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. 85

Friday, September 30, 2016

10:00 a.m.

Introduction of Government Bills

Introduction of Private Members' Bills
September 29, 2016 — Mr. Liepert (Calgary Signal Hill) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (registry of compromised Social Insurance Numbers)”.

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)

Questions
Q-5202 — September 29, 2016 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and Assembly of First Nations v Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal File No. T1340/7008: (a) what are the total legal costs incurred by the government in this matter since January 25, 2016; (b) of the 382 million dollars announced for Jordan’s Principle, (i) who was consulted, (ii) what was the process of consultation, (iii) what is the annual breakdown of this funding, (iv) what is the total breakdown of the allocation of these funds; (c) what is the date on which the budget investments in the child welfare system were initially developed; (d) with respect to adjustment to funding formulae regarding remoteness in the child welfare system, (i) will Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) develop a strategy that takes into account such things, (ii) if so, when will such a strategy will be implemented; (e) with respect to consultation during this legal process, (i) what is the list of the First Nations, First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons that INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, in response to the findings in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s January 26, 2016, decision, (ii) what is INAC’s consultation plan moving forward, (iii) what are the agendas for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, (iv) what are the summaries of discussions for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016; (f) with respect to the allocation of immediate relief funding in Ontario, what are the the details of all correspondence between INAC and the Government of Ontario on this topic; (g) with respect to the definition of prevention services in Ontario that was raised in the ruling, (i) will INAC reimburse costs for travel to access physician-prescribed special needs services and assessments, special needs rehabilitative and support services and respite care, and support for families in crisis under the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians, (ii) what are the details of any requests INAC has received for reimbursement of costs for travel to access physician-prescribed special needs services and assessments, special needs rehabilitative and support services and respite care, and support for families in crisis in Ontario; (h) with respect to the infrastructure needs in Ontario that were identified by the ruling, (i) does INAC have an interim strategy to deal with infrastructure needs of FNCFS Agencies in Ontario outside of the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians, (ii) if INAC has such an interim strategy, what are the details of that strategy, (iii) if INAC does not have an interim strategy, has anything been done to develop such a strategy; (i) with respect to eligibility in Ontario, (i) will INAC address access to services for First Nations children in Ontario who are “entitled to be registered” under the Indian Act, (ii) if INAC will address such access to services, when will such access be addressed; (j) with respect to consultation on Jordan’s Principle, (i) what is the list of First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, in response to the findings in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s January 26, 2016, decision, along with INAC’s consultation plan moving forward, (ii) what were the agendas for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, (iii) what are the summaries of discussions for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016; and (k) with respect to the Canadian Incidence Study, (i) is funding being provided for the Aboriginal component of the Study, including whether that component of the Study will include data collection specific to remote and northern First Nations, (ii) if funding is being provided, when will the Study be in the field, (iii) what are the details of methodology used for data collection with regard to the Aboriginal component of the Study and with regard to remote and northern First Nations?
Q-5212 — September 29, 2016 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — With regard to the government’s response to petition No. 388, addressed to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, specifically in response to question three, wherein the government states it would preferably use the Central Experimental Farm for two future-planned studies: (a) what is the objective of each study; (b) based on research conducted by the government, is it possible to determine if each study be concluded by the end of 2022; (c) which characteristics of this specific plot of the Central Experimental Farm are required for these studies, broken down by type; (d) has the government considered whether these studies can be completed on another plot of the Central Experimental Farm, and if so, what was its conclusion; (e) what similar lands or facilities exist that could accommodate these studies; (f) to-date what costs have been incurred in preparing these studies; and (g) has the cost of cancelling these studies been considered, and if so, what would they be?
Q-5222 — September 29, 2016 — Ms. Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) — With regard to the government’s claims that the new Canada Child Benefit will lift 60 000 Quebec children out of poverty: (a) what specific methods and projections did the government use to make that claim; (b) how many children in Quebec were living in poverty as of (i) January 1, 2014, (ii) January 1, 2015, (iii) January 1, 2016; (c) using the government’s studies and projection methods, how many children will there be living in poverty in Quebec as of (i) January 1, 2017, (ii) January 1, 2018, (iii) January 1, 2019?
Q-5232 — September 29, 2016 — Mr. Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound) — With regard to moving expenses for individuals working on a contract basis, broken down by government department and agency, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many individuals working on a contract basis have had their moving or temporary accommodation expenses paid for by the government; (b) how much was paid, broken down by expense type; (c) how many individuals working on a contract basis for a Minister's office have had their moving or temporary accommodation expenses paid for by the government; and (d) for each case referred to in (c), (i) how much was paid, (ii) what is the specific breakdown of expenses paid?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Government Business
No. 8 — September 29, 2016 — The Prime Minister — That the House support the government’s decision to ratify the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change signed by Canada in New York on April 22, 2016; and that the House support the March 3, 2016, Vancouver Declaration calling on the federal government, the provinces, and territories to work together to develop a Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.
No. 9 — September 29, 2016 — The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons — That the House support the government’s decision to ratify the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change signed by Canada in New York on April 22, 2016; and that the House support the March 3, 2016, Vancouver Declaration calling on the federal government, the provinces, and territories to work together to develop a Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

Private Members' Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business
C-227 — May 11, 2016 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Hussen (York South—Weston), seconded by Mr. Anandasangaree (Scarborough—Rouge Park), — That Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by:
Mr. Casey (Cumberland—Colchester), Mr. Dubourg (Bourassa), Ms. Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth), Mr. Arya (Nepean), Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East), Mr. Chen (Scarborough North), Mr. Bossio (Hastings—Lennox and Addington), Mr. Peterson (Newmarket—Aurora), Mr. Fragiskatos (London North Centre), Mr. Alghabra (Mississauga Centre), Mr. Holland (Ajax), Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), Mr. Badawey (Niagara Centre), Mr. Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche), Mr. Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge), Mr. Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard), Ms. Khera (Brampton West), Mr. Spengemann (Mississauga—Lakeshore), Mr. Sheehan (Sault Ste. Marie) and Mr. Miller (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs) — February 25, 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
Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page