend section 4.2 by

deleting paragraph (1)(a);

deleting the words “if the applicant is eligible” from paragraph (1)(b);

substituting pardon for record suspension in subsections (1) and (2); and

(ii) to delete the remainder of clause 10 of Bill C-23;

(d) clause 12 of Bill C-23, amended as follows:

Paragraph 5(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) is evidence of the fact that

(i) the Board, after making inquiries, was satisfied that the applicant for the pardon was of good conduct, and

(ii) the conviction in respect of which the pardon is granted should no longer reflect adversely on the applicant's character; and

(e) clause 15 of Bill C-23, amended

i. to amend subsection 6.3(2) by substituting pardon for record suspension; and

ii. to delete the remainder of subclause 15(1) of Bill C-23;

(f) clause 22 of Bill C-23, amended

i. to delete subclause 22(1) of Bill C-23; and

ii. to delete paragraph 9.1(c.2) in subclause 22(2) of Bill C-23;

(g) clause 24 of Bill C-23, amended to renumber the schedule to the Criminal Records Act as Schedule 2;

(h) a clause that adds to the Criminal Records Act a Schedule 1 having the same content as Schedule 1 in the schedule to Bill C-23;

(i) clause 46 of Bill C-23, amended

(i) to delete the words “as though it were an application for a record suspension”; and

(ii) to replace the reference to subsection 47(1) with a reference to section 47;

(j) clause 47 of Bill C-23, amended

(i) to delete subsection (2); and

(ii) to renumber subsection 47(1) as 47;

that Bill C-23B be composed of

(a) clauses 1 to 23 of Bill C-23;

(b) clause 24 of Bill C-23, amended to provide that Schedule 2 to the Criminal Records Act is replaced by the schedule set out in the schedule to the Bill;

(c) clauses 25 to 48 of Bill C-23; and

(d) a schedule that includes a Schedule 2 having the same content as Schedule 2 in the schedule to Bill C-23;

that Bills C-23A and C-23B be printed;

that, for the purposes of printing Bills C-23A and C-23B, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections in those bills as may be necessary to give effect to this motion; and

that Bill C-23A be deemed to have been reported from the Committee without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

Bill C-23--Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion that we have not heard?

Bill C-23--Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Bill C-23--Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The Chair has grave reservations about this practice. Given the unanimity, I will let it go ahead, but in my view, there are other ways of doing this that might be easier.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Bill C-23--Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Bill C-23--Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

(Bill C-23A deemed reported from the committee without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed)

The government House leader has a second motion, as I recall.