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. 83 Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
|
|
| October 19, 2010 — The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”. |
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| October 19, 2010 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Statistics Act (Chief Statistician)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-4562 — October 19, 2010 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the strategic review of federal departments, boards, agencies, and commissions: (a) what is the purpose of the strategic review of the 13 organizations; (b) what are the names of federal departments, boards, agencies, and commissions currently under the review; and (c) when will the results of the strategic review be available to the public? |
| Q-4592 — October 19, 2010 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to M-426, adopted in the second session of the 39th Parliament, calling on the government to respond to the challenges faced by Canadians with rare diseases and disorders, has the government: (a) established a definition for serious rare diseases; (b) examined options, including the possible creation of a specific fund, to improve access to rare disease treatments, building on recent work undertaken by federal, provincial and territorial governments under the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy; (c) considered the establishment of a multi-stakeholder advisory body, including treaters and patients, to recommend treatment access for life-threatening or serious rare disorders, based on scientific standards and social values; (d) explored options to consider national and international expert advice in developing criteria for treating patients based on scientific evidence and patient impact, and to link these activities with ongoing post-market monitoring of real world drug safety and effectiveness; (e) considered options to encourage research and development into treatments for rare diseases and other unmet health needs; (f) considered internationally accepted standards for conduct of clinical trials in rare disorders appropriate for the challenges inherent to very small patient populations; (g) considered how Health Canada’s work on a progressive licensing framework could provide appropriate support to the design of clinical trials for very small patient populations and appropriate review of evidence submitted from these trials; and (h) reported to the House the progress accomplished as of October 19, 2010? |
| Q-4602 — October 19, 2010 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, for each application made under this section since its initial coming into force until today, how many days have passed between the date in which the application was made and the date on which the offender was either granted or denied parole? |
| Q-4612 — October 19, 2010 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to the Recreational Infrastructure Canada program (RINC), since May 2009 to present: (a) for each of the 308 ridings, how many (i) projects have been approved, (ii) projects have been rejected, (iii) applications for projects have been submitted; (b) where was each approved project located and how much money did it receive from the program, broken down by province and riding; (c) what is the average amount of money allotted to approved projects; (d) for each of the rejected project applications, (i) where was the rejected project to be located, (ii) what was the total funding requested, (iii) what was the rationale for the rejection; (e) for approved projects, what is the average number of days from the start date of the project to (i) the date of disbursement of funds, (ii) the date the project was first publicly announced; (f) what is the average number of days between a project receiving approval and the signing of the contribution agreement; (g) what is the total cost of administering the RINC; and (h) how much funding remains (i) unallocated, (ii) undisbursed? |
| Q-4622 — October 19, 2010 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC): (a) what is the current total number of full- and part-time staff at the Department; and (b) what are the projected number of full- and part-time employees at HRSDC for fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012? |
| Q-4632 — October 19, 2010 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to the Department of National Defence, what are the contents of every email sent from ministers' exempt staff to access to information staff between the dates of January 1, 2010 and March 30, 2010? |
| Q-4642 — October 19, 2010 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources, what are the contents of every email sent from ministers' exempt staff to access to information staff between the dates of January 1, 2010 and March 30, 2010? |
| Q-4652 — October 19, 2010 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — What programs at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada are currently under program spending review? |
| Q-4662 — October 19, 2010 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSD) and the eight-month extension of Employment Insurance (EI) Pilot Project No. 11 (Pilot Project for Calculating Benefit Rate Based On Claimant's 14 Highest Weeks of Insurable Earnings (2)) starting October 23, 2010: (a) what projections are used by HRSD, Service Canada and Statistics Canada to determine the number of applicants for Employment Insurance (excluding Employment Insurance (Fishing)) for the EI Economic Region of Newfoundland and Labrador, broken down by divisions 1 to 9, for the eight-month period starting October 23rd, 2010; (b) how many applicants will receive an additional benefit rate as a result of qualifying for the calculation rate based on the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings; and (c) what will be the approximate value of extra EI benefits paid out as a result of the extension of the calculation rate based on the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings, broken down by divisions 1 to 9? |
| Q-4672 — October 19, 2010 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to Canada’s Economic Action Plan, what projects have been approved for funding in-part or in-full through Canada’s Economic Action Plan in the Riding of Avalon, including for each project (i) the location of the project, (ii) the name of the applicant, (iii) the amount of funding applied for, (iv) the amount of funding approved, (v) the approval date, (vi) the project title and description, (vii) whether the project is complete and, if not, the expected completion date? |
| Q-4682 — October 19, 2010 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and more specifically Pilot Project No. 11 (Pilot Project for Calculating Benefit Rate Based On Claimant’s 14 Highest Weeks of Insurable Earning (2)), through the Employment Insurance (EI) program: in the EI economic region of Newfoundland and Labrador, broken down by divisions 1 to 9 and by fiscal year for the duration of Pilot Project No. 11, (i) how many claimants applied for Employment Insurance benefits (excluding Employment Insurance (Fishing)), (ii) how many of those applying received an additional benefit rate as a result of qualifying for the calculation rate based on the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings, (iii) what was the total value of extra Employment Insurance benefits paid out as a result of the calculation using the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings per fiscal year in each of the divisions 1 to 9? |
| Q-4692 — October 19, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to the government’s August 2010 announcements that new units would be constructed on the grounds of existing federal penitentiaries administered by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as part of its implementation of the Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody): (a) how many new units are being built as part of this accommodation plan; (b) at which institutions will these new units be constructed; (c) what is the timeline, broken down annually, for the building of these new units at existing facilities; (d) how many offenders per unit are the new units designed to house; (e) what were the criteria for selecting the locations of the new units; (f) were the communities in which the facilities chosen for expansion are housed consulted about the planned expansion and, if so, when; (g) has a review of the impacts on host communities of expanding existing facilities been undertaken by CSC and, if so, what were the results; (h) what evidence does CSC have to support their claim that the prison expansion plan will ensure "tangible economic growth”; (i) what are the costs associated with the construction of the new units per year and over their projected life-cycle; (j) what are the costs associated with operating and maintaining the new units per year and over their projected life-cycle; and (k) over the next twenty years, is CSC considering the closure of any facility at which new units are being constructed and, if so, which facilities and what is the timeline for their closure? |
| Q-4712 — October 19, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to the project plan for regional complexes referred to in the February 6, April 27, and September 29, 2009 “CSC Report[s] on Transformation Priorities” that Correctional Services Canada (CSC) was to submit earlier this year: (a) how many regional complexes did CSC recommend building as part of this project plan and how many units did CSC recommend each regional complex house; (b) where did CSC recommend building these regional complexes as part of this project plan; (c) what were the criteria for the selection of proposed locations for these regional complexes; (d) what are the costs associated with construction of these regional complexes per year and over their projected life-cycle; (e) what are the costs associated with operating and maintaining these regional complexes per year and over their projected life-cycle; (f) how would the operating and maintenance cost for these new regional complexes be broken down by category; (g) what is the date recommended by CSC to begin implementing this project plan and when is it anticipated that these facilities will come online if their proposed timelines are followed; (h) does this project plan recommend the closure of existing penitentiaries operated and managed by CSC and, if so, which facilities has CSC recommended closing and by what date as part of this project plan; (i) what were the criteria for the selection of existing penitentiaries operated and managed by CSC to be closed as part of this project plan; and (j) how many additional staff, broken down by professional category, does CSC believe it will need to adequately manage these regional complexes and how does that compare to CSC’s current staffing? |
| Q-4722 — October 19, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) offender programming: (a) what offender programs, broken down by category, are currently offered by CSC, including for each program (i) the institutions at which they are offered, (ii) the number of spaces available, (iii) the annual cost of running the program; (b) does CSC evaluate the success of their offender programming and, if so, how; (c) what criteria and processes do CSC employ to select which offender programs are or will be offered at each institution; (d) what processes are employed to place offenders in programs; (e) do all offenders who request to take part in a program have access to it and, if not, why not; (f) do all offenders who are required to take part in specific programs as part of their Correctional Plans have access to them; (g) over the last ten years, broken down annually, how many offenders have had as part of their Correctional Plan the participation in CSC programming and in which programs where these offenders supposed to take part, broken down by category; (h) over the last ten years and broken down annually, how many offenders participated in programs that were required as part of their Correctional Plans; (i) if there is a discrepancy between the answers to (g) and (h), what accounts for it; (j) how much of the overall CSC budget has been spent on offender programming, broken down annually over the last ten years and how does that compare to CSC’s other spending categories; (k) over the next ten years, broken down annually, how much of the overall CSC budget will be spent on offender programming and how does that compare to planned spending in CSC’s other spending categories; (l) does CSC have the necessary staff to meet offender programming needs and, if not, what is being done to address this shortfall; and (m) over the next ten years, does CSC plan to expand the number and type of programs offered to offenders in order to meet the rehabilitation needs of the growing prison population and, if so, what are the details of this plan? |
| Q-4732 — October 19, 2010 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to government revenues and Vale, for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what was the total global amount of taxes paid by Vale to the Canadian treasury; and (b) what tax exemptions did Vale receive from the government? |
| Q-4742 — October 19, 2010 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With regard to the sale of federal land indicated by Halifax, Nova Scotia Parcel Identification Number 279968 on January 14, 2010: (a) what deed authorizes this transfer and why had it not been registered at the Registry of Deeds; (b) what policy or circumstances guided the decision to cede the title of a parcel of land belonging to the government; (c) what policy or circumstances informed the cost assessment of this parcel of land; and (d) who was responsible for this decision? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motion |
| October 19, 2010 — Mr. Dorion (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, as long called for by the Bloc Québécois and now called for by the Member for Beauce, end the so-called federal spending power in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, eliminate the federal programs that violate the division of powers, and transfer tax points to the provinces by: a) eliminating all federal spending in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, unless express authorization is given by Quebec or the province; b) providing a systematic right to opt out with full financial compensation and without condition of all existing and future programs, whether co-funded or not, that intrude into jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces; c) transferring, at the request of Quebec or a province, fiscal room in the form of tax points and/or GST to replace the amounts that the province would otherwise have received under the Canada Health Transfer, federal programs in its areas of jurisdiction and the transfer for social programs and postsecondary education indexed to 1994-1995 levels. |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-588 — October 19, 2010 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the Minister of Justice should take the necessary steps to convene a formal meeting of federal, provincial, territorial and local government representatives, together with stakeholders from public health, anti-poverty groups and police officials, with the objective of reviewing and developing a strategy to strengthen Canada’s solicitation laws while also addressing the related issues of poverty and substance abuse in relation to the sex-trade and sex-trade workers. |
| M-589 — October 19, 2010 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately: (a) address the quadrupling of multiple-job workers, as well as the dramatic increases in overtime work; and (b) enact a living wage and benefits policy that would lift full-time workers out of poverty, create 1 million jobs and near full employment in Canada. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-304† — March 24, 2010 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — Consideration at report stage of Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, as reported by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities with amendments. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — March 2, 2009 |
| Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — March 9, 2009 |
| Mr. Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas) — March 10, 2009 |
| Committee Report — presented on Wednesday, March 24, 2010, Sessional Paper No. 8510-403-15. |
| Statement by Speaker — see Journals of Thursday, April 29, 2010. |
| Report and third reading stages — limited to 2 sitting days, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2). |
| Motion for third reading — may be made in the same sitting, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2). |
|
|
|
| † Subject to the provisions of Standing Order 94(2)(c) |
|
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|