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. 87

Friday, May 2, 2008

10:00 a.m.


Introduction of Government Bills

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

May 1, 2008 — Mr. Wallace (Burlington) — Bill entitled “An Act respecting a day to honour Canada’s marine industry”.

May 1, 2008 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — Bill entitled “An Act to ensure that warning labels are affixed to products containing toxic substances”.

May 1, 2008 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Textile Labelling Act”.

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)

May 1, 2008 — Mr. Layton (Toronto—Danforth) — That the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Tuesday, April 29, 2008, be concurred in.
Debate — limited to 3 hours, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2).
Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate.

May 1, 2008 — Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park) — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, presented on Thursday, May 1, 2008, be concurred in.
Debate — limited to 3 hours, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2).
Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate.

May 1, 2008 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — That the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Friday, April 18, 2008, be concurred in.
Debate — limited to 3 hours, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2).
Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate.

May 1, 2008 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, presented on Thursday, May 1, 2008, be concurred in.
Debate — limited to 3 hours, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2).
Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate.

Questions

Q-261 — May 1, 2008 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With respect to gas and diesel prices: (a) is the government planning to implement the Energy Cost Benefit program, announced in October 2005; (b) what measures is the government implementing to build a greener economy, promote transparency in markets, promote alternative energy sources and improve fuel economy; (c) what steps will the government take to greater transparency in markets, fuel efficiency improvements and fuel alternatives; (d) is the government planning to index both the old age security pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement payments to offset the increasing gas prices; and (e) what is the government’s specific plan with respect to research investments to develop renewable and alternative fuels, such as cellulose-based ethanol and hydrogen-based fuels, to reduce Canadians’ reliance on global fuel markets?
Q-262 — May 1, 2008 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With respect to religious freedom around the world: (a) will the government recognize that religious persecution is an international crisis affecting many religious groups in the world; (b) will the government develop an automatic array of interventions that may be imposed by Canada against foreign governments, such as Iraq, that may support religious persecution or fail to prevent it; and (c) what steps is the government prepared to take to improve measures for refugees who have suffered religious persecution?
Q-2632 — May 1, 2008 — Mr. Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley) — With regard to the pension claw backs alleged to be affecting both Canadian Forces (CF) veterans and retired members of the RCMP: (a) did the government ever make promises to CF personnel in 1965, 1968 or in 1971 that no person would receive less after the amalgamation of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Superannuation at age 65 and prior to superannuation reduction; (b) can the government confirm that public service members, who contributed to superannuation, prior to January 1, 1966 enjoy specific protections within the Superannuation Act with regard to their pensions; (c) is the same protection for public service members as discussed in (b), extended to CF veterans and retired members of the RCMP, or have these groups been excluded from this protection; (d) in the years following 1966, were superannuates awarded full and indexed CPP benefits despite having contributed for a very short time; (e) if it can be confirmed that there is not the same protection for CF Members and retired RCMP members that public service members currently enjoy within the Superannuation Act, is the government prepared to make the corrections required to make the law more equal for all three groups; (f) if the government is not prepared to make the corrections, why not; (g) how has the government acted to alleviate the concerns of retired CF Veterans and RCMP members who believe that their pensions have been clawed back because of the integration of the CPP with their pensions in 1966; (h) what steps has the government taken to explain or clarify their pension policies to specifically address the claw back concerns of CF veterans and retired RCMP members; (i) with regards to (f) what groups or veterans associations has the government communicated with in regards to the pension claw back issues, with the goal of addressing the concerns of these groups, from 2000 to the present day; (j) in 1966, when the CF and RCMP Superannuation plans were reportedly coordinated with the CPP, how were members of the CF and RCMP members notified or briefed on the effects or benefits of such a policy change on individual pensions; (k) what recommendations has the government considered, since 2000, to change the CPP-related reduction calculation contained in the three primary federal public sector pension plans, including the CF Superannuation Act and the RCMP Superannuation Act, to address the concerns of CF veterans and retired RCMP members that they are losing an amount of pension income because of current policy; (l) does the government intend to meet with national organizations representing veterans and retired RCMP members in 2008 to work on ways to reduce or alleviate their concerns about the alleged pension claw backs and, if so, when are meetings planned, and for what cities in Canada; and (m) how many messages have been received by the Minister of National Defence from veterans, requesting that he personally become involved in terminating the benefit reduction formula being allegedly applied to the pension annuities of the CF veterans and retired RCMP members?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Government Business

Private Members' Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business

C-445 — October 16, 2007 — Mr. Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-445, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income).

2 Response requested within 45 days