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. 230

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

2:00 p.m.

Introduction of Government Bills

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)
March 26, 2013 — Mr. Ravignat (Pontiac) — That the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on Tuesday, March 19, 2013, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Wednesday, July 17, 2013, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.

Questions
Q-12652 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office : (a) what is the source of its funding; (b) how much has it spent each year since 2008; (c) how much has it spent on communications each year since 2008; (d) how much has it spent on travel and hospitality each year since 2008; (e) how much has it spent on sponsorship of events each year since 2008; (f) how much has it spent on promotional materials each year since 2008; and (g) what is the annual salary of the Project Director?
Q-12662 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With respect to the organizations that officially requested the attendance of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism at an event since January 1, 2011: (a) what were the names of the organizations, the names of the events, the organizers, the dates, times, and locations; (b) did the Minister attend the event and, if not, what is the name of the government representative who attended the event in lieu of the Minister; and (c) what were the costs of any government advertisements in event publications or greetings, and the description and costs of any gifts to the event or organizers?
Q-12672 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office, as of February 1, 2013, how many people did it employ and of those, (i) how many make a salary of $100 000 a year or more, (ii) how many make a salary of $50 000 a year or less?
Q-12682 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to the Privy Council Office, since January 1, 2008, how many Access to Information Requests have had a deadline extension because the request was deemed to “unreasonably interfere with operations”?
Q-12692 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With regard to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism’s visit to Iraq: (a) what is the complete list of everyone who accompanied the Minister; (b) what was the time, date, location and nature of all government business conducted by the Minister; and (c) what was the total cost of this trip, including but not limited to, airline tickets, accommodations, meals and security for the Minister and everyone who accompanied him?
Q-12702 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and all Canadian missions since January 1, 2008: (a) has there been a gap of more than two months between the departure of an existing Ambassador and the arrival of the replacement; (b) in how many cases has the department had to send departmental officers or former officers hired on contract to fill in these gaps; (c) what has been the cost of these temporary deployments; and (d) what was the cause of each of these gaps?
Q-12712 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to the Property Value Protection Program associated with the low-level radioactive waste clean-up in the Port Hope Area, as of March 15, 2013, what are the total legal costs incurred by the government for all claims that have entered into arbitration?
Q-12722 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca) — With regard to Order Paper questions: (a) for questions Q-819 through Q-1259, what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?
Q-12732 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to the Employment Insurance Stewardship Pilot (Pilot) and information on ineligible Employment Insurance (EI) payments referred to by the government in relation to the Pilot: (a) how many regular and self-employed EI claimants have been reviewed under this Pilot, broken down by geographic location and EI region; (b) how were each of the claimants in (a) selected for inclusion in the Pilot; (c) how many of the EI claimants were in receipt of Special Benefits, broken down by type of Special Benefit; (d) how many of the claims belonging to claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase one of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (e) how many of the claims belonging to claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase two of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (f) how many of the claims belonging to the claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase three of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (g) how many of the claims belonging to the claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase four of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories,(xiii) Nunavut; (h) what techniques and tools are Integrity Service Officers allowed to use in client interviews conducted under this Pilot; (i) were any techniques and tools, other than those identified in existing ISB Policy and Procedures, authorized for use in this Pilot and, if so, what were those techniques and the rationale for their use; (j) how many Direction to Report notices were provided by Integrity Service Investigators under this Pilot, broken down by (i) the date each notice was served, (ii) the time between the serving of said notice and the date of the scheduled in-person interview with the claimant, (iii) the region each notice was served in; (k) how many Reports of Investigation were prepared and sent to the Processing and Payment Services Branch; (l) what were the results and findings of the StreetSweeper Review regarding the Pilot; (m) what documents, tools, manuals, instructions, presentations, and other materials were used to conduct orientation and training for all persons employed by the federal government who have or are currently taking part in the Employment Insurance Service Review pilot; (n) did the Employment Insurance Service Review (EISR) pilot Business Expertise Consultant receive any questions or observations from those working on the pilot and, if so, what were these questions and observations; (o) what are the details of (i) EISR Working Group meeting and conference call agendas and minutes, (ii) EISR Working Group project discussion and findings, including anomalies, problems encountered during the project, additional techniques and situations encountered, potential weaknesses in investigative tools, or any other factors of concern expressed regarding the Pilot; (p) in how many cases were unannounced home visits performed by investigators in the course of the Pilot; (q) what was the rationale for unannounced home visits; (r) in how many of the cases was fraud or wrongdoing suspected prior to unannounced home visits; (s) are unannounced home visits to EI recipients department policy when there is no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing, (i) if so when did it take effect, (ii) if not, is it anticipated to become policy; (t) how many unannounced home visits were conducted by investigators to EI claimants who were not suspected of any fraud or wrongdoing in fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013; (u) was a legal opinion sought prior to the implementation of the EI Stewardship Pilot regarding interview techniques with EI claimants who were not suspected of fraud or wrongdoing and, if so, what were the legal concerns and problem issues raised by the opinion; (v) under what legislative authority did investigators conduct unannounced home visits to EI claimants under no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing; (w) was a legal opinion sought to determine by what authority investigators could conduct unannounced home visits to EI claimants under no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing (i) if so, did the opinion present concerns, (ii) if so what were they; (x) on what other issues other than those raised in (u) and (w) did the Department of Human Resources and Skilss Development seek a legal opinion on and why; (y) what was the cost of the EI Stewardship Pilot project; (z) what was the cost per home visit and the total cost for all home visits; (aa) what are the details of each type of ineligible EI payment that is tracked by the government; (bb) for fiscal 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, what is the breakdown of ineligible EI payments by (i) number of cases, (ii) amount, (iii) EI economic region, (iv) province; (cc) in how many cases was the ineligible payment the result of a government error, (i) what is the dollar value of these types of errors for fiscal 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; (dd) for fiscal 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, what was the amount of (i) total EI benefits paid to EI claimants, (ii) original EI Fraud loss, (iii) amount of EI fraud recovered to date, (iv) amount of EI fraud expected to be recovered in future years, (v) amount of EI fraud not expected to be recovered, (vi) amount of EI fraud recovered and expected to be recovered as a percentage of EI benefits paid and (vii) amount of EI fraud not expected to be recovered as a percentage of EI benefits paid; (ee) is the automation of EI processing leading to ineligible payments by incorrectly processing a claim and, if so, how many cases of this problem were found during fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and what was the dollar amount for each case; (ff) if the answer in (ee) is yes, what studies has the government undertaken to examine this, specifying the (i) name, (ii) date completed, (iii) document reference number; (gg) how does the EI system calculate Direct EI saving and Indirect EI saving for each type of ineligible EI payment; (hh) how many cases resulted in Direct EI saving and Indirect EI saving for each type of ineligible EI payment, broken down by fiscal year for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and what is the dollar value for each case; (ii) what was the ratio of Direct EI Savings to Indirect EI Savings for fiscal 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and what are the reasons for any variance in the ratio throughout this period; (jj) what was the indirect EI savings and the number of cases of EI claim disentitlements for fiscal 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; (kk) of the claim disentitlements referred to in question (jj), in how many cases was the disentitlement (i) subsequently rescinded, (ii) rescinded within thirty days of the original disentitlement for the fiscal 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; (ll) what were the reasons for claim disentitlements referred to in question (kk) being subsequently rescinded; (mm) are the indirect EI savings that are calculated form a claim disentitlement subsequently reduced if the disentitlement is rescinded and if not, why not; and (nn) for claim disentitlements that were subsequently rescinded as referred to in question (kk), what was the expected indirect EI savings that was expected to not be realized as a result for the fiscal 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013?
Q-12742 — March 26, 2013 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With regard to the costs of the July 16, 2010, press conference in Ottawa, Ontario, at which the Minister of Defence announced the government’s intention to procure F-35s for the Royal Canadian Air Force, what were the costs incurred by the government (not including the cost of $47,313 related to the model F-35 used at the conference and described in Order Paper Question 596) for : (a) flying in a Canadian CF-18 as part of the press conference, including fuel, maintenance, storage, Departmental personnel, and transportation; (b) all personnel, including those from Department of National Defense or other Departments involved in the press conference; (c) audio-visual support, including Departmental personnel, equipment rentals, translation, and any contracting services provided; (d) venue setup and dismantling, including costs related to seating, catering, lighting, and accommodating media; and (e) the entire press conference inclusive, including those related to the model F-35 described in Order Paper Question 596.
Q-12752 — March 26, 2013 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the participation of the Canada Border Services Agency in the reality show Border Security: Canada’s Front Line: (a) what has been the total cost for the Agency’s participation in the reality show to date and what is the total cost of the production agreement between CBSA and Force Four Entertainment; (b) how many episodes did CBSA agree to and over what time period will the episodes be filmed; (c) what provisions are in place to ensure that CBSA officers and subjects are not exploited; (d) who reviewed and analyzed the show's proposal and what were their comments; (e) what is the examination and approval process for footage; (f) how are CBSA officers recruited for participation in the show; (g) how many officers have participated in the show and how many have refused to participate in the program and on what grounds; (h) how are subjects recruited for the show; (i) are subjects asked whether or not they would like to participate in the show or are required to sign a consent form prior to being filmed; (j) are subjects given incentives to participate in the program, either monetary or otherwise, and if so what; (k) has the CBSA received any formal complaints with regards to the show and if so, what were the nature of said complaints and what was CBSA's response; (l) were any concerns raised within CBSA about its participation in the show, and if so, what were the nature of those concerns and from whom did they come; (m) what were the CBSA's stated reasons for participation in the show; (n) what are the established parameters for a case's inclusion in the program; (o) on what grounds will CBSA refuse inclusion of a case; (p) does CBSA have a veto over what footage that is aired and, if so, has it been used and for what reasons; and (q) what measures are in place to ensure that the program does not violate the Privacy Act?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Government Business

Private Members' Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business
C-463† — November 6, 2012 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of Bill C-463, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (travel expenses).
M-412 — January 31, 2013 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Aspin (Nipissing—Timiskaming), seconded by Mr. Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright), — That, in the opinion of the House, a government loan guarantee to the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project is: (a) an important part of a clean energy agenda; (b) an economically viable project that will create thousands of jobs and billions in economic growth; (c) regionally significant for the Atlantic region, which will benefit from a stable and sustainable electricity source for decades to come; and (d) environmentally-friendly, with substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions through the displacement of power from coal-fired and oil electricity sources;
And of the amendment of Mr. Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands), seconded by Mr. Penashue (Labrador), — That the motion be amended by: (a) replacing the words “government loan guarantee to the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project is: (a) an important part of a clean energy agenda; (b) an economically viable project that will create thousands of jobs and billions in economic growth; (c) regionally significant” with the words “loan guarantee provided by the federal government for the Lower Churchill hydroelectric projects—consisting of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric generation facility, the Labrador Transmission Assets, the Labrador-Island Link, and the Maritime Link—will be an important and valuable step in advancing Canada’s clean energy agenda, as it will support an economically viable, regional energy project that will (a) provide economic benefits”; (b) replacing the words “and (d) environmentally-friendly,” with the words “(b) create environmentally-friendly electricity,”; and (c) adding after the words “oil electricity sources” the words “; and (c) create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic growth”.
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).
† Subject to the provisions of Standing Order 94(2)(c)
2 Response requested within 45 days
Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page