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. 164 Tuesday, June 5, 2007 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| June 4, 2007 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (duty to provide assistance)”. |
|
|
| June 4, 2007 — Mr. Gaudet (Montcalm) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-2472 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With respect to the 2007 Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite: (a) how much money has the government spent on its campaign for "marketing choice", from all federal sources since January 26, 2006, in relation to (i) advertising in daily and weekly newspapers, (ii) radio advertisements, (iii) roundtables, (iv) the Task Force on Marketing Choice; (b) how many meetings have taken place since the 2006 federal election between representatives of Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and other agri-business corporations and government officials where “marketing choice” and the Canadian Wheat Board was a topic of discussion and (i) on what dates did these meetings take place, (ii) who presided over these meetings, (iii) who was present at these meetings; (c) which marketing, advertising, consulting and professional or independent agencies did the government consult with respect to how to frame the ballot questions for the barley plebiscite; (d) did any of these marketing, advertising, consulting and professional or independent agencies provide the government with written reports on how to frame the ballot questions for the barley plebiscite and, if so, on what dates were they provided; (e) what verbal or written instructions were given to KPMG, the accounting firm hired by the government to conduct the barley plebiscite, regarding the administration processes to be employed for any aspect of the barley plebiscite that KPMG was to be responsible for; (f) what is the government's position in regard to the use of numbered and/or traceable ballots in official election or plebiscite processes and in what way does this position justify using numbered and traceable ballots in the barley plebiscite; (g) at any time throughout the barley plebiscite, was the government informed or aware (i) that KPMG was contacting households by telephone seeking authorization to destroy certain ballots that had been submitted by the household which KPMG did not deem the household entitled to, (ii) that in some cases KPMG did not actually speak to the person attached to the ballot in question and accepted authorization from other household members, (iii) if the government was informed or aware of these practices, did it take measures to investigate or put a halt to these alleged informal practices and on what dates and in what form were these measures taken; (h) what is the government's position in regard to the informal destruction of ballots in plebiscites without the formal consent or presence of the person attached to a particular ballot; (i) was the government aware that many farmers thought that question 2 on the barley plebiscite ballot was to maintain the status quo and as a result voted for that option; (j) how many high level meetings were held with grassroots farm organizations to discuss any aspect of marketing choice and the barley plebiscite, on what dates were these meetings held, and who was present at these meetings; (k) what is the government's position in regard to whether a clear majority for victory in an election or plebiscite process should be announced by the government before, during or after that process begins and in what way does this position justify the government's refusal to announce the terms of a clear majority for victory until after the Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite ballots were counted; and (l) has the government ever met with the Canadian Wheat Board to determine how to limit commercial harm to farmers and the barley industry from the government’s proposed regulatory changes with respect to implementing “marketing choice” for barley and, if so, who was present and on what dates did these meetings occur? |
| Q-2482 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie) — With regard to the record low water levels of Lake Superior: (a) what is the lake's average water level by year, dating back to when records were first kept; (b) how does the government scientifically account for water levels being the lowest since 1926; (c) what studies and evaluations into Lake Superior's water levels have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government and (i) what individuals, department, or organization undertook these studies, (ii) what is the cost of these studies, (iii) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (d) how is climate change affecting the water levels of the Great Lakes, including Lake Superior, and are there studies completed or now underway in this regard and, if so, what are they and what are their findings; (e) what strategies has the government developed to deal with dropping water levels; and (f) have any agreements been struck in the export of bulk water from the Great Lakes and are any negotiations underway? |
| Q-2492 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — With regard to a national energy strategy: (a) what is the government's position on the development and implementation of a national energy strategy; and (b) are there current impediments developing and implementing a national energy strategy and, if so, what are they? |
| Q-2502 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — With regard to the Deh Cho Process: (a) what are all of the government's obligations under the Deh Cho First Nations Interim Measures Agreement; (b) what are all of the government's obligations under the Deh Cho Interim Resource Development Agreement; and (c) what are all of the government's obligations under the Deh Cho Land Use Plan? |
| Q-2512 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — With regard to the northern residents tax deduction: (a) what is Canada's total annual lost revenue for each of the previous five years, broken down by province and territory, through the use of this deduction; (b) what would be the estimated lost tax revenue to the government if the residency portion of the deduction was increased by 50 per cent; and (c) what is the rationale for not ensuring that this deduction remains current with inflation? |
| Q-2522 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With respect to women working as prostitutes: (a) does the government have statistics on women working as prostitutes that have gone missing or have been murdered and, if so, how many have gone missing in Canada since 1999, and how many have been murdered in Canada since 2003; (b) what studies and reports have been carried out by the Department of Justice in relation to Canada's prostitution laws since 1999, and what are their findings and recommendations; (c) what recommendations from the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, as enumerated in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, does the government agree with; and (d) how much federal funding is allocated to programs and organizations that deliver exit strategies for women working in the sex trade and (i) what are those organizations, (ii) how much money do they receive per year? |
| Q-2532 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With respect to Harry W. Arthurs' report on the Canada Labour Code entitled “Fairness at Work: Federal Labour Standards for the 21st Century”: (a) what is the government response to the report; (b) what groups, individuals, businesses, organizations and institutes have been consulted about the recommendations in the final report and (i) what are the responses and recommendations from those consultations, (ii) what future plans for the consultations have been made; (c) what recommendations from the report does the government agree with; and (d) has funding been allocated to implement any recommendations in the report and, if so, for which recommendations? |
| Q-2542 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With respect to Insite, the Safe Injection Site (SIS): (a) what studies and evaluations about safe injection sites have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by Health Canada; (b) what individuals, what department or what organization undertook these studies; (c) what is the cost of these studies; (d) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (e) what recommendations does the government agree with; (f) what studies and evaluations have been requested or commissioned by Health Canada to be undertaken before December 31, 2007; (g) what Heath Canada studies, reports and recommendations have already been presented to the government prior to September 2006; and (h) what amount of funding has the government provided directly, or inderectly, to SIS? |
| Q-2552 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the government's intention to harmonize regulations on pesticide residue limits for fruits and vegetables with those of the United States: (a) what evidence does the government have that shows that there will not be an increase in pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables; (b) what safeguards are in place to ensure that Canadians are not exposed to higher levels of pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables; (c) will independent and peer-review tests continue to be used to determine pesticide limits and the cumulative effect of the resulting residue on health and the environment; and (d) what are the implications to Canada's sovereign right to determine regulatory standards, affecting Canadian food security and food safety, in adopting foreign standards for regulations of pesticide residue limits? |
| Q-2562 — June 4, 2007 — Mrs. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to the employment equity cases brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) in which the government is a defendant: (a) in how many cases has the government, a government agency or a government-funded organization appeared before the CHRT as the respondent in an action involving section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began, and if closed, date closed; (b) in how many cases has the government, a government agency or a government-funded organization appeared before the CHRT as the respondent in an action involving section 10 of the CHRA and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began, and if closed, date closed; (c) in how many cases has the government or a government agency appeared before the CHRT as the respondent in an action involving the Employment Equity Act and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began, and if closed, date closed; (d) how many such cases are still pending final resolution; and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began; (e) how many employment equity cases in which the government, a government agency or government funded organization is the respondent are still pending before the CHRT and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began; (f) how many appeals of a Tribunal order or ruling has the government made to Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeals and what was the name of each appeal, the name of the government institution involved and the appeal the case was began; (g) how much has been spent by the government, in total and per year (i) in attorney’s fees defending cases before the CHRT, (ii) in attorney’s fees bringing or defending appeals of Tribunal orders or rulings in Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeals, (iii) in court costs defending cases before the CHRT, (iv) in court costs when bringing or defending appeals of Tribunal orders or rulings in Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeals, (v) in attempts to resolve such employment equity cases by methods of alternative dispute resolution (for example the services of a mediator) and (vi) in legal fees on employment equity disputes settled outside the CHRT, and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case began, and if closed, date closed, enumerated by year; (h) how much has been spent by the government in total legal fees in litigating Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Hospital Services Compliant) since the complaint was first filed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) on September 9, 1981; (i) why has a hospital services classification standard which is free of systemic gender bias not yet been adopted as required by the Tribunal’s order issued April 29, 1991; (j) what is the cost to the government of Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada Post Corporation (i) from the time the complaint was first filed in 1983 until the Tribunal rendered its decision on October 7, 2005, (ii) of the upcoming appeal in Federal Court, scheduled for November 5, 2007 (estimated cost); (k) how much has been spent by the government in legal fees (i) in litigating Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Clerical and Regulatory Complaint) since the complaint was first filed by PSAC in December 1984, (ii) in defending this case until the Tribunal rendered its decision on February 15, 1996, (iii) in litigating the government’s application for judicial review of the CHRT’s decision regarding the section 11 portion of the complaint, which was dismissed by the Federal Court on October 19, 1999, (iv) in defending the appeal brought by PSAC challenging the Tribunal’s decision as to the sections of the complaint regarding sections 7 and 10 of the CHRA, (v) since the Federal Court referred the portions of the complaint regarding sections 7 and 10 back to the CHRC; (l) how much has been spent by the government in legal fees (i) in litigating Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canadian Museum of Civilization since the complaint was first filed in March 2000, (ii) in presenting the government’s preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges a breach of section 11 of the CHRA, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on March 21, 2005, (iii) in presenting the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on January 13, 2006, (iv) in presenting the government’s applications for judicial review of the two above mentioned decisions by the CHRT, both of which were denied by the Federal Court on June 6, 2006, (v) what is the estimated cost of the mediation between the parties which is scheduled for December 2007; (m) how much has been spent by the government thus far in litigating the law suit filed by PSAC in Federal Court in November 2000 regarding pay equity adjustments for seven P.S.S.R.A. Part II separate employers (C.I.H.R., C.S.I.S., C.S.E., O.A.G., O.S.F.I., S.S.H.R.C., and S.S.O); (n) how much has been spent by the government for the mediation of the unresolved employment equity dispute between PSAC and Correctional Services Canada, which was filed in December 2003; (o) how much is expected to be spent by the government on the dispute between the Treasury Board and PSAC regarding the Program and Administrative Services Group Classification, the complaint having been filed in December 2004, which has currently been referred to mediation by the CHRC; (p) how much is expected to be spent by the government on the dispute between the Treasury Board and PSAC regarding the Education and Library Science Group classification, which has currently been referred to mediation by the CHRC; (q) has private outside counsel ever been retained and, if so, how much has been spent in attorney’s fees paid to private outside counsel, and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case began, and if closed, date closed; and (r) what is the government’s projection for the total amount of legal fees to be spent litigating employment equity cases in 2007-08 and 2008-09, and what are the names of the parties anticipated to be involved? |
| Q-257 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Christopherson (Hamilton Centre) — With respect to the purchase, either by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for departments, agencies and Crown corporations, or by the individual department, agency and Crown corporation, in the fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, of (i) pencil cases and knapsacks; (ii) televisions; (iii) flowers, (iv) carbon off-set credits for air travel, (v) microwaves, (vi) flatware, (vii) wine glasses, (viii) cameras, both regular and digital, (ix) golf balls and tees, (x) business ties, (xi) candy, (xii) alcoholic beverages, (xiii) jams, jellies and preserves, (xiv) land mines and clusterbombs, (xv) games, toys and wheeled goods, (xvi) DVDs and CDs, (xvii) perfumes, toilet preparations and powders, (xviii) clothes and footwear for Ministers of the Crown and their staff, (xix) iPods or similar devices, (xx) hockey sticks and other sporting goods, (xxi) Tim Horton's coupons: (a) how many in each category were purchased; (b) what was the total cost spent by either PWGSC or another department, agency or Crown corporation on each category? |
| Q-258 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Christopherson (Hamilton Centre) — With respect to the purchase, either by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for departments, agencies and Crown corporations, or by the individual department, agency and Crown corporation, in the fiscal years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, of (i) media and public relations training; (ii) public opinion research; (iii) promotional materials related to press conferences only, (iv) hairstylists and estheticians, (v) spas and suntanning salons, (vi) sporting events, (vii) dry cleaning, (viii) taxis: (a) how many in each category were purchased; (b) what was the total cost spent by either PWGSC or another department, agency or Crown corporation on each category; (c) with respect to media training, what was the date and cost of each contract and who was the recipient of the training? |
| Q-2592 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With respect to Variety Genetic Use Restriction Technology (V-GURTS): how much federal funding, from all sources, has the government spent on research, development and promotion of Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURTS) since 1993? |
| Q-2602 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Pallister (Portage—Lisgar) — With respect to federally regulated rail cars what percentage have been reflectorized since January 1, 2006? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Main Estimates |
| UNOPPOSED VOTES |
| May 31, 2007 — The President of the Treasury Board — That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in. |
| Voting — not later than 10:00 p.m. on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18). |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-339 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend the Income Tax Act to increase the Caregiver Tax Credit to the equivalent value of the government subsidy per patient provided to nursing homes. |
| M-340 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, take all necessary steps: (a) to improve the accessibility of homecare; (b) to establish meaningful guidelines to ensure that the number of hours of care available per day is sufficient to provide the support necessary to the senior; and (c) to expand homecare to include chronic care. |
| M-341 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend the Employment Insurance Act to provide EI benefits for family caregivers who withdraw from the paid labour force to provide care in their homes to aged, infirm or disabled family members. |
| M-342 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend the Canada Pension Plan Act to permit those who withdraw from the paid labour force to provide care for an aged, infirm or disabled family member, the opportunity to continue their full participation in the Canada Pension Plan including, but not limited to, the accrual of pension credits and uninterrupted disability coverage. |
| M-343 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, establish guidelines for the care of the chronically ill or those who require continuous care and for the regulation of the nursing home industry. |
| M-344 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of providing those persons who withdrew from the paid labour force to provide care to their children or for their disabled or aged family members with the opportunity to contribute voluntarily to the Canada Pension Plan at a fair and equitable premium during the period of the care giving. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-423 — April 16, 2007 — Mr. Lake (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-423, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act (treatment for substance abuse). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|