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. 126 Tuesday, February 8, 2011 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| February 7, 2011 — Mr. Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials)”. |
|
|
| February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Tobacco Act (smokeless tobacco and little cigars)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
| February 7, 2011 — Mr. Bagnell (Yukon) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented on Thursday, June 17, 2010, be concurred in. |
| Debate — limited to 3 hours, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2). |
| Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate. |
|
|
| February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — That the 12th Report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Wednesday, February 2, 2011, be concurred in. |
| Debate — limited to 3 hours, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2). |
| Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate. |
|
|
| February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — That the 14th Report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Wednesday, February 2, 2011, be concurred in. |
| Debate — limited to 3 hours, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2). |
| Voting — not later than the expiry of the time provided for debate. |
Questions |
|
| Q-9392 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period? |
| Q-9402 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the City of Hamilton, Ontario, for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period? |
| Q-9412 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — What is the total amount of government funding since April 2009 up to and including the current fiscal year allocated within the City of Hamilton, Ontario, by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount? |
| Q-9422 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Nickel Belt, specifying each (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount? |
| Q-9432 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Nickel Belt for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period? |
| Q-9442 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — What is the total amount of government funding, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 1988-1989 up to fiscal year 2008-2009, allocated within the constituency of Sudbury, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount? |
| Q-9452 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to the federal support of Canadian athletes: (a) how much money did the government provide to each sport federation or association since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) how much money is committed to each national sport federation or association for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; and (c) how much money was spent by the government on (i) athlete's education, (ii) coaching, (iii) training, (iv) scholarships, (v) injury prevention, (vi) travel, (vii) accommodation? |
| Q-9462 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to the Children's Fitness Tax Credit program: (a) how many families received payments under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; and (c) how many applications for the program were declined on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total? |
| Q-9472 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to programs for young families: (a) how many new programs were introduced and how much money was spent by the government since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date (i) across Canada, (ii) by province; (b) which departments were responsible for program administration; (c) how much money was allocated for programs to address the needs of young families (i) by department, (ii) by province; (d) how many programs for young families were finished and were not renewed since 2006 to date; and (e) how much money was spent for initiatives to support young families under the Canada Economic Action Plan each fiscal year since 2007-2008 to date (i) in total amount by year, (ii) by province? |
| Q-9482 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to bonuses granted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: (a) how many bonuses were dispersed, broken down by (i) fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (ii) individual personnel, (iii) region, (iv) departmental division; and (b) what was the amount of the bonuses broken down by (i) fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (ii) individual personnel, (iii) region, (iv) departmental division? |
| Q-9492 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount? |
| Q-9502 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Timmins—James Bay for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period? |
| Q-9512 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), the liberation treatment, and multiple sclerosis (MS): (a) what consensus documents have been published regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (i) by whom, (ii) on what dates, (iii) what were the recommendations, (iv) were they reviewed by the August 26, 2010, meeting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in collaboration with the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC); (b) why were Canadian members of the International Union of Phlebology (IUP), who were part of the Consensus process regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, not consulted during the August 26 meeting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); (c) what are the details of any plan the government has or is developing to collect evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, for example, through clinical trials or the creation of a registry; (d) what percentage of surgical procedures in Canada have been double-blind tested over the last 40 years and, for this percentage, (i) what is the risk of complication, (ii) what is considered an acceptable risk of complication, (iii) how do physicians judge acceptable risk and convey this risk to their patients, (iv) what actions do physicians take to reduce risk if the patient chooses to undertake the procedure; (e) when a medical treatment appears to be potentially effective, is its approval ever fast-tracked by the relevant Canadian authorities and, if so, (i) what are any examples of this in Canada over the last five years, (ii) has this ever happened with respect to MS, (iii) if so, who advocated for a fast-tracking and when, (iv) what process was followed to allow the treatment, (v) who made the decision to proceed, (vi) why was fast-tracking deemed necessary, (vii) what were the known risks at the time of the request, (viii) what, if any, negative impacts resulted; (f) what are the reasons for the length of time it has taken the relevant Canadian authorities to implement clinical trials or to develop a registry; (g) why did no member of the August 26 group declare any conflicts of interest, either real or perceived; (h) how many liberation procedures did the August 26 group estimate have been undertaken, (i) which countries were undertaking the procedure, (ii) to which countries were Canadians travelling, (iii) were the practitioners considered to be sufficiently trained, (iv) were the procedures in these countries found to be safe; (i) which people, labs and operating theatres had undertaken the diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI in Canada prior to the August 26 meeting; (j) why did the August 26 meeting not include Canadian experts in the imaging or treatment of CCSVI and for what reasons was Dr. Sandy McDonald not included as a participant; (k) why did the August 26 meeting not include international experts in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, data presented at international scientific conferences or site visits to labs and operating theatres, which were or had been undertaking diagnosis or treatment; (l) what is a comprehensive explanation of why the inclusion of CCSVI and liberation experts might have biased the sample of the August 26 group and whether such selection is an established practice at all CIHR meetings; (m) what are all the names of the group members who had spoken out against diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI or the liberation procedure prior to the August 26 meeting, what were the details of their positions, and what are their publically-available comments on the matter; (n) who were all the members of the August 26 group and, for each member, what were his or her stated or declared conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest; (o) what was the August 26 group’s assessment of and comments concerning all reviewed published papers, including both positive and negative observations; (p) did the August 26 group find it unusual that two of the reviewed papers had been accepted for publication in only six weeks, (i) did the group review whether this is a common practice in medicine, (ii) did the group consider how and why this might happen, (iii) did the group explore the expertise of those writing the papers, their experience, how their results compared with those of Dr.Zamboni and, if so, (iv) what were the group's findings for questions posed in (iii); (q) which neurologists, present at the August 26 meeting, had followed MS patients who were diagnosed with CCSVI and who had been treated for the condition, (i) how had neurologists followed them (e.g., appointment, EDSS score/another scale, MRI, neurological exam, etc.), (ii) what, if any, evidence did they present of patients' progress following the liberation procedure; (r) did the August 26 group find the reversal in the MSSC's position, who was part of the greater group, unusual, (i) did the group investigate or consider the reasons for this change in position and, if so, (ii) what observations did it make or conclusions did it come to regarding the reversal; (s) did the August 26 group estimate how its decision might impact Canadian MS patients, including (i) impacts on their mental health and how this might impact their disease, (ii) the number of Canadian MS patients who might feel forced to seek help outside Canada, (iii) how air travel, a compromised vascular system, recent surgery, and lack of follow-up in Canada might impact their disease and, if so, (iv) what are the results of those estimations; (t) what consensus documents are forthcoming, (i) by whom, (ii) when will they be published; (u) what is the work plan for the new expert working group which met for the first time on November 23, 2010, (i) who are the panellists, what are their qualifications and what is their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (ii) how were the panellists chosen and by whom, (iii) what is the group’s mandate and how was it derived, (iv) what is the schedule of meetings, (v) what is the timeline for the group’s work, (vi) what evidence will be reviewed to reach any decision about possible clinical trials, registry, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up care, etc.; (v) what was the agenda for the November 23 meeting of the expert working group, (i) what abstracts, documents, and presentations were reviewed, (ii) which Canadian and international experts, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, were consulted, (iii) what Canadian and international unpublished data were explored, (iv) what Canadian and international labs or operating theatres were reviewed and visited; (w) for what reasons is the new group going to analyze interim and final results from seven studies funded by the Canadian and US MS Societies and why are these studies considered more worthwhile cases for analysis than other studies already completed; (x) when will the November 23 expert panel declare and post any conflicts of interest, following the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) guide, on the CIHR website to eliminate the possibility of real or perceived conflicts; (y) further to assurances made by the President of CIHR, Dr. Alain Beaudet, to the Subcommittee on Neurological Diseases on December 7, 2010, that MS patients who have had the liberation procedure would have follow-up, what are the details of how that follow-up will occur, specifically, (i) how will “a message be sent”, by whom, to whom, by when and what will the message be, (ii) specifically, will all patients who travel or travelled outside Canada be assured that their doctors will see them, that appointments will not be cancelled, that tests will not be cancelled, that they will have access to recommended prescriptions, that they will not lose their long-term care and that they will not be berated for making the decision to have liberation, (iii) how will this be enforced, (iv) what action should MS patients take if they are denied care, (v) to whom should they report a denial of care, (vi) what are the consequences for a physician or health practitioner or organization who delivers care but fails to provide follow-up care, (vii) will follow-up include ultrasound or MRI to image the veins of MS patients and, if so, how often will these imaging procedures occur and who will pay for them? |
| Q-9522 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With respect to the Universal Child Care Benefit program: (a) how many families received payments under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how many single parents applied and received payments under this program (i) by province, (ii) in total; (c) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) total amount, (ii) by province; and (d) how many applications for the program were declined on annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total? |
| Q-9532 — February 7, 2011 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — With respect to the appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): (a) what criteria did Mr. Athanasios Pentefountas meet in order to qualify for this position; and (b) what criteria were used to select the best candidate for the position? |
| Q-9542 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): (a) how many full-time equivalents (FTEs) are expended by the CFIA on work related to food safetry, as opposed to plant and animal health, on an annual basis in (i) the United States, (ii) Mexico, (iii) China, (iv) France, (v) Italy, (vi) Brazil, (vii) Chile, (viii) Thailand, (ix) Australia, (x) the United Kingdom; and (b) during 2011, will CFIA conduct any foreign country equivalency audits on the scale of the audits of Canada’s food safety system done by the United States Food Safety and Inspection Service, involving detailed and extensive review of policies, procedures and site visits to food production facilities and, if it will, which countries will it audit? |
| Q-9552 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With respect to the First-Time Home Buyers' Tax Credit program: (a) how many first time home buyers received benefits under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (c) how many applications were received and how many were declined on annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total? |
| Q-9562 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regard to the British Columbia Treaty Process: (a) what substantive actions has the government taken to study the issue of accumulation of interest from treaty loans; (b) how does the debt from this interest affect the treaty negotiations; (c) when will the government outline its new approach to funding for First Nations self-government as announced in the March 2010 budget; (d) how has the federal mandate on negotiation changed since 2006; (e) how many treaty loans will come due in 2011; (f) what is the total value of those treaty loans coming due in 2011; (g) what is the total value of interest on those loans; (h) what steps has the government taken to extend the deadline on treaty loans; (i) when will the government report to the House of Commons on the treaty loan deadline; and (j) what is the government's communications plan as concerns the treaty loan deadline and First Nations, including those First Nations involved in treaty negotiations, those that have dropped out of the process and those First Nations that are not involved in treaty negotiations? |
| Q-9572 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With reference to the study by Doctor Masazumi Harada entitled "Long-term study on the effects of mercury contamination on two indigenous communities in Canada (1975-2004)": (a) does Health Canada’s blood guidance value account for long-term low-level exposure to mercury; (b) what steps has Health Canada taken to study births in Grassy Narrows where the children exhibited symptoms of congenital Minamata disease; (c) what actions has Health Canada taken to inform Grassy Narrows residents about the potential for congenital Minamata disease; (d) since Health Canada stopped monitoring mercury in Grassy Narrows in the 1990s has there been any follow-up study to ensure mercury levels have not changed; (e) how many people have applied to the Mercury Compensation Board since its beginning; (f) how many of those people were denied compensation; (g) for what reasons was compensation denied; (h) how many people appealed the denial of compensation and, of those people who appealed, how many were successful; (i) what investigation has been done into the long-term health of workers at chloralkali plants in Canada; (j) have chloralkali plant workers received any compensation for adverse health effects from mercury; (k) are there any plans to add the residents of Wabauskang (formerly Quibell) on the Wabigoon River to the list of possible beneficiaries of the Mercury Compensation Board; (l) what has been done to identify and remediate all mercury hot spots across Canada; and (m) how is the government upholding the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in relation to persistent mercury pollution hotspots including, but not limited to, Thunder Bay, Sarnia and Cornwall? |
| Q-9582 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to Agent Orange and Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange spraying at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; (b) what is the total amount of money identified in (a) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011; (c) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; (d) what is the total amount of money identified in (c) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011; (e) what is the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to January 31, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; and (f) what is the total amount of money identified in (e) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011? |
| Q-9592 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Winnipeg Centre for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period? |
| Q-9602 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Winnipeg Centre, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount? |
| Q-9612 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to programs aimed at increasing youth participation in the election process and democratic governance in Canada: (a) what initiatives were undertaken by all departments from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) what Canadian not-for-profit organizations received funding and were engaged in this process; (c) what was the total funding allocation for these initiatives from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; and (d) are any new programs planned to be launched in fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013? |
| Q-9622 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) — With regard to Environment Canada and enforcement: (a) how many full-time enforcement officers are currently employed by the government, broken down by number of (i) inspectors enforcing environmental protection or pollution laws; (ii) investigators enforcing environmental protection or pollution laws, (iii) conservation officers enforcing wildlife laws; (iv) enforcement officers in parks laws; (b) where are each of the officers in (a) based and deployed; (c) what are the budgets and actual expenditures for enforcement for the past five years; (d) what is the breakdown for full-time equivalents in enforcement for headquarters and for the regions for compliance promotion, inspection and investigation, and enforcement, respectively; (e) what increase in full-time equivalents and budget expenditures are anticipated in order to implement the promised improved monitoring regime for the oil sands sector; (f) what is the timeline for the deployment of any increased monitoring and enforcement activity for the oil sands sector; and (g) has the department instituted a specific enforcement and compliance strategy for the oil sands sector? |
| Q-9632 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona, specifying each department or agency, initiative or program, year and amount? |
| Q-9642 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With respect to the Medical Establishement Licensing Fee: (a) what is the rationale for the fee increase of 340 percent from $2100 to $7200 effective April 1, 2011; (b) if the rationale is improvements to the program, what will those improvements be; (c) are all dealers selling medical equipment in Canada licensed; and (d) are dealers selling medical equipment in the canadian market via mail orders licensed? |
| Q-9652 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund — Communities Component top-up in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund — Major Infrastructure Component in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved? |
| Q-9662 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With regard to government support of Canadian small and medium-sized businesses: (a) how much money was spent on federal programs to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Canadian businesses on an annual basis since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; and (b) what new programs and initiatives will be introduced by the government in fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013? |
| Q-9672 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to corporate taxation: (a) how many corporations in Canada paid no tax in each of the last ten years; and (b) what were their combined revenues and profits, in each of the last ten years? |
| Q-9682 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — What is the total amount of deferred corporate taxes for the tax years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009? |
| Q-9692 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With respect to federal funding for Child Advocacy Centres announced in October 2010: (a) does the funding for this initiative come from an existing fund, or is it a new initiative with new funding; (b) what are the criteria by which applications to receive funding under this initiative will be evaluated; (c) how many applications to receive funding under this initiative have been received, broken down by month received, location of project and name of applicant; (d) how many applications to receive funding under this initiative have been approved, broken down by date approved, location of project and name of applicant; (e) how many applications to receive funding under this initiative have been rejected, broken down by date rejected, location of project and name of applicant; (f) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed under this initiative within a single fiscal year; (g) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed to a single applicant or project; (h) what happens to this initiative once the $5.25 million has been fully assigned; (i) what will happen to the funding once the five year commitment comes to an end; (j) what factors or circumstances changed between the time of the requests made by former Victims Ombudsman, Steve Sullivan, to include funding for Child Advocacy Centres in Budget 2009 and Budget 2010 and the time the government decided to announce funding in October 2010; (k) what existing programs or initiatives may have their funding or potential funding reduced or eliminated as a result of the announced funding for Child Advocacy Centres; (l) what specific branch, department or agency is responsible for administering the funding for Child Advocacy Centres; and (m) what is the legislative basis for this funding? |
| Q-9702 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in New Brunswick by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL): (a) what is the most recent estimate of the total cost of the completed refurbishment; (b) what is the expected completion date; (c) what is the total funding transferred to AECL by the government to pay for cost overruns in each fiscal year; (d) what is the expected total amount that will be transferred to AECL by the completion date; (e) what amount has the government of New Brunswick requested from the government as compensation for replacement power costs; and (f) what commitments has the government made to the government of New Brunswick with regards to compensation for replacement power costs? |
| Q-9712 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or an agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or an agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects which received funding from a department or agency over this period? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
Private Members' Business |
| C-474 — December 1, 2010 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — Resuming consideration at report stage of Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), as deemed reported by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food without amendment. |
| Resuming debate on the motions in Group No. 1. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — March 5, 2010 |
| Bill deemed reported, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3) — October 27, 2010. |
| Report and third reading stages — limited to 2 sitting days, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2). |
| Report stage motions — see “Report Stage of Bills” in today's Notice Paper. |
| Debate — 6 hours remaining, pursuant to Standing Order 98(3). |
| Subject to Special Order — See Journals of Monday, February 7, 2011. |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|