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. 109 Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-6092 — April 23, 2012 — Ms. Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry) — With respect to drug regulation and approval: (a) does the 2012 Economic Action Plan provide for decreases or increases in the financial and human resources allocated to (i) drug approval services, (ii) regulatory activities to evaluate and monitor the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs before and after they enter the marketplace, (iii) activities related to the review of submissions by drug manufacturers for market authorization and post-market changes, (iv) activities related to enforcing compliance with existing regulations, including those concerning clinical trials, drug manufacturing and the reporting of adverse drug reactions, (v) activities of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, (vi) services such as the Patent Register, Drug Product Database, Notice of Compliance, and Progressive Licensing Project, (vii) various areas of Health Canada such as the Marketed Health Products Directorate, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate, and the Veterinary Drugs Directorate; (b) for each of the programs and directorates listed in (a), (i) what is the estimated extent of the decreases or increases in human or financial resources, (ii) are positions expected to be cut and, if so, how many will be eliminated; (c) was a value-for-money assessment conducted for the drug approval process; and (d) what is the government’s financial allocation plan regarding drug regulation? |
| Q-6102 — April 23, 2012 — Ms. Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry) — With respect to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): (a) does the 2012 Economic Action Plan (Budget 2012) provide for decreases or increases in the financial and human resources allocated to the CFIA; (b) what impact will Budget 2012 have on the financial and human resources allocated to Canada’s food safety system; (c) what impact will Budget 2012 have on the number of employees at the CFIA; (d) what impact will Budget 2012 have on the CFIA’s services; (e) what are the government’s plans to streamline and accelerate the food regulatory process; (f) will these plans have an impact on the number of employees or the availability of CFIA programs and services; (g) how will the introduction of a label verification tool for consumers affect CFIA employees and services; (h) will the introduction of the label verification tool for consumers enable the CFIA or the department to save money; and (i) is the CFIA still responsible for food labelling and for reporting labelling errors to the companies concerned? |
| Q-6112 — April 23, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the government’s plans for resource development, as described in the section entitled “Responsible Resource Development” in Chapter 3.2 of Budget 2012: (a) what are all examples of federal environmental laws that are stronger than provincial laws and how will the proposed legislative changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) affect the assessment of environmental impacts of industrial projects that cross provincial borders; (b) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken to study impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) risk mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (c) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (d) will the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA give any consideration to (i) measuring negative impacts of development, (ii) managing negative impacts of development; (e) by what date will the government bring forth new “legislation to streamline the review process for major economic projects” (Budget 2012, p. 89); (f) what are the projected costs of changes to the CEAA for each province and territory; (g) what assessments of the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory have been conducted, (i) what were the dates of any such assessments, (ii) what were the recommendations and conclusions; (h) what are the details of any research or evidence in the government’s possession indicating that the proposed “modern regulatory system” will contribute to (i) “better environmental outcomes”, (ii) “offer new opportunities for Aboriginal businesses”, (iii) “generate well-paying jobs for Aboriginal peoples near their communities”, (iv) “improve consultations with Aboriginal peoples” (Budget 2012, p. 91); (i) what is the government’s rationale for extending support for consultations with Aboriginal peoples for a period of only two years; (j) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken regarding how changes to the current environmental review process may impact the Northern Gateway pipeline project, including (i) intervenors in the project, (ii) project proponents, (iii) regulators of the project; (k) given its plan for resource development, how does the government plan to ensure that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board (NEB) will have adequate financial and technical resources, and how will the resource levels of these organizations change given the expected growth in resource development projects; (l) what is the cost of having enforceable environmental assessment decision statements, (i) what resources will be allocated to ensure that these decision statements will be enforced, (ii) what will be the consequence if a proponent does not comply with required mitigation measures to protect the environment; (m) will there be Criminal Code penalties for violating the CEAA and the NEB Act; (n) how will the government define whether or not a provincial process is equivalent to the federal process; (o) how will the government determine which major projects will continue to receive oversight from the federal assessment process; (p) what proportion of current assessments will no longer receive federal oversight given the proposed changes; (q) what is a detailed accounting of the investments being made in the Major Projects Management Office Initiative versus the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; (r) by what dates will the government bring forth (i) legislation to “enhance the existing tanker inspection regime” (Budget 2012, p. 98) and what specific actions will be taken to ensure enforcement of the legislation, (ii) “appropriate legislative and regulatory frameworks related to oil spills, and emergency preparedness and response” (Budget 2012, p.98) and what specific actions will be taken to ensure enforcement of the legislation; (s) how will an independent international panel of tanker safety experts be chosen and, specifically, (i) why was it decided that an international panel is needed to assess handling processes, (ii) what will be the specific process for, and who will be involved in, choosing the members of the international panel, (iii) who will have the ultimate decision-making authority on the appointments to the international panel, (iv) when will the international panel be chosen, (v) what will be the selection criteria for the panel, (vi) how will all potential conflicts of interest of members of the international panel be recorded, confirmed, and publicly declared; (t) by what date will the government bring forth “new navigational products, such as updated charts for shipping routes” (Budget 2012, p. 98) and, specifically, what other navigational products will be provided; (u) what monies will be provided for “research to improve our scientific knowledge and understanding of marine pollution risks, and to manage the impacts on marine resources, habitats and users in the event of a marine pollution incident” (Budget 2012, p. 98), (i) when will the monies be available, (ii) to whom will monies be available; (v) what is the government’s rationale for implementing funding for strengthening pipeline safety for a period of only two years; (w) will funding for strengthening pipeline safety include funding for the NEB to (i) monitor whether regulated companies have prepared emergency-procedures manuals according to established legislation, standards, and Board expectations, (ii) communicate any deficiencies to the regulated companies, (iii) ensure any deficiencies are corrected; (x) how does the role of the Northern Pipeline Agency compare to that of the NEB and, specifically, (i) what is the Agency’s mandate, (ii) what is its organizational structure, (iii) who are its key people, (iv) to whom will the Agency report and how often; and (y) what is a detailed accounting of the government’s investments in environmental monitoring, protection, and enforcement as it compares with the government’s investments in promoting Canada’s oil and gas industry? |
| Q-6122 — April 23, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to changes to environmental programs resulting from the announcements in Budget 2012: (a) specifying how each identified cut is projected to impact the government’s access to scientific information required for the development of public policy, the number of people to be cut, and the amount of money to be cut, what are all areas of scientific research and partnerships to be cut, including, but not limited to, (i) air pollution, (ii) emergency preparedness and response, (iii) industrial waste, (iv) water quality; (b) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including for each the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of research and partnership cuts on the government’s access to scientific information required for the development of public policy; (c) what, in detail, does “sufficient data is available to support the dissemination and validation of the UV Index forecast” mean, (i) what does “we will continue to have enough data for EC to track and report on ozone” mean, (iii) in detail, will the government maintain the integrity of the ozone monitoring program, (iv) in detail, will the government maintain Canadian contributions to the global observing system for climate in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), (v) what studies have been undertaken to assess the impact of streamlining ozone monitoring on Canada’s international reputation, and what were any findings and recommendations; (d) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding (i) impacts of streamlining ozone on ozone data collection, (ii) the integrity of the ozone monitoring program, (iii) Canada’s contributions to the UNFCCC, (iv) Canada’s international reputation; (e) what studies have been undertaken to assess the impact on Canada’s international reputation of the decision to no longer house and manage the Global Environmental Monitoring System Water Program of the United Nations Environment Programme, and what were any findings and recommendations; (f) what, in detail, is the government’s rationale for eliminating the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, (i) what other organization has a direct mandate from Parliament to engage Canadians in the generation and promotion of sustainable development advice and solutions, (ii) which organizations will provide domestic, independent research and analysis on sustainable development and what are the sources of their funding; (g) what monies are to be spent on the two dimensions to clean energy, namely (i) the clean-up of non-renewable sources of energy such as coal and the oil sands by reducing their environmental and climate change impacts, (ii) opportunities to compete in renewable energy production and more efficient energy consumption; and (h) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken to identify those investments which are necessary (i) to develop a clean energy industry in Canada, (ii) to help Canada to transition to the green economy, (iii) to have Canada be a leader in the green economy? |
| Q-6132 — April 23, 2012 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the government response to Chapter 2 of the 2012 Spring Report of the Auditor General: (a) when did the departments of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC), National Defence (DND), and Industry Canada provide their final responses to the Office of the Auditor General (OAG); (b) when did PWGSC and DND inform the OAG that they disagreed with the conclusions of Paragraphs 2.80 and 2.81 of the report; (c) was the disagreement with those two paragraphs approved by the Minister; (d) if this disagreement was not approved by the Minister, who were the officials who approved this response; (e) what was the rationale for disagreement; and (f) how was this disagreement communicated to the OAG? |
| Q-6142 — April 23, 2012 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to events described in paragraph 2.58 of Chapter 2 of the 2012 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada “Replacing Canada’s Fighter Jets” concerning the approval by Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) of a sole source procurement of the F-35: (a) when were senior decision makers in PWGSC informed that there had not been sufficient justification provided for a sole source contract; (b) why were they informed of this and what was the rationale; (c) who within PWGSC made the decision to ask the Department of National Defence to provide a letter of justification in lieu of a finalized statement of operational requirement or a complete options analysis; (d) why did this letter meet the justification for National Defence’s proposed procurement strategy; (e) was the Minister informed of the use of this letter; (f) if not, why not; and (g) if the Minister was informed when did that take place? |
| Q-6152 — April 23, 2012 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the use of the term “fifth generation fighter” by the government: (a) is the term “fifth generation” considered to be appropriate for a statement of requirements; (b) is there an accepted and/or objective definition of the term “fifth generation” by the government; and (c) how has the classification of “fifth generation” been used for the proposed procurement of the F-35? |
| Q-6162 — April 23, 2012 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to formal communications received by the government of Canada from the United States Department of Defense (DoD) regarding the Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 program: (a) what were the dates of all formal communications received from DoD regarding project costs and/or overruns; (b) what was the content of the communications; (c) who in the government received these communications; (d) were Ministers informed of these communications; (e) was the Prime Minister informed of these communications; (f) if not, why not; (g) if yes, how were these messages given to Ministers and on what date; and (h) what actions were taken in response to these communications? |
| Q-6172 — April 23, 2012 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2011-2012, up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, listing each department or agency, inititative and amount, including the date the funding was allocated? |
| Q-6182 — April 23, 2012 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — What is the total number of public sector jobs eliminated during the fiscal year 2011-2012 within the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, listing each department or agency by munipality? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-354 — April 23, 2012 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — That in the opinion of the House, all televised statements, debates, and committee meetings of the House of Commons should be closed-captioned for the hearing impaired, in both official languages, in addition to Question Period. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-273 — September 19, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|