Skip to main content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Journals

No. 241

Friday, April 26, 2013

10:00 a.m.



Prayers
Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson (Minister of Justice), seconded by Mr. O'Connor (Minister of State), — That Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The debate continued.

Statements By Members

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.

Oral Questions

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House proceeded to Oral Questions.

Daily Routine Of Business

Presenting Petitions

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows:

— by Mr. Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands), one concerning sex selection (No. 411-3669);
— by Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona), two concerning budget measures (Nos. 411-3670 and 411-3671);
— by Mr. Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission), one concerning genetic engineering (No. 411-3672);
— by Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain), one concerning health care services (No. 411-3673);
— by Mr. Woodworth (Kitchener Centre), one concerning China (No. 411-3674) and two concerning sex selection (Nos. 411-3675 and 411-3676);
— by Mr. Ravignat (Pontiac), three concerning budget measures (Nos. 411-3677 to 411-3679);
— by Mr. Allen (Welland), one concerning funding aid (No. 411-3680) and one concerning genetic engineering (No. 411-3681);
— by Mr. Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River), one concerning the Criminal Code of Canada (No. 411-3682).

Questions on the Order Paper

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-1220 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the Industrial and Regional Benefits program (IRB): (a) in how many instances has Industry Canada found companies non-compliant in carrying out their IRB obligations (i) from the beginning of the program until 2009, (ii) between 2009 and the present, (iii) what is the dollar amount of these outstanding IRB obligations; (b) in how many instances has Industry Canada imposed penalties for non-compliance with respect to IRB obligations (i) from the beginning of the program until 2009, (ii) from 2009 until the present, (iii) what is the dollar amount of these penalties; (c) what are the specific procurements that have been ruled non-compliant (i) from the beginning of the program until 2009, (ii) from 2009 to the present; (d) what is the full value of the IRBs recovered (i) between the beginning of the program and 2009, (ii) between 2009 and the present; (e) how is non-compliance in carrying out IRB obligations determined; (f) how often does Industry Canada audit IRB obligors’ fulfillment of IRB obligations; (g) what percentage of IRB claims from IRB obligors are audited; (h) in what percentage of IRB claims from IRB obligors are irregularities found and what is the dollar value of these irregularities; (i) what are the penalties for failure to fulfill IRB obligations; (j) is there an appeals process for companies ruled by Industry Canada not to have complied with their IRB obligations; (k) according to the IRB policy, IRBs are mandatory for “certain projects greater than $100 million…”, (i) what is meant by “certain projects”, (ii) what are the criteria for determining IRB obligations on contracts over $100 million; (l) when IRBs are triggered, in which specific procurements have IRBs been mandatory (i) for both acquisition and in-service support, (ii) for acquisition only; (m) when IRBs are required for both acquisition and in-service support, (i) what is the IRB value for the in-service support contract, (ii) is in-service support applied to the IRB requirements for the acquisition contract; and (n) does Industry Canada maintain detailed records of outstanding IRB obligations which, according to the contracts with suppliers, should have already been completed and what is the outstanding dollar amount of these obligations? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1220.

Q-1221 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the Industry Engagement Request released by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat on March 3, 2013: (a) has the possibility of a further life extension to the CF-18 fleet been determined (i) if so, when was this determination made, (ii) how many enquiries have been made into the possibility of a further life extension to the CF-18 fleet, (iii) how far can the lifespan of the CF-18 be extended, (iv) have cost estimates been determined for a CF-18 fleet extension; (b) how were the threat characterizations referred to in the Industry Engagement Request identified, (i) what reports, analyses, and other evaluations are the threat characterizations for each time horizon based on, (ii) what are the implications of the threat assessment on the Statement of Requirements for the replacement of the CF-18s; (c) what comparable reports, analyses, and other evaluations is the “Canada First Defence Strategy” based on, (i) for the two time frames, 2020-2030 and 2030+, and their corresponding threat characterizations not appearing in the “Canada First Defence Strategy”, what are the differences between the threat analyses that inform the “Canada First Defence Strategy” and the threat analyses that inform the specific threats outlined in the Industry Engagement Request, (ii) how were the two time horizons determined, (iii) why is “civilian aircraft” listed as a threat from 2020-2030 but not 2030+, (iv) for the first time period (2020-2030), is it expected that the aircraft acquired in 2020 will remain in service past 2030, (v) is the acquisition of different aircraft for different time periods being considered, (vi) how many aircraft are expected to be acquired by 2020, (vii) how many aircraft, including CF-18, are now expected to be in service by 2020, (viii) how many aircraft are expected to be in service during each of the two time horizons, (ix) could more than one type of aircraft be acquired within each time horizon, (x) is the possibility of a mixed fleet being considered, (xi) does the government still plan on acquiring 65 aircraft; and (d) has the term “next-generation fighter aircraft” been removed from the Statement of Requirements, and is the term being used in evaluating aircraft during the analysis of options currently being conducted by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1221.

Q-1222 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to changes to the Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) program since 2009: (a) has there been an increase of spending of IRB funds for (i) public-private consortia, (ii) enhanced priority technology list, (iii) participation of Canadian companies in the global value chain; (b) if there has been an increase in spending in one or more of the above categories, (i) how many public-private consortia have been created, (ii) what technological innovations have been a product of public-private consortia and the focus on enhanced priority technologies, (iii) how many jobs are estimated to have been created as a result of the global value chain approach, (iv) what is the value of exports estimated to have been generated through a focus on the global value chain approach; (c) if there has not been an increase in spending in one or more of the above categories, what reasons have been identified for this outcome; and (d) following the introduction by Industry Canada on February 20, 2013, of an Investment Framework, (i) how were the three types of investments identified, (ii) how were the multiplier values determined? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1222.
Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson (Minister of Justice), seconded by Mr. O'Connor (Minister of State), — That Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The debate continued.

Private Members' Business

At 1:30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The Order was read for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities of Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements).

Mr. Pilon (Laval—Les Îles), seconded by Mr. Blanchette (Louis-Hébert), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Debate arose thereon.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the Order was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Petitions Filed with the Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions were filed as follows:

— by Mr. Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River), one concerning China (No. 411-3683);
— by Mr. Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore), one concerning genetic engineering (No. 411-3684).
Adjournment

At 2:30 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until Monday at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).