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. 24 Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| April 12, 2010 — Ms. Cadman (Surrey North) — Bill entitled “An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition)”. |
|
|
| April 12, 2010 — Mr. Tweed (Brandon—Souris) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials)”. |
|
|
| April 12, 2010 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — Bill entitled “An Act respecting the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations”. |
|
|
| April 12, 2010 — Mr. Bruinooge (Winnipeg South) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (coercion)”. |
|
|
| April 12, 2010 — Mr. Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence) — Bill entitled “An Act respecting the reporting of motor vehicle information and to amend the Motor Vehicule Safety Act (improving public safety)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-1901-2 — April 12, 2010 — Mr. Harris (St. John's East) — With regard to government of Canada interactions with the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS): (a) is the government aware of any allegations of torture or abuse by the NDS within Kandahar province since August 2005 and, if so, (i) what were the dates and locations of those allegations, (ii) what follow-up was done, (iii) what Canadian Forces or Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade investigations were carried out, (iv) what were the conclusions of those investigations, (v) is the government aware of any NDS investigations, (vi) what outcomes from NDS investigations were communicated back to the government; (b) have site visits been conducted on NDS facilities and, if so, (i) what date were they carried out, (ii) where were they carried out; and (c) did the government come to the assessment that "Canadian partnership in NDS projects without prior insight into its methods runs the risk of appearing to condone human rights abuses and acts which would be illegal under Canadian law" and, if so, when? |
| Q-1912 — April 12, 2010 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to temporary resident visa applications for both the applicant and the applicant's Canadian host, for each application, what is the breakdown of the following admissibility criteria: (a) minimum salary range; (b) minimum income; (c) relationship to remaining family members in the applicant's country; and (d) property value in order to be granted a temporary visitor visa in the visa offices of (i) Accra, (ii) Beijing, (iii) Chandigarh, (iv) Colombo, (v) Damascus, (vi) Harare, (vii) Havana, (viii) Hong Kong, (ix) Islamabad, (x) Lagos, (xi) Manila, (xii) New Delhi, (xiii) Port-au-Prince, (xiv) Shanghai, (xv) Tehran? |
| Q-1922 — April 12, 2010 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to the 2010 G20 summit: (a) what is the expected cost of the summit to the federal government; (b) what financial analyses or studies have been done on the impact the summit will have on small businesses; (c) what compensation will be provided to small businesses and tourism event organizers for costs directly related to the summit; (d) what compensation will be provided to the City of Toronto for costs directly related to the summit; (e) what were the costs incurred in the past by Canadian host cities of similar summits; (f) what compensation has been provided by the federal government in the past to host cities of similar summits; and (g) will the federal government post bonds upfront to cover costs incurred as a direct result of the summit to (i) the City of Toronto, (ii) small businesses, (iii) tourism event organizers? |
| Q-1932 — April 12, 2010 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to the Toronto Port Authority (TPA), on a yearly basis and since its inception: (a) what amounts were incurred by the TPA on (i) public relations, (ii) lobbying; and (b) what is the breakdown of legal fees incurred by the TPA, with the justification for each amount spent, for (i) the TPA, (ii) senior executives, (iii) employees? |
| Q-1942 — April 12, 2010 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to government spending or contracts with Harbour 60 Steakhouse in Toronto by each department, agency, and crown corporation for the last ten years: (a) which have spent funds; (b) what were the amount of funds spent; (c) when were those funds spent; (d) who authorized payments; (e) which events included the use of funds for alcohol; (f) which events were linked to private business; and (g) which events were attended by lobbyists? |
| Q-1952 — April 12, 2010 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to full body scanners: (a) what is the approximate cost of each unit; (b) what is the total cost for all scanners purchased or slated to be purchased between 2009 and 2013; (c) what is the average cost of installing a full body scanner in an airport; (d) what proportion of passengers screened in Canadian airports is expected to be scanned by full body scanners; (e) how many passengers does this amount to in a year; (f) what is the average time needed to scan a single passenger using a full body scanner; (g) what is the average time needed to scan a passenger using conventional security measures; (h) how many Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) screening officers have been trained to operate the scanners since 2009; (i) how many CATSA screening officers will be trained to operate the scanners once they are fully implemented; (j) what kind of training do CATSA screening officers receive before operating the scanners; (k) what was the number of CATSA screening officers and instructors that successfully received certification and the number that were unsuccessful since 2009; (l) what internal assessments, if any, exist regarding the efficacy of full body scanners; (m) what are the conclusions or recommendations of these assessments; and (n) what is the number and nature of complaints to CATSA pertaining to the use of full body scanners since 2009? |
| Q-1962 — April 12, 2010 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to corporate taxation: (a) how many corporations in Canada paid no tax in each of the last ten years, (i) what were the names of these corporations, (ii) what were their combined revenues and profits in each of the last ten years; (b) how many corporations in Canada had an effective tax rate of less than ten percent in each of the last five years, (i) what were the names of these corporations, (ii) what were their combined revenues and profits in each of the last ten years; (c) what is the total amount of deferred corporate taxes for the last ten years; and (d) which corporations deferred more than $1,000,000 and what were their combined revenues and profits in each of the last ten years? |
| Q-1972 — April 12, 2010 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to poverty in First Nations, Métis and Inuit populations in Canada: (a) what has the poverty rate been in each of the last ten years by (i) province, (ii) age group, (iii) First Nations, (iv) status Indians, (v) non-status Indians, (vi) Métis, (vii) Inuit; (b) what are the goals for poverty reduction for each of these groups for the next (i) five years, (ii) 10 years, (iii) 20 years; (c) what are the leading indicators for tracking poverty; and (d) what has been the average household income in each of the last ten years by (i) province, (ii) age group, (iii) First Nations, (iv) status Indians, (v) non-status Indians, (vi) Métis, (vii) Inuit? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motions |
| April 12, 2010 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — That, in the opinion of this House, this government has lacked a commitment to principled environmental policy backed by action which is urgently needed to address the climate change crisis, and it is the further opinion of this House that the government has consistently ignored the legislative and regulatory powers at its disposal that allow the government to take immediate and decisive action to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions in order to achieve meaningful and science-based reduction targets, and therefore the House calls upon the government to: (a) use the legislative, regulatory and fiscal authorities already available to the Government of Canada to put in place immediately a national climate change plan that implements economy-wide regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and invests in renewable energy, clean technology and energy efficiency in order for Canada to compete in the new green economy; (b) stop putting Canada’s environmental and economic future at risk by insisting that Canada must wait for the United States to act first before showing our own leadership on this most vital issue; (c) set a domestic legally-binding long-term greenhouse gas reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; (d) report to Parliament annually on its policies and proposals to achieve the trajectory toward the 80 percent target and revise as necessary; (e) establish a non-partisan expert group approved by Parliament to set a science-based emissions trajectory to reach that 80 percent reduction target so that Canada does its part to keep global temperature increases to below 2oC; (f) reverse the decision to cut the ecoENERGY program that allowed Canadians to receive a rebate for greening their homes using energy efficient products and services; (g) restore Canada’s tarnished international environmental reputation by implementing Canada’s international commitment made during the Copenhagen negotiations to provide our fair share of new climate change financing for developing countries to support their adaptation and mitigation efforts to deal with the climate change crisis; (h) follow through on Canada’s commitment at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh in 2009 to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and report on implementation; and (i) convene within 90 days a First Ministers’ Meeting on climate change to build upon the best practices and leadership that have been demonstrated in the provinces, municipalities and the private sector. |
|
|
| April 12, 2010 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — That a special committee of the House be hereby established to undertake an immediate study of all relevant issues pertaining to prorogation, including the circumstances in which a request that Parliament be prorogued would be appropriate or inappropriate, and the nature of any rule-changes (either by way of the Standing Orders or legislation or both) that may be necessary to avoid any future misuse of prorogation; |
| That, as part of this study, the committee take into account the specific proposals for new rules pertaining to prorogation offered by the Leader of the Opposition, including: (a) a requirement that the Prime Minister give Parliament written notice in advance of any request to prorogue, together with his/her reasons therefore; (b) a requirement that there be a debate in the House of Commons after any such notice is given, but before any request for prorogation is made; (c) a requirement that the express consent of the House of Commons be obtained at the conclusion of any such debate if (i) fewer than 12 months have passed since the last Speech From the Throne, (ii) the requested prorogation is for a period of more than 30 days, or (iii) an issue of confidence is outstanding before the House; and (d) a provision that allows committees of Parliament to continue to function during any prorogation; and |
| That the special committee report to the House no later than June 23rd, 2010. |
|
|
| April 12, 2010 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — That, in the opinion of the House, the 25th anniversary of the coming into force of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17th, 1985 should serve as a reminder that the fundamental freedom of speech must also always ensure the freedom from hate speech or speech that incites violence, particularly when it involves minority communities. |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
Private Members' Business |
| C-475 — March 9, 2010 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country), seconded by Mr. Warkentin (Peace River), — That Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — November 20, 2009 |
| Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — November 25, 2009 |
| Mr. Clarke (Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River) — November 26, 2009 |
| Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) — March 3, 2010 |
| Debate — 1 hour remaining, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
| Voting — at the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
|
|
|
| 1 Requires Oral Answer 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|