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 #61 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fair.

Topics

ProstitutionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

December 6th, 2011 / 10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House 2,940 signatures regarding the Nordic model. The petition requests that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to decriminalize the selling of sexual services and criminalize the purchasing of sexual services, and also to provide support to those who desire to leave prostitution. The Nordic model actually targets the market, and victims would be helped on the prostitution or trafficking side.

Human TraffickingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I also have 6,062 signatures on the national action plan. The petitioners request that the government develop and implement a comprehensive national action plan to combat human trafficking.

In our last election it was announced that our government would put forth a national action plan to stop human trafficking. There are over 6,000 signatures to support that.

I want to thank the House for the opportunity to do this.

AsbestosPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition signed by literally thousands of Canadians from all across Canada who call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known and that more Canadians now die of asbestos than from all other occupational industrial causes combined. Yet, they point out, Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world, spending millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry and blocking international efforts to curb its use.

Therefore, these petitioners call upon the government to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for the asbestos workers and the communities they live in; to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad; and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Kenora Ontario

Conservative

Greg Rickford ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 185, 188 and 189 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed

Question No. 185Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE

With regard to the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA): (a) what are the reasons for the government’s withdrawal from the funding agreement; (b) given the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ budget cuts, will there be any future funding allotted for PNCIMA and, if so, where will it come from; (c) what are the tangible successes from the government's higher-level approach in Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs) such as the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) and Beaufort; (d) how have communities, economies, and the environment benefitted from LOMAs, (i) how have they been damaged; (e) what are the government’s objectives in its higher-level approach to integrated ocean management, (i) what are the indicators tracked to know whether objectives are being met; (f) what are the specific cases around the world from which the government is drawing experience and knowledge in terms of oceans management; (g) what are the specific details of the plan to wind down LOMAs pilot projects and begin applying integrated oceans management approaches as part of regular operation and what does this means for each of Canada’s LOMAs; and (h) how does the government meet its Integrated Management collaboration objective set out in the Canada’s Oceans Strategy and the Policy and Operational Framework for Integrated Management of Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Environments in Canada without any funding for the collaborative process, (i) if there is funding for the collaborative process, where will it come from, (ii) how will the government meet its obligations under the Policy and Operational Framework for Integrated Management of Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Environments in Canada, (iii) how will the government fulfill Canada’s Oceans Strategy, (iv) will Canada’s Oceans Strategy be discarded or changed?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 188Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL

With regard to a Federal Government Loan guarantee for the Muskrat Falls project in the Province of Newfounland and Labrador: (a) what correspondance has been exchanged and agreements and/or understandings signed between the Department of Finance and the Government of Newfounland and Labrador pertaining to this project; (b) what is the anticipated date of signing of the official approval documents for the loan guarantee; and (c) if the official approval documents have not been signed, what is the reason for the delay and what is the anticipated date for official approval?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 189Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

With regard to the case of PHS Community Services Society v. Attorney General of Canada: (a) how much was spent by the government in this case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department, (iii) type of expense; (b) how much was spent by the government on its appeal to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia of the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in this case, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department, (iii) type of expense; and (c) how much was spent by the government on its appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia’s decision in this case, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department, (iii) type of expense?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

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

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's RulingFair Representation ActGovernment Orders

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

There are eight motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-20.

Motions Nos. 3 to 6 will not be selected by the Chair, because they could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put motions Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 to the House.

Motions in AmendmentFair Representation ActGovernment Orders

10:05 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motions in AmendmentFair Representation ActGovernment Orders

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motions in AmendmentFair Representation ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1 speaks to deleting clause 1, which states:

This Act may be cited as the Fair Representation Act.

Notwithstanding that after three bills we finally have a better bill in the House, we contend that we still do not believe it truly represents fair representation in the context of Canada, certainly from a historical perspective and, most importantly, from a nation building process going forward.

The House will recall that at second reading we made the argument that the bill needed to be looked at in a great deal of detail. We had hoped that at committee we would have a legitimate give and take as I have experienced on that committee as opposed to what we see at some committees in certain circumstances where the government marches in with its majority rule and all but dictates what the committees will do.

As I do not have a lot of time this morning, I will say that I was very pleased that the process was a continuation of the fair give and take that occurs at that committee when dealing with matters of national importance vis-à-vis seats like this and when talking about changes to our election laws, and issues that go way beyond any partisan aspect that any of us might bring.

The cornerstone of our concern is that the government is missing a great opportunity to strengthen the bounds of our country. We believe that when the motion passed almost unanimously in this House stating that the House recognizes the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada that it meant something. I was privileged to be here for that vote. I felt very proud on that day because I thought in one small way we were strengthening this nation. As everyone knows, that is not always the easiest job in this country. We have stresses, as do many nations around the world. I would just point out parenthetically that certainly over the last couple of decades many nations have looked to us as a model in terms of how we deal with those stresses.

We in the NDP as the official opposition thought that was an important moment, that it meant something, and that from that we would continue to send the message to the Québécois that their fear and concern of the assimilation over time of their unique culture, which is not only unique in Canada but in North America, would be strong enough and secure enough that they could have pride for both their culture as well as being Canadians.

We in the official opposition felt that building on that was an opportunity that unfortunately the government missed in Bill C-20 because we believe that the relative strength and political weight that Quebec had at the time that motion passed should reflect the basis of the seats that it had going forward, which would be 24.35%.

The National Assembly in Quebec has chosen 25%. The Charlottetown accord had 25%. I would remind members that the 25% in the Charlottetown accord was not accepted in the referendum. It was signed on by the prime minister of the day, a Conservative, and every province and territory in the nation. The concept of there being a respectful recognition of the importance of that political weight, as it is tied to the Québécois as a nation, now recognized by this House as a part of the united Canada, makes all the sense in the world.

We could have gone with 25%. It would have been a lot easier. The Bloc was there as was the National Assembly, but quite frankly, tying it to the Charlottetown accord, that did not succeed, did not seem like the best idea.

Going with that vote, which took us to 24.35%, we felt would stand the test of time, going forward, so that 50, 100, 200 years from now, when our successors are standing here talking about the success of Canada, one of the things we could point to was the respect that we paid to that unique nation within Canada.

Unfortunately, the government has chosen not to, and the Liberals were never really clear on that part of it. They have their own idea and I will let them talk about that.

Motions in AmendmentFair Representation ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

An hon. member

We are very clear, you are not.

Motions in AmendmentFair Representation ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I apologize if I have offended in some way. I did not mean to. I retract anything that came across as an insult. It was not meant to be. Anyway, that is enough on the Liberals.

What we still have some concerns about, going forward, is the issue of Ontario still being--

Motions in AmendmentFair Representation ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

An hon. member

The NDP has no principles on this.

Motions in AmendmentFair Representation ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, do I still have the floor?

Motions in AmendmentFair Representation ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I would ask for a little order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.