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. 13 Thursday, November 1, 2007 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
| October 31, 2007 — The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (verification of residence)”. |
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| October 31, 2007 — Mr. Dykstra (St. Catharines) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (credit for pre-sentencing custody)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-1052 — October 31, 2007 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) and the government's child care initiatives: (a) how many families living below the national low income cut-off are receiving the UCCB; (b) if the UCCB were delivered through the Child Tax benefit as opposed to as a taxable benefit, how many families would no longer live below the low income cut-off; (c) how many child care spaces would be provided if the taxes the government collected from families receiving UCCB were re-invested into creating child care spaces; (d) how many child care spaces have been created each year from 2002 to 2006 through the multilateral framework agreement, the bilateral agreements, and agreements-in-principle since the agreements were signed; (e) how many spaces will be created in 2007 and 2008 through these agreements; (f) why does the government continue to send child care funds to the provinces when many of these provinces have not submitted reports on how funds received have been spent, and how many child care spaces have been created as a result of federal investments; (g) how many child care spaces have been created through the Child Care Spaces Initiative in each province since the program's inception in 2006; (h) how many families are collecting the UCCB; (i) what has been the enrolment rate on a monthly basis since the program was announced; (j) what is the breakdown of income levels, in numerical and percentage terms, of UCCB recipients; (k) with regards to recipients' marital status, how many are single and how many are married or in common law relationships; (l) what is the regional breakdown of those enrolled to receive the UCCB; (m) how many women and how many men are the recipients of the UCCB in their household; (n) in what percent of families registered to receive the UCCB was the recipient the lower income earner in that household; (o) what government studies have been done on the use of the UCCB since its inception in 2006, listing any such studies, including title, author, date of publication and a brief synopsis of its conclusions; (p) what polling has been done on the use of the UCCB since its inception in 2006, listing any such polling, including title, author, date of publication and a brief synopsis of its conclusions; and (q) how many child care spaces have been created by the UCCB, by province? |
| Q-1062 — October 31, 2007 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to Canada’s immigration system: (a) how many Canadians have family members who have been deported since 2000, listed by each year, to 2006, and projected into 2007; (b) how many individuals have been deported from Canada since the year 2000, listed by each year, to 2006, and projected into 2007; (c) how many of these individuals had been in Canada for five or more years; (d) what is the cost of deporting these individuals per year, since 2000, listed by departments, including the court cost; (e) how many of these individuals had filed appeals to Federal Court; (f) how many of these individuals were ordered removed with their children, provide a list of the ages of all those under the age of 18 and how many of each age group were ordered removed; (g) how many of these individuals had Canadian born children, and how many of these Canadian children have been removed out of Canada and what are their ages; (h) how many of these individuals left Canadian-born children in Canada when removed; (i) how many of these individuals have immediate family (as defined by Citizenship and Immigration under the Family Class) in Canada, and how many individuals have non-family class relatives in Canada; (j) how many of these individuals were married to a Canadian citizen while in Canada; (k) how many of these individuals were ordered removed to countries for which the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has issued any travel warnings; (l) how many of these individuals have returned to Canada since their ordered removal, provide a list of countries for which these individuals returned to Canada from after their removal; (m) how many of these individuals returned to Canada since their ordered removal with children under the age of 18, and how many of these children were born in Canada; and (n) what immigration categories did these individuals apply under when they arrived in Canada originally and when they return? |
| Q-1072 — October 31, 2007 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to federal investment and initiatives regarding the Toronto waterfront: (a) for each year, from 2000 to 2007, how much money has the government announced for investment in the waterfront; (b) for each year, from 2000 to 2007, specifying for each project or organization, how much money has been allocated specifically for projects related to the waterfront; and (c) since the year 2000, what reports, studies, polling, focus groups or audits have been conducted by the government with relation to the waterfront? |
| Q-1082 — October 31, 2007 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to crime prevention programs: (a) what studies and evaluations have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government with respect to budget cuts to social programs and the rise in violent crime since 1995; (b) which studies are related specifically to the rise in violent youth crime; (c) what individuals, department, or organization undertook these studies; (d) what is the cost of these studies; (e) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (f) how many projects have been funded through the Crime Prevention Action Fund since 2000; (g) how many of these projects were pilot projects, and how long did each last for; (h) how long were the projects funded for; (i) how many and which projects have been funded in the city of Toronto since 2000; ( j)how much has been invested in the Youth Gang Prevention Fund every year since 2000; (k) which programs have been funded through the Youth Gang Prevention Fund in the city of Toronto since 2000 and how much was granted in each case; (l) how many of these projects were pilot projects and how long did each last; (m) what is the annual funding for the National Centre for Crime Prevention; (n) how much was cut or re-allocated from the refocusing of some funding from the National Centre for Crime Prevention in the 2006 budget; (o) where did the 2006 budget cuts come from and which projects or organizations were cut; (p) what was the purpose, goal, and outcome of the refocusing of funding to the National Centre for Crime Prevention; (q) how many programs were funded by the National Centre for Crime Prevention in every year since 2000; (r) how many programs were funded through the national drug strategy in every year since 2000; (s) how many of the programs have been evaluated in the past four years; (t) how many young people received services as a result of this funding; (u) how many of these evaluations were positive; (v) of all the programs that are evaluated as having positive outcomes, how many programs have since lost their funding; (w) how many young people lost their opportunities for services as a result; and (x) how many neighbourhoods were affected as a result and what impact did these lost programs have on the crime rate in these neighbourhoods? |
| Q-109 — October 31, 2007 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With respect to the creation and implementation of a national, searchable DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank: (a) what is the government’s position on a DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank; (b) does the government have a timeline to implement a DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank and, if so, when; (c) does the government plan to bring the issue before Parliament or any of its committees and, (i) if so, when, and to which committees, (ii) if not, why not; (d) what studies and evaluations about a DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government; (e) if studies have been undertaken, (i) what individuals, departments or organizations undertook these studies, (ii) what is the cost of these studies and (iii) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-390 — October 31, 2007 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should revoke Order in Council P.C. 1946-3264 of August 14, 1946 and restore the service records of some 14,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were deemed never to have served. |
| M-391 — October 31, 2007 — Mr. Silva (Davenport) — That, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately call upon the British Government to amend the Act of Settlement of 1701 to remove from it all discriminatory references on the basis of religious affiliation recognizing that: (a) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants all Canadians equal benefit of the law regardless of religion; (b) the succession of Heads of State of Canada should not remain governed by the British Act of Settlement of 1701; and (c) the Act of Settlement of 1701 should not exclude Roman Catholics (“Church of Rome”) from ascending to the throne. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-307 — October 16, 2007 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — Third reading of Bill C-307, An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate. |
| Third reading stage — limited to 2 days, pursuant to Standing Orders 86.1 and 98(2). |
| Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 98(4). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|