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. 149 Monday, January 30, 2023 11:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Notices of Recommendations |
| An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Employment Insurance Board of Appeal) |
| Recommendation |
| (Pursuant to Standing Order 79(2)) |
| Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Employment Insurance Board of Appeal)”. |
| Royal recommendation — notice given Thursday, January 26, 2023, by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. |
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| January 26, 2023 — Mrs. Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women)”. |
|
|
| January 26, 2023 — Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-11492 — January 26, 2023 — Mr. Muys (Flamborough—Glanbrook) — With regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister on November 30, 2022, that 93.5 percent of Canadians have access to reliable high-speed Internet services: what percentage of Canadians living in the Hamilton metropolitan census area have access to at least 50 Mbps download speed as of December 2022? |
| Q-11502 — January 26, 2023 — Mr. Muys (Flamborough—Glanbrook) — With regard to the Statistics Canada release entitled “Access to the Internet in Canada, 2020” which stated that only 76 percent of respondents living in a census metropolitan area, and only 48 percent of respondents not living in a census metropolitan area, had an advertised speed of 50 Mbps or more: what percentage of Canadians living (i) inside, (ii) outside, of a census metropolitan area have access to at least 50 Mbps download speed as of December 2022? |
| Q-11512 — January 26, 2023 — Mr. Muys (Flamborough—Glanbrook) — With regard to funding from the Universal Broadband Fund or other sources known to the department: how much funding has been allocated to projects that improved broadband living for the residents of Hamilton living within West Flamborough? |
| Q-11522 — January 26, 2023 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to Canadian sourced income and the definition of "permanent establishment": (a) why is working from home in Canada while logging into US-based companies' internet servers interpreted or considered as Canadian-sourced income by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (b) is the CRA considering a commuter's home as a US company's permanent establishment or as the commuter's permanent establishment; (c) since the commuter's home is not US company property by any measurement, why does the CRA consider the commuter’s home as a US company’s permanent establishment or as the commuter’s permanent establishment of work and in turn how does neither case imply that the commuter and his home are therefore a small business entity generating Canadian-sourced income with deductible expenses; (d) if a commuter's home is considered a commuter's permanent establishment and the commuter is not employed by a Canadian company but provides services to a foreign company, why is the commuter not considered its own small business entity for Canadian tax purposes and not qualified for small business tax deductions; (e) if the commuter’s home is considered as a permanent establishment, why are commuter business expenses such as utilities, travel, rent, vehicle used and registration, etc. not allowed to be deducted as business expenses from their Canadian-sourced income; and (f) if a commuter’s home is considered a permanent establishment, why is going to another office from the commuter's home permanent establishment not considered as a business travel expense? |
| Q-11532 — January 26, 2023 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to the double taxation of Canadian commuters working from home a few days per week for US-based companies and the impact on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) foreign tax credit of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes deducted in the US and the US 401(k) contributions via the CRA form RC268; (a) must employment be 100 percent exercised in the US per year in order to claim 100 percent of the FICA tax deductions as a foreign tax credit in Canada; (b) if the employment is partially exercised in the US while FICA taxes are deducted based on full employment income by US-based employer regardless of where employment is exercised, would only the percentage of FICA tax deductions equivalent to the percentage of days of employment is exercised in the US be eligible to claim as a foreign tax credit rather that the full actual FICA tax deduction amount; (c) if the answer in (b) is affirmative, why is it not possible for commuters to deduct (on a Canadian tax return via the foreign tax credit) the full FICA tax amount paid in the US based on full employment income even when working from home in Canada; (d) for the 401(k) US pension plan, if employment is only being partially exercised in the US while 401(k) contributions are being made 100 percent throughout the year regardless of where the employment is exercised, would only a percentage of the 401(k) contributions that matches the percentage of days that employment is being exercised in the US be eligible to claim on CRA form RC268; (e) if the answer in (d) is affirmative, is the combination of the lack of a tax deduction credit for the 401(k) portion not eligible to claim on RC268 and the income tax payable during retirement upon 401(k) funds withdrawal considered as double taxation, and, if not, why not; (f) is there a minimum percentage of time that employment must be "exercised" in the US so that Canadian commuters can claim 100 percent of their full year 401(k) contributions on form RC268; (g) if the requirement in (f) is 100 percent or if the answer in (a) is affirmative, could the Department of Finance Canada and the CRA clarify or work to have the convention modified to establish and allow a minimum requirement (a percentage of days of exercising employment in the US vs. total work days) with regard to being allowed to claim 100 percent of FICA taxes and 100 percent of 401(k) contributions; (h) why is the third qualifying bullet on form RC268 not allowed a deduction on the full-year 401(k) contributions (regardless of where employment is exercised); (i) would partially working from home in Canada disqualify Canadian commuters from claiming (i) 100 percent of their 401(k) contributions on Form RC268, (ii) a certain percentage of the full-year 401(k) contributions with respect to the percentage of employment exercised in Canada; (j) how does the government of Canada, along with the CRA, abide by Article XXIV-ii, - (Elimination of Double Taxation), if (i) FICA taxes are not fully deductible in Canada through a foreign tax credit, (ii) the 401(k) contributions are disqualified or partially disqualified from being claimed on Form RC268 due to the form's third qualifying bullet? |
| Q-11542 — January 26, 2023 — Mrs. Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou) — With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the Governor General’s trips within Canada in 2022, broken down by department and trip: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of all other costs related to the trips? |
| Q-11552 — January 26, 2023 — Mrs. Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou) — With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the Governor General’s trips outside Canada since July 26, 2021, broken down by department and trip: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of all other costs related to the trips? |
| Q-11562 — January 26, 2023 — Mrs. Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou) — With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the royal family’s visits to Canada since July 26, 2021, broken down by department and visit: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of expenditures incurred for the Prime Minister, the Governor General and their accompanying persons, (ix) amount of all other costs related to the trips? |
| Q-11572 — January 26, 2023 — Mr. Viersen (Peace River—Westlock) — With regard to the Weather Modification Information Act, broken down by year since 1985, or as far back as records permit: (a) how many times has the government’s administrator been informed of weather modification activities; (b) what are the details of each instance in (a), including, for each, (i) the date and time when and the place where the activity was to be carried out, (ii) who carried out the activity, (iii) the purpose of the activity, (iv) the equipment, materials and methods used, (v) geographic area affected; and (c) how many instances is the government aware of where an individual violated the act, and for each instance, what was the result (warning, fine, etc.)? |
| Q-11582 — January 26, 2023 — Mr. Viersen (Peace River—Westlock) — With regard to the government’s response to the freedom convoy protests, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what was the total number of employees or full-time equivalents who were assigned to report, monitor, advise or gather information for their department about the convoy and protestors; (b) was the information collected shared with any banks or other financial institutions, and, if so, which ones; (c) did any non-governmental entities receive this information, and, if so, which ones; and (d) what were the estimated costs associated with the work described in (a)? |
| Q-11592 — January 26, 2023 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — With regard to the Canadian Army’s fleet of Leopard II tanks: (a) how many are currently (i) combat capable, (ii) not combat capable, broken down by class of vehicle and by variant; (b) for the tanks in (a)(ii) which are not currently combat capable, when does the government expect them to return to service or to become combat capable; (c) how many are required for training operations, broken down by class of vehicle and by variant; (d) what were the total expenditures on maintenance of Canada’s Leopard II tanks since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; (e) what is the expected retirement date of Canada’s Leopard II tanks; (f) has the Department of National Defence initiated any consultations or plans to replace Canada’s Leopard II tanks and retain the Canadian Army’s heavy armour capability, and, if so, what are the details, including when the consultations began and what consultations have begun; and (g) has the government initiated discussions with the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the possible transfer of Leopard II tanks to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and, if so, when were the discussions initiated? |
| Q-11602 — January 26, 2023 — Ms. Gazan (Winnipeg Centre) — With regard to the development of a comprehensive violence prevention strategy announced in the Fall Economic Statement 2020: (a) how much of the $724.1 million announced has been spent; and (b) broken down by province and territory, how many shelters (i) have been newly opened, (ii) are currently in construction, (iii) are planned, but the construction has not begun? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
Private Members' Business |
| M-62 — October 26, 2022 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Zuberi (Pierrefonds—Dollard), seconded by Ms. Bendayan (Outremont), — That, given the motion adopted unanimously by the House on February 22, 2021, recognizing that a genocide is currently being carried out by the People's Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, in the opinion of the House, the government should: |
| (a) recognize that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims that have fled to third countries face pressure and intimidation by the Chinese state to return to China, where they face the serious risk of mass arbitrary detention, mass arbitrary separation of children from their parents, forced sterilization, forced labour, torture and other atrocities; |
| (b) recognize that many of these third countries face continued diplomatic and economic pressure from the People's Republic of China to detain and deport Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims leaving them without a safe haven in the world; |
| (c) urgently leverage Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program to expedite the entry of 10,000 Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in need of protection, over two years starting in 2024 into Canada; and |
| (d) table in the House, within 120 sitting days following the adoption of this motion, a report on how the refugee resettlement plan will be implemented. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mr. Viersen (Peace River—Westlock) — September 16, 2022 |
| Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — October 4, 2022 |
| Mr. Baker (Etobicoke Centre) — October 15, 2022 |
| Mr. Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York) — October 17, 2022 |
| Mrs. Zahid (Scarborough Centre) — October 20, 2022 |
| Mr. Garneau (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount), Ms. Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean), Mr. Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills), Mr. Bergeron (Montarville), Ms. McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona), Mrs. Atwin (Fredericton), Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East), Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean), Mr. Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan) and Mr. Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning) — October 24, 2022 |
| Mr. Carr (Winnipeg South Centre) and Mr. O'Toole (Durham) — October 25, 2022 |
| Mr. Virani (Parkdale—High Park), Ms. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek) and Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — October 26, 2022 |
| Debate — one 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 |
|