Journals
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 47 of 47
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 T...
Expand
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.
Collapse
2013-06-03 [p.3260]
Q-1316 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the Nuclear Liability Act and nuclear safety: (a) will th...
Expand
Q-1316 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the Nuclear Liability Act and nuclear safety: (a) will the Department of Natural Resources Canada organize a public consultation with a variety of environmental and socio-economic stakeholders on the modernization of the Nuclear Liability Act before revisions are tabled in Parliament; (b) will the Department of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) provide the policy objectives of the Nuclear Liability Act; (c) in considering revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act, what criteria is the government currently using to determine the liability of nuclear operators; (d) will NRCan release all comments provided by industry to its May 2013 consultation document on the Nuclear Liability Act; (e) how does NRCan define “the limitation, to a reasonable level and in a manner that is consistent with Canada’s international obligations, of the risks to national security, the health and safety of persons and the environment that are associated with the development, production and use of nuclear energy” as laid out in the objectives of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act; (f) has NRCan or any agency under its authority assessed the potential consequences of a major accidental radiation release at a Canadian nuclear facility; (g) will NRCan commission a study on the consequences of a large accidental radiation release at the Darlington nuclear station, the Pickering nuclear station, the Point Lepreau nuclear station, and the Bruce nuclear station to inform a public consultation on revising the Nuclear Liability Act and publicly release the results; (h) will NRCan provide the preliminary conclusions of the Atomic Energy Control Board’s (AECB) severe accident study; (i) will NRCan provide the AECB’s rationale for abandoning the severe accident study; (j) has NRCan reviewed the frequency and magnitude of reactor accidents based on the world-wide record as recommended by the Inter-departmental Work Group on the Nuclear Liability Act in 1984, and if so, will NRCan share the conclusions of this review;
(k) has Environment Canada considered the impact of a proposed Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act or the current Nuclear Liability Act on Canada’s commitment to sustainability and the polluter-pays principle, and if so, will Environment Canada provide the results of the department’s analysis; (l) has NRCan considered the impact of the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act or the Nuclear Liability Act on Canada’s commitment to sustainability and the polluter-pays principle, and if so, will NRCan provide the results of the department’s analysis; (m) could NRCan provide the government policy objective that lead to the passage of the Nuclear Liability Act and describe how and when this policy was established; (n) could NRCan provide the government policy objective that informed the development of the proposed Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act and describe how and when this policy was established; (o) did NRCan reconsider Canada’s policy on nuclear liability protection following the Fukushima disaster; (p) under which conditions would NRCan accept an unlimited liability regime for the updated Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act in the event of a nuclear accident, and if none, why not; (q) has NRCan estimated the implicit subsidy per kilowatt that would be created by raising the liability limit to $650 million and $1 billion as opposed to an unlimited liability, and if so, will NRCan share the results; (r) does NRCan have a policy on assessing and reporting on the energy market distortions created by the implicit subsidy created by current and future caps on nuclear operator liability; (s) how often does NRCan verify the insurance capacity of the insurers in Canada; and (t) how does NRCan define the “reasonable” cost of insurance in determining the maximum level required of nuclear operators? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1316.
Collapse
2013-05-09 [p.3121]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of ...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1254 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to access to information requests ATI 2012-005 and 2012-006 submitted by Ms. Kirsty Duncan, M.P., for which a response was sent on February 22, 2013: (a) on what date were the two submissions made and what was the timeframe for completing the response; (b) why were the two requests returned together, some parts featuring page numbers and others not; (c) how many updates have been received from the Canadian Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) Systematic Review Group to date, (i) how many studies in total have met the criteria for inclusion in the review, (ii) why does the group not identify, for each complication, the number of cases per number of people treated, (iii) why does the government not provide, for each serious complication listed, the number of cases per population treated; (d) on what date was the request for proposals for the CCSVI trials first drafted, (i) how may drafts were undertaken and on what dates, (ii) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (iii) on what date did the provincial and territorial Ministers of Health review the draft, (iv) what was the feedback provided; (e) why, on November 22, 2012, was the amount available for the CCSVI trials in the range of $3-5 million, (i) what is the significance of the expression "should we just fudge a number"; (f) how was the decision made to earmark $3 million for the CCSVI trials and on what date was the decision made; (g) on what date and at what time was the Request for Applications (RFA) announcement for clinical trials published on the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR)'s website, (i) on what date and at what time was Bill C-280, An Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI), scheduled to be debated; (h) why was there a change by the President's office at CIHR that the commitment from the CIHR be $2 million with the balance to come from partners, i.e. the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC) and ''relevant provinces and territories'', and what were the relevant provinces and territories referred to; (i) how many versions of the Multiple Sclerosis (MS) research update deck were produced and on what dates, (i) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (ii) when was the final draft presented, and for what purpose; (j) how many government MPs has the Health Minister met with on the issue of CCSVI/MS since May 2010, and how many government MPs have the Minister's officials met with on the issue of CCSVI/MS since May 2010; (k) how many draft speeches were prepared for government MPs for Motion M-274, (i) how many versions of each speech were produced and on what dates, (ii) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (iii) how many government MPs read these prepared speeches; (l) regarding the briefing note for Dr. Alain Beaudet`s meeting with Dr. Jeffrey Turnbull, President of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) on December 21, 2010, why did a recommendation in the briefing note state "The possibility of the CMA producing a position statement regarding patient access to physicians for patients who have received the Zamboni procedure", and "The fact that CIHR would be willing to provide the CMA with any necessary support in order to produce this statement", when the Scientific Expert Working Group (SEWG) stated that, "media reports that have stated that Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients who experience complications after Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) treatment are not being seen by Canadian doctors are not justified"; (m) regarding the briefing note for Dr. Alain Beaudet's meeting with Paul Emile Cloutier, CEO of the CMA on January 31, 2012, which shows CMA President Haggie testified before a Senate committee on Dec 2, 2011, and a House committee on October 17, 2011, (i) did President Haggie bring up at either committee meeting CMA's lack of support for either bills C-280 or S-204, (ii) why was President Haggie unaware of the lack of follow-up care for MS patients treated for CCSVI when President Turnbull was made aware, (iii) why was there a hiatus in correspondence with the CMA, (iv) for how long was the hiatus, (v) when did the hiatus end; (n) regarding the MS-Societies' seven funded studies regarding CCSVI, why was there, at the 18-month mark, an inquiry into the training of the teams, (i) which of the teams were trained by Dr. Zamboni and which individual members of each team were trained by Dr. Zamboni, (ii) which of the teams were trained by Dr. Zivadinov and which individual members of each team were trained by Dr. Zivadinov, (iii) which teams were trained by neither or by another team; (o) how many people worked on drafts of prepared speeches for bill C-280, An Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI), for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers and how many government MPs read these prepared speeches; (p) how many people worked on drafts of prepared speeches for bill S-204, An Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI), for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (i) how many government Senators read these prepared speeches; (q) on what dates was the Canadian MS Monitoring System to be ready to receive data and when did the system start collecting data; (r) is the government's position regarding MS patients’ input into the Scientific Expert Working Group (SEWG) in accordance with the statement "CIHR's Scientific Expert Working Group includes researchers with expertise in different disciplines such as neurology, vascular surgery and vascular imaging who are treating MS patients and who will be bringing their patients' concerns to the table" (ATIP); (s) is it still the government's position that "Benoit's motion speaks far more to PHAC's monitoring system than anything we are doing on the trials front" (ATIP); (t) how many draft MS slide decks were prepared for Senatorial Caucus, (i) how many versions of each deck were produced and on what dates, (ii) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (iii) who presented the deck to the Senatorial Caucus; (u) is the government's position as per the information sheet provided when Dr. Alain Beaudet wrote to the Colleges of Physicians on February 29, 2012 which says, "MS patients who have received a venous procedure abroad should be reassured that they will be continued to be cared for by their physicians and/or regular MS specialists as any other patients?” or is it that follow-up care is primarily the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments to ensure that no Canadian is denied post-treatment and follow-up care (ATIP) and what role does the federal government have if patients are being denied follow-up care by a province or territory; (v) why did the government ask the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC) on February 7, 2012 about approved venous angioplasty; (w) is it still the government's position that the MS documentary that aired on the Nature of Things on February 9, 2012, was "balanced and fair"; (x) why does a February 16, 2012 e-mail list MS patients who are also CCSVI advocates; (y) is the government's position regarding imaging for CCSVI in accordance with the International Society for NeuroVascular Disease (ISNVD) venography statement and consensus document and, if not, why not; and (z) does the government know how many Canadians are actually impacted by MS, (i) if so, what is the number, (ii) if not, why not; and (aa) when Dr. Alain Beaudet wrote to the Colleges of Physicians on February 29, 2012, (i) why was the list of 11 recent peer-reviewed publications provided not a comprehensive list, (i) why did the list not specify what were positive and negative studies, and what imaging techniques were used, (ii) for MS patients who are denied follow-up care, what recourse and resources do they have, (iii) what is the position of the Scientific Expert Working Group concerning MS patients who have been denied follow-up care, such as Roxanne Garland? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1254.
Collapse
2013-05-09 [p.3123]
Q-1255 — Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé) — With regard to the repeal of regulations related to container standards an...
Expand
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.
Collapse
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, —...
Expand
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.
Collapse
2013-05-07 [p.3092]
— by Mr. Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord), one concerning telecommunications (No. 411-3776);...
Expand
— by Mr. Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord), one concerning telecommunications (No. 411-3776);
Collapse
2013-04-18 [p.2997]
Q-1210 — Mr. Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to the changes made to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38 and B...
Expand
Q-1210 — Mr. Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to the changes made to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45: (a) which First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations have attended or participated in engagement sessions to discuss the proposed amendments to the Act; (b) how much funding has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) contributed to the capacity of First Nations to engage on the proposed amendments or on policy and regulation changes in the 2012-2013 fiscal year; (c) which First Nations or Aboriginal organizations have received funding for capacity to engage on proposed amendments or on policies or regulations in the 2012-2013 fiscal year; (d) which First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations has DFO worked with to hold or facilitate engagement sessions; (e) what are the dates and locations of meetings funded by DFO and hosted or facilitated by First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations to discuss changes to the Fisheries Act or new policies and regulations in the 2012-2013 fiscal year; and (f) how will DFO work with First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations to engage on proposed amendments, policies or regulations in the 2013-2014 fiscal year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1210.
Collapse
2013-04-17 [p.2985]
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, —...
Expand
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-1209 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-411-35.
Collapse
2013-04-17 [p.2986]
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, —...
Expand
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-1210 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-411-36.
Collapse
2013-04-15 [p.2965]
Q-1177 — Mr. Cash (Davenport) — With regard to the Canadian Museum of Civilization: (a) how many employees, permanent an...
Expand
Q-1177 — Mr. Cash (Davenport) — With regard to the Canadian Museum of Civilization: (a) how many employees, permanent and contractual, were assigned for the purposes of research, including but not limited to the Research Division, broken down by (i) year since 2005-2006, (ii) position, (iii) academic field (anthropology, ethnology, archeology, etc.), (iv) division; (b) for the next five years, what is the projected number of permanent employees who will be assigned to research in all museum divisions, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) academic field (anthropology, ethnology, archeology, etc.), (iv) division; (c) how many meetings were held to discuss aspects of the change of name and mandate of the museum between museum officials and (i) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (ii) the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (iii) the Department of Canadian Heritage, (iv) museum employees; (d) since 2007-2008, broken down by year, how many informal meetings and telephone calls were held between museum officials and (i) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (ii) the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage (iii) the Department of Canadian Heritage; (e) what is the total number of visits to the museum made by (i) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (ii) the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (iii) the Department of Canadian Heritage; (f) for all exhibits since 2006, broken down by exhibit, what was the (i) total number of visitors, (ii) percentage of local visitors, (iii) percentage of visitors from outside Canada, (iv) total amount of revenues, (v) projected budget at the beginning of the planning stages, (vi) total expenses; (g) since 2008-2009, (i) what were the annual revenues of the museum per year, (ii) what are the projected annual revenues of the museum per year for next five years, (iii) do these projections take into account the change of name and mandate; (h) what is the projected number of visitors to the museum per year (not including the Canadian War Museum), for the next five years; (i) which groups (including but not limited to associations, professional associations, groups representing First Nations) and experts (including but not limited to historians, archeologists, academics) were consulted (i) prior to the Minister’s announcement of the change of name and mandate on October 16, 2012, and (ii) since the announcement of October 16, 2012; (j) regarding the consultations held between November 9, 2012, and January 31, 2013, (i) what were the total costs, (ii) how many members of the public (other than museum employees) attended each consultation; (k) regarding the funding of 25 million dollars that will “come from within the existing budget for Canadian Heritage”, according to an October 16, 2012 press release from the Department of Canadian Heritage, (i) from which programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage has funding been diverted towards this funding, (ii) what was the funding for these programs since 2008-2009, (iii) which programs’ funding will be restored to 2011-2012 levels following the museum investment; (l) regarding costs related to changing the name of the museum (including but not limited to changes to signage, logotypes, and rebranding), (i) what is the current earmarked budget, (ii) what are the projected total costs over the next five years; (m) what is the total cost of promotional materials (including but not limited to bookmarks, temporary signage, websites and paper materials) referring to the Canadian Museum of History or the change of name and mandate, or using such terms as “History Museum” and “Museum of History”; (n) what is the total cost of advertising by the museum, broken down by year and types of advertising, including but not limited to billboards, print, radio, television and online advertising, since 2006-2007; (o) for each occasion in which external legal services were provided to the museum in the last three years (i) which firms or individuals provided legal services, including but not limited to counsel or representation, to the museum, (ii) when, (iii) for what period of time, (iv) what was the nature of these services, (v) what was the purpose of these services, (vi) what were the total costs per occasion when these services were provided to the museum; and (p) for each project, exhibition or display created for or by the museum since 2005-2006 that were not displayed on museum premises, (i) what was the subject matter, (ii) where have these been displayed, (iii) what are the total costs for each, (iv) how many employees were assigned to each, at all stages (including but not limited to design, construction, and installation) (v) what were the starting and ending dates of work on each, (vi) what were the starting and ending dates of viewing or display? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1177.
Collapse
2013-03-20 [p.2880]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of ...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1158 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to pre-budget roundtables held since December 1, 2012: (a) what are the total travel and accommodation costs incurred in respect to each roundtable by each participating minister, parliamentary secretary, staff member or other government employee; (b) what are the details of all other costs incurred in respect to each roundtable, including (i) room rentals, (ii) catering, (iii) advertising, (iv) printing, (v) equipment rental, (vi) other costs, specifying those other costs; (c) were any individuals or organizations specifically invited to attend each roundtable and, if so, what were the criteria for issuing such invitations; (d) what was the attendance at each roundtable; and (e) were summaries or reports prepared on the discussion at each roundtable and, if so, what is the file number of each summary or report? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1158.
Collapse
2013-03-08 [p.2848]
Q-1112 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to transportation, since January 1, 2006, has the government engaged in any ...
Expand
Q-1112 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to transportation, since January 1, 2006, has the government engaged in any study or consultation concerning the extension or reconstruction of Highways 389 and 138 in the province of Quebec, and if so, what are the titles and file numbers of any reports, studies, dossiers or other documentation related to this matter? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1112.
Collapse
2013-02-05 [p.2732]
At 5:16 p.m., by unanimous consent and pursuant to Order made Thursday, January 31, 2013, the House proceeded to the tak...
Expand
At 5:16 p.m., by unanimous consent and pursuant to Order made Thursday, January 31, 2013, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan), seconded by Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou), — That the House, recognizing the broad-based demand for action, call on the government to make the improvement of economic outcomes of First Nations, Inuit and Métis a central focus of Budget 2013, and to commit to action on treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of Aboriginal Canadians, as required by domestic and international law.
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 611 -- Vote no 611) - View vote details.
YEAS: 276, NAYS: 0
Collapse
2013-01-31 [p.2719]
The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply.Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan), seconded by Mr. Sagan...
Expand
The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply.
Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan), seconded by Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou), moved, — That the House, recognizing the broad-based demand for action, call on the government to make the improvement of economic outcomes of First Nations, Inuit and Métis a central focus of Budget 2013, and to commit to action on treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of Aboriginal Canadians, as required by domestic and international law.
Debate arose thereon.
Collapse
2013-01-31 [p.2719]
By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name o...
Expand
By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, February 5, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
Collapse
2013-01-31 [p.2719]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan), seconded by Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-...
Expand
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan), seconded by Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou), in relation to the Business of Supply.
The debate continued.
Collapse
2013-01-31 [p.2719]
Pursuant to Order made earlier today, the question was deemed put on the motion and the recorded division was deemed req...
Expand
Pursuant to Order made earlier today, the question was deemed put on the motion and the recorded division was deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 5, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
Collapse
2013-01-28 [p.2658]
Q-1072 — Ms. Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel) — With regard to the proposed changes to the list of waterways protec...
Expand
Q-1072 — Ms. Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel) — With regard to the proposed changes to the list of waterways protected by the Navigable Waters Protection Act as described in Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012: (a) which organizations were consulted in the development of this list; (b) when and where were the consultations referred to in (a) held; (c) which provincial or municipal governments were consulted during the development of this list; (d) when and where were the consultations referred to in (c) held; and (e) what are the job titles of the public servants who prepared this list? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1072.
Collapse
2013-01-28 [p.2659]
Q-1074 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the Minister of Public Safety’s decision to terminate the contracts o...
Expand
Q-1074 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the Minister of Public Safety’s decision to terminate the contracts of part-time prison chaplains in federal penitentiaries: (a) did the Minister consult with officials from Correctional Services Canada (CSC) and, if so, did CSC express support for these cuts; (b) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Alberta and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Alberta, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Alberta support the cuts; (c) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in British Columbia and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in British Columbia, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in British Columbia support the cuts; (d) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Nova Scotia and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Nova Scotia, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Nova Scotia support the cuts; (e) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in New Brunswick and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in New Brunswick, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in new Brunswick support the cuts; (f) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Quebec and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Quebec, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Quebec support the cuts; (g) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Ontario and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Ontario, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Ontario support the cuts; (h) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Saskatchewan and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Saskatchewan, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Saskatchewan support the cuts; (i) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Manitoba and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Manitoba, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Manitoba support the cuts;
(j) did the Minister consult with members or leaders from any Canadian non-Christian religious groups and, if so, (i) what specific religious groups were consulted, (ii) did any of these groups support the decision to terminate the contracts of part-time prison chaplains, (iii) which specific groups objected and on what grounds; (k) did the government consult with any non-profit organizations or any other non-governmental organizations and, if so, (i) what specific non-profit or non-governmental organizations were consulted, (ii) did any of these groups support the decision to terminate the contracts of part-time prison chaplains, (iii) which specific organizations objected and on what grounds; (l) what is the national statistical breakdown of the federal prison population according to religious affiliation; (m) what is the statistical breakdown of the federal prison population according to religious affiliation in (i) Nova Scotia, (ii) New Brunswick, (iii) Quebec, (iv) Ontario, (v) Alberta, (vi) Saskatchewan, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) British Columbia; (n) how many federal prison inmates requested religious counsel from a clergy-person of their own faith in 2011, (i) with which faith group did the inmates who made these requests identify, (ii) for these inmates, were such clergy represented in the population of CSC full time-chaplains, (iii) for these inmates, were such clergy represented in the population of CSC part-time chaplains; (o) to which faith groups did the terminated chaplains identify; (p) how does the government define the concept of spiritual guidance and what training or credentials will be required of CSC-employed chaplains to provide such guidance to federal prison inmates who are not of the same faith group; (q) with whom has the Minister consulted to ensure that terminating the contracts of part-time federal prison chaplains will not disparately impact minority-faith Canadians; (r) has the Minister taken any steps to ensure that the cuts will not be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge pursuant to either Sections 2 or 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and (s) has the Minister consulted with the Minister of Justice in regard to the constitutionality of these cuts and has the Minister of Justice confirmed that they are constitutionally sound? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1074.
Collapse
2013-01-16 [p.2684]
— No. 411-2985 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-27-25....
Expand
— No. 411-2985 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-27-25.
Collapse
2012-12-12 [p.2610]
— by Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior), five concerning horse meat (Nos. 411-2979 to 411-2983), one c...
Expand
— by Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior), five concerning horse meat (Nos. 411-2979 to 411-2983), one concerning the fishing industry (No. 411-2984) and one concerning environmental assessment and review (No. 411-2985);
Collapse
2012-12-11 [p.2596]
Q-1032 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the Royal Canadian Mint, what are the details of all consult...
Expand
Q-1032 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the Royal Canadian Mint, what are the details of all consultations it has made or conducted, since January 1, 2011, concerning the composition or weight of coins and their use in coin-operated devices, including the details of all such consultations with municipalities, giving the name of the municipality, the date on which it was consulted, and the means by which it was consulted? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1032.
Collapse
2012-12-06 [p.2556]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of ...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-988 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — With regard to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for each year between 2008 and 2012, on what dates were meetings held with the following individuals and what subjects were discussed: (a) President and Chief Executive Officer, CBC/Radio-Canada; (b) Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission; (c) Librarian and Archivist of Canada; (d) Chairperson, National Film Board; (e) Executive Director, Telefilm Canada; (f) Director and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Council for the Arts; (g) Chair, National Battlefields Commission; (h) Director, National Gallery of Canada; (i) Chairperson, National Gallery of Canada (j) President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Nature; (k) President, National Arts Centre; (l) Executive Chef, National Arts Centre; (m) President, Canadian Museum of Civilization; (n) Chairman, Canadian Museum of Civilization; (o) President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum for Human Rights; (p) Chairperson, Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21; (q) Director, Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21; (r) Director, Canada Science and Technology Museum; and (s) Chair, Canada Science and Technology Museum? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-988.
Collapse
2012-12-05 [p.2545]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of M...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre), seconded by Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie), — That, in the opinion of the House, the Indian Act is the embodiment of failed colonial and paternalistic policies which have denied First Nations their rights, fair share in resources; fostered mistrust and created systemic barriers to the self-determination and success of First Nations, and that elimination of these barriers requires the government to initiate a formal process of direct engagement with First Nations within three months of passage of this motion, on a nation-to-nation basis, which focuses on replacing the Indian Act with new agreements based on: (a) the constitutional, treaty, and inherent rights of all First Nations; (b) the historical and fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown to First Nations; (c) the standards established in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the principle of free, prior, and informed consent; (d) respect, recognition, reconciliation and support for First Nations; (e) partnership and mutual accountability between the Crown and First Nations; and (f) stability and safety of First Nations; and that this process be completed within two years before reporting with a series of concrete deliverables for the government to act upon. (Private Members' Business M-386)
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 575 -- Vote no 575) - View vote details.
YEAS: 129, NAYS: 156
Collapse
2012-12-03 [p.2412]
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mrs. Yelich (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)) laid upon the Table...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mrs. Yelich (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)) laid upon the Table, — Answer to question Q-988 on the Order Paper. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-411-26.
Collapse
2012-11-30 [p.2400]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre), seconded by Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Mari...
Expand
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre), seconded by Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie), — That, in the opinion of the House, the Indian Act is the embodiment of failed colonial and paternalistic policies which have denied First Nations their rights, fair share in resources; fostered mistrust and created systemic barriers to the self-determination and success of First Nations, and that elimination of these barriers requires the government to initiate a formal process of direct engagement with First Nations within three months of passage of this motion, on a nation-to-nation basis, which focuses on replacing the Indian Act with new agreements based on: (a) the constitutional, treaty, and inherent rights of all First Nations; (b) the historical and fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown to First Nations; (c) the standards established in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the principle of free, prior, and informed consent; (d) respect, recognition, reconciliation and support for First Nations; (e) partnership and mutual accountability between the Crown and First Nations; and (f) stability and safety of First Nations; and that this process be completed within two years before reporting with a series of concrete deliverables for the government to act upon. (Private Members' Business M-386)
The debate continued.
Collapse
2012-11-30 [p.2401]
The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the recorded division was deferred until Wedne...
Expand
The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, December 5, 2012, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business.
Collapse
2012-11-08 [p.2290]
Q-941 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to fisheries, since September 1, 2011, how many briefs, letters, or prese...
Expand
Q-941 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to fisheries, since September 1, 2011, how many briefs, letters, or presentations were submitted concerning the fleet separation policy, or the owner-operator principle, broken down by the numbers submitted by provincial or territorial governments, municipal or regional governments, businesses, industry associations, trade unions, Aboriginal organizations, other organizations, and individuals, to (i) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (ii) the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, (iii) the Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), (iv) the Minister of National Revenue, (v) the Minister of National Defence? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-941.
Collapse
2012-10-22 [p.2179]
Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre), seconded by Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie), moved, — That, in the opinion of the House, t...
Expand
Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre), seconded by Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie), moved, — That, in the opinion of the House, the Indian Act is the embodiment of failed colonial and paternalistic policies which have denied First Nations their rights, fair share in resources; fostered mistrust and created systemic barriers to the self-determination and success of First Nations, and that elimination of these barriers requires the government to initiate a formal process of direct engagement with First Nations within three months of passage of this motion, on a nation-to-nation basis, which focuses on replacing the Indian Act with new agreements based on: (a) the constitutional, treaty, and inherent rights of all First Nations; (b) the historical and fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown to First Nations; (c) the standards established in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the principle of free, prior, and informed consent; (d) respect, recognition, reconciliation and support for First Nations; (e) partnership and mutual accountability between the Crown and First Nations; and (f) stability and safety of First Nations; and that this process be completed within two years before reporting with a series of concrete deliverables for the government to act upon. (Private Members' Business M-386)
Debate arose thereon.
Collapse
2012-10-22 [p.2179]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the Order was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper....
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the Order was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Collapse
2012-10-03 [p.2103]
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. ...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster), seconded by Ms. LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government: (a) should not make a decision on the proposed takeover of Nexen by CNOOC without conducting thorough public consultations; (b) should immediately undertake transparent and accessible public hearings into the issue of foreign ownership in the Canadian energy sector with particular reference to the impact of state-owned enterprises; and (c) must respect its 2010 promise to clarify in legislation the concept of "net benefit" within the Investment Canada Act.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 470 -- Vote no 470) - View vote details.
YEAS: 125, NAYS: 145
Collapse
2012-10-02 [p.2094]
The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply.Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster), seconded by Ms....
Expand
The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply.
Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster), seconded by Ms. LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard), moved, — That, in the opinion of the House, the government: (a) should not make a decision on the proposed takeover of Nexen by CNOOC without conducting thorough public consultations; (b) should immediately undertake transparent and accessible public hearings into the issue of foreign ownership in the Canadian energy sector with particular reference to the impact of state-owned enterprises; and (c) must respect its 2010 promise to clarify in legislation the concept of "net benefit" within the Investment Canada Act.
Debate arose thereon.
Collapse
2012-10-02 [p.2094]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster), seconded by Ms. LeBlanc (LaSalle—...
Expand
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster), seconded by Ms. LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard), in relation to the Business of Supply.
The debate continued.
Collapse
2012-10-02 [p.2094]
At 5:15 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 81(16), the Speaker interrupted the proceedings....
Expand
At 5:15 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 81(16), the Speaker interrupted the proceedings.
Collapse
2012-10-02 [p.2094]
The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division was deferred until Wednesda...
Expand
The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, October 3, 2012, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
Collapse
2012-09-17 [p.1926]
Q-705 — Ms. Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) — With regard to the Canadian Heritage Cultural Capitals of Canada program: (a...
Expand
Q-705 — Ms. Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) — With regard to the Canadian Heritage Cultural Capitals of Canada program: (a) who were the candidates and winners for each of the three categories, identified by year, for every year since the program began; (b) for each of these years, who was on the expert advisory committee; (c) for each of these years, what recommendations did the expert advisory committee make for the recipients of the awards; (d) for each of these years, how many times did the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the time follow the recommendations of the expert advisory committee, and how many times did the Minister ignore them; (e) for the decision to name the 2012 Cultural Capitals of Canada, on what opinions and recommendations did the Minister of Canadian Heritage base his decisions; and (f) apart from the expert advisory committee, what other studies and consultations were carried out to help the Minister of Canadian Heritage make his selection for the 2012 Cultural Capitals of Canada, and what were the results? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-705.
Collapse
2012-09-17 [p.1952]
Q-772 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to Library and Archives Canada: (a) what were the total accessions o...
Expand
Q-772 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to Library and Archives Canada: (a) what were the total accessions of (i) government records, (ii) private records in each year since 2000, inclusive, giving the total number of fonds accessioned, and the total amount of material, distinguishing textual, audio-visual, photographic, documentary art, electronic, and other records; and (b) how many unsolicited offers of donations of private records has Library and Archives Canada received in each year since 2000, and in particular (i) how many offers were accepted, (ii) what was the general nature or subject-matter of each such donation, (iii) what was the total amount of material, distinguishing textual, audio-visual, photographic, documentary art, electronic, and other records, (iv) how many such offers were declined, giving the reason for each? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-772.
Collapse
2012-04-23 [p.2]
— Nos. 411-0519, 411-0533, 411-0544, 411-0545, 411-0554, 411-0577, 411-0591, 411-0593, 411-0601, 411-0617, 411-0633 and ...
Expand
— Nos. 411-0519, 411-0533, 411-0544, 411-0545, 411-0554, 411-0577, 411-0591, 411-0593, 411-0601, 411-0617, 411-0633 and 411-0654 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-27-11;
Collapse
2012-03-14 [p.967]
— No. 411-0355 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-27-06;...
Expand
— No. 411-0355 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-411-27-06;
Collapse
2012-03-06 [p.900]
— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning environmental assessment and review (No. 411-0601), one concerning ...
Expand
— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning environmental assessment and review (No. 411-0601), one concerning climate change (No. 411-0602), one concerning immigration (No. 411-0603) and one concerning housing policy (No. 411-0604);
Collapse
2012-01-30 [p.676]
— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning environmental assessment and review (No. 411-0355)....
Expand
— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning environmental assessment and review (No. 411-0355).
Collapse
2012-01-30 [p.684]
Q-224 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to development of the oil sands, and its impacts on Aboriginal commu...
Expand
Q-224 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to development of the oil sands, and its impacts on Aboriginal communities: (a) what are all the studies, along with their dates and results, undertaken by the government concerning the (i) possible impacts of the oil sands industry on land, water, and wildlife, (ii) potential impacts on Aboriginal livelihoods, inherent and treaty rights, and constitutional rights; (b) which government accommodation and consultation policies regarding the oil sands have been designed in partnership with Aboriginal peoples to ensure that free, prior and informed consent is obtained, and how does the government ensure that consultation policies are (i) designed in partnership with Aboriginal peoples, (ii) consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; (c) what are all consultations, including the dates of the consultations and those present, undertaken by the government with Aboriginal peoples, where there was consideration given to oil sands-related activities that might impact Section 35 rights, and what were the results or conclusions of these consultations; (d) does the government ensure that consultation with Aboriginal peoples occurs early in the decision-making process as related to the development of the oil sands and, if so, how does it do this; (e) what are all consultations with Aboriginal peoples which occurred early in the decision-making process as related to the development of the oil sands, and for each such consultation, how does it meet the government’s criteria for “early consultation”; (f) what are all legal challenges that have been undertaken or are being undertaken by First Nations communities against the government as related to the oil sands, and what is the stated reason for each challenge; (g) what are the studies, along with their dates and results, undertaken by the government concerning the possible impacts of legal challenges by First Nations communities on the oil sands industry; (h) which, if any, First Nations communities have asked for a full public inquiry into the impact of oil sands development and what are (i) the reasons provided for each such request, (ii) the projected cost of such an inquiry, (iii) the steps taken by the government to address each identified concern as outlined in (h)(i); (i) does the federal government plan to ensure that development in the oil sands region is consistent with the constitutionally-protected rights of Aboriginal peoples and the internationally-accepted doctrine of free, prior, and informed consent, and (i) other than actions referenced in the responses to parts (a) through (h), what federal decisions have been taken and what federal policies or programs have been developed taking into account Aboriginal peoples’ constitutionally-protected rights; and (j) what, if any, studies has the government funded to ensure that Aboriginal communities impacted or potentially impacted by the oil sands have the resources to direct their own baseline health studies and environmental monitoring programs? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-224.
Collapse
2012-01-30 [p.714]
Q-331 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, en...
Expand
Q-331 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, endorsed by the government in November 2010: (a) what concrete actions has the government taken to implement the Declaration; (b) what steps has the government taken to consult with First Nations on the implementation of the Declaration; (c) what steps has the government taken to consult with the provincial and territorial governments on the implementation of the Declaration; (d) how does the government define the term “aspirational” which it has used to characterize its approach to implementing the Declaration; (e) are there any other international agreements that the government considers not legally binding or “aspirational”; (f) what criteria does the government use to determine whether a policy is “aspirational”; (g) what is the government’s position concerning whether or not the Declaration will be binding in the future; (h) did the government communicate its position that the Declaration is “aspirational” and non-binding to First Nations and the other levels of government in advance of endorsing the Declaration; (i) what directives have been provided to Ministers, political exempt staff and public servants concerning the use of the Declaration in developing policy and programs; (j) does a process exist to ensure that all legislation, regulations and policy concerning indigenous peoples are compliant with the Declaration; and (k) has training on the Declaration been provided to employees of the Treasury Board and Privy Council Office? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-331.
Collapse
2011-12-12 [p.643]
Q-194 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to the National Immunization Strategy (NIS): (a) what was the total amo...
Expand
Q-194 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to the National Immunization Strategy (NIS): (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated to the NIS since fiscal year 2003-2004, broken down by year; (b) were all allocated funds spent each year; (c) when did the most recent funding expire; (d) when was funding last renewed; (e) were each of the nine goals of the NIS achieved, and, if not, which goals were not achieved and why; (f) since 2006, have staff of either the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) or Health Canada (HC) met with any professional groups and members of the private sector on the NIS, and, if so, which professional groups and members of the private sector and which staff, broken down by year; (g) were any recommendations made by staff within either the PHAC or HC to the Minister of Health that the NIS be renewed; (h) how many lives are estimated to have been saved by the NIS; (i) how many illnesses are estimated to have been prevented; and (j) has the NIS reduced hospitalizations due to preventable diseases for which Canada has vaccines? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-194.
Collapse
2011-10-21 [p.360]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt), seconded by Mr. Bevington (Western...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt), seconded by Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic), Bill C-334, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act (enhanced ministerial oversight), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
Collapse
2011-10-05 [p.317]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Latendresse ...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent), Bill C-327, An Act to establish a national literacy policy, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 47 of 47

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data