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. 216 Monday, May 25, 2015 11:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-13572 — May 20, 2015 — Mr. Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to child benefit levels projected in the Outlook for Program Expenses chart in the 2014 Fall Fiscal Update and the Outlook for Program Expenses chart in Budget 2015, for fiscal year 2014-2015: (a) how many two-parent households with one child were projected to have a household income between (i) $0 to $20 000, (ii) $20 001 to $40 000, (iii) $40 001 to $60 000, (iv) $60 001 to $80 000, (v) $80 001 to $100 000, (vi) $100 001 to $120 000, (vii) $120 001 to $140 000, (viii) $140 001 to $160 000, (ix) $160 001 to $180 000, (x) $180 000 to $200 000, (xi) over $200 001; (b) how many two-parent households with two children were projected to have a household income between (i) $0 to $20 000, (ii) $20 001 to $40 000, (iii) $40 001 to $60 000, (iv) $60 001 to $80 000, (v) $80 001 to $100 000, (vi) $100 001 to $120 000, (vii) $120 001 to $140 000, (viii) $140 001 to $160 000, (ix) $160 001 to $180 000, (x) $180 000 to $200 000, (xi) over $200 001; (c) how many two-parent households with three or more children were projected to have a household income between (i) $0 to $20 000, (ii) $20 001 to $40 000, (iii) $40 001 to $60 000, (iv) $60 001 to $80 000, (v) $80 001 to $100 000, (vi) $100 001 to $120 000, (vii) $120 001 to $140 000, (viii) $140 001 to $160 000, (ix) $160 001 to $180 000, (x) $180 000 to $200 000, (xi) over $200 001; (d) how many one-parent households with one child were projected to have a household income between (i) $0 to $20 000, (ii) $20 001 to $40 000, (iii) $40 001 to $60 000, (iv) $60 001 to $80 000, (v) $80 001 to $100 000, (vi) $100 001 to $120 000, (vii) $120 001 to $140 000, (viii) $140 001 to $160 000, (ix) $160 001 to $180 000, (x) $180 000 to $200 000, (xi) over $200 001; (e) how many one-parent households with two children were projected to have a household income between (i) $0 to $20 000, (ii) $20 001 to $40 000, (iii) $40 001 to $60 000, (iv) $60 001 to $80 000, (v) $80 001 to $100 000, (vi) $100 001 to $120 000, (vii) $120 001 to $140 000, (viii) $140 001 to $160 000, (ix) $160 001 to $180 000, (x) $180 000 to $200 000, (xi) over $200 001; and (f) how many one-parent households with three or more children were projected to have a household income between (i) $0 to $20 000, (ii) $20 001 to $40 000, (iii) $40 001 to $60 000, (iv) $60 001 to $80 000, (v) $80 001 to $100 000, (vi) $100 001 to $120 000, (vii) $120 001 to $140 000, (viii) $140 001 to $160 000, (ix) $160 001 to $180 000, (x) $180 000 to $200 000, (xi) over $200 001? |
| Q-13582 — May 20, 2015 — Mr. Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to projections for children’s benefits in 2016-2017: (a) how many children were projected to qualify for children’s benefits for the purposes of calculating the children’s benefits amount in the Outlook for Program Expenses Chart in the 2014 Fall Fiscal Update, broken down by (i) children aged five or younger, (ii) children between the ages of six and 17; (b) how many children were projected to qualify for children’s benefits for the purposes of calculating the children’s benefits amount in the Outlook for Program Expenses Chart in Budget 2015, broken down by (i) children aged five or younger, (ii) children between the ages of six and 17; and (c) what factors contribute, and to what extent does each factor contribute, to any discrepancy between the two projections of total child-benefit costs in the documents? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motions |
| May 21, 2015 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — That, in the opinion of the House: (a) the government has constrained the ability of federal scientists to share their research and to collaborate with their peers; (b) federal scientists have been muzzled and prevented from speaking to the media about their work; (c) research is paid for by taxpayers and must be done in the public interest in order to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians; and, therefore, (d) the government should immediately rescind all rules and regulations that muzzle government scientists, consolidate government-funded or -created science so that it is easily available to the public at large through a central portal, create a Chief Science Officer whose mandate would include ensuring that government science is freely available to those who are paying for it, namely, the public, and allow scientists to be able to speak freely on their work with limited and publicly stated exceptions. |
|
|
| May 21, 2015 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House: (a) the government has constrained the ability of federal scientists to share their research and to collaborate with their peers; (b) federal scientists have been muzzled and prevented from speaking to the media about their work; (c) research is paid for by taxpayers and must be done in the public interest in order to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians; and, therefore, (d) the government should immediately rescind all rules and regulations that muzzle government scientists, consolidate government-funded or -created science so that it is easily available to the public at large through a central portal, create a Chief Science Officer whose mandate would include ensuring that government science is freely available to those who are paying for it, namely, the public, and allow scientists to be able to speak freely on their work with limited and publicly stated exceptions. |
|
|
| May 21, 2015 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — That, in the opinion of the House: (a) the government has constrained the ability of federal scientists to share their research and to collaborate with their peers; (b) federal scientists have been muzzled and prevented from speaking to the media about their work; (c) research is paid for by taxpayers and must be done in the public interest in order to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians; and, therefore, (d) the government should immediately rescind all rules and regulations that muzzle government scientists, consolidate government-funded or -created science so that it is easily available to the public at large through a central portal, create a Chief Science Officer whose mandate would include ensuring that government science is freely available to those who are paying for it, namely, the public, and allow scientists to be able to speak freely on their work with limited and publicly stated exceptions. |
|
|
| May 21, 2015 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — That the House: (a) express its deep concern that the federal government has not taken any action in response to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying violates Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”; (b) note that the Supreme Court has suspended the implementation of its ruling until February 6, 2016; (c) note that, with an expected fall election, Parliament is running out of time to act; and, therefore, (d) urgently call on the government to immediately begin a study under the Inquiries Act to (i) engage Canadians in a non-partisan process on this issue, (ii) report to the government by November 20, 2015 with recommendations for legislation. |
|
|
| May 21, 2015 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — That the House: (a) express its deep concern that the federal government has not taken any action in response to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying violates Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”; (b) note that the Supreme Court has suspended the implementation of its ruling until February 6, 2016; (c) note that, with an expected fall election, Parliament is running out of time to act; and, therefore, (d) urgently call on the government to immediately begin a study under the Inquiries Act to (i) engage Canadians in a non-partisan process on this issue, (ii) report to the government by November 20, 2015 with recommendations for legislation. |
|
|
| May 21, 2015 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — That, in the opinion of the House: (a) raising the tax-free savings limit for the wealthy to $10 000 (i) fails to help the middle class and those working hard to join it, (ii) is a regressive policy that will benefit wealthy Canadians at the expense of those who are less well off, (iii) will cost taxpayers billions in lost revenue, as stated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer; (b) the government is paying for this policy by cutting old age security for seniors and burdening the next generation of Canadians; and, therefore, (c) the government should cancel its increase of the tax-free savings limit for the wealthy and should restore the threshold for Old Age Security to age 65. |
|
|
| May 21, 2015 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — That, in the opinion of the House: (a) raising the tax-free savings limit for the wealthy to $10 000 (i) fails to help the middle class and those working hard to join it, (ii) is a regressive policy that will benefit wealthy Canadians at the expense of those who are less well off, (iii) will cost taxpayers billions in lost revenue, as stated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer; (b) the government is paying for this policy by cutting old age security for seniors and burdening the next generation of Canadians; and, therefore, (c) the government should cancel its increase of the tax-free savings limit for the wealthy and should restore the threshold for Old Age Security to age 65. |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
Private Members' Business |
| C-588 — April 8, 2014 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of Bill C-588, An Act to amend the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act (Sambro Island Lighthouse). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|