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. 70 Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-4192 — January 30, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the risk of corrosion and spills and other safety concerns arising from the transport of bitumen in pipelines, and to government action to address these risks: (a) how does diluted bitumen compare with West Texas Intermediate (WTI) in terms of (i) abrasive material content, (ii) acid concentration, (iii) sulphur content, (iv) viscosity; (b) to what extent is diluted bitumen more likely than WTI to cause corrosion or erosion in the pipelines through which they respectively flow; (c) what is the composition of diluted bitumen in Canada; (d) what are all of the volatile chemicals, persistent organic pollutants or carcinogenic substances present in diluted bitumen in Canada; (e) in the process of diluting bitumen in Canada, what are the (i) natural gas condensates used, (ii) other petroleum products used; (f) what is the process by which diluted bitumen corrodes pipelines, with specific reference to (i) abrasion, (ii) friction, (iii) high pressure, (iv) settling of sediment, (v) velocity, (vi) sulphur-reducing bacteria, (vii) other significant factors; (g) for all proposed or existing National Energy Board (NEB)-regulated pipelines, what is (i) the amount of hard sediment passing through the pipeline annually, (ii) the average pressure, (iii) the average temperature; (h) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to determine whether diluted bitumen can flow safely through pipelines; (i) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to determine whether or not conventional crude should be distinguished from diluted bitumen when setting minimum standards for pipelines; (j) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to design safety and spill responses and spill liability management capabilities that are appropriate specifically to diluted bitumen; (k) how does a diluted bitumen spill compare with a conventional light sweet oil spill in terms of (i) the impacts of the natural gas liquid condensate used to dilute the bitumen, (ii) diluted bitumen’s ability to form an ignitable and explosive mixture; (l) in the case of a diluted bitumen spill, at what temperatures would ignition of the spill occur, and what heat sources might cause ignition; (m) what, if any, are the (i) names, (ii) dates, (iii) conclusions, (iv) recommendations of research undertaken by the government concerning the environmental and economic risks of a diluted bitumen spill; (n) what, if any, are the (i) names, (ii) dates, (iii) conclusions, (iv) recommendations of risk analyses (including such factors as potential avalanches, flooding, remote location, rockslides, and snowpack) undertaken by the government concerning the danger of a diluted bitumen spill; (o) what, if any, are the (i) names, (ii) dates, (iii) conclusions, (iv) recommendations of analyses undertaken by the government concerning the possible economic, environmental, and social impacts of a diluted bitumen spill on First Nation and non-First Nation ways of life; (p) what are the challenges associated with clean-up specifically of a diluted bitumen spill, in rivers, wetland and marine environments (including when surface water is frozen), particularly as raw bitumen is heavier than water; (q) what appropriate clean-up operations might, in case of a diluted bitumen spill, be required in terms of equipment, personnel, and supplies, compared to a spill of light sweet crude oil; (r) what are the likely economic and environmental costs of a diluted bitumen spill compared to a spill of light sweet crude oil; (s) how might a diluted bitumen spill impact human health, including, but not limited to, (i) potential impacts both in the short-term and the long-term of exposure to toxins, including benzene, hydrogen sulphide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and n-hexane, (ii) potential impacts of exposure to toxins (such as arsenic, nickel, mercury and other heavy metals that do not biodegrade) that can bio-accumulate in the food chain; (t) what health and safety precautions does the government require emergency personnel to take when responding specifically to diluted bitumen spills; (u) what are all pipeline spills that have occurred from 1990 to 2010 in NEB-regulated pipelines, including (i) location, (ii) cause, (iii) affected area, (iv) environmental costs, (v) significant challenges to clean-up, (vi) impacts on human health, (vii) equipment, personnel and supplies required, (viii) economic costs; (v) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government taken to evaluate the need for new Canadian pipeline safety regulations and standards that reflect the unique characteristics of diluted bitumen, and to restrict further diluted bitumen pipeline development until adequate safety regulations are in place; (w) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken concerning changes to the design, operation and decommissioning of pipelines that may be necessary due to impacts of climate change, including but not limited to melting permafrost, changing moisture regimes, more severe storm events, increased incidence of forest fires, and slope instabilities; (x) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken regarding the adoption of pipeline regulations and standards that require new pipeline routes to avoid landslide-prone routes, and that provide an adequate risk assessment for risks to pipelines arising from landslides and snow avalanches; (y) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to evaluate the risk of pipeline spills caused by multiple incidents happening at the same time, including worst-case scenarios; (z) what specific action and investment will the government take to ensure (i) that bitumen pipeline operators will fix safety problems identified at their facilities, (ii) that bitumen pipeline operators keep their emergency procedures up-to-date; (aa) what specific actions will the government take to ensure that pipeline companies which transport bitumen employ emergency-procedures manuals that adequately (i) identify the hazards posed by the operation of the pipelines, (ii) assess the risks posed by those hazards, (iii) map nearby residences and evacuation routes, (iv) describe and locate emergency response equipment, (v) identify any environmentally sensitive areas potentially affected by an incident, (vi) explain governmental roles in an emergency response; and (bb) in what ways, if any, must the emergency-procedures manuals referred to in sub-question (aa) differ from those concerning pipelines that do not carry bitumen? |
| Q-4202 — January 30, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to Canada’s international commitments on climate change and the government’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol: (a) for each of the international commitments that the government has made concerning climate change, (i) what is that commitment, (ii) what are the government’s obligations under it, (iii) does the government plan to fulfill each obligation or not; (b) what specific actions or negotiating positions were taken in support of the government’s statements that it (i) “went to Durban in a spirit of good will,” (ii) “went [to the Durban climate change conference] committed to being constructive,” (statement by Minister Kent, Foyer of the House of Commons, December 12, 2011); (c) in detail, how does the government plan to achieve the goal of reaching a new international agreement on climate change with particular reference to (i) how the government plans to achieve legally binding commitments for all major emitters, (ii) how the government plans to find solutions to meet the agreed-upon-objective of staying below 2°C of warming; (d) what information does the Minister of the Environment possess that supports his statement that “increasingly, support is growing for Canada’s position – from the EU, to the United States, Australia, New Zealand, least developed countries and the group of 43 small island states” (statement by Minister Kent, Foyer of the House of Commons, December 12, 2011); (e) does the Minister of the Environment possess information that Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol is a positive step for Canada’s economy, in contradiction of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy’s projected costs of $21-43 billion annually by 2050 (depending on whether a low climate change–slow growth scenario or a high climate change–rapid growth scenario), and what is that information; (f) what, in detail, are the “radical and irresponsible choices” (statement by Minister Kent, Foyer of the House of Commons, December 12, 2011) that Canada was facing under the Kyoto protocol; and (g) what are the penalties to which Canada would have been subject to under the Kyoto protocol for not meeting agreed emission reductions, and what analysis does the government possess in support of the statements that these penalties would have entailed “the loss of thousands of jobs” and “the transfer of $14 BILLION from Canadian taxpayers to other countries – the equivalent of $1600 from every Canadian family — with no impact on emissions or the environment” (statement by Minister Kent, Foyer of the House of Commons, December 12, 2011)? |
| Q-4212 — January 30, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to increasing evidence for the threat of climate change and Canada’s response to it, including emission reductions and adaptation strategies: (a) do the government’s policies address the growing scientific consensus that the threat of climate change is now incontrovertible; (b) do the government’s policies acknowledge that continuing on a business-as-usual pathway could lead to (i) a potential temperature rise of 4°C by the end of the century, (ii) dangerous impacts for Canada and the world; (c) do the government’s policies acknowledge that the small number of climate change deniers who continue to contest either that climate change is real or that humans are causing it (i) are generally not climate scientists, (ii) employ arguments that have been discredited by the international scientific community; (d) do the government’s policies acknowledge that (i) while our scientific understanding of the climate system is not complete, the evidence is sufficiently strong to show that climate change poses a real threat, (ii) further delays in addressing this threat will entail greater risks and costs; (e) do the government’s policies acknowledge that if the scenario in (b)(i) becomes a reality, serious consequences, such as coastal flooding, extreme weather events, and forest fires, will intensify over the coming decades with significant costs for the economy and the environment, both in Canada and globally; (f) what research, if any, has the government undertaken or planned to undertake to assess the impact of climate change on the Canadian economy and the costs of adaptation to climate change, and what are (i) the names of these studies, (ii) the dates they were carried out, (iii) their conclusions, including projected costs and whether and under what circumstances said costs can be kept to manageable levels, (iv) their recommendations; (g) what are specific examples of how the government is taking advantage of “shorter-term opportunities to address climate change” (notes for remarks by the Honourable Peter Kent, P.C., M.P., Announcement on Domestic Climate Change Adaptation, Toronto, Ontario, November 8, 2011); (h) what sectors are to be included in the government's sector-by-sector approach to climate change, and what are the dates for the inclusion of each sector; (i) what concrete examples demonstrate the government's climate change plan has "a strong, corresponding international component" (notes, November 8, 2011); (j) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government carried out to “reduce the soot, methane, ozone and other gases” (notes, November 8, 2011) which are short-lived drivers of the climate system; (k) what research, if any, has the government undertaken to compare the costs of early mitigation of climate change with the costs of late adaptation to climate change, and what are (i) the names of these studies, (ii) the dates they were carried out, (iii) their conclusions, including projected costs and whether (and under what circumstances) said costs can be kept to manageable levels, (iv) their recommendations; (l) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government carried out to develop a pan-Canadian plan for energy efficiency with targets for the years 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050; (m) what, if any, (i) action, (ii) investment has the government undertaken to implement low-impact renewable energy solutions in Canada for the years listed in (l); (n) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to develop a strategy for sustainable transportation in Canada with targets for the years listed in (l); (o) what actions, if any, has the government carried out to develop a fund for climate-neutral pilot projects that will allow municipalities to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as much as possible, and to use carbon offsets to neutralize unavoidable emissions; (p) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to develop a plan to rationalize and phase out fossil fuel subsidies, with targets for 2015, 2020 and 2025, in order to achieve the goal of a ‘medium term’ phase-out; (q) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to develop a plan to increase research and development into and deployment of low-carbon technology in Canada; (r) what, if any (i) research (ii) consultations has the government undertaken to determine if, given various possible scenarios, an investment of $148.8 million over the next five years will be sufficient to help Canada adapt adequately to climate change by the target dates 2030, 2040, and 2050; and (s) what specific provisions has the government made to allow Environment Canada’s Adaptation and Impacts Research Section to undertake research to help Canada adapt to climate change? |
| Q-4222 — January 30, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to nutrition in child and adolescent populations in Canada: (a) does government policy include recognition and acceptance of the principle that Canada’s children and adolescents are entitled to nutritious food (i) regardless of where they live, (ii) regardless of their family income, (iii) particularly when economic forces undermine efforts by parents and caregivers to ensure healthy eating; (b) given that the 1992 World Declaration on Nutrition, to which Canada was a signatory, states that access to nutritionally adequate and safe food is a right of each individual, what specific actions have the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Health Canada undertaken for children and adolescents in order to fulfill this commitment; (c) what percentage of children and adolescents in Canada is food insecure, (i) do disparities exist, including, but not limited to, disability status, ethnicity, gender, geography, socio-economic status, (ii) if so, specify; (d) what percentage of children and adolescents lives below the poverty line, (i) do disparities exist, including, but not limited to, disability status, ethnicity, gender, geography, socio-economic status, (ii) if so, specify; (e) what percentage of children and adolescents has, as a result of living below the poverty line, (i) poor nutritional status, (ii) poor health outcomes due to their poor nutritional status; (f) what percentage of members of each of the following groups is food insecure, (i) child and adolescent newcomers, (ii) children and adolescents who live in poverty, (iii) children and adolescents who live in priority neighbourhoods, (iv) Aboriginal children and adolescents; (g) what percentage of children and adolescents (i) involuntarily misses meals, (ii) lacks healthy variety in its diet; (h) does the government have information, and, if so, what is that information, concerning (i) how (g)(i) and (g)(ii) impact the caloric and nutrient intake of young children, (ii) how (h)(i) affects growth and development and school readiness; (i) what percentage of child and adolescent newcomers, children and adolescents who live in poverty, children and adolescents who live in priority neighbourhoods, and Aboriginal children and adolescents (i) involuntarily misses meals, (ii) lacks healthy variety in its diet; (j) what percentage of children and adolescents has fewer than the recommended daily servings of (i) vegetables and fruit, (ii) milk products, (iii) grain products; (k) what percentage of child and adolescent newcomers, children and adolescents who live in poverty, children and adolescents who live in priority neighbourhoods, and Aboriginal children and adolescents has fewer than the recommended daily servings of (i) vegetables and fruit, (ii) milk products, (iii) grain products; (l) what percentage of children and adolescents from all income brackets is vulnerable to inadequate nutrition, (i) for what specific reasons; (m) what percentage of elementary students and secondary school students does not eat a nutritious breakfast before school, (i) do disparities exist, including, but not limited to, disability status, ethnicity, gender, geography, socio-economic status, (ii) if so, specify; (n) what percentage of children and adolescents is vulnerable to poor academic, health, and socio-emotional outcomes as a result of inadequate nutrition; (o) what percentage of overweight and obese children and adolescents does not eat a nutritious breakfast; (p) how are children’s learning capabilities (including, but not limited to, creativity testing, voluntary endurance, and working memory) affected by how recently a child has eaten; (q) how does malnutrition in early life limit long-term intellectual development; (r) what impact, if any, does an inadequate childhood diet have on the risk of adult chronic disease; (s) how is the behaviour of children and adolescents (including, but not limited to, ability to concentrate, anxiety, depression, fatigue, and irritability) affected by whether or not they have eaten breakfast; (t) what research, if any, has the CIHR or Health Canada undertaken to assess whether schools play a role in shaping the dietary behaviours of children, and, if such research has been undertaken, (i) what are the studies, (ii) what are the studies’ dates, (iii) what are the studies’ conclusions, (iv) what are the studies’ recommendations; (u) what research, if any, has the CIHR or Health Canada undertaken to assess possible links between student nutrition and academic performance, classroom behaviour, and antisocial behaviour, and, if such research has been undertaken, (i) what are the studies, (ii) what are the studies’ dates, (iii) what are the studies’ conclusions, (iv) what are the studies’ recommendations; (v) what research, if any, has the CIHR or Health Canada undertaken to assess whether nutrition programs delivered at school sites are effective in providing children with (i) more nutritious diets, (ii) better cognitive abilities, (iii) better cooperation among children, (iv) improved discipline, (v) improved interpersonal behaviours, (vi) improved emotional and physical health, (vii) reduced risk of chronic disease, and, if such research has been undertaken, (viii) what are the studies, (ix) what are the studies’ dates, (x) what are the studies’ conclusions, (xi) what are the studies’ recommendations; (w) what research, if any, has the CIHR or Health Canada undertaken to assess whether nutrition programs delivered at school sites improve (i) nutritional adequacy, (ii) nutritional education, (iii) positive socialization, (iv) school attendance, (v) community mobilization, partnerships and social support, and, if such research has been undertaken, (vi) what are all the studies, (vii) what are the studies’ dates, (viii) what are the studies’ conclusions, (ix) what are the studies’ recommendations; (x) what percentage of children and adolescents is enrolled in a school district with (i) a nutrition program, (ii) nutritional guidelines for school meals; (y) what percentage of child and adolescent newcomers, children and adolescents who live in poverty, children and adolescents who live in priority neighbourhoods, and Aboriginal children and adolescents, is enrolled in a school district with (i) a nutrition program, (ii) nutritional guidelines for school meals; (z) what information does the government possess that explains why school sites are an effective venue to deliver student nutrition and what is this information; (aa) are there specific reasons why Canada does not have a pan-Canadian nutritional initiative delivered at school sites, and, if so, (i) what are these reasons, (ii) does the government have any analysis of the obstacles that would have to be overcome to develop a pan-Canadian nutrition program and what are those obstacles; (bb) what research, if any, has been undertaken by the CIHR or the government into a pan-Canadian nutrition initiative to be delivered at school sites, including (i) the cost per student per day, (ii) the annual return on investment of a pan-Canadian nutrition initiative delivered at school sites, (iii) the annual payback on a pan-Canadian nutrition initiative if the graduation rate increased by five percent, (iv) the annual return on investment of a pan-Canadian nutrition initiative if obesity, cardiopulmonary, and diabetes rates were reduced by five percent as a result of the initiative; (cc) what research, if any, has been undertaken by the CIHR or the government into fully funding on-reserve aboriginal student meals, including (i) the cost per student per day, (ii) the annual return on investment of a student nutrition initiative, (iii) the annual payback on a student nutrition initiative if the graduation rate increased by five percent, (iv) the annual payback on a student nutrition initiative if obesity, cardiopulmonary, and diabetes rates were reduced by five percent as a result of the initiative; (dd) has the government taken any action or made any investment, and, if so, what is the nature of said action or investment, to (i) initiate discussions with the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for agriculture, education and health to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian school nutrition initiative, (ii) fully fund on-reserve aboriginal student meals; and (ee) what research, if any, has been undertaken by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and what economic impacts on the Canadian economy have been identified in said research, into (i) a possible economic stimulus resulting from the implementation of a pan-Canadian nutrition initiative delivered at school sites, including, but not limited to, the impacts on ancillary industries, such as, distribution, refrigeration, and service, (ii) the development of local markets for farmers? |
| Q-4232 — January 30, 2012 — Ms. Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville) — With regard to the report of the Standing Committee on Health tabled in the House on December 2, 2010, entitled “An Examination of the Potential Health Impacts of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation”: (a) which of the recommendations presented in this report does the Minister of Health plan to implement; (b) when does she plan to do so; and (c) if she is not planning to implement them, why? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-306 — January 30, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately initiate discussions with the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for health to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian strategy for rare disorders. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-313 — October 31, 2011 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mrs. Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton), seconded by Mr. Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills), — That Bill C-313, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mrs. Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul) — October 18, 2011 |
| 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 |
|