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. 7 Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| November 25, 2008 — Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (exception to inadmissibility)”. |
|
|
| November 25, 2008 — Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Tobacco Act (cigarillos, cigars and pipe tobacco)”. |
|
|
| November 25, 2008 — Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Bank Act (automated banking machine charges)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-272 — November 25, 2008 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With respect to tax treatments offered to the fishermen from Atlantic Canada and Quebec: (a) were the fishermen who accepted the Atlantic Fisheries Groundfish Retirement Package and who permanently gave up their fishing licences in the years 1999 and 2000 advised in writing by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to report, at the time of filing their income tax, that the retirement lump-sum payment was to be counted as revenue from a capital gain and, if so, (i) why, (ii) why did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans issue this advice, (iii) how many fishermen did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans give that advice to; (b) why did Revenue Canada or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency agree to give certain other fishermen a different tax treatment than the one outlined above, for the same retirement years; (c) how many fishermen received that different tax treatment; (d) why did the Minister of National Revenue and the Federal Minister of Fisheries advise these former fishermen (or their survivors in the case of deceased former fishermen) to appeal to the Regional Director of Taxation in St. John’s for a review; (e) has the Regional Director of Taxation informed the affected individuals that he will not accept their appeals and, if so, why; and (f) did Revenue Canada or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency reach an out-of-court settlement in 2007 with a certain number of fishermen who had appealed their tax treatment and, if so, (i) why, (ii) why were the fishermen involved in that out-of-court settlement required to sign a secrecy or non-disclosure document, (iii) how many fishermen were involved in that out-of-court settlement? |
| Q-282 — November 25, 2008 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to the Building Canada Fund (BCF): (a) what projects have been awarded funding; (b) for each of these projects, what was (i) the dollar share of project costs funded by the government, (ii) the percentage share of project costs funded by the government, (iii) the content and specifications of the project, (iv) the location of the project; (c) what are the government's plans to accelerate infrastructure spending under the BCF; (d) how much funding has been or will be allocated for each province and territory; and (e) what is the cost-sharing formula for cost-shared projects with other orders of government? |
| Q-292 — November 25, 2008 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to 5 Wing Goose Bay, for each of the fiscal years 2004-2005 through 2008-2009 inclusive: (a) what was the total amount spent, or for the current year budgeted to be spent, by the Department of National Defence (DND) or the Canadian Armed Forces in respect of 5 Wing Goose Bay, indicating for each fiscal year the operational budget, capital budget, payroll, and other expenses; (b) what specific measures, if any, have been taken towards the establishment of a rapid reaction battalion and unmanned aerial vehicle squadron at 5 Wing Goose Bay; (c) what is the “operational requirement” for 5 Wing Goose Bay referred to by the former Minister of National Defence and when was it instituted; and (d) what specific marketing initiatives has DND undertaken with regards to attracting clients to 5 Wing Goose Bay, stating (i) who has undertaken this marketing for or on behalf of DND, (ii) what are the budgeted or actual expenditures for these marketing initiatives? |
| Q-302 — November 25, 2008 — Mr. Mulcair (Outremont) — With respect to Canada’s fiscal framework: (a) with respect to the tax cuts announced in Budget 2008, which sectors benefited the most and the least from such a measure; (b) when drafting Budget 2008, what investments on social or infrastructure projects were proposed, (c) at the government’s current rate of tax cuts and program expenditure, how many years would it take until Canada is in a deficit situation, or the government is forced to curb program spending, (i) if the latter, by how much would the government need to do to afford it’s promised tax regime, (ii) if the former, how large a deficit would accrue, on an annual basis, over the next five year; (d) what is considered the largest source of tax “leakage” by the government on an annual basis for the last five years, (i) what are these losses worth on an annual basis, (ii) from which provinces are most of these losses incurred, (iii) which countries, in terms of size of Canadian assets, are considered the largest foreign tax havens, (iv) what plans, if any, does the Canadian government have to tighten restrictions on the use of such tax havens; (e) with respect to a comparison between a 0.5% cut to the lowest marginal tax rate and lowering the GST by 1%, which would benefit Canadians more, in dollars, according to income level, (i) with respect to a comparison between a $500 increase in the basic personal exemption and lowering the GST by 1%, which would benefit Canadians more, in dollars, according to income level; (f) with respect to the public transit tax credit, what was the anticipated cost of this measure prior to its implementation, (i) how many Canadian transit users, by urban centre, were expected to file for this credit, (ii) since its inception, on an annual basis, what has been the cost of implementing this tax credit, (iii) how many Canadian transit users, by urban centre, have filed for this credit, (iv) how many transit users were expected to file for it, (v) what would be the costs of extending this credit to users who pay for their transit on a basis other than with a monthly travel pass (i.e. on a daily or weekly basis, or by buying blocks of transit chits), (vi) by what margin was transit ridership expected to increase with the implementation of this tax credit, by urban area and on an annual basis, (vii) since the inception of this credit, how much has ridership increased or decreased, by urban area and on an annual basis; and (g) with respect to the tax credit to promote physical fitness among children, what was the anticipated cost of this measure prior to its implementation, (i) how many Canadian families, by urban centre, were expected to file for this credit, (ii) since its inception, on an annual basis, what has been the cost of implementing this tax credit, (iii) how many Canadian families, by urban centre, have filed for this credit, (iv) under existing regulations what length of time must a sports program be in operation for a family to be eligible for the tax credit, (v) what would be the costs of extending this credit to families who enrol children in sports programs whose duration is for two weeks or longer, (vi) since its implementation, what sports, by category (i.e. hockey, soccer, etc.), have most and least been utilized under this tax credit? |
| Q-312 — November 25, 2008 — Mr. Mulcair (Outremont) — With respect to contracting between the government and Hugh MacPhie and Associates since January 2006: (a) how many contracts have been awarded, (i) what was the date, value and duration of each contract, (ii) which departments or agencies awarded the contracts; (b) how many of these contracts were sole sourced at the discretion of Ministers of the Crown or their political exempt staff and how many were put to tender, (i) what were the terms and expected deliverables of each contract, (ii) what was the justification given for each sole sourced contract, (iii) who personally authorized each contract; (c) are there consequences for breaking Treasury Board guidelines and, if so, what are they, (i) what sanctions are available to the government to reprimand those that break Treasury Board guidelines, (ii) specifically, which consequences were available in the circumstance of a $122,000 contract awarded to MacPhie and Associates in which, according to the Minister of Finance, “administrative functions were not followed”, (iii) have these sanctions ever been used, in this or in other circumstances, and, if so, in what instances; (d) other than Budget 2007, how many times in the preceding 10 years has the Ministry of Finance hired private sector firms to develop “all budget communications” including the Budget Plan and Budget Speech, (i) who was so hired, at what cost, and when, (ii) were such contracts sole sourced or put to tender, (iii) if the former, who authorized them? |
| Q-322 — November 25, 2008 — Mr. Mulcair (Outremont) — With respect to the fall 2008 purchase by the government of $75 billion in mortgage securities from Canadian financial institutions through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC): (a) what are the government's stated transaction objectives; (b) what were the terms and conditions of the transaction and what terms and conditions were sought by the government but rejected by the banks; (c) did the government seek assurances of interest rate cuts or greater credit access by consumers and companies in return for the credit swap and, if not, why not; (d) were any conditionalities placed on executive compensation packages in return for accessing the credit swap and, if so, what were they; if not, why not; (e) what oversight measures are in place to monitor how the banks use the credit; (f) will the Treasury Board Secretariat monitor the compliance with terms and conditions of the transaction and provide quarterly reporting to Parliament on the performance of the agreed upon benefits to Canadians; (g) how was the $75 billion disbursed; (h) which banks or financial institutions have accessed funds, on what dates and in what amounts; (i) what is the presumed economic stimulus of this bailout, (i) what is the anticipated economic return for the government from this credit swap, (ii) what are the financial and non financial benefits of this deal; (j) how long does the government anticipate holding these mortgages; (k) what is the underlying value of the mortgages held by the government and who valued them; (l) how many mortgages did the CMHC take possession of with the bailout; (m) in the event of a mortgagee defaulting on their loan, what are the financial liabilities and responsibilities borne by the government; (n) how many default mortgages does the government anticipate in fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010, on a residential and commercial basis; and (o) what was the total transaction fee incurred by the government? |
| Q-332 — November 25, 2008 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regards to the use of Claymore munitions by the Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan: (a) does the CF have special doctrine for the use of the Claymore in Afghanistan; (b) does the CF chain of command give instructions with regard to the use to the Claymore and obligations under the Ottawa Protocol; (c) is the chain of command aware of uses of the Claymore that have not followed standard procedures in Afghanistan; (d) is the Minister of Department of National Defence aware of any use of the Claymore that violated the Ottawa Protocol; and (e) is the Minister or chain of command aware of any use of the Claymore in which the intended target of the weapon was responsible for its detonation? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-248 — November 25, 2008 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should honour its commitments to increase funding for research and innovation, and reverse its decision not to fund the Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation in Sudbury, as announced in the Speech from the Throne. |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|