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. 350 Monday, October 7, 2024 11:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
| October 4, 2024 — Mr. Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) — That the 20th report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Wednesday, June 19, 2024, be concurred in. |
Questions |
|
| Q-30402 — October 4, 2024 — Mr. Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) — With regard to the government’s $700 million loan to Air Transat announced in 2021: (a) what is the loan repayment schedule for the (i) principal owed, (ii) interest owed; (b) did the government exercise the right to purchase 13 million shares, and, if so, (i) on what date were they purchased, (ii) what was the cost per share; and (c) what have been the results of the annual job monitoring done on Air Transat for each year since the loan was issued, overall and for each job requirement that was a part of the condition of the government loan? |
| Q-30412 — October 4, 2024 — Mr. Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) — With regard to government dealings with Telesat, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all loans, grants, or other financial contributions that the government has provided to Telesat, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) type of contribution (loan, non-repayable grant, etc.), (iv) repayment terms, if applicable, (v) amount repaid to date, (vi) purpose, (vii) total houses connected to broadband resulting from the contribution; (b) what are the details of all contracts the government has with Telesat, or its subsidiaries, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) manner in which contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid); (c) for each contract in (b) involving consulting services, what was the topic consulted on and what is the summary of any reports or recommendations provided to the government as part of the consulting contract; and (d) did any of the financial contributions in (a) include executive compensation restrictions and if so, which contributions and what were the restrictions? |
| Q-30422 — October 4, 2024 — Mr. Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes) — With regard to all types of standby pay for Government of Canada employees since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) what is the total cost of standby pay, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity; (b) how many employees had annual standby payments over $5,000 in each given year, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity; and (c) what was the single highest annual standby payment for an individual employee in each given year, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity? |
| Q-30432 — October 4, 2024 — Mr. Chambers (Simcoe North) — With regard to transcriptions or transcripts procured by the government since January 1, 2023, and broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the (i) date of the proceeding or event, (ii) location of the proceeding or event, (iii) description or summary of the proceeding or event, (iv) main participants speaking at the proceeding or event, (v) subject matter of the proceeding or event, for each transcription prepared in this period; (b) what was the cost of each transcription in (a); (c) who requested each transcription in (a) be prepared; and (d) what was the total amount spent on transcriptions or transcripts, broken down by year? |
| Q-30442 — October 4, 2024 — Mr. Leslie (Portage—Lisgar) — With regard to the Firearms Buyback Program: what are the details of all contracts related to the program entered into by the government, including any relevant government entity, such as the RCMP, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of the goods or services, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid)? |
| Q-30452 — October 4, 2024 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in international sport and in Canada up to 1990: (a) what specific actions did Sport Canada (SC) take to combat the use of PEDs after (i) the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) establishment of the Medical Commission in 1967, (ii) the Council of Europe’s resolution on drug abuse in sport in 1967, (iii) testing for stimulants and narcotics at the 1968 Grenoble Olympic Games and Mexico City Olympic Games, (iv) the first large-scale drug testing at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, (v) the International Association of Athletics Federations’ (IAAF) and IOC Medical Commission’s ban on the use of anabolic steroids in 1974, (vi) a positive test by a Canadian at the 1975 Pan American Games in Mexico City, (vii) the Sport Medicine Council of Canada’s establishment in 1978, (viii) two disqualifications of Canadians at the 1983 Pan American Games in Caracas, (ix) the acceptance of the European Anti-Doping Charter of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Sports Ministers in 1984; (b) what specific actions did SC take to combat the use of PEDs after anti-doping legislation was enacted in (i) Belgium and France (1965), (ii) Ireland (1966), (iii) Italy and Turkey (1971), (iv) Greece (1976), (v) Portugal (1979); (c) in what year did Canada introduce an anti-doping policy; (d) why were only 15% of specimens at the 1976 Montreal Olympics tested for anabolic steroids; (e) in what year were PEDs first identified in any Canadian sport, including (i) the specific sports, (ii) all drugs reported to be used at that time; (f) what actions have been taken by SC on PEDs from its first action through to 1990, and on what date was each action taken; (g) what specific actions did SC take to address steroid use in sport after the editor of Track and Field News called anabolic steroids the “breakfast of champions” in 1969; (h) what specific action did SC take in 1976 to prevent the use of PEDs at the Montreal Olympics and Toronto Paralympics; (i) what specific actions did SC take to address steroid use in sport after the first edition of The Underground Steroid Handbook appeared in 1981, and what action, if any, did SC take to address the use of human growth hormone in sport, which was included in the handbook, before randomized, double-blind, controlled trials were published; (j) what specific actions did SC take to address steroid use in sport after the Sport Medicine Council of Canada surveyed 1,500 athletes, coaches, and medical and para-medical practitioners about doping in 1982 and found that “fewer than five percent of athletes” stated they used or had previously used PEDs; (k) what specific actions did SC take to address steroid use in sport after the publication of “The Practical Use of Anabolic Steroids with Athletes” in 1982; (l) in what year did testing for PEDs begin at the Canada Summer Games, how did SC decide what sports to test, what specific sports were tested at each Games since testing began until 1990, and what PEDs were tested for at each Games since testing began until 1990; (m) in what year did testing for PEDs begin at the Canada Winter Games, how did SC decide which sports to test, what specific sports were tested at each Games since testing began until 1990, and what PEDs were tested for at each Games since testing began until 1990; (n) in what year did the Canadian Olympic Committee first act to address PEDs, what specific actions did it take, and, for each action, on what date was it taken; (o) in what year did the Canadian Paralympic Committee first act to address PEDs, what specific actions did it take, and, for each action, on what date was it taken; (p) in what year did each national sport organization in Canada (i) begin testing for PEDs at competitions, (ii) begin announced testing for PEDs between competitions, (iii) begin unannounced testing for PEDs between competitions; (q) in five-year increments from 1970 to 1990, how many athletes were found to have used PEDs in Canada, broken down by sport, and what specific PEDs were being used, broken down by sport; (r) in five-year increments from 1970 to 1990, and for each identified PED, was the drug approved for veterinary use in Canada, what clinical trials did the drug pass for use in humans, was the drug approved for human use in Canada, for what specific medical use was the drug approved in Canada, what specific medical dosages were approved in Canada, was off-label use of the drug approved in Canada, what side-effects, if any, did the drug have, and what long-term impacts, if any, might the drug have had; (s) what are the details of all Olympic and Paralympic team physicians from 1968 to 1988, including, for each, (i) the dates they served, (ii) who, if anybody, raised concerns about PED use among athletes to SC and the date of the report to SC; (t) what investigation, if any, has SC undertaken to look at health impacts of anabolic steroids when (i) doses used were much higher than the recommended doses, (ii) there was simultaneous use of oral and injectable steroids, (iii) they were possibly used with human growth hormone; (u) what investigation, if any, has SC undertaken to look at morbidity and mortality of athletes who used PEDs during the 1970s and 1980s; (v) in five-year increments from 1970 to 1990, if an athlete was sanctioned in any way for use of a PED, what investigation, if any, was undertaken of any (i) coaches, (ii) medical personnel, (iii) other members of an athlete’s team, and what are the details of the investigation process; (w) in five-year increments from 1970 to 1990, how many athletes, broken down by sport, were sanctioned for any kind of drug infraction, and, for each identified infraction, were any (i) coaches, (ii) medical personnel, (iii) other members of an athlete’s team, sanctioned; and (x) in five-year increments from 1970 to 1990, how many (i) coaches, (ii) medical personnel, (iii) other members of an athlete’s team, were sanctioned? |
| Q-30462 — October 4, 2024 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to the use of drugs and banned practices intended to increase athletic performance: does Sport Canada acknowledge that, prior to the Commission of Inquiry into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance, (i) drug use in sport extends back to the 19th century, (ii) coaches, doctors, scientists, trainers, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) failed to address the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) for decades, (iii) anabolic steroid use in sport extends back to at least the 1950s, (iv) coaches, doctors, scientists, and the IOC failed to address the use of anabolic steroids for over a decade, (v) athletes acquired knowledge about PEDs through the sport system, (vi) some coaches, doctors, pharmacists, and sports federations were complicit in athlete steroid use, (vii) power imbalances existed in sport between authority figures (e.g., coach, doctor, trainer) and athletes, (viii) deference to authority and obedience existed in sport, (ix) in some cases, authority figures controlled workouts, diet, sleep, and those with whom an athlete could associate, (x) athletes who were approached by authority figures in sport to try steroids were often racialized and young, (xi) authority figures in sport did not approach parents and ask for their permission to give their child PEDs, (xii) athletes could be bullied, lied to, or persuaded to follow a steroid plan or risk losing their place in a club or on a team, (xiii) authority figures in sport sometimes persuaded an athlete to use steroids by saying everyone else was using in competition, steroid use was levelling the playing field, steroid use was the only way to win, and the side-effects of steroid use were minimal, (xiv) in some cases, authority figures in sport were experimenting on athletes with a veterinary product, injectable and oral steroids, human growth hormone, with a combination of the previous two, with unknown short-term health impacts and unknown long-term health impacts, (xv) authority figures experimented on athletes who were often racialized and young, (xvi) authority figures instructed athletes to stay silent about PED use, (xvii) authority figures instructed athletes to deny use of PEDs if they tested positive, (xviii) before the internet and cell phones, athletes lacked the knowledge and means on their own to access anabolic steroids, determine what doses and combinations to use, determine the doping regimen, and taper in order to test negative before a competition, (xix) before the internet and cell phones, male athletes lacked the knowledge and means on their own to urinate to empty their bladders of tainted urine and then insert needles into their bladders with clean urine so that they could test negative for steroid use, (xx) before the internet and cell phones, female athletes lacked the knowledge and means on their own to create a fake bladder, fill it with clean urine, and insert it inside themselves so that they could test negative for steroid use, (xxi) in some cases, authority figures instructed and groomed younger athletes to inject senior athletes with steroids between the toes, (xxii) athletes became part of a sport culture or club that normalized illegal drug abuse, (xxiii) a “pact of ignorance” and “conspiracy of silence” surrounded drug use among sport organizations? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motions |
| October 4, 2024 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — That, given that, |
| (i) the Auditor General found that Liberal-appointed directors at the Prime Minister's green slush fund, SDTC, gave their own companies nearly $400 million in at least 186 cases of conflict of interest, |
| (ii) the Prime Minister spent $60 million on the ArriveCAN app, that was supposed to cost $80,000, and this is now under RCMP investigation, |
| (iii) the Prime Minister, Liberal Cabinet ministers, the now Speaker of the House, and Liberal members of Parliament have been found guilty of breaking ethics laws ten times, and, at the same time, |
| (iv) after nine years of this Prime Minister, as Liberal insiders are lining their pockets, millions of Canadians are lining up at food banks, one in four Canadians are living in poverty, food bank use is at record highs, housing costs have doubled, tent cities have emerged across the country, with 1,400 in Ontario alone, |
| the House has no confidence in the Prime Minister and the government. |
| Notice also received from: |
| Ms. Lantsman (Thornhill), Mr. Uppal (Edmonton Mill Woods), Mr. Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles), Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle), Ms. Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock), Mr. Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry), Mr. Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake), Mr. Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable) and Mr. Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie) — October 4, 2024 |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|