Journals
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
2019-08-21 [p.5751]
— Nos. 421-04501 and 421-04502 concerning genetic engineering. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-26-21;
2019-06-17 [p.5654]
— by Mr. Longfield (Guelph), two concerning genetic engineering (Nos. 421-04501 and 421-04502) and one concerning the grain industry (No. 421-04503).
2019-06-10 [p.5514]
— by Mr. Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston), one concerning organ transplants (No. 421-04418) and one concerning cannabis (No. 421-04419).
2019-05-30 [p.5380]
— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning the use of animals in research (No. 421-04049);
2019-05-01 [p.5203]
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:
— No. 421-03303 concerning natural health products. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-119-02;
2019-03-18 [p.4690]
— by Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway), one concerning natural health products (No. 421-03303);
2019-01-28 [p.4495]
— Nos. 421-02939, 421-03013, 421-03014, 421-03015, 421-03016, 421-03017, 421-03018, 421-03029, 421-03035, 421-03042, 421-03082, 421-03083, 421-03084, 421-03085, 421-03086, 421-03087 and 421-03102 concerning the use of animals in research. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-42-08;
2018-11-21 [p.4303]
— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning the use of animals in research (No. 421-02939);
2018-05-03 [p.3181]
— No. 421-02168 concerning the use of animals in research. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-42-04;
2018-03-20 [p.2771]
— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning the use of animals in research (No. 421-02168) and one concerning the fishing industry (No. 421-02169);
2017-07-19 [p.2056]
— No. 421-01334 concerning air transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-132-02;
2017-05-15 [p.1729]
— by Mrs. Nassif (Vimy), one concerning air transportation (No. 421-01334);
2016-12-08 [p.1172]
— by Mr. Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe), two concerning health care services (Nos. 421-01038 and 421-01039), two concerning cannabis (Nos. 421-01040 and 421-01041), one concerning the tax system (No. 421-01042) and one concerning unborn children (No. 421-01043).
2015-06-04 [p.2633]
Q-1155 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the Ebola vaccine developed at the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML): (a) on what date did research for the vaccine begin; (b) what are the names of the scientists involved in the research, and what are their positions; (c) why was the vaccine research initially undertaken; (d) was the research undertaken at any time in relation to anti-bioterrorism, and, if so, during what periods and with what specific mandate; (e) who provided funding for the research and development of the vaccine; (f) was the Government of Canada the only contributor to the research and development fund; (g) how much funding did the government provide, broken down by (i) percentage, (ii) department, (iii) date, (iv) dollar amount of contribution; (h) on what date was a robust immune response demonstrated to the vaccine; (i) on what date were research findings published and in what journal, and, if none were published, why not; (j) on what date was the vaccine patented and when was the initial patent application brought; (k) in which countries is the vaccine patented; (l) during what specific time period was the vaccine produced, (i) how many vials were produced, (ii) who was informed of this production, (iii) how were they informed; (m) was there a competitive process to sell the licensing rights or other entitlements relating to the vaccine; (n) if the process in (m) was created, (i) who developed the criteria for the licensing rights or other entitlements, broken down by position and department, (ii) what were the criteria to obtain the licensing rights or other entitlements, (iii) on what date was the competitive process launched, (iv) how many companies bid for the rights, (v) which companies bid for the rights and on what dates, (vi) how did NewLink Genetics (including Bioprotection Systems Corporation) meet the criteria for the licensing rights or other entitlements; (o) on what date was NewLink Genetics awarded the rights or entitlements; (p) what specific experience did NewLink Genetics have with vaccines, specifically when it comes to manufacturing capacity; (q) what NewLink Genetics products had reached the point of commercial production at the time of its bidding and purchase of the rights; (r) on what date did NewLink Genetics purchase the rights or entitlements from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and for what cost; (s) as part of the licensing agreement, was NewLink Genetics expected to meet any milestones by any particular dates, (i) if so, when, (ii) if not, why not; (t) as part of the licensing agreement, what percentage royalties would NewLink Genetics pay Canada on any sales of the vaccine; (u) to date, how much income has the government obtained from licensing the vaccine, broken down by (i) up-front payments, (ii) milestone payments, (iii) any other payments; (v) did any of the NML or PHAC scientists/staff have any associations or links or monetary or proprietary interests or any other association with NewLink Genetics, and, if so, what are they; (w) did Canadian officials and the licensee meet annually in face-to-face meetings as required by Article 7.9 of the license agreement, and, if so, for all meetings, what is (i) the date, (ii) location, (iii) the names of all persons in attendance; (x) on what date did NewLink Genetics begin clinical trials of the vaccine; (y) how long was the delay between the onset of the commercial relationship with NewLink Genetics and start of clinical trials, broken down by (i) days, (ii) months, (iii) years; (z) what reason was given for the delay in (y); (aa) did the government question the progress of the clinical trials, if so, on what specific dates, and, if not, why not; (bb) in Canada's licensing agreement with NewLink Genetics, did Canada have the right to let other manufacturers make the vaccine for use in other countries "for compassionate care purposes" if NewLink had not received regulatory approval for the vaccine in the target country; (cc) did anyone in Canada urge the government to terminate its agreement with NewLink Genetics, and, if so, (i) who did so, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (dd) did anyone outside Canada request that Canada cancel NewLink's rights under the license, and, if so, (i) who did so, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (ee) did the government terminate the agreement, (i) if so, why, (ii) if not, why not; (ff) if the government terminated the agreement with NewLink Genetics, would Merck have paid the government the $30 million up front and $20 million once larger formal trials begun that went to NewLink Genetics, and would the government have been eligible to receive royalties on sales in certain markets; (gg) did the government approve of NewLink Genetics sub-licensing the vaccine to Merck; (hh) on what date did the government pay for IDT Biologika, to manufacture approximately 1 500 vials of the vaccine suitable for human trials, (i) how much was paid, (ii) was the Department of Defence involved, and, if so, why, (iii) did the Department of Defence contribute any funds; (ii) on what date did the Ebola outbreak begin in West Africa; (jj) on what date did the government reveal it had in storage an experimental vaccine that might be of use in combating the epidemic; (kk) on what date did the government offer vaccine to the World Health Organization (WHO); (ll) how many vials were sent to the WHO by the government, (i) on what date did the vials arrive, (ii) were there any delays; (mm) what are the results of the eight, phase l clinical trials in terms of (i) safety, (ii) immunogenic response, (iii) dose strength for phase 2/3 clinical trials; (nn) on what date did phase 2/3 clinical trials begin in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone; and (oo) what was the government’s involvement overall, broken down by (i) expertise, (ii) funding, (iii) personnel, (iv) other? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1155.
2015-05-08 [p.2508]
Q-1128 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the government’s lawful intercept condition of licenses that requires the licensee to maintain interception capabilities, since 2006, broken down by year and by government departments, institutions and agencies: (a) how many times was a request made for interception; (b) was this request made with a warrant; (c) if a request was made without a warrant, what lawful authority was used, if any; and (d) was the request made for reasons of national security, terrorism, or other? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1128.
2015-03-24 [p.2270]
— by Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta), one concerning transportation (No. 412-5159);
2015-01-26 [p.1980]
Q-794 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With respect to licenses and permits issued by government departments, related to any maritime activity for potential use anywhere within, or in the waters of, the Atlantic provinces: (a) for each license or permit issued since 2009, (i) on what date was each license or permit issued, (ii) who were the owners or operators, (iii) under what conditions concerning the use, retention, or renewal of the license or permit, was it issued; (b) for each vessel whose license was suspended, rejected, or for which a renewal was denied, (i) on what date was the license suspended, rejected, or the renewal denied, (ii) for what reasons, (iii) by whose authority; (c) what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and all entities, departments, companies, contractors, or individuals, relating to the suspension, rejection or denial of license renewal, broken down by
(i) minister or department, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) date, (iv) purpose, (v) origin, (vi) intended destination, (vii) other officials copied or involved; (d) what are the specific rules for the retention or renewal of any such license or permits; (e) what are all rules, files, and correspondence related to observer and dockside monitoring of these license-holders and users, broken down by (i) all relevant file numbers, (ii) entities, companies, contractors, or individuals, (iii) minister or department, (iv) correspondence or file type, (v) date, (vi) purpose, (vii) origin, (viii) intended destination, (ix) other officials copied or involved, (x) military base, asset, or facility, (xi) type of activity or contract; (f) what differences exist in the conditions for licenses or permits among different regions, zones, or provinces; and (g) what are the rules governing the keeping, as opposed to the releasing, of fish caught on boats used for recreational or touristic purposes, broken down by (i) province, (ii) number of applicable licensees or permits? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-794.
2014-09-15 [p.1347]
Q-500 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With regard to the contract announced on February 14, 2014, between the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the government of Saudi Arabia for the supply of armoured vehicles built in London, Ontario, by General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, and the export permits issued by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD) in accordance with the contract: (a) how many export permits has DFATD issued related to the announced contract, and for each permit issued, what was the (i) value, (ii) date, (iii) valid duration; (b) of the $4.02 billion worth in export permits issued to Saudi Arabia in 2011 for exports of Group 2 (military) goods, how many Group 2 permits were related to the announced contract; (c) were the export permits related to the announced contract issued to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, to General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, or to both; and (d) has the Canadian Commercial Corporation charged, or will it charge, fees for its services regarding the announced contract, (i) have these fees been charged or will they be charged to the Saudi Arabia government, to General Dynamics Land Systems Canada or to both, (ii) if so, is the fee a standard amount or is it determined by the size of the contract? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-500.
2014-04-09 [p.815]
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:
— No. 412-1672 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-7-09;
2014-02-24 [p.568]
— by Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands), one concerning health care services (No. 412-1672) and one concerning the economy and employment (No. 412-1673);
2013-06-14 [p.3412]
Q-1340 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the issue of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics in Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario: (a) when was Health Canada approached by the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (b) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (c) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and (i) Canadian Blood Services, (ii) the province of Ontario; (d) when did these consultations take place and if no consultations took place, how did Health Canada determine that consultations were not necessary; (e) when were the locations for the proposed clinics approved; (f) what process did the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics follow to obtain approval for the location of the clinics; (g) what is Health Canada’s policy on the operation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (h) what is Health Canada’s policy with regard to following the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (“Krever report”); (i) what existing statutes, regulations, auditing processes, etc. are in place to ensure the safety of Canada’s blood supply; (j) with regard to ensuring the safety of Canada’s blood supply, what is the regulatory role of (i) Health Canada, (ii) the province, (iii) Canadian Blood Services; (k) what role does Canadian Blood Services play in the establishment or regulation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (l) what does Health Canada’s auditing process for licensing for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada involve; (m) what information is provided to Health Canada by the operators; (n) how often does Health Canada audit these clinics; and (o) what is the relationship between Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in ensuring the safety of blood plasma products purchased from the United States of America? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1340.
2013-05-07 [p.3091]
— No. 411-3481 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-21-34;
2013-05-01 [p.3058]
— by Mr. Rankin (Victoria), two concerning health care services (Nos. 411-3710 and 411-3711);
2013-03-25 [p.2920]
— by Ms. Leslie (Halifax), one concerning health care services (No. 411-3481) and one concerning the protection of the environment (No. 411-3482);
2013-03-08 [p.2846]
Mr. Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River), from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented the Ninth Report of the Committee (User Fee Proposal for Importer Licensing for Non-federally Registered Sector Products). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-195.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 70) was tabled.
2012-12-06 [p.2556]
Q-1003 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) how many applications for License and Authorization for Port Activity and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Entry by a Foreign Vessel have been received from January 1, 2007, to October 19, 2012; and (b) what are the details for each application in (a), including (i) the name of the vessel, (ii) the type of vessel, (iii) the country and port of registry, (iv) the owner’s name, (v) the designated representative in Canada, (vi) the Canadian port for which access is requested, (vii) the reason for the visit to port or EEZ access, (viii) the area fished, (ix) the date of entry, (x) the actual date of departure, (xi) whether the application was approved, approved with conditions, or rejected? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1003.
2012-11-23 [p.2347]
Q-969 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to National Research Council Canada (NRC): (a) what is the department responsible for collecting royalties for patents licensed by NRC; (b) what is the breakdown, in dollars, of billing for royalties for patents licensed by NRC, by month from January, 2010 to the present; (c) what is the amount, in dollars, received by NRC from collecting royalties for patents they have licensed, by month from January, 2010 to the present; (d) what is the amount of outstanding royalties for patents licensed by NRC payable to NRC as of September 21, 2012; (e) how many outstanding bills, pertaining to royalties for patents licensed by NRC that are owed to NRC, have not been issued since January, 2010, by month, and what are each of their dollar amounts; (f) what is the total, in dollars, of outstanding royalties for patents licensed by NRC owed to NRC since January, 2010, by month; (g) where are royalties received for patents licensed by NRC allocated; and (h) which line items in the NRC budget receive how many dollars? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-969.
2012-11-19 [p.2297]
Q-908 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With respect to the licensing or sale of trademarks, official marks, copyrights, patents, industrial designs, integrated circuit topographies, or plant breeders’ rights: (a) how much revenue has each department, agency, or crown corporation received in each fiscal year since 2006-2007 inclusively; (b) how much has each department, agency, or crown corporation spent in enforcement; (c) how many notices has each department, agency, or crown corporation issued or transmitted to third parties in respect of alleged infringements; (d) how many actions has each department, agency, or crown corporation commenced against third parties in respect of alleged infringements; and (e) what is the current status of each such action? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-908.
2012-11-19 [p.2299]
Q-920 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With respect to government advertising mentioning the 2012 Summer Olympics and the 2012 Summer Paralympics, or licensing official Olympic or Canadian Olympic Committee marks: (a) what was the overall budget for advertising (i) in print, (ii) on radio, (iii) on television, (iv) on the internet, (v) any other medium, broken down by department, agency or crown corporation; and (b) what are the (i) dates, (ii) medium, (iii) cost, (iv) subject matter, broken down by individual advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-920.
2012-03-15 [p.990]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the return to the following question made into an Order for Return:
Q-437 — Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine) — With regard to Exploration License No. 1105 (as amended on November 23, 2011) of Corridor Resources Inc., issued by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board: (a) what are the reasons for the two-year extension of Period 1 from five years to seven years (Fundamental Decision 2011.05); (b) what is the total amount of license rental fees that Corridor Resources would have paid during Period 2 before the November 23, 2011, amendment; (c) what is the total amount that Corridor Resources will pay in license rental fees after the amendment; (d) what are the reasons for amending License No. 1105 so that no deposit was required to extend Period 1; (e) has Corridor Resources ever posted a $1 million deposit under License No. 1105; and (f) has Corridor Resources posted deposits for any amount under License No. 1105, either before or after it was amended? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-437.
2011-06-03 [p.16]
— by Mr. Kent (Minister of the Environment) — Report of Operations under the International River Improvements Act for the year 2010, pursuant to the International River Improvements Act, R.S. 1985, c. I-20, s. 51. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-411-168-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development)
2011-03-25 [p.1435]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance:
Q-964 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With respect to the Medical Establishment licensing fee: (a) what is the rationale for the fee increase of 340 percent from $2100 to $7200 effective April 1, 2011; (b) if the rationale is improvements to the program, what will those improvements be; (c) are all dealers selling medical equipment in Canada licensed; and (d) are dealers selling medical equipment in the canadian market via mail orders licensed?
2011-02-10 [p.1226]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Stanton (Simcoe North), seconded by Mr. Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul), Bill C-619, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (notice of opting out and licence for activities), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2011-01-31 [p.1097]
— No. 403-1122 concerning government licences and permits. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-114-01;
2010-11-24 [p.940]
— by Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's), one concerning government licences and permits (No. 403-1122);
2009-09-28 [p.832]
— by Mr. Prentice (Minister of the Environment) — Report of Operations under the International River Improvements Act for the year 2008, pursuant to the International River Improvements Act, R.S. 1985, c. I-20, s. 10. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-402-168-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development)
2009-04-27 [p.412]
— No. 402-0216 concerning transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-402-1-05.
2009-04-02 [p.364]
— by Mr. Prentice (Minister of the Environment) — Reports of Operations under the International River Improvements Act for the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, pursuant to the International River Improvements Act, R.S. 1985, c. I-20, s. 10. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-402-168-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development)
2009-03-13 [p.262]
— by Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta), one concerning the Canada Post Corporation (No. 402-0215) and one concerning transportation (No. 402-0216);
2009-03-12 [p.251]
Q-30 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the installation of cell phone communications towers and the electro-magnetic fields and radio-frequency radiation they emit: (a) when was a federal permit awarded to install a cell phone tower at Saint-Joachim church located at 2 Saint-Anne, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, H9S 4P5; (b) who is the service provider who applied for and was awarded the permit; (c) what justification was given by the service provider for requiring a cell phone tower permit for that particular location; (d) what are the technical specifications of the cell phone tower for which a permit was awarded; (e) what limits or conditions, if any, were attached to the permit; (f) do technical specifications and other permit conditions vary according to the nature of the surrounding environment, specifically as regards to whether schools, hospitals, or residential units are located in the vicinity; (g) what requirements were placed on the City of Pointe-Claire in regards to consulting local residents before a federal permit was awarded for the Saint-Joachim cell phone tower, and were these general requirements applicable to all municipalities in Canada or were all or some conditions specific to this particular tower; (h) how many other permits have been awarded in the past for installation of cell phone towers in Pointe-Claire, where are these located, and who are the providers who operate the towers; (i) what evidence has the government used to establish that cell phone towers are not a threat to human health generally and to the health of vulnerable populations like children specifically; (j) in establishing allowable risks associated with cell phone towers does the government apply a maximum acceptable threshold of risk that incorporates the precautionary principle as laid out in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) and, if not, what other standards, if any, of precaution are reflected in the applied risk threshold; and (k) is the government aware of literature or studies, including the most recent, that suggest there is risk, especially for children, associated with the close proximity of schools, hospitals, or residential units to cell phone towers and, if so, on what basis has the government dismissed these findings? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-402-30.
2009-03-03 [p.188]
The Order was read for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004.
Ms. Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development) for Mr. Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food), seconded by Mr. Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology)), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Debate arose thereon.
2009-02-23 [p.143]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) for Mr. Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food), seconded by Mr. O'Connor (Minister of State), Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2009-01-28 [p.54]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Strahl (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians), seconded by Mr. Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities), Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
Results: 1 - 48 of 48