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. 196 Monday, April 20, 2015 11:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| April 16, 2015 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Carriage by Air Act (fundamental rights) ”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-11512 — April 16, 2015 — Ms. Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel) — With respect to all Governor in Council appointments for each year since 2006: (a) what is the total number of appointments made, broken down by administrative tribunals, agencies, boards and Crown corporations; and (b) what is the total number of female appointments made, broken down by administrative tribunals, agencies, boards and Crown corporations? |
| Q-11522 — April 16, 2015 — Ms. Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel) — With respect to Status of Women Canada's Action Plan on Gender-based Analysis: for each specific commitment, sub-commitment and identified action, what is the detailed status of the commitment, completion date or anticipated completion date? |
| Q-11532 — April 16, 2015 — Ms. Boivin (Gatineau) — With regard to Edgar Schmidt v. The Attorney General of Canada, as of March 31, 2015: (a) how many hours have public servants devoted to this legal challenge; (b) how much money has the government spent on the challenge; and (c) what resources has the government called on regarding the challenge and how much money has been allocated to each of these resources? |
| Q-11542 — April 16, 2015 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to government funding allocated in the constituency of Thunder Bay—Superior North, broken down by fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present: (a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) program, (iv) any other government body; and (b) how many jobs are estimated to have been created by this funding, broken down by (i) full-time jobs, (ii) part-time jobs? |
| Q-11552 — April 16, 2015 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the Ebola vaccine developed at the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML): (a) on what date did research for the vaccine begin; (b) what are the names of the scientists involved in the research, and what are their positions; (c) why was the vaccine research initially being undertaken; (d) was the research undertaken at any time in relation to anti-bioterrorism, and, if so, during what periods and with what specific mandate; (e) who provided funding for the research and development of the vaccine; (f) was the Government of Canada the only contributor to the research and development fund; (g) how much funding did the government provide, broken down by (i) percentage, (ii) department, (iii) date, (iv) dollar amount of contribution; (h) on what date was a robust immune response demonstrated to the vaccine; (i) on what date were research findings published and in what journal, and, if not, why not; (j) on what date was the vaccine patented and when was the initial patent application brought; (k) in which countries is the vaccine patented; (l) during what specific time period was the vaccine produced, (i) how many vials were produced, (ii) who was informed of this production, (iii) how were they informed; (m) was there a competitive process to sell the licensing rights or other entitlements relating to the vaccine; (n) if the process in (m) was created, (i) who developed the criteria for the licensing rights or other entitlements, broken down by position and department, (ii) what were the criteria to obtain the licensing rights or other entitlements, (iii) on what date was the competitive process launched, (iv) how many companies bid for the rights, (v) which companies bid for the rights and on what dates, (vi) how did NewLink Genetics (including Bioprotection Systems Corporation) meet the criteria for the licensing rights or other entitlements; (o) on what date was NewLink Genetics awarded the rights or entitlements; (p) what specific experience did NewLink Genetics have with vaccines, specifically when it comes to manufacturing capacity; (q) what of NewLink Genetics products had reached the point of commercial production at the time of its bidding and purchase of the rights; (r) on what date did NewLink Genetics purchase the rights or entitlements from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and for what cost; (s) as part of the licensing agreement, was NewLink Genetics expected to meet any milestones by any particular dates, if so, when, and, if not, why not; (t) as part of the licensing agreement, what percentage royalties would NewLink Genetics pay Canada on any sales of the vaccine; (u) to date, how much income has the government obtained from licensing the vaccine, broken down by (i) up-front payments, (ii) milestone payments, (iii) any other payments; (v) did any of the NML or PHAC scientists/staff have any associations or links or monetary or proprietary interests or any other association with NewLink Genetics, and, if so, what are they; (w) did Canadian officials and the licensee meet annually in face-to-face meetings as required by Article 7.9 of the license agreement, and, if so, for all meetings, what is (i) the date, (ii) location, (iii) the name of all persons in attendance; (x) on what date did NewLink Genetics begin clinical trials of the vaccine; (y) how long was the delay between the onset of the commercial relationship with NewLink Genetics and start of clinical trials, broken down by (i) days, (ii) months, (iii) years; (z) what reason was given for the delay in (y); (aa) did the government question the progress of the clinical trials, if so, on what specific dates, and, if not, why not; (bb) in Canada's licensing agreement with NewLink Genetics, did Canada have the right to let other manufacturers make the vaccine for use in other countries "for compassionate care purposes" if NewLink had not received regulatory approval for the vaccine in the target country; (cc) did anyone in Canada urge the government to terminate its agreement with NewLink Genetics, and, if so, (i) who did so, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (dd) did anyone outside Canada request that Canada cancel NewLink's rights under the license, and, if so, (i) who did so, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (ee) did the government terminate the agreement, if so, why, and, if not, why not; (ff) if the government terminated the agreement with NewLink Genetics, would Merck have paid the government the $30 million up front and $20 million once larger formal trials begun that went to NewLink Genetics, and would the government have been eligible to receive royalties on sales in certain markets; (gg) did the government approve of NewLink Genetics sub-licensing the vaccine to Merck; (hh) on what date did the government pay for IDT Biologika, to manufacture approximately 1 500 vials of the vaccine suitable for human trials, (i) how much was paid, (ii) was the Department of Defence involved, and, if so, why, (iii) did the Department of Defence contribute any funds; (ii) on what date did the Ebola outbreak begin in West Africa; (jj) on what date did the government reveal it had in storage an experimental vaccine that might be of use in combating the epidemic; (kk) on what date did the government offer vaccine to the World Health Organization (WHO); (ll) how many vials were sent to the WHO by the government, (i) on what date did the vials arrive, (ii) were there any delays; (mm) what are the results of the eight, phase l clinical trials in terms of (i) safety, (ii) immunogenic response, (iii) dose strength for phase 2/3 clinical trials; (nn) on what date did phase 2/3 clinical trials begin in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone; and (oo) what was the government’s involvement overall, broken down by (i) expertise, (ii) funding, (iii) personnel, (iv) other? |
| Q-11562 — April 16, 2015 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With regard to the proposed changes to the Health of Animals Regulations Part XII – Transportation of Animals: when will the the updated Transportation Regulations be released? |
| Q-11572 — April 16, 2015 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With regard to the amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in Part IV of Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) how soon after the coming into force of these provisions does the Service expect to begin to use its new powers to intervene to disrupt terror plots; (b) what will the costs be to provide supplementary training to Service agents and employees so that they may safely use their new powers; (c) what will the costs be to provide additional equipment to Service agents and employees so that they may safely use their new powers; (d) has there been a projection of the total costs of implementing Part IV of Bill C-51, including, but not limited to, the additional cost of the preparation, issuance and execution of warrants under section 21.1, and, if so, what are the details of this projection; (e) will the Service's budget be updated to match these new powers; and (f) will the Security Intelligence Review Committee's budget be increased to match these new powers? |
| Q-11582 — April 16, 2015 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With regard to the government’s actions to combat climate change: (a) what is the progress on the development and implementation of regulations on the oil and gas industry according to the sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that is listed on the government’s www.climatechange.gc.ca website; (b) when does the government expect to introduce regulations on the oil and gas industry; (c) what factors are being considered by the government to develop regulations on the oil and gas industry; (d) what stakeholders are being consulted by the government to develop regulations on the oil and gas industry; (e) how many meetings with oil and gas industry stakeholders has the government held since it first began developing the regulations; (f) including the cost of consultation meetings, staff, and any other expenses not mentioned above, what has been the total cumulative cost to date of developing the oil and gas regulation policy; (g) will the government meet the Conference of Parties (COP) 21 process deadlines outlined in decisions 1/CP.19 and 1/CP.20 to submit its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) “well in advance” of the twenty-first session of the COP; and (h) why was the government not ready to submit its INDCs by the first quarter of 2015, the decisions suggested deadline? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motions |
| April 16, 2015 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — That, in the opinion of the House, the recent toxic bunker fuel spill in Vancouver Harbour represents an urgent reminder of the fragility of our coastal waters and, therefore, the government must reverse its cuts to marine safety, oil spill response, and environmental clean-up capacity in Vancouver and elsewhere on the coast of British Columbia by: (a) re-opening the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station; (b) re-opening the recently-closed Ucluelet Marine Communication and Traffic Service Centre; and (c) halting plans to close the Vancouver and Comox Marine Communication and Traffic Service Centres. |
|
|
| April 16, 2015 — Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — That, in the opinion of the House, the recent toxic bunker fuel spill in Vancouver Harbour represents an urgent reminder of the fragility of our coastal waters and, therefore, the government must reverse its cuts to marine safety, oil spill response, and environmental clean-up capacity in Vancouver and elsewhere on the coast of British Columbia by: (a) re-opening the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station; (b) re-opening the recently-closed Ucluelet Marine Communication and Traffic Service Centre; and (c) halting plans to close the Vancouver and Comox Marine Communication and Traffic Service Centres. |
|
|
| April 16, 2015 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, as part of Budget 2015, close the employee stock option deduction tax loophole that gives up to $750 million annually to the wealthiest Canadians in unfair tax benefits, and instead invest in eliminating child poverty in Canada by enhancing the Working Income Tax Benefit and the National Child Benefit Supplement. |
|
|
| April 16, 2015 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, as part of Budget 2015, close the employee stock option deduction tax loophole that gives up to $750 million annually to the wealthiest Canadians in unfair tax benefits, and instead invest in eliminating child poverty in Canada by enhancing the Working Income Tax Benefit and the National Child Benefit Supplement. |
|
|
| April 16, 2015 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should remove the GST from feminine hygiene products as part of Budget 2015. |
|
|
| April 16, 2015 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should remove the GST from feminine hygiene products as part of Budget 2015. |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-596 — April 16, 2015 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize that the seven-day window following an expiry period for active prepaid wireless phone cards is too short; (b) undertake appropriate consultations to determine an extension of that period to ensure that consumers are treated fairly; and (c) introduce new minimum expiry periods for prepaid wireless phone cards. |
Private Members' Business |
|
|
| M-550 — February 2, 2015 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria), seconded by Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take steps to provide an increased level of rail service throughout Canada by: (a) recognizing that an increase in rail service and capacity is essential to the livelihood of Canadian agriculture; (b) recognizing that the ongoing review of the Canada Transportation Act provides an opportunity to rebalance the system and improve capacity and service; (c) making sure that all sections of the industry convene, with their own operational ideas, to increase effectiveness and efficiency of our transportation system, such as increased labour, capacity, or train-cars; (d) recognizing that changes to legislation are needed to address the imbalance of power along the logistics chain; and (e) making sure that all stakeholders work together to build a world class transportation system, including effective legislation and regulations. |
| 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). |
| To be added to the business of the House on a day fixed by the Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 30(7) — March 24, 2015 |
| Designated day — Monday, April 20, 2015. |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|