;

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

Bilingual view PDF

41st PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals No. 89 Monday, May 26, 2014 11:00 a.m.

Prayers

Private Members' Business

At 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The Order was read for the third reading of Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence).

Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford), seconded by Mr. Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London), moved, — That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 98(4), the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, May 28, 2014, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business.

Interruption

At 11:43 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 12:00 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Government Orders

Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), seconded by Mrs. Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages), moved, — That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption. (Government Business No. 10)

Debate arose thereon.

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

Tabling of Documents

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:

— Nos. 412-2220, 412-2291 and 412-2368 to 412-2371 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-2-11;

— Nos. 412-2221 and 412-2222 concerning terrorism. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-115-01;

— No. 412-2241 concerning veterans' affairs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-77-03;

— No. 412-2247 concerning museums. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-57-05;

— No. 412-2265 concerning crimes of violence. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-63-03;

— Nos. 412-2274 and 412-2275 concerning human rights. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-101-05;

— Nos. 412-2281, 412-2282, 412-2284, 412-2285, 412-2289, 412-2290, 412-2312 to 412-2315, 412-2324, 412-2325, 412-2348 to 412-2350, 412-2398, 412-2399 and 412-2402 to 412-2404 concerning VIA Rail. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-60-09;

— Nos. 412-2288 and 412-2317 concerning immigration. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-15-11;

— No. 412-2292 concerning the Parliament of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-116-01;

— No. 412-2294 concerning international agreements. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-21-06;

— Nos. 412-2297 to 412-2309 concerning the taking of blood samples. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-117-01;

— No. 412-2316 concerning sexual orientation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-76-03;

— Nos. 412-2327, 412-2359, 412-2360, 412-2366 and 412-2405 concerning the mining industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-28-09;

— No. 412-2328 concerning navigable waters. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-24-14;

— Nos. 412-2332 and 412-2365 concerning the fishing industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-11-07;

— No. 412-2335 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-7-13;

— Nos. 412-2341 and 412-2375 concerning the Criminal Code of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-17-14;

— No. 412-2345 concerning foreign aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-34-07;

— No. 412-2353 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-9-06;

— No. 412-2354 concerning pesticides. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-100-02;

— No. 412-2355 concerning China. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-19-04;

— Nos. 412-2356 and 412-2383 concerning transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-35-11;

— No. 412-2358 concerning human trafficking. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-72-03;

— Nos. 412-2364 and 412-2400 concerning asbestos. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-44-04;

— No. 412-2372 concerning the agricultural industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-49-05;

— Nos. 412-2378, 412-2380, 412-2389, 412-2401, 412-2406, 412-2407 and 412-2411 to 412-2414 concerning the electoral system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-12-10;

— No. 412-2390 concerning the democratic process. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-13-07;

— No. 412-2577 concerning climate change. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-50-09.

Presenting Reports from Committees

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre), from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented the Second Report of the Committee (Main Estimates 2014-15 — Vote 1 under OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LOBBYING, Vote 1 under OFFICE OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND ETHICS COMMISSIONER, Votes 1 and 5 under OFFICES OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONERS OF CANADA and Vote 1 under SENATE ETHICS OFFICER). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-79.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 21) was tabled.

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre), from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented the Third Report of the Committee (Bill C-520, An Act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament, with amendments). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-80.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 13, 22 and 23) was tabled.

Mr. Wallace (Burlington), from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented the Fifth Report of the Committee (Main Estimates 2014-15 — Vote 1 under CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, Vote 1 under CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, Votes 1 and 5 under COMMISSIONER FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL AFFAIRS, Vote 1 under COURTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICE, Votes 1 and 5 under JUSTICE, Vote 1 under OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS and Vote 1 under SUPREME COURT OF CANADA). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-81.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 23 and 25) was tabled.

Mr. Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London), from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented the 13th Report of the Committee (extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, to consider Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance)). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-82.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 39) was tabled.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3), the motion to concur in the Report was deemed moved, the question was deemed put and a recorded division was deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, May 28, 2014, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business. (Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 3)

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine), seconded by Mr. Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca), Bill C-600, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act (homosexual activities), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Motions

Ms. Boivin (Gatineau), seconded by Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant), moved, — That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13.

Debate arose thereon.

Mr. Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities), seconded by Mr. MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada), moved, — That the debate be now adjourned.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 143 -- Vote n^o 143)
YEAS: 136, NAYS: 98
YEAS -- POUR Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman Benoit Bergen Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lobb Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Saxton Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Sweet Tilson Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Zimmer Total: -- 136
NAYS -- CONTRE Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Cleary Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dusseault Eyking Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Giguère Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Hughes Jacob Jones Julian Kellway Lapointe Larose Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Nantel Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rathgeber Regan Rousseau Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stoffer Toone Tremblay Turmel Valeriote Total: -- 98
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun

Presenting Petitions

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

— by , one concerning immigration (No. 412-3150), one concerning working conditions (No. 412-3151) and one concerning telecommunications (No. 412-3152);

— by , one concerning service medals (No. 412-3153);

— by , one concerning health care services (No. 412-3154);

— by , one concerning land use (No. 412-3155) and two concerning the Canada Post Corporation (Nos. 412-3156 and 412-3157);

— by , one concerning firearms (No. 412-3158);

— by , one concerning the mining industry (No. 412-3159);

— by , one concerning the agricultural industry (No. 412-3160);

— by , two concerning veterans' affairs (Nos. 412-3161 and 412-3162), one concerning the Canada Post Corporation (No. 412-3163) and two concerning the Criminal Code of Canada (Nos. 412-3164 and 412-3165);

— by , six concerning Canada's railways (Nos. 412-3166 to 412-3171) and one concerning budget measures (No. 412-3172);

— by , one concerning asbestos (No. 412-3173);

— by , one concerning human rights (No. 412-3174) and one concerning the grain industry (No. 412-3175);

— by , one concerning health care services (No. 412-3176);

— by , one concerning the mining industry (No. 412-3177);

— by , two concerning VIA Rail (Nos. 412-3178 and 412-3179);

— by , three concerning health care services (Nos. 412-3180 to 412-3182).

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board) presented the answers to questions Q-436, Q-443 to Q-445, Q-453, Q-462 and Q-464 on the Order Paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-437 — — With regard to the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon: (a) who did what and when prior to the Selection Panel being convened; (b) who determined the process to be followed with respect to the most recent appointment process to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC); (c) was the process for Justice Wagner designed with the departure of Justice Fish a year later in mind; (d) was the process for Justice Nadon designed with the forthcoming departure of Justice LeBel in mind; (e) in the breakdown of appointment process costs provided in the answer to Q-239, what accounts for the "Acquisition of Machinery and Equipment" cost associated with the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon; (f) was there a competitive bidding process with respect to the goods and services in (a); (g) what accounts for the greater cost of "Legal Services" for the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon relative to the reported costs provided in the answer to Q-239 for other Justices; (h) are the costs for the legal opinions of Justices Binnie and Charron included in the "Legal Services" heading for the appointment process of Justice Marc Nadon reported in the answer to Q-239; (i) if the answer to (f) is no, under what heading are these opinion costs found and, if not reported in the answer to Q-239, where are they reported; (j) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of Justice Marc Nadon and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (k) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of a federal judge to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (l) how long will the materials relative to Justice Nadon's appointment remain on the website for the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada; (m) when were these materials first posted;

(n) under what guidelines will they be removed; (o) how was the decision to seek outside legal advice relative to Justice Nadon's eligibility made, (i) by whom, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (p) did the Department of Justice render an internal opinion as to the eligibility of Justice Nadon to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC; (q) what assessment or evaluation of the Nadon nomination has the government undertaken to improve the process for the next appointment; (r) what assessment, evaluation, or review of the Nadon nomination will the government undertake so as to learn from it; (s) with respect to the statement of the Minister reported by CBC on March 24, 2014, that "we'll examine our options as we ensure that the Supreme Court has its full complement" what specific options were considered by the government; (t) did the government consider re-naming Justice Nadon after the decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 and, if not, why did the Minister not rule this out when asked subsequent to the ruling's release; (u) on what specific dates did the Selection Panel engage in consultations relative to the process that resulted in the nomination of Justice Nadon; (v) did any consultations or meetings of the Selection Panel occur after July 15, 2013; (w) were any outside lawyers consulted on the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act during the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon; (x) was Quebec consulted on the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act during the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon; (y) was the Barreau du Quebec consulted on the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act during the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon; (z) were any documents, presentations, or memos prepared for ministers or their staff, from April 1, 2013 to present regarding Justice Marc Nadon and, if so, what are (i) the dates, (ii) the titles or subject-matters, (iii) the department, commission, or agency's internal tracking number;

(aa) with respect to the Minister's appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Thursday, November 21, 2013, wherein he deferred to Ms. Laurie Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice) on a question regarding consultations in the matter of changes to the Supreme Court Act and wherein she said "In this particular case, I'm not aware that there were any consultations with the Barreau du Québec. It's not unusual for the government to consult in circumstances such as this, though", (i) were there any consultations with the Barreau du Quebec and, if so, on what dates, (ii) was the Minister aware personally of consultations, (iii) what role would the Minister personally play in such consultations in 'usual' circumstances, (iv) if there were no consultations, why were none held, (v) were any consultations requested by the government in this regard; (bb) with respect to the various costs reported in the response to Q-74 related to Ms. Louise Charron, Mr. Ian Binnie and Professor Peter Hogg, what accounts for the difference in these costs; (cc) were the three named individuals asked the same total number of questions and with the same exact wording; (dd) in addition to these individuals referenced in part (z), who else was asked and on what date with respect to the question of the eligibility of a federal judge to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC; (ee) with respect to the statement of the Minister of Justice in the House on October 17, 2013, "The eligibility and the opinion that we have received from Mr. Justice Ian Binnie, which has also been endorsed by Supreme Court Justice Louise Charron, as well as a noted constitutional expert Peter Hogg, is very clear", (i) when were Justice Charron and Professor Hogg provided the opinion for Justice Binnie, (ii) how long did they have to review it before reporting to the government;

(ff) with respect to the statement of the Minister of Justice before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on November 21, 2013, that "legal opinion prepared by respected former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie which [...] was supported by his former colleague, the Honourable Louise Charron, as well as by noted constitutional expert, Professor Peter Hogg", (i) did the Minister use "supported" to mean "endorsed", (ii) did the Minister mean that all conclusions were agreed in wholeheartedly by those cited; (gg) with respect to the Minister's comments before the Ad Hoc Committee on the Appointment of SCC Justices that "I would add that this opinion was reviewed by several eminently qualified individuals, including the Honourable Louise Charron as a former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada herself. The opinion was also reviewed by Professor Peter Hogg, a recognized constitutional expert and author. Both of them expressed unequivocal support for Mr. Justice Binnie's conclusions", is "several" used to mean "more than two but not many" as defined by the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2 ed.) and (i) if so, who other than Justice Charron and Prof. Hogg is included in the class of "eminently qualified individuals" who reviewed this opinion, (ii) if not, in what sense was the word "several" used in this context and to convey what; (hh) was Justice Binnie informed that his opinion would be made public and, if so, was this part of the arrangement the government made with him; (ii) can Justice Charron publicly release her opinion that was rendered to the government and, if not, why not; (jj) can Professor Hogg publicly release his opinion that was rendered to the government and, if not, why not; (kk) will the government release the opinions of Justice Charron and Prof. Hogg and, if not, why not; (ll) how did the government decide from whom to seek opinions; (mm) how did the government determine whose opinions to release; (nn) other than the Minister of Justice, who in the Department of Justice, in the Prime Minister's Office, and in the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada reviewed the Charron and Hogg opinions; (oo) where are the Charron and Hogg opinions currently stored, who has access to them, and what is the plan for retention; (pp) concerning the Selection Panel that considered Justice Marc Nadon’s candidacy, (i) how were members of the Panel chosen, (ii) what qualifications were sought, (iii) how did each of the members of the Panel meet the qualifications in (ii), (iv) what measures are in place to ensure that Aboriginal candidates are considered in the work of the Panel; (qq) who was the Executive Director of the SCC Selection Committee for this process and how was this person selected; (rr) what protections were in place to ensure that members of the Panel elevated mid-summer to Cabinet were not influenced by their Cabinet role in the work of the Panel;

(ss) with respect to the Prime Minister’s statement regarding Justice Nadon in the House on April 1, 2014, that “pendant les consultations, tous les partis de la Chambre étaient d'accord avec l'idée qu'on pouvait nommer un Québécois de la Cour fédérale à la Cour suprême”, (i) to what consultations is the Prime Minister referring, (ii) was the Prime Minister part of these consultations and if so in what capacity, (iii) if the Prime Minister was not part of these consultations, by what means was he informed of their contents, (iv) to what extent are these consultations public, (v) if these consultations were public, in what manner can records of them be accessed, (vi) if these consultations were not public, are their contents protected by any privilege or confidentiality agreement and if so, what are the consequences for any individual breaking consultation confidentiality, if any, (vii) on what basis was this statement made, (viii) how can a party involved in these consultations express its disagreement “avec l'idée qu'on pouvait nommer un Québécois de la Cour fédérale à la Cour supreme”, (ix) how can a disagreement, such as the Prime Minister suggests did not occur, be made public within the ordinary course of consultations; and (tt) with respect to the Prime Minister’s statement in the House on April 1, 2014, that “Évidemment, c'est une grande surprise de découvrir qu'il y a une règle tout à fait différente pour le Québec que pour le reste du Canada”, (i) when was the Prime Minister first informed that there exists a different rule for the appointment of judges from Quebec vis-a-vis the rest of Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada, (ii) did the Prime Minister personally solicit, receive, and review legal advice on this point within the context of the Marc Nadon appointment, (iii) what steps were taken to mitigate any such surprises that might arise during the appointment process? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-437.

Q-438 — — With regard to Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Disability benefit appeals: (a) how many appeals were made to the CPP Review Tribunal between 2004 and 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) appeals granted by the Department before a hearing was held, (vii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (viii) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (ix) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (x) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xi) appeals which were heard within 3 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 12 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which took more than 12 months to be heard; (b) how many hearings were held by the CPP Review Tribunal each year from 2004 to 2013, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (c) how many appeals were made to the Pension Appeals Board between 2004 and 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals made by clients, (v) appeals made by the Department, (vi) appeals resulting in an overturn of the CPP Review Tribunal’s decision, (vii) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the CPP Review Tribunal’s decision, (viii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (ix) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (x) appeals which were heard within 3 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xi) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiii) appeals which were heard within 12 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 18 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which took more than 18 months after receipt of appeal notice to be heard;

(d) how many hearings were held by the Pension Appeals Board in each year from 2004 to 2013, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (e) how many requests for reconsideration were made to the Department in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) requests resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) requests not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) reviews which took place within 30 days of receipt of the request, (vii) reviews which took place within 60 days of receipt of the request, (viii) reviews which took more than 60 days to complete; (f) how many people requesting a reconsideration from the Department and requesting their case file from the Department received their case file (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after making the request; (g) how many people requesting a reconsideration from the Department and requesting their case file from the Department were refused their case file, broken down by province; (h) how many applicants requesting a reconsideration by the Department were notified by phone of the outcome of their request and how many were notified by letter;

(i) how many appeals were made to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal regarding CPPD Benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals resulting in a summary dismissal, (v) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (viii) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (ix) appeals which were decided on the record, (x) appeals which were heard in writing, (xi) appeals which were heard over the phone, (xii) appeals which were heard in person, (xiii) appeals for which travel costs were granted to the appellant, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvi) appeals which were heard within 90 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which were heard within 4 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xviii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xix) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xx) appeals which took more than 9 months to be heard; (j) in how many cases was the Department informed by the Social Security Tribunal of a notice of appeal (i) within 7 days of receiving the notice, (ii) within 14 days of receiving the notice, (iii) within 21 days of receiving the notice, (iv) within 30 days of receiving the notice, (v) more than 30 days after receiving the notice; (k) how many hearings were held by the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (l) how many cases are currently waiting to be heard by the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal; (m) how many legacy cases originally filed with the CPP Review Tribunal are still waiting to be heard;

(n) how many hearings regarding legacy cases originally filed with the CPP Review Tribunal did the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal hold in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (o) how many Applications to Rescind or Amend have been made to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) applications that were successful, (iv) applications that were refused, (v) applications that resulted in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) applications that did not result in an overturn of the Department’s original decision; (p) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal received their case file from the Department (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after making the request; (q) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal were refused their case file by the Department, broken down by province; (r) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal were sent an acknowledgement of receipt of their notice of appeal (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after notice was sent;

(s) how many appeals were made to the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal regarding CPP Disability benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) cases where leave is not granted to appeal, (v) appeals filed by the Department, (vi) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Income Security Section’s decision, (vii) cases not resulting in an overturn of the Income Security Section’s decision, (viii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing is held, (ix) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (x) appeals which were decided on the record, (xi) appeals which were heard over the phone, (xii) appeals which were heard in person, (xiii) appeals for which travel costs were granted to the appellant, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvi) appeals which were heard within 90 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xviii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which took more than 9 months to be heard;

(t) how many hearings were held by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal regarding CPP Disability benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (u) how many cases are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal; (v) how many hearings regarding legacy cases originally filed with the CPP Review Tribunal did the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal hear, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (w) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about communications sent to an appellant rather than to a third-party where requested; (x) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about logistic problems with hearings held by teleconference; (y) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about the Notice of Readiness system; and (z) how many requests for postponement has the Social Security Tribunal received after a Notice of Readiness has been filed by the appellant? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-438.

Q-439 — — With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Justice Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-439.

Q-440 — — With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-440.

Q-448 — — With regard to judicial appointments from the province of Quebec: (a) what steps is the government taking to ensure Quebec has full representation on the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC); (b) by when will a Justice to replace Justice Fish assume his or her seat on the SCC and by what process will this vacancy be filled; (c) in what ways is the decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 being studied and analyzed by the government, and what impact is it expected to have on future judicial appointments from Quebec; (d) will the government seek constitutional amendment to allow for the appointment of judges from the federal courts to the Quebec seats on the SCC and, if so, how does the government plan to proceed; (e) does the government anticipate that the decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 will have any impact on its ability to fill vacancies from Quebec in the federal courts and, if so, how; (f) in what ways will the government seek (i) to ensure civil law expertise and the representation of Quebec’s legal traditions and social values on the Court, (ii) to enhance the confidence of Quebec in the Court in the context of future appointments; (g) since the decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, what discussions or meetings on judicial appointments have occurred with the Government of Quebec and the Barreau du Quebec; (h) in what ways has the question in (e) been studied or will be studied, if any; (i) in what ways has the pool of eligible persons for appointment to Quebec seats on the SCC been defined and identified, broken down by (i) gender, (ii), Aboriginal status, (iii) visible minority status; (j) what qualifications and merit criteria have been identified as necessary and desirable for an appointment to a Quebec seat on the SCC;

(k) what steps have been undertaken to identify potential successors to Justice Lebel upon his anticipated retirement from the SCC; (l) if the process in (k) has not begun, when is it anticipated to begin and what will the first steps be; (m) what regard is given, if any, to the linguistic proficiencies of candidates for Quebec seats at the SCC, in both official languages, (i) at what point in the process is such proficiency assessed, (ii) by whom, (iii) to what standard; (n) does the answer in (m) vary if the vacancy were to arise from another province; (o) in what ways will Quebecers, their government, and their professional orders be consulted and involved in the process to fill present and future vacancies arising from the province at the SCC; (p) in what ways have Supreme Court justices from Quebec been consulted by the government, in the past and present, relative to the appointments process and credentials and will they be consulted in the future; and (q) for judges appointed to Quebec seats on SCC whose appointment and swearing in is subsequently deemed void ab inito, (i) are taxpayers reimbursed in any way for the appointment process by the government, (ii) is the salary of such a judge returned to the government for the period in which it was collected in error, (iii) who makes the determinations in (i) and (ii) and by what process, (iv) what impact does such a determination have on the retirement and pensionable allowances of such a judge if he or she were a federal judge prior to and post appointment to the SCC, (v) are nominees from Quebec informed of the possibility of their appointment and swearing in being deemed void ab initio and, if so, at what point in the process? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-448.

Q-449 — — With regard to applications for Canadian citizenship by landed immigrants since 2006: what is the number of applications (by country of origin) and the average time of processing these applications, broken down by (i) federal riding, (ii) census metropolitan area (municipality), (iii) province? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-449.

Q-450 — — With regard to visitor visas to Canada since 2006: (a) what is the number of visitor visa denials by the visa-processing office, broken down by country of origin; and (b) for the visitor visa denials in (a), what is the number of denials by visitor visa destination, broken down by (i) federal riding, (ii) census metropolitan area (municipality), (iii) province? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-450.

Q-451 — — With regard to government spending in the constituency of York South—Weston: what is the total amount of such spending since fiscal year 2010-2011 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-451.

Q-455 — — With regard to project number A033879-001, the construction of the National Police Academy in Ganthier, Haiti, by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD): (a) why was the project undertaken; b) on what date was the project started; (c) which Government of Canada employees were involved in starting the project; (d) were external organizations or external experts consulted when the project was designed, and if so, what (i) people were involved, (ii) businesses were involved; (e) what were the skills of the people and businesses in (d) respecting (i) the design of construction projects, (ii) the design of projects in Haiti, (iii) the tendering process, (iv) the awarding of contracts, (v) the amount of the contract, (vi) the length of the contract, (vii) the services or products delivered; (f) which international partners proposed or promoted the undertaking of this project to Canada; (g) who ordered the Environmental Assessment Screening Report of July 20, 2007, and what were the conclusions of this report; (h) how many government employees and which departments were involved in the decision of May 30, 2008, regarding the continuation of the project; (i) on what date was this project approved by (i) the former Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), (ii) the Minister of International Cooperation, (iii) the Treasury Board; (j) how long, in months, and how much money has the project designer budgeted for completion of the project; (k) how many tenders were planned for completion of the project; (l) how many tenders have there been for this project between 2007 and now, and for each tender, what were (i) the dates for the opening of tenders, (ii) the dates for the closing of tenders, (iii) the number of people involved in administering them, (iv) regarding the people in (iii), the skills respecting managing tenders, (v) the associated costs, (vi) the number of bids, (vii) the names of the companies or consortiums who bid;

(m) for each tender, including those held from November 3, 2008, to January 6, 2008, and from April 28, 2010, to July 8, 2010, the prequalification process from October 5, 2011, to October 26, 2011, and the tender ending on June 21, 2012, (i) was there a prequalification process, and if not, why not; (n) did this tender and the standards of the construction contract meet the grants and contribution standards or Treasury Board standards, and if not, why not; (o) was it necessary to award a service contract to a person or business for the design of the tender or the project contract; (p) why was there a need to engage consulting services to formulate the tender and the construction contract; (q) how many selection files were received; (r) how many selection files predicted that costs would exceed the project budget; (s) was this tender open to international bidders; (t) what were the names of the bidders for this tender; (u) why were some bids rejected; (v) why was a bidder not selected at the end of the tendering process; (w) in each process following the closing of the tender, including those of January 6, 2008, July 8, 2010, and October 26, 2011, (i) what were the dates of the bid evaluation committee meeting, (ii) how many people and which departments were involved in this process; (x) of the people and departments in (w)(ii), what were their skills respecting (i) the design of construction projects, (ii) the design of projects in Haiti, (iii) the tendering process, (iv) the awarding of contracts; (y) was a person or business needed as a consulting services contractor during the bid evaluation process; (z) why were such consulting services used; (aa) did bidders respect the project budget; (bb) how many bidders forecast cost overruns; (cc) for each bid, by what percentage did the amounts exceed the project budget;

(dd) what was the final decision following this tender; (ee) what selection criteria were modified for the subsequent tender; (ff) during the bidders’ conference of January 2010 in Port-au-Prince, who was present among (i) CIDA employees or any other Government of Canada employees, (ii) CIDA contractors, (iii) bidders, (iv) the Haitian government; (gg) how much money was spent on travel and accommodations for the people in (ff); (hh) what was the purpose of this conference; (ii) why were consulting services engaged to prepare for and hold the conference; (jj) who is responsible for this initiative; (kk) did the Department or the Agency ask bidders to travel to the project’s construction site, and if so, which ones did so; (ll) who was involved in the consulting services between the first and second tenders and what were the recommendations; (mm) why did a tendering process not start up again until October 5, 2011; (nn) why did Minister Oda make a new announcement of funding for the project while visiting Haiti on April 8, 2010, in a news release that granted additional funding; (oo) why did the project contribution amount increase from $18 million to $35 million between Minister Oda’s announcement of April 10, 2010, and today; (pp) did cost overruns in previous tenders have an impact on this increase; (qq) when was this decision made; (rr) did Minister Fantino’s statement of April 19, 2013, that Canada was currently reviewing its long-term strategy for Haiti impact the project deadline and, if so, what were these impacts;

(ss) what information did Isabelle Bérard have on the progress of the project that allowed her to state in the meeting of October 8, 2011, of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that construction would begin in spring 2012; (tt) what options were considered for the construction of the Haitian National Police Academy on page 3 of the Memorandum to the Minister No. T-24106 of November 21, 2012; (uu) why does the Memorandum to the Minister No. T-24036 entitled “Canada’s Public Commitments to Haiti” make no mention of Canada’s commitments and progress in the project; (vv) when did construction start; (ww) what was the role and contribution of Mario Robillard in the construction project, (i) what were his qualifications, (ii) what was his salary, (iii) what was the length of his contract, (iv) did Mr. Robillard travel to the construction site in Haiti and, if so, when; (xx) to date, how many short-term jobs for Haitians have been created by this project; (yy) how many individuals responsible for operation and maintenance were hired for the project among the 30 requested individuals in the Canadian Commercial Corporation project brief; (zz) did DFATD sign a contract with a bidder for the project and, if not, what is the reason for the delay; (aaa) is it standard procedure to issue three tenders before awarding a construction contract; (bbb) does delaying the awarding of a construction contract respect the results-based management principle of the “Aid Effectiveness Agenda”; (ccc) what was the impact of the amalgamation of CIDA and DFATD on the project timeline; (ddd) did Canada meet the objective of welcoming 350 students at a time for training as part of this project, with a proportion of approximately 70% men and 30% women; (eee) is DFATD legally bound to complete construction of this project;

(fff) does DFATD expect to achieve all of the project’s expected results by December 19, 2014, and, if not, will the project completion date be postponed; (ggg) what will the new deadline be; (hhh) when will the decision to postpone the deadline be made; (iii) will the decision in (hhh) be made public; (jjj) will there be a new tender; (kkk) have contribution disbursements for the project begun and, if so, (i) who are the recipients, (ii) when were these disbursements made; (lll) from what fund and constituent program was funding from the project withdrawn; (mmm) is the fund in (lll) still active; and (nnn) are there still projects funded by this fund and, if so, what are they? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-455.

Q-461 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) have there been any reports produced on the health of shrimp stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador since 2001 and, if so, what are their titles; and (b) who holds the rights to shrimp quotas in both the inshore and offshore sectors and what is the individual quota allocation? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-461.

Q-463 — — With regard to the use of the government-owned fleet of Challenger jets since September 2009: for each use of the aircraft, (a) what are the names and titles of the passengers present on the flight manifest; (b) what were all the departure and arrival points of the aircraft; (c) who requested access to the fleet; and (d) who authorized the flight? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-463.

Q-465 — — With regard to the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act enacted as part of Bill C-22, with particular reference to the government's decision to increase the absolute liability amount and mandatory insurance coverage for nuclear operators to $1 billion: (a) has the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) asked Ontario Power Generation whether removing the cap on operator liability, while maintaining the level of absolute liability and mandatory insurance coverage required under the Act at $1 billion, would increase its generation costs and, if so, what were the details of the response, including the estimated increased cost-per-kWh; (b) has the DNR asked Bruce Power whether removing the cap on operator liability, while maintaining the level of absolute liability and mandatory insurance coverage required under the Act at $1 billion, would increase its generation costs and, if so, what were the details of the response, including the estimated increased cost-per-kWh; (c) has the DNR asked New Brunswick Power whether removing the cap on operator liability, while maintaining the level of absolute liability and mandatory insurance coverage, would increase its generation costs and, if so, what were the details of the response, including the estimated increased cost-per-kWh; (d) in the scenario in which the limit on reactor liability is removed while the mandatory insurance coverage and absolute liability of the operator remain at $1 billion, what is the DNR's estimate of the impacts that removing the cap on liability would have on provincial electricity rates, (i) what additional impacts would there be if the mandatory insurance coverage and absolute liability of the operator were increased to $1.5 billion, all other things being equal, (ii) what would the additional impacts be if the mandatory insurance coverage and absolute liability of the operator were increased to $2 billion, all other things being equal;

(e) does the government determine the amount of liability required of nuclear operators by estimating whether it will be within the capacity of insurers to provide insurance at reasonable costs and, if so, (i) did the government use the same criterion for determining the absolute liability and insurance requirement for offshore operators, (ii) how does the government define "reasonable costs" for insurance, (iii) what is the limit in cost-per-kWh for what the DNR considers "reasonable costs" for insurance, (iv) did the government use the same definition of "reasonable costs" for insurance for the nuclear and oil industries; (f) what are the insurance costs-per-kWh for the $1 billion in insurance that is currently required for nuclear operators under Bill C-22, (i) what would these insurance costs-per-kWh be for the insurance requirement of $1.5 billion, (ii) what would these insurance costs be for the insurance requirement of $2 billion; (g) does the DNR determine the amount of liability required of nuclear operators by estimating its commensurability with the consequences of controlled releases of radiation and, if so, (i) what studies has the DNR undertaken regarding the consequences of accidents involving controlled releases of radiation, (ii) what is the estimated likelihood of such accidents, (iii) how has the DNR determined that the current amount of liability for nuclear operators under Bill C-22 is commensurate with the risk of such accidents; and (h) has the DNR commissioned any studies to estimate the implicit subsidy per kWh that would be created by imposing a cap on liability since the time it commissioned an empirical analysis of the Nuclear Liability Act (Heyes, Anthony, and Catherine Heyes. 2000. An Empirical Analysis of the Nuclear Liability Act (1970) in Canada. Resource & Energy Economics 22 (1):91-101) and, if so, what were the results of any such study? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-465.

Q-466 — — With regard to Canadian international development assistance for each fiscal year 2007-2008 to 2013-2014: (a) what was Canada’s Official Development Assistance as a percentage of gross national income, using the same criteria used in Table A-2 “Canadian Historical ODA” of the 2006-2007 Statistical Report on International Assistance; and (b) is this information publically available in the same format? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-466.

Q-467 — — With regard to federal grant programs to assist small-business entrepreneurs commercialize and market their products: (a) what federal programs exist for this purpose; (b) for each year since 2006, how much has been spent on each of these programs, broken down by province; (c) for each figure in (b), what percentages of the amounts were reserved for marketing activities; and (d) for each year since 2006, how much has been spent on youth marketing positions or activities through the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program’s Science and Technology Internship Program, broken down by province? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-467.

Q-469 — — With regard to maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) : (a) in the answer provided to written question Q-208, (i) what services, key health and nutrition interventions are included in “scale-up integrated productive, maternal, newborn, and child health services”, (ii) what specific services and interventions are included in “family planning services”, (iii) what are the specific “commodities” referenced, (iv) what does “we are prepared to do more” mean, (v) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made or is considering, “to do more”, and in what Canadian and global forums, beyond the announced summit Canada will host on MNCH in Toronto at the end of May; (b) what consideration has the government given to a signature Canadian contribution to the post-2015 development agenda; (c) what consideration and diplomatic efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to support the inclusion of a specific high-level goal in the post-2015 agenda to improve health and nutrition outcomes for women, newborns, and children; (d) what financial efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to improve the health outcomes for (i) women, (ii) newborns, (iii) children, broken down by initiative; (e) regarding the Muskoka Initiative, what consideration and diplomatic and financial efforts, and in what forums, has the government given to (i) recommit to the investments made, (ii) extend and increase this Initiative or a similar one, beyond 2015 and beyond the $2.85 billion envelope, (iii) targeting the efforts of this Initiative to more effectively reach and provide health care to the most vulnerable mothers, newborns, and children, (iv) recommit to the vaccine investments made in this Initiative and to extend and increase the commitments made;

(f) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made, or is it considering, and in what forums, to increase investments aimed at (i) strengthening local health systems, (ii) reducing the burden of infectious disease, (iii) improving maternal and child nutrition; (g) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made, or is it considering, and in what forums, to increase investments aimed at (i) prevention and treatment of neo-natal morbidity and prevention of neo-natal mortality, (ii) increased access to emergency obstetric care, (iii) prevention and treatment of childhood infectious disease; (h) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to increase investment in reproductive and sexual health interventions, particularly regarding adolescent girls; (i) what consideration, and diplomatic and financial efforts has the government given to (i) broadening, strengthening and harmonizing the MNCH Accountability Frameworks, (ii) prioritizing universal birth registration, civil registration, and vital statistics, (iii) increasing investment in the collection, processing, and dissemination of data, especially at the local level; and (j) what consideration has the government given to the Lancet Global Investment Framework for Women’s (LGIFW) and Children’s Health, and the Lancet Commission for Investing in Health, (i) to the Framework’s proposed two percent increase in spending, (ii) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to start a discussion regarding the LGIFW? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-469.

Notice of Motion

Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) gave notice of intention to move at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 10, the debate not be further adjourned.

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food), seconded by Mr. Moore (Minister of Industry), — That Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The debate continued.

Deferred Recorded Divisions

Business of Supply

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher), seconded by Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), — That, in the opinion of the House, CBC/Radio-Canada plays a key role in informing, entertaining and uniting Canadians and is today weakened because of the many rounds of cuts over the past 20 years, and calls on the government to: (a) reverse the $45 million in cuts for 2014-2015 in Budget 2012; and (b) provide adequate, stable, multi-year funding to the public broadcaster so that it can fulfill its mandate.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 144 -- Vote n^o 144)
YEAS: 104, NAYS: 146
YEAS -- POUR Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Cleary Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dusseault Eyking Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Giguère Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones Julian Kellway Lapointe Larose Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Nantel Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Pilon Plamondon Quach Rafferty Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stoffer Toone Tremblay Turmel Valeriote Total: -- 104
NAYS -- CONTRE Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambrose Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman Benoit Bergen Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Rathgeber Reid Rempel Richards Ritz Saxton Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer Total: -- 146
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun

Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were laid upon the Table as follows:

— by — Amendments to the By-laws adopted by the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons on April 28, 2014, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. P-1, sbs. 52.5(2). — Sessional Paper No. 8527-412-13.

— by — Report of operations under the Export and Import Permits Act for the year 2012, pursuant to the Export and Import Permits Act, R.S. 1985, c. E-19, s. 27. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-137-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development)

— by — Copy of the Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations (P.C. 2014-559), pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act, S.C. 1992, c. 17, sbs. 7(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-495-13. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development)

— by — Copy of the Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations (P.C. 2014-560), pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act, S.C. 1992, c. 17, sbs. 7(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-495-14. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development)

— by — Reports of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2). — Sessional Paper No. 8561-412-932-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights)

— by — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for the period 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2014-2015 of the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-870-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

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 , one concerning the grain industry (No. 412-3183);

— by , one concerning the Divorce Act (No. 412-3184).

Adjournment Proceedings

At 6:59 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 7:15 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).