Skip to main 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
Status of House Business
PDF

Notice Paper

No. 59

Friday, March 7, 2014

10:00 a.m.

Introduction of Government Bills

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)
March 6, 2014 — Ms. Perreault (Montcalm) — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented on Thursday, February 27, 2014, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Monday, September 15, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
March 6, 2014 — Mr. Brahmi (Saint-Jean) — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, presented on Monday, December 2, 2013, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, April 1, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
March 6, 2014 — Mr. Larose (Repentigny) — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, presented on Monday, December 2, 2013, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, April 1, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
March 6, 2014 — Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Monday, December 9, 2013, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, April 8, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
March 6, 2014 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Thursday, June 5, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
March 6, 2014 — Mr. Choquette (Drummond) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Thursday, June 5, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
March 6, 2014 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Monday, February 10, 2014, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, June 10, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
March 6, 2014 — Mr. Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Monday, February 10, 2014, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, June 10, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
March 6, 2014 — Ms. Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Monday, February 10, 2014, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, June 10, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
March 6, 2014 — Mr. Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Monday, February 10, 2014, be concurred in.
Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Tuesday, June 10, 2014, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109.

Questions
Q-3232 — March 6, 2014 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band under the Indian Act, and the administration of the enrollment of applicants in the Founding Members list: (a) how many applications for enrollment in the Band were received by the Enrollment Clerks and by the Enrollment Committee, broken down by month from December 2008 to November 2012; (b) how many applications were accepted for membership by the Enrollment Committee, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (c) broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013, (i) how many applications were rejected for membership by the Enrollment Committee, and of these, (ii) how many were appealed by the applicant to the Appeals Master, (iii) how many were overturned by the Appeals Master, (iv) how many were confirmed by the Appeals Master; (d) how many applications that were approved by the Enrollment Committee were appealed by Canada to the Appeals Master, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (e) how many of the applications were rejected by Canada under the provisions of 4.2.16 of the 2008 Qalipu Mi’kmaq Recognition Agreement, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (f) broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013, (i) how many of the applications which were rejected by Canada, under the provisions of 4.2.16 of the 2008 Qalipu Mi’kmaq Recognition Agreement concerning Canadian Aboriginal Ancestry, were appealed to the Appeals Master, (ii) how many of these rejections were overturned by the Appeals Master, (iii) how many were confirmed by the Appeals Master; (g) how many internal or external audits or reviews were conducted by the government that included matters of the enrollment process between December 2008 and March 2014, (i) what is the government’s document reference number for each of these audits or reviews, (ii) when were these audits or reviews completed; (h) on what date did the government first make contact with the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band or the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to register or express concerns about the enrollment process; (i) what are the total expenses paid to, or on behalf of, Mr. Fred Caron in relation to his work on Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band enrollment process and other issues from December 2008 to March 2014, broken down by (i) professional fees, (ii) travel and related disbursements, (iii) support services, (iv) other expenses; (j) how many applicants were informed that their applications were deemed invalid by reason of failure to provide a long form birth certificate as part of the applicants' application package, broken down by month from December 2008 to March 2014; and (k) how many applications were deemed invalid by reason of the applicant’s failure to sign the application in all required locations of the membership application form, broken down by month from December 2008 to March 2014?
Q-3242 — March 6, 2014 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the administration of all government departments, crown corporations and agencies as well as other entities within federal jurisdiction that offer goods or services to parliamentarians, to parliamentarians' staff, to the spouses or dependents of parliamentarians, or more generally to the offices of parliamentarians, hereafter referred to as “eligible parliamentary persons”, at either no cost or at a reduced cost compared to the rate normally charged to a member of the general public who might seek the provision of the same or a similar good or service from the government: without consideration or inclusion of any occasional discounts or promotions for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013, and not including those goods or services provided directly to any eligible parliamentary persons under the normal rules of the administration of the House of Commons, the Senate or by the Library of Parliament, (a) which federal entities provided goods or services to those eligible parliamentary persons at either no cost or at a reduced cost; (b) what is each respective good or service thus provided, and what is the rationale for offering such no-cost goods or services or discounts to eligible parliamentary persons; (c)broken down by each such individual product or service, what is the cost to each federal entity, as measured in revenue that would otherwise not have been lost, of providing such goods or services to eligible parliamentary persons, calculated for each fiscal year and using the undiscounted rate that would be normally charged to members of the general public as the comparative basis for such a calculation; (d) what was the net financial position of each federal crown corporation or operating agency providing such goods or services before the provision of federal subsidies are considered in each fiscal year?
Q-3252 — March 6, 2014 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to postal service, for each Forward Sortation Area, what is: (a) the total number of households; and (b) the total number of residents, who receive residential mail service in (i) houses, (ii) apartments, (iii) farms, distinguished by each of the following delivery methods: letter carrier walks, rural routes, suburban service, general delivery, lock boxes, call for, and direct?
Q-3262 — March 6, 2014 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to advertising by the government during the broadcast of the Academy Awards on March 2, 2014: (a) what was the total cost for advertising; and (b) what was the cost for each advertisement shown?
Q-3272 — March 6, 2014 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to the administration of Employment Insurance (EI) in Prince Edward Island (PEI): (a) what are the criteria behind the definition of capital and non-capital EI regions within PEI, (i) why is Oyster Bed Bridge within the non-capital region, (ii) why is Toronto Road within the capital region; (b) what are the estimated costs resulting from the creation of capital and non-capital regions in PEI; and (c) for two individuals fishing on North Rustico Harbour, one individual within the capital region and one individual within the non-capital region, what are the effects of the creation of capital and non-capital regions on each individual's total annual income?
Q-3282 — March 6, 2014 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to any contracting paid for by the budgets of each Minister's Office since May 1, 2011, what are the details of all contracts over $500 including (i) the name of the supplier, vendor or individual who received the contract, (ii) the date on which the contract was entered into, (iii) the date the contract terminated, (iv) a brief description of the good or service provided, (v) the amount of payment initially agreed upon for the contract, (vi) the final amount paid for the contract?
Q-3292 — March 6, 2014 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to the purchase of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Mortgage Loan Insurance by first-time homebuyers in 2013: (a) how many first-time buyers bought insurance; (b) what was the average amount insured; (c) what was the median amount insured; (d) what was the average cost of insurance; (e) what was the median cost of insurance; and (f) what would the answers to (d) and (e) have been, had the insurance rates announced on February 27, 2014 been in effect on January 1, 2013?
Q-3302 — March 6, 2014 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the government’s consultations about prostitution-related offences: (a) what goals have been established for the consultations; (b) what goals have been established for the online consultation; (c) whose input is the government seeking through online consultation; (d) which individuals wrote the discussion paper for the online consultation; (e) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (f) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (g) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (h) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (i) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (j) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (k) which individuals developed the online consultation questions; (l) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (m) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the online consultation questions; (n) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (o) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the online consultation questions; (p) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (q) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the online consultation questions; (r) how many responses has the government received through the online form; (s) approximately how many responses does the government expect to receive through the online form; (t) how many responses have been sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca; (u) approximately how many responses does the government expect to be sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca; (v) why are answers in the online form limited to 500 words; (w) what is the limit to the length of submissions sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca; (x) in what ways has the government made Canadians aware of the online consultation process; (y) how much money has been allocated to advertise the online consultation process; (z) how much money has been spent to advertise the online consultation process; (aa) where has each advertisement of the online consultation process appeared; (bb) when did each advertisement in (aa) appear; (cc) who will read the responses to the online consultation; (dd) will each response to the online consultation be read by one or more employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ); (ee) which employees of the DOJ will read the responses to the online consultation; (ff) will any responses to the online consultation be seen in whole or in part by individuals not in the employ of the DOJ; (gg) which individuals not in the employ of the DOJ will see responses to the online consultation, in whole or in part; (hh) will each response to the online consultation be read by one or more individuals in the office of the Minister of Justice; (ii) which individuals in the office of the Minister of Justice will read responses to the online consultation; (jj) will the Minister of Justice read any of the responses to the online consultation; (kk) what proportion of the responses to the online consultation does the Minister of Justice intend to read; (ll) will submissions sent directly to consultations.prostitution@justice.gc.ca be read in their entirety, regardless of length; (mm) by what means will submissions be assessed; (nn) by what process or processes will responses to the online consultation be reviewed; (oo) who will assess the responses to the online consultation; (pp) what metrics will be applied with respect to the online consultation as a whole; (qq) broken down by question for the online consultation, what scoring or metrics have been developed with respect to assessing responses; (rr) will responses to the online consultation be screened, evaluated, reviewed or monitored by computer in any way; (ss) what keywords or standards will be used in computer screening, evaluation, review, or monitoring of responses to the online consultation; (tt) what scoring mechanisms or criteria will be applied with respect to the screening, evaluation, review or monitoring of responses to the online consultation; (uu) how will the value of responses to the online consultation be determined; (vv) by whom or by what will the value of responses to the online consultation be determined; (ww) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the value of responses to the online consultations; (xx) how will the relevance of responses to the online consultation be determined; (yy) by whom or by what will the relevance of responses to the online consultation be determined; (zz) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the relevance of responses to the online consultations; (aaa) how will the probative value of responses to the online consultation be determined; (bbb) by whom or by what will the probative value of responses to the online consultation be determined; (ccc) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the probative value of responses to the online consultations; (ddd) how will the legal validity of suggestions received through the online consultation process be assessed; (eee) how will responses to the online consultation be evaluated for factual accuracy; (fff) will any responses to the online consultation be discarded or ignored; (ggg) based on what criteria will responses to the online consultation be discarded or ignored; (hhh) will responses to the online form be considered if not all of the questions are answered; (iii) what processes, metrics, or other criteria will be used to determine whether a response to the online consultation constitutes spam; (jjj) what process exists to verify the identity of an individual or group that has responded to the online consultation; (kkk) what process or measures exist to determine whether an individual or group that responds to the online consultation is Canadian; (lll) in what way will the government consider responses to the online consultation by individuals or groups that are not Canadian; (mmm) by what date does the government intend to have reviewed all of the responses to the online consultation; (nnn) will all of the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public; (ooo) how will the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public; (ppp) when will the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public; (qqq) since 2006, apart from this year’s online consultations on the DOJ website, with what groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments has the government consulted; (rrr) when did each of the consultations in (qqq) occur; (sss) through what medium did each of the consultations in (qqq) occur; (ttt) who within the government carried out each of the consultations in (qqq); (uuu) apart from online consultations on the DOJ website, with what groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments does the government intend to consult before introducing new legislation in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada; (vvv) when will the government carry out the consultations in (uuu); (www) through what medium will the government carry out each of the consultations in (uuu); (xxx) who within the government will carry out the consultations in (uuu); (yyy) based on what criteria does the government select the groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments with which it consults; (zzz) since the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada, which groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments have asked to be consulted by the government; (aaaa) with which groups, government agencies, individuals or other governments in (zzz) has the government agreed to consult; (bbbb) with which groups, government agencies, individuals or other governments in (zzz) has the government declined to consult; (cccc) what studies has the government ordered; (dddd) what studies does the government intend to order; (eeee) what studies has the government consulted; (ffff) what studies does the government intend to consult; (gggg) based on what criteria does the government determine whether to conduct online public consultations on a given subject; (hhhh) does the government have the capacity to record the individual IP address of each user who visits the online consultation page; (iiii) has the government stored the IP address of each submission through the online consultation, and, if so (i) for what purpose, (ii) how long will such data be stored, (iii) who will have access to it, (iv) what privacy protections are in place, (v) how was the decision to track such data made, by whom, on what date, and with what authority; (jjjj) would any submissions be rejected on the basis of IP address; (kkkk) did any IP addresses have multiple submissions; (llll) what efforts did the government make, if any, to assist sex workers in participating or completing the online consultation; (mmmm) is the government aware of any groups that assisted sex workers in participating in the online consultation; (nnnn) is there any impact to a submission being submitted by a group; (oooo) does the government have the capacity to track the number of individuals who have visited the online consultation page each day; (pppp) with respect to the online consultation page, (i) how many visits has the page received during each day of the survey period, (ii) how many submissions were submitted on each of those days, (iii) how does the government account for any fluctuation in visitation or participation rates; (qqqq) with respect to in-person consultations, (i) in which cities have such consultations occurred, (ii) in which cities will such consultations occur; (rrrr) broken down by city, which groups and individuals were invited and which attended; (ssss) how were groups selected for their participation in the in-person consultation; (tttt) who attended from the DOJ and on behalf of the Minister of Justice; (uuuu) what was the format of each in-person consultation; (vvvv) what specific questions were given to participants to discuss, if any; (wwww) how much time was allotted to each in-person consultation; (xxxx) given the number of individuals and groups at each consultation, approximately how much time did each group have to speak (i) to each question, (ii) in total; (yyyy) how were answers or submissions at in-person consultations recorded, by whom, and will they be made publicly available; (zzzz) what weight or considerations are comments from the in-person consultations given relative to responses from the online consultation; (aaaaa) how was the period for the online consultation selected, and how was the period of time determined to be adequate for the purposes of consultation; (bbbbb) how long does the government estimate that it will take to compile and analyse the results of (i) in-person consultations, (ii) the online consultation, (iii) the totality of its consultative efforts on this file; (ccccc) will there be a final report of consultations and if so when might it be expected and what will be included therein; (ddddd) by when will a bill be introduced in the House of Commons or Senate reflecting the result of consultations; (eeeee) in what ways will the consultation have bearing on the government’s policy-making in this regard; (fffff) has any percent or measure been set as a threshold after which a particular approach, enjoying plurality favour by those consulted, would automatically be reflected in the subsequent government legislative response to Bedford; (ggggg) under what circumstances would the government’s approach differ from that recommended by the plurality of consultation participants; (hhhhh) what measures are in place to ensure the government’s legislative approach is reflective of the consultation results; (iiiii) how did the government determine that external consultation was necessary; (jjjjj) what is the total cost of consultations thus far, and what is the breakdown of this figure; (kkkkk) what is the projected cost of consultation total and what comprises this figure; (lllll) what additional consultations, if any, can be expected in this regard with the provinces and territories and when might this occur; (mmmmm) what additional consultations, if any, can be expected in this regard with municipalities and when might this occur; and (nnnnn) what alternatives to online and in-person consultations were considered with respect to prostitution-related offences and why were these found inadequate?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Government Business

Private Members' Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business
M-455 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Goldring (Edmonton East) — That, in the opinion of the House, one nationally standardized “point in time” should be recommended for use in all municipalities in carrying out homeless counts, with (a) nationally recognized definitions of who is homeless; (b) nationally recognized methodology on how the count takes place; and (c) the same agreed-upon criteria and methodology in determining who is considered to be homeless.
2 Response requested within 45 days
Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page