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. 82 Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
| October 18, 2010 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, presented on Monday, October 18, 2010, be concurred in. |
| Debate — limited to 3 hours, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2). |
| Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate. |
Questions |
|
| Q-4442 — October 18, 2010 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to government polling from January 1, 2006 to September 22, 2010: (a) how much was spent annually (i) broken down by department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission, (ii) broken down by department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission and by province and territory; (b) how much was spent, broken down by type of polling technique (phone, online, focus groups, etc.), (i) annually, (ii) annually by each department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission; and (c) what companies received contracts to complete this polling work, broken down by type of polling technique, (i) annually, (ii) annually by each department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission? |
| Q-4452 — October 18, 2010 — Mr. Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie) — With respect to the diesel spill that occurred on October 27, 2010, from Suncor’s refinery facilities at the Port of Montreal, namely quays 109 and 110: (a) have inspections of the infrastructure at the source of the leak been carried out since June 2008; (b) for each inspection carried out after June 2008, (i) what was the department, corporation or agency responsible for the inspection, (ii) at what date was the inspection done, (iii) what was the name of the person responsible for the inspection, (iv) what were the characteristics of the infrastructure inspected, (v) what was the state of the infrastructure inspected, (vi) what was the type of test performed, (vii) what was the result of the tests performed; and (c) what is the age of the infrastructure at the source of the leak? |
| Q-4462 — October 18, 2010 — Mr. Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes) — With regard to the Ontario-Quebec gateway issue, since the 2004–2005 fiscal year: (a) how much money has been invested, broken down by project; (b) which projects have received funding; (c) which projects have been completed; (d) at what stage of completion are the unfinished projects; (e) what have been the yearly budgets, up to and including the present fiscal year; (f) were all the funds allocated in the budgets spent; (g) what are the projected budgets for the coming years; (h) what factors explain why the budgets were not fully spent; and (i) what criteria needed to be met for a project to receive funding? |
| Q-4472 — October 18, 2010 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With respect to the site of the former CFB Rockcliffe: (a) how much has the Canada Lands Company spent over the past ten years, charged to what budget item, on the site’s development; and (b) of the funding granted to external firms or consultants for this development, how much has gone to each firm or consultant and what are the names of these firms or consultants? |
| Q-4482 — October 18, 2010 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to the cruise ship industry since 2005: (a) what federal departments have provided support to the cruise ship industry across Canada, to date; (b) how much was spent on each project by each federal department, agency, board and commission in support of the cruise ship industry, to date; (c) what is the annual total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff in each federal agency, board, or commission working on implementation of projects related to the cruise ship industry; (d) what specific federal programs support the development of the cruise ship industry in Canada; (e) what were the discharge incidents of sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or solid waste by cruise ships in Canadian waters, distributed by date, location, ship, and type of discharge; (f) how many charges, warnings or penalties were issued against cruise ship operators for all sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or other discharges in contradiction of regulations, including date, operator, location, offence and amount; (g) how much was spent by each federal agency, commission, department or organization in enforcement of regulations related to discharge of sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or other discharges; (h) what is the annual total number of FTEs working in each federal agency, commission, department or organization on enforcement of regulations related to discharge of sewage, bilge, grey water, or other discharges; (i) what onboard observation has been performed by each federal agency, commission, department or organization with respect to discharge of sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or other discharges, distributed by year and location; (j) what reports, studies, investigations, conclusions, regulatory changes, warnings, or penalties were issued or undertaken by any federal government body related to the cruise ship Queen Elizabeth II’s September 2005 discharge incident off the coast of Cape Breton; (k) how much was spent by each federal organization for port upgrades in support of the cruise ship industry; (l) how many agreements were signed between federal organizations and private cruise companies for docking in Canadian ports; and (m) what companies signed agreements with the government for access to Canadian waters and on what conditions? |
| Q-4492 — October 18, 2010 — Mrs. Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville) — With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: (a) what specific system is in place to determine exactly how many food inspectors the agency has; (b) how many food inspectors were in place prior to August 31, 2008; (c) how many food inspectors have been hired per quarter since October 15, 2008; (d) what exactly does each inspector inspect; (e) where exactly is each inspector stationed; and (f) what is the total cost per calendar year, beginning in 2008 to present, for the hiring of these inspectors? |
| Q-4502 — October 18, 2010 — Mrs. Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville) — With regard to government spending, excluding the Economic Action Plan, what is the total amount of government capital and operation funding, since fiscal year 2008-2009 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Mississauga—Streetsville, identifying each department, agency, funding transfer to provincial and municipal governments and arm's length agency, including but not limited to the Business Development Bank, detailing in each case the initiative and amount, including the date the funding was allocated? |
| Q-4512 — October 18, 2010 — Mrs. Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville) — With regard to the government's Economic Action Plan, for each of the project announcements in the electoral district of Mississauga—Streetsville: (a) what was (i) the date of the announcement, (ii) the amount of stimulus spending announced, (iii) the department which made the announcement; (b) was there a public event associated with the announcement and, if so, what was the cost of that event; (c) how many projects submitted by the City of Mississauga did not qualify for or were denied infrastructure or Recreational Infrastructure Canada program funding; (d) what were the details and locations of the projects that did not qualify or were denied funding; and (e) for each project that was denied funding, what is the detailed explanation of the reasons for the denial? |
| Q-4522 — October 18, 2010 — Mrs. Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville) — With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Settlement Agencies: (a) how many agencies were opened per calendar year since January 1, 2006 to present; (b) what was the total amount of transfer funding provided for the opening of agencies per calendar year from February 7, 2006 to present; (c) how many agencies have been opened since February 7, 2006; (d) what is the location of each new agency since February 7, 2006; (e) how many agencies have had their funding reduced or abolished since February 7, 2006; (f) how many agencies have had to close because of reduced or abolished federal funding; (g) what is the exact location of each closure since February 7, 2006; (h) what is the amount of funding provided to agencies in the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, broken down by province, per calendar year from February 7, 2006 to present; and (i) has CIC begun negotiating a new Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement as promised and, if not, why not and when will it begin these negotiations? |
| Q-4532 — October 18, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund — Communities Component top-up in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund — Major Infrastructure Component in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved? |
| Q-4542 — October 18, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With respect to the New Horizons for Seniors program: (a) how much funding has been allocated annually since the program began; (b) what is the breakdown of that funding (i) by province, (ii) by federal riding; (c) how was the funding allocated among the three funding types (Community Participation and Leadership, Capital Assistance, and Elder Abuse Awareness); (d) what was the criteria for funding these programs; (e) how many applications were rejected; (f) what criteria are used to ascertain project success; (g) who is on the review committee that approves projects; (h) how were the members of the project review committee selected; (i) what consultations took place to ensure the program has been running properly; (j) beyond the Human Resources and Skills Development Web site, what communications products were produced; and (k) what community facilities and equipment have been upgraded as a result of funding and how much did they each receive? |
| Q-4552 — October 18, 2010 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the expenses of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what was the total global amount spent on hospitality expenses by each Canadian embassy overseas; (b) how much has each Canadian embassy overseas spent on leasing expenses, catering services, restaurants, alcohol and beverages, bottled water, and petty cash; (c) how much has each Canadian embassy and Consulate spent on advertising overseas; (d) what cuts have been made to DFAIT expenditures on Canadian missions overseas during economic recession and what was the cut in expenditure for each embassy and consulate; (e) what companies have received sole source contracts to provide services for Canadian missions overseas; and (f) how much have Canadian diplomats spent on limousine services, private air services, executive class commercial air services, economy class commercial air services and car rentals? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-587 — October 18, 2010 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) support open source information and communications technologies (ICTs) in all its tendering processes and throughout the departments of the federal civil service; (b) make available funding in the form of grants for targeted pilot projects involving Canadian companies with an open source mandate; (c) allow Canadian software developers to bid on government ICT contracts; (d) encourage citizen engagement with government through open access to government information and, wherever possible, government services, while respecting privacy and national security concerns; (e) streamline government data and service delivery, and modernize the way in which the government and Canadian citizens interact; and (f) develop strategies to encourage the growth of local businesses and enhance Canadian productivity and competitiveness in the global knowledge-based economy. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-386 — June 11, 2010 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel), seconded by Ms. Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges), — That Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — May 28, 2009 |
| Debate — 1 hour remaining, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
| Voting — at the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|