Journals
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 13 of 13
2013-06-07 [p.3341]
— by Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), one concerning the mining industry (No. 411-4107);
2013-05-31 [p.3239]
— by Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan), one concerning Old Age Security benefits (No. 411-3999) and two concerning genetic engineering (Nos. 411-4000 and 411-4001);
2013-05-30 [p.3226]
— by Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), one concerning the mining industry (No. 411-3988);
2013-05-09 [p.3123]
Q-1255 — Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé) — With regard to the repeal of regulations related to container standards announced in Budget 2011: (a) when exactly will these changes be made; (b) what is the consultation process for making these changes; (c) how much time is scheduled for each step of the process; (d) in his testimony before the AGRI committee on February 28, 2013, the Minister of Agriculture said that some industries can choose not to adopt the regulatory changes, what does this mean for foreign products that do not meet Canadian sizes; (e) are there plans to set aside funds to upgrade equipment (for example, to package the previously non-standard new containers) so that manufacturing companies can remain competitive; (f) what industries were consulted to determine whether the regulations should be repealed; (g) what are the reasons for repealing regulations related to container standards; (h) what industries, groups, stakeholders or companies called for the repeal of regulations related to container standards; (i) are there studies or reports on the economic impact of repealing these regulations and, if so, what are they; (j) will there be changes for requesting and administering ministerial exemptions and, if so, what are they; (k) were analyses done to determine how repealing regulations related to container standards could improve inter-provincial trade; (l) are there expected to be savings or extra costs for Canadian food processors following the repeal of regulations related to container standards and, if so, what kind; (m) are there expected to be savings or extra costs for consumers following the repeal of regulations related to container standards and, if so, what kind; and (n) are there expected to be savings or extra costs for farmers following the repeal of regulations related to container standards and, if so, what kind? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1255.
2013-05-08 [p.3108]
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-1255 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-411-39.
2013-05-06 [p.3086]
Q-1242 — Mr. Choquette (Drummond) — With regard to the Customs Tariff: (a) how many complaints were there from March 1, 2012, to March 1, 2013, concerning agricultural products; (b) how many complaints were there concerning Chapter 63; (c) how many complaints were there concerning mesh bags under HS code 6305.32.00; (d) what measures did the government take to address the concerns raised by these complaints; (e) is the government planning to review the Customs Tariff; (f) are small businesses that do not have access to a specialized bagging machinery serial number in the Customs Tariff penalized; and (g) are small businesses that do not have the machinery required in the tax exemption forms subject to financial consequences? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1242.
2013-01-28 [p.2664]
Q-1084 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the Budget 2012 commitment to “repeal regulations related to container standards” on various foods: (a) what market impact studies were completed at the time of this commitment and what were those projected impacts; (b) what were the projected impacts on consumers from this commitment; (c) what were the projected impacts on farmers from this commitments; (d) what were the projected impacts on Canadian food processers affected by this commitment; (e) how many hours have been spent, broken down by month, since January 1, 2011, tracking down container standard size violations in (i) baby food packaging, (ii) pre-packaged meat packaging, (iii) honey packaging, (iv) maple syrup packaging, (v) fruits and vegetable packaging; and (f) what has been the cost to the government, broken down by month since January 1, 2011, of tracking down container standard size violations in (i) baby food packaging, (ii) pre-packaged meat packaging, (iii) honey packaging, (iv) maple syrup packaging, (v) fruits and vegetable packaging? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1084.
2012-09-17 [p.1916]
— Nos. 411-1158 and 411-1208 concerning the mining industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-40-03;
2012-09-17 [p.1917]
— No. 411-1445 concerning the fur industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-62-05;
2012-06-20 [p.1878]
— by Ms. Davies (Vancouver East), one concerning the fishing industry (No. 411-1444), one concerning the fur industry (No. 411-1445) and one concerning Old Age Security benefits (No. 411-1446);
2012-06-01 [p.1365]
— by Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood), one concerning the mining industry (No. 411-1208);
2012-01-30 [p.708]
Q-294 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With respect to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and its responsibilities for the administration of the food labelling, packaging and advertising policies under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act: (a) what is the total number, for each of the fiscal years from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012, across Canada as a whole and broken down by province, of (i) inspectors at the CFIA, (ii) newly hired inspectors at the CFIA, (iii) inspectors who retired from the CFIA, (iv) employees assigned to the CFIA Process, Formulation and Label Registration Unit; (b) what is the total number, for each of the fiscal years from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012, across Canada as a whole and broken down by province, of inspections conducted by a CFIA inspector of a product at a dealer, broken down by (i) retailer, (ii) manufacturer, (iii) processor, (iv) producer, (v) business engaged in importing any product, (vi) business engaged in packing any product, (vii) business engaged in selling any product; (c) for the answer to each part of (b), was the inspection at (i) a site randomly selected, (ii) a site in which the inspection was pre-arranged with any of the individuals or groups identified in (b); (d) for the answer to each part of (c), was the reason for the inspection related to (i) misleading advertising or labelling of exaggerated or unproven nutrition and health claims, (ii) misleading labelling information of the country of origin claims; (e) for the answer to each part of (b), (c) and (d), how many, (i) products or any labelling, packaging or advertising materials were seized and detained by the inspectors, (ii) cases of non-compliance were identified during inspections; (f) for the answer to each part of (e), how many inspections lead to (i) the prosecution of an individual, (ii) the prosecution of a dealer, (iii) a summary conviction or a conviction on indictments of an individual with a fine, (iv) a summary conviction or a conviction on indictments of a dealer with a fine, (v) a summary conviction or a conviction on indictments of an individual with a prison term? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-294.
2011-06-22 [p.134]
Mrs. Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul), from the Standing Committee on Health, presented the First Report of the Committee (proposed tobacco regulations). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-5.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 3) was tabled.
Results: 1 - 13 of 13

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data