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. 63 Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
| June 14, 2010 — The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development — Bill entitled “An Act to establish National Seniors Day”. |
|
|
| June 14, 2010 — The Minister of National Defence — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”. |
| Recommendation |
| (Pursuant to Standing Order 79(2)) |
| Her 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 amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”. |
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
|
|
| June 14, 2010 — Mr. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie) — Bill entitled “An Act to Eliminate Poverty in Canada”. |
|
|
| June 14, 2010 — Mr. Mulcair (Outremont) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Bank Act (compensation for investment advice)”. |
|
|
| June 14, 2010 — Mr. Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest by owner)”. |
|
|
| June 14, 2010 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act (moratorium)”. |
|
|
| June 14, 2010 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (increased democratic producer control)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-3142 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) funding for groups which focus on women’s rights advocacy or strengthening civil society, since 2006: (a) how many groups have had their funding cut or reduced by CIDA; (b) what are the names of the groups that have been affected; (c) in total, how much money has been cut or redirected away from the groups mentioned in (b); (d) where has the money been redirected; and (e) what are the details of any correspondence or minutes of meetings that took place regarding the funding of women’s advocacy groups? |
| Q-3152 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to the earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010: (a) how much money has the government spent in matching the donations of Canadian citizens; (b) to which organizations has the money from the matching program gone; (c) how much money has been spent in each social assistance sector; and (d) how much additional money has the government spent on the reconstruction and redevelopment efforts in Haiti since the earthquake? |
| Q-3162 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to Haiti: (a) how many Canadian peacekeepers are currently serving in Haiti; (b) how many Canadian peacekeepers were serving in Haiti prior to the earthquake on January 12, 2010; (c) how many applications has the government received from Haitians seeking refugee status in Canada since the earthquake on January 12, 2010; (d) how many of the applications in (c) have been approved by the government; (e) how many Haitian children were scheduled to be adopted by Canadians prior to the events of January 12, 2010; and (f) how many Haitian children have been successfully adopted by Canadians since January 12, 2010? |
| Q-3172 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to climate change: (a) what recommendations have been made by the Departments of the Environment and of Foreign Affairs regarding the inclusion of a discussion on climate change as part of the G8 and G20 agendas; and (b) what recommendations have been made by the Departments of the Environment and of Foreign Affairs regarding the government’s climate change policy following the Copenhagen conference? |
| Q-3182 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River) — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Nickel Belt for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects which received funding from a department or agency over this period? |
| Q-3192 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River) — With regard to announcements related to FedNor projects: (a) how many announcements were made between October 14, 2008 and June 15, 2010 on behalf of the Minister of Industry, including for each announcement (i) the names of those making the announcement on behalf of the Minister, (ii) the riding and city, town, or village in which the announcement was made; (b) on which dates were these announcements made; (c) what was the total dollar value for each project announced; and (d) what was the total cost associated with making each announcement, including costs for travel, staff, per diem and visual aids? |
| Q-3202 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River) — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Kenora for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects which received funding from a department or agency over this period? |
| Q-3212 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With respect to the government’s involvement in Recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology in each of the years from 1996 to 2010: (a) how much federal funding, from all sources, has the government spent on (i) research and development in the agricultural sector, (ii) research and development in the forestry sector, (iii) marketing and international or domestic promotion of rDNA technology in agriculture, (iv) marketing and international or domestic promotion of rDNA technology in forestry; (b) what percentage of funding has been allocated to conduct risk assessments on (i) human health impacts, (ii) ecosystem impacts and other consequences for flora and fauna, (iii) socio-economic factors associated with the introduction and use of rDNA technology; and (c) what public opinion polling has the government commissioned to enquire about public attitudes regarding the use of rDNA technology to genetically engineer food, seeds, trees, fish and animals and what were the results of each poll? |
| Q-3222 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With respect to genetically engineered CDC Triffid flax that was found contaminating Canadian flax exports in 2009: (a) when was the government first made aware that there was CDC Triffid contamination in Canadian flax exports, how was this communicated to them and by whom; (b) what activities has the government undertaken to address the problem of contamination, including inter-departmental meetings and meetings with industry and trading partners; (c) how much federal money from all sources has been spent to date to repair the damage caused by this contamination to our trading relationship with Europe and for what activities; (d) how much federal money from all sources has been spent to date to clean the system of CDC Triffid flax and assist the industry or farmers to recover from the market loss resulting from this contamination; (e) when was CDC Triffid first made legal to sell in Canada; (f) when was CDC Triffid made illegal to sell in Canada; (g) why did the government consider it necessary to make CDC Triffid illegal; (h) when was the government first made aware of flax farmers’ concerns that the approval for sale in Canada of CDC Triffid could result in the closure of European markets to Canadian flax should any amount of contamination by CDC Triffid ever be discovered in their export shipments, how was this communicated to them and by whom; (i) what steps did the government take to address the concerns in (h); (j) what steps did the government take to ensure that all CDC Triffid was taken off the market and removed from the system once the decision was made to make CDC Triffid illegal to sell in Canada; (k) how long did it take the government to clean the system of CDC Triffid once the decision was made to make it illegal; (l) what steps did the government undertake in each of the years following CDC Triffid flax's removal from the market to ensure that Canadian flax remained uncontaminated by it; and (m) has the government ever been made aware of or discovered evidence that CDC Triffid flax might still be in the system in the years subsequent to its being made illegal to sell in Canada? |
| Q-3232 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With regard to the sale, financing and ownership of Canadian farmland: (a) what is the amount of funding that Farm Credit Canada (FCC) has advanced to non-farming corporations for the purpose of purchasing farmland; (b) what are the names of the non-farming corporations to which FCC has provided funding for the purchasing of farmland; (c) what is the total amount of farmland acres that have been purchased with FCC funding by non-farming corporations; (d) what is the total amount of farmland that is owned by non-farming corporations; (e) what is the total amount of farmland that is owned by foreign investment companies; (f) what is the total amount of farmland that is owned by domestic investment companies; (g) what is the total amount of farmland that is owned by non-Canadian individuals and corporations; (h) what is the percentage of total Canadian farmland that is owned by non-Canadian individuals and companies; (i) what is the government’s policy regarding the acquisition of Canadian farmland by foreign individuals and corporations; (j) is it the government’s intention to institute policies that will limit the acquisition of Canadian farmland by foreign individuals and corporations; and (k) what is the government’s policy in regards to foreign ownership of farmland as it relates to national security? |
| Q-3242 — June 14, 2010 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of London—Fanshawe, (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 London—Fanshawe, (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 London—Fanshawe, (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 London—Fanshawe, (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 London—Fanshawe, (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 London—Fanshawe, (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-3252 — June 14, 2010 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of London—Fanshawe for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects which received funding from a department or agency over this period? |
| Q-3262 — June 14, 2010 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to the $10 million promised in Budget 2010 to begin to address cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women: (a) how will this $10 million be spent; (b) what concrete actions is the government pursuing with these funds in order to address this problem; (c) which governmental and non-governmental organizations does the government intend to consult and work with in order to effectively address the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women, (i) will these governmental and non-governmental organizations receive any of the $10 million, (ii) if so, which organizations will receive money and how much will each receive; and (d) will Sisters in Spirit receive any funding from the $10 million? |
| Q-3272 — June 14, 2010 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With respect to the development of an Action Plan to advance the equality of women across Canada mentioned in the Budget Plan 2008: (a) what is the Action Plan; (b) what organizations were consulted on the Action Plan; (c) when did consultations on the Action Plan take place; (d) where did consultations on the Action Plan take place; (e) what is the timeline for the Action Plan; (f) when was the Action Plan announced; (g) where was the Action Plan announced; (h) what fiscal resources will be allocated to the Action Plan; and (i) was a gender-based analysis conducted on the Action Plan? |
| Q-3282 — June 14, 2010 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With respect to the $110 million announced on May 16, 2010, by the Minister of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec in support measures for 2010-2011 to address the challenges facing the forest industry: (a) as of June 9, 2010, has any of this funding been awarded in the province of Quebec, (i) if yes, what are the details of the funding awarded, including the timeline and the recipients, (ii) if no, what are the details of all applications that have been received to date requesting funding from this program; (b) what are the eligibility requirements for this fund; (c) what are the criteria that would affect a funding application; and (d) what are the complete details of the program funding? |
| Q-3292 — June 14, 2010 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With respect to Objective 8 for the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated (JCCBI) in the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited: (a) who was awarded the contract for the feasibility study to construct a new bridge along the Champlain Bridge Corridor; (b) what is the cost sharing agreement between JCCBI and the Ministère des Transports du Quebec; (c) what is the financial summary of the agreement in (b); and (d) what is the timeline for the completion of the study? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
| P-27 — June 14, 2010 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports and briefing papers related to a gender-based analysis conducted of the federal budget for each fiscal year since 2006-2007 up to 2009-2010 conducted for the Department of Finance, Treasury Board Secretariat and Privy Council Office. |
| P-28 — June 14, 2010 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Action Plan to advance the equality of women across Canada mentioned in the Budget Plan 2008. |
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-551 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should re-establish the Court Challenges Program in support of equality and minority rights in Canada. |
| M-552 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) is an impediment to peace in Uganda; and that the government should list the LRA as a terrorist entity pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Act and related legislation, take all necessary measures to apply sanctions to the group and associated individuals, including asset freezes and travel bans, and commit to assistance for recovery and reconstruction in northern Uganda. |
| M-553 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should develop an action plan on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice that includes implementation of the recommendations of the 2004 Report of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice. |
| M-554 — June 14, 2010 — Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should strengthen legislation to prevent the abandonment of derelict vessels along Canada’s coast by imposing stiff penalties and recovering the cost of clean-up from the registered owners, while acting immediately to remove such vessels before they become safety and environmental hazards. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-469 — May 6, 2010 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Leslie (Halifax), — That Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — November 18, 2009 |
| Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — March 5, 2010 |
| Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — April 15, 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). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|