Skip to main content
Start of 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
PDF

Notice Paper

No. 94

Monday, March 12, 2012

11:00 a.m.

Introduction of Government Bills
March 9, 2012 — The Minister of Labour — Bill entitled “An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations”.
Recommendation
(Pursuant to Standing Order 79(2))
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations”.

Introduction of Private Members' Bills
March 9, 2012 — Mr. Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (student transportation)”.
March 9, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — Bill entitled “An Act to establish a Pan-Canadian Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)”.

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)

Questions
Q-5142 — March 9, 2012 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the Atlantic Gateway and Trade Corridor Strategy: (a) what was the total amount approved by Parliament for the Strategy; (b) what Parliamentary votes approved those funds; (c) what is the description, nature, and location of each project approved; (d) what was the approval date of each project; (e) what was, or is anticipated to be, the total cost of each project; (f) what was the amount allocated by the government for each project under each respective program; (g) what was the amount allocated by the government for each project under any other funding program; (h) who were the funding partners at any other level of government, or the private sector, for each project; (i) what is the expected sunset date of the Strategy; (j) how much funding remains uncommitted; and (k) how much funding, if committed, has not actually been spent?
Q-5152 — March 9, 2012 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the Border Infrastructure Fund: (a) what was the total amount approved by Parliament for the Fund; (b) what Parliamentary votes approved those funds; (c) what is the description, nature, and location of each project approved; (d) what was the approval date of each project; (e) what was, or is anticipated to be, the total cost of each project; (f) what was the amount allocated by the government for each project under each respective program; (g) what was the amount allocated by the government for each project under any other funding program; (h) who were the funding partners at any other level of government, or the private sector, for each project; (i) what is the expected sunset date of the Fund; (j) how much funding remains uncommitted; and (k) how much funding, if committed, has not actually been spent?
Q-5162 — March 9, 2012 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to the Investment Cooperation Program (INC) managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, for fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012: (a) what is the total budget of the program; (b) what is the total number of projects funded under the program; (c) what is the total number of applications made under the program; (d) for each approved project, what is the (i) name of the client, (ii) description of the project, (iii) duration of the project, (iv) country where the project is located, (v) total cost of the project, (vi) amount of contributions by the government to the project; (e) for each approved project, (i) was the project selected for formal audit, (ii) was this project selected for formal evaluation, (iii) has a report of results been submitted for this project, (iv) was a gender analysis of this project completed; (f) what criteria and guidelines do companies have to meet with regard to human rights, labour and environmental standards to be eligible under the INC program; (g) what is the due diligence process to ensure clients are complying with the contribution agreement; (h) is compliance monitored for the life of the investment; (i) what are the penalties in cases of non-compliance, once support has been given; (j) what information is available to the public regarding projects; and (k) where can information available to the public be found regarding projects?
Q-517 — March 9, 2012 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With regard to the Canadian Forces (CF): (a) for each year from 2001 to 2012, how many members of the CF have been medically released; (b) for each year from 2001 to 2012, how many CF members have been medically released with less than 10 years of service, specifying whether they served with the Navy, Air Force, or Land Force sections; (c) considering all the medical releases each year from 2001 to 2012, what percentage of those who served less than 10 years were medically released; (d) what accommodations are made for health and dental benefits and pensions for those who are medically released with less than 10 years of service; and (e) how many members were medically released each year from 2001 to 2012 after (i) one year of service, (ii) two years of service, (iii) three years of service, (iv) four years of service, (v) five years of service, (vi) six years of service, (vii) seven years of service, (viii) eight years of service, (ix) nine years of service, (x) ten years of service?
Q-5182 — March 9, 2012 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With regard to ex gratia payments related to the testing of herbicides: (a) what is the total number of applications received by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) since 2007 for the ex gratia payment related to the testing of unregistered United States (US) military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in 1966 and 1967; (b) how many applications were received each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive; (c) for each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive, what is the number of individuals who received the ex gratia payment; (d) for each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive, what is the number of individuals who were denied the ex gratia payment; (e) for the persons mentioned in subquestion (d), on the basis of what criteria were they denied including (i) medical criteria, (ii) residency criteria, (iii) lack of supporting documentation, (iv) any other issues; (f) for each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive, how many primary caregivers received the ex gratia payment; (g) for each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive, how many primary caregiver applicants were denied the ex gratia payment; (h) how many primary caregivers who applied on behalf of a loved one were denied the ex-gratia payment, prior to the removal on February 6, 2006, of the requirement that the applicant must be alive; (i) out of those primary caregiver applicants originally denied as outlined in subquestion (h), how many subsequently (i) re-applied, (ii) were granted the ex gratia payment; (j) how many individuals who had previously applied for the ex gratia payment but were declined were contacted by VAC to discuss their application after December 22, 2010; (k) how many of the individuals in (j) were granted the ex gratia payment following this contact; (l) how many applications were received between December 22, 2010, and June 30, 2011, inclusive; (m) how many applications were received between June 30 and December 30, 2011, under the delayed/late application policy; (n) how many individuals were awarded compensation under the delayed/late application policy between June 30 and December 30, 2011; (o) what was the total expenditure of ex gratia payments issued under the delayed/late application policy from June 30 to December 30, 2011; (p) how many individuals were denied the ex-gratia payment under the delayed/late application policy from June 30 to December 30, 2011; (q) how many applications have been received by Veterans Affairs Canada after the authority to issue payments expired on December 30, 2011; (r) what is the total amount of money that was allocated for the Agent Orange ex gratia payment over the course of the program since 2007, broken down on an annual basis; (s) how much of the total amount of money allocated for the Agent Orange ex gratia payment since 2007 remained unspent each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive; (t) if there were unspent funds as described in subquestion (s), for what reasons did funds remain unspent; (u) what is the breakdown of the annual spending by VAC from 2007 to 2011 inclusively as it relates to (i) the Agent Orange ex gratia payment to eligible individuals, (ii) administration costs, (iii) salary costs; (v) does the government have a plan to provide another ex gratia payment or similar program for those Canadians who may develop a medical condition related to the testing of unregistered US military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in 1966 and 1967; and (w) does the government have any information as to how many Canadians who fell outside of the ex gratia payment timelines may still develop a medical condition related to the testing of unregistered US military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967?
Q-5192 — March 9, 2012 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With regard to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), legislated by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act: (a) for each year from 2006 to 2012, what are the number of favourable and negative decisions made by each permanent and temporary member of the Board at the (i) review stage, (ii) appeal stage; (iii) reconsideration stage; (b) for each year from 2006 to 2012, what are the number of favourable and negative decisions made by the Board for all reviews, appeals, and reconsiderations; (c) has VRAB issued any directive to its board members on how many affirmative or negative decisions members can make in a year; (d) what is the status of VRAB's publishing of review and appeal decisions online; (e) does Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) frequently analyze the reasons why VRAB has overturned decisions made by VAC and, if yes, how frequently; (f) does VRAB frequently analyze the reasons why the Board overturns decisions made by VAC and communicate these decisions to VAC; (g) for each year from 2006 to 2012, how many compassionate awards have been issued; (h) does VRAB inform veterans that a compassionate award may be another avenue for veterans who have been denied at the review and appeal level and, if so, how; (i) does VRAB inform veterans that a “Reconsideration by the Minister” could be another avenue for veterans who have been denied at the review and appeal level and if so, how do they inform veterans; (j) for each year from 2006 to 2012, how many complaints has the Board received relating to disrespectful behaviour; (k) for each year from 2006 to 2012, how many complaints has the Board received on the length of time it takes to obtain a decision by the Board; and (l) for each year from 2006 to 2012, how many complaints has the Board received on other issues?
Q-5202 — March 9, 2012 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With regard to the disability pensions awarded by Veterans Affairs Canada under the Pension Act and the lump sum payments issued by the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-Establishment and Compensation Act (New Veterans Charter): (a) what is the total number of disability pensions, broken down by type of service-related disability; (b) what is the total number of lump-sum payments, broken down by type of service-related disability; (c) what percentage of all disability pensions are issued for service-related disabilities as outlined in (a); (d) does Veterans Affairs Canada inform the Department of National Defence of the high incidence of certain occupational/service-related injuries and payments awarded by Veterans Affairs Canada per calendar year; (e) how many disability pensions under the Pensions Act have been awarded each year from 2006 inclusive to 2012, for (i) Agent Orange exposure, (ii) atomic veterans, including those who participated in nuclear weapons tests in the United States (US) and Chalk River decontamination efforts, (iii) exposure to asbestos, (iv) exposure to depleted uranium; (f) how many payments under the New Veterans Charter have been awarded each year from 2006 inclusive to 2012 for (i) Agent Orange exposure, (ii) atomic veterans, including those who participated in nuclear weapons tests in the US and Chalk River decontamination efforts, (iii) exposure to asbestos, (iv) exposure to depleted uranium; and (g) how many veterans under the New Veterans Charter have received the following benefits each year from 2006 inclusive to 2011 for (i) Earning Loss Benefit, (ii) Canadian Forces Income Support, (iii) Permanent Impairment Allowance, (iv) Supplementary Retirement Benefit?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply
Supplementary Estimates (C)
UNOPPOSED VOTES
March 9, 2012 — The President of the Treasury Board — That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012, be concurred in.
Voting — not later than 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17).
Interim Supply
March 9, 2012 — President of the Treasury Board — That this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $26,581,278,713.07 being composed of:
(1) three twelfths ($17,287,596,204.25) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Proposed Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013 which were laid upon the Table on Tuesday, February 28, 2012, except for those items below:
(2) eleven twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Grain Commission Vote 30, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Vote 15 and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule 1.1), of the said Estimates, $785,558,389.00;
(3) ten twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Vote 15 (Schedule 1.2) of the said Estimates, $12,706,880.83;
(4) eight twelfths of the total of the amount of Justice Vote 1 (Schedule 1.3), of the said Estimates, $163,728,761.33;
(5) seven twelfths of the total of the amount of Canada Council for the Arts Vote 10, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Vote 25, Industry Vote 10 and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Vote 20 (Schedule 1.4), of the said Estimates, $548,030,846.42;
(6) six twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian International Trade Tribunal Vote 25, Natural Resources Vote 5 and Via Rail Canada Inc. Vote 60 (Schedule 1.5), of the said Estimates, $160,992,068.00;
(7) five twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Vote 15, Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 Vote 40, National Arts Centre Corporation Vote 65, National Battlefields Commission Vote 70, Human Resources and Skills Development Vote 5, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 10, Canadian Space Agency Vote 35, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Vote 5 and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission Vote 65 (Schedule 1.6), of the said Estimates, $3,950,338,729.58;
(8) four twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 5, Canadian Museum of Human Rights Vote 30, Public Service Commission Vote 95, Citizenship and Immigration Vote 5, Canadian International Development Agency Vote 25, Health Vote 10, Public Health Agency of Canada Vote 60, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 1, Industry Vote 1, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Vote 80, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Vote 95, Statistics Canada Vote 105, Library of Parliament Vote 10, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Vote 15, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Vote 45 and 50, Public Works and Government Services Vote 10, Shared Services Canada Vote 20 and Marine Atlantic Inc. Vote 35 (Schedule 1.7), of the said Estimates, $3,672,326,833.66;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.
Voting — not later than 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17).

Government Business
No. 10 — March 9, 2012 — The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons — That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour, entitled An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations, shall be disposed of as follows:
(a) the said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;
(b) not more than two hours shall be allotted for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, following the adoption of this Order;
(c) when the bill has been read a second time, it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole;
(d) not more than one hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill;
(e) not more than one half hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, provided that no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes at a time during the said stage and that no period for questions and comments be permitted following each Member’s speech;
(f) at the expiry of the times provided for in this Order, any proceedings before the House or the Committee of the Whole shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage, then under consideration, of the said bill shall be put and disposed of forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and no division shall be deferred;
(g) when the Speaker has, for the purposes of this Order, interrupted any proceeding for the purpose of putting forthwith the question on any business then before the House, the bells to call in the Members shall ring for not more than thirty minutes;
(h) the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown;
(i) no motion to adjourn the debate at any stage of the said bill may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown; and
(i) during the consideration of the said bill in the Committee of the Whole, no motions that the Committee rise or that the Committee report progress may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown.

Private Members' Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business
C-314 — February 1, 2012 — Mr. Brown (Barrie) — Consideration at report stage of Bill C-314, An Act respecting the awareness of screening among women with dense breast tissue, as reported by the Standing Committee on Health without amendment.
Committee Report — presented on Wednesday, February 1, 2012, Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-34.
Report and third reading stages — limited to 2 sitting days, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2).
Motion for third reading — may be made in the same sitting, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2).
Report stage motion — see “Report Stage of Bills” in today's Notice Paper.
2 Response requested within 45 days
Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page