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.
|
|
|
Notice PaperNo. 3 Friday, March 5, 2010 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| March 4, 2010 — Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — Bill entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of New Westminster -- Coquitlam”. |
|
|
| March 4, 2010 — Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (body armour)”. |
|
|
| March 4, 2010 — Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child outside Canada)”. |
|
|
| March 4, 2010 — Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (means of communication for child luring)”. |
|
|
| March 4, 2010 — Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (leaving province to avoid warrant of arrest or committal)”. |
|
|
| March 4, 2010 — Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (special benefits)”. |
|
|
| March 4, 2010 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake) — Bill entitled “An Act warning Canadians of the cancer risks of using tanning equipment”. |
|
|
| March 4, 2010 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for voters)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-752 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the provision of consular affairs, for the fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2008-2009: (a) what are all foreign missions operated by the government; and (b) what is the number of staff members tasked with the provision of consular services in each mission? |
| Q-762 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With respect to the use of the government owned fleet of Challenger jets since February 2006 and 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? |
| Q-772 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the transfer of Canadian offenders from abroad to Canada, what is, for the calendar years 2005 to 2008: (a) the total number of transfer applications carried over from the previous year; (b) the total number of new applications made; (c) the number of applications that were approved; (d) the total number of applications rejected; (e) the total number of applications withdrawn by the offender; (f) the total number of cases that remained open at the end of the year; and (g) the average time that the Minister took to make a decision regarding any decided cases? |
| Q-782 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to Infrastructure Canada's answer to question Q-432 in the 2nd Session of the 40th Parliament, what are the details surrounding the $0.25 cost for the announcement of September 13, 2009 concerning the expenditure of $3,250,000? |
| Q-792 — March 4, 2010 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regard to water efficiency and conservation programs in Canada: (a) who is working to ensure a budget will be issued specifically to water efficiency and conservation programs under the Building Canada Plan; (b) when will funds be allocated to supporting innovative municipal and federal water efficiency programs; (c) will programs be implemented to encourage the protection of freshwater resources, and to raise awareness about water efficiency and conservation; (d) what action has been taken thus far to establish goals and objectives regarding water efficiency and conservation; (e) what plans are there to include demand management programs as a funding condition for large-scale water and wastewater projects as is done for transit projects under the Building Canada plan; and (f) what consultations have taken place with federal departments, provinces and territories, and Aboriginal governments to develop strategic plans for each of Canada’s major river basins? |
| Q-802 — March 4, 2010 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regard to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) staffing levels and use of contracts for each fiscal year since 2004-2005: (a) what is the total number of staff employed at Headquarters, full time and contract; (b) what is the total number of staff employed in each of INAC’s Regional Offices, full time and contract; (c) what is the total number of staff employed by INAC organization, directorate and sector; (d) what is the total number of contracts awarded, their value, contact persons and the names of those organizations that received contracts all broken down by both province and constituency, and whether the contracts are for goods or services; (e) in detail, what was each contract awarded for; (f) was the contract tendered or sole-sourced; (g) in the case of a sole-source contract, was it approved by a minister and, if so, which minister approved it; and (h) in the case of a tendered contract, what is the number of tenders put forward and the length of the tender period? |
| Q-812 — March 4, 2010 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and their Social Development Partnerships Program (SDPP): (a) which organizations have received funding over the last three years; (b) in the latest distribution of funds, what percentage of funding went to each province and how was that distribution determined; (c) what are the criteria for deciding what organizations are funded; (d) how much funding has been given to each federal riding over the last three years; and (e) why was there a budget cut for SDPP in 2006 and how has that affected the funding of new programs and the renewal of funding for current projects? |
| Q-82 — March 4, 2010 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regard to the Post-Secondary Student Support Program (PSSSP) through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: (a) when was the contract awarded for the report “The Post-Secondary Student Support Program: An Examination of Alternative Delivery Mechanisms”; (b) how much was the contract; (c) how many other contracts have been awarded to this company in the last five years and what was their value; (d) how many other contracts have been awarded to study PSSSP or the Indian Studies Support Program in the last five years; and (e) what is the value of those contracts and who were they awarded to? |
| Q-832 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park) — With respect to the Economic Action Plan in Budget 2009: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what are each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what are each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (c) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component top-up, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what are each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (d) under the Building Canada Fund – Major Infrastructure Component, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what are each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (e) under the Provincial/Territorial Base funding acceleration, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are the located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what are each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (f) under the Recreational Infrastructure program, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are the located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what are each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (g) under the Green Infrastructure Fund, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are the located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what are each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; and (h) under the National recreational trails program, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are the located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what are each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects? |
| Q-842 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park) — With respect to the Economic Action Plan in Budget 2009: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria; (c) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component top-up, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria; (d) under the Building Canada Fund – Major Infrastructure Component, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria; and (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria? |
| Q-852 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park) — With respect to the Knowledge Infrastructure programs within Budget 2009: (a) under the Universities and colleges program, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) has the provincial government approved funding for the project, (iii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iv) who are the partners involved, (v) what is the federal contribution, (vi) what are each partner’s contribution, (vii) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (viii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (b) under the Canada Foundation for Innovation, (i) what projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) has the provincial government approved funding for the project, (iii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iv) who are the partners involved, (v) what is the federal contribution, (vi) what are each partner’s contribution, (vii) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (viii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (c) under Canada Health Infoway, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) has the provincial government approved funding for the project, (iii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iv) who are the partners involved, (v) what is the federal contribution, (vi) what are each partner’s contribution, (vii) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (viii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (d) under the broadband in rural communities, (i) what projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) has the provincial government approved funding for the project, (iii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iv) who are the partners involved, (v) what is the federal contribution, (vi) what are each partner’s contribution, (vii) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (viii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; and (e) under the First Nations infrastructure programs, (i) provide the applications for projects that have been approved for funding to date, (ii) has the provincial government approved funding for the project, (iii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iv) who are the partners involved, (v) what is the federal contribution, (vi) what are each partner’s contribution, (vii) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (viii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects? |
| Q-862 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park) — With respect to the Economic Action Plan in Budget 2009: (a) for the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, (i) what meetings have taken place to date between federal government officials and their provincial counterparts, (ii) who was in attendance, (iii) what agenda or minutes were produced in the lead up or subsequent to the meeting, (iv) what briefing notes were prepared for the meeting or as a result of decisions taken at the meeting, (v) when and where did the meetings occur, (vi) was a cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, or employee of the office of a cabinet minister in attendance and, if so, who; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component, (i) what meetings have taken place to date between federal government officials and their provincial counterparts, (ii) who was in attendance, (iii) what agenda or minutes were produced in the lead up or subsequent to the meeting, (iv) what briefing notes were prepared for the meeting or as a result of decisions taken at the meeting, (v) when and where did the meetings occur, (vi) was a cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, or employee of the office of a cabinet minister in attendance and, if so, who; (c) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component top-up, (i) what meetings have taken place to date between federal government officials and their provincial counterparts, (ii) who was in attendance, (iii) what agenda or minutes were produced in the lead up or subsequent to the meeting, (iv) what briefing notes were prepared for the meeting or as a result of decisions taken at the meeting, (v) when and where did the meetings occur, (vi) was a cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, or employee of the office of a cabinet minister in attendance and, if so, who; (d) under the Building Canada Fund – Major Infrastructure Component, (i) what meetings have taken place to date between federal government officials and their provincial counterparts, (ii) who was in attendance, (iii) what agenda or minutes were produced in the lead up or subsequent to the meeting, (iv) what briefing notes were prepared for the meeting or as a result of decisions taken at the meeting, (v) when and where did the meetings occur, (vi) was a cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, or employee of the office of a cabinet minister in attendance and, if so, who; (e) under the Provincial/Territorial Base funding acceleration, (i) what meetings have taken place to date between federal government officials and their provincial counterparts, (ii) who was in attendance, (iii) what agenda or minutes were produced in the lead up or subsequent to the meeting, (iv) what briefing notes were prepared for the meeting or as a result of decisions taken at the meeting, (v) when and where did the meetings occur, (vi) was a cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, or employee of the office of a cabinet minister in attendance and, if so, who; (f) under the Recreational Infrastructure program, (i) what meetings have taken place to date between federal government officials and their provincial counterparts, (ii) who was in attendance, (iii) what agenda or minutes were produced in the lead up or subsequent to the meeting, (iv) what briefing notes were prepared for the meeting or as a result of decisions taken at the meeting, (v) when and where did the meetings occur, (vi) was a cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, or employee of the office of a cabinet minister in attendance and, if so, who; (g) under the Green Infrastructure Fund, (i) what meetings have taken place to date between federal government officials and their provincial counterparts, (ii) who was in attendance, (iii) what agenda or minutes were produced in the lead up or subsequent to the meeting, (iv) what briefing notes were prepared for the meeting or as a result of decisions taken at the meeting, (v) when and where did the meetings occur, (vi) was a cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, or employee of the office of a cabinet minister in attendance and, if so, who; and (h) under the National recreational trails program, (i) what meetings have taken place to date between federal government officials and their provincial counterparts, (ii) who was in attendance, (iii) what agenda or minutes were produced in the lead up or subsequent to the meeting, (iv) what briefing notes were prepared for the meeting or as a result of decisions taken at the meeting, (v) when and where did the meetings occur, (vi) was a cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, or employee of the office of a cabinet minister in attendance and, if so, who? |
| Q-872 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund, since March 2009 to present: (a) how many applications were successful and received funding under this program, and how many were rejected; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by provincial and federal electoral district; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far; (d) how much funding is left; (e) how many major projects under this program will go or went to expand existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects' applications that went towards (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; and (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications that went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communication more accessible? |
| Q-882 — March 4, 2010 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With respect to Internet applications: (a) is the government working towards the inclusion of rich Internet applications within its design and development with regard to its Web sites; (b) what is the government’s response to the American response to rich Internet applications made ten years ago; (c) is the government planning on adopting the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 standard; (d) what is the monetary impact of the government’s present use of WCAG 1.0 standard knowing that software contractors have built WCAG 2.0 accessibility into their software; (e) have software contractors requested that the government's Common Look and Feel (CLF) Committee relax or amend their CLF standards to allow for accessibility and, if so, can the government give details of the correspondence; (f) have software contractors required that the government pay extra because it must simplify their software in order to remove these accessibility features; (g) which federal department has the responsibility to ensure that all programs, services and technologies are accessible to people with disabilities and that they are available through the mainstream channels such as the Internet and in alternate formats; (h) is accessibility a mandatory requirement within information and communications procurements to ensure that blind Canadians have access to the same resources as all other Canadians and that they can access all of this through mainstream channels such as the Internet and in alternate formats; (i) how does the government of Canada inform blind Canadians about the availability of information to protect them from incidents of identity theft and fraud; (j) are the government's Web accessibility regulations up to date with today's Web technologies; (k) are Web developers in the government given the support they need to build accessible interactive Web sites, especially when building sites that offer essential services; (l) are Web developers in the government trained in the latest Web accessibility techniques; and (m) are Web developers provided with development tools that support creating accessible Web sites and government services online? |
| Q-892 — March 4, 2010 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With respect to the recommendations of the Trans Fat Task Force final report, TRANSforming the Food Supply, and the government’s ensuing two year voluntary trans fat reduction period, that ended in June 2009: (a) what is the status of the release of the final round of trans fat monitoring data which was due in June 2009; (b) what is the government’s official response to the two year voluntary reduction period; and (c) what does the government plan to do regarding its stated commitment, from June 2007, to develop trans fat regulations? |
| Q-902 — March 4, 2010 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With respect to the Expert Review Panel on Medical Isotope Production: (a) what were the criteria and rationale to choose the four members of the panel; (b) who declined to sit on the panel; (c) how many times did the panel meet; (d) who did the panel consult; (e) what was the formal mandate of the panel; (f) did the panel have the technical expertise alone to be able to understand the proposals and make recommendations; (g) what is the relation of Dr. Alexander MacEwan, the Special Advisor on Medical Isotopes to the Minister of Health, to the panel; (h) did the panel recommend to the Minister that she implement the four recommendations of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine mentioned at the November 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Health; (i) what was the process for the panel to consult with provinces and territories; (j) did the panel consult and meet with each public and private consortium that made a submission to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their proposal; (k) will the government release the 22 submissions on ideas for isotope supply that were received and reviewed by the panel; (l) what was the role of the firm SECOR in the production of the expert panel report; (m) who, from SECOR, was assigned to this task; (n) what were the recommendations of the panel’s November 30th report to the government; (o) will the panel be dismantled or will it continue its advising role to the government following its November 30th report; and (p) what will be the outcome of the panel and the government’s next steps including but not limited to recommendations to proceed with projects, funding recommendations, or another phase of evaluations? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
| P-23 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports, studies and briefing papers related to the construction of office buildings on lands owned by Canadian Port Authorities in the last two years. |
| P-24 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all records related to the environmental audit commissioned by, or on behalf of, the Saint John Port Authority and carried out by the firm AMEC with respect to the Lantic Sugar property in Saint John in 2009. |
| P-25 — March 4, 2010 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the updated Foodborne Illness Outbreak Response Protocol as mentioned by Carole Swan, President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, during her presentation to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on August 26, 2009. |
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-486 — March 4, 2010 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should re-instate the Co-ordination of Access to Information Requests System, under the authority of Public Works and Government Services Canada, which was shutdown on April 1, 2008. |
| M-487 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — That, in the opinion of the House, a thorough investigation should be conducted into the possible health hazards caused to DNA by terahertz full body scanners, and that any decision to widely implement the devices in Canadian airports for security screening purposes should be halted until the report is made available to Parliament and reviewed. |
| M-488 — March 4, 2010 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — That the House recognize that Gulf War Syndrome is an illness that affects Gulf War veterans who were exposed to a variety of toxic substances during the deployment. |
Private Members' Business |
| M-459 — March 3, 2010 — Mr. Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry) — That, in the opinion of the House, in light of the upcoming centennial of the Canadian Navy, the government should consider reinstating the Navy executive curl on its uniforms. |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|