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 Monday, September 15, 2014 11:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill) — That the First Report of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, presented on Friday, March 7, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That the First Report of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, presented on Friday, March 7, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Harris (St. John's East) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, presented on Thursday, June 12, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Thursday, April 10, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Thursday, April 10, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Thursday, April 10, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Thursday, April 10, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, presented on Thursday, June 12, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Tuesday, April 29, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas) — That the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Thursday, June 12, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) — That the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Friday, May 16, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, presented on Friday, June 13, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Monday, May 5, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Tuesday, April 29, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — That the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Thursday, June 12, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Sullivan (York South—Weston) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, presented on Friday, June 13, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Wednesday, May 28, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Thursday, September 25, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Monday, May 5, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, presented on Friday, June 13, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques) — That the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Thursday, June 12, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented on Monday, May 12, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — That the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on Monday, June 16, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented on Monday, May 12, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Brahmi (Saint-Jean) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Wednesday, May 28, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Thursday, September 25, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead) — That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented on Monday, May 12, 2014, 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. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas) — That the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Thursday, June 12, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, October 20, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan) — That the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented on Friday, May 30, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, September 29, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — That the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented on Friday, May 30, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, September 29, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Choquette (Drummond) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Monday, June 2, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, September 30, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel) — That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Monday, June 2, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, September 30, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) — That the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Wednesday, June 11, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Thursday, October 9, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) — That the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Wednesday, June 11, 2014, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Thursday, October 9, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
Questions |
|
| Q-6542 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to the proposed Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP): (a) how does the RNUP legislation and strategic plan incorporate the ecological integrity, water quality and quantity, and habitat restoration goals and priorities of (i) the Provincial Greenbelt Plan, (ii) the Rouge North Management Plan Section 4.1.1.2, (iii) the 2007 Rouge River Watershed Strategy and its targeted natural heritage system, (iv) the Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan (2007), (v) the Rouge Park Natural Heritage Action Plan (2008), (vi) the Toronto Great Lakes Area of Concern remedial action plan for Toronto, (vii) the federal report "How Much Habitat is Enough" and the recommendation of more than 30% forest cover and 10% wetland cover per watershed, (viii) the National Parks Act, (ix) the Ontario Provincial Parks Act, (x) the draft Rouge River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan (2011), (xi) the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, (xii) the Endangered Species Act, (xiii) other relevant provincial, municipal and federal legislation; (b) how has the government addressed the issues raised in the unanimous November 2012 City of Toronto Motion on RNUP; (c) why has the promised RNUP "Transition Advisory Committee" not been created, (i) what is the updated timetable for the creation of this committee, (ii) what individuals or entities will comprise the advisory committee, (iii) what mandate will the advisory committee be given; (d) what steps have Environment Canada, Parks Canada and the government taken to assess the water quality, biodiversity, migratory fisheries, climatic, flood and erosion control, public health and ecological service benefits of restoring the majority of the public lands in Rouge Park to forest, wetland and meadow vegetation; (e) will the federally-owned and provincially-designated Greenbelt "Natural Heritage System" and Oak Ridges Moraine lands in north Pickering be included as part of the RNUP Study Area; (f) will the "Federal Greenspace Preserve" lands in north Pickering be included as part of the RNUP study; (g) how much of the land within the RNUP study area is (i) mature native forest habitat, (ii) wetland habitat, (iii) leased land utilized for cash cropping, (iv) leased land utilized for agricultural uses other than cash cropping and what are these other uses, (v) leased for residential purposes, (vi) land within road, hydro, highway, pipeline and other public utility corridors, (vii) land which is accessible to the public, (viii) other, and what are these other categories; (h) for the most recent year available, what are all the leased properties in the 57 km2 NRUP study area, broken down by (i) address, geographic location and approximate boundaries on a map, (ii) description of the buildings associated with the lease, (iii) land area (acres and hectares) associated with the lease, (iv) name of leaseholder and name of the actual tenants, (v) annual lease rate and length of lease, (vi) true annual public cost of property upkeep and lease administration, (vii) public investment in the property needed to address modern building code, safety and energy conservation standards; (i) what provincial, municipal or conservation authority lands have been transferred to the government or Parks Canada within the proposed RNUP, (i) what are the predicted time frames for the various outstanding land transfers, (ii) what compensation or benefits, direct or indirect, have been offered to the province, municipality or conservation authority by the government or its agencies, for the various land transfers; (j) will a RNUP "Trust Fund" be established similar to the existing Rouge Park/Waterfront Regeneration Trust Fund; (k) what provisions and timelines does the draft RNUP legislation and strategic plan outline to (i) reduce cash cropping in RNUP, (ii) transition towards ecologically sound farming practices, (iii) phase-out the agricultural mono-cultures and pesticides which threaten the survival of the monarch butterfly and many other rare and endangered species; and (l) what are the details of all the submissions received regarding the RNUP Concept? |
| Q-6552 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With regard to the Department of Finance’s Venture Capital Action Plan: for the years for which data are available, (a) what investments were made; (b) what organizations benefited from the funds and what was the total amount invested in each case; (c) was a certain amount set aside for cooperatives; and (d) how many cooperatives benefited from the investments and what amount was granted to each cooperative? |
| Q-6562 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the government’s plan, announced in the 2014 budget, to acquire privately-owned lands through the National Conservation Plan: (a) how much has the government already spent in 2014-2015 on purchasing ecologically-sensitive privately-owned lands and how much does it plan on spending on the purchase of such lands, either directly or through third parties, in the three fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017, in Quebec; (b) how much of this amount has been or will be spent specifically on purchasing wetlands in Quebec; (c) where in Quebec has the government purchased, if it has done so, ecologically-sensitive lands, including wetlands, in 2014-2015 and where does it plan to purchase ecologically-sensitive lands in the province, including wetlands, in the three fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017; and (d) does the government purchase ecologically-sensitive lands, including wetlands, through programs other than the National Conservation Plan and, if so, (i) how much has been spent in the last three fiscal years purchasing ecologically-sensitive privately-owned lands, including wetlands, (ii) how much will be spent in the next three fiscal years (2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017) on purchasing such lands through any programs other than the National Conservation Plan? |
| Q-6572 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to radioactive material: (a) which national authorities hold electronic records of transports of radioactive material (especially of fissile material) within Canada or those imported, exported and moved in transit; (b) what information (e.g. sender, sender's address, recipient, recipient's address, date of transport, type of cask, quantity of radioactive material) is recorded over what period of time; (c) does the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission compile seperate electronic records of transports of radioactive material (especially of fissile material) within Canada or those imported, exported and moved in transit; and (d) what are the details of all non-confidential recorded information related to transports of radioactive material within Canada as well as those imported, exported and moved in transit in the last 10 years? |
| Q-6582 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With regard to the renaming of the Rockcliffe Parkway to the Sir George-Étienne Cartier Parkway: (a) was this change preceded by public and private consultations; (b) what was the consultation process and what were the methods involved; (c) when was the consultation process launched; (d) what organizations were consulted? |
| Q-6592 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to government spending in the Hamilton East—Stoney Creek riding, what was the total amount spent, from fiscal year 2010-11 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the funds were received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount, (iii) the program through which the funding was allocated, (iv) the department responsible, (v) the designated recipient? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motions |
| September 11, 2014 — Mr. Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should reinstate the federal minimum wage and increase it incrementally to $15 per hour over five years. |
|
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should cancel its unilateral cuts to the Canada Health Transfer that would reduce anticipated investment in health care by as much as $36 billion and meet with provinces, territories and First Nations to establish new funding agreements focused on meeting the future health care needs of all Canadians. |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-526 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the addition of load-bearing warning signs to the National Building Code of Canada. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-520 — May 26, 2014 — Mr. Adler (York Centre) — Consideration at report stage of Bill C-520, An Act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament, as reported by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics with amendments. |
| Committee Report — presented on Monday, May 26, 2014, Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-80. |
| Report and third reading stages — limited to 2 sitting days, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2). |
| Report stage motions — see “Report Stage of Bills” in today's Notice Paper. |
| Motion for third reading — may be made in the same sitting, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|