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.
| 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION | |
|
|
|
JournalsNo. 29 Wednesday, March 9, 2016 2:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Acting Clerk informed the House that, pursuant to Order made Wednesday, December 9, 2015, the Speaker has designated this day for Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) to be honorary Chair Occupant. |
|
Whereupon, Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier), took the Chair. |
| Prayer |
| National Anthem |
| Statements By Members |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements. |
| Oral Questions |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House proceeded to Oral Questions. |
| Deferred Recorded Divisions |
|
Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, March 8, 2016, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mrs. Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek), seconded by Ms. Watts (South Surrey—White Rock), — That the House: (a) acknowledge the contribution Bombardier makes to the Canadian economy and the aerospace industry; (b) recognize that there is a market solution already available that could support Bombardier; (c) acknowledge that Bombardier has designed the quietest and best aircraft in its class that is well suited to urban airports like the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport; (d) recognize that the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is a major economic driver for the Greater Toronto Area that supports both business and leisure travel; (e) recognize that the expansion of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport would allow airlines to purchase Bombardier aircraft; and (f) call on the government to reverse its decision on restricting the expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. |
|
|
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following division: |
|
| (Division No. 21 -- Vote no 21) | |
| YEAS: 96, NAYS: 218 |
|
|
YEAS -- POUR Aboultaif Diotte Lebel Scheer Total: -- 96 |
|
|
NAYS -- CONTRE Aldag Duguid Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation) Plamondon Total: -- 218 |
|
|
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun |
|
| Daily Routine Of Business |
Tabling of Documents |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions: |
— No. 421-00013 concerning impaired driving. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-7-02;
|
— No. 421-00014 concerning rail transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-10-01;
|
— No. 421-00015 concerning the electoral system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-11-01;
|
— No. 421-00016 concerning climate change. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-4-02.
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade) laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated February 10, 2016. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-421-8.
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Brison (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Ms. Mihychuk (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour), Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House. |
Presenting Reports from Committees |
|
Mr. Bagnell (Yukon), from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented the Fifth Report of the Committee (Supplementary Estimates (C), 2015-16 — Vote 3c under Parliamentary Protective Service). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-6. |
|
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 11) was tabled. |
|
|
|
Mr. Fuhr (Kelowna—Lake Country), from the Standing Committee on National Defence, presented the First Report of the Committee (Supplementary Estimates (C), 2015-16 — Vote 1c under Communications Security Establishment, and Votes 1c and 5c under National Defence). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-7. |
|
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 3) was tabled. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ellis (Bay of Quinte), from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented the First Report of the Committee (Supplementary Estimates (C), 2015-16 — Votes 1c and 5c under Veterans Affairs). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-9. |
|
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 4) was tabled. |
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Masse (Windsor West), seconded by Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley), Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act (transparency), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House. |
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Masse (Windsor West), seconded by Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway), Bill C-249, An Act to amend the Public Health Agency of Canada Act (National Alzheimer Office), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House. |
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Masse (Windsor West), seconded by Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley), Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (small brewery tax credit), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House. |
Presenting Petitions |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows: |
— by Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway), one concerning rail transportation (No. 421-00117), one concerning road transportation (No. 421-00118) and one concerning housing policy (No. 421-00119);
|
— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning the electoral system (No. 421-00120) and one concerning China (No. 421-00121).
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answers to questions Q-29, Q-30, Q-32, Q-33, Q-37 and Q-46 on the Order Paper. |
|
|
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return: |
Q-18 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — With regard to Operation PROVISION and the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) support to the government's initiative to resettle 25 000 Syrian Refugees in Canada by the end of February 2016, including the use of CAF bases to do so: (a) which bases will be used; (b) what is the expected number of refugees that will utilize each base for lodging; (c) how many CAF and Department of National Defence personnel had to leave their living quarters from each base to accommodate the incoming refugees; (d) at each base, what type of construction, renovation, or winterization projects had to be completed in order to accommodate the incoming refugees; (e) what are the individual costs of the projects identified in (b); (f) were all Treasury Board guidelines followed for the tendering and awarding of these contracts; (g) from where are the funds necessary to accommodate refugees on CAF bases being allocated; (h) how many troops and personnel will be deployed as a part of Operation PROVISION and to where will they be deployed; (i) in what type of work will they be engaged while overseas; (j) will they be deployed as civilian or military personnel; (k) will the CAF be providing force protection for the troops deployed as a part Operation PROVISION; (l) if the answer to (k) is negative, who will be providing the force protection and what price; and (m) will the government table a copy in the House of any force protection contracts that it has signed as part of Operation PROVISION? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-18.
|
|
|
Q-19 — Ms. Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill) — With regard to the government’s Syrian refugee resettlement initiative, including, but not limited to the measures announced by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on November 24, 2015: (a) what is the total number of existing Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) visa officers and other CIC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), who have been re-assigned since November 4, 2015, from processing applications under other streams or “lines of business” to enhance the processing capacity of Syrian refugee applications, broken down by employees re-assigned from processing (i) spousal sponsorship applications, (ii) economic immigration permanent resident visas, (iii) work permit applications, (iv) student visa applications, (v) all other streams, identifying the stream in question; (b) what was the total number of CIC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), including visa officers, responsible for processing Syrian refugee applications on November 4, 2015; (c) what is the total number of CIC employees, whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), including visa officers, who were responsible for processing Syrian refugee applications on December 10, 2015; (d) what is the anticipated operational impact, expressed in additional application processing time, for each CIC “line of business,” caused by the re-allocation of CIC employee resources to enhance the processing of Syrian refugee applications; (e) what is the total number of cases that were finalized for each week in the 2015 calendar year, up to and including December 10, 2015, for each permanent and temporary resident visa category, broken down by (i) outcome (i.e. “approved,” “refused,” or “withdrawn”), (ii) CIC Visa Office or CIC Processing Office; (f) what is the total number of Syrian refugee applications, broken down by sponsorship category (e.g. Government Sponsored Refugees, Privately Sponsored Refugees, Group of Five, etc.), finalized on or after November 5, 2015; and (g) of the total number Syrian refugee applications that were finalized on or after November 5, 2015, how many applications were referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or the Canada Border Services Agency, prior to the visa officer’s decision to either grant or refuse a permanent resident visa, for a (i) record check, (ii) comprehensive security vetting? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-19.
|
|
|
Q-20 — Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope) — With regards to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to “[a]ct on recommendations of the Cohen Commission on restoring sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River”: (a) what scientific analyses were completed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on each of the 75 recommendations contained in the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River; (b) what recommendations identified in (a) have been implemented in whole or in part; (c) of the recommendations identified in (b) what was the cost of implementation, both on a one-time and ongoing basis; and (d) when will the remaining recommendations of the Cohen Commission, in whole or in part, be implemented? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-20.
|
|
|
Q-21 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — With regard to the province of Saskatchewan, since November 4, 2015: what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded by the government, broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) constituency, (iii) amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-21.
|
|
|
Q-22 — Ms. Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith) — With regard to funding for women’s shelters for the fiscal years from 2010 to 2015: (a) how much funding has the government spent on construction of new women’s shelters and new spaces in women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (b) how much money has the government spent on funding for renovation of existing women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (c) how much money has the government spent on non-capital supports for women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (d) when did the government stop accepting applications for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program; and (e) when did the government cancel funding for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-22.
|
|
|
Q-23 — Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou) — With regard to the total expenditures of the government incurred by all departments defending against Aboriginal-rights claims made against the government and appealing against case decisions upholding Aboriginal rights in court: (a) what was the amount spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; (b) what was the amount spent on these activities to date in the current fiscal year; (c) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; and (d) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities for the current fiscal year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-23.
|
|
|
Q-24 — Mr. Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) — With regard to changes to the machinery of government made on November 4, 2015: (a) for each department that was changed, what is the cost of making those changes (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category of expense; and (b) for each agency, Crown corporation, board, commission, or foundation that has been placed under the authority of a different ministry than was the case in the previous administration, what is the cost of making that change (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-24.
|
|
|
Q-25 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for 2015: (a) what was the volume of EI applications in total and broken down by (i) region and province where the claim originated, (ii) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (iii) month; (b) what was the average EI application processing time in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) 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, in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down 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) month, (ii) region and province; (h) what were the service standards for call-backs from EI processing staff, broken down by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI processing staff for call-backs, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (j) what was the average number of days for a call-back by EI processing staff, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (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; (l) what was the rate of sick-leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees; (m) what was the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long-term disability; (n) what was the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees; (o) who authored the report on EI processing for which the former parliamentary secretary for Employment and Social Development was credited; (p) what is the table of contents for the report; (q) will the government make the report public; (r) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province where the complaint originated; (s) how long on average did a complaint take to be investigated and resolved, broken down by month; and (t) what were the major themes of the complaints received? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-25.
|
|
|
Q-26 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI): (a) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Commission in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013, (v) 2014; (b) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Boards of Referees in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (c) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by EI Umpires in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (d) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Social Security Tribunal in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (e) how much money has the government spent on the class-action court case regarding women who were denied sickness benefits while on parental leave; (f) how many Justice Department lawyers have been working on the class-action court case; and (g) what was the average cost for an appeal to be considered by the EI Commission, a Board of Referees, and an EI Umpire? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-26.
|
|
|
Q-27 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski) — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) how many applications were received for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (b) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (c) what was the average processing time for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) National Occupational Classification (NOC) code; (d) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (e) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (f) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (g) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (h) since June 2014, how many employers with fewer than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (i) since June 2014, how many employers with more than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (j) how many work permits have been issued in 2015, in total and broken down by month; (k) how many tips have been received on the confidential tip phone line since its creation, broken down by month; (l) how many tips have been received through the online tip portal since its creation, broken down by month; (m) how many investigations have been conducted as a result of tips received; (n) how many investigations have been the result of multiple tips; (o) how many investigations have resulted in employers being found non-compliant; (p) how many investigations have resulted in penalties being imposed on the employer; (q) how many employers have been required to take corrective action in order to be found compliant as a result of an investigation; (r) how many employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program have been subject to an inspection from 2013 to 2015 inclusively, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (s) how many inspections were conducted because an employer requested a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (t) how many inspections occurred at a time when the employer was not requesting a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (u) how many inspections have revealed non-compliance by employers between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) issues identified, (iii) industry of the employer; (v) how many employers have had to take steps to be considered compliant between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of actions required, (iii) industry of the employer; (w) how many employers have received penalties for non-compliance as a result of an inspection between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of penalty, (iii) industry of the employer; (x) how many inspections conducted between 2013 and 2015 have involved an on-site visit, broken down by month; (y) how many foreign nationals have been removed from Canada because their four-year period of eligibility had expired; and (z) when will Employment and Social Development Canada begin publicly reporting data on the number of temporary foreign workers approved and the names of employers receiving positive Labour Market Impact Assessments? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-27.
|
|
|
Q-28 — Mr. Fast (Abbotsford) — With regard to Canada's delegation at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP21): (a) what is the total cost incurred by the government for this delegation; (b) what are the details of the expenses incurred by each delegate; and (c) what are the costs of the delegation broken down by (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) lodging, (v) salaries, (vi) per diems, (vii) operations? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-28.
|
|
|
Q-31 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — With regard to the military equipment currently owned by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) which items have been identified as surplus; (b) how many of each surplus item are in the CAF’s stock; (c) what is the value of each item deemed to be surplus; (d) where is the current surplus equipment being stored, (e) what is the process for liquidating surplus items in the case of (i) DND, (ii) CAF; (f) what regulations are in place that prevent or restrict DND and CAF’s ability to liquidate surplus military equipment; and (g) what is the government’s policy as to the manner in which the revenue generated from the liquidation of surplus assets will be redistributed by the government? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-31.
|
|
|
Q-34 — Mrs. Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) — With regard to the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889: (a) does the middle of the main channel of the Ottawa River, from the head of Lake Temiscamingue to the intersection by the prolongation of the western limits of the Seigneurie of Rigaud, such mid-channel being as indicated on a map of the Ottawa Ship Canal Survey by Walter Shanly, C.E., still delineate the boundary between Ontario and Quebec; (b) are copies of the Order of the Governor-General in Council, dated July 21, 1886, that approved the mid-channel boundary described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; (c) are certified copies of the map referred to in the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, showing the mid-channel described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; and (d) has either the Province of Quebec or the Province of Ontario challenged the location of the boundary since the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, received Royal Assent? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-34.
|
|
|
Q-35 — Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) — With respect to the September 2015 announcement of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it would effectuate a transfer of information to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS): (a) how many records has the CRA transferred to the IRS to date; (b) on what dates did information transfer occur and how many records were transferred on each date; (c) how many records of individuals have been transferred in total; (d) by what means were the records transferred; (e) how much did it cost the CRA to compile the records for transfer; (f) how much did it cost the CRA to complete the transfer; (g) how were the costs in (e) and (f) calculated and what is the breakdown of those costs; (h) who made the decision to transfer the records; (i) when was the decision made to transfer records; (j) when did the CRA become aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline for such transfer; (k) how was the CRA made aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline; (l) what steps were taken to assess and respond to the notice of deadline extension in (j); (m) what was the policy reason for transferring records despite the deadline extension; (n) when is the next transfer of records scheduled to take place; (o) what analysis was conducted to assess whether the transfer of records during the writ period for the 42nd General Election complied with the "Guidelines on the Conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, Exempt Staff and Public Servants During an Election"; (p) what records exist with respect to any analysis conducted in relation to (o); (q) was information concerning the transfer of records from the CRA to the IRS included in any transition materials prepared for a potential change in government or the Ministers responsible for CRA and Foreign Affairs; (r) what documents exist in relation to (q) and what are their file numbers; (s) has the new Minister responsible for CRA been informed of information transfers to the IRS and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (t) has the new Minister of Justice been informed of the information transfer and been provided with any analysis of its legal implications and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (u) have Canadians who will be affected by the transfer been informed of the transfer of their records; (v) what plans exist with regard to informing Canadians about the transfer of their records; (w) has any proposal to inform Canadians of the transfer of their information to the IRS been evaluated by the government and, if so, with what conclusions; (x) what documents exist in relation to (w) and what are their file numbers; (y) what legal challenges does the government anticipate with respect to information transfer, and how is it preparing to respond; (z) what measures are in place to ensure the security of record transfers to the IRS; and (aa) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted or involved in any way in the preparation or planning of record transfer to ensure conformity with applicable laws regarding the exchange of Canadians' personal information and, if so, to what extent? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-35.
|
|
|
Q-36 — Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) — With regard to the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) administered by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2015: (a) what amounts were awarded in the form of contributions to firms and contributions to organizations, broken down by year and by the following regional offices: (i) NRC-IRAP Sherbrooke, (ii) NRC-IRAP Granby, (iii) NRC-IRAP Victoriaville, (iv) NRC-IRAP Longueuil, (v) NRC-IRAP Gatineau, (vi) NRC-IRAP Sept-Îles, (vii) NRC-IRAP Trois-Rivières, (viii) NRC-IRAP Drummondville, (ix) NRC-IRAP Lévis, (x) NRC-IRAP Québec City; (b) how many interactive visits were requested and approved, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (c) how many projects were submitted and approved broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (d) how many projects were submitted and approved under the Business Innovation Access Program (BIAP) administered by IRAP, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); and (e) in what other activities did NRC-IRAP participate, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-36.
|
| Government Orders |
|
The Order was read for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. |
|
Mr. McCallum (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), seconded by Ms. Mihychuk (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. |
|
Debate arose thereon. |
| Returns and Reports Deposited with the Acting Clerk of the House |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Acting Clerk of the House were laid upon the Table as follows: |
— by Mr. Morneau (Minister of Finance) — Report on operations under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act for the year 2015, pursuant to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, R.S. 1985, c. B-7, s. 13. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-421-74-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Finance)
|
— by Mrs. Philpott (Minister of Health) — Copy of Order in Council P.C. 2016-54 dated February 5, 2016, concerning the Order Repealing the Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to Ebola Virus Disease in Canada Order (No. 4), pursuant to the Quarantine Act, S.C. 2005, c. 20, sbs. 61(2). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-421-1079-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Health)
|
| Petitions Filed with the Acting Clerk of the House |
|
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified by the Clerk of Petitions were filed as follows: |
— by Mr. Masse (Windsor West), two concerning unborn children (Nos. 421-00122 and 421-00123).
|
| Adjournment Proceedings |
|
At 6:39 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 38(1), the question “That this House do now adjourn” was deemed to have been proposed. |
|
After debate, the question was deemed to have been adopted. |
|
Accordingly, at 6:58 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). |