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. 24 Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
| February 23, 2016 — The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act”. |
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| February 23, 2016 — Ms. Trudel (Jonquière) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)”. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Bagnell (Yukon) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fetal alcohol disorder)”. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Ms. Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Payment Card Networks Act (credit card acceptance fees)”. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Nicholson (Niagara Falls) — Bill entitled “An Act respecting a national strategy for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias”. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Sikand (Mississauga—Streetsville) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (passive detection device)”. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Fisher (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — Bill entitled “An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury”. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Stewart (Burnaby South) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (gender equity)”. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Falk (Provencher) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable gifts)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-662 — February 23, 2016 — Mr. Saroya (Markham—Unionville) — With respect to the government’s commitment to lift the visa requirement for Mexican nationals entering Canada: (a) has the department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship conducted a formal visa review, including a technical visit to the country, to provide a holistic, evidence-based assessment of Mexico’s eligibility for a visa exemption under Canada’s objective visa policy framework; (b) if a formal visa review for Mexico has been conducted by technical experts in the public service, (i) over what period of time was the review conducted, (ii) what are the conclusions and recommendations with respect to Mexico’s overall eligibility for a visa exemption under Canada’s visa policy framework; (c) if a formal visa review for Mexico has not been conducted, why has a decision been taken to grant a visa exemption in the absence of evidence for each indicator used to assess risk to Canada and Canadians; (d) under Canada’s existing visa policy framework, what are the indicators that are used to determine a country’s eligibility for a visa exemption, broken down by (i) quantitative indicators, (ii) qualitative indicators; (e) for each quantitative and qualitative indicator identified in (d), (i) which indicators does Mexico currently meet, (ii) which indicators does Mexico currently not meet; (f) for each socio-economic factor that is typically assessed in a formal visa review, (i) what is Canada’s current assessment of the factor in Mexico, (ii) does the evidence demonstrate a “push” factor that could incentivize irregular migration to Canada, if Mexican nationals are exempt from the visa requirement, (iii) does Mexico currently meet Canada’s requirement, under the existing visa policy framework, for each particular indicator, to be eligible for a visa exemption; (g) with respect to migration patterns and trends, for each factor that is typically assessed under Canada’s visa policy framework, (i) what is Canada’s assessment of the current condition in Mexico, (ii) does the evidence demonstrate eligibility for a visa exemption; (h) does Canada’s assessment of Mexico’s travel document integrity indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (i) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found that the Mexican passport is a reliable indicator of identity and nationality; (j) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found that Mexico’s border management practices indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (k) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found third country nationals are using Mexico as a transit point to travel illegally to Canada; (l) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found there are weaknesses in screening and enforcement measures at Mexican Ports of Entry; (m) does Canada’s assessment of security matters in Mexico indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (n) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found there is evidence of corruption or links to organized crime in the ranks of Mexican border officials and law enforcement; (o) have Canadian technical experts found that there is evidence of human smuggling activities and networks operating inside and through Mexico; (p) does Canada’s assessment of human rights matters in Mexico indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (q) with respect to visa refusal rates for Mexican nationals, (i) what is the quantitative threshold, expressed as a numerical percentage, used under Canada’s visa policy framework to indicate an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what is the current visa refusal rate, using the most recent calendar year, (iii) does the current visa refusal rate indicate an acceptable level of risk or an unacceptable level of risk, in the context of granting a visa exemption; (r) with respect to asylum rates for Mexican nationals, (i) what is the threshold used under Canada’s visa policy framework to indicate an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what was the asylum rate for the last calendar year before a visa requirement was imposed, (iii) what was the asylum rate for Mexican nationals for each calendar year, from 2010 to 2015, after the visa requirement was imposed; (s) with respect to asylum claims made in Canada by Mexican nationals in the calendar year prior to the imposition of a visa requirement, (i) how many people were granted refugee status by the Immigration and Refugee Board, (ii) how many people were refused refugee status by the Immigration and Refugee Board, (iii) how many asylum claims were withdrawn, (iv) how many asylum claimants were inadmissible, (v) what was the cost of processing the total number of asylum claims made by Mexican nationals in the calendar year prior to the imposition of a visa requirement, broken down by outcome at the Immigration and Refugee Board, (vi) on average, how long did it take to remove failed Mexican asylum claimants from Canada; (t) with respect to the Immigration Violation Rate, (i) what is the threshold used under Canada’s visa policy framework to determine an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what is the current Immigration Violation Rate for Mexican nationals, with the visa requirement in place, expressed as a numerical percentage for the most recent calendar year, (iii) what was the Immigration Violation Rate for Mexican nationals for period of 2007 to 2009, before the visa requirement was imposed; (u) what was the total number of inadmissible Mexican nationals that arrived on Canadian soil in the calendar year prior to the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, broken down by the nature of the inadmissibility; (v) how many inadmissible Mexican nationals have arrived on Canadian soil for each calendar year since the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) the nature of the inadmissibility; and (w) with respect to inadmissible Mexican nationals who arrived at a Canadian Port of Entry in the calendar year prior to the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, what was (i) the estimated cost of processing the inadmissible cases by the Canada Border Services Agency at Canadian Ports of Entry, (ii) the estimated increase in processing times for all travelers at Canadian Ports of Entry as a result of processing inadmissible Mexican nationals, (iii) the estimated total cost of removing those Mexican nationals deemed inadmissible to Canada, (iv) the average length of time it took to remove those Mexican nationals deemed inadmissible from Canada? |
| Q-672 — February 23, 2016 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), and to the gap between identified immediate and future needs and current levels in infrastructure spending for First Nations in Canada: (a) what is the government’s estimate for the size of the deficit, broken down by category, such as, but not exclusively, (i) housing, (ii) education, (iii) water, (iv) roads and bridges, (v) other; (b) what is the number of hotel rooms and cost paid for by the government over the past ten years, broken down by year, due to emergency evacuations or housing shortages on reserve; (c) what is the number of schools on reserve designated as temporary structures; (d) what is the number of schools on reserve listed in (i) good condition, (ii) poor condition; (e) how many First Nations students across Canada currently attend school in facilities that lNAC believes contain health and safety concerns; (f) as of January 1, 2016, what new school construction projects are the top 40 priorities for INAC across Canada; (g) for each of the schools identified in (f), how long has INAC known that health and safety concerns existed in the current facilities; (h) since 2012, what amounts from the "Community Infrastructure" line item have been reallocated either within INAC or to other government departments; (i) how many communities, with projects identified by INAC as priority capital projects, have had letters of approval issued to them; and (j) for each year from 2012 to present, how much capital building expenditure funding, for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities built on First Nations Reserves, was planned but not spent on schools and why, broken down by (i) year, (ii) community? |
| Q-682 — February 23, 2016 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, for the fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what was the amount of funding provided by Veterans Affairs Canada for each of the following organizations or establishments that it is partners with, (i) Helmets to Hardhats, (ii) Operational Stress Injury Clinics (OSICs), (iii) Royal Canadian Legion, (iv) all Long-term Care Facilities accommodating veterans, (v) contract beds for veterans run by provinces, (vi) Operational Stress Injury National Network, (vii) OSIC Vancouver, (viii) Operational Trauma and Stress Support Center (OTSSC) Esquimalt, (ix) OSIC Carewest, (x) OSIC Edmonton, (xi) OTSSC Edmonton, (xii) OSIC Deer Lodge, (xiii) OSIC Parkwood, (xiv) OSIC Royal Ottawa, (xv) OTSSC Ottawa, (xvi) OTSSC Petawawa, (xvii) OTSSC Valcartier, (xviii) OSIC Sainte-Anne, (xix) Operational Stress Injury Residential Treatment Clinic, (xx) OSIC Centre hospitalier universitaire de Quebec, (xxi) Horizon Health OSIC Fredericton, (xxii) Nova Scotia Health Authority OSIC Halifax, (xxiii) OTSSC Halifax, (xxiv) OTSSC Gagetown; (b) what percentage of the organization’s funding comes from Veterans Affairs Canada for the organizations identified in (a); (c) how are outcomes from programs measured for the organizations identified in (a); (d) what were the outcomes for each program for the organizations identified in (a); and (e) how long has each organization or establishment been in receipt of money from Veterans Affairs for the organizations and establishments identified in (a)? |
| Q-692 — February 23, 2016 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, for the fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what actions has the Department taken to address concerns from Veterans and stakeholders, including (i) dissatisfaction with the lump sum Disability Award, (ii) calls from the Veterans Ombudsman and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (ACVA) to further increase Earnings Loss Benefit payments and further enhance the Permanent Impairment Allowance, (iii) more mental health and caregiver support for Veterans suffering from Operation Stress Injuries, and their families, (iv) greater focus on supporting successful transition, (v) improved communications, outreach and program delivery; (b) how much funding has been allocated for each of the areas identified in (a); and (c) what reports or studies have been undertaken or completed for each of the areas identified in (a)? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motions |
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) — That the House (a) recognize that the current first-past-the-post electoral system regularly results in one party forming a large majority government despite winning far less than a majority of the votes; (b) agree with the Prime Minister, who has regularly called for the 42nd general election to be the last under the current system; (c) acknowledge that for Canadians to have confidence in the process of reforming our electoral system, it is crucial for the political parties of all elected Members of Parliament to have a seat at the table, and that no one party should have the power to unilaterally overhaul the electoral system; and (d) appoint a special committee with the mandate to conduct hearings on replacing the current system with one that better reflects the democratic choices of Canadians, and (i) that this committee consist of 12 members which shall include five members from the government party, three members from the Official Opposition party, two members from the New Democratic Party, one member from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the Green Party, provided that the Chair is from the government party, (ii) that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-Chair from each of the recognized opposition parties, (iii) that the committee have all of the powers of a standing committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, subject to the usual authorization from the House, (iv) that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Acting Clerk of the House a list of his or her party’s members of the committee no later than three sitting days following the adoption of this motion, (v) that the quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118, provided that at least one member of each recognized party be present, (vi) that membership substitutions be permitted from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), (vii) that the committee report to the House no later than September 30, 2016. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — That the House (a) recognize that the current first-past-the-post electoral system regularly results in one party forming a large majority government despite winning far less than a majority of the votes; (b) agree with the Prime Minister, who has regularly called for the 42nd general election to be the last under the current system; (c) acknowledge that for Canadians to have confidence in the process of reforming our electoral system, it is crucial for the political parties of all elected Members of Parliament to have a seat at the table, and that no one party should have the power to unilaterally overhaul the electoral system; and (d) appoint a special committee with the mandate to conduct hearings on replacing the current system with one that better reflects the democratic choices of Canadians, and (i) that this committee consist of 12 members which shall include five members from the government party, three members from the Official Opposition party, two members from the New Democratic Party, one member from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the Green Party, provided that the Chair is from the government party, (ii) that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-Chair from each of the recognized opposition parties, (iii) that the committee have all of the powers of a standing committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, subject to the usual authorization from the House, (iv) that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Acting Clerk of the House a list of his or her party’s members of the committee no later than three sitting days following the adoption of this motion, (v) that the quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118, provided that at least one member of each recognized party be present, (vi) that membership substitutions be permitted from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), (vii) that the committee report to the House no later than September 30, 2016. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) — That the House (a) acknowledge that mounting job losses combined with a lack of access to Employment Insurance contribute to growing income inequality and a situation where too many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet; and (b) call on the government to honour its campaign promises and Throne Speech commitment to strengthen the Employment Insurance system “to make sure that it best serves both the Canadian economy and all Canadians who need it,” by taking immediate action to: (i) create a universal qualifying threshold of 360 hours for Employment Insurance, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment; (ii) immediately repeal the harmful reforms of the previous government, including those that force unemployed workers to move away from their communities, take lower-paying jobs and those that eliminated the Extended EI Benefits Pilot program to help seasonal workers, and, (iii) protect the Employment Insurance account to ensure that funds are only spent on benefits for Canadians, including training, and never again used to boost the government’s bottom line. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Ms. Trudel (Jonquière) — That the House (a) acknowledge that mounting job losses combined with a lack of access to Employment Insurance contribute to growing income inequality and a situation where too many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet; and (b) call on the government to honour its campaign promises and Throne Speech commitment to strengthen the Employment Insurance system “to make sure that it best serves both the Canadian economy and all Canadians who need it,” by taking immediate action to: (i) create a universal qualifying threshold of 360 hours for Employment Insurance, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment; (ii) immediately repeal the harmful reforms of the previous government, including those that force unemployed workers to move away from their communities, take lower-paying jobs and those that eliminated the Extended EI Benefits Pilot program to help seasonal workers, and, (iii) protect the Employment Insurance account to ensure that funds are only spent on benefits for Canadians, including training, and never again used to boost the government’s bottom line. |
|
|
| February 23, 2016 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) support the vital role played by CBC/Radio-Canada with respect to culture, the regions and Canadian identity; (b) recognize the harm caused by the $364 million in cuts made by the Liberal government in the 1990s and the $115 million in cuts made by the Conservative government in 2012; (c) reinvest $150 million per year as promised during the election campaign; (d) create an arm’s length commission to make appointments to the CBC/Radio-Canada Board of Directors; and (e) impose a moratorium on transactions requiring the approval of the Governor in Council under section 48(2) of the Broadcasting Act, such as the sale of Maison de Radio-Canada in Montreal. |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|