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.
41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION | |
|
|
JournalsNo. 43 Thursday, November 3, 2011 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
Prayers |
Daily Routine Of Business |
Tabling of Documents |
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board) laid upon the Table, — Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, as follows: (1) Volume I — Summary Report and Financial Statements, (2) Volume II — Details of Expenses and Revenues, (3) Volume III — Additional Information and Analyses, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 64(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-411-214-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Standing Order 79(3), the Speaker read the following Message from His Excellency the Governor General, presented by Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board): |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Message on Estimates
His Excellency the Governor General hereby transmits to the House of Commons the Supplementary Estimates (B) of sums required to defray expenses of the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2012, and, in accordance with section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, recommends those Estimates to the House of Commons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board) laid upon the Table, — Document entitled "Supplementary Estimates (B), 2011-12". — Sessional Paper No. 8520-411-98. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012, were deemed referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
|
|
The Speaker laid upon the Table, — Document entitled "Individual Member's Expenditures'' for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011. — Sessional Paper No. 8527-411-5.
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions: |
— No. 411-0042 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-27-01;
|
— Nos. 411-0080 and 411-0083 concerning asbestos. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-1-03.
|
Presenting Reports from Committees |
Mr. Christopherson (Hamilton Centre), from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented the First Report of the Committee (certificate of nomination of Michael Ferguson to the position of Auditor General of Canada). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-10. |
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 11) was tabled. |
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North), seconded by Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam), Bill C-343, An Act respecting the locking of cellular telephones, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House. |
Motions |
Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), seconded by Mr. O'Connor (Minister of State), moved, — That, in accordance with subsection 3(1) of the Auditor General Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-17, and pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, this House approve the appointment of Michael Ferguson as Auditor General of Canada for a term of ten years. |
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division: |
|
(Division No. 51 -- Vote no 51) | |
YEAS: 153, NAYS: 94 |
|
YEAS — POUR Ablonczy Daniel Lake Ritz Total: -- 153 |
|
NAYS — CONTRE Allen (Welland) Comartin Jacob Nunez-Melo Total: -- 94 |
|
PAIRED — PAIRÉS Nil — Aucun |
Presenting Petitions |
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows: |
— by Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain), one concerning health care services (No. 411-0132);
|
— by Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), one concerning the issuing of visas (No. 411-0133);
|
— by Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre), one concerning asbestos (No. 411-0134);
|
— by Mr. Regan (Halifax West), one concerning Canadians abroad (No. 411-0135);
|
— by Mr. Harris (St. John's East), one concerning the Canadian Coast Guard (No. 411-0136).
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answer to question Q-151 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 return to the following question made into an Order for Return: |
Q-142 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the venous system, and more particularly, chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI): (a) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding the venous system, including (i) what does the normal venous system look like, and, specifically, what does it look like in infants, children, and adults, (ii) can the veins, in particular the jugulars and the azygous, look normal, and the flow be abnormal, (iii) what is the normal range of flow through veins, in particular the jugulars and the azygous, (iv) how should normal range of flow through veins, in particular the jugulars and azygous, be defined, (v) what is the normal range of blood gases in veins, in particular the jugulars and the azygous, (vi) what causes venous pathology and when does it occur, (vii) theoretically, what is the complete range of possible vascular problems in the head, neck, chest, and spine, which ones might impact health, and specifically which ones might be linked to multiple sclerosis (MS), (viii) how does the complete range of possible vascular problems compare with those actually seen in patients, (ix) how should abnormal flow through veins, in particular the jugulars and the azygous, be defined, (x) how might abnormal blood gases in veins affect health in the short-term and long-term, (xi) what, if any, reflux is normal in veins, and, if some reflux is normal, what is the ‘tipping point’ to abnormal, (xii) can a catalogue of venous pathology (in the head, neck, chest and spine), abnormal flow, and potential health impacts be established, (xiii) what protects against abnormal venous pathology and abnormal flow, (xiv) who should receive venous protective measures, and when should protective measures be put in place; (b) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding the venous system and MS, including, (i) can fluid mechanics predict where physiologic changes in the brain might occur, (ii) how does the neurologist’s understanding of flow through the brain compare with that of physicists, (iii) does decreased metabolism lead to hypoxia which may lead to endothelial damage and inflammation, (iv) what occurs first, inflammatory changes in the brain or iron deposition, (v) what role does reduced perfusion have in MS, (vi) does stenosis extra-cranially cause less perfusion in the brain, (vii) does stenosis extra-cranially cause morphological changes in the brain, (viii) do cerebral veins actually disappear over time, or is it merely a lack of flow that makes them look like they disappear in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies; (ix) what, if any changes beyond lesions, occur in the spinal cord of MS patients, as a result of reduced vertebral flow, (x) do vertebral veins show a similar disappearance over time, (xi) what percentage of MS patients show evidence of venous pathology, as compared to 'normals', (xii) what other venous abnormalities might MS patients have (e.g., bladder, intestine, kidney), might these abnormalities play a role in their disease, and, if so, how should they be imaged and treated, (xiii) what percentage of MS patients show venous abnormalities below the chest (e.g., May Thurner syndrome), and does this have an impact on their disease, (xiv) how does the vascular system of someone with benign MS compare to that of someone with relapsing-remitting, primary progressive or secondary progressive MS; (c) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding CCSVI and MS, including, (i) what is the prevalence of CCSVI in relapsing-remitting, primary progressive or secondary progressive MS, (ii) does CCSVI worsen over time with the progression of disease, (iii) does CCSVI play a role in MS, and, if so, how, (iv) is CCSVI specific to MS, (v) what are the potential health impacts of CCSVI in the short-term, medium-term and long-term, both with and without treatment; (d) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding CCSVI diagnosis, including (i) how do the results of MRI compare with those of ultrasound for diagnosis of CCSVI, (ii) what is the best way to image the venous system and the best way to image venous pathology, (iii) what are the limitations of current diagnostic tools to image the venous system, (iv) should intravascular ultrasound be used, and what are the benefits and the risks, (v) what is the learning curve for the various diagnostic procedures, and what should practitioners undertake to become sufficiently accomplished, (vi) can a standardized protocol be established for diagnosing CCSVI in MS patients, and when should MS patients be tested for CCSVI, (vii) can a standardized system for describing lesions (e.g., type, location) be established, (viii) what should be the decision-making process regarding whether to treat or not to treat (e.g., anatomy, flow, etc.), (ix) should arterial, venous and CSF flow be monitored, how often, and for what purpose, (x) should lesions and iron load be monitored, how often, and for what purpose; (e) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding CCSVI treatment, including (i) what timescale is useful for treatment of CCSVI, (ii) what are the benefits and risks associated with treatment of CCSVI, (iii) what are best practices for treating each identified vascular problem, (iv) how should a successful CCSVI treatment be defined (e.g., valvular correction, reduction in stenosis, increased flow, improved blood gases), (v) can malformed jugulars and azygous be treated to achieve normal flow, (vi) can malformed jugulars and azygous be treated to achieve a normal range of blood gases, (vii) can jugulars and azygous be sufficiently treated to make up for poor vertebral flow, and, if not, what procedures can be developed to improve vertebral flow, (viii) should stents be used, and, if so, under what circumstances, (ix) what are the immediate complications of CCSVI treatment, and in what percentage of treatments does each occur for each identified abnormality, (x) what is the best follow-up anti-coagulant therapy, what are the potential risks, and what is the prevalence of complications, (xi) what are the best follow-up therapies, including, brain plasticity exercises, nutrition, physiotherapy, speech therapy, etc., and which therapies have the best associated outcomes, (xii) what are late complications, what follow-up is necessary to determine late complications, and in what percentage of treatments does each occur for each identified abnormality, (xiii) what treatments are available should a stent be occluded, either through hyperplasia or thrombosis, (xiv) what is the success rate of each identified treatment for an occluded stent; (f) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding determining the best CCSVI treatment, including, (i) is CCSVI treatment with the addition of pharmacological agents more efficacious than just the CCSVI procedure, (ii) what pharmacological agents could be used to treat venous inflammation, iron storage, and hydrocephaly, and could these agents be added to CCSVI treatment, (iii) what safe apparatuses could be developed to keep treated veins open, (iv) are vein grafts possible, and if so, on whom, and when should they be used, (v) is CCSVI treatment more efficacious with mesenchymal-derived or adipose-derived stem-cell infusion than just the CCSVI procedure alone, (vi) what methods might be added to reduce permeability of the blood-brain barrier, including pharmacological agents and stem cells, (vii) what are the effects of chelators on iron uptake and release from the brain, and might iron chelators be used as therapeutic agents; (g) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding possible impacts of CCSVI treatment on MS patients, including (i) what impact does CCSVI treatment have on patients immediately, (ii) what impact does CCSVI treatment have on patients at 24 hours, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, (iii) what does the magnetic resonance venography (MRV) of a treated patient look like at 24 hours, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, (iv) what percentage of MS patients show functional improvement at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, (v) what are the most appropriate scales to measure any health impacts following CCSVI treatment as reported by MS patients, (vi) do new scales have to be created to measure reported changes following treatment, (vii) which patients show the greatest improvement, and does early intervention allow for a better outcome, (viii) what are the treatment outcomes associated with each of the identified venous problems, (ix) what percentage of MS patients show a reduction in MS attacks and brain lesions following the CCSVI procedure, (x) what percentage of MS patients with little or mild blockage show improvement following the CCSVI procedure, (xi) for those MS patients whose conditions do not improve or become worse, why does this occur; (h) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding CCSVI re-stenosis and diagnosis, including, (i) what is rate of stenosis for each identified vascular abnormality, (ii) what changes should patients be told to look for to in order to recognize whether they are possibly re-stenosing, (iii) what diagnostic methods should be used after treatment for CCSVI, (iv) what diagnostic methods should be used to look for re-stenosis, and at what timescales; (i) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding secondary procedures for CCSVI, including, (i) are secondary procedures safe, and if so, how many, (ii) what should be the follow-up protocol for secondary procedures, (iii) should there be a methodology established regarding whether to do a secondary procedure or not; and (j) what, if any, steps is the government taking to address research questions regarding prevention in the next generation, including, (i) do vascular issues develop in utero, during childhood, or later, and what would be the best methods to discover circulation problems at the earliest time possible to avoid health impacts at a later date, (ii) might vascular birthmarks and tumours be an indication of potential vascular problems, (iii) might skin discolouration, skin abnormalities, and even proliferation of moles be an indication of an autoimmune or neural condition, (iv) might giving vitamin D to pregnant mothers reduce the risk of children being born with, or developing, vascular problems and other conditions and, if so, what dosage is appropriate, (v) do antioxidants, vitamin D and omega 3 reduce vein inflammation, (vi) will giving children and adolescents vitamin D reduce the risk of developing vein inflammation and venous hypertension and, if so, what dosage is appropriate, and what quantity should be recommended for a child with a family history of CCSVI, vascular problems or MS, etc., (vii) what would be the optimum time to undertake CCSVI treatment to avoid health impacts at a later date? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-142.
|
Government Orders |
Notice having been given at a previous sitting under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), seconded by Ms. Raitt (Minister of Labour), moved, — That, in relation to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and |
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. |
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, the House proceeded to the question period regarding the moving of the time allocation motion. |
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division: |
|
(Division No. 52 -- Vote no 52) | |
YEAS: 153, NAYS: 119 |
|
YEAS — POUR Ablonczy Daniel Lauzon Ritz Total: -- 153 |
|
NAYS — CONTRE Allen (Welland) Coderre Hughes Nunez-Melo Total: -- 119 |
|
PAIRED — PAIRÉS Nil — Aucun |
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform)), seconded by Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), — That Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; |
And of the amendment of Ms. Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent), seconded by Mr. Allen (Welland), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
|
“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, because it: (a) adds and allocates new seats in the House of Commons in a way that would increase regional tensions in Canada; (b) fails to take into account the need for a nation-building approach to changes in Canada’s democratic representation; and (c) ignores the principle adopted unanimously in this place that the Quebecois represent a nation within a united Canada”.
|
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. |
Government Orders |
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform)), seconded by Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), — That Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; |
And of the amendment of Ms. Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent), seconded by Mr. Allen (Welland), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
|
“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, because it: (a) adds and allocates new seats in the House of Commons in a way that would increase regional tensions in Canada; (b) fails to take into account the need for a nation-building approach to changes in Canada’s democratic representation; and (c) ignores the principle adopted unanimously in this place that the Quebecois represent a nation within a united Canada”.
|
The debate continued. |
At 5:45 p.m., pursuant to Order made earlier today under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), the Speaker interrupted the proceedings. |
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived on division. |
The question was put on the main motion and it was agreed to on the following division: |
|
(Division No. 53 -- Vote no 53) | |
YEAS: 151, NAYS: 86 |
|
YEAS — POUR Adams Davidson Lauzon Saxton Total: -- 151 |
|
NAYS — CONTRE Allen (Welland) Côté Lapointe Perreault Total: -- 86 |
|
PAIRED — PAIRÉS Nil — Aucun |
|
Accordingly, Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, was read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. |
Private Members' Business |
At 6:27 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), 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 Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials). |
Mr. Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon), seconded by Mr. Gill (Brampton—Springdale), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. |
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. |
Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House |
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), a paper deposited with the Clerk of the House was laid upon the Table as follows: |
— by Ms. Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development) — Summary of the Amendments to the 2011 Capital Budget for Loans and Investments of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-411-811-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities)
|
Adjournment Proceedings |
At 7:27 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 38(1), the question “That this House do now adjourn” was deemed to have been proposed. |
After debate, the question was deemed to have been adopted. |
Accordingly, at 7:41 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). |