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. 162 Monday, January 26, 2015 11:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| January 22, 2015 — Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Railway Museum”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-9382 — January 22, 2015 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With regard to the government’s efforts from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014, to promote Canadian energy exports: (a) what is the estimated dollar value of the government’s efforts and initiatives to support or expand Canadian energy exports (i) in Canada, (ii) in individual government diplomatic offices outside Canada, (iii) in other locations visited by government officials, designated contractors, consultants, or other individuals involved in supporting or expanding Canadian energy exports; (b) for the amounts mentioned in (a), what is the estimated dollar value broken down by the type of energy directly concerned, namely, (i) direct exports of coal, (ii) oil (including, but not limited to, bitumen, condensate, and other petroleum products), (iii) natural gas, (iv) export or construction of infrastructure associated with fossil fuels or the export of energy generated from fossil fuels (e.g., pipelines or export terminals for liquefied natural gas), (v) export of technologies or services associated with fossil fuels or the energy generated from fossil fuels, (vi) export of energy generated from renewable sources (including, but not limited to, hydropower, solar power, wind power, biomass, and geothermal power), (vii) export or construction of infrastructure associated with energy generated from renewable sources (e.g., transmission lines to carry hydroelectric power), (viii) export of technologies or services associated with energy generated from renewable sources (e.g., solar module manufacturing technologies), (ix) export of infrastructure, technologies and services associated with energy conservation and energy efficiency (e.g., smart grids or more efficient industrial process design engineering), (x) other types of energy export support that do not correspond to the categories above (e.g., general energy export advice or activities to support the construction of a transmission line expected to carry electricity generated from multiple sources); (c) for the amounts mentioned in (a), what is the estimated dollar value broken down by (i) location where costs were incurred, (ii) department or agency that incurred those costs; (d) what is the estimated dollar value of all government employee time used to support or expand Canadian energy exports, broken down by the following activities, (i) planning meetings and briefings, (ii) monitoring issues, (iii) preparing materials, (iv) offering logistical coordination, (v) planning visits by delegations, (vi) providing training, (vii) undertaking research, (viii) engaging with representatives, (ix) engaging in communications activities and preparing communications materials, (x) engaging with members of the public, (xi) meeting with stakeholders, (xii) any other uses of government employee or contractor time; (e) how much money has the government spent on the purchase of advertisements to support or expand energy exports, and how much government staff time was required to develop such advertisements, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); (f) what contractor services, including advertising firms, government relations firms, legal firms, or other professional service providers, has the government retained to support or expand energy exports, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); (g) what is the cost of all hospitality (including, but not limited to, food, catering, beverages, and location rentals) to support or expand Canadian energy exports, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); (h) how much has been spent reimbursing travel and accommodation expenditures for (i) non-government employees, (ii) government employees, to support or expand Canada’s energy exports broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); and (i) what is the total estimated value of any other government efforts to promote Canadian energy exports, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b)? |
| Q-9392 — January 22, 2015 — Mr. Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) — With regard to the Health Canada decision not to certify citronella-based insect repellents: (a) what studies comparing the toxicity of insect repellents containing DEET with repellents containing citronella does Health Canada have at its disposal, and what are the findings of these studies; (b) during its citronella safety assessment, what groups did Health Canada consult to obtain scientific opinions; (c) did Health Canada receive solicited or unsolicited opinions, studies or documents from groups or scientists about the safety or toxicity of citronella used in insect repellent products and, if so, (i) from what groups or scientists did it receive them, (ii) on what date were these documents received, (iii) what were the findings of these documents; and (d) has Health Canada considered, or does it intend to consider, the possibility of creating a new category of products that would distinguish between chemical-based insect repellents and natural insect repellents, thereby allowing for the development of a separate safety certification process for natural products? |
| Q-9402 — January 22, 2015 — Mr. Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup) — With regard to Canada Post and its equipment renewal for community mailboxes, further to the answer to question Q-471, obtained on April 10, 2014: (a) what were the reasons for selecting a new mailbox model and ordering 100 000 of them between 2014 and 2016; (b) is the mailbox model produced by Florence Manufacturing patented or licensed and, if so, (i) under what jurisdiction, (ii) is the patent or licence legally binding in Canada, (iii) could a Canadian company have acquired the patent or licence to produce the same model as the one produced by Florence Manufacturing; (c) if the model is not patented or licensed, (i) what regulations forbid or make it impossible for a Canadian company to acquire the patent or licence, (ii) does Canada Post know which companies have the licences required to produce the mailboxes and, if so, what are their names, (iii) what reasons led Canada Post to restrict the tendering process to companies that hold the patent or licence in question; (d) does Canada Post intend to use the same selection criteria for its next tendering process, expected in January 2015, for long-term mailbox production; (e) what reasons led Canada Post to choose new selection criteria; (f) was a study carried out to determine the reasons mentioned in (e), including forecasts for increased parcel delivery, and, if not, (i) why not, (ii) what factors did contribute to determining the criteria for producing new mailboxes; (g) if the answer to (f) was affirmative, (i) when was this study commissioned, (ii) when was this study completed, (iii) what are the details; (h) does Canada Post have a division or resources dedicated to research and development; (i) did Canada Post try to develop a prototype together with its Canadian partners that would respond to the new selection criteria and, if so, what were they; (j) if the answer to (i) is not in the affirmative, why not; and (k) if the prototypes mentioned in (i) do exist, (i) did Canada Post help fund these development projects, (ii) what were the costs, (iii) what were the development timelines, (iv) were they evaluated by Canada Post, (v) what was the content and what were the conclusions of these evaluations, (vi) were these prototypes pilot-tested in Canada? |
| Q-9412 — January 22, 2015 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to diplomatic postings by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, and as of the time this question was put on notice: (a) what is the total number of vacancies in diplomatic postings; (b) which positions are vacant; (c) how long have each of the positions identified in (b) been vacant; (d) at which stage of the recruitment and posting process are the positions identified in (b); (e) what is the average length of time taken to fill a diplomatic posting in each of the last five calendar years; (f) what percentage of diplomatic postings in each of the last five years has been filled from within the Foreign Service; (g) what percentage of ambassadorial postings in each of the last five years has been filled from within the Foreign Service; and (h) what percentage of diplomatic postings requires ministerial approval? |
| Q-9422 — January 22, 2015 — Ms. Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île) — With regard to Pre-Removal Risk Assessments (PRRAs) filed by individuals subject to removal from Canada, for each year from 2011: (a) how many PRRAs were submitted; (b) how many were approved; (c) how many were denied; (d) of those denied, how many were on the grounds of (i) posing a danger to the public of Canada, (ii) posing a danger to the security of Canada, (iii) administrative reasons, (iv) other reasons; (e) what were the countries of return of the persons applying for PRRAs, both approved and denied; (f) how many PRRA applicants (i) were subject to an extradition order, (ii) were advancing a refugee claim, (iii) had a PRRA rejected and did not leave Canada; and (g) what are the titles or positions of employees at Citizenship and Immigration Canada responsible for deciding the outcomes of PRRAs? |
| Q-9432 — January 22, 2015 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — With respect to electronic records and messages including, in particular, text messages, short message service (SMS), and BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), broken-down by government departments, institutions and agencies: (a) what are the departmental policies for storage and retention of these records and messages, broken-down by record type; (b) if these records and messages are stored and retained, what are the storage and retention periods; (c) is there any policy in place to protect records or messages that are of business value; and (d) are there any planned changes to these policies, and if so, what will be proposed? |
| Q-9442 — January 22, 2015 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to government funding allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay: (a) what is the total amount allocated in fiscal year 2013-2014, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount; and (b) what funding projects were approved under FedNor between 2011 and 2014 inclusively, and what was their value? |
| Q-9452 — January 22, 2015 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With respect to the drafting of the new liability provisions in Bill C-46: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted leading up to the creation of this legislation; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process before the creation of this legislation; (c) other than Natural Resources Canada, what other departments were involved or consulted in the creation of this legislation; (d) what are the dates, times, and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted before the creation of this legislation; (e) who proposed the $1 billion limit for absolute liability; (f) who proposed that this legislation apply only to pipelines with the capacity to transport at least 250 000 barrels of oil per day; and (g) what evidence was used to determine that $1 billion would be sufficient to clean up a spill? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motions |
| January 22, 2015 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — That the House call on the government to (a) immediately present an Economic and Fiscal Update to Parliament outlining the state of the nation’s finances in light of the unstable economic situation, including job losses, falling oil prices, and declining government revenues; and (b) prepare a budget that addresses the economic challenges facing the middle class by creating more good-quality full-time jobs, and by encouraging economic diversification. |
|
|
| January 22, 2015 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize that CBC/Radio-Canada is supported by a clear majority of Canadians, because it plays a unique and essential role in promoting our culture; (b) provide stable, multi-year and predictable funding to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; (c) reverse the cuts of $115 million over three years in Budget 2012; and (d) establish an independent process for appointments to the CBC/Radio-Canada Board of Directors (i) to ensure that future members are selected based on their expertise in radio, television, news and culture, not on their political allegiance, (ii) to ensure the independence of the public broadcaster as stipulated in the Broadcasting Act. |
|
|
| January 22, 2015 — Mr. Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — That, in the opinion of the House, the federal government must respect its promise, based on a 70/30 federal/provincial cost-share model, of $400 million in compensation to Newfoundland and Labrador through the province’s Fisheries Investment Fund, for lifting minimum processing requirements as part of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-556 — January 22, 2015 — Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should study the possibility of reintroducing the remote regions tax credit for residents of the Gaspé peninsula and of increasing the current remote regions tax credit for residents of the Magdalen Islands in order to offset the effects of Employment Insurance reform measures, and in particular the effects of the end of the extended employment insurance benefits pilot project. |
| M-557 — January 22, 2015 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take immediate action to ensure that stable funding be provided to qualifying organizations through the Skills Link Program without delays or gaps in funding from one year to the next by issuing annual renewal notices in a timely manner in order to ensure continuous services to youth and the retention of staff. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-518 — November 5, 2014 — Mr. Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest) — Consideration at report stage of Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance), as reported by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with amendments. |
| Committee Report — presented on Wednesday, November 5, 2014, Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-133. |
| 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 motions — see “Report Stage of Bills” in today's Notice Paper. |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|