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. 188 Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
| November 28, 2012 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — That the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 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. |
|
|
| November 28, 2012 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Wednesday, March 27, 2013, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| November 28, 2012 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Wednesday, March 27, 2013, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| November 28, 2012 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — That the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Wednesday, November 21, 2012, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Thursday, March 21, 2013, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
Questions |
|
| Q-10792 — November 28, 2012 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to the Automotive Innovation Fund expiring in 2013, have the Minister of Industry and Minister of Finance considered: (a) extending the Automotive Innovation Fund past the current 2013 deadline; and (b) renewing the program for another five-year period? |
| Q-10802 — November 28, 2012 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans authorize the killing of fish for reasons other than fishing since May 2, 2011, and, if so, (i) on what dates, (ii) in which locations, (iii) for which reasons, (iv) which company, organization or individual requested the authorization, (v) what was the number and species of fish killed or projected to be killed due to the authorization? |
| Q-10812 — November 28, 2012 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to visa applications and their disposition: (a) how many (i) student, (ii) visitor, (iii) permanent resident visas have been refused for each of the last seven years; (b) for each of the categories listed in (a), how many of these refusals have been taken to the Federal Court, for each of the last seven years; and (c) what have been the results of the court actions, by category and year? |
| Q-10822 — November 28, 2012 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With respect to the appointment of judges to the Federal Courts, Superior Courts and similarly situated tribunals within the sphere of the federal power to appoint judges and members, between 2006 and 2012: (a) how is the language competence of candidates assessed; (b) how many unilingual Anglophone candidates were recommended by the Judicial Advisory Committee to the Justice Minister, (i) how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to the Federal Courts, (ii) in what years; (c) how many unilingual Anglophone candidates were recommended by each of the Judicial Advisory Committees in each one of the provinces and territories for appointed to the superior courts of various provinces and how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to superior courts, broken down by province and year; (d) how many unilingual Francophone candidates were recommended by the Judicial Advisory Committee to the Justice Minister, (i) how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to the Federal Courts, (ii) in what years; (e) how many unilingual Francophone candidates were recommended by each of the Judicial Advisory Committees in each one of the provinces and territories for appointment to the superior courts of various provinces and how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to superior courts, broken down by province and year; (f) how many bilingual candidates were recommended by the Judicial Advisory Committee to the federal Justice Minister and how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to the Federal Courts, broken down by year; (g) how many bilingual candidates were recommended by each of the Judicial Advisory Committees in each one of the provinces and territories for appointment to the superior courts of various provinces and how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to superior courts, broken down by province and year; (h) how many unilingual Anglophone candidates were considered for appointment to each of the federally-appointed tribunals, (i) how many of them were appointed, (ii) to what tribunals, (iii) in what years; (i) how many unilingual Francophone candidates were considered for appointment to each of the federally-appointed tribunals, (i) how many of them were appointed, (ii) to what tribunals, (iii) in what years; (j) how many bilingual candidates were considered for appointment to each of the federally-appointed tribunals, (i) how many of them were appointed, (ii) to what tribunals, (iii) in what years; (k) during this process, how high did the candidate’s competence in both official languages rank among the criteria considered by the Minister; (l) has the government put in place a process by which the language needs on the bench can be identified; (m) how are those needs addressed in the judicial appointment process; (n) how are the language needs assessed at the superior court level; (o) how are they addressed in the judicial appointment process; (p) for each judge listed, broken down by Anglophone, Francophone and bilingual judges, and by year, how many cases have been referred, heard and decided; (q) what is being done to ensure even case loads between Anglophone and Francophone judges; and (r) by what means, how often and by whom or which bodies is the case load difference between Anglophone and Francophone judges reviewed? |
| Q-10832 — November 28, 2012 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With regard to the national Do Not Call List (national DNCL), since 2008-2009, broken down by fiscal year: (a) what is the total amount of funding allocated to the implementation and enforcement of the national DNCL; (b) how many persons have registered their phone or fax number on the national DNCL; (c) how many complaints about a telemarketing call have been filed with the CRTC; (d) how many complaints about a telemarketing fax have been filed with the CRTC; (e) how many telemarketing call complaints have resulted in further investigation; (f) how many telemarketing fax complaints have resulted in further investigation; (g) how many telemarketing call complaints have been found to be in violation of the national DNCL; (h) how many telemarketing fax complaints have been found to be in violation of the national DNCL; (i) how many fines have been levied, and for what amount, for telemarketing call violations of the national DNCL; and (j) how many fines have been levied, and for what amount, for telemarketing fax violations of the national DNCL? |
| Q-10842 — November 28, 2012 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the Budget 2012 commitment to “repeal regulations related to container standards” on various foods: (a) what market impact studies were completed at the time of this commitment and what were those projected impacts; (b) what were the projected impacts on consumers from this commitment; (c) what were the projected impacts on farmers from this commitments; (d) what were the projected impacts on Canadian food processers affected by this commitment; (e) how many hours have been spent, broken down by month, since January 1, 2011, tracking down container standard size violations in (i) baby food packaging, (ii) pre-packaged meat packaging, (iii) honey packaging, (iv) maple syrup packaging, (v) fruits and vegetable packaging; and (f) what has been the cost to the government, broken down by month since January 1, 2011, of tracking down container standard size violations in (i) baby food packaging, (ii) pre-packaged meat packaging, (iii) honey packaging, (iv) maple syrup packaging, (v) fruits and vegetable packaging? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-416 — November 28, 2012 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the importance of the role played by Grandparents Raising Grandchildren (GRG) families; (b) work to ensure that GRG families receive the same financial support as other foster parents; and (c) maintain Canada Pension Plan Children's Benefits payments for children when their grandparents turn 65 years of age. |
Private Members' Business |
| M-381 — September 27, 2012 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup), seconded by Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) implement, in the year following the adoption of this motion, an industrial restructuring plan towards sustainable economic sectors for all communities in which a portion of the economy still depends on asbestos mining; (b) hold, in the six months following the adoption of this motion, a public consultation that shall (i) establish measures to be included in the industrial restructuring plan to ensure the creation of alternative employment for workers presently employed in the asbestos sector, (ii) include all organizations concerned and groups of regions still mining asbestos and who ask to participate; (c) publish, in the year following the adoption of this motion, a comprehensive list of public and quasi-public buildings under federal jurisdiction that contain asbestos and take the appropriate measures to ensure the health and integrity of the people working in these buildings; (d) support the inclusion of chrysotile on the Rotterdam Convention list of dangerous substances; and (e) stop financially supporting the asbestos industry within six months following the adoption of this motion. |
| Debate — 1 hour remaining, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
| Voting — at the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|