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. 8 Monday, January 25, 2016 11:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| January 21, 2016 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender)”. |
|
|
| January 21, 2016 — Ms. Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (balanced representation)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-222 — January 21, 2016 — Ms. Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith) — With regard to funding for women’s shelters for the fiscal years from 2010 to 2015: (a) how much funding has been the government on construction of new women’s shelters and new spaces in women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (b) how much money has the government spent on funding for renovation of existing women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (c) how much money has the government spent on non-capital supports for women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (d) when did the government stop accepting applications for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program; and (e) when did the government cancel funding for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program? |
| Q-232 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou) — With regard to the total expenditures of the government incurred by all departments defending against Aboriginal-rights claims made against the government and appealing against case decisions upholding Aboriginal rights in court: (a) what was the amount spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; (b) what was the amount spent on these activities to date in the current fiscal year; (c) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; and (d) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities for the current fiscal year? |
| Q-242 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) — With regard to changes to the machinery of government made on November 4, 2016: (a) for each department that was changed, what is the cost of making those changes (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category of expense; and (b) for each agency, Crown corporation, board, commission, or foundation that has been placed under the authority of a different ministry than was the case in the previous administration, what is the cost of making that change (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category? |
| Q-252 — January 21, 2016 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for 2015: (a) what was the volume of EI applications in total and broken down by (i) region and province where the claim originated, (ii) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (iii) month; (b) what was the average EI application processing time in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by month; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (h) what were the service standards for call-backs from EI processing staff, broken down by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI processing staff for call-backs, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (j) what was the average number of days for a call-back by EI processing staff, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (k) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres; (l) what was the rate of sick-leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees; (m) what was the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long-term disability; (n) what was the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees; (o) who authored the report on EI processing for which the former parliamentary secretary for Employment and Social Development was credited; (p) what is the table of contents for the report; (q) will the government make the report public; (r) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province where the complaint originated; (s) how long on average did a complaint take to be investigated and resolved, broken down by month; and (t) what were the major themes of the complaints received? |
| Q-262 — January 21, 2016 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI): (a) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Commission in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013, (v) 2014; (b) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Boards of Referees in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (c) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by EI Umpires in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (d) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Social Security Tribunal in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (e) how much money has the government spent on the class-action court case regarding women who were denied sickness benefits while on parental leave; (f) how many Justice Department lawyers have been working on the class-action court case; and (g) what was the average cost for an appeal to be considered by the EI Commission, a Board of Referees, and an EI Umpire? |
| Q-272 — January 21, 2016 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski) — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) how many applications were received for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (b) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (c) what was the average processing time for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) National Occupational Classification (NOC) code; (d) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (e) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (f) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (g) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (h) since June 2014, how many employers with fewer than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (i) since June 2014, how many employers with more than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (j) how many work permits have been issued in 2015, in total and broken down by month; (k) how many tips have been received on the confidential tip phone line since its creation, broken down by month; (l) how many tips have been received through the online tip portal since its creation, broken down by month; (m) how many investigations have been conducted as a result of tips received; (n) how many investigations have been the result of multiple tips; (o) how many investigations have resulted in employers being found non-compliant; (p) how many investigations have resulted in penalties being imposed on the employer; (q) how many employers have been required to take corrective action in order to be found compliant as a result of an investigation; (r) how many employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program have been subject to an inspection from 2013 to 2015 inclusively, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (s) how many inspections were conducted because an employer requested a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (t) how many inspections occurred at a time when the employer was not requesting a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (u) how many inspections have revealed non-compliance by employers between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) issues identified, (iii) industry of the employer; (v) how many employers have had to take steps to be considered compliant between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of actions required, (iii) industry of the employer; (w) how many employers have received penalties for non-compliance as a result of an inspection between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of penalty, (iii) industry of the employer; (x) how many inspections conducted between 2013 and 2015 have involved an on-site visit, broken down by month; (y) how many foreign nationals have been removed from Canada because their four-year period of eligibility had expired; and (z) when will Employment and Social Development Canada begin publicly reporting data on the number of temporary foreign workers approved and the names of employers receiving positive Labour Market Impact Assessments? |
| Q-282 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Fast (Abbotsford) — With regard to Canada's delegation at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP21): (a) what is the total cost incurred by the government for this delegation; (b) what are the details of the expenses incurred by each delegate; and (c) what are the costs of the delegation broken down by (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, (iii) meals and incidentials, (iv) lodging, (v) salaries, (vi) per diems, (vii) operations? |
| Q-292 — January 21, 2016 — Ms. Watts (South Surrey—White Rock) — With regard to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities’ mandate letter and the government’s announcement on November 18, 2015, that municipal and provincial governments will no longer have to apply for P3 screening for infrastructure projects worth greater than $100 million: (a) how many projects were in line for P3 funding on the day the announcement was made; (b) as a result of this announcement, how many of the projects in (a) will be on hold and delayed for funding; (c) with respect to the projects in (b), what dollar amount that would have been spent by the private sector will now have to be paid for by the government, broken down by province; and (d) before this decision was made and the announcement took place, (i) which consultations were held, (ii) what data was used? |
| Q-302 — January 21, 2016 — Ms. Watts (South Surrey—White Rock) — With regard to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities’ mandate letter and its explicit focus on new spending in green infrastructure and social infrastructure: (a) how much funding has been allocated to green infrastructure; (b) how much funding has been allocated to social infrastructure; (c) which projects will receive funding under each respective infrastructure pillar, broken down by province; and (d) what data was used to determine which projects will receive funding and in what priority? |
| Q-312 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — With regard to the military equipment currently owned by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) which items have been identified as surplus; (b) how many of each surplus item are in the CAF’s stock; (c) what is the value of each item deemed to be surplus; (d) where is the current surplus equipment being stored, (e) what is the process for liquidating surplus items in the case of (i) DND, (ii) CAF; (f) what regulations are in place that prevent or restrict DND and CAF’s ability to liquidate surplus military equipment; and (g) what is the government’s policy as to the manner in which the revenue generated from the liquidation of surplus assets will be redistributed by the government? |
| Q-322 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — With regard to the government’s plan to withdraw Canada’s CF-18 jets from the United States led international coalition’s air combat mission against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and to expand Canada’s training mission in the region: (a) what consultations were conducted with members of the coalition and local authorities; (b) what is the government’s proposed timeline to withdraw the fighter jets; (c) when does the government expect to send additional trainers; (d) how many additional trainers will be deployed and where will they be stationed; (e) what types of training will Canadian troops carry out; (f) what type of force protection will be in place for the Canadian trainers; (g) has any analysis been done to ensure that there is no capability gap in Canada’s contribution to the fight against ISIS; and (h) what affect will this have on the amount of funds allocated for Operation IMPACT? |
| Q-332 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — With regard to the cases of Sergei Magnitsky and Borys Nemtsov, what government action has been taken to: (a) identify a list of foreign nationals as defined by the motion introduced by the then Member for Mount Royal and unanimously passed by the House of Commons on March 25, 2015; (b) explore appropriate sanctions as defined in the aforementioned motion; (c) establish a list of each person the government determines (i) to be responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (ii) to have participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (iii) to have financially benefited from the detention abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (iv) was involved in the criminal conspiracy uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky; and (d) identify any individual that is responsible for extra-judicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals who (i) sought to expose illegal activity carried out by officials of the Russian Federation, (ii) sought to obtain, exercise, defend or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections in Russia, (iii) acted as an agent of or on behalf of a person in a matter relating to an activity described in (ii) or (iii)? |
| Q-342 — January 21, 2016 — Mrs. Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) — With regard to the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889: (a) does the middle of the main channel of the Ottawa River, from the head of Lake Temiscamingue to the intersection by the prolongation of the western limits of the Seigneurie of Rigaud, such mid-channel being as indicated on a map of the Ottawa Ship Canal Survey by Walter Shanly, C.E., still delineate the boundary between Ontario and Quebec; (b) are copies of the Order of the Governor-General in Council, dated July 21, 1886, that approved the mid-channel boundary described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; (c) are certified copies of the map referred to in the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, showing the mid-channel described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; and (d) has either the Province of Quebec or the Province of Ontario challenged the location of the boundary since the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, received Royal Assent? |
| Q-352 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) — With respect to the September 2015 announcement of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it would effectuate a transfer of information to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS): (a) how many records has the CRA transferred to the IRS to date; (b) on what dates did information transfer occur and how many records were transferred on each date; (c) how many records of individuals have been transferred in total; (d) by what means were the records transferred; (e) how much did it cost the CRA to compile the records for transfer; (f) how much did it cost the CRA to complete the transfer; (g) how were the costs in (e) and (f) calculated and what is the breakdown of those costs; (h) who made the decision to transfer the records; (i) when was the decision made to transfer records; (j) when did the CRA become aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline for such transfer; (k) how was the CRA made aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline; (l) what steps were taken to assess and respond to the notice of deadline extension in (j); (m) what was the policy reason for transferring records despite the deadline extension; (n) when is the next transfer of records scheduled to take place; (o) what analysis was conducted to assess whether the transfer of records during the writ period for the 42nd General Election complied with the "Guidelines on the Conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, Exempt Staff and Public Servants During an Election"; (p) what records exist with respect to any analysis conducted in relation to (o); (q) was information concerning the transfer of records from the CRA to the IRS included in any transition materials prepared for a potential change in government or the Ministers responsible for CRA and Foreign Affairs; (r) what documents exist in relation to (q) and what are their file numbers; (s) has the new Minister responsible for CRA been informed of information transfers to the IRS and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (t) has the new Minister of Justice been informed of the information transfer and been provided with any analysis of its legal implications and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (u) have Canadians who will be affected by the transfer been informed of the transfer of their records; (v) what plans exist with regard to informing Canadians about the transfer of their records; (w) has any proposal to inform Canadians of the transfer of their information to the IRS been evaluated by the government and, if so, with what conclusions; (x) what documents exist in relation to (w) and what are their file numbers; (y) what legal challenges does the government anticipate with respect to information transfer, and how is it preparing to respond; (z) what measures are in place to ensure the security of record transfers to the IRS; and (aa) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted or involved in any way in the preparation or planning of record transfer to ensure conformity with applicable laws regarding the exchange of Canadians' personal information and, if so, to what extent? |
| Q-362 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) — With regard to the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) administered by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2015: (a) what amounts were awarded in the form of contributions to firms and contributions to organizations, broken down by year and by the following regional offices: (i) NRC-IRAP Sherbrooke, (ii) NRC-IRAP Granby, (iii) NRC-IRAP Victoriaville, (iv) NRC-IRAP Longueuil, (v) NRC-IRAP Gatineau, (vi) NRC-IRAP Sept-Îles, (vii) NRC-IRAP Trois-Rivières, (viii) NRC-IRAP Drummondville, (ix) NRC-IRAP Lévis, (x) NRC-IRAP Québec City; (b) how many interactive visits were requested and approved, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (c) how many projects were submitted and approved broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (d) how many projects were submitted and approved under the Business Innovation Access Program (BIAP) administered by IRAP, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); and (e) in what other activities did NRC-IRAP participate, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a)? |
| Q-372 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Rankin (Victoria) — With regard to Correctional Services Canada’s (CSC) Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI): (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all evaluations and analyses of efficacy of IPPI which were proposed, conducted, and concluded between December 2009 and December 2015 that were (i) conducted by CSC itself, (ii) conducted by any other party; (b) for each item listed in (a), (i) when was it carried out, (ii) who carried it out, (iii) what was the rationale for carrying it out; (c) for each item listed in (a), what were the conclusions of the evaluation or analysis, and the justification for these conclusions, including (i) whether or not IPPI remained consistent with CSC, police service and government-wide priorities and objectives, (ii) whether or not the design of IPPI, as an enhanced supervision partnership, including objectives of information sharing and apprehension of offenders who were unlawfully at large (UAL), was consistent with practices in other jurisdictions, (iii) whether or not the changing offender profile and number of UAL offenders under CSC jurisdiction demonstrated a need for IPPI, (iv) what staffing challenges (including but not limited to staffing shortages and awareness and understanding of IPPI) affected the implementation of IPPI and what the effects were, (v) whether or not the organizational structure and reporting relationships for IPPI were designed and implemented in a way that supported the continued activities of the initiative, as well as what regional variations in reporting relationships existed and how that affected IPPI, (vi) whether or not the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders were well-defined and appropriate and what changes should be made to clarify and improve these roles and responsibilities if necessary, (vii) which police officers were most appropriate for community correctional liaison officer (CCLO) positions, (viii) whether or not CCLOs had completed IPPI training and whether or not that training was viewed as relevant, (ix) whether or not IPPI data was being correctly entered into CSC databases, including but not limited to CCLO contacts, (x) whether or not criteria for higher risk offenders for inclusion in IPPI were clearly defined or communicated, and if not, why not, and what were the consequences of this, (xi) whether or not CCLOs were situated in appropriate locations, (xii) whether or not IPPI faced implementation delays and what the consequences of these delays were, including but not limited to re-profiling of offenders, internal re-allocations, and/or lapses of funding, (xiii) whether or not communication and partnerships between CSC, police services and community stakeholders were effective and in what ways they could be improved, (xiv) whether or not stakeholders were consulted to see if their perceptions of CSC’s mandate and strategies had improved since the implementation of IPPI, (xv) whether or not available data suggested that IPPI had an effect on recidivism rates, (xvi) whether or not UAL apprehensions increased following the implementation of IPPI and by how much, (xvii) whether or not IPPI was cost-effective, and if this determination was not possible, why not; (d) for each item identified in (a), (i) how do each of the findings identified in (c) differ from the findings of Evaluation Report: Integrated Police and Parole Initiative published in November 2008, (ii) for what reasons do each of these findings differ; and (e) with regard to the decision to discontinue IPPI, (i) by what process was this decision reached, (ii) what was the rationale for this decision, (iii) in what way did this decision incorporate the items listed in (a) and the findings outlined in (c), (iv) what was the cost-savings of the discontinuation, (v) has CSC or any other government body considered reintroducing IPPI, (vi) what criteria are being used in this consideration? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
| P-2 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan) — That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence sent to or received from the Office of the Ambassador for Religious Freedom between October 19, 2015, and December 11, 2015, with respect to requests to speak to the media, including requests to speak to the media and emails to and from members of the office about speaking to the media, both in general and in specific cases. |
| P-3 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan) — That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence sent to or received from the Office of the Ambassador for Religious Freedom between October 19, 2015, and December 11, 2015, with respect to requests to speak at public functions, including those requests, prospective remarks submitted for review, and correspondence sent in response to all of those requests. |
| P-4 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House a copy of all briefing documents provided to Canadian foreign ambassadors for meetings with the Minister of National Defence and all minutes taken from these meetings since November 4, 2015. |
| P-5 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House all documents pertaining to North Regent RX in Health Canada, the Natural and Non-prescription Health Products Directorate and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, including all correspondence to and from the Minster of Health dating back to January 2004. |
| P-6 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all briefing binders and documents provided to the Minster of National Defence in advance of international trips including but not limited to his November 2015 trip to Jordan and December 2015 meetings in the United Kingdom and Iraq, as well all travel and hospitality costs associated with these meetings. |
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-22 — January 21, 2016 — Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) declare March 1 of each year National Food Waste Awareness Day; and (b) recognize food waste as a scourge in Canada and develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian plan to reduce food waste by (i) raising public awareness about food waste through a national campaign, (ii) making it easier for businesses to donate unsold food products that are safe for consumption to community organizations and food banks, (iii) introducing various other means to reduce the environmental impact of producing food that is not consumed. |
| M-23 — January 21, 2016 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should work to reform and strengthen our criminal justice system and that such reforms should include: (a) repealing all mandatory minimum sentences from the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; (b) repealing the (i) Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, formerly known as Bill C-14, (ii) Truth in Sentencing Act, formerly known as Bill C-25, (iii) Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act, formerly known as Bill C-309; (c) ending the trend of criminalizing mental health issues in Canada, including (i) increasing community-based, voluntary mental health supports in order to decrease the number of people with mental health issues who enter the criminal justice system in the first place, (ii) taking concrete steps to end the overrepresentation of people with mental health issues in the criminal justice system, at arrest, sentencing, and after sentencing as provided for under section 29 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, including decarceration strategies and social, economic and mental health support for people with mental health issues, (iii) providing meaningful support and treatment in prisons; (d) ending the use of solitary confinement and administrative segregation of prisoners and ceasing the practice of “double bunking”; (e) taking concrete steps to end the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system, including decarceration strategies and social and economic support for indigenous communities; (f) taking measures to significantly reduce the number of people in pre-trial detention; (g) reforming and enhancing the legal aid system to ensure that access to justice is universal; (h) overhauling the graduated release system to promote an effective, humane, and safe reintegration of federal prisoners in the community; (i) reforming the record suspension and pardon system to make it automatic, free, and fair; (j) reinstating the Law Reform Commission and Court Challenges programme; (k) implementing programs that promote real rehabilitation, including reinstating the Prison Farm program; (l) renewing the Correctional Investigator of Canada Howard Sapers's term and task the appropriate committee to craft a plan to implement the outstanding recommendations of that office; and (m) making necessary policy changes following the British Columbia model to afford trans inmates the dignity and equality that all people deserve, including housing, clothing, and health care provisions, in consultation with the inmate, according to their self-identified gender. |
| M-24 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Anandasangaree (Scarborough—Rouge Park) — That, it is the opinion of the house, the government should recognize the contributions that Tamil-Canadians have made to Canadian society, the richness of the Tamil language and culture, and the importance of educating and reflecting upon Tamil heritage for future generations by declaring January, every year, Tamil Heritage Month. |
Private Members' Business |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|