Journals
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 215
2020-11-25 [p.318]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway), seconded by Mr. Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona), Bill C-255, An Act respecting the development of a national employment strategy for persons with disabilities, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2020-11-25 [p.319]
— by Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East), one concerning health (No. 432-00287);
2020-11-25 [p.319]
— by Ms. McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona), one concerning health (No. 432-00290);
2020-11-25 [p.319]
— by Mr. Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay), one concerning the environment (No. 432-00291);
2020-11-20 [p.295]
— by Ms. Collins (Victoria), one concerning culture and heritage (No. 432-00252);
2020-11-20 [p.295]
— by Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East), one concerning social affairs and equality (No. 432-00254).
2020-11-19 [p.288]
— by Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni), one concerning health (No. 432-00248);
2020-11-18 [p.280]
— by Mr. Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay), one concerning the environment (No. 432-00239);
2020-11-18 [p.281]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into orders for return:
Q-98 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement by the Department of Justice Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: how much has been spent on settled cases, requests for direction, and other proceedings where Canada has been either the plaintiff or defendant before appellate courts (such as the Ontario Superior Court or the Supreme Court of British Columbia) related to survivors of St. Anne's Residential School between 2013 and October 1, 2020, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-98.
2020-11-18 [p.281]
Q-99 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, between January 2019 and October 2020: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay by organizations tasked with subgranting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-99.
2020-11-18 [p.282]
Q-100 — Mr. Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay) — With regards to federal expenditures in the electoral district of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, broken down by fiscal years 2018-19 and 2019-20: what were the total amounts spent by the federal government, broken down by the (i) department or agency, (ii) community, (iii) contribution agreement, (iv) purpose of spending? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-100.
2020-11-18 [p.282]
Q-101 — Mr. Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay) — With regard to the Softwood Lumber Action Plan announced on June 1, 2017, broken down by department or agency and contribution agreement: (a) what companies, organizations or communities have received funding; (b) how much has been received by each community, company or organization; (c) for what purpose has each contribution been used; (d) for each community, company or organization, how many people have been assisted; (e) have all of the original $867 million dollars been expended, and, if not, how much remains to be expended; and (f) have additional funds been allocated to this action plan or under other government initiatives to assist those negatively impacted by the tariffs put in place by the United States? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-101.
2020-11-18 [p.285]
The order was read for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill C-213, An Act to enact the Canada Pharmacare Act.
Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie), moved, — That the bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
Debate arose thereon.
2020-11-17 [p.274]
— by Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East), one concerning foreign affairs (No. 432-00231);
2020-11-16 [p.240]
Pursuant to order made Wednesday, September 23, 2020, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Singh (Burnaby South), — That, given that since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian billionaires are $37 billion richer while the most vulnerable are struggling, the House call upon the government to put in place a new one percent tax on wealth over $20 million and an excess profit tax on big corporations that have been profiteering from the pandemic, and to re-invest the billions of dollars recouped from these measures to: (a) expand income security programs to ensure all individuals residing in Canada have a guaranteed livable basic income; (b) expand health care, including by putting in place a national dental care program and a universal, single-payer, public pharmacare program; and (c) meaningfully implement the right to housing with the full plan set out in the Recovery for All campaign and immediately fund a "For Indigenous, By Indigenous" urban, rural and Northern housing strategy delivered by Indigenous housing providers.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 22 -- Vote no 22) - View vote details.
YEAS: 27, NAYS: 292
2020-11-16 [p.251]
Q-27 — Ms. McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona) — With regard to Canada’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: (a) what is the role or mandate of each department, agency, Crown corporation and any programs thereof in advancing Canada’s implementation of the 2030 Agenda; (b) what has the government, as a whole, committed to achieving and in what timeline; (c) what projects are currently in place to achieve these goals; (d) has the government liaised with sub-national governments, groups and organizations to achieve these goals; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what governments, groups and organizations; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why not; (g) how much money has the government allocated to funding initiatives in each fiscal year since 2010-11, broken down by program and sub-program; (h) in each year, how much allocated funding was lapsed for each program and subprogram; (i) in each case where funding was lapsed, what was the reason; (j) have any additional funds been allocated to this initiative; (k) for each fiscal year since 2010-2011, what organizations, governments, groups and companies, have received funding connected to Canada’s implementation of the 2030 Agenda; and (l) how much did organizations, governments, groups and companies in (k) (i) request, (ii) receive, including if the received funding was in the form of grants, contributions, loans or other spending? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-27.
2020-11-16 [p.251]
Q-28 — Ms. McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona) — With regard to the government’s campaign for a United Nations Security Council seat: (a) how much funding has been allocated, spent and lapsed in each fiscal year since 2014-15 on the campaign; and (b) broken down by month since November 2015, what meetings and phone calls did government officials at the executive level hold to advance the goal of winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-28.
2020-11-16 [p.252]
Q-29 — Ms. McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona) — With respect to the government’s response to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, broken down by month since June 2019: (a) what meetings and phone calls did government officials at the executive level hold to craft the national action plan in response to the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; and (b) what external stakeholders were consulted? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-29.
2020-11-16 [p.252]
Q-30 — Ms. McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona) — With regard to Canada Revenue Agency activities, agreements guaranteeing non-referral to the criminal investigation sector and cases referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, between 2011-12 and 2019-20, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many audits resulting in reassessments were concluded; (b) of the agreements concluded in (a), what was the total amount recovered; (c) of the agreements concluded in (a), how many resulted in penalties for gross negligence; (d) of the agreements concluded in (c), what was the total amount of penalties; (e) of the agreements concluded in (a), how many related to bank accounts held outside Canada; and (f) how many audits resulting in assessments were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-30.
2020-11-16 [p.254]
Q-40 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to the National Housing Strategy, broken down by name of applicant, type of applicant (e.g. non-profit, for-profit, coop), stream (e.g. new construction, revitalization), date of submission, province, number of units, and dollar amount for each finalized application: (a) how many applications have been received for the National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCF) since 2018; (b) how many NHCF applications have a letter of intent, excluding those with loan agreements or finalized agreements; (c) how many NHCF applications are at the loan agreement stage; (d) how many NHCF applications have had funding agreements finalized; (e) how many NHCF applications have had NHCF funding received by applicants; (f) for NHCF applications that resulted in finalized funding agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their funding agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting NHCF affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting affordability criteria; (g) how many applications have been received for the Rental Construction Financing initiative (RCFi) since 2017; (h) how many RCFi applications are at (i) the approval and letter of intent stage of the application process, (ii) the loan agreement and funding stage, (iii) the servicing stage; (h) how many RCFi applications have had RCFi loans received by applicants; and (i) for RCFi applications that resulted in loan agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their loan agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting RCFi affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting affordability criteria? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-40.
2020-11-16 [p.255]
Q-41 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to the National Housing Strategy: (a) what provinces and territories have reached an agreement with the federal government regarding the Canada Housing Benefit; (b) broken down by number of years on a waitlist for housing, gender, province, year of submission, amount requested and amount paid out, (i) how many applications have been received, (ii) how many applications are currently being assessed, (iii) how many applications have been approved, (iv) how many applications have been declined; and (c) if the Canada Housing Benefit is transferred as lump sums to the provinces, what are the dollar amount of transfers to the provinces, broken down by amount, year and province? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-41.
2020-11-16 [p.255]
Q-42 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to immigration, refugee and citizenship processing levels: (a) how many applications have been received since 2016, broken down by year and stream (e.g. outland spousal sponsorship, home childcare provider, open work permit, privately sponsored refugee, etc.); (b) how many applications have been fully approved since 2015, broken down by year and stream; (c) how many applications have been received since (i) March 15, 2020, (ii) September 21, 2020; (d) how many applications have been approved since (i) March 15, 2020, (ii) September 21, 2020; (e) how many applications are in backlog since January 2020, broken down by month and stream; (f) what is the number of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) visa officers and other IRCC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), who have been processing applications since January 1, 2020, broken down by month, immigration office and application stream being processed; (g) since March 15, 2020, how many employees referred to in (f) have been placed on paid leave broken down by month, immigration office and application stream being processed; and (h) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence since January 2020 related to (i) staffing levels, (ii) IRCC office closures, (iii) the operation levels of IRCC mail rooms, (iv) plans to return to increased operation? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-42.
2020-11-16 [p.255]
Q-43 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to asylum seekers: (a) broken down by year, how many people have been turned away due to the Safe Third Country Agreement since (i) 2016, (ii) January 1, 2020, broken by month, (iii) July 22, 2020; (b) how many asylum claims have been found ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Immigration, Refugee and Protection Act since (i) January 1 2020, broken by month, (ii) July 22, 2020; and (c) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence since January 1, 2020, on the Safe Third Country Agreement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-43.
2020-11-16 [p.257]
Q-52 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by year for the most recent 10 fiscal years for which data is available: (a) what was the number of disability benefit applications received; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) rejected, (ii) approved, (iii) appealed, (iv) rejected upon appeal, (v) approved upon appeal; (c) what was the average wait time for a decision; (d) what was the median wait time for a decision; (e) what was the ratio of veteran to case manager at the end of each fiscal year; (f) what was the number of applications awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year; and (g) what was the number of veterans awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-52.
2020-11-16 [p.258]
Q-53 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by job title, including National First Level Appeals Officer, National Second Level Appeals Officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator; (b) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the average number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by (i) job title, including National First Level Appeals Officer, National Second Level Appeals Officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (c) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total cost of overtime, further broken down by (i) job title, including National First Level Appeals Officer, National Second Level Appeals Officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (d) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of disability benefit claims, further broken down by (i) new claims, (ii) claims awaiting a decision, (iii) approved claims, (iv) denied claims, (v) appealed claims; (e) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many new disability benefit claims were transferred to a different VAC office than that which conducted the intake; (f) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the number of (i) case managers, (ii) veterans service agents; (g) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many case managers took a leave of absence, and what was the average length of a leave of absence; (h) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, accounting for all leaves of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many full-time equivalent case managers were present and working, and what was the case manager to veteran ratio; (i) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were disengaged from their case manager; (j) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the highest number of cases assigned to an individual case manager; (k) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were on a waitlist for a case manager; (l) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, for work usually done by regularly employed case managers and veterans service agents, (i) how many contracts were awarded, (ii) what was the duration of each contract, (iii) what was the value of each contract; (m) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by VAC office, what were the service standard results; (n) what is the mechanism for tracking the transfer of cases between case managers when a case manager takes a leave of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave; (o) what is the department’s current method for calculating the case manager to veteran ratio; (p) what are the department’s quality assurance measures for case managers and how do they change based on the number of cases a case manager has at that time; (q) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many individuals were hired by the department; (r) how many of the individuals in (q) remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (s) of the individuals in (q), who did not remain employed beyond the probation period, how many did not have their contracts extended by the department; (t) does the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what are the reasons for which employees were not kept beyond the probation period; (u) for the individuals in (q) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office; (v) during the last five fiscal years for which data is available, broken down by month, how many Canadian Armed Forces service veterans were hired by the department; (w) of the veterans in (v), how many remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (x) of the veterans in (v), who are no longer employed by the department, (i) how many did not have their employment contracts extended by the department, (ii) how many were rejected on probation; (y) if the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what are the reasons for which veteran employees are not kept beyond the probation period; (z) for the veterans in (v), who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what were the reasons for their leaving, broken down by VAC office; (aa) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many employees have quit their jobs at VAC; and (bb) for the employees in (aa) who quit their job, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-53.
2020-11-16 [p.261]
Q-59 — Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni) — With regard to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC), since its establishment: (a) how many complaints and requests for review were filed by individuals identifying as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit, broken down by percentage and number; (b) how many of the complaints and requests for review in (a) were dismissed without being investigated; (c) how many complaints and requests for review were filed for incidents occurring on-reserve or in predominantly First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, broken down by percentage and number; (d) how many of those complaints and requests for review in (c) were dismissed without being investigated; and (e) for requests for review in which the CRCC is not satisfied with the RCMP’s report, how many interim reports have been provided to complainants for response and input on recommended actions? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-59.
2020-11-16 [p.262]
Q-60 — Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni) — With regard to active transportation in Canada: what federal actions and funding has been taken with or provided to provinces and municipalities, broken down by year since 2010, that (i) validates the use of roads by cyclists and articulates the safety-related responsibilities of cyclists and other vehicles in on-road situation, (ii) grants authority to various agencies to test and implement unique solutions to operational problems involving active transportation users, (iii) improves road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users, (iv) makes the purchase of bicycles and cycling equipment more affordable by reducing sales tax on their purchase? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-60.
2020-11-16 [p.262]
Q-66 — Mr. Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With regard to the information collected by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) regarding electronic funds transfers of $10,000 and over and the statement by the Minister of National Revenue before the Standing Committee on Finance on May 19, 2016, indicating that using this information, the CRA will target up to four jurisdictions per year, without warning, broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17: (a) how many foreign jurisdictions were targeted; (b) what is the name of each foreign jurisdiction targeted; (c) how many audits were conducted by the CRA for each foreign jurisdiction targeted; (d) of the audits in (c), how many resulted in a notice of assessment; (e) of the audits in (c), how many were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (f) of the investigations in (e), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (g) how many prosecutions in (f) resulted in convictions; (h) what were the penalties imposed for each conviction in (g); and (i) what is the total amount recovered? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-66.
2020-11-16 [p.262]
Q-67 — Mr. Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) activities under the General Anti-Avoidance Rule under section 245 of the Income Tax Act, and under section 274 of the Income Tax Act, broken down by section of the act: (a) how many audits have been completed, since the fiscal year 2011-12, broken down by fiscal year and by (i) individual, (ii) trust, (iii) corporation; (b) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA since the fiscal year 2011-12, broken down by fiscal year and by (i) individual, (ii) trust, (iii) corporation; (c) what is the total amount recovered by the CRA to date; (d) how many legal proceedings are currently underway, broken down by (i) Tax Court of Canada, (ii) Federal Court of Appeal, (iii) Supreme Court of Canada; (e) how many times has the CRA lost in court, broken down by (i) name of taxpayer, (ii) Tax Court of Canada, (iii) Federal Court of Appeal, (iv) Supreme Court of Canada; (f) what was the total amount spent by the CRA, broken down by lawsuit; and (g) how many times has the CRA not exercised its right of appeal, broken down by lawsuit, and what is the justification for each case? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-67.
2020-11-16 [p.263]
Q-68 — Mr. Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) interdepartmental committee that reviews files and makes recommendations on the application of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), broken down by fiscal year since 2010-11: (a) how many of the proposed GAAR assessments sent to the CRA’s headquarters for review were referred to the interdepartmental committee; and (b) of the assessments reviewed in (a) by the interdepartmental committee, for how many assessments did the interdepartmental committee (i) recommend the application of the GAAR, (ii) not recommend the application of the GAAR? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-68.
2020-11-16 [p.263]
Q-69 — Mr. Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With regard to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, since March 22, 2016: (a) what is the complete list of infrastructure projects that have undergone a Climate Lens assessment, broken down by stream; and (b) for each project in (a), what are the details, including (i) amount of federal financing, (ii) location of the project, (iii) a brief description of the project, (iv) whether the project included a Climate Change Resilience Assessment, (v) whether the project included a Climate Change Green House Gas Mitigation Assessment, (vi) if a project included a Climate Change Resilience Assessment, a summary of the risk management findings of the assessment, (vii) if a project included a Climate Change Green House Gas Mitigation Assessment, the increase or reduction in emissions calculated in the assessment? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-69.
2020-11-16 [p.263]
Q-70 — Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni) — With regard to the motion respecting the business of supply on service standards for Canada's veterans adopted by the House on November 6, 2018: (a) what was the amount and percentage of all lapsed spending in the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC), broken down by year from 2013-14 to the current fiscal year; (b) what steps has the government taken since then to automatically carry forward all unused annual expenditures of the VAC to the next fiscal year; and (c) is the carry forward in (b) for the sole purpose of improving services to Canada's veterans until the department meets or exceeds the 24 service standards it has set? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-70.
2020-11-16 [p.264]
Q-71 — Mr. Green (Hamilton Centre) — With respect to the tax fairness motion that the House adopted on March 8, 2017: what steps has the government taken since then to (i) cap the stock option loophole, (ii) tighten the rules for shell corporations, (iii) renegotiate tax treaties that allow corporations to repatriate profits from tax havens back to Canada without paying tax, (iv) end forgiveness agreements without penalty for individuals suspected of tax evasion? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-71.
2020-11-16 [p.264]
Q-74 — Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) — With regard to federal transfers to provinces and territories since March 1, 2020, excluding the Canada Health Transfer, Canada Social Transfer, Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing: (a) how much funding has been allocated to provincial and territorial transfers, broken down by province or territory; (b) how much has actually been transferred to each province and territory since March 1, 2020, broken down by transfer payment and by stated purpose; and (c) for each transfer payment identified in (b), what mechanisms exist for the federal government to ensure that the recipient allocates funding towards its stated purpose? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-74.
2020-11-16 [p.267]
Q-90 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to testing for SARS-CoV-2: (a) for each month since March, 2020, (i) what SARS-CoV-2 testing devices were approved, including the name, manufacturer, device type, whether the testing device is intended for laboratory or point-of-care use, and the date authorized, (ii) what was the length in days between the submission for authorization and the final authorization for each device; (b) for each month since March, how many Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 have been (i) procured, (ii) deployed across Canada; (c) for what testing devices has the Minister of Health issued an authorization for importation and sale under the authority of the interim order respecting the importation and sale of medical devices for use in relation to COVID-19; (d) for each testing device so authorized, which ones, as outlined in section 4(3) of the interim order, provided the minister with information demonstrating that the sale of the COVID-19 medical device was authorized by a foreign regulatory authority; and (e) of the antigen point-of-care testing devices currently being reviewed by Health Canada, which are intended for direct purchase or use by a consumer at home? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-90.
2020-11-05 [p.224]
The order was read for the consideration of the business of supply.
Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Singh (Burnaby South), moved, — That, given that since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian billionaires are $37 billion richer while the most vulnerable are struggling, the House call upon the government to put in place a new one percent tax on wealth over $20 million and an excess profit tax on big corporations that have been profiteering from the pandemic, and to re-invest the billions of dollars recouped from these measures to: (a) expand income security programs to ensure all individuals residing in Canada have a guaranteed livable basic income; (b) expand health care, including by putting in place a national dental care program and a universal, single-payer, public pharmacare program; and (c) meaningfully implement the right to housing with the full plan set out in the Recovery for All campaign and immediately fund a "For Indigenous, By Indigenous" urban, rural and Northern housing strategy delivered by Indigenous housing providers.
Debate arose thereon.
2020-11-05 [p.227]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Singh (Burnaby South), in relation to the business of supply.
The debate continued.
2020-11-05 [p.227]
The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to order made Wednesday, September 23, 2020, the recorded division was deferred until Monday, November 16, 2020, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
2020-11-04 [p.220]
— by Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni), one concerning health (No. 432-00213);
2020-10-29 [p.191]
— by Mr. Duvall (Hamilton Mountain), one concerning foreign affairs (No. 432-00178);
2020-10-29 [p.195]
Ms. Collins (Victoria), seconded by Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway), moved the following amendment, — That the motion be amended by deleting subsection (i) and by replacing the words “(ii) schedule no fewer than 10 meetings, (iii)” with the words “(i) schedule no fewer than seven meetings, (ii)”.
Debate arose thereon.
2020-10-28 [p.188]
— by Mr. Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay), one concerning the environment (No. 432-00175);
2020-10-26 [p.178]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford), seconded by Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni), Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (anchorage prohibition), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2020-10-23 [p.166]
— by Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni), one concerning fisheries (No. 432-00146);
2020-10-23 [p.166]
— by Mr. Masse (Windsor West), two concerning consumer protection (Nos. 432-00147 and 432-00148), one concerning business and trade (No. 432-00149) and one concerning the environment (No. 432-00150).
2020-10-19 [p.109]
Pursuant to Standing Order 52, Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni) asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, fisheries in Nova Scotia.
The Speaker decided that the matter was proper to be discussed and, pursuant to Standing Order 52(9), directed that it be considered later today, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
2020-10-19 [p.109]
At 7:13 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 52(10), the House proceeded to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, fisheries in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni), seconded by Mr. Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie), moved, — That this House do now adjourn.
Debate arose thereon.
At midnight, the Speaker declared the motion adopted.
2020-10-08 [p.97]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway), seconded by Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe), Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (composition of boards of directors), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2020-10-07 [p.94]
— by Mr. Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay), one concerning the environment (No. 432-00084);
2020-10-06 [p.75]
— by Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni), one concerning fisheries (No. 432-00070);
2020-10-05 [p.70]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke), seconded by Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe), Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2020-10-05 [p.70]
— by Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River), two concerning the environment (Nos. 432-00064 and 432-00065);
2020-10-02 [p.64]
— by Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni), one concerning health (No. 432-00054);
2020-09-30 [p.53]
— by Mr. Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay), one concerning the environment (No. 432-00039);
2020-09-30 [p.53]
— by Mr. Duvall (Hamilton Mountain), one concerning foreign affairs (No. 432-00041);
2020-09-28 [p.26]
— by Mr. Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay), one concerning the environment (No. 432-00019);
2020-09-28 [p.26]
— by Mr. Johns (Courtenay—Alberni), one concerning health (No. 432-00022);
Results: 1 - 60 of 215 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data