Skip to main content
Start of 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

Notice Paper

No. 24

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

10:00 a.m.


Introduction of Government Bills

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

May 15, 2006 — Mr. Martin (LaSalle—Émard) — Bill entitled “An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord”.

May 15, 2006 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — Bill entitled “An Act to provide for the development of a national strategy for the treatment of autism and to amend the Canada Health Act”.

May 15, 2006 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — Bill entitled “An Act to prohibit the use of benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999”.

May 15, 2006 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — Bill entitled “An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad”.

May 15, 2006 — Ms. Bell (Vancouver Island North) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)”.

May 15, 2006 — Mr. Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a child before or during its birth while committing an offence)”.

May 15, 2006 — Mr. Watson (Essex) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents)”.

May 15, 2006 — Mr. Watson (Essex) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (early pension entitlement for police officers and firefighters)”.

May 15, 2006 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — Bill entitled “An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999”.

May 15, 2006 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Pest Control Products Act (prohibition of use of chemical pesticides for non-essential purposes)”.

May 15, 2006 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — Bill entitled “An Act to establish criteria and conditions in respect of funding for early learning and child care programs in order to ensure the quatlity, accessibility, universality and accountability of those programs, and to appoint a council to advise the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on matters relating to early learning and child care”.

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)

Questions

Q-332 — May 15, 2006 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regard to the Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees with the Afghan government: (a) the Arrangement states that it applies “in the event of a transfer”, does the government intend to transfer all detainees to the Afghan authorities, or would Canada retain custody of some detainees or transfer them to recipients other than the Afghan authorities; (b) what is the scope of application of this Arrangement and does it apply to all Canadian troops operating in Afghanistan, particularly to embedded staff officers at Combined Joint Task Force 76 (CJTF-76) in Bagram; (c) do the embedded staff officers at CJTF-76 in Bagram in any way participate in the detention or interrogation of detainees by the United States; (d) how will the Arrangement operate when Canadian soldiers are engaged in a joint operation with Afghan soldiers or police, particularly Afghan Forces; (e) if an Afghan soldier or police officer physically apprehends a detainee or prisoner during joint operations, would it be considered a transfer and would the Arrangement apply; (f) does the government consider that the armed conflict, in which Canadian Forces (CF) are engaged in Afghanistan, is or is not an “armed conflict not of an international character”, as that phrase is used in Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention; (g) does the government consider that persons detained by CF under the Arrangement could be “prisoners of war”, as that phrase is used in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention; (h) does the government consider that persons detained by CF under the Arrangement are entitled to have their status “determined by a competent tribunal” as that phrase is used in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention; (i) if other articles of the Third Geneva Convention or its Additional Protocols apply to CF deployed to Afghanistan, whether by legal obligation or by Canada’s agreement, what are each of them, accurately enumerated; (j) upon detaining a person, will the CF always offer that detained person access to legal counsel; (k) does the government believe that CF detaining non-Canadian persons in Afghanistan must respect section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in so doing; (l) what is the government's position as to the possible criminal culpability of a Canadian soldier if he or she transfers a detainee into Afghan custody and that detainee does indeed experience torture as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Torture Convention, Criminal Code or Canadian military law; (m) does the government consider that this Arrangement guarantees that there will be no further transfers of detainees by the Afghan authorities into the custody of any other government without Canada’s consent; (n) why does the Arrangement not provide a right for the Canadian government or for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to monitor and inspect detainees after they are transferred to the Afghan authorities, as the government of the Netherlands sought and obtained; (o) why has Canada chosen not to develop and maintain its own detention facility in Afghanistan, or a detention facility operated jointly with either the Afghan government or other NATO states; (p) does the government consider the terming of the document as an "Arrangement" as affecting the document's legal weight; (q) how many detainees have CF transferred to the Afghan authorities since the Arrangement was signed; (r) has the Canadian government requested access from the Afghan authorities to any of the transferred detainees, to verify their well-being, and did Afghanistan agree to the request; (s) does the government consider that this Arrangement is a treaty, consistent with statements made by the Prime Minister as reported on May 13, 2006; (t) what are the personal details regarding the detainees that can be discussed publicly, consistent with the Geneva Conventions and other human rights obligations; (u) given that the Arrangement provides for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to inspect and monitor the treatment of detainees after CF transfer them to the Afghan authorities, does the government now consent to the ICRC sharing the results of these inspections on a routine basis with Parliament and the public; (v) when Canadian operations in southern Afghanistan are transferred to NATO control later this year, will a NATO-Afghanistan detainee transfer agreement supercede the Canada-Afghanistan Arrangement; (w) will the NATO agreement contain all of the rights of visit and notice found in the Netherlands-Afghanistan agreement, and, if not, why; (x) will the government make the NATO agreement available to Parliament as soon as possible, and, if not, why; (y) what additional procedures or safeguards do the CF apply when transferring a detainee who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18 to the Afghan military under the Arrangement; (z) has Canada detained anyone in Afghanistan under the age of 18; (aa) what additional procedures or safeguards do the CF apply when transferring a female detainee to the Afghan military; (bb) whether owing to ICRC inspections or any other source of information, is the Canadian government aware of any instances where a detainee transferred to the Afghan military was subsequently tortured or abused, and if so, what were the circumstances in each case; and (cc) did any government or representatives of any foreign government other than that of Canada and Afghanistan review the text of this agreement before its signature?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Government Business

Private Members' Notices of Motions

M-171 — May 15, 2006 — Ms. Bell (Vancouver Island North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the softwood lumber trade dispute with the United States of America (USA) has had a negative impact on forestry workers and their communities across this country, and all revenue the government collects as a result of the recent agreement with the USA resolving this dispute be allocated towards those workers and communities that have been adversely affected throughout this period.
M-172 — May 15, 2006 — Mr. Scott (Fredericton) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should create a national strategy for autism spectrum disorder that would include: (a) the establishment, in cooperation with provincial governments, of national standards for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder and the delivery of related services; (b) the study, in cooperation with provincial governments, of the funding arrangements for the care of those with autism spectrum disorder, including the possibility of transferring federal funds to assist provincial governments to provide no-cost treatment, education, professional training and other required supports for Canadians with autism spectrum disorder without unreasonable wait times; (c) the creation of a national surveillance program for autism spectrum disorder to be managed by the Public Health Agency of Canada; and (d) the provision of funding for health research into treatments for autism spectrum disorder.
M-173 — May 15, 2006 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — That, in the opinion of the House, for the divestment and sale of all federal buildings and properties, the government should develop and implement a “triple bottom line” policy that allocates equal consideration to environmental, social and economic criteria, through a points-based evaluative system that ensures the greatest public good in the future use of those buildings and properties.
M-174 — May 15, 2006 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend the Criminal Code as it relates to impaired driving offences by reducing the blood alcohol concentration limit to 0.03%.

2 Response requested within 45 days