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.
|
|
|
Notice PaperNo. 113 Wednesday, December 8, 2010 2:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| December 7, 2010 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum age of employment)”. |
|
|
| December 7, 2010 — Mrs. Mourani (Ahuntsic) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-6132 — December 7, 2010 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to the failed negotiations that led to the recent restrictions of the Canadian Forces’ use of the Camp Mirage Air Base in the United Arab Emirates: (a) on a line-by-line basis, what are the known and estimated financial costs of losing privileged access to this base for the Canadian Forces; (b) on what date were these cost estimates completed and by which federal department(s); (c) on what date were these cost estimates submitted to the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office, respectively; (d) what are the details of the expanded landing rights offered to the United Arab Emirates as part of discussions on revising the Canada-UAE Air Services Agreement, including details of all constraints on seat capacity and maximum flights to any and all destinations to Canada; and (e) has the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Forces completed a detailed analysis of how the restriction of the Canadian Forces' use of Camp Mirage will impact the mortality rate of Canadian soldiers ending a tour of duty in Afghanistan and, if so, (i) what are the contents and results of this analysis, (ii) which ministers had access to these results and on what dates did they receive access? |
| Q-6142 — December 7, 2010 — Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier) — With respect to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act: (a) how was this bill developed; (b) did the government request any specific studies for this bill and, if so, (i) what was the subject of these studies, (ii) what conclusions did they reach, (iii) what recommendations did they put forward, (iv) what methodology was followed in the studies, (v) on what date were the studies requested, (vi) on what date were the studies submitted, (vii) do the studies contain quantitative analyses (are they supported by data), (viii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (c) did the government request an analysis of the bill’s economic impact on creators’ income and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (d) did the government request an analysis of the different ways of compensating artists for private copying and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (e) did the government request an analysis of the bill’s economic impact as far as fair dealing is concerned and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (f) did the Department of Canadian Heritage put forward recommendations for this Bill and, if so, (i) what were they, (ii) on what date were they put forward; (g) did Industry Canada put forward recommendations for this Bill and, if so, (i) what were they, (ii) on what date were they put forward; (h) with respect to the recommendations put forward by the Department of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada, (i) by what process were the recommendations adopted, (ii) have other changes been made by parties other than the departments, (iii) did the ministers make changes to the bill which had not been proposed by their respective departments, (iv) in relation to question (h)(i), what are these changes, (v) for every clause in the Bill, which department proposed the change, (vi) for every clause in the Bill, which minister proposed the change first, (vii) for every clause in the Bill, which minister gave his support; (i) did the government request an analysis of the statutory damages and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (j) with respect to the legal analyses, (i) which ones were done to determine if the Bill complied with the standards of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty adopted in Geneva in 1996, (ii) what were the results of these analyses, (iii) what were the recommendations of these analyses, (iv) were alternatives put forward, (v) what are these alternatives, (vi) who or which department conducted these analyses, (vii) on what date were these analyses requested, (viii) on what date were these analyses submitted, (ix) to whom or to which department were these analyses submitted, (x) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analyses after there were submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Industry read the analyses after there were submitted; (k) was the Bill reviewed by Canadian Heritage employees and, if so, (i) did they make comments or criticisms or ask questions about it, (ii) what are these questions, criticisms or comments made by Canadian Heritage representatives, (iii) did the minister or a member of his staff respond to these questions or comments, (iv) what was their response to these questions or criticisms; and (l) with respect to piracy, (i) which studies were done to determine if the Bill can put an end to piracy, (ii) what are the results of these studies, (iii) what are the recommendations put forward by these studies, (iv) were alternatives put forward, (v) what are these alternatives, (vi) who or which department made these studies, (vii) on what date were these studies requested, (viii) on what date were these studies submitted, (ix) to whom or to which department were these studies submitted, (x) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read these studies after they were submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Industry read these studies after they were submitted? |
| Q-6152 — December 7, 2010 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the Department of National Defence's procurement of name badges for the uniforms of members of the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) where were these name badges made and what company supplies them; (b) how many name badges were produced on an annual basis from 2006 to date and how much money was spent; (c) are there any contracts to produce name badges awarded to foreign companies and, if so, from which countries and how much money did the companies receive for their service; and (d) how long does it it take to order a new Canadian Armed Forces name badge? |
| Q-6162 — December 7, 2010 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund — Communities Component top-up in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund — Major Infrastructure Component in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved? |
| Q-6172 — December 7, 2010 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to the government`s expenditures: (a) what was the total global amount spent on hockey tickets by each federal department, agency, board and commission on an annual basis from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis, how much was spent by each federal department, agency, board and commission on hockey equipment; (c) how much money was invested in building hockey arenas and how many arenas were built across the country under the present federal infrastructure programs; and (d) how much money was spent on advertising during hockey games? |
| Q-6182 — December 7, 2010 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to the government health promotion programs: (a) what federal departments, agencies and commissions are responsible for administration programs promoting a healthy style of living; (b) what are the names of the programs that promote a healthy style of living; (c) how much funding was spent by federal departments and agencies on programs promoting a healthy style of living from the fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (d) how much funding was allocated to each province for the administration of programs promoting a healthy style of living; and (e) were federal programs promoting a healthy style of living audited during the past three fiscal years and, if any, what were the recommendations? |
| Q-6192 — December 7, 2010 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to expenses for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation from January 1, 2006 to October 1, 2010: (a) what was the total global amount spent on hospitality expenses on an annual basis from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) since fiscal year of 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis, how much was spent on (i) leasing expenses, (ii) catering services, (iii) restaurants, (iv) coffee and beverages, (v) bottled water, (vi) petty cash; (c) how much was paid to third parties to provide hospitality services since fiscal year of 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis; (d) what companies received sole source contracts to provide hospitality services since fiscal year of 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis; and (e) since fiscal year of 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis, how much was spent on (i) limousine services, (ii) private air service, (iii) executive class commercial air service, (iv) economy class commercial air service, (v) car rentals? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motions |
| December 7, 2010 — Mr. Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe) — That the House recognize the vital role played by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in ensuring justice, liberty, equality and fairness for all Canadians and call on the Government to reject the views expressed by several members of the Conservative Party of Canada that belittle and criticize the Charter’s impact on Canadian society. |
|
|
| December 7, 2010 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — That this House recognize the fortieth anniversary of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, acknowledge that much has been achieved to enhance the equality of women since the release of the Report, and urge the Government to undertake the significant work that still remains to be done to fully implement the recommendations and principles contained in the Report. |
|
|
| December 7, 2010 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — That the Speaker immediately communicate to His Excellency the Governor General that, in the opinion of this House, the Prime Minister’s requests for two prorogations of the 40th Parliament have been frivolous and that there is no justification for the Prime Minister to request yet another prorogation of Parliament after the House has adjourned as expected on December 17, 2010 and that the members of this House expect to return as scheduled on January 31, 2011. |
| Supplementary Estimates (B) |
| UNOPPOSED VOTES |
| December 6, 2010 — The President of the Treasury Board — That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011, be concurred in. |
| Voting — not later than 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17). |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-606 — December 7, 2010 — Mr. Tonks (York South—Weston) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) embrace electrification as a strategy for powering commuter rail; (b) acknowledge that the Georgetown South Corridor with its high residential density be declared a priority corridor for electrification of commuter trains and the proposed air-rail link; (c) coordinate Federal and Provincial interests by ensuring that the Environmental Assessment for electrification be consistent with current timelines of six-month Transit Environmental Assessment; (d) include human health and property impacts in the Environmental Assessment for electrification; (e) complete the electrification of the air-rail link by 2015; and (f) call upon all levels of government to partner in funding electrification infrastructure improvements. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-442 — October 27, 2010 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Uppal (Edmonton—Sherwood Park), seconded by Mr. Fast (Abbotsford), — That Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, be now read a third time and do pass. |
| Debate — 1 hour remaining, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2). |
| Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 98(4). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|