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. 34 Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
| December 9, 2013 — The Minister of International Trade — Bill entitled “An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras”. |
| Recommendation |
| (Pursuant to Standing Order 79(2)) |
| His 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 implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras”. |
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-1712 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River) — With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what was the amount and percentage of all “lapsed spending” in the department, broken down by year from 2005 to 2013? |
| Q-1722 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River) — With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what criteria were used to determine which regional Veterans Affairs offices would be closed by February 2014, as announced in the 2012-2013 budget? |
| Q-1732 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River) — With regard to the nine regional offices of Veterans Affairs that are to be closed by February 2014 (Charlottetown, Corner Brook, Sydney, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Kelowna, Prince George, Saskatoon, and Brandon): what are the total operating costs by year for each office from 2009-2012? |
| Q-1742 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to government spending in the province of Prince Edward Island: (a) what has been the total amount of spending in the province each year since 2006; (b) what has been the total amount of spending each year since 2006 in the constituencies of (i) Cardigan, (ii) Charlottetown, (iii) Malpeque, (iv) Egmont; and (c) what is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006, broken down by (i) the date the money was received, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program from which the funding came, (iv) the ministry responsible, (v) the designated recipient? |
| Q-1752 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Canada Europe Free Trade Agreement (CETA): (a) what are the details of all tariffs which will be removed on Canadian seafood products, (i) on what date(s) will they be removed, (ii) what are the projected savings for the Canadian seafood industry; (b) what are the details of all tariffs which will be removed on European seafood products, (i) on which date(s) will they be removed, (ii) what are the projected savings for the European seafood industry; (c) what is the total number and value of Canadian seafood exports to the European Union (EU) in each year since 2006, broken down by province; (d) what is the total number and value of European seafood exports to Canada in each year since 2006; (e) what effects will the elimination of Newfoundland and Labrador’s (NL) Minimum Processing Requirement (MPR) on seafood products exported to the EU have on that province’s processing industry; (f) what are the details of NL's processed seafood exports to the EU by value and weight for each year since 2006; (g) has the government done any study or analysis on what the implications of the removal of the MPR will be or consulted any outside organizations or companies as to what the implications will be, and if so, what are the details of the implications; (h) how many NL processing plant employees does the government expect to be displaced due to the removal of the MPR; (i) what are the details of the $280 million the government is providing in return for removing the MPR in NL, including (i) the programs and departments from which the money will be allocated, (ii) the details on what the money will be used for, (iii) when the money will be spent, (iv) the reasons for providing this money; (j) was the EU ban on Canadian seal products ever a part of high level discussions between the government and the EU regarding CETA and if not why not; (k) what are the details of any and all effects CETA will have on foreign ownership of Canadian fishing licenses; and (l) will CETA have any effect on small craft harbour funding, the fleet separation or owner-operator policies, controlling agreements, or any other funding, policies or programs related to fish harvesters, the fishing industry, or coastal communities in Canada? |
| Q-1762 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), what applications have been received from the riding of Avalon for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, including (i) the specific projects that were approved or rejected in each fiscal year, (ii) the name and physical address of proponent(s), (iii) the project title, (iv) the proposed scope of work, (v) the total cost of the projects, (vi) the amount of funding approved by ACOA, (vii) the funding program(s) within ACOA that the funding approved? |
| Q-1772 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Department of National Defence and its commitment to the Air Cadet Flying Program: (a) what changes will take place for 2014 and what are the projected budget savings; (b) will the role of the Air Cadet League of Canada change in 2013 or 2014; (c) will the Air Transport Association of Canada play a role in the program in 2013 or 2014; (d) how many individuals participated in the Air Cadet Flying Program in each year from 2010-2013; and (e) how many individuals are projected to participate in the program for 2014 and 2015? |
| Q-1782 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Prime Minster’s Office, as of February 1, 2013: (a) how many individuals make an annual salary of $150,000 a year or more; (b) how many individuals make an annual salary of $200,000 or more; (c) how many individuals make an annual salary of $250,000 a year or more; (d) how many individuals make an annual salary of $300,000 or more; (e) of those who make an annual salary of $200,000 or more, how many received a performance award, otherwise known as a bonus; and (f) of those who received a performance award, what was the amount of each? |
| Q-1792 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to employees and contractors of the government of Canada within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) how many such employees or contractors have there been in total per year since 2004, broken down by (i) riding (current boundaries), (ii) riding (proposed boundaries), (iii) full time, part time or occasional status, (iv) permanent, indeterminate, or temporary status, (v) total gross income for each response in (iii) and (iv), (vi) department, office, facility, or contract location; and (b) what are the projected responses for all clauses in (a) between now and 2019? |
| Q-1802 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for each year from 2003 to 2013, what was the CPI for each household income quintile given the goods and services typically purchased by each quintile according to the average household spending patterns? |
| Q-1812 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to mobile applications, broken down by department and individual project, for each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, what is the total amount spent on (i) the development, (ii) the maintenance and update, of mobile applications? |
| Q-1822 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to Canada Student Loan forgiveness for eligible family doctors, residents in family medicine, registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses, registered practical nurses, licensed practical nurses, or nurse practitioners who work in rural or remote communities: (a) how many medical professionals have applied for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013, broken down by (i) eligible medical profession, (ii) the designated community in which the applicant is working; (b) how many medical professionals who have applied for loan forgiveness have been accepted for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013, broken down by (i) eligible medical profession,(ii) the designated community in which the applicant is working; (c) what is the anticipated total value of loan forgiveness payments that will be paid to qualified medical professionals under this program by April 2014, broken down by (i) loan forgiveness period, (ii) eligible medical profession, (iii) the designated community in which the applicant is working? |
| Q-1832 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to extradition: (a) broken down by country and by year for the past 20 years, (i) how many people have been extradited to Canada, (ii) how many requests has Canada received for extradition, (iii) how many people have been extradited from Canada, (iv) how many requests has Canada made for an individual to be extradited, (v) by year of request, how many extradition requests are still pending in Canada, (vi) by year of request, how many Canadian extradition requests are still pending abroad, (vii) what is the last step undertaken in the extradition process of cases that are still pending in Canada, (viii) what is the last step undertaken in the extradition process of Canadian cases that are still pending abroad, (ix) by country of request, what is the average delay in months from the date that extradition is sought to Canada extraditing the individual, (x) what is the average time in months from the date that extradition is sought to the individual returning to Canada, (xi) how much money has Canada spent on each extradition case litigated abroad, (xii) how much money has Canada spent on each extradition case litigated in Canada, (xiii) for each extradition request in Canada, how many judicial decisions resulted, and at which court levels; (b) what is the mean, median, and mode for number of judicial proceedings in Canada for the average extradition for the last 20 years; (c) for extradition treaties in particular, (i) with which countries does Canada have extradition treaties in place, (ii) with which countries is Canada currently negotiating extradition treaties, (iii) what is the last step undertaken in the process of treaty-making for current extradition treaty negotiations, (iv) how frequently are extradition treaties reviewed, (v) by what metrics are extradition treaties reviewed, (vi) what consultations have taken place regarding extradition treaties in the past seven years, (vi) what consultations are scheduled regarding extradition treaties, (vii) with what individuals and groups have Ministers of the Crown met regarding extradition treaties, (viii) with what individuals and groups have government departments met regarding extradition treaties, (ix) how is Parliament informed of any changes to extradition treaties, (x) by what metrics are the effectiveness of Canada’s extradition treaties evaluated, (xi) do different extradition treaties have different measures of effectiveness, and if so, how do they differ, (xii) what benefits does Canada observe from having extradition treaties, (xiii) how are the benefits in (xii) quantified, (xiv) what steps are in place to ensure consistency in application of treaties, (xv) what steps are in place to ensure consistency in enforcement of treaties, (xvi) what steps are in place to ensure consistency in effectiveness of treaties; (d) for the extradition process in particular, (i) how often is it reviewed in Canada, (ii) when was the last review completed, (iii) when is the next review scheduled, (iv) by what metrics is the effectiveness of the extradition system evaluated, (v) who determines the metrics in (iv), (vi) what steps are in place to reduce delays in the processing of an extradition case, (vii) what are the standards established for the processing of an extradition case and who establishes them, (viii) by what metrics are the standards in (vii) reviewed, (ix) when was the last review in (viii) completed, (x) when is the next review of the standards in (vii) scheduled, (xi) what is the role of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in the extradition process; (e) what metrics does Canada track with respect to extraditions and who is responsible for tracking them; (f) in what way are the provinces involved in the extradition process; (g) are the provinces being consulted with regard to any forthcoming changes, if so, in what ways; (h) regarding the Minister of Justice’s August 2013 comments that there is a “need to reform and modernize how we extradite people”: (i) what policies are in place to modernize the extradition process, (ii) what policies are in development to modernize the extradition process,(iii) how does the government define “modernization”, (iv) by what metrics is the modernization of the extradition process tracked, (v) what steps are in place to further modernize the extradition process, (vi) what consultations have taken place regarding the modernization of the extradition process in the past year, (vii) what consultations are scheduled regarding the modernization of the extradition process, (viii) with what individuals and groups have Ministers of the Crown met with regarding the modernization of the extradition process, (ix) with what individuals and groups have government departments met with regarding the modernization process,(x)what other policies are in place to ensure that Canada has an effective and modern extradition policy; (i) what other policies are in place to ensure that Canada has an effective and modern extradition system; (j) what is involved in determining the countries to which Canada can extradite a requested individual; (k) under what circumstances does Canada reject an extradition request; (l) how is the determination in (k) made; (m) how many extradition requests has Canada refused to honour in the past 10 years, broken down by country of request and reason; (n) in what cases will Canada not seek extradition of a Canadian abroad; (o) how is the determination in (n) made; (p) what procedures exist to ensure consistency in Canada’s requests or decisions not to request extradition of an individual; (q) has any study been conducted as to the impact on the extradition process (i) of an election being called in Canada and, if so, with what conclusions, (ii) of a change in government in Canada and, if so, with what conclusions; (r) what trends have been observed in the past ten years regarding the frequency of extradition requests and their processing; (s) what academic studies has Canada sought in relation to extradition within the past ten years; (t) what additional reviews or analysis of the extradition process have been completed internally by the government in the past 10 years;(u)what measures has the government undertaken to inform Canadians about the extradition process and any changes thereto; (v) how have Canada’s extradition policies been relayed to international partners and what meetings have most recently occurred with Canadian officials surrounding extradition; (w) what recourse is available to individuals whom the government chooses not to extradite; (x) what recourses exist for Canada when another government refuses an extradition request; (y) how many extradition requests made by Canada in the past ten years, broken down by country, have been refused; (z) on what basis was the request in (y) refused; (aa) what was the outcome for the individuals in the cases indicated in (y); (bb) in what instances has Canada sent a diplomatic note with respect to an extradition request; (cc) what is the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the extradition process; (dd) how does the government ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (ee) what other international law instruments – other than extradition treaties – are involved in the extradition process; (ff) how does the government ensure compliance with the other international law instruments described in (ee); (gg) what is the history of Canada’s extradition policy and what particular principles have been established to guide policy development and implementation in this regard? |
| Q-1842 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the position of Ambassador of Fisheries Conservation: (a) does the government plan to fill this position; (b) if so, when; and (c) if not, why not? |
| Q-1852 — December 9, 2013 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to government communications since October 23, 2013: (a) for each press release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by any government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject-matter; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed (i) on the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using the service? |
| Q-1862 — December 9, 2013 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to Industry Canada, at exactly what date and time, and on which television station, has each airing of the department’s “More Choice” television advertisement occurred since the start of the advertising campaign? |
| Q-1872 — December 9, 2013 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to information technology, for each department or agency: (a) what document, order, instruction, manual, directive, or protocol sets forth the policies concerning (i) retention of employee or officer emails generally, (ii) retention of employee or officer emails upon the termination of the employee or officer’s employment or tenure; and (b) what is the file or reference number of the document, order, instruction, manual, directive, or protocol, the date of the most recent revisions thereto, and the nature and purpose of the most recent revision thereto? |
| Q-1882 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to applications to the Minister of Justice for ministerial review of criminal convictions: (a) for each year since 2002, (i) how many applications for review of a criminal conviction were received by the Minister of Justice, (ii) of the applications received, how many preliminary assessments were completed, (iii) of applications that completed preliminary assessment, how many proceeded to the investigation stage, (iv) of completed investigations, how many applications were dismissed, (v) how many applications, and which specific ones, were granted, (vi) of applications granted, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister direct a new trial, (vii) of applications granted, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister refer a case to the court of appeal; (b) for each year since 2002, (i) how much funding was made available to the Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG) for use in the conviction review process, (ii) how much money was spent by the CCRG, (iii) how much money has been requested by the CCRG; (c) for each year since 2002, (i) how much funding was made available to the Department of Justice for use in the post-conviction review process, (ii) how much money was spent by the Department of Justice in this regard, (iii) how much money was requested by the Minister of Justice for use in this regard; (d) in the current employ of the CCRG, (i) how many individuals are lawyers; (ii) how many individuals are non-lawyers, broken down by job title, (iii) what is the employment term for the individuals in (i) and (ii); (e) for each year since 2002, (i) how many lawyers were employed by the CCRG, (ii) who was responsible for determining the staffing requirements of the CCRG, (iv) how frequently were staffing levels reviewed to ensure that they are adequate to handle the number of applications received, (v) how many CCRG staff were involved in the review of each application received by the Minister, (vi) how many applications were reviewed by each individual lawyer employed by the CCRG, (vii) broken down by case, which lawyers were assigned to which applications, (viii) of those applications reviewed by each individual lawyer employed by the CCRG, how many, and which ones, resulted in a completed preliminary review, (ix) how many resulted in a completed investigation; (f) for each year since 2002, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the CCRG recommend further investigation; (g) for each year since 2002, in how many investigations, and in which specific cases, did the CCRG, (i) interview or examine witnesses, (ii) carry out scientific testing, (iii) obtain assessments from forensic and social science specialists, (iv) consult police agencies in connection with the specific investigation, (v) consult prosecutors in connection with the specific investigation, (vi) consult defence lawyers in connection with the specific investigation, (vii) obtain any other relevant information or documentation; (h) for each year since 2002, (i) in how many cases, and in which ones, did the CCRG produce an investigation report, (ii) in how many cases, and in which ones, did the applicant provide comments on an investigation report, (iii) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the CCRG conduct further investigation based on an applicant’s comments to an investigation report, (iv) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Special Advisor produce advice or make a recommendation to the Minister that differed from the advice or recommendation contained in the CCRG’s investigation report, (v) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister make a determination that differed from the investigation report, (vi) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister make a determination that differed from the Special Advisor; (i) Regarding the “new matters of significance” test, (i) is it currently necessary that an application for review of a criminal conviction be supported by “new matters of significance” in order for it to proceed to the preliminary assessment stage, (ii) in order for it to proceed to investigation, (iii) in order for the Minister to allow the application; (j) regarding the “new matters of significance” test, (i) has the test been applied the same way in each year since 2002, (ii) if not, how has its application changed, (iii) are there any cases, and if so which ones, where an application proceeded to any stage of the review process without having adduced “new matters of significance”, (iv) what is the meaning of the term “new matters of significance” in the context of the ministerial review process, (v) for an application to proceed, must it be supported by “fresh evidence” not available at the time of trial, (vi) can an application for review proceed based on evidence that existed, but was not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, (vii) can an application for review proceed based on evidence that reasonably could have been, but was not, discovered by the applicant at the time of trial; (k) for each year since 2002, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister waive privilege regarding an investigation report; (l) broken down by year since 2002 and by case, in which cases did the Minister, (i) determine there to be a conflict of interest, (ii) in those cases where the Minister determined there to be a conflict of interest, in which specific instances did the Minister authorize an agent outside of the department of Justice or the CCRG to carry out the investigation; (m) broken down by year since 2002 and by case, in which cases, and to whom, did the Minister (i) delegate his powers to take evidence, (ii) delegate his powers to issue subpoenas, (iii) delegate his powers to enforce the attendance of witnesses, (iv) delegate his powers to compel a witness to give evidence, (v) delegate his powers to otherwise conduct an investigation and, if so, what specific powers were delegated; (n) regarding the requirement under section 696.5 of the Criminal Code that the Minister of Justice submit an annual report to Parliament regarding applications for ministerial review, (i) what are the requirements pertaining to the compilation and submission of the annual report, (ii) where are these requirements contained, (iii) have these requirements changed since 2002 and, if so, when and in what specific ways were they changed, (iv) what requirements for publication exist, if any, (v) what is the process for dissemination of the report; (o) regarding the requirement under section 7(f) of the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review that the Minister include in his annual report “any other information that [he] considers appropriate”, (i) what guidelines exist for determining what information is appropriate for inclusion in the report under this element of the Regulations, (ii) what aspects of each ministerial report submitted pursuant to section 696.5 of the Criminal Code since 2002 was included as a result of the Minister’s determination that it is appropriate for inclusion under section 7(f) of the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review; (p) broken down by year since 2000, how many Canadian Commissions of Inquiry into wrongful convictions have recommended the further study or implementation of an independent commission to assume the powers of the Minister of Justice to investigate and refer cases of suspected miscarriages of justice for judicial re-considerationl; (q) broken down by specific Commission of Inquiry, (i) which specific foreign review mechanisms have been examined as potential models to reform the current Canadian post-conviction review regime, (ii) what actions have been taken to implement the findings or suggestions of the commission of inquiry, (iii) has the government consulted with any stakeholders regarding the possibility of implementing an independent commission of inquiry to assume the powers of the Minister of Justice in this regard, (iv) what specific stakeholders were consulted in this regard and when, (v) with which provinces has the government consulted in this regard, (vi) with which provincial bar associations has the government consulted in this regard, (vii) with which provincial Attorneys General did the government consult in this regard, (viii) has the government engaged in any analysis of the comparative costs associated with the current ministerial review process compared to a possible independent review commission; (r) what specific steps is the government undertaking to minimize the incidence of wrongful conviction; (s) what efforts have been made to implement the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group reports in respect of wrongful conviction; (t) what efforts are made to inform Canadians of their options with respect to addressing what they believe to be a wrongful conviction or other miscarriage of justice; (u) with respect to the government’s website entitled “Conviction Review" (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ccr-rc/rev.html), last updated on April 30, 2013, what changes were made on this date and what are the three previous versions of this page; (v) by what means is the wrongful conviction process as a whole reviewed by the government and what metrics are tracked with respect to it; and (w) regarding the 2004 Annual Report, in which the then-Minister of Justice stated that “although it is not required, applicants are encouraged to seek the assistance of counsel,” (i) when was the language "encouraged to seek the assistance of counsel" removed from the Annual Report, (ii) whose decision was it to remove this language and on what basis, (iii) when was this change implemented, (iv) did this change further a specific policy objective, (v) what policy objective did this change further, (vi) is there any difference in the success rates of pro bono applications compared to applications submitted with legal assistance and what is the difference, (vii) has the Department of Justice called for greater access to legal assistance for those submitting applications for ministerial review of their criminal convictions? |
| Q-1892 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to Canadians detained abroad: (a) broken down by year for each of the last 15 years, and broken down by country of arrest, charge, or detention, (i) how many Canadians have been arrested outside of Canada, (ii) how many Canadians have been detained outside of Canada, (iii) how many Canadians detained outside of Canada have been charged with an offence, (iv) how many Canadians have been detained without charge outside of Canada; (b) broken down by country of arrest, charge or detention, (i) how many Canadians are currently detained outside of Canada, (ii) how many Canadians currently face charges outside of Canada, (iii) how many Canadians are currently detained without charge outside of Canada; (c) for each instance in (a) and (b), (i) which representatives of the government met with the individual charged or detained, (ii) on what dates did these meetings occur, (iii) what other communication, if any, occurred between the government and the individual, (iv) through what medium did this communication occur, (vii) what was the purpose of each of these meetings and communications, (viii) what was the outcome of each of these meetings and communications; (d) for each instance in (a) and (b), (i) which representatives of the government contacted family members of the individual charged or detained, (ii) on what dates were these family members contacted by the government, (iii) which representatives of the government were contacted by family members of the individual charged or detained, (iv) on what dates did the family members contact the government, (v) through what medium did each contact between the government and the family members of the individual charged or detained occur, (vi) what was the purpose of each communication between the government and the family members of the individual charged or detained, (vii) what was the outcome of each communication between the government and the family members of the individual charged or detained; (e) regarding each instance in (a) and (b), (i) what non-governmental organizations were contacted by the government, (ii) on what dates were these organizations contacted by the government, (iii) which representatives of the government contacted these organizations, (iv) what non-governmental organizations contacted the government, (v) on what dates did these organizations contact the government, (vi) which representatives of the government were contacted by these organizations, (vii) through what medium did each contact between the government and a non-governmental organization occur, (viii) what was the purpose of each communication between the government and the non-governmental organization, (ix) what was the outcome of each communication between the government and the non-governmental organization, (x) what assistance did non-governmental organizations offer to provide to the government, to the Canadian, or to the Canadian’s family, (xi) in what ways did non-governmental organizations assist in providing services to the Canadian arrested, charged, or detained, or to his or her family, (xii) in what ways did non-governmental organizations assist in securing or attempting to secure the release or extradition of the Canadian, (xiii) what other assistance did the non-governmental organization provide; (f) regarding each instance in (a) and (b), (i) what representations were made by the government to the government of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged or detained, (ii) on what dates were these representations made, (iii) which representatives of the government made these representations, (iv) through what medium were these representations made, (v) what response did the government receive from the government of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged or detained, (vi) which representatives of the government received the response, (vii) through what medium was the response delivered, (viii) which representatives of the government of the country in which the Canadian was charged or detained responded to the government’s representations, (ix) what was the purpose of each representation made by the government to the government of the country in which the Canadian was charged or detained, (x) what was the outcome of each representation made by the government to the government of the country in which the Canadian was charged or detained, (xi) what other communications did the government receive, solicited or otherwise, from the government of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged or detained; (g) regarding each instance in (a) and (b), (i) what governments of third-party countries were contacted by the government, (ii) on what dates were the governments of third-party countries contacted by the government, (iii) which representatives of the government contacted the governments of the third-party countries, (iv) what governments of third-party countries contacted the government, (v) on what dates did the governments of third-party countries contact the government, (vi) which representatives of the government were contacted by the governments of third-party countries, (vii) through what medium did each of these contacts occur, (viii) what was the purpose of each contact between the government and the government of a third-party country, (ix) what was the outcome of each contact between the government and the government of a third-party country, (x) what assistance did governments of third-party countries offer to provide to the government, to the Canadian, or to the Canadian’s family, (xi) in what ways did governments of third-party countries assist in providing services to the Canadian arrested, charged or detained, or to his or her family, (xii) in what ways did governments of third-party countries assist in securing or attempting to secure the release or extradition of the Canadian, (xiii) what other assistance did the governments of third-party countries provide; (h) at the time of their arrest, charge, or detention, which Canadians in (a) and (b) had (i) Canadian citizenship, (ii) Canadian permanent resident status, (iii) other status in Canada; (i) for each instance in (a), (i) does the Canadian remain detained outside of Canada, (ii) is the Canadian currently detained in Canada, (iii) was the Canadian extradited to Canada, (iv) was the Canadian released by the country in which he or she was arrested, charged, or detained, (v) was the Canadian released after being extradited to Canada, (vi) did the Canadian die in the custody of the country in which he or she was arrested, charged, or detained, (vii) did the Canadian die in Canadian custody, (viii) is the Canadian’s status unknown; (j) for each instance in (a) and (b), (i) on what date did the government learn that the Canadian had been arrested, charged or detained, (ii) which representative of the government first learned that the Canadian had been arrested, charged, or detained, (iii) how did that representative learn that the Canadian had been arrested, charged, or detained; (k) for each instance in (a) and (b), was the arrest, charge, or detention determined by the government to be consistent with (i) Canadian norms, (ii) international norms, (iii) the norms of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged, or detained; (l) for each instance in (a) and (b), based on what information did the government determine whether the arrest, charge, or detention was consistent with (i) Canadian norms, (ii) international norms, (iii) the norms of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged, or detained; (m) for each instance in (a) and (b), based on what criteria did the government determine whether the arrest, charge, or detention was consistent with (i) Canadian norms, (ii) international norms, (iii) the norms of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged, or detained; (n) for each instance in (a) and (b), (i) who made the determinations in (k), (ii) when did the process of making the determinations in (k) begin, (iii) when were the determinations made; (o) for each instance in (b), (i) what actions is the government taking to ensure that the Canadian’s rights are respected, (ii) what actions is the government taking to ensure that the Canadian receives a fair trial, (iii) what actions is the government taking to ensure that the Canadian is treated humanely, (iv) what actions is the government taking to secure the Canadian’s release, (v) what actions is the government taking to secure the Canadian’s extradition? |
| Q-1902 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas) — With regard to the sale of the CANDU Reactor Division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. during June 2011: (a) what was the government’s economic rationale and business case in support of this sale; (b) what government documents contained, outlined, or presented this economic rationale and business case; (c) what were the full titles of the documents in (b); (d) by whom were the documents in (b) prepared; (e) on what dates were the documents in (b) prepared; (f) on what dates were the documents in (b) presented to the Minister of Natural Resources; (g) what documents did SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. provide the government in support of this sale; (h) what were the full titles of the documents in (g); (i) by whom were the documents in (g) prepared; (j) who submitted the documents in (g) to the government; (k) on what dates were the documents in (g) prepared; (l) on what dates were the documents in (g) presented to the Minister of Natural Resources (m) what due diligence was applied by the government in order to verify the factual content of the documents in (g)? |
| Q-1912 — December 9, 2013 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to the equipment provided to regular and reserve members of the Canadian Armed Forces, what is the total number of newly enlisted members who have not yet been issued boots since January 1, 2013, broken down by (i) regular or reserve status, (ii) branch of the Canadian Armed Forces, (iii) rank of member, (iv) unit, (v) month of enlistment? |
| Q-1922 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With regard to outside legal counsel, legal advice, or any other form of legal assistance provided to government by non-government lawyers, and broken down by year since 2006: (a) what is the amount spent by department; (b) what program activities across government account for the top twenty expenditures used for non-government legal services; (c) what are the names of law firms used; (d) what is the breakdown of expenditure wherein the government was the defendant, by department and by cause of action; and (e) what is the breakdown of expenditure where the government was the plaintiff, by department and by cause of action? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-485 — December 9, 2013 — Mr. Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) study and measure Canadian tax losses to international tax havens and tax evasion, in order to determine the Canadian federal “tax gap”; (b) order the Canada Revenue Agency to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information necessary to provide an independent estimate of the Canadian federal tax gap arising from tax evasion and tax avoidance through the use of tax havens; (c) mandate the Auditor General or the PBO to provide estimates of the marginal revenue of additional CRA resources (i.e. auditors) in the areas of tax evasion and tax avoidance; (d) mandate the Auditor General to evaluate, on a regular basis, the success of the Canada Revenue Agency in prosecuting and settling cases of tax evasion. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-518 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance). |
|
|
| C-479 — October 18, 2013 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale), seconded by Mr. Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap), — That Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Ms. Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South) — May 8, 2013 |
| 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) — December 3, 2013 |
| Designated day — Tuesday, December 10, 2013, immediately after the scheduled Private Members' Business for that day. |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|