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. 49

Thursday, May 5, 2016

10:00 a.m.

Introduction of Government Bills

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)

Questions
Q-1952 — May 4, 2016 — Ms. Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh) — With regard to materials prepared for past or current deputy heads of departments, Crown Corporations, agencies, or their staff since October 19, 2015: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?
Q-1962 — May 4, 2016 — Ms. Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh) — With regard to materials prepared for ministers or their staff since November 1, 2015: for every briefing document or docket prepared: what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?
Q-1972 — May 4, 2016 — Ms. Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh) — With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada and the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals currently waiting to be heard by the ISS are legacy appeals that pre-date the Tribunal, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals currently waiting to be heard by the ISS date from prior to December 2014, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals were heard by the ISS in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (g) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals to the ISS have been heard by teleconference in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (k) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (l) how many appeals at the ISS have been decided on the record in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (m) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) are currently assigned to the ISS; (n) what is the current average caseload of members in the ISS; (o) what is the average number of decisions per month by members in the ISS; (p) what is the average time between the filing of an appeal and receipt of a decision at the ISS; (q) what is the average time between Notice of Readiness and receipt of a decision at the ISS; (r) since September 1, 2015, how many ISS cases have met the Tribunal’s new service standard of being decided within five months of the appeal becoming ready to proceed, broken down by (i) month, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (s) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (t) how many income security appeals waiting to be heard by the AD are legacy appeals that predate the Tribunal, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (u) how many income security appeals waiting to be heard by the AD date from prior to December 2014, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (v) how many applicants were not given leave to appeal on income security cases in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) month, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (w) how many income security appeals were heard by the AD in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (x) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (y) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (z) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (dd) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS), in total and broken down by (i) legacy appeals that predate the creation of the Tribunal, (ii) appeals that date from prior to December 2014; (ee) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, in total and broken down by month; (ff) in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, how many appeals were (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed, (iii) summarily dismissed; (gg) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (hh) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ii) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many appeals at the EIS have been decided on the record in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ll) what is the current average caseload of members in the EIS; (mm) what is the average number of decisions per month by members in the EIS; (nn) what is the average time between the filing of an appeal and receipt of a decision at the EIS; (oo) since September 1, 2015, how many EIS cases have met the Tribunal’s new service standard of final decisions being made within 90 days of the appeal being filed, broken down by month; (pp) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD, in total and broken down by (i) legacy appeals that predate the creation of the Tribunal, (ii) appeals that date prior to December 2014; (qq) how many applicants were not given leave to appeal EI cases in December 2015 and in 2016, to date; (rr) in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, how many EI appeals have been (i) heard, (ii) allowed, (iii) dismissed; (ss) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (tt) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in December 2015 and in 2016, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (uu) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (vv) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ww) what is the current average caseload of members in the AD; (xx) what is the average number of decisions per month by members in the AD; (yy) what is the average time between the filing of leave to appeal and receipt of a final decision at the AD; (zz) what is the average time between the granting of leave to appeal and receipt of a final decision at the AD; (aaa) since September 1, 2015, how many appeals at the AD have met the Tribunal’s new service standard of a decision on leave to appeal being granted within 60 days, broken down by month; (bbb) since September 1, 2015, how many appeals at the AD have met the Tribunal’s new service standard of a final decision being granted within seven months of leave to appeal being granted, broken down by month; (ccc) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) month, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (ddd) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship in December 2015 and in 2016, to date, broken down by (i) month, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (eee) of the more than 60 recommendations made to the Tribunal in March 2015 for ways to improve operations, how many have been implemented; and (fff) is the special unit within the Department still functioning and if so, what is its expected end date?
Q-1982 — May 4, 2016 — Ms. Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith) — With regard to the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund: (a) what is the current dollar amount in the fund, broken down by (i) government contributions, (ii) industry contributions, (iii) funds allocated for direct emergency action and remedial action; (b) based on the information provided in (a)(i) and (a)(ii), how many contributions have been made to the fund over the past ten years, broken down by (i) name of contributor, (ii) amount of contribution, (iii) date of contribution, (iv) total amount of contribution for the lifetime of the fund; (c) what criteria are used to determine how funds are used for abandoned vessels, broken down by (i) environmental risk, (ii) monetary amount that can be accessed, (iii) time-limits for disbursements from the fund; (d) for each of the items identified in (c), what is the (i) definition of the comprehensive solution regulation, (ii) process for which the Canadian Coast Guard can access the fund, (iii) process for which it is reimbursed; (e) for each of the items identified in (c), when was the fund accessed for vessels along the entirety of the east coast of Vancouver Island and for which vessels or events was the fund accessed, broken down by (i) the amount of funds accessed, (ii) the date the fund was accessed, (iii) the outcome of the event, (iv) the status of the vessel, (v) the next plans for the vessel; and (f) was the fund in (e) accessed for the vessel the Viki Lynne 2, and, if so, (i) what was the amount of funds accessed, (ii) when were the funds disbursed, (iii) what were all of the expenses related to the fund, broken down by type of work done, (iv) what comprehensive plans exist to remove the remaining oil and solvents, (v) can the fund be used to remove, decommission and destroy the Viki Lynne 2?
Q-1992 — May 4, 2016 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With regard to each Senate appointment made by the Prime Minister: (a) did the government verify that each individual being appointed to the Senate met their constitutional residency requirement; (b) how did the government verify each requirement in (a); and (c) what are the details of the verification in (a)?
Q-2002 — May 4, 2016 — Mr. Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia) — With respect to the impacts of climate change on National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas: (a) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of climate change on National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis; (b) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of climate change on National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (c) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of climate change on fire management in National Parks, and what were the results of this analysis; (d) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of climate change on fire management in National Parks; (e) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of climate change on the water supply in National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis; (f) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of climate change on the water supply in National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (g) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of climate change on species at risk, and what were the results of this analysis; (h) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of climate change on species at risk; (i) how many animals normally originating from warmer climates have been stranded in Canada, by year, over the past 15 years; (j) what kinds of warmer-climate animals have been stranded and where have they stranded, by year, over the past 15 years; (k) what policies and procedures does the government have in place regarding warmer climate animals that are stranded in Canada; (l) what has been the cost of rescuing and treating these animals, by year, over the past 15 years; (m) what analysis has the government undertaken of the cumulative impacts of environmental threats to Wood Buffalo National Park, as per the request of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, and what were the results of this analysis; and (n) how often does the government review its policies and procedures regarding climate change adaptation in National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas?
Q-2012 — May 4, 2016 — Mr. Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia) — With respect to admission fees to National Parks, Marine Conservation Areas and national historic sites: (a) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that admission fees are collected; (b) what procedures does the government have in place to ensure that these policies are followed with large groups and with groups arriving in National Parks by train or on tour buses; (c) in its planning of revenue, does the government account for an estimate of uncollected admission fees in National Parks, Marine Conservation areas, and national historic sites; (d) if so, how much was this estimate for each of the past ten years; (e) what is the anticipated loss of revenue for National Parks, Marine Conservation Areas and national historic sites resulting from offering free admission to all visitors in 2017, and to some visitors beginning in 2018; (f) what plans does the government have in place to address the revenue gap left by providing free admission for all visitors in 2017, and for some visitors beginning in 2018; and (g) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential risks to wildlife and ecological integrity related to anticipated increases in visitors due to free admission to National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis?
Q-2022 — May 4, 2016 — Mr. Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska) — With regard to Budget 2016: what is the total number of hours paid by the government to employees and contractors for preparing the budget, and what is the cost associated with those hours of work?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Government Business

Private Members' Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business
M-45 — February 25, 2016 — Mr. Fillmore (Halifax) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that: (a) before making decisions on infrastructure funding proposals, where federal funding exceeds $500 000, an analysis of their impact on greenhouse gas emissions is considered; and (b) where appropriate, funding priority be given to proposals which help to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by:
Mr. Stewart (Burnaby South) — May 2, 2016
Mrs. Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets), Mr. O'Regan (St. John's South—Mount Pearl), Mr. Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley), Mr. Whalen (St. John's East), Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), Mr. Amos (Pontiac), Mr. Anandasangaree (Scarborough—Rouge Park), Mr. Bossio (Hastings—Lennox and Addington) and Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — May 4, 2016
2 Response requested within 45 days
Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page