Skip to main content
Start of content

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
PDF

Notice Paper

No. 119

Thursday, December 16, 2010

10:00 a.m.

Introduction of Government Bills

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)
December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dreeshen (Red Deer) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented on Thursday, December 9, 2010, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Friday, April 8, 2011, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
December 15, 2010 — Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented on Thursday, December 9, 2010, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Friday, April 8, 2011, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
December 15, 2010 — Mr. Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented on Monday, November 29, 2010, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, March 29, 2011, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
December 15, 2010 — Mrs. O'Neill-Gordon (Miramichi) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented on Monday, November 29, 2010, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, March 29, 2011, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
December 15, 2010 — Mr. Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex) — That the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Wednesday, December 15, 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.
December 15, 2010 — Mr. Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook) — That the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Wednesday, December 15, 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.
December 15, 2010 — Mr. Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Thursday, December 9, 2010, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Friday, April 8, 2011, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — That the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Wednesday, December 15, 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-818 — December 15, 2010 — Ms. Hall Findlay (Willowdale) — With respect to the meetings between the Government of Canada, U.S. governors and members of the U.S. House of Representatives on U.S. protectionist legislation in a bid to defend Canadian companies: (a) how many meetings were held; (b) with whom, for each meeting; (c) what were the dates of these meetings; and (d) what is the content of the meeting minutes and correspondence?
Q-8192 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to the Infirm Dependent Tax Credit, for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010: (a) how many people applied for the tax credit; (b) how many people qualified to receive a tax credit; and (c) what was the total amount granted for this tax credit?
Q-8202 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to the Disability Tax Credit, for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010: (a) how many people applied for the tax credit; (b) how many people qualified to receive a tax credit; and (c) what was the total amount granted for this tax credit?
Q-8212 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to the Eligible Dependent Tax Credit, for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010: (a) how many people applied for the tax credit; (b) how many people qualified to receive a tax credit; and (c) what was the total amount granted for this tax credit?
Q-8222 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to the Medical Expenses Tax Credit, for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010: (a) how many people applied for the tax credit; (b) how many people qualified to receive a tax credit; and (c) what was the total amount granted for this tax credit?
Q-8232 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), of which Canada is a Contracting Party: (a) what are the current Contracting Parties to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, otherwise known as the NAFO Convention; (b) which of these Contracting Parties are known by Canada through its diplomatic relations to have ratified the revised NAFO Convention, as adopted by NAFO in September 2007; (c) which of these Contracting Parties are known to have informed the NAFO Depository or the NAFO Secretariat of their ratification, acceptance and approval of the revised NAFO Convention; (d) how much did Canada spend conducting enforcement of NAFO fisheries conservation measures in the NAFO regulatory area in each of fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, broken down by all departments and agencies; (e) how much did Canada spend on scientific research and fisheries stock assessment in the NAFO regulatory area on NAFO regulated species and on ecosystem research in each of fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, broken down by all departments and agencies; (f) how much did all other NAFO Contracting Parties spend on conducting fisheries enforcement of NAFO conservation measures in the NAFO regulatory area in each year from 2007 to 2010; (g) how much did all other NAFO Contracting Parties spend on scientific research and fisheries stock assessment and ecosystem research in the NAFO regulatory area in each year from 2007 to 2010; (h) how much did Canada contribute directly to the operation and management of the NAFO Secretariat in each of the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (i) how much did all other NAFO Contracting Parties contribute directly to the operation and management of the NAFO Secretariat in each year from 2007 to 2010; (j) using data supplied in response to subquestions (d) to (i) and using the newly adopted and revised contribution formula for the Contracting Parties adopted by NAFO, what would be an estimate of the Canadian financial contribution to NAFO in 2010 and 2011 and what would be the contribution of each of the other NAFO Contracting Parties in those same years; (k) which NAFO Contracting Parties have filed formal objections to any of NAFO’s management decisions in 2010 and for 2011, what was the original NAFO management decision being objected to and the nature of the objection from the Contracting Party, as well as specific details of the unilateral fishing plan taken by the objecting Contracting Party for each of the years 2007, 2008 and 2009; (l) how many Canadian citations, NAFO Contracting Party citations or NAFO citations have been issued against fishing vessels of Contracting Parties that were believed to be fishing contrary to NAFO requirements within the NAFO regulatory area, which of these citations resulted in convictions of these fishing vessels, which jurisdiction was responsible for prosecuting these infractions and what penalty was assessed as a result of these convictions in each of the years 2007, 2008 and 2009; (m) what was the total number of at-sea fishing days of NAFO Contracting Party fishing vessels operating in the NAFO regulatory area for NAFO regulated species, broken down by Contracting Party; and (n) what was the total number of at-sea fishing days within the NAFO regulatory area conducting on Non-Contracting Parties to the NAFO Convention in each of the years 2007, 2008 and 2009?
Q-8242 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the investigation and prosecution of all licensed Canadian sealers who were charged under the Fisheries Act or the Marine Mammal Regulations as a result of actions taken by the sealers during the 1996 harvest of a category of Hooded Seals known as “Bluebacks”: (a) how many licensed sealers were originally charged due to actions arising from the harvesting of this class of hooded seal; (b) what was the final year in which the prosecution of any sealer from this group concluded; (c) how many were convicted of any offence during the course of this prosecution and what were they convicted of; (d) what specific regulation or statutory provision were they originally charged with and what regulation or statutory provision were they convicted of; (e) what is the total cost of both the investigation and the prosecution of these charges, broken down by each department or agency involved in any aspect of the investigation or prosecution of these charges; and (f) what is the description of any changes made to the Marine Mammal regulations subsequent to the conclusion of these cases and originating from circumstances made clear during the course of this investigation and prosecution?
Q-8252 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the operations of Marine Atlantic Incorporated: (a) what was the total revenue collected by the corporation from commercial vehicle traffic resulting from cancellation penalties and late arrival fees in 2010; (b) what was the total revenue collected from commercial truck traffic resulting from the limited, special reservation allocation for commercial truck traffic; (c) what was the total value of refunds and customer courtesy fee waivers provided by the corporation due to scheduling issues and late departures or arrivals of its vessels; (d) what was the on-time performance of Marine Atlantic Incorporated’s ferries in 2008, 2009 and 2010 on each scheduled crossing for each ferry within its fleet; and (e) what was the total revenue resulting from drop trailer storage in the yards at North Sydney, Port aux Basques and Argentia, respectively?
Q-8262 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's programs AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriRecovery and AgriInsurance: (a) what is the total amount of program funds dispersed to producers since 2004, broken down by program and (i) year, (ii) province and year, (iii) riding and year, (iv) sector and year, (v) commodity and year; (b) how many producers have made use of each of these programs since 2004, broken down by program and (i) year, (ii) province and year, (iii) riding and year, (iv) sector and year, (v) commodity and year; (c) broken down by program, province and year, for each year since 2004, what was the staff complement for each program; (d) broken down by program, province and year, for each year since 2004, what was the field staff complement for each program; (e) broken down by program and year, for each year since 2004, what was the ratio of program administration to producer funding; (f) broken down by program, what commodities are currently not covered by these programs; (g) broken down by program, what commodities have been added since each program's inception; (h) how much has been spent by each program on outside consultants since 2004, broken down by program and by (i) year, (ii) individual contract description, contracted company and amount; (i) for each program, what benchmarks are used to measure; (j) what benchmarks have been achieved, broken down by program and year, for each year since 2004; and (k) what benchmarks have not been achieved, broken down by program and year, for each year since 2004?
Q-8272 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to government expenditures in the communities of Niagara, on an annual basis and broken down by department, what is the amount spent: (a) in the ridings of Welland, Niagara West—Glanbrook and Haldimand—Norfolk from 2004 up to and including the current fiscal year; (b) in the former riding of Erie—Lincoln between 1997 and 2004; (c) in the former riding of Erie between 1993 and 1997; and (d) in the ridings of Niagara Falls and St. Catharines from 1993 up to and including the current fiscal year?
Q-8282 — December 15, 2010 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With respect to the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health: (a) what is the total amount of funding dedicated to the initiative, broken down by destination country, project name and project duration; (b) how will the funding be monitored and tracked; (c) how much of the funding is new; (d) how much of the funding is existing, broken down by source; (e) what benchmarks are being used to evaluate the project; (f)what evaluations or reports exist about the project; (g) how much of the funding will be delivered bilaterally; (h) how much of the funding will be delivered through multilateral agencies; (i) how much funding will be delivered in partnership with civil society; and (j) what are the criteria for receiving funding?
Q-8292 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — With respect to the distribution of jobs in the government and all federal organizations in the National Capital Region: (a) how many jobs were there on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region in 2010; and (b) how many jobs were there on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region in 2010?
Q-8302 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to railway shipping service in Canada: (a) what analysis has the government conducted on the impacts of rail shipment rates on the forestry, mining, agricultural and manufacturing sectors; (b) what analysis does the government conduct on the impacts of the lack of competition in the railway sector on remote and northern communities; (c) has the government begun drafting legislation and regulations for the railway service industry to address the recommendations of the Rail Freight Service Review Panel’s Interim Report; (d) what is the government’s response to the request by the Coalition of Rail Shippers to implement regulatory changes immediately; (e) what is the government’s position on appointing a facilitator to assist in negotiations between railways and shippers; and (f) when will the government provide a response to the final report of the Rail Freight Service Review Panel?
Q-8312 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to biofuels: (a) what is the total funding amount that the government has committed to programs supporting biofuels since 2006; (b) how is this spending broken down by program, recipient project (including project description) and fiscal year (including future spending already committed); (c) what is the contribution from the private sector and from other levels of government to each project funded; (d) what are the expected greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions resulting from federal funding of biofuel projects; (e) what GHG reductions have been achieved to date from biofuel projects funded by the government; and (f) how much energy has been produced by biofuel projects funded by the government?
Q-8322 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to carbon capture and storage (CCS): (a) what is the total funding amount that the government has committed to CCS since 2006; (b) how is this spending broken down by project and fiscal year (including future spending already committed); (c) what is the contribution from the private sector and from other levels of government to each project funded; (d) what are the expected greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions resulting from federal funding of CCS projects; (e) what is the projected rate of GHG reduction per dollar of federal funding invested; and (f) what GHG reductions have been achieved to date from CCS projects funded by the government?
Q-8332 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to Crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions: (a) what is the annual salary paid to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of each Crown corporation, agency, board and commission; (b) how many full-time equivalents have been working in the office of the CEO for each Crown corporation, agency, board and commission from 2006 to date; (c) how was funding spent on the operations for each CEOs office for each Crown corporation, agency, board and commission from 2006 to date; (d) what is the total amount of performance bonuses paid to each CEO of each Crown corporation, agency, board and commission from 2006 to date; (e) to what privileges and pension benefits are CEOs of Crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions entitled; and (f) how much money did the government spend on retreats for CEOs and senior management of Crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions from 2006 to date?
Q-8342 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) investigation of the Caribbean-based investment fund known as St. Lawrence Trading Inc.: (a) does the CRA know the identities of all Canadians with investments in the fund; (b) does the CRA know the identities of the six prominent Canadian business families with holdings of as much as $900 million in that fund and, if so, what are they; (c) how many Canadians are involved in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund in total; (d) what are the key reasons the CRA has been unable to obtain the information it needs to determine whether evasion of Canadian taxes has taken place; (e) what are the impediments to identification by the CRA of all those Canadians involved in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund; (f) how much tax does the CRA estimate that Canadian individuals, who invested in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund, have failed to pay; (g) how much tax does the CRA estimate that Canadian families with investments in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund have failed to pay; (h) how much tax has been recovered from each Canadian individual and family that invested in St. Lawrence Trading Inc.; and (i) what is the estimated cost of the CRA’s investigation of the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund to date?
Q-8352 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to government monitoring of the working and labour conditions in oil sands areas: (a) what is the total amount of injuries reported or registered by the responsible government departments from 2006 to date; (b) what departments, agencies and commissions are responsible for monitoring working safety conditions in the oil sands; (c) how many inspections of the work safety conditions in oil sand production sites were conducted by each department, agency or commission from 2006 to date; (d) what are the major issues associated with working conditions at the oil sands production sites; (e) what types of injuries are common at the oil sands working sites; (f) from 2006 to date, what is the average crime rate in communities where oil sands production is going on; and (g) how much money did the government spend on monitoring and regulating safety conditions in the oil sands production sites, for each department, agency and commission?
Q-8362 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to federal lands in Pickering, Ontario: (a) what is the status of the Needs Assessment Study for a potential Pickering Airport, which Transport Canada (TC) commissioned the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) to complete, and what are its primary recommendations; (b) will it be released to the public and, if so, when; (c) it there a way a Member of Parliament can obtain a copy of the study and, if so, how; (d) has the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities determined the government's official position concerning the proposal by the GTAA to develop an airport on federal lands in Pickering Lands and, if so, what is it; (e) if the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has not yet determined the official position, when will he; (f) was Transport Canada made aware of the recent announcement made by the Sifton family, owners of the Buttonville airport in Markham, that the airport will close before the announcement was made in November 2010 and has Transport Canada been working with the Sifton Family on this matter; (g) how will this development impact decisions concerning federal lands in Pickering; (h) will the government agree to consult with the Member of Parliament for Ajax—Pickering and the community on any future demolition proposal before any final decision is taken; (i) what are the government's plans to preserve, restore and protect structures deemed as heritage structures by the City of Pickering or advisors to the City, including the houses located at 5050 Sideline 24, the “Richardson-Will House”; 840 Concession 8 Road, the “Stouffville Christian School”, 5413 Sideline 30, the “Century City”, 429 Concession 8 Road, the “Tran House”, 140 Concession 7 Road, the “Michell House” or “Perennial Gardens”, 5165 Sideline 22, 1095 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline, the “Hammond House”, 5245 Sideline 28, the "Hoover-Watson" House, 635 Uxbridge-Pickering, the "Worker’s Cottages", and the Bentley-Carruthers House, located at Concession 8/Sideline 32, which Transport Canada initially agreed to protect but boarded up in December 2010; (j) does the government have any plans to reinstate the Transport Canada Heritage Working Group; and (k) does the government have any plans to rescind the no-re-rental policy on residential structures and begin to re-rent residential properties when they become vacant?
Q-8372 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to the Canadian Firearms Program: (a) how many long guns have been seized since the inception of the long-gun registry and, of those seized, how many were registered and how many were unregistered; (b) how many long-guns have been seized from individuals as a result of a diagnosed mental illness or emotional instability and, of those, how many were registered and how many were not; (c) how many long-guns have been seized from individuals who have been charged with a violent or serious criminal offense, what were those criminal offenses, broken down by category and, of those, how many of the long-guns seized were registered and how many were not; (d) how many long-guns have been seized from individuals who have been charged or convicted of spousal abuse or domestic violence of any kind and, of those guns seized, how many were registered and how many were not; and (e) how many long-guns have been seized for other reasons than those mentioned above, what are those reasons, and how many of the seized weapons were registered and how many were not?
Q-8382 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to correctional programming provided by Correctional Services Canada (CSC): (a) what are the reasons that explain the sharp decrease in the number of inmates participating in the Living Skills Program since 2000-2001; (b) what are the reasons that explain the sharp increase in the number of inmates participating in the Violent Offenders Program since 2000-2001; (c) how many offenders who are required to participate in correctional programs refuse to participate, broken down by year, since 2000-2001; (d) what are the reasons that explain the sharp decrease in the number of inmates participating in the Substance Abuse Program since 2000-2001; (e) how many offenders are diagnosed on intake as having a substance abuse problem for which they require treatment; (f) how many inmates are otherwise believed by CSC to have an addictions issues; (g) what course of action does CSC take when an inmate diagnosed with an addiction refuses to participate in Substance Abuse programming; (h) what is the cost per inmate to participate in the Substance Abuse Program, broken down per year since 2000-2001; (i) how is CSC programming addressing mentally ill inmates and their associated behavioural issues; (j) on what basis does CSC decide which programs will be offered at which institutions; (k) how does CSC ensure that inmates will have access to the programs they need if all programs are not offered at every institution; (l) in light of the CSC statement that it “will not be expanding the types of programs offered to offenders,” how will CSC meet the diverse needs of the growing inmate population; (m) does CSC have plans to cut the number of programs available to inmates and, if so, which programs and when; (n) what is the Integrated Correctional Program Model, how is it administered to inmates and what current CSC programs will it replace; (o) what are the reasons that explain the increase of inmates participating in the Sex Offender Program in 2009-2010; (p) how many inmates, broken down by year since 2000-2001, have been evaluated by CSC and have been found to require sex offender programming and how many of those inmates have participated in Sex Offender programming, broken down by year since 2000-2001; (q) what is the cost per inmate to participate in the Sex Offender Program, broken down per year since 2000-2001; (r) what is the per inmate spending on correctional programs, broken down annually since 2000-2001; (s) with regard to other correctional intervention programs, broken down per year since 2000-2001, what is the per inmate spending each of the following programs: (i) Offender Case management, (ii) Community Engagement, (iii) Spiritual Services, (iv) Offender Education, (v) CORCAN Employment and Employability; (t) what is the Correctional Reintegration Program, what does it do and where is it available?
Q-8392 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to the government’s support for victims of crime: (a) how do each of the following bills directly assist victims of crime: Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C- 21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-43, An Act to enact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations Modernization Act and to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act, Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interception of private communications and related warrants and orders), Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, Bill C-52, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations, Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts, Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act, Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and Bill S-13, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America; (b) were victims groups consulted in the development of any of these bills and, if so, which groups where consulted, on which bills and what advice was given to the government; (c) broken down per year since 2000-2001, what programs specifically directed to victims of crime has the government funded, how many victims have been served by these programs and how are these services accessed by victims of crime; (d) what is the funding, broken down per year over the past 10 years and over the next 10 years, for grants and contributions for victims of crime; (e) what is the formal position of the government concerning the role that rehabilitation plays in reducing victimization; (f) what is the formal position of the government concerning the role that crime prevention programming plays in reducing victimization; and ( g) what empirical evidence does the government have that mandatory minimum sentences will address the needs of victims of crime?
Q-8402 — December 15, 2010 — Ms. Hall Findlay (Willowdale) — With respect to the ongoing process to acquire 65 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF): (a) which engine will the government be selecting; (b) what analysis has been conducted in terms of engine selection; (c) when was the analysis done; (d) what analysis has been done in regard to the maintenance of the stealth frame and what are the expected maintenance costs; (e) what is the expected cost difference per plane between acquiring the first quantity of JSFs under a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phase and the JSFs bought in the last year of acquisition; (f) will the initial JSFs purchased by Canada have the same operational capability as the later purchases or will they require upgrades; (g) what would be the cost to upgrade the first JSF acquired by Canada to the same level of capabilities as the 65th JSF acquired by Canada; and (h) will Lockheed Martin or the United States pay for any upgrades necessary to ensure that Canada’s first JSF has the same operational capabilities as the last one delivered to it?
Q-8412 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — With regard to the government’s planned purchase of 65 F-35 aircraft and other purchase options made available for the government consideration: (a) when was the decision taken by the government to approve this purchase; (b) what was the quoted unit price given to the government at that time; (c) what was the maintenance and in-service support estimated cost over a period of 20 years at that time; (d) to what amounted the estimated industrial benefits to Canada at the time in terms of dollars and jobs; (e) what other purchase options were made available for the government's consideration; (f) what was the quoted unit price for each other aircraft option at the time; (g) what was the estimated cost for maintenance and in-service support covering a period of 20 years for each option at the time; and (h) to what amounted the estimated industrial benefits to Canada at the time in terms of dollars and jobs?
Q-8422 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — With regard to comments made by the Minister of National Defence at the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence on September 15, 2010: (a) what companies, associations, ministries or groups own the copyright mentioned by the Minister in regards to the Statement of requirements for the replacement of the CF-18s; (b) did any aircraft manufacturer have any input of any kind into the drafting of this Statement of requirements and, if so, which ones; and (c) what is the official policy on Requirement documents published by the Department of National Defence and its accessibility to Members of Parliament?
Q-8432 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — With regard to the Employment Insurance pilot projects known as the “the best 14 weeks”, “working while on claim” and “additional five weeks”: (a) how much, by year, has each of these initiatives cost the government; (b) how many people, by federal riding, year and initiative, made use of these initiatives; (c) how many people, by federal riding, would have seen their Employment Insurance payment diminish without the existence of these projects in 2009; and (d) what would have been, by federal riding, the average difference between the Employment Insurance payment people did receive under these pilot projects and the amount they would have received if these pilot projects would not have existed in 2009?
Q-8442 — December 15, 2010 — Ms. Hall Findlay (Willowdale) — With respect to the discussions with the Republic of Panama concerning a double taxation agreement and a sharing of financial information, as well as discussions concerning an agreement to share financial information, what are (i) the details of the meetings, (ii) the dates, (iii) the details of the correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Panama?
Q-845 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to Canada-Iran trade relations: (a) how many trade commissioners does Canada have in Iran and what is the nature of their work; (b) what is the nature and extent of Canada-Iran trade, in what areas does such trade exist, and is any trade carried out with Iran in the energy, technology, banking, insurance, and/or transportation sector; (c) is there any Export Development Corporation support for any Canadian companies operating in Iran and, if so, what is the nature of that support; (d) what bilateral agreements exist between Canada and Iran and do these bilateral agreements comport with the United Nations and Canadian sanctions; (e) do the SEMA regulations enacted by Canada in July 2010 apply to the Canadian subsidiaries of foreign corporations doing business with Iran and, if not, will the government amend the SEMA regulations to ensure that it is applicable to these subsidiaries; and (f) has the government enacted any forms of sanctions respecting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or any of its agents?
Q-8462 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard to Rights and Democracy, provided that if identifying an individual by name is impossible on privacy grounds, he or she would be identified by a number: (a) what are all the positions that were filled by appointments or contract awards made by the Conservative government since 2006, within or outside the organization, but which deal directly with the organization (e.g., private investigators), specifying at what time each position was created and what justified its creation; (b) where do those positions fit in the organization's hierarchical chart and, when outside the organization, what is their relation with the organization; (c) what criteria did the government use to select candidates for each of those positions, and how were those criteria determined; (d) who were the individuals or firms appointed to fill each of those positions; (e) who were the other individuals or firms that were interviewed or considered by the government for those positions; (f) which of the individuals identified in parts (d) and (e) have (i) held contracts awarded by, (ii) worked for, (iii) volunteered for, or (iv) run for a federal political party, identifying the position held and work done, the timeframe in which it took place and the name of the party; (g) which of the individuals identified in parts (d) and (e) have held governmental appointments in the past, identifying the position held and work done, the timeframe in which it took place, and the name of the appointing political party, Minister, or public office holder; (h) who were the Rights and Democracy employees who left the organization since January 2006, specifying at what date they were hired, what responsibilities they had within the organization, where they fit in the organization's hierarchical chart, at what date they left and the reason for their departure; (i) who were the individuals hired by Rights and Democracy, internally or as subcontractors, since January 2006, specifying at what date they were hired, what responsibilities they have within the organization, and where they fit in the organization's hierarchical chart; (j) which of the individuals identified in part (i) have held contracts awarded by, worked for, volunteered for, or run for a federal political party, identifying the position held and work done, the timeframe in which it took place and the name of the party; (k) which of the individuals identified in part (i) have held governmental appointments in the past, identifying the position held and work done, the timeframe in which it took place and the name of the appointing political party, Minister, or public office holder; (l) with regard to all the contracts awarded by the government since 2006 for studies, investigations or audits involving Rights and Democracy, (i) what were they, (ii) what was the value of each contract, and what was the objective of the study, investigation or audit, (iii) to whom was each contract awarded and based on what criteria, (iv) what was the process used to select the contract recipient, (v) what were the conclusions and recommendations of each of those studies, investigations and audits, (vi) when was each of those studies, investigations and audits made public, (vii) if a study, investigation or audit has not been made public, why, (viii) when was the government provided with the report on each of the studies, investigations or audits, and which government members were provided with the report or a briefing on the report; (m) what were the conclusions and recommendations of the Sirco investigation; and (n) what were the conclusions and recommendations of the forensic audit done by Samson Bélair-Deloitte & Touche?
Q-8472 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard to shoreline erosion: (a) what are all the studies undertaken, ordered or consulted by the government since 2000 to study or take under advisement the problem of eroding shorelines along the St Lawrence River; (b) for each of the studies referred to in (a), (i) who ordered it, (ii) who carried it out, (iii) when was it ordered and when was it delivered, (iv) what stakeholders, e.g., mayors, regional groups of elected officials, companies, lobbyists, etc., were consulted during its preparation, (v) to whom was it submitted; (c) for each of the studies referred to in (a), (i) what suggestions and recommendations were made in it, (ii) which of these suggestions and recommendations have been adopted by the government, (iii) what are the government programs dedicated to implementing the suggestions and recommendations identified in point (c)(ii), (iv) which suggestions and recommendations identified in point (c)(i) were rejected and why; (d) since 2006, for each fiscal year and for each riding bordering the St Lawrence, as well as for all ridings affected by shoreline erosion on the East Coast, identifying the federal program from which the funding came and listing the amounts by riding, by year, by program, by riding-and-year, by riding-and-program, by year-and-program and by riding-year and program, where possible, (i) how much did the federal government spend in that riding during the given year on the suggestions and recommendations identified in point (c)(ii), (ii) how much in total did the federal government spend in that riding during the given year to combat shoreline erosion; (e) how does the government explain differences between the answers to points (d)(i) and (d)(ii); (f) what studies are currently underway to enable the government to monitor the problem of the St Lawrence’s eroding shorelines?
Q-8482 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, since the beginning of Canada’s participation: (a) what was the first evaluation of the acquisition cost-per-plane Canada would pay, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion,briefing note, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided withinformation; (b) for every subsequent re-evaluation of the acquisition cost-per-plane that Canada would pay and up to the government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation (ii) when was thatevaluation made, (iii) based on what information was it made, (iv) who provided the government with that information, (v) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (vi) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vii) what is the topic of that document, (viii) which government members were provided with that information, (ix) as precisely as possible, what new information prompted the re-evaluation; (c) what was the first evaluation of the maintenance and repair cost-per-plane Canada would have to incur, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided with that information; (d) for every subsequent re-evaluation of the maintenance and repair cost-per-plane that Canada would have to incur and up to the government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation, (ii) when was that evaluation made, (iii) based on what information was it made, (iv) who provided the government with that information, (v) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (vi) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vii) what is the topic of that document, (viii) which government members were provided with that information, (ix) as precisely as possible, what new information prompted the re-evaluation; (e) what was the first evaluation of the total cost of Canada's purchase and maintenance of the planes and Canada's participation in the JSF program, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided with that information; (f) for every subsequent re-evaluation of the total cost of Canada's purchase and maintenance of the planes and Canada's participation in the JSF program and up to the government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation, (ii) when was that evaluation made, (iii) based on what information was it made, (iv) who provided the government with that information, (v) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (vi) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vii) what is the topic of that document, (viii) which government members were provided with that information, (ix) as precisely as possible, what new information prompted the re-evaluation; (g) what was the first evaluation of the date of delivery to Canada for the F-35s, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefingnote, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided with that information; and (h) for every subsequent re-evaluation of the date of delivery to Canada for the F-35s and up to government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation, (ii) when was that evaluation made, (iii) based on what information was it made, (iv) who provided the government with that information, (v) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (vi) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vii) what is the topic of that document, (viii) which government members were provided with that information, (ix) as precisely as possible, what new information prompted the re-evaluation?
Q-8492 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, since the beginning of Canada's participation: (a) what are the criteria (operational requirements, contractual conditions, etc.) on which the government is selecting the F-35s as a replacement for the CF-18s; (b) when and by whom were those criteria determined; (c) what are the relevant studies which were conducted prior to determining those criteria, specifying the (i) dates, (ii) names of the studies, (iii) names of individuals requesting the studies, (iv) authors of the studies, (v) names of the individuals presented with the results; (d) before those criteria were determined, on the basis of what information did the government evaluate that the F-35 could satisfy Canada's needs; (e) since the beginning of Canada's participation in the JSF program, what were all the studies conducted that evaluated different fighter planes in relation to Canada's needs, specifying the (i) dates, (ii) names of the studies, (iii) names of individuals requesting the studies, (iv) authors of the studies, (v) studies which were used to evaluate the planes, (vi) names of the individuals who determined those criteria, (vii) planes which were considered in the study, (viii) names of the individuals presented with the results; (f) what is the operational availability of a fleet of 65 fighter jets; (g) what effect will a reduction in Canada's fleet of fighter jets have on operational capability, on Canada's ability to play its role within the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) and on the distribution of fighter jets across Canada's military bases; (h) how did the government determine that Canadian Forces needed 65 planes; (i) what is the formula used to determine the number of planes Canada should buy and who is the author of that formula; (j) for each of the variables in that formula, how was the value of that variable determined, specifying by whom, based on which criteria and how those criteria were determined; (k) what is the definition of a fifth generation fighter jet; (l) what is the history of the "fifth generation" appellation; (m) of the criteria identified in part (a), which ones can only be met by a fifth generation fighter; (n) which governmental officials were directly involved in the JSF competition; (o) does this competition satisfy the government's procurement guidelines, specifying which guidelines it satisfies, and which it does not; (p) how is such a competition different from a public tender; (q) what are all the types of incremental costs associated with maintaining a plane with stealth capability, compared to a similar plane without stealth capability (for example security of storage facilities, special training for pilots, maintenance of stealth capability elements, etc.); (r) what is the expected value of each of those types of incremental costs over the expected life of the F-35s, in Canada's case; (s) what is the sum of those expected values; (t) what is the current expected value of industrial benefits that will befall Canada's aerospace industry if the government buys F-35s; (u) what is the probability distribution which yields this expected value; (v) what is the reasoning behind this probability distribution; (w) expressed as a percentage, what proportion of those benefits identified in (t) is constituted by guaranteed benefits; (x) what are the guaranteed benefits; (y) what proportion of the benefits identified in (t) and in (x) would Canada necessarily forego if the government bought another fighter plane; (z) what is an itemization of the (i) expected, (ii) guaranteed benefits that Canada's industry would necessarily have to forego if the government does not buy the F-35, including dollar values and total sums; (aa) how has the government's evaluation of the information sought in (t) evolved since the beginning of Canada's participation in the JSF program; (bb) on what date did that evaluation change; (cc) what is the name and topic of the governmental document containing that evaluation and which government member was provided with the document; (dd) what is the new, detailed information which prompted the re-evaluation?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Government Business

Private Members' Notices of Motions
M-626 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the Canadian government should make it a priority in relation to its mandate and mission in Afghanistan to give priority to the protection and promotion of human rights in Afghanistan, with particular reference to: (a) protection against child abuse, including neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and forced labour; (b) protection against sexual abuse and violence against women, including spousal abuse, rape and marriages of underage girls; (c) protection against the enslavement and sexual abuse of boys in the practice known as "bacha bazi"; and (d) protection against the persecution of religious minorities and of religious converts.
M-627 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) congratulate Liu Xiaobo, recipient of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China"; (b) pay tribute to Liu Xiaobo's promotion of democratic reform and human rights in China, and the courage with which he has borne repeated imprisonment by Chinese officials for exercising rights guaranteed under the Chinese Constitution; (c) state that in honouring Liu Xiaobo, it also honours all those who have promoted democratic reform in China, including those who participated in the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstration for democratic reform; (d) call on Chinese officials to release Liu Xiaobo from prison and to release from detention and house arrest his wife, Liu Xia, his supporters and all signers of Charter 08; and (e) call on Chinese officials to cease censoring media and Internet reporting of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo and to cease their campaign of defamation against Liu Xiaobo.
M-628 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a National Alzheimer Office within the Public Health Agency of Canada to address the rising tide of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, in conjunction with provincial and territorial departments and agencies.
M-629 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that Canada's social safety net, particularly the Canada Pension Plan, Quebec Pension Plan, and Canada Health Act, are affirmed as a compelling and competitive advantage not offered in other jurisdictions around the world.
M-630 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement a Supplemental Canada Pension Plan and revise the existing Canada Pension Plan so as to remove any systemic inequities.
M-631 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) identify retirement income security, coverage and adequacy as a priority policy area deserving of urgent national attention; and (b) announce concrete measures aimed at addressing the long-term sustainability, coverage and adequacy of Canada's pension and retirement systems.
M-632 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should enact legislation to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act so as to provide a measure of financial security and stability for Canadians collecting long-term disability benefits from a company that becomes insolvent.

Private Members' Business
2 Response requested within 45 days
Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page