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. 81 Monday, September 26, 2016 11:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| September 23, 2016 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the Canada Marine Act”. |
|
|
| September 23, 2016 — Mr. Arya (Nepean) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-5012 — September 23, 2016 — Mr. Hoback (Prince Albert) — With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the negotiation of a softwood lumber agreement with the United States: (a) on what dates did the Minister formally or informally meet with United States trade representatives, any US counterpart or US stakeholder, (i) who was present for each of those meetings, (ii) where did those meetings take place; (b) on what dates did the Minister formally or informally meet with a Canadian stakeholder, (i) who was present for each of those meetings, (ii) where did those meetings take place; (c) how many iterations of formal offers has each country proposed to one another during the negotiations; (d) has either country indicated that they do not intend to propose further offers; and (e) how much funding has the Department of Global Affairs earmarked for litigation following potential U.S. duties placed on Canadian softwood lumber exports? |
| Q-5022 — September 23, 2016 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert) — With regard to consultations on the Department of Canadian Heritage’s initiative Canadian Content in a Digital World, as of January 1, 2016: (a) whom did the Minister of Canadian Heritage meet and what were the details of those meetings, including, (i) the date of the meeting, (ii) the individuals in attendance, (iii) the organizations that these individuals represent, (iv) did the organization in question use the services of a public relations firm, (v) were the people in attendance registered with the Registry of Lobbyists; (b) whom did the Minister’s exempt staff, including office staff, meet and what were the details of those meetings, including, (i) the date of the meeting, (ii) the individuals in attendance, (iii) the organizations that these individuals represent, (iv) did the organization in question use the services of a public relations firm, (v) were the people in attendance registered with the Registry of Lobbyists; (c) did the Minister and her exempt staff, including office staff, meet with representatives from public agencies, including, (i) CBC/Radio-Canada, (ii) Telefilm Canada, (iii) Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, (iv) National Film Board of Canada, (v) Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, (vi) Canada Media Fund, (vii) Copyright Board of Canada, (viii) Canada Council for the Arts, (ix) Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, (x) Global Affairs Canada; and (d) with respect to the services provided by the third-party consulting firm Ipsos Public Affairs as part of the consultations, (i) how many employees of the third-party firm are assigned to provide services to the Department of Canadian Heritage, (ii) how much has the department spent on these services, (iii) was a competitive process held regarding these services, (iv) if so, who were the other bidders, (v) how long was the call for tenders posted publicly? |
| Q-5032 — September 23, 2016 — Mr. Webber (Calgary Confederation) — With regard to credit cards issued to ministerial staff: what expenses were charged to a government credit card, and subsequently reimbursed by the card holder for the period of November 4, 2015, to September 23, 2016, including, (i) the name of the vendor and the place of purchase, (ii) the date of the purchase, (iii) the value of the purchase, (iv) the due date of the statement, (v) the date on which the card holder provided reimbursement in full, (vi) the name of the card holder, (vii) the job title of the card holder, (viii) the department or agency of the card holder, (ix) the confirmation if that card holder is still an active holder of a government credit card? |
| Q-5042 — September 23, 2016 — Mr. Webber (Calgary Confederation) — With regard to credit cards issued to Ministers, Ministers of State, and Parliamentary Secretaries: what expenses were charged to a government credit card, and subsequently reimbursed by the card holder for the period of November 4, 2015, to September 23, 2016, including, (i) the name of the vendor and the place of purchase, (ii) the date of the purchase, (iii) the value of the purchase, (iv) the due date of the statement, (v) the date on which the card holder provided reimbursement in full, (vi) the name of the card holder, (vii) the official job title of the card holder, (viii) the confirmation if that card holder is still an active holder of a government credit card? |
| Q-5052 — September 23, 2016 — Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George) — With regard to the Facebook posting from the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary onSeptember 22, 2016, which references personalized cash payout and incidentals, broken down by Minister's office, since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the amount paid out to Ministers and their exempt staff under this category; (b) how much has been paid out to each individual under this category; (c) what is the list of the expenses that are eligible to be claimed under this category; and (d) what is the detailed breakdown of each payout under this category? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
Private Members' Business |
| M-45 — May 5, 2016 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Fillmore (Halifax), seconded by Mr. Amos (Pontiac), — 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; |
| And of the amendment of Ms. Rudd (Northumberland—Peterborough South), seconded by Mrs. Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “funding proposals,” and substituting the following: |
| “an analysis of their impact on greenhouse gas emissions is undertaken for those projects exceeding an appropriate threshold to be established in an implementation plan; (b) where appropriate, funding priority be given to proposals which help to mitigate the impacts of climate change; and (c) that an implementation plan be developed.”. |
| 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 |
| Debate — 1 hour remaining, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
| Voting — at the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|