Skip to main content

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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Notice Paper

No. 330

Wednesday, June 12, 2024

2:00 p.m.


Introduction of Government Bills

June 11, 2024 — The Minister of Environment and Climate Change — Bill entitled “An Act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity”.
Recommendation
(Pursuant to Standing Order 79(2))
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity”.

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands) — Bill entitled “An Act to establish National Conversion Therapy Awareness Day”.

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills) — That the seventh report of the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship, presented on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on Monday, June 3, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 11th report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, presented on Monday, June 3, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Friday, May 31, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Friday, May 31, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented on Thursday, May 23, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented on Thursday, May 23, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Friday, May 10, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, presented on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, presented on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on Monday, May 6, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Monday, May 6, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Monday, May 6, 2024, be concurred in.

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, presented on Thursday, May 2, 2024, be concurred in.

Questions

Q-27942 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) — With regard to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), broken down by year since January 1, 2019: (a) how many cases of (i) gender discrimination, (ii) disability discrimination, were filed against the CPPIB; (b) of the cases in (a), how many were settled without formal litigation; (c) how many non­disclosure agreements were signed by former employees related to the cases in (a); (d) what percentage of the employee disciplinary actions and terminations were handled (i) internally by employee relations, (ii) by external counsel; (e) what is the breakdown of the number of discrimination cases filed against the CPPIB in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (f) which law firms were hired to represent the CPPIB and, broken down by city, what was the total amount in legal fees paid to each firm; (g) how much was paid in legal fees for (i) employee terminations, (ii) employee-initiated legal action against the CPPIB for which the CPPIB retained legal counsel; (h) what was the total severance paid out in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (i) which laws firms were hired and retained by the CPPIB in the offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (j) what were the legal fees paid annually for each of the law firms retained by the CPPIB to defend the CPPIB; (k) how many female employees were terminated through restructuring from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (I) how many female employees were terminated through voluntary resignations from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (m) how many (i) female, (ii) male, employees were promoted above the Senior Associate level; (n) what is the percentage of female departures from the Executive and Senior management pool from the CPPIB in its entirety and for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (o) what is the number of disability accommodation cases for (i) long-term, (ii) short-term, (iii) permanent, disability that were sent through Manulife; (p) how many employees who went through a Manulife accommodation remain with the CPPIB; (q) how many of the employees who remain with the CPPIB have been promoted in the last five years; (r) how many formal complaints brought by employees went through (i) a CPPIB Clearview Connects Whistleblower process, (ii) a CPPIB Conduct Review Advisor, (iii) a Legal and Compliance CPPIB, (iv) human resources; and (s) broken down by each part of (r), how many of the complainant employees remain employed by the CPPIB?
Q-27952 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) — With regard to Elections Canada (EC) and Communications Security Establishment Canada's reports on "Cyber threats to Canada's democratic process - 2023 update" and "Cyber security guidance for elections authorities (ITSM.10.020)": (a) what measures has EC taken since the last general election to safeguard the integrity of elections, candidates and campaigns against cyber threats, including (i) deepfakes, (ii) artificial intelligence, (iii) "bots", (iv) other attacks on telecommunication infrastructure (such as "distributed denial of service" attacks) that aim to disrupt, interfere with or sway elections as warned against in the reports; (b) for each measure in (a), (i) what was the cost, (ii) when was it implemented, (iii) how and from whom was the measure originally proposed; and (c) are there any threats which EC does not have the capacity to fully guard against, and, if so, what are they, and has EC sought assistance from the government or any other entity to guard against such a threat, and, if so, what are the details?
Q-27962 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) — With regard to federal funding to non-governmental organizations that advocate pro-life or anti-abortion views, broken down by department and agency and by fiscal year since January 1, 2006: (a) what organizations received federal funding; and (b) how much federal funding was received?
Q-27972 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) — With regard to federal investments to Canada’s oil and gas sector, since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Cenovus Energy Inc., (ii) Suncor Energy Inc., (iii) Imperial Oil Ltd., (iv) Enbridge Inc., (v) Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., broken down by company, year, and type of funding?
Q-27982 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) — With regard to federal court cases, since January 1, 2006: how many court cases have been initiated by the federal government against Indigenous organizations and governments, broken down by year and by affiliation (i) Inuit, (ii) Métis, (iii) First Nation?
Q-27992 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Carrie (Oshawa) — With regard to the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its reliance on the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) for their “independent, expert advice” (source: Order Paper question Q-2554): (a) in 2020 and 2021, what specific studies demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines would prevent (i) all, (ii) any, transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (b) what specific studies demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective or would not completely prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (c) in 2020 and 2021, what specific data was provided by the manufacturers of the approved COVID-19 vaccines in Canada that demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines were effective in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (d) with respect to informed consent in 2021, how was the uncertainty or “unknown” evidence around “the effectiveness against virus transmission, and long-term effectiveness against infection and severe disease” communicated to the Canadian public and medical professionals administering the vaccines; (e) without certainty that the vaccine would prevent transmission, what was the rationale provided to the Office of the Prime Minister from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada or NACI in support of the following measures in relation to only unvaccinated healthy individuals presenting with no symptoms (i) PCR testing before entering the country, (ii) quarantining individuals before entering the country, (iii) showing one’s vaccine status through a vaccine passport, (iv) preventing their travelling on federally-regulated transportation; (f) who advised the Office of the Prime Minister about the uncertainty of the COVID-19 vaccines with respect to its inability to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV2 and when; (g) what was the source of the messaging used by (i) the Chief Public Health Officer, (ii) the Deputy Chief Public Health officer, (iii) the Chief Medical Officer of Health Canada, (iv) the Minister of Health, (v) the Prime Minister, (vi) other government or public health officials, to state that COVID-19 vaccination would protect others, implying it stopped viral transmission; and (h) who approved the messaging in (g)?
Q-28002 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Maguire (Brandon—Souris) — With regard to Transport Canada and meetings concerning Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP): (a) when Patrick Juneau was the Director of Aviation Safety Policy and Intelligence at Transport Canada, did he meet with any United States officials on the subject of UAP, and, if so, what are the details of all such meetings, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the names and titles of those in attendance, (iv) what was discussed or agreed upon; (b) have any Transport Canada officials other than Patrick Juneau met with any United States officials on the subject of UAP, and, if so, who and what are the details of all such meetings attended by any Transport Canada official, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the names and titles of those in attendance, (iv) what was discussed or agreed upon; and (c) what are the details, including the website where the agreement can be read, of any UAP information sharing agreements that Transport Canada is aware of, between Canadian entities and American entities?
Q-28012 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. McLean (Calgary Centre) — With regard to government funding of non-governmental organizations or groups, from November 4, 2015, to the present: (a) how much money has the government allocated to Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors and what are the details, including, the (i) department, agency or other government entity, (ii) date of the funding, (iii) amount and deliverables expected; (b) of the allocations in (a), which ones were (i) sole-sourced, (ii) awarded through a competitive bidding process; (c) of the allocations in (b)(ii), what was the (i) duration of the competition, (ii) number of organizations that submitted bids for the required deliverables; and (d) what programs from the organization in (a) received government funding, broken down by year and deliverables expected?
Q-28022 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove) — With regard to funding provided through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, since January 1, 2021: (a) what is the amount provided through the fund to date, in total and broken down by province or territory; and (b) what are the details of all funding recipients, including, for each, the (i) date of the funding, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) location, (v) description of the related disaster event, (vi) purpose of the funding?
Q-28032 — June 11, 2024 — Mrs. Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake) — With regard to requests received by Health Canada related to decriminalization from provinces, municipalities or Indigenous communities, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such requests, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) name and title of the person who made the request, (iii) entity represented by the person making the request, (iv) summary of the request, (v) response by Health Canada?
Q-28042 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. McCauley (Edmonton West) — With regard to Global Affairs Canada's Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI), broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (a) how much funding was provided through the CFLI, in total and broken down by country; and (b) how many projects were funded in each country?
Q-28052 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — With regard to the Department of National Defence's decision to move employees working out of offices at 400 Cumberland Street to the Major-General George R. Pearkes Building due to safety concerns: (a) how much is the move expected to cost, in total and broken down by type of expense; (b) how many employees are being moved; (c) did the department make any representations to the Minister of Justice that the government's catch and release justice policies were creating safety concerns for their employees, and, if so, what are the details; and (d) if the department did not make any such representations to the Minister of Justice, why were they not made?
Q-28062 — June 11, 2024 — Mrs. Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country) — With regard to the information provided in the government's response to Order Paper question Q-2542 as it relates to the project budget of the Canada Digital Adoption Program: (a) what is the itemized breakdown of all expenditures included under the Indirect Costs category; (b) what is the itemized breakdown of all equipment expenses included under the Direct Equipment category; (c) what is the itemized breakdown of all expenditures included under the Subcontracting costs category; (d) what is the itemized breakdown of expenditures included under the Other Direct Costs category; and (e) what is the breakdown of (a) through (d) by month and fiscal year?
Q-28072 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke) — With regard to federal funding to non-governmental organizations, broken down by department and agency and fiscal year since January 1, 2006: (a) has (i) Campaign Life Coalition, (ii) LifeCanada, (iii) Alliance for Life Ontario, (iv) Alberta Pro-Choice Coalition, (v) Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, (vi) Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, (vii) National Abortion Federation, (viii) Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics, received federal funding; and (b) how much federal funding, if any, was received by each organization listed in (a)?
Q-28082 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Carrie (Oshawa) — With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) approval of the modRNA COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna and distributed throughout Canada, its mechanism of action and the elements of which they are comprised: (a) how many copies of the modRNA molecule are in a single dose, for both the Pfizer and Moderna products, (i) for adults, (ii) for children; (b) how many copies of the antigen are in a single adult dose of Novavax; (c) if there is a significant numerical difference between the answers for (a) and (b), does this affect the immunological response; (d) how many copies of dsDNA are found in a single 30 microliter adult dose of (i) Pfizer’s product, (ii) Moderna’s product; (e) was a request made to Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna regarding the DNA size distribution in the vaccine and, if so, (i) what proportion of the total DNA quantity were under 200bp, (ii) what was the average, range and standard deviation; (f) what is the function of the modRNA; (g) what is the function of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs); (h) what is the specific role(s) of N1-methyl-pseudouridine as used in the modRNA of the vaccines; (i) what safety data was available to HC at the time of approval and is currently available, regarding any and repeat exposure to the following in human cells (i.e., safety, efficacy, toxicity): (i) large amounts of N1-methyl-pseudouridine, (ii) dsRNA, (iii) cytosolic DNA, (iv) lipid nanoparticles; (j) with regard to the research underpinning (g), has a risk assessment been performed of the LNPs separately from that of the drug product for safety, toxicity; (k) does HC have any degradation data for the modRNA in the vaccines and, if so, what does the data show; (l) what is the duration of action of modRNA from the COVID-19 mRNA in the body and how was that measured; (m) in what cells and organs is spike protein most likely to be produced in the body; (n) in which cell types and tissues does the modRNA remain for the longest period of time and second longest period of time, and what are the time periods; (o) for what period of time does a person injected with modRNA produce spike protein; (p) is the production of spike protein dependent on cell type; (q) is there a known correlation between the amount of modRNA in the vaccine and the amount of spike protein produced by the cells; (r) has HC performed a risk assessment on the immunological, toxicological and carcinogenicity of the spike protein and, if so, what was the analysis, and, if not, why weren't these risk assessments considered necessary; (s) if production of spike protein antigen is prolonged for greater than three to five days, does prolonged exposure lead to ongoing production of antibodies; (t) if the answer to (s) is negative, will a study or investigation be undertaken to determine this; (u) if the answer to (s) is affirmative, and if antibodies are the indicator of immunity, why does efficacy wane with time when the antigen production is prolonged; (v) has the purity of the modRNA contained in the COVID-19 vaccines been determined; (w) if the answer to (v) is affirmative, what is the present accepted limit of fragmented and truncated modRNA; (x) if the answer to (v) is negative, why hasn’t the purity of the modRNA been established; (y) if production of spike protein expression is prolonged for more than three to five days, are there harmful sequelae to prolonged exposure; and (z) if the answer to (y) is affirmative, what are those harmful sequelae?
Q-28092 — June 11, 2024 — Mr. Carrie (Oshawa) — With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) assessment of risks versus benefits for the COVID-19 vaccines: (a) did HC perform a formal analysis showing that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks (i) at the time of interim order approval, (ii) at the time of authorization, under the amended Food and Drugs Regulation for September 2021, (iii) before the approval of each subsequent booster; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, who performed the analysis and what were the results of the analysis, specifying the benefits and risks (i) at the time of interim order approval, (ii) at the time of authorization, under the amended Food and Drugs Regulation for September 2021, (iii) before the approval of each subsequent booster; (c) what specific scientific studies, real world data, and Canadian morbidity and mortality data were reviewed by HC to conclude the risks of the COVID-19 vaccines outweighed the risk of COVID-19 illness (i) at the time of interim order approval, (ii) at the time of authorization, under the amended Food and Drugs Regulation for September 2021, (iii) before the approval of each subsequent booster; (d) what were the risks that HC determined for the COVID-19 vaccines compared to the risks of the COVID-19 illness (i) stratified across age groups, (ii) for the immunocompromised, (iii) for seniors with two or more comorbidities, (iv) for pregnant and lactating women, and what were these results; (e) did HC use the Cleveland study entitled “Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine” by N. Shrestha et al to update their risk-benefit analysis of the current COVID-19 vaccine; (f) if the answer to (e) is negative, why not; (g) how were those individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine classified as being “vaccinated” versus “unvaccinated” for the purposes of statistical analysis of clinical outcomes and vaccine efficacy by the following categories: (i) less than two weeks after first dose of the primary series, (ii) between two weeks and three months after first dose of the primary series, (iii) less than two weeks after second dose of the primary series, (iv) more than two weeks after second dose of the primary series, (v) less than two weeks after any booster dose, (vi) more than six months after any booster dose; (h) would the response in (g) be influenced by brand of COVID-19 vaccine, and, if so, how; (i) for Canadian morbidity and mortality data presented to the Canadian public to illustrate the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, how were the definitions from (g) and (h) used; and (j) what data supported the definitions of the vaccination status as defined in (g)?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Opposition Motions
June 11, 2024 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — That an order of the House do issue to the government for a copy of the government's economic analysis on the impact of the federal fuel charge and the output-based pricing system referenced in the response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's information request IR0776, provided that it shall be laid upon the table, in both official languages and without redaction, no later than Monday, June 17, 2024.
Notice also received from:
Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle), Mr. Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes), Mr. Brock (Brantford—Brant), Mr. Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets), Ms. Lantsman (Thornhill) and Mr. Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn) — June 11, 2024

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — That, given that,
(i) Canada is facing many very serious problems,
(ii) the government has not only failed to provide leadership in addressing these problems but is actually contributing significantly to them,
(iii) Canadians are looking to their elected leaders to get to work on bringing home common sense solutions to these problems, like axing the carbon tax, fixing the budget, capping spending, ending wasteful spending which favours Liberal insiders, building more homes and stopping crime,
(iv) these problems cannot be allowed to worsen over the forthcoming summer adjournment,
the House instruct each of the following standing committees to hold five meetings, between Monday, July 8, 2024, and Friday, September 13, 2024, in order to hear from witnesses about the approaches they would take to prevent these problems from worsening and for implementing common sense solutions to address them:
(a) the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, in relation to its study of federal government consulting contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company;
(b) the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in relation to a study of Report 6, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, of the 2024 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada;
(c) the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in relation to a study of the housing crisis in Canada;
(d) the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to a study of the cost of living for Canadians, including the impact caused by the carbon tax; and
(e) the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in relation to a study on stopping crime and chaos,
provided that,
(f) these meetings shall each be at least two hours long and televised; and
(g) each standing committee shall, following these meetings, present a report or an interim report on its recommendations for solutions to these problems no later than Friday, October 11, 2024.
Notice also received from:
Mr. Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn), Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle), Ms. Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock), Mr. Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable) and Ms. Lantsman (Thornhill) — June 11, 2024

June 11, 2024 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — That, given that the cost of living crisis for Canadians continues to escalate without an end in sight, and,
(i) Food Banks Canada says that "Canada has reached a critical turning point as poverty and food insecurity worsen in every corner of the country," and there has been a record 150% increase in food bank use and 2 million Canadians use food banks every month,
(ii) rent, mortgages and the amount needed for a home downpayment have doubled after nine years of this Prime Minister and tent cities are now spread across the country with the City of Toronto seeing over 50 tent cities pop-up in a six-week period bringing the total to at least 250 across that city,
(iii) crime and chaos have plagued Canadian streets, including an explosion of car thefts which now costs the insurance industry more than $1-billion, meaning Canadians are paying higher insurance premiums every month,
this House declare that there is a cost of living emergency in Canada and, therefore, instruct:
(a) the Standing Committee on Finance to work this summer on developing solutions to this cost of living emergency, by holding at least 20 meetings to hear from experts and by preparing recommendations which will lower prices and interest rates; and
(b) the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to work this summer on developing solutions to this cost of living emergency, by holding at least five meetings to hear from experts and by preparing recommendations to reduce wasteful spending that is keeping inflation high;
provided that,
(c) these meetings shall be,
(i) televised,
(ii) scheduled for at least two hours each,
(iii) held between Monday, July 8, 2024, and Friday, September 13, 2024; and
(d) each standing committee shall present a report or an interim report on its recommendations no later than Friday, September 27, 2024.
Notice also received from:
Mr. Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn), Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle), Ms. Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock), Mr. Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable) and Ms. Lantsman (Thornhill) — June 11, 2024
Main Estimates
UNOPPOSED VOTES
June 3, 2024 — The President of the Treasury Board — That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, less the amounts voted in the interim supply, be concurred in.
Supplementary Estimates (A)
UNOPPOSED VOTES
June 3, 2024 — The President of the Treasury Board — That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, be concurred in.

Government Business

Private Members' Notices of Motions

M-126 — June 11, 2024 — Ms. Dzerowicz (Davenport) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) recognize that Canada is home to more than 1.2 million Spanish-speaking Canadians with rich and diverse cultures and that the Spanish language holds profound significance, serving as a vital link to their heritage, identity and traditions, and uniting 21 countries and Spanish speakers worldwide; and
(b) further recognize the importance of Hispanic and Latin American heritage, education and culture for current and future generations by declaring April 23, every year, as Spanish Language Day.

Private Members' Business

M-109 — April 29, 2024 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston), seconded by Mr. Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton), — That:
(a) in the opinion of the House,
(i) the ability to propose amendments to the Standing Orders is essential to adapt and improve parliamentary procedures and to the rights of members,
(ii) it is crucial to maintain open and transparent debate on proposed changes to the Standing Orders, free from undue procedural restrictions by the government or a subset of members,
(iii) all Members of the House, not the government nor a subset of members, should be the final authority as to how long proposed changes to the Standing Orders should be considered;
(b) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a study on the advisability of amending the Standing Orders as follows:
(i) by adding, after Standing Order 56.1(1)(b), the following new Standing Order:
“56.1(1)(c) For greater certainty, this Standing Order does not apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders.”,
(ii) by adding, after Standing Order 57, the following new standing order:
“57(2) This Standing Order does not apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders. For greater certainty, the question cannot be put on a motion pursuant to Standing Order 57 that would apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders.”,
(iii) by adding, after Standing Order 61, the following new standing order:
“61(3) This Standing Order does not apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders. For greater certainty, the question cannot be put on a motion pursuant to Standing Order 61 that would apply to proceedings that propose amendments to the Standing Orders.”,
(iv) by adding, after Standing Order 66(2)(c), the following new section:
“66(2)(d) Notwithstanding any other standing order, a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing or special committee wherein the report proposes amendments to the Standing Orders shall:
(i) in the first instance, be considered until no member wishes to speak, upon which the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment, or until debate is adjourned or interrupted, or for three hours, whichever is earlier, upon which time debate on the motion shall be resumed at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the day designated pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, and
(ii) in the second and any subsequent instances, be considered until no member wishes to speak, upon which the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment, or until debate is adjourned or interrupted, or for an additional three hours, whichever is earlier, upon which time debate on the motion shall again be resumed at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the day subsequently designated pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.”,
(v) by adding, after Standing Order 81(13), the following new section:
“81(13)(b) If the motion proposes amendments to the Standing Orders, a question on the referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is deemed put at the end of the debate and, if resolved in the affirmative, it shall become an order of reference to the committee to consider the motion and to report observations and recommendations on the motion back to the House not later than 75 sitting days after the referral”;
(vi) in Standing Order 93(1)(a), by adding, at the end, the following: “If the motion proposes amendments to the Standing Orders, a question on the referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is deemed put at the end of the debate and, if resolved in the affirmative, it shall become an order of reference to the committee to consider the motion and to report observations and recommendations on the motion back to the House not later than 75 sitting days after the referral”; and
(c) the committee report its findings to the House no later than 75 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.
Debate — one 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