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. 110 Tuesday, September 16, 2014 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| September 15, 2014 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
| September 11, 2014 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — 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. |
Questions |
|
| Q-6602 — September 15, 2014 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to Service Canada Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan call centres for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of calls broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (b) what was the number of calls that received a high volume message, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (c) what were the national Service Level standards for calls answered by an agent, broken down by year; (d) what were the actual Service Level standards achieved for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (e) what were the service standards for call backs, broken down by year; (f) what were the service standards achieved for call backs broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (g) what was the average number of days for a call back by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (h) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (i) what is the rate of sick leave use among call centre employees, broken down by year; (j) what is the number of call centre employees on long-term disability; and (k) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year? |
| Q-6612 — September 15, 2014 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to Labour Market Information: (a) which recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Labour Market Information Report have been implemented and what was the date they were put into place; (b) which of the recommendations of the Report are in the process of being implemented and what is the timeline for completion; and (c) which recommendations of the Report have not been implemented? |
| Q-6622 — September 15, 2014 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (b) what was the average EI application processing time, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs at EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (k) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (l) what is the rate of sick leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees, broken down by year; (m) what is the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long term disability; (n) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year; (o) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; (p) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; and (q) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year? |
| Q-6632 — September 15, 2014 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section; (b) how many appeals currently waiting to be heard pertain to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals have been heard by the Income Security Section; (d) how many appeals were heard by the Income Security Section in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (e) how many appeals were heard by the Income Security Section relating to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals heard by the Income Security Section were allowed; (g) how many appeals heard by the Income Security Section were dismissed; (h) how many appeals to the Income Security Section were summarily dismissed; (i) how many appeals allowed by the Income Security Section pertained to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (j) how many appeals at the Income Security Section have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (k) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (l) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (m) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (n) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard in writing have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (o) how many members assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit cases have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, or a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physiotherapy, or psychology, and how many have (ii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (p) what is the Tribunal’s protocol with regard to urgent hearing requests for Canada Pension Plan Disability cases; (q) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division; (r) how many income security appeals currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division pertain to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (s) how many income security appeals have been heard by the Appeal Division; (t) how many income security appeals were heard by the Appeal Division in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (u) how many income security appeals were heard by the Appeal Division relating to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (v) how many income security appeals heard by the Appeal Division were allowed; (w) how many income security appeals heard by the Appeal Division were dismissed; (x) how many income security appeals to the Appeal Division were summarily dismissed; (y) how many income security appeals allowed by the Appeal Division pertained to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (z) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (aa) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (bb) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (cc) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (dd) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard in writing have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (ee) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section; (ff) how many appeals have been heard by the Employment Insurance Section; (gg) how many appeals were heard by the Employment Insurance Section in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (hh) how many appeals heard by the Employment Insurance Section were allowed; (ii) how many appeals heard by the Employment Insurance Section were dismissed; (jj) how many appeals to the Employment Insurance Section were summarily dismissed; (kk) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (ll) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (mm) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (nn) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed and (ii) dismissed; (oo) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard in writing have been (i) allowed and (ii) dismissed; (pp) how many Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division; (qq) how many Employment Insurance appeals have been heard by the Appeal Division; (rr) how many Employment Insurance appeals were heard by the Appeal Division in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (ss) how many Employment Insurance appeals heard by the Appeal Division were allowed; (tt) how many Employment Insurance appeals heard by the Appeal Division were dismissed; (uu) how many Employment Insurance appeals to the Appeal Division were summarily dismissed; (vv) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (ww) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (xx) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (yy) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (zz) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard in writing have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (aaa) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section; (bbb) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section; (ccc) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Appeal Division; (ddd) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Appeal Division; (eee) of new Appeal Division members hired since May 2014, how many are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (fff) of new Income Security Section members hired since May 2014, how many are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (ggg) of new Employment Insurance Section members hired since May 2014, how many are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; and (hhh) what is the Tribunal’s protocol with regard to requests for urgent hearings due to financial hardship? |
| Q-6642 — September 15, 2014 — Mr. Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (b) what was the average EI applications processing time broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs at EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (k) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (l) what is the rate of sick leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees, broken down by year; (m) what is the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long term disability; (n) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year; (o) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; (p) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; and (q) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year? |
| Q-6652 — September 15, 2014 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regards to funding applications submitted to the government, broken down by department and fiscal year, since 2003-2004, up to and including the current fiscal year; (a) what is the total number of funding applications submitted to the government from the constituency of Sudbury; and (b) what is the total number of successful funding applications submitted to the government in which money was allocated to an individual, business, or non-governmental organization in the constituency of Sudbury? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-527 — September 15, 2014 — Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should create, in partnership with Canada's provinces, cities, and communities, a national cycling infrastructure strategy that would benefit all Canadians in rural areas and urban centres, by: (a) developing a basic policy framework promoting cycling as an integral part of transport planning; (b) proposing legislation, regulations and guidelines to support local implementation of cycling policies; (c) using financial and other instruments to provide incentives for and facilitate cycling initiatives by regional authorities; (d) monitoring and evaluating measures implemented; and (e) conducting research and disseminating knowledge across the country. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-587 — May 30, 2014 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap), seconded by Mr. Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West), — That Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. |
| 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 |
|