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
Status of House Business
PDF

Notice Paper

No. 102

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

10:00 a.m.

Introduction of Government Bills

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)
November 22, 2010 — Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River) — That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that it have the power, during its consideration of Bill C-501, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (pension protection), to amend section 136 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Questions
Q-5742 — November 22, 2010 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — With regard to federal regulation of the lands in the Northwest Territories, in detail: (a) what was the rationale for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's recommendation that the subsurface interim land withdrawal for Edehzhie Candidate National Wildlife Area not be renewed; (b) prior to making the recommendation, did the department consult with the Dehcho First Nations and, if so, (i) when were the consultations conducted, (ii) how were they conducted, (iii) where were they conducted, (iv) what was their outcome; and (c) if no consultations were conducted with the Dehcho First Nations, what were the reasons?
Q-5752 — November 22, 2010 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to the May 2010 changes to the Functional Guidance and Procedures for Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) withdrawals and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) adjustments: (a) what was the rationale behind changing the guidelines, such that seniors who voluntarily withdraw funds from their RRIFs may no longer be eligible for GIS, Allowance, or Allowance for survivors benefits; (b) why is there a distinction such that seniors who withdraws funds from a RRIF are penalized, while it is possible to withdraw the same amount from a savings account without impacting GIS eligibility and payment amounts; (c) who was responsible for the decision to make these changes; and (d) in light of the recommendation from The Honourable Justice E.A. Bowie and The Honourable Justice J.E. Hershfield of the Tax Court of Canada that this policy should be reviewed, what has the government done to examine the effects of these procedures and ensure that they are in the best interest of Canadian citizens?
Q-5762 — November 22, 2010 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to Canada's campaign for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations: (a) what are the total expenditures for the campaign; (b) what are the costs and descriptions of travel expenses incurred by each Minister, Parliamentary Secretary and their exempt staff where the campaign was a subject of discussion; (c) what are the costs and descriptions of hospitality expenses incurred by each Minister and Parliamentary Secretary where the campaign was a subject of discussion; (d) what are the costs and descriptions of gifts to foreign officials in support of the campaign; and (e) what are the costs and descriptions of printed materials produced in support of the campaign?
Q-5772 — November 22, 2010 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — For each of the financial quarters from 2008 until today, what are the details of any contract between Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and the following companies, including what prompted the issuing of the contract, who were the staff from the company that worked on the contract and what use was made of the results of each contract or what were the deliverables of the contract and, for each of the contracts, what steps did INAC take to determine if the contractee was lobbying INAC on other issues: (a) Laurier Research Group Limited; (b) Halifax Group; (c) Bay Street Research and Records Management Inc.; (d) Publicmetrics; (e) Centre for Public Management Inc.; (f) Delsys Research Group Inc.; (g) Accenture; (h) Canadian Development Consultants Inc.; (i) Hallux Consulting Inc.; (j) Stratum Associates; (k) Public History Inc.; (l) Wampum Records; (m) Stratos Inc.; (n) Workgroup Designs Inc.; (o) Joan Holmes & Associates Inc.; (p) Naut Sa Mawt Resources Groups Inc.; (q) Institute on Governance; (r) The History Group Inc.; (s) Forest Communications Inc.; (t) Smith Research Inc.; (u) Sea Mist Consultants; (v) Nisha Technologies Inc.; (w) Prairie Research Associates Inc.; (x) Rawson Group Initiatives Inc.; (y) Bronson Consulting Group; and (z) Sussex Circle?
Q-5782 — November 22, 2010 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to cases awaiting Ministerial Relief decisions from the Canada Border Services Agency, broken down by country, what is: (a) their number; (b) the average duration of wait; (c) the rationale for the mulitple years of delays in making a decision; (d) the number of staff assigned to clear the backlog; (e) the number of cases appealed to the Federal Court as a result of an unreasonable delay; and (f) the cost to the government to defend these delays in Federal court?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers
P-29 — November 22, 2010 — Ms. Gagnon (Québec) — That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House a copy of the reports prepared by firms having obtained the contract(s) for the supervision and quality control of work proposed and carried out as part of the decontamination of the former property of Canadian Arsenal in Valcartier (Quebec) which became I.V.I., then SNC Technologies and is today the Société Immobilière de Valcartier.
P-30 — November 22, 2010 — Ms. Gagnon (Québec) — That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House a copy of all the technical committee’s proceedings that the then-regional director of the National Capital regional office of Quebec’s Ministry of the Environment referred to in his letter of March 31, 2003, addressed to the then-Commander of 5 Area Support Group, National Defence.
P-31 — November 22, 2010 — Ms. Gagnon (Québec) — That the House issue an order to produce a copy of the hydrogeological study and the risk analysis study in order to confirm the possible sources of trichloroethylene at Valcartier and Shannon and to evaluate the toxicological and ecotoxicological risks taken by National Defence, referred to by then Minister of National Defence, in a letter dated March 24, 2003, to the Quebec Minister of the Environment.
P-32 — November 22, 2010 — Ms. Gagnon (Québec) — That the House issue an order to produce a copy of the aqueduct system analysis reports for Canadian Forces Base Valcartier (Quebec), from 1970 on.

Business of Supply

Government Business

Private Members' Notices of Motions
M-595 — November 22, 2010 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize that the national infestation of bedbugs has reached chronic proportions in most major centres and is causing great discomfort and distress to all those affected; and (b) undertake a comprehensive study of the national infestation for the purposes of developing concrete proposals to eradicate this pest by the most immediate and effective means possible.
M-596 — November 22, 2010 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — That, in the opinion of this House, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Review Board should be prohibited from investing in companies and enterprises that manufacture and trade in military arms and weapons, have records of poor environmental and labour practices or whose conduct and practices are contrary to Canadian values.
M-597 — November 22, 2010 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended:
(a) by deleting Standing Order 86(1) and replacing it with the following:
“86. (1)(a) Any one Member may give notice of an item of Private Members’ Business, and may do so, if he or she chooses, in conjunction with up to as many other Members as the number of parties with official status in the House of Commons minus one.
(b) Any Member sponsoring an item of Private Members’ Business with another Member may move a motion related to that item with the consent of all the other sponsoring Members of the item, and such a motion will stand in the name of all sponsors of the item.”
(b) by deleting Standing Order 86(2) and replacing it with the following:
“(2) Notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, not more than twenty Members may jointly second an item under Private Members' Business and may indicate their desire to second any motion in conjunction with the Member or Members in whose name or names it first appeared on the Notice Paper, by so indicating, in writing to the Clerk of the House, at any time prior to the item being proposed.”
(c) by inserting the following new section immediately after Standing Order 87(1)(a)(iii):
“(iv) An item of Private Members’ Business shall not be dropped from the Order Paper if one or more sponsoring Members become ineligible, unless all sponsors become ineligible.”
(d) by deleting Standing Order 87(1)(d) and replacing it with the following:
“(d) Not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the second sitting day after the day on which the order of precedence is established or replenished, a Member whose name has been placed in the order of precedence may indicate that he or she wishes to have his or her item designated non-votable by informing the Clerk in writing through a notice signed by all sponsors of that item.
(e) The names of the Members sponsoring an item are removed from the List for the Consideration of Private Members’ Business once the item has been placed in the order of precedence.”
(e) by deleting Standing Order 90 and replacing it with the following:
“90. Except as provided pursuant to Standing Order 96, after any bill or other order standing in the name of a private Member or Members has been considered in the House or in any Committee of the Whole and any proceeding thereon has been adjourned or interrupted, the said bill or order shall be placed on the Order Paper for the next sitting at the bottom of the order of precedence under the respective heading for such bills or orders.”
(f) by deleting Standing Order 92(1)(b)(ii) and replacing it with the following:
“(ii) all the sponsors of the item have waived the right to appeal by so notifying the Speaker in writing.”
(g) by deleting Standing Order 92(2) and replacing it with the following:
“(2) Within five sitting days of the deposit of a report referred to in paragraph (1)(a) of this Standing Order, the sponsor or sponsors of an item that is the object of the report shall have the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and to provide a written submission to the Committee to explain why the item should be votable.”
(h) by deleting Standing Order 92(4)(a) and replacing it with the following:
“(4)(a) Where a report pursuant to paragraph (3)(a) of this Standing Order has been presented to the House, any sponsor of the item which is the object of the report may appeal the decision of the Committee by filing with the Speaker within five sitting days of the presentation of the said report, a motion to that effect signed by all sponsors of the item and five other Members of the House representing a majority of the recognized parties in the House, and, if no appeal is filed with the Speaker during the period provided for in this paragraph, or if all the sponsors have waived the right to appeal by so notifying the Speaker in writing, the report is deemed adopted.”
(i) by deleting Standing Order 92.1(1) and replacing it with the following:
“92.1 (1) Where a report pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(a) has been presented to the House, any sponsor of the item that has been designated non-votable may, within five sitting days of the presentation of the said report, give written notice signed by all sponsors of the item of his or her intention to substitute another item of Private Members’ Business for the item designated non-votable.”
(j) by deleting Standing Order 92.1(2) and replacing it with the following:
“(2) When notice has been given pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, the sponsor of the item, or all sponsors in the case of an item with multiple sponsors, who has or have other notices of motion on the Order Paper or Notice Paper or bills on the Order Paper set down for consideration at the second reading stage shall, when forwarding that notice, inform the Clerk which of their items is to replace the non-votable item in the order of precedence and, notwithstanding any other Standing Order, that item shall retain its place in the order of precedence and shall remain subject to the application of Standing Orders 86 to 99.”
(k) by deleting Standing Order 92.1(3) and replacing it with the following:
“(3) When notice has been given pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, the sponsor or sponsors of the item without a notice of motion on the Order Paper or Notice Paper or a bill on the Order Paper set down for consideration at the second reading stage shall, within 20 days of the deposit of the report pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(a), have another notice of motion on the Order Paper or Notice Paper or a bill on the Order Paper set down for consideration at the second reading stage and, notwithstanding any other Standing Order, that item shall be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence and shall remain subject to the application of Standing Orders 86 to 99.”
(l) by deleting Standing Order 93(3) and replacing it with the following:
“(3) Amendments to motions and to the motion for the second reading of a bill may only be moved with the consent of all sponsors of the item.”
(m) by deleting Standing Order 94(2)(a) and replacing it with the following:
“(2)(a) When any Member has given at least forty-eight hours' written notice that he or she is unable to be present to move his or her motion under Private Members' Business on the date required by the order of precedence, the Speaker, with permission of the Members involved, may arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence with a Member or Members whose motion or bill has been placed in the order of precedence, provided that, with respect to the Member or Members accepting the exchange, all of the requirements of Standing Order 92 necessary for the item to be called for debate have been complied with.”
(n) by deleting Standing Order 94(2)(c)(i) and replacing it with the following:
“(i) the sponsor or sponsors shall be prohibited from requesting an exchange pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a); and”
(o) by deleting Standing Order 95(1) and replacing it with the following:
“95. (1) When an item of Private Members' Business that is votable is under consideration, the Member moving the motion shall speak for not more than fifteen minutes followed by a five minute period for questions and comments. When an item is sponsored by more than one Member, the sponsors wishing to speak shall share equally a total of fifteen minutes followed by a five minute period of questions and comments. Thereafter, no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes. The Member or Members moving the motion shall, if desired, speak again for not more than five minutes, shared equally by sponsors wishing to speak, at the conclusion of the second hour of debate, or earlier if no other Member rises in debate.”
(p) by deleting Standing Order 95(2) and replacing it with the following:
“(2) When an item of Private Members' Business that is not votable is proposed, the Member moving the motion shall speak for not more than fifteen minutes. When such an item is proposed by more than one Member, the sponsors wishing to speak shall share equally a total of fifteen minutes. Thereafter, no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes for a period not exceeding forty minutes. After forty minutes, or earlier if no other Member rises in debate, any Member moving the motion shall, if he or she chooses, speak again for not more than five minutes, shared equally by all Members moving the motion who wish to speak. Debate is thereby concluded.”;
and that the Clerk be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential amendments.
M-598 — November 22, 2010 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should decrease the wait times for Canadians sponsoring their parents from China, Philippines, India, Pakistan, and Africa to no more than 1.5 years.

Private Members' Business
C-574 — October 1, 2010 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities of Bill C-574, An Act to promote and strengthen the Canadian retirement income system.
2 Response requested within 45 days
Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page