Debates of Oct. 25th, 2012

Etobicoke Centre

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to subsection 532(4) of the Canada Elections Act, to inform the House that a communication has been received from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Following a decision of the court, the election of Mr. Ted Opitz, member for the electoral district of Etobicoke Centre, has been declared valid.

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

Courts Administration Service

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) of the House of Commons and subsection 12(2) of the Courts Administration Service Act, I am pleased to present for tabling the annual report of the Courts Administration Service for the fiscal year 2011-2012.

Clarity Act

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-457, An Act to repeal the Clarity Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise here in the House today to introduce this bill. People, and Quebeckers in particular, understand what this bill means. The bill aims to right an historical wrong for the Quebec nation, because this federal Parliament created conditions meant to tell the Quebec nation how to go about exercising its self-determination. It is unspeakable, unjustifiable and unwarranted.

At the time, in 2000, when the bill was passed by everyone except the Bloc Québécois, of course, no party in the National Assembly of Quebec—whether federalist or sovereignist—agreed with this bill.

This injustice still persists today. My bill is very simple: it repeals the Clarity Act. No federal Parliament should be able to tell Quebec, or any other province for that matter, how to go about exercising its self-determination. That is why I wish to discuss the matter here and debate it with my colleagues in order to correct this injustice, as I said.

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

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a large number of petitions related to the Indian Head tree farm that was previously run by the Government of Canada. I have another one today signed by people from across Saskatchewan, from places as far away as Ceylon, Radville, Bengough, Moose Jaw, Pilot Butte, Gravelbourg and other places around the province of Saskatchewan.

The petitioners are worried about the loss of the Prairie shelterbelt program based at Indian Head, Saskatchewan. They call upon the Prime Minister to reverse the decision to discontinue funding for the shelterbelt program, and they encourage the government to reinstate that funding for the sustainability of Canada's agriculture and the environment.

Employment Insurance

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition initiated by Mouvement action-chômage in the Les Chenaux RCM in my riding, Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

This certified petition, addressed to the Government of Canada, expresses the petitioners' objection to the notion of “suitable employment” defined in Bill C-38, regarding employment insurance.

Experimental Lakes Area

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have yet again today the pleasure of presenting more petitions from the residents of Thunder Bay and Dryden on the topic of the Experimental Lakes Area.

In the 2012 budget the government made the ill-advised decision to close the ELA, one of the world's leading freshwater research stations, depriving Canadians of the groundbreaking scientific advancements that it provided. These petitioners call on parliamentarians to reverse the decision to close the ELA, as well as to continue to provide staff and financial support for that significant Canadian institution.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of London, Ontario.

I have not seen the petition prior to this, but the petitioners request that, in light of the climate crisis, the House of Commons legislate a gradual decline in the volume of fossil fuels dispensed from bulk fuel distribution and a prohibition on new pipelines for fossil fuel in large volumes.

International Trade

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a very critical and urgent petition from residents of Ontario.

The petitioners request that the House take action to ensure that the treaty known as the Canada-China investment treaty, of foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, be halted and that ratification not take place until there has been an opportunity for Canadians to be heard.

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. 865 will be answered today.

Question No. 865

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

With regard to the federal operating agreements for housing: (a) how many organizations in Quebec will lose their funding at the end of their agreement with the government (i) over the next five years, (ii) over the next 10 years; (b) how much money will the government save by not renewing these federal operating agreements for housing (i) over the next 5 years, (ii) over the next 10 years; (c) how many organizations in Quebec have asked for an extension of their funding agreement with the government, and how many of these organizations will be able to receive funding through another federal housing program; and (d) what measures will be implemented to help the renters who will be penalized when the operating agreements expire?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to question (a) (i) and (ii), over the next five years, from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2018, 644 agreements will expire in Quebec. Over the next 10 years, from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2023, 1,281 agreements will expire in Quebec.

With regard to question (b) (i) and (ii), the subsidy associated with the 644 expiring agreements is approximately $39.8 million over the five-year period up to March 31, 2018. The subsidy associated with the 1,281 expiring agreements is approximately $131.8 million over the 10-year period up to March 31, 2023.

With regard to question (c), to date, CMHC has received no specific requests from housing sponsors in Quebec asking for an extension to their funding agreement.

With regard to question (d), mortgage obligations generally expire at the same time as subsidies; some projects will be able to continue to provide affordable rents for low-income residents after the subsidies and mortgage payments end. A federal-provincial-territorial working group is currently examining the financial viability of the existing social housing stock as the operating agreements expire.

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 Questions Nos. 824, 846, 850, 853, 854, 862, 869 and 870 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 824

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

With regard to Canada Post, what is the structure and development of its office and branch location network since 2006 broken down by (i) year, (ii) provinces and territories, (iii) municipalities or equivalent level of government, (iv) number of residents served, (v) yearly revenues by location, (vi) employees by location, (vii) year of establishment or disestablishment in the case of closures, (viii) where applicable, the rationale for closing the location, (ix) the number of complaints related to such closures by location?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 846

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency: (a) how many firearms were seized at border crossings from January 2005 to present, broken down on a monthly basis by type of firearm and by crossing location; (b) what was the total number of direct border crossing Full Time Equivalent (FTE) hours from 2005 to present, broken down by province, month, and crossing location; (c) what are the projected number of direct border crossing FTE hours until the year 2015, broken down by province, month, and crossing location; and (d) will staff members be terminated following the implementation of Budget 2012 and, if so, how many?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 850

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

With regard to the Action Plan for the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat: (a) will the Department of National Defence’s evaluation of options related to the Canadian Forces’ fighter capability, as per point four of the plan, include looking at aircraft other than the F-35 as a potential replacement for the CF-18; (b) if the answer to (a) is yes, what criteria will be used to determine whether other aircraft are suitable; (c) will the criteria in (b) be made public, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not; (d) will the results of the evaluation in (a) be made public, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not; (e) will the results of the evaluation in (a) be shared with parliament, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not; and (f) if other aircraft are considered as part of the evaluation, will the Secretariat make public what other aircraft are looked at, and (i) if another aircraft is selected, will it make public why, (ii) if another aircraft is not selected, will it make public the reasons why not?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 853

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

With regard to Labour Market Opinions performed by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada for the purposes of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) is there a quantitative metric used to weight the factors used in the assessment of an employer’s application and, if so, what is the metric; (b) are any of these factors treated with a greater weight than any other factors in the assessment of an employer’s application and, if so, what are they and what are the weights; (c) can an employer’s application succeed if it fails to address all of these factors; and (d) for the Labour Market Opinions applied for since 2000, organized by year and region/province, what is (i) the total number of applications, (ii) the number of applications approved, (iii) the number of applications denied, (iv) the average length of time between the receipt of an application and the issuance of the decision?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 854

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

With regard to Employment Insurance appeals: (a) how many appeals were made to the Board of Referees in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) appeals made by claimants, (ii) appeals made by employers, (iii) province, (iv) region, (v) language, (vi) gender, (vii) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (viii) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (ix) appeals withdrawn before hearing, (x) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (xi) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xii) average number of days after receiving appeal notice before the hearing takes place; and (b) how many appeals were made to umpires in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) appeals made by claimants, (ii) appeals made by employers, (iii) appeals made by the EI commission, (iv) province, (v) region, (vi) language, (vii) gender, (viii) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Board of Referee’s decision, (ix) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Board of Referee’s decision, (x) appeals withdrawn before hearing, (xi) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (xii) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xiii) average number of days after receiving appeal notice before the hearing takes place?

(Return tabled)