Skip to main content
;

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
Status of House Business
PDF

Notice Paper

No. 10

Thursday, June 16, 2011

10:00 a.m.

Introduction of Government Bills
June 15, 2011 — The Minister of Labour — Bill entitled “An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services”.
Recommendation
(Pursuant to Standing Order 79(2))
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services”.

Introduction of Private Members' Bills
June 15, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — Bill entitled “An Act respecting an Emergency Services Appreciation Day”.
June 15, 2011 — Mrs. Mourani (Ahuntsic) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (failure to inform)”.
June 15, 2011 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to housing)”.
June 15, 2011 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (increase of allowance for survivors and children)”.
June 15, 2011 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Judges Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act”.
June 15, 2011 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — Bill entitled “An Act to propose and examine a program giving financial assistance to high-school students visiting military memorial sites abroad”.
June 15, 2011 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (expenses incurred by caregivers)”.
June 15, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — Bill entitled “An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada”.
June 15, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Public Health Agency of Canada Act (National Alzheimer Office)”.
June 15, 2011 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firefighters)”.
June 15, 2011 — Mr. Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (maximum — special benefits)”.

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)

Questions
Q-352 — June 15, 2011 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With respect to government decentralization: (a) does the government have any information on proposals prepared since 2006 on the relocation, from the National Capital area to other regions of Canada, of (i) government departments or parts thereof, (ii) agencies, (iii) Crown corporations; and (b) does the government have any information on assessments completed since 2006 on which of the following entities could be relocated from the National Capital area to other regions of Canada, namely, (i) government departments or parts thereof, (ii) agencies, (iii) Crown corporations?
Q-362 — June 15, 2011 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to employment in the federal public service: (a) for the period of January 1, 2005, to May 31, 2011, (i) how many people were hired by the federal public service, (ii) how many casual employees were hired by the federal public service, (iii) how many term employees were hired by the federal public service, (iv) how many indeterminate employees were hired by the federal public service, (vi) how many applications for priority employment appointments in the federal public service were submitted by qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces, (vii) how many qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces have received a priority employment appointment, (viii) how many qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces were still on the priority employment appointment list when their eligibility period expired; (b) for the period of 2005 to the present, how many qualified medically released Canadian Forces veterans were hired by each department; and (c) what measures are being taken to extend the priority employment appointments program?
Q-372 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the statements by the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment, entitled “Canada’s Green Budget 2009” and “Minister Prentice Highlights the Environment in 2010 Budget”: (a) how many applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion investment in clean energy research, development and demonstration projects, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (b) what, in detail, are all of the clean energy research development and demonstration projects awarded funds through the 2009 $1 billion investment, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the funding requested, (iii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iv) what were the projected outcomes, (v) what was the projected return on investment, (vi) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vii) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, etc., have resulted from the project, (viii) in what geographic area was the project located; (c) what monies of the 2009 $1 billion investment for clean energy research development and demonstration projects have been spent, (i) what monies remain available, (ii) what, if any, advertising did or does the government undertake to promote the program, (iii) what, if any, costs are associated with any advertising of the program; (d) how many project applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (e) how many projects were awarded funding through the $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iii) what were the projected outcomes in terms of reductions in emissions, waste, or other environmental payoffs, (iv) what was the projected return on investment, (v) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vi) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, or other significant results have been produced as a result of the project; (f) how many retrofits were undertaken under the 2009 $300 million eco-ENERGY Retrofit program, (i) what was the average cost of a retrofit, (ii) what was the average income of the family or individual undertaking a retrofit, (iii) what was the average household savings on energy, (iv) what was the average household savings in terms of money spent on energy annually, (v) what is the estimated savings to the environment each year, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs); (g) what specific projects were undertaken to maintain federal laboratories for $250 million in 2009, (i) why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, (ii) what laboratories benefitted, and what was the investment per lab, (iii) what specific laboratories need maintenance or further maintenance; (h) what specific projects, by station, were undertaken or are being undertaken under the $85 million for key Arctic research stations, why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, and, for each project identified, (i) what was the investment, (ii) what is the life expectancy of the investment, (iii) is further work needed, (iv) what projects does the government know still require funding; (i) what progress has been made to date on the $2 million investment in a feasibility study for a world-class Arctic research station, (i) what was the mandate of the feasibility study, (ii) what was its start date, key milestones, and end date, (iii) what, if any, results are available; (j) what are all federal contaminated sites across Canada, and, for each contaminated site identified, (i) where specifically is the site located, (ii) has the site had an environmental assessment (iii) if so, what are the main contaminants at the site, what is the projected cost of remediation, (iv) if not, what is the projected cost of an environmental assessment and the time required for that assessment; (k) is there a priority list for addressing contaminated sites listed in (j), and if so, (i) in what order do the sites appear on that list, (ii) what methodology is used to establish priority, (iii) who undertakes any priority assessments, what are their expertise, and how are experts chosen; (l) how much of the $80.5 million set aside for assessment of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) how many assessments have been started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed assessment in terms of the environmental contamination, any threats to human health, and the projected cost of remediation, (iii) how many jobs have been created to date; (m) how much of the $165 million set aside for remediation of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) what remediation projects are started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed remediation in terms of reducing environmental contamination and any threats to human health, (iii) what is the cost or projected cost of all remediation projects identified in (m)(i), (iv) how many jobs have been created to date; (n) what specific national parks projects have been undertaken with the $75 million ear-marked in 2009, and, for each project identified, (i) what is the park’s name, (ii) what is its location, (iii) what is the total investment, (iv) what is a description of the project; (o) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2009 $10 million investment in annual reporting of key environmental indicators such as clean air, clean water and GHG emissions, (i) what system was in place for reporting each, (ii) what, if any, system is now in place, (iii) when will the government make use of improvements in data resulting from this investment in its reports; (p) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2010 $18.4 million investment to enhance the tracking of environmental data through the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators program, (i) what specific projects does the government plan to undertake with the money and, for each project identified, (ii) how much money will be spent, (iii) how will monies spent improve environmental reporting, (iv) when will the government use improvements in its reports; (q) what, if any, action has been taken on the 2010 $100 million Next Generation Renewable Power Initiative; (r) what, if any, consultation regarding environmental assessments has taken place with Aboriginal peoples in 2010, (i) identify all projects that affect Aboriginal communities, and (ii) what of the identified projects in (i) have Aboriginal peoples been consulted on to date; (s) how much of the $2.8 million earmarked for consultations with Aboriginal communities has been spent and how much is still available; (t) what are all contaminated Great Lake sites and where specifically is each site located, (i) what is a ranking of these contaminated sites, (ii) what is the method used to determine level of contamination, (iii) what is the scale used to compare level of contamination, (iv) what is the government’s definition of “most degraded”, (v) what are all “most degraded” sites, (vi) for each site identified in (t)(v), what is a description of the contamination and what is the cost of the remediation; and (u) what specifically is the $16 million ear-marked for to clean up the “most-degraded” Great Lakes sites, what monies have been spent to date, on what specific projects, and what is the projected return on investment in terms of the environment?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Government Business
No. 3 — June 15, 2011 — The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons — That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour, entitled An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, shall be disposed of as follows: (a) commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown; (b) the said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting; (c) after being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole; and (d) during consideration of the said bill, no division shall be deferred.

Private Members' Notices of Motions
M-230 — June 15, 2011 — Mr. Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook) — That, in the opinion of the House, anaphylaxis is a serious concern for an increasing number of Canadians and the government should take the appropriate measures necessary to ensure these Canadians are able to maintain a high quality of life.
M-231 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a national program for poverty prevention and independent living to provide support to Canadians over the age of 65 who express a desire to remain in their home regardless of advancing years or faltering health.
M-232 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should launch with the provinces the necessary negotiations to implement a national and voluntary Supplementary Canada Pension Plan designed to provide enhanced retirement income savings opportunities and income support for Canadian seniors, particularly those in marginalized groups such as women, rural Canadians and those required to leave the workforce for various reasons during their working life.
M-233 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should introduce a “Retirement Income Bill of Rights” to explicitly recognize the following four key ideals: (a) that a retirement income system is essential to the well-being of citizens and permanent residents of Canada and the overall health of the Canadian economy; (b) that the Canadian retirement income system is built on a combination of government programs, workplace plans and individual savings; (c) that Canadians have the right to a retirement income system that promotes the goals of transparency, affordability, equity, flexibility, self-reliance, security and accessibility; and (d) that these principles should be enshrined in a bill of rights which reflects Parliament's respect for its constitutional authority and encourages the protection of these principles in Canada.
M-234 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a joint federal-provincial agency that would: (a) critically assess, on a pan-Canadian basis, the various solutions proposed for the current retirement income systems; and (b) provide a framework in which solutions to the challenges facing the Canadian system could be coordinated.
M-235 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) immediately issue a statement identifying retirement income security, coverage and adequacy as an area of policy deserving of urgent national attention; and (b) announce a policy framework containing concrete measures aimed at addressing the long-term sustainability, security, coverage and adequacy of Canada’s pension and retirement systems.
M-236 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take all steps necessary to ensure that Canada’s social safety net, particularly the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan, is highlighted as a competitive advantage not offered in various other jurisdictions around the world.
M-237 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should strive to maintain and enhance all four pillars of the existing national retirement income security regime, while simultaneously working to implement measures designed to encourage Canadians to avail themselves of the various 3rd pillar private retirement savings options.
M-238 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement a Supplemental Canada Pension Plan.
M-239 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should revise the existing Canada Pension Plan so as to remove any systemic inequities.
M-240 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a federal-provincial working group that would implement a multi-jurisdictional panel with a mandate to craft and release a comprehensive and straight-forward program to address financial illiteracy and retirement income ambivalence.
M-241 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately initiate a review of the manner in which the "cost of living" is calculated for the purposes of the Old Age Security Pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan.
M-242 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should initiate an immediate and full-scale review of the Income Tax Act and related statutes as they relate to items such as Canada’s maximum pension rule, pension Retirement Plan Contribution Limits, the deductibility of contributions, the limit on surpluses and interaction with pension standards legislation.
M-243 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately take the necessary steps to create a Stranded Pension Agency.
M-244 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement a modest increase to the current Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings limits while also examining, in collaboration with the relevant statutory partners, the feasibility and appropriateness of enhancing benefit rates payable under the Canada Pension Plan.
M-245 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should put forward a series of amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act designed to enhance the protection of pensions paid to retirees or accrued to employees.

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