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. 381 Tuesday, December 3, 2024 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-32382 — December 2, 2024 — Mrs. Kusie (Calgary Midnapore) — With regard to board of directors' meetings at the Canada Infrastructure Bank in which a declaration, conflict, potential perception of conflict, abstention or recusal was noted in the meeting minutes from April 30 to December 1, 2024: what are the details of each instance noted in the meeting minutes, broken down by director, including (i) the decision in question, (ii) the amount of funding tied to the decision, (iii) the name of the entity receiving funding related to the decision, (iv) the name of the board member for whom a declaration, conflict, potential perception of conflict, abstention or recusal was noted, (v) the reason for which the declaration, conflict, potential perception of conflict, abstention or recusal was divulged by the board member, (vi) whether the board member held a private interest in the decision? |
| Q-32392 — December 2, 2024 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to government information on proton beam therapy (PBT) for cancer patients: (a) what are the (i) dosimetric, (ii) clinical, advantages of PBT over traditional radiation for cancer patients; (b) what are the advantages of PBT for children, teenagers, and young adults with cancer, including (i) for areas that may compromise pituitary, intellectual, auditory or visual functions, (ii) for areas where normal tissue tolerances may be exceeded with traditional radiation; (c) which specific G7 and G20 countries have a (i) functional PBT facility; (ii) PBT facility under construction; (d) how many PBT facilities are available worldwide, and what are the details, including (i) how many such facilities are currently under construction globally, (ii) how many such facilities are available in the United States; (e) which specific countries and regions have PBT facilities; (f) according to Canadian guidelines, which specific cancers would benefit from PBT; (g) broken down by province and territory, how many Canadian patients are eligible for medically necessary PBT annually abroad because treatment is not available in Canada; (h) which specific provinces and territories have structured out-of-country PBT referral programs because treatment is not available in Canada, and which provinces and territories do not have such programs; (i) broken down by province and territory, what is the eligibility criteria for out-of-country PBT referrals; (j) broken down by province and territory, what is the out-of-country PBT referral process; (k) broken down by province and territory, what (i) populations, (ii) cancers, are eligible for PBT referrals; (l) broken down by province and territory, which referrals for PBT prioritize curative treatment; (m) broken down by province and territory, what subset of patients are prioritized for PBT, broken down by those with (i) pediatric, (ii) adult, cancers; (n) which provinces or territories exclude the use of PBT for (i) metastatic disease, (ii) reradiation, (iii) second line treatments; (o) is it possible that a patient from one province could be approved for PBT, but a similar patient who resides in a different province could be denied the same therapy; (p) broken down by province and territory, how many Canadian patients travel annually for medically necessary PBT because treatment is not available in Canada; (q) broken down by province and territory, what percentage of (i) pediatric patients, (ii) adult patients, eligible for PBT receive treatment outside of Canada; (r) broken down by province and territory, what specific secondary treatment-related costs of PBT are covered; (s) what challenges do Canadian patients who are forced to travel for medically necessary PBT outside of Canada face, including, but not limited to, (i) delays in review and approval by provincial and territorial insurance, (ii) lack of funding for travel, hotels, or meals, (iii) lack of a Canadian passport, (iv) illness after cancer surgery preventing someone from leaving the country, (v) inability to take time away from work due to financial hardship; (t) what are the potential impacts of being forced to travel for PBT on a patient’s (i) mental health, (ii) support system, (iii) family function, (iv) employment, (v) children’s schooling; (u) how would the availability of a large, public, Canadian PBT facility impact (i) services for Canadians, (ii) survival rates for adults and children with cancer, (iii) rates and severity of acute radiation toxicity and long-term radiation side effects after radiation therapy; (v) if a PBT facility were built, what would be the expected percentage of cost reduction (i) for cancer patients within the facility’s province, (ii) for cancer patients in Canada outside of the facility’s province, compared to international travel costs; (w) what, if any, patient data is (i) collected, (ii) reported, on the use of PBT across clinical indications and socioeconomic groups; and (x) how would a large, public, Canadian PBT facility impact (i) research, (ii) scientific collaboration? |
| Q-32402 — December 2, 2024 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport, from the 1960s to the 1980s: (a) what, if any, oversight, did Sport Canada (SC) undertake of each national sport organization's (NSO) mandated PED (i) policies, (ii) plans, (iii) testing in 1984; (b) were there minimum standards that each NSO had to meet for (a)(i) through (a)(iii), and, if so, what were they; (c) what, if any, accountability measures were put in place to ensure NSOs were compliant with Canada’s 1983 anti-doping policy; (d) what, if any, oversight did SC undertake (i) to protect an athlete’s right to a fair hearing before any anti-doping authority, (ii) to provide an athlete with proper representation during any anti-doping hearing, (iii) to ensure access to any scientific evidence and analysis used in any allegation against an athlete; (e) does SC acknowledge that, due to the rapidly changing anti-doping regime of the 1980s, (i) record keeping was inconsistent, (ii) athlete samples were not maintained; (f) what, if any, efforts did SC undertake to protect athletes’ identities during the Dubin Inquiry; (g) what, if any, efforts did SC undertake to protect the physical and mental health of athletes, of all abilities, during the Dubin Inquiry; (h) what, if any, efforts did SC undertake to protect athletes from racism during the Dubin Inquiry; (i) what, if any, efforts did SC undertake to protect athletes’ (i) athletic status, (ii) employment, during the Dubin Inquiry; (j) what, if any, efforts did SC undertake to protect athletes from being ostracized in (i) sport, (ii) Canada, (iii) the world, as a result of testifying at the Dubin Inquiry; (k) does SC acknowledge that it and the Canadian sport system shifted blame for their collective failure to protect athletes onto the athletes themselves through their search for “dirty athletes”; (l) does SC acknowledge that the failure to address PEDs in the 1960s and 1970s allowed PEDs to spread throughout Canadian (i) high-performance, (ii) university and college, (iii) high school, sports; (m) does SC acknowledge that the failure to address PEDs in the 1960s and 1970s allowed unethical sport leaders, coaches, doctors and pharmacists to experiment on athletes in the 1970s and 1980s with (i) veterinary products, (ii) injectable and oral steroids, (iii) human growth hormone, with unknown short-term and long-term health impacts; (n) does SC acknowledge that there are power imbalances in sport, and if so, that victims of doping were often (i) young, (ii) racialized, (iii) groomed, (iv) experimented on; (o) does SC acknowledge their failure to (i) act for 14 years, after the Food and Drugs Act was amended in 1969 to include steroids as a controlled substance, (ii) act in the 1960s when the problems caused by PEDs were widely known across multiple sports, (iii) provide oversight to NSOs that were black boxes, (iv) ask questions of sports coaches, trainers, doctors, (v) listen to anecdotal evidence, especially in light of dramatic improvements of athlete’s musculature and performance, (vi) collect evidence until 1984, (vii) deliver a consistent message about PEDs to the sport community and their harms to athletes, (viii) protect athletes from experimentation and unethical practices, (ix) question the fact that officials, coaches and athletes knew the problem but no official from SC publicly took a stand against the cover-up; (p) does SC acknowledge that mixed-messaging about winning at any cost in-part led to the PEDs problem (e.g. messaging that recommended following Charlie Francis’s innovative methods, despite the rumours of steroid use); (q) does SC acknowledge that mixed-messaging reflected a deeper ethos that winning mattered above everything else, and as a result, sport leaders, coaches, doctors and officials were willing to look the other way when it came to athlete harm; (r) if SC recognizes that the Dubin Inquiry was “an important first step” to addressing the health impacts and maltreatment of athletes, what, if any, efforts did SC take to (i) identify, (ii) monitor the health of, (iii) provide treatment to, all victims of doping in the 1970s and 1980s; (s) does SC know the extent of how many athletes were experimented on with PEDs in the 1970s and 1980s, and what, if any, efforts have the department taken to identify victims; and (t) if SC now accepts that athletes were maltreated, why has it failed to undertake an anonymous investigation into the morbidity and mortality of those who were carded athletes and took PEDs in the 1970s and 1980s? |
| Q-32412 — December 2, 2024 — Mr. Kram (Regina—Wascana) — With regard the Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the requirement to submit a project plan to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and be issued an initial project evaluation for each qualified CCUS project: (a) how many project plans have been submitted to NRCan to date regarding the CCUS ITC qualification process; (b) how many initial project evaluations have been issued by NRCan regarding CCUS projects; (c) for each project plan submitted to date, how long did the process take between the submission of the project plan and the issuance of the evaluation; (d) for each plan which has been submitted that has yet to receive an evaluation from NRCan, on what dates were the plans received by NRCan; (e) of project plans which have (i) received an evaluation, (ii) not yet received an evaluation, how many required additional information or revision beyond what was included in the original submission; (f) how many project plans have been rejected or otherwise denied an initial project evaluation; and (g) what is the projected dollar value of the ITCs claimable against projects which have already received an initial evaluation? |
| Q-32422 — December 2, 2024 — Mr. Baldinelli (Niagara Falls) — With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) transferring refugees to Niagara Falls, Ontario, between January 1, 2024 and December 1, 2024: (a) how many have been transferred to Niagara Falls in total; (b) what is the monthly breakdown of the number of refugees transferred to Niagara Falls; (c) which hotels is the government using to lodge refugees in Niagara Falls; (d) how many hotel rooms are currently being occupied by refugees in Niagara Falls; (e) what is the capacity of each hotel room that is being occupied by refugees in Niagara Falls; (f) how many refugees are staying in each hotel room in Niagara Falls; (g) what is the average length of time IRCC expects (i) an individual refugee, (ii) a refugee family, to be lodged in a Niagara Falls hotel room; (h) for all refugees being lodged in government funded Niagara Falls hotel rooms, without identifying names or other personal information, how many days has each refugee stayed; (i) what is the average cost per night that IRCC pays per refugee staying in a Niagara Falls hotel room; (j) for the night of December 1, 2024, what was the total cost IRCC paid hoteliers to house refugees located in Niagara Falls; (k) what is the average cost that IRCC pays per refugee who lives in a Niagara Falls hotel room for daily meals and refreshments; (I) for the month of November 2024, what was the total cost IRCC paid hoteliers to feed refugees located in Niagara Falls; (m) what are the countries of origin for refugees who have been accommodated in Niagara Falls; (n) what is the breakdown of refugees transferred to or accommodated in Niagara Falls by each country of origin; (o) how much funding was transferred by the federal government to the municipality of Niagara Falls to deal with the influx of refugees in the city; (p) how much funding has been transferred by the federal government to the Region of Niagara to deal with the influx of refugees in the region; (q) how much funding was transferred by the federal government to local not-for-profit, charitable, and nongovernmental organizations in Niagara Falls to deal with the influx of refugees in the city; (r) what are the names of the specific not-for-profit, charitable, and non-governmental organizations who have received federal government funding; (s) what is the breakdown of funding for each organization to date; (t) how many more refugees does IRCC currently plan to transfer to or accommodate in Niagara Falls; (u) how many refugees have moved out of government funded hotel rooms in Niagara Falls and into personal accommodations; (v) when does the federal government plan to stop paying for refugee hotel rooms in Niagara Falls; and (w) what are the terms and conditions of the financial agreement that IRCC has with each hotelier located in Niagara Falls that houses refugees and receives federal monies to provide this service? |
| Q-32432 — December 2, 2024 — Mr. Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner) — With regard Canada's foreign aid, delivered through either Global Affairs Canada, the International Development Research Centre, or any source of direct aid, since 2016 and broken down by year: how much foreign aid went to, or was dedicated towards, the Palestinian people or Palestinian authority (i) directly, (ii) through the United Nations or the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees? |
| Q-32442 — December 2, 2024 — Mr. Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner) — With regard to the government's foreign policy: what is the current official position of Canada relating to the Palestinian efforts to become a full member state of the United Nations? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Supplementary Estimates (B) |
| UNOPPOSED VOTES |
| November 22, 2024 — The President of the Treasury Board — That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, be concurred in. |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
Private Members' Business |
| C-405 — June 14, 2024 — Mr. Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics of Bill C-405, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Canada Act. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mr. Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound) — June 18, 2024 |
| Mr. Viersen (Peace River—Westlock) — June 25, 2024 |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|