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. 265 Friday, June 7, 2013 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| June 6, 2013 — Mr. Brown (Leeds—Grenville) — Bill entitled “An Act to provide funding for the conservation of national historic sites”. |
|
|
| June 6, 2013 — Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Slave River)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-14022 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With regard to the government’s claim in the 2013 Budget that it has introduced "over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system" since 2006: (a) what are these measures; and (b) which of these measures are directly related to overseas tax evasion? |
| Q-14032 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With regard to the Enforcement and Disclosures Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), for the years 2003 to 2013, inclusive, by year: (a) what is the budget of the Directorate; (b) how many people work at the Directorate; and (c) what training does CRA staff receive in the prosecution of cases against overseas tax evaders? |
| Q-14042 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With regard to the news release dated May 8, 2013, in which the Minister of National Revenue announced “new measures” to fight overseas tax evasion including “An additional $15 million in reallocated CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) funds that will be used to bring in new audit and compliance resources dedicated exclusively to international compliance issues and revenue collection identified as a result of measures outlined in Economic Action Plan 2013”: (a) what, specifically, are these “new audit and compliance resources”; (b) what is each projected to cost; and (c) from where, within the CRA, will the $15 million be “reallocated”? |
| Q-14052 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to funding the government awarded to the constituency of Brossard-La Prairie from fiscal year 2002-2003 to fiscal year 2012-2013: (a) what was the total amount of government funding, broken down by department or agency; and (b) what initiatives were funded and, for each, what was (i) the amount awarded, (ii) the date the funding was awarded? |
| Q-14062 — June 6, 2013 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to the Minister of Health’s signed response to Order Paper Question Q-1254: (a) how does the Minister and her government define “transparency”; (b) what does the Minister mean by "this Government has been as transparent as possible with parliamentarians and the public on this issue"; (c ) how does taking 225 days to answer Q-1254 meet the Minister’s definition of transparency, (i) how does taking 225 days meet the statement that Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and that they “must answer all questions pertaining to your (sic) areas of responsibility”, as cited in “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State”, (ii) what criteria were used to ensure transparency; (d) how does answering only sub-questions (a), (q) and (z) of Q-1254 meet (i) the Minister’s definition of transparency used in (a), (ii) the guidelines in “Accountable Government”, (iii) what criteria were used to ensure transparency; (e) how does partially answering sub-questions (b), (c), and (n) meet (i) the Minister’s definition of transparency used in (a), (ii) the guidelines in “Accountable Government”, (iii) what criteria were used to ensure transparency; (f) how does refusing to answer sub-questions (d) to (h), (j), (l) to (m), (r) to (s), (u) to (y), and (aa) meet (i) the Minister’s definition of transparency used in (a), (ii) the guidelines in “Accountable Government”, (iii) what criteria were used to ensure transparency; (g) why does the government not track by hours, cost, number of drafts, and persons who work on speeches, when it tracks projected costs to answer opposition MPs’ Order Paper questions; (h) who does the government consider to be “key partners” regarding chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) procedure; (i) what are the main CCSVI stakeholders across the country, (i) which, if any, does the government consider a “key partner”, (ii) with which, if any, does the “government communicate on a regular basis”; (j) why does the Canadian Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Monitoring System, which “was ready to receive data as of September 2012”, not contain any submitted data, (i) what are the barriers to having submitted data, (ii) what, if anything, can be done to make the system operational and functional, including, but not limited to, increased political will, human resources, financial resources, or improved cooperation with stakeholders; (k) if new Statistics Canada data was published in September 2012 showing that the number of people living with multiple sclerosis in Canada is 93,500, (i) why did John Wright, President and CEO of the Canadian Institute for Health Information use the numbers 55,000 to 75,000 at the October 4th, 2012 hearings on Bill S-204; (l) regarding the September 6, 2011, consensus workshop to determine the best procedures to standardize imaging of veins in the neck and brain, (i) who were the invited experts, (ii) how many imaging procedures for CCSVI had each expert undertaken, (iii) by whom were each of the experts trained, (iv) how many of the experts were funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR); (m) what was the funding by each of CIHR, the MS Society of Canada, and the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec for the $6 million CCSVI clinical trial; (n) which of (a), (b), or (c) is the government’s position regarding follow-up care (a) "MS patients who have received a venous procedure abroad should be reassured that they will be continued to be cared for by their physicians and/or regular MS specialists as any other patients?" (ATIP), (b) follow-up care as an issue that is primarily the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments (ATIP) or (c) “the federal government has provided regular MS research updates to provincial and territorial jurisdictions, which have the responsibility to ensure that Canadians receive appropriate health treatments and follow-up care” (answer to Order Paper question Q-1254); (o) what recourse and resources do Canadians who have been treated for CCSVI have should they be denied follow-up care, as Roxanne Garland was; (p) has the government been informed of a preliminary study for CCSVI undertaken in British Columbia, and if so, what were the preliminary results; and (q) has the $6 million CCSVI clinical trial begun and if not, why not, and if so, (i) on what date did patient accrual begin in each of the provinces, (ii) how many patients have been recruited for the trial by province, (iii) how many CCSVI procedures have been undertaken by province? |
| Q-14072 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — With regard to the Department of Health, specifically the Canada Food Inspection Agency: what was the breakdown of the 2012 Health of Animals Act compensation amounts paid to aquaculture operations in Newfoundland and Labrador, specifically the Grey Aqua Group Salmon Aquaculture Farm in Butter Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador, for quarantine and destructions, reported in dollar amounts? |
| Q-14082 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — With regard to Transport Canada, and specifically the St. John's Port Authority: (a) what new commercial infrastructure projects does the Port Authority currently have underway on the St. John's waterfront; (b) what are the details of the commercial arrangements for the infrastructure projects; and (c) what other developments does the Port Authority have planned for the St. John's waterfront? |
| Q-14092 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the 2010 and 2011 citations issued by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) inspectors to vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area: (a) has the government been informed of any penalties or fines imposed by the vessels’ home countries; and (b) were the fines or penalties paid by the vessels that were fined? |
| Q-14102 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB): (a) can the department provide details of any studies carried out on helicopter night flights to oil facilities, specifically the safety of day flights versus night flights in transporting employees to and from the offshore work site; (b) has the government taken any action to implement recommendation 29(a) of the 2010 Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry into the establishment of an independent offshore safety regulator; and (c) has the government investigated the costs associated with establishment of the office of an independent safety regulator, and, if so, can the department provide a breakdown of the cost? |
| Q-14112 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the State Immunity Act (SIA): (a) what is the process by which the Governor in Council sets out the names of foreign states that are believed to support or to have supported terrorism on the list established pursuant to the SIA; (b) what is the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ role in this process; (c) what is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness’ role in this process; (d) do the Ministers engage in regular consultations for the purpose of reviewing and updating the list, (i) how frequently do the Ministers engage in such consultations, (ii) how do the Ministers determine when to consult in this regard, (iii) how do the Ministers determine what states to consider when engaging in such consultations, (iv) on whose initiative are such consultations undertaken, (v) what guidelines control the consultation process, (vi) are consultations conducted privately, (vii) are the minutes of these consultations recorded and, if so, where can they be accessed, (viii) what information is available regarding the substance of these consultations; (e) what foreign states are currently being considered for listing pursuant to the SIA, (i) are the Ministers currently involved in any consultations in this regard, (ii) at what stage do these consultations currently stand, (iii) are there any plans for upcoming consultations in this regard; (f) what steps are being taken to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that any other states not currently listed have been or are engaged in the support of terrorism; (g) what has been the impact thus far of listing states, (i) broken down by state, how many lawsuits of which the government is aware were initiated against these states prior to the listing, (ii) broken down by state, how many lawsuits of which the government is aware are currently pending against listed states, (iii) how much has the government thus far spent in cases in (ii), (iv) who is responsible for defending cases in (ii), (v) what budget exists for defending cases in (ii); (h) on what evidence does the Minister of Foreign Affairs rely in making the determination that reasonable grounds exist to believe that a state is or has been engaged in the support of terrorism, (i) does a determination by the Ministers that a foreign state is or has been engaged in the support of terrorism automatically result in a recommendation by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to list that state pursuant to the SIA, (ii) is it necessary that both Ministers agree in the determination that reasonable grounds exist in order for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to recommend the listing of the state pursuant to the SIA, (iii) what evidentiary rules control the type of evidence that may be considered in making this determination, (iv) can and does the Minister rely on classified information in making this determination, (v) may individuals and groups make submissions in this regard, (vi) how may such submissions be made, (vii) what publically available sources are consulted in the consultation process, (viii) which individuals are involved in the consultation process; (i) does the listing of a state result in that state being subject to the jurisdiction of a Canadian court in an action brought pursuant to the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) in all instances; (j) in what instances may a listed state enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court in an action brought pursuant to the JVTA; (k) what types of immunity are covered by the SIA, (i) what types of immunity are not covered by the SIA, (ii) can a state that is listed still claim any type of immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court, (iii) what claims in (ii) will the government defend on behalf of a state, (iv) how, by whom, and applying what standards is the determination in (iii) made; (l) with regard to the listed state of Iran, is it the policy of the government that Iranian-owned property located in Canada is immune from attachment, (i) is it the policy of the government that all Iranian-owned property located in Canada is immune from attachment, (ii) what specific Iranian-owned properties located in Canada are immune from attachment, (iii) on what basis are such properties immune from attachment, (iv) by whom, and applying what standard is the determination in (iii) made; (m) with regard to listed and non-listed states, on what basis does the government support diplomatic immunity for states in civil actions, (i) how is the determination on (l) made, by whom, and with reference to what authorities; (n) with regard to listed states, on what basis do these states benefit from diplomatic immunity, (i) who makes the determination on the part of the government to invoke such immunity, (ii) in what instances, if any, have states requested that such immunity be invoked, (iii) does the government’s obligation to protect diplomatic or consular properties include the obligation to defend a listed state in court, (iv) is it the government’s policy that it is obligated to defend a listed state in court, (v) if so, to what extent and how is this determination made, (vi) in what cases has the government made this argument, (vii) in what cases is the government making this argument, (viii) how much has the government spent such far on cases in (vii); (o) with respect to the listing of Iran, was the decision in part based evidence that the former Iranian embassy in Ottawa has been used to support terrorism, (i) if so, how was the government aware that the embassy was being used for such purposes and on what dates, (ii) does the use of the property that is located in Canada of a foreign state in support of terrorism exempt that property from the immunity provided by the SIA, (iii) does the use of the property that is located in Canada of a foreign state in support of terrorism exempt that property from all immunity, (iv) what type of immunity can still be claimed by a listed foreign state to protect property that is located in Canada that has been or is being used in support of terrorism, (v) does diplomatic immunity protect embassy property even where the relevant embassy was used or is being used in violation of international law or in support of terrorism; (p) with respect to the listed state of Iran, how much money has been spent defending it in court, (i) what are the anticipated costs of defending the Islamic Republic of Iran in court, (ii) is there a government policy or directive indicating the acceptable costs to be expended in defending the Islamic Republic of Iran in court, (iii) from where does the government obtain the funds necessary to defend the Islamic Republic of Iran in court, (iv) what is the maximum amount of money that the government will spend in defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran in court; (q) with respect to the listed state of Iran, can the property located in Ottawa at which the former embassy of Iran was located be attached in a civil action by victims of Iranian-sanctioned terrorism to enforce a judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, (i) what are the government’s obligations toward the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard, (ii) does the government know this property to be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iii) does the government know this property to have at any time been owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iv) is it necessary that the property be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran for it to receive immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court; (r) can the property located in Ottawa at which the former residence of the Ambassador of Iran to Canada is located be attached in a civil action by victims of Iranian-sanctioned terrorism to enforce a judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, (i) what are the government’s obligations towards the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard, (ii) does the government know this property to be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iii) does the government know this property to have at any time been owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iv) is it necessary that the property be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran for it to receive immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court; (s) can the property located in Toronto at which the former Iranian cultural center is located be attached in an action by victims of Iranian-sanctioned terrorism to enforce a judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, (i) what are the government’s obligations towards the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard, (ii) does the government know this property to be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iii) does the government know this property to have at any time been owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iv) is it necessary that the property be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran for it to receive immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court; (t) by whom, how often, and by what criteria will the SIA’s effectiveness be evaluated and who is responsible for this review; (u) by what means were listed states informed of their listing, (i) on what dates, (ii) by whom, (iii) is there a policy with regard to informing states of their having been listed, (iv) if so, what is it; (v) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts have been made to inform Canadians of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations, (i) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts have been made to inform Canadian companies of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations, (ii) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts will be made to inform Canadians of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations, (iii) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts will be made to inform Canadian companies of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations; and (w) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts were made with respect to changes to state immunity occasioned by the coming into force of the JVTA, (i) in particular, how were judges informed of the changes, (ii) how were states informed of the possibility of a listing pursuant to the JVTA, (iii) were efforts made to reach out to potential claimants affected by changes to the SIA, (iv) if so, what were these efforts, how were they undertaken, by whom, and on what dates? |
| Q-14122 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to employees and contractors of the government of Canada within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) how many such employees or contractors have there been in total per year since 2004, broken down by (i) riding (current boundaries), (ii) riding (proposed boundaries), (iii) full time, part time or occasional status, (iv) permanent, indeterminate, or temporary status, (v) total gross income for each response in (iii) and (iv), (vi) department, office, facility, or contract location; and (b) what are the projected responses for all clauses in (a) between now and 2019? |
| Q-14132 — June 6, 2013 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to software used by the government on all digital platforms: (a) what software is permitted for use, broken down by (i) servers, (ii) workstations and desktops, (iii) laptops and portable computers, (iv) personal digital assistants, cell phones and other personal electronics, (v) rationale; (b) for each subsection of (a), what software is banned from use; (c) for each subsection of (a) and (b), where is this software developed; and (d) for each subsection of (a) and (b), if the software is not released as an Open Source (as defined by the Open Source Initiative) or Free Software (as defined by the Free Software Foundation), are viable Open Source or Free Software alternatives available, (i) have they been explored, (ii) what was the rationale for their rejection? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
Private Members' Business |
| C-480 — April 26, 2013 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Pilon (Laval—Les Îles), seconded by Mr. Blanchette (Louis-Hébert), — That Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mr. Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie), Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) and Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — April 25, 2013 |
| Statement by Speaker regarding Royal Recommendation — March 25, 2013 (See Debates). |
| 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 |
|