Debates of Nov. 1st, 2011

Commissioner of Lobbying

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to section 10.5 of the Lobbying Act, it is my duty to present to the House four reports on investigations from the Commissioner of Lobbying.

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 three petitions.

National Renewable Energy Strategy Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-340, An Act respecting a National Strategy to Encourage the Development of Renewable Energy Sources.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an act respecting a national strategy to encourage the development of renewable energy sources.

This is a special bill. It is a product of a contest I held in my riding where high school students proposed their ideas for legislation that would make Canada a better place.

This year's winners are Grihalakshmi Soundarapandian and Maria Gladkikh. These two bright and caring young women proposed to move Canada toward a sustainable future by legislating a greater ratio of renewable power sources to non-renewable ones.

Their bill calls on the government to develop a national strategy to ensure that the majority of electricity in Canada comes from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, or biomass. It mandates that 90% of this power come from sustainable sources by 2030. It encourages Canadians to take an active role themselves by installing green energy generators in their homes.

Young Canadians know that a healthy, sustainable, prosperous future depends on moving away from our dependence on carbon-burning energy production. It is time that we follow their lead and develop a national strategy for renewable energy sources.

I thank Lakshmi and Maria for their creativity, energy and commitment to Canada.

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

Income Tax Act

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-341, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit — new graduates working in designated regions).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to introduce a bill that is important to Quebec and its regions. This bill was previously introduced by my colleague Robert Bouchard, who, unfortunately, is no longer a member of Parliament. Mr. Bouchard had the opportunity to visit every corner of Quebec and to learn about the realities there, realities that also exist in other regions of Canada.

The purpose of my bill is to encourage young people to settle in designated regions—resource regions—primarily to curb the labour shortage in certain regions and to bring young people back to their regions.

In short, the bill would give a tax credit to new graduates who return to their region or who settle in a region. This tax credit would equal 40% of their salary for the first year, up to a maximum of $8,000. This is strategic, important assistance to recognize the regions' contributions to our dynamic economy, particularly in Quebec. We must understand that some regions in Quebec are short on skilled labour and it is important that we fix that.

This bill is a response to the very compelling situation in Quebec. We hope that it will move through all the stages, as was the case when it made it to the Senate. We hope to have the co-operation of all parties in this House to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion, seconded by my colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

This is a motion on the atrocities that are happening to the people in Syria under the regime of Bashar al-Assad. I seek unanimous consent for this motion, which reads: That this House condemn the brutal attacks on members of the Syrian movement for democratic change and accountable government by the Bashar al-Assad regime; call on the Bashar al-Assad regime to meet the Arab League 15-day deadline to enact a cease-fire and to begin a dialogue between government officials and opposition representatives; accept the United Nations Human Rights Council’s commission of inquiry into the violence in Syria to find out exactly what happened and to put an end to civilian deaths; and, ensure that all the perpetrators of these attacks are brought to justice and bear the full weight of the law.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we do not necessarily object to the content of the motion, but we have not seen it before. We have established a protocol among the parties by which we would discuss these in advance. For example, the last time the hon. member brought a similar motion, we had the opportunity, through discussion, to beef it up on this side of the House. We would like to have a chance to review the motion. It may come back.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the government House leader for that clarification.

Asbestos

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that petitions continue to pour in about an issue that I wrote about in my local newspaper, the Hamilton Mountain News, over three months ago.

Momentum just keeps building on the lead-up to tonight's vote on our NDP motion to ban asbestos. There is overwhelming support for a ban on asbestos in all its forms and for a just transition program for asbestos workers and the communities in which they work.

We know that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. It is banned for use in our country, and yet Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos. It is more than ironic that we are taking asbestos out of the Parliament Buildings because of its deadly nature, and yet we continue to export asbestos to other countries in the world.

As the petitioners rightly point out, Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry, which the signators refer to as “corporate welfare for corporate serial killers”.

It is time Canada started acting with integrity on this issue.

The petitioners call upon the government to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

The rules of the House do not allow me to endorse this petition, but I will conclude by saying that for the first time I find myself agreeing with former Conservative cabinet minister Chuck Strahl, who is now joining the chorus of Canadians urging the Prime Minister to move on chrysotile asbestos.

Visitor Visas

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of individuals who have applied to come to Canada through visitor visas. This petition calls upon the government to support the idea of allowing more people to be issued these visas. They are calling the process into question.

When we look at the backlog, especially with regard to parents and grandparents, it would bode well if we could come up with a way to authorize more multi-year and multi-entry visas.

The petitioners call upon the government to move forward on reuniting more families here in Canada by issuing these types of visas.

This petition is well worth the government taking a serious look at.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 136 will be answered today.

Question No. 136

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

With regard to Natural Resources Canada and the oil and gas sector in Canada: (a) what does Natural Resources Canada’s economic modelling show about the effect of a carbon price on natural gas consumption in Canada, relative to business as usual; (b) what recent analysis has Natural Resources Canada performed concerning the structure and use of groundwater resources in Canada; (c) what analysis, if any, has Natural Resources Canada performed concerning the effect of natural gas prices on potential shale gas expansion; (d) what analysis has Natural Resources Canada done concerning the cost per tonne of carbon capture and storage for natural gas processing plants; (e) what analysis has Natural Resources Canada done of changes to disclosure rules concerning gas development in other jurisdictions, and what is Natural Resources Canada's position on those proposals; (f) what analysis has Natural Resources Canada done of “pauses” or moratoria on gas development in other jurisdictions, and what is Natural Resources Canada's position on those proposals; and (g) what analysis, if any, has Natural Resources Canada done on the role of switching to natural gas in reaching Canada’s 2020 greenhouse gas emission target?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, has not undertaken economic modelling of the effect of a carbon price on natural gas consumption in Canada.

With regard to (b), NRCan, in its lead role on groundwater, focuses on developing and publicly disseminating information and tools that assist and support water managers in the relevant jurisdictions as they design and implement water management frameworks. The NRCan groundwater program develops novel approaches to characterize aquifers in terms of location, size and dynamics, and collaborates with partners on the assessment of key regional aquifers. These assessments and the underlying methodologies can be used to inform sustainable water policies and practices throughout the country, including in areas of potential interest for shale gas development. NRCan is not, however, directly involved in groundwater projects specifically related to use of groundwater.

For further information, members may visit the program's website at http://ess.nrcan.gc.ca/gm/index_e.php.

Publications are available through GEOSCAN at http://geoscan.ess.nrcan.gc.ca/starweb/geoscan/servlet.starweb?path=geoscan/geoscan_e.web.

With regard to (c), the Oil and Gas Policy and Regulatory Affairs Division’s annual working paper, “Canadian Crude Oil, Natural Gas and Petroleum Products: Review of 2009 & Outlook to 2030”, found at http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/sources/crubru/revrev/index-eng.php, includes NRCan’s most recently published natural gas price and production consensus forecasts.

With regard to (d), analysts at NRCan monitor intelligence and analysis on the state of carbon capture and storage, CCS, costs for natural gas processing. Natural gas processing facilities separate and capture CO₂ from raw natural gas as part of the normal gas processing process, enabling cost-effective high-purity streams of CO₂ to be available for CCS. From a cost perspective, as separation of CO₂ is already part of natural gas processing operations, there are no incremental costs associated with CO₂ capture. Since capture is the largest component of the total CCS cost, additional expenditures associated with CO₂ compression, transport and storage result in much lower overall CCS costs for natural gas processing.

Globally, CCS at natural gas processing has also been identified as a low-cost opportunity. For example, in the International Energy Agency's Technology Roadmaps--Carbon Capture and Storage, costs of CCS at natural gas processing facilities were cited at a range of approximately $15-$25 USD/ton CO₂ avoided. In addition, the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute recently published costs in the same range, $19/ton CO₂ avoided, with the explanation that such industrial processes already include a CO₂ separation/capture process in their base operation.

With regard to (e), section 92 of the Constitution Act of 1982 dictates that the provinces have ownership over the natural resources that lie within their boundaries and are responsible for the regulation of resource development. As such, NRCan does not take a formal position on changes to disclosure rules, since they do not fall under the purview of our jurisdiction.

With regard to (f), as noted in the response to question (e), it is the provinces, not NRCan, that have jurisdictional authority over hydrocarbon resources--e.g., natural gas--contained within provincial borders. As a result, NRCan does not take a formal position on “pauses” or moratoria, other than that the department respects the decisions made by the provinces. NRCan’s role is to contribute scientific information used in making exploration, resource management and environmental protection decisions by the provinces.

With regard to (g), while NRCan provides expertise and support to Environment Canada on climate change issues related to the oil and gas sector, including natural gas, NRCan has not considered the role of natural gas in reaching the government's greenhouse gas target.

The department has supported internal and external analyses on natural gas in vehicles, natural gas for electricity production in lieu of coal-fired generation in the North America context, and the potential to export natural gas globally.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 123 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 123

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With respect to federal funding for agencies and organizations providing immigrant settlement services: (a) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total amount of federal funding allocated (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by municipality, (iv) by electoral district; (b) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what is the total number of agencies and organizations that applied for federal funding (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district; (c) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies and organizations to which federal funding was allocated (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district; (d) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies and organizations whose applications for federal funding were rejected, (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district; (e) of those agencies receiving funding per the parameters in (c), what are all agencies that received funding in any fiscal year which was less than the total funding received by that agency in the previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, (i) the name of the agency, (ii) the provincial, municipal and electoral disctrict location of the agency, (iii) the total amount of funding allocated to the agency in each fiscal year from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012; (f) of those agencies whose applications for funding were rejected per the parameters in (d), what are all agencies that had received funding in a previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, (i) the name of the agency, (ii) the provincial, municipal and electoral disctrict location of the agency, (iii) the total amount of funding allocated to the agency in each fiscal year from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012; (g) what are the criteria used by the government to evaluate applications for funding by agencies and organizations providing immigrant settlement services; (h) how have the criteria listed in response to (g) changed since 2006; (i) what is the process by which applications for funding are evaluated; and (j) how has the process listed in response to (i) changed since 2006?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Syria

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe now we can find consensus in the House to adopt my motion for a take note debate on what is happening in Syria.

It looks like the Arab Spring, which all of us from all sides of the House looked upon with great anticipation, is turning into an Arab deep freeze in the Middle East. In Syria, the regime of Bashar al-Assad is killing its own people. Tanks are on the streets.

As we did with the question of a take note debate on what is happening in Ukraine and Egypt, I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to allow us to have an emergency debate on what is happening in Syria. This House could probably move in that direction.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I regret to inform the hon. member that I do not feel that this meets the requirements for an emergency debate at this time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as my friend opposite knows full well, the motion that he is trying to pass in the House and the idea that he is trying to promote may not necessarily be opposed by any member in the House. However, it has been a custom and a tradition, which he knows full well, that these types of issues are discussed at the House leaders' meetings that are held once every week. I would strongly suggest that he put this forward to his own House leader, who can bring it to our House leaders' meeting, which will be held today at 3:15 this afternoon, at which time we can discuss it. We may in fact find some commonality between all parties on this, but that is the proper procedure to follow.