|
|
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is a document that guides the deliberations of the Senate and lists items of business currently before it. These items are listed in several different categories and in a priority according to an arrangement adopted by the Senate as stipulated in the rules. The majority of these items constitute the Orders of the Day which are called following the daily Routine of Business. These items are themselves divided into two principal categories – government business and other business. Within each of these two categories are items for bills, motions, inquiries and reports of committees.
The Notice Paper contains the text of motions and inquiries not yet called for debate.
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is prepared every day in advance of the actual sitting.
(The following is an outline of a typical sitting day in the Senate. Variations are possible subject to the Rules and to the decisions of the Senate.)
1. Tabling of Documents
2. Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
3. Government Notices of Motions
4. Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
5. Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
6. First Reading of Commons Public Bills
7. Reading of Petitions for Private Bills
8. Introduction and First Reading of Private Bills
9. Tabling of Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations
10. Notices of Motions
11. Notices of Inquiries
12. Presentation of Petitions
Bills
Inquiries
Motions
Reports of Committees
Senate Public Bills
Commons Public Bills
Private Bills
Reports of Committees
Other
November 19, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gerstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eaton, for the second reading of Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.
November 18, 2009—Second reading of Bill S-8, An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
May 5, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Greene, for the second reading of Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans).
June 9, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator LeBreton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, for the second reading of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate term limits);
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Atkins, that the original question be now put.
April 1, 2009—Second reading of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act.
October 22, 2009—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Comeau calling the attention of the Senate to Canada's Economic Action Plan — A Third Report to Canadians, tabled in the House of Commons on September 28, 2009, by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Honourable John Baird, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on September 29, 2009.
Nil
Nil
Rule 27(3) states:
Unless previously ordered, any item under "Other Business'', "Inquiries'' and "Motions'' that has not been proceeded with during fifteen sittings shall be dropped from the Order Paper.
Consequently, the number appearing in parenthesis indicates the number of sittings since the item was last proceeded with.
October 8, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, for the second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act (credit and debit cards).—(Speaker's ruling)
May 14, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, for the second reading of Bill S-235, An Act to provide the means to rationalize the governance of Canadian businesses during the period of national emergency resulting from the global financial crisis that is undermining Canada's economic stability.—(Honourable Senator Comeau)
September 16, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dallaire, for the second reading of Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (retroactivity of retirement and survivor's pensions).—(Honourable Senator Callbeck)
January 29, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion by the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Atkins, for the second reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (repeal of fixed election dates). —(Honourable Senator Comeau)
November 4, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Day, for the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Conflict of Interest Act (gifts).—(Honourable Senator Day)
March 10, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-214, An Act to regulate securities and to provide for a single securities commission for Canada.—(Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C.)
March 3, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing of money).—(Honourable Senator Comeau)
October 27, 2009—Second reading of Bill S-243, An Act to establish and maintain a national registry of medical devices. —(Honourable Senator Harb)
October 27, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallin, for the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, for the second reading of Bill S-240, An Act respecting a national day of service to honour the courage and sacrifice of Canadians in the face of terrorism, particularly the events of September 11, 2001. —(Honourable Senator Grafstein)
May 28, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, for the second reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses). —(Honourable Senator Gerstein)
February 3, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Spivak, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallace, for the second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (establishment and protection of Gatineau Park).—(Honourable Senator Nolin)
June 16, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, for the second reading of Bill S-233, An Act to amend the State Immunity Act and the Criminal Code (deterring terrorism by providing a civil right of action against perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism).—(Honourable Senator Tardif)
October 8, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, for the second reading of Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Canadian Payments Act (debit card payment systems). —(Honourable Senator Comeau)
April 2, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Goldstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lovelace Nicholas, for the second reading of Bill S-231, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act (human rights violations).—(Honourable Senator Comeau)
June 4, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-238, An Act to establish gender parity on the board of directors of certain corporations, financial institutions and parent Crown corporations.—(Honourable Senator Comeau)
March 31, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, for the second reading of Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act (credit rating agency). —(Honourable Senator Greene)
October 6, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-237, An Act for the advancement of the aboriginal languages of Canada and to recognize and respect aboriginal language rights. —(Honourable Senator Comeau)
February 10, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lovelace Nicholas, for the second reading of Bill S-213, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (carbon offset tax credit). —(Honourable Senator Di Nino)
February 3, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, for the second reading of Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Library and Archives of Canada Act (National Portrait Gallery).—(Honourable Senator Tkachuk)
March 31, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Segal, seconded by the Honourable Senator Brown, for the second reading of Bill S-225, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (oath of citizenship).—(Honourable Senator Comeau)
March 24, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, for the second reading of Bill S-218, An Act to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. —(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
March 11, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCoy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallace, for the second reading of Bill S-206, An Act respecting the office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
April 1, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Atkins, for the second reading of Bill S-222, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act (bulk water removal).—(subject matter referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources on June 17, 2009)
October 22, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Neufeld, for the second reading of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).—(Honourable Senator Cools)
Nil
October 27, 2009—Resuming debate on the consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, entitled: The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, tabled in the Senate on June 11, 2009.—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
May 12, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion by the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Brown, for the adoption of the second report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (amendments to the Rules of the Senate—reinstatement of bills from the previous session of the same Parliament), presented in the Senate on March 11, 2009.—(Honourable Senator Wallace)
October 7, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion by the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, for the adoption of the third report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (amendments to the Rules of the Senate—questions of privilege), presented in the Senate on May 12, 2009.—(Honourable Senator Smith, P.C.)
June 4, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Eaton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gerstein:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology undertake a study examining the promotion of Canadian identity, integration and cohesion with a working title of Who We Are: Canadian Identity in the 21st Century. —(Honourable Senator Cools)
April 28, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Segal, seconded by the Honourable Senator Brown:
That the Senate embrace the need to consult widely with Canadians to democratize the process of determining the composition and future of the Upper Chamber by urging the Government to:
(a) invite all provincial and territorial governments in writing to assist immediately in the selection of Senators for appointment by democratic means, whether by holding elections to fill Senate vacancies that might occur in their province or territory or through some other means chosen by them;
(b) institute a separate and specific national referendum on the future of the Senate, affording voters the chance to choose abolition, status quo, or an elected Upper Chamber; and
(c) pursue the above initiatives independently of any legislation that it may introduce in this Parliament for reforming the existing term and method of appointment of Senators;
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallin, that the original question be now put.—(Honourable Senator Tardif)
March 31, 2009—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cowan calling the attention of the Senate to the critical importance of scientific research to the future of Canada and to the well-being of Canadians.—(Honourable Senator Day)
March 11, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Segal, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the implementation of a guaranteed annual income system, including the negative income tax model, as a qualitative improvement in income security, with a view to reducing the number of Canadians now living under the poverty line;
That the Committee consider the best possible design of a negative income tax;
That the Committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2009; and
That the Committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 90 days after the tabling of the final report. —(Honourable Senator Comeau)
March 11, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks:
That the Senate endorse the following Resolution, adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at its 17th Annual Session, held at Astana, Kazakhstan, from June 29 to July 3, 2008:
RESOLUTION ON WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE OSCE AREA
1. Reiterating the fundamental importance of the environmental aspects of the OSCE concept of security,
2. Recognizing the link between natural resource problems and disputes or conflicts within and between states,
3. Noting the opportunities presented by resource management initiatives that address common environmental problems, including local ownership and sub-regional programmes and co-operation amongst governments, and which promote peace-building processes,
4. Recalling the OSCE's role in encouraging sustainable environmental policies that promote peace and stability, specifically the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1990 Concluding Document of the CSCE Conference on Economic Co- operation in Europe (Bonn Document), the 1999 Charter for European Security adopted at the Istanbul Summit, the 2003 OSCE Strategy Document for the Economic and Environmental Dimension (Maastricht Strategy), other OSCE relevant documents and decisions regarding environmental issues, and the outcome of all previous Economic and Environmental Fora, which have established a basis for the OSCE's work in the area of environment and security,
5. Recognizing that water is of vital importance to human life and that it is an element of the human right to life and dignity,
6. Noting the severity of water management issues and the scarcity of water resources faced by many states in the OSCE region, affected in particular by unregulated social and economic activities, including urban development, industry, and agriculture,
7. Concerned by the impact of poor water management systems on human health, the environment, the sustainability of biodiversity and aquatic and land-based eco-systems, affecting political and socio-economic development,
8. Concerned by the more than 100 million people in the pan-European region who continue to lack access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation,
9. Concerned by those areas and people in the North American region of the OSCE space without access to safe drinking water and sanitation,
10. Concerned by the potential for water management issues to escalate if options to address and reverse the problem are not duly considered and implemented,
11. Recognizing the importance of good environmental governance and responsible water management for the governments of participating States,
12. Applauding the work of the Preparatory Seminar for the Tenth OSCE Economic Forum which took place in 2001 in Belgrade and which focused on water resource management and the promotion of regional environmental co-operation in South-Eastern Europe,
13. Applauding the work of the 15th OSCE Economic and Environmental Forum and its preparatory meetings, "Key challenges to ensure environmental security and sustainable development in the OSCE area: Water Management,'' held in Zaragoza, Spain,
14. Applauding the OSCE's Madrid Declaration on Environment and Security adopted at the 2007 Ministerial Council which draws attention to water management as an environmental risk which may have a substantial impact on security in the OSCE region and which might be more effectively addressed within the framework of multilateral co-operation,
15. Expressing support for the efforts made to date by several participating States of the OSCE to deal with the problem, including the workshop on water management organized by the OSCE Centre in Almaty in May 2007 for experts from Central Asia and the Caucasus,
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
16. Calls on the OSCE participating States to undertake sound water management to support sustainable environmental policies;
17. Recommends that the OSCE participating States pursue and apply the measures necessary to implement the 2007 Madrid Declaration on Environment and Security;
18. Recommends that such water management and oversight activities include national, regional and local co- operative initiatives that share best practices and provide support and assistance amongst each other;
19. Recommends that the OSCE participating States adopt the multiple barrier approach to drinking water protection, with particular attention to water tables, in their national, regional and local regulations to ensure that people living throughout the OSCE space have access to safe drinking water;
20. Recommends that the OSCE participating States consider developing more effective national, sub-national and local results-based, action-oriented and differentiated approaches to sound water management policies;
21. Encourages the OSCE participating States to continue their work with other regional and international institutions and organizations with respect to water management solutions, providing for the establishment of supranational arbitral commissions with decision-making powers delegated by the States;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that the words "That the Senate endorse'' at the beginning of the motion be replaced by the words "That the Senate take note of''.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
November 3, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:
That,
(a) Canada supports the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
(b) Canada condemns the use of violence and force by Iranian authorities against their own people to suppress pro- democracy demonstrations following the Iranian presidential elections of June 12, 2009;
(c) Canada condemns the use of torture by Iranian authorities;
(d) Canada calls for the immediate release of all political prisoners held in Iran;
(e) Canada calls on Iran to fully respect all of its human rights obligations, both in law and in practice;
(f) Canada condemns Iran's complete disregard for legally binding UN Security Council Resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, and 1803 and International Atomic Energy Agency requirements;
(g) Canada affirms its opposition to nuclear proliferation and condemns any pursuit by Iran of nuclear weapons capability;
(h) Canada recommends to international organizations of which it is a member that a new set of targeted sanctions be implemented against Iran, in concert with allies, unless Iran comes into compliance with its human rights and nuclear obligations in law and in practice.—(Honourable Senator Di Nino)
October 20, 2009—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Milne calling the attention of the Senate to recent developments concerning the Canadian industrial hemp industry.—(Honourable Senator Raine)
March 26, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C.:
That the Senate endorse the following Declaration, adopted by the Conference on Combating Antisemitism, held at London, United Kingdom, from February 15 to 17, 2009:
THE LONDON DECLARATION ON COMBATING ANTISEMITISM
Preamble
We, Representatives of our respective Parliaments from across the world, convening in London for the founding Conference and Summit of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, draw the democratic world's attention to the resurgence of antisemitism as a potent force in politics, international affairs and society.
We note the dramatic increase in recorded antisemitic hate crimes and attacks targeting Jewish persons and property, and Jewish religious, educational and communal institutions.
We are alarmed at the resurrection of the old language of prejudice and its modern manifestations — in rhetoric and political action — against Jews, Jewish belief and practice and the State of Israel.
We are alarmed by Government-backed antisemitism in general, and state-backed genocidal antisemitism, in particular.
We, as Parliamentarians, affirm our commitment to a comprehensive programme of action to meet this challenge.
We call upon national governments, parliaments, international institutions, political and civic leaders, NGOs, and civil society to affirm democratic and human values, build societies based on respect and citizenship and combat any manifestations of antisemitism and discrimination.
We today in London resolve that;
Challenging Antisemitism
1. Parliamentarians shall expose, challenge, and isolate political actors who engage in hate against Jews and target the State of Israel as a Jewish collectivity;
2. Parliamentarians should speak out against antisemitism and discrimination directed against any minority, and guard against equivocation, hesitation and justification in the face of expressions of hatred;
3. Governments must challenge any foreign leader, politician or public figure who denies, denigrates or trivialises the Holocaust and must encourage civil society to be vigilant to this phenomenon and to openly condemn it;
4. Parliamentarians should campaign for their Government to uphold international commitments on combating antisemitism — including the OSCE Berlin Declaration and its eight main principles;
5. The UN should reaffirm its call for every member state to commit itself to the principles laid out in the Holocaust Remembrance initiative including specific and targeted policies to eradicate Holocaust denial and trivialisation;
6. Governments and the UN should resolve that never again will the institutions of the international community and the dialogue of nation states be abused to try to establish any legitimacy for antisemitism, including the singling out of Israel for discriminatory treatment in the international arena, and we will never witness — or be party to — another gathering like Durban in 2001;
7. The OSCE should encourage its member states to fulfil their commitments under the 2004 Berlin Declaration and to fully utilise programmes to combat antisemitism including the Law Enforcement programme LEOP;
8. The European Union, inter-state institutions and multilateral fora and religious communities must make a concerted effort to combat antisemitism and lead their member states to adopt proven and best practice methods of countering antisemitism;
9. Leaders of all religious faiths should be called upon to use all the means possible to combat antisemitism and all types of discriminatory hostilities among believers and society at large;
10. The EU Council of Ministers should convene a session on combating antisemitism relying on the outcomes of the London Conference on Combating Antisemitism and using the London Declaration as a basis.
Prohibitions
11. Governments should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the broadcast of explicitly antisemitic programmes on satellite television channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take action to prevent the transmission of explicitly antisemitic programmes;
12. Governments should fully reaffirm and actively uphold the Genocide Convention, recognising that where there is incitement to genocide signatories automatically have an obligation to act. This may include sanctions against countries involved in or threatening to commit genocide or referral of the matter to the UN Security Council or initiate an inter-state complaint at the International Court of Justice;
13. Parliamentarians should legislate effective Hate Crime legislation recognising "hate aggravated crimes'' and, where consistent with local legal standards, "incitement to hatred'' offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;
14. Governments that are signatories to the Hate Speech Protocol of the Council of Europe `Convention on Cybercrime' (and the `Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems') should enact domestic enabling legislation;
Identifying the threat
15. Parliamentarians should return to their legislature, Parliament or Assembly and establish inquiry scrutiny panels that are tasked with determining the existing nature and state of antisemitism in their countries and developing recommendations for government and civil society action;
16. Parliamentarians should engage with their governments in order to measure the effectiveness of existing policies and mechanisms in place and to recommend proven and best practice methods of countering antisemitism;
17. Governments should ensure they have publicly accessible incident reporting systems, and that statistics collected on antisemitism should be the subject of regular review and action by government and state prosecutors and that an adequate legislative framework is in place to tackle hate crime.
18. Governments must expand the use of the EUMC `working definition' of antisemitism to inform policy of national and international organisations and as a basis for training material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies;
19. Police services should record allegations of hate crimes and incidents — including antisemitism — as routine part of reporting crimes;
20. The OSCE should work with member states to seek consistent data collection systems for antisemitism and hate crime.
Education, awareness and training
21. Governments should train Police, prosecutors and judges comprehensively. The training is essential if perpetrators of antisemitic hate crime are to be successfully apprehended, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. The OSCE's Law enforcement Programme LEOP is a model initiative consisting of an international cadre of expert police officers training police in several countries;
22. Governments should develop teaching materials on the subjects of the Holocaust, racism, antisemitism and discrimination which are incorporated into the national school curriculum. All teaching materials ought to be based on values of comprehensiveness, inclusiveness, acceptance and respect and should be designed to assist students to recognise and counter antisemitism and all forms of hate speech;
23. The OSCE should encourage their member states to fulfill their commitments under the 2004 Berlin Declaration and to fully utilise programmes to combat antisemitism including the Law Enforcement programme LEOP;
24. Governments should include a comprehensive training programme across the Criminal Justice System using programmes such as the LEOP programme;
25. Education Authorities should ensure that freedom of speech is upheld within the law and to protect students and staff from illegal antisemitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts;
Community Support
26. The Criminal Justice System should publicly notify local communities when antisemitic hate crimes are prosecuted by the courts to build community confidence in reporting and pursuing convictions through the Criminal Justice system;
27. Parliamentarians should engage with civil society institutions and leading NGOs to create partnerships that bring about change locally, domestically and globally, and support efforts that encourage Holocaust education, inter-religious dialogue and cultural exchange;
Media and the Internet
28. Governments should acknowledge the challenge and opportunity of the growing new forms of communication;
29. Media Regulatory Bodies should utilise the EUMC `Working Definition of antisemitism' to inform media standards;
30. Governments should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the broadcast of antisemitic programmes on satellite television channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take action to prevent the transmission of antisemitic programmes;
31. The OSCE should seek ways to coordinate the response of member states to combat the use of the internet to promote incitement to hatred;
32. Law enforcement authorities should use domestic "hate crime'', "incitement to hatred'' and other legislation as well as other means to mitigate and, where permissible, to prosecute "Hate on the Internet'' where racist and antisemitic content is hosted, published and written;
33. An international task force of Internet specialists comprised of parliamentarians and experts should be established to create common metrics to measure antisemitism and other manifestations of hate online and to develop policy recommendations and practical instruments for Governments and international frameworks to tackle these problems.
Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism
34. Participants will endeavour to maintain contact with fellow delegates through working group framework; communicating successes or requesting further support where required;
35. Delegates should reconvene for the next ICCA Conference in Canada in 2010, become an active member of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition and promote and prioritise the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that the words "That the Senate endorse'' at the beginning of the motion be replaced by the words "That the Senate take note of''.—(Honourable Senator Grafstein)
November 17, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:
That the Senate endorse the following Resolution, adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at its 18th Annual Session, held at Vilnius, Lithuania, from June 29 to July 3, 2009:
RESOLUTION ON ANTI-SEMITISM
1. Reaffirming the commitments made by the participating States at previous OSCE conferences in Vienna (2003), Berlin (2004), Brussels (2004) and Cordoba (2005) regarding legal, political and educational efforts to fight anti- Semitism,
2. Reaffirming, in particular, especially the 2002 Porto Ministerial Decision condemning "anti-Semitic incidents in the OSCE area, recognising the role that the existence of anti-Semitism has played throughout history as a major threat to freedom'',
3. Recalling the 2005 OSCE PA Washington Declaration, the 2006 OSCE PA Brussels Declaration, the 2007 OSCE PA Kyiv Declaration and the 2008 OSCE PA Astana Declaration, and the resolutions adopted on combating anti-Semitism,
4. Saluting the commitment and activities of past and present Personal Representatives to the Chairman-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism,
5. Welcoming the efforts of the parliaments of participating States to combat anti-Semitism as highlighted in the Follow-Up Report to the Astana Declaration,
6. Hailing the work of the Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, held in London, United Kingdom, from 15 to 17 February 2009,
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
7. Remains greatly concerned at the increase in xenophobia and other forms of intolerance directed towards vulnerable groups during the economic crisis, including an increase in anti-Semitism characterised by claims that Jews were responsible for the economic crisis;
8. Endorses the declaration of the London Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, and reaffirms in particular:
a. concern for the dramatic increase in recorded anti-Semitic hate crimes and attacks targeting Jewish persons and property, and Jewish religious, educational and communal institutions and the incidents of government- backed anti-Semitism in general, and state-backed genocidal anti-Semitism, in particular;
b. the role parliamentarians, governments, the United Nations and regional organisations should play in combating anti-Semitism in all its forms, including denial of the Holocaust, and in reaffirming the principles of tolerance and mutual respect;
c. its call upon national governments, parliaments, international institutions, political and civic leaders, NGOs and civil society to affirm democratic and human values, build societies based on respect and citizenship and combat any manifestations of anti-Semitism and discrimination;
d. that the participating States of the OSCE must fulfil their commitments under the 2004 Berlin Declaration and fully utilise programmes to combat anti-Semitism including the Law Enforcement programme;
e. that appropriate and necessary action should be taken by governments to develop strategies to address television broadcasts and other uses of the media and Internet that promote anti-Semitism, while ensuring that such strategies and any related legislation fully respect the freedoms of expression, assembly and association, and are not used to repress peaceful activities of civil society, of political or religious groups, or of individuals;
f. that, with the support of the OSCE, measures must be adopted to assess the effectiveness of existing policies and mechanisms in countering anti-Semitism, including the establishment of publicly accessible incident reporting systems, and the collection of statistics on anti-Semitism;
g. the importance of education, awareness and training throughout the judicial and school systems in countering anti-Semitism;
h. the importance of engagement with civil society institutions and leading NGOs to create partnerships that bring about change locally, domestically and globally, and support efforts that encourage Holocaust education, inter-religious dialogue and cultural exchange;
i. that the OSCE should seek ways to co-ordinate the response of participating States to combat the use of the Internet to promote incitement to hatred; and,
j. the establishment of an international task force of Internet specialists comprised of parliamentarians and experts in order to create common metrics to measure anti-Semitism and other manifestations of hate online and to develop policy recommendations and practical instruments for governments and international frameworks to tackle these problems;
9. Applauds the extensive work of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to combat manifestations of anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance, including: the publication of an Annual Hate Crimes Report that monitors manifestations of anti-Semitism; development of Holocaust Remembrance and Hate Crimes Legislation guidelines and other educational materials to combat anti-Semitism; and training of government and civil society members to monitor, report on and prevent manifestations of anti- Semitism.—(Honourable Senator Grafstein)
November 17, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson:
That the Senate endorse the following Resolution, adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at its 18th Annual Session, held at Vilnius, Lithuania, from June 29 to July 3, 2009:
RESOLUTION ON WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE OSCE AREA
1. Reaffirming the OSCE's comprehensive approach to security that includes the politico-military, economic, environmental and human dimensions,
2. Recalling the OSCE's role in encouraging sustainable environmental policies that promote peace and stability, specifically the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1990 Concluding Document of the CSCE Conference on Economic Co-operation in Europe (Bonn Document), the 1999 Charter for European Security adopted at the Istanbul Summit, the 2003 OSCE Strategy Document for the Economic and Environmental Dimension (Maastricht Strategy), other OSCE relevant documents and decisions regarding environmental issues, and the outcome of all previous Economic and Environmental Fora, which have established a basis for the OSCE's work in the area of environment and security,
3. Recognising that water is of vital importance to human life and that it is an element of the human right to life and dignity,
4. Alarmed by the fact that almost one billion people in the world lack access to safe drinking water, and that two out of every five people live without basic sanitation services, contributing to more than 2 million deaths every year,
5. Recalling that the United Nations Millennium Development Goal 7 (Ensure Environmental Sustainability), Target 3, calls on the nations of the world to work towards halving, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation,
6. Noting the ongoing severity of water management issues and the scarcity of water resources faced by many States in the OSCE region, affected in particular by unregulated social and economic activities, including urban development, industry, and agriculture, and which continue to have an impact on human health, the environment, the sustainability of biodiversity and aquatic and land-based eco-systems, and affect political and socio-economic development,
7. Concerned at the ongoing situation whereby certain areas and people in the pan-European and North American region of the OSCE area lack access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation,
8. Recalling the OSCE's Madrid Declaration on Environment and Security adopted at the 2007 Ministerial Council, which draws attention to water management as an environmental risk which may have a substantial impact on security in the OSCE region and which might be more effectively addressed within the framework of multilateral co-operation,
9. Hailing the work of the OSCE Economic and Environmental Forum in raising awareness of water management issues and promoting regional co-operation throughout the OSCE area, including in South-Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia,
10. Hailing the achievements of the OSCE project on "South Caucasus River Monitoring'', which concluded in February 2009 after six years during which it introduced new parameters for water quality monitoring, harmonised sampling and testing methodologies, trained local staff and established data sharing systems accessible to all partners via the Internet in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia,
11. Recalling the OSCE PA's 2008 Astana Declaration and the resolution it adopted on water management,
12. Hailing the follow-up report on the 2008 Astana Declaration which highlighted initiatives undertaken by Belarus, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America to improve water management practices,
13. Hailing the numerous national and international reports and scientific studies on water management that generate knowledge and inform sound policy development,
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
14. Calls on participating States to address the question of sustainable access to clean water and sanitation globally, in particular given that sustainable access to clean water and sanitation are effective deterrents to infectious diseases;
15. Calls on participating States to undertake sound water management to support sustainable environmental policies and to apply the measures necessary to implement the 2007 Madrid Declaration on Environment and Security;
16. Expresses support for the ongoing work and commitment of the Office of the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities in raising awareness of water management challenges and promoting opportunities for participating States to exchange best practices, including its projects in Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan;
17. Encourages the decision-making bodies of the OSCE to continue to set a direction on water management challenges and support the activities of the Office of the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities and OSCE field presences that raise awareness of water management challenges in the OSCE area and identify environmentally sustainable solutions;
18. Expresses support for the Environment and Security Initiative, which brings together the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environmental Programme, the OSCE, NATO, the United Nations Economic Commission in Europe, and the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, to assess environmental challenges, including those relating to water resource management, and to implement projects that raise awareness of these challenges, build capacities and strengthen institutions in order to address them;
19. Encourages OSCE participating States to continue their work with other regional and international institutions and organisations with respect to water management solutions;
20. Supports the establishment of regional and cross-border co-operative activities between scientists and specialists who work to share technologies and best practices, develop country-specific water strategies and expertise, mitigate shared water challenges, foster international co-operation and defuse cross-border tensions.—(Honourable Senator Grafstein)
March 11, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C.:
That the Senate endorse the following Resolution, adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at its 17th Annual Session, held at Astana, Kazakhstan, from June 29 to July 3, 2008:
RESOLUTION ON COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM, ESPECIALLY ITS MANIFESTATIONS IN THE MEDIA AND IN ACADEMIA
1. Recalling the Parliamentary Assembly's leadership in increasing the focus and attention of the participating States since the 2002 Annual Session in Berlin on issues related to manifestations of anti-Semitism,
2. Reaffirming especially the 2002 Porto Ministerial Decision condemning "anti-Semitic incidents in the OSCE area, recognizing the role that the existence of anti-Semitism has played throughout history as a major threat to freedom'',
3. Referring to the commitments made by the participating States in the previous OSCE conferences in Vienna (2003), Berlin (2004), Brussels (2004) and Cordoba (2005) regarding legal, political and educational efforts to fight anti-Semitism,
4. Welcoming all efforts of the parliaments of the OSCE participating States on combating anti-Semitism, especially the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry on anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom,
5. Noting with satisfaction all initiatives of the civil society organizations which are active in the field of combating anti-Semitism,
6. Acknowledging that incidents of anti-Semitism occur throughout the OSCE region and are not unique to any one country, which necessitates unwavering steadfastness by all participating States to erase this black mark on human history,
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
7. Appreciates the ongoing work undertaken by the OSCE and ODIHR through its Programme on Tolerance and Non-discrimination and supports the continued organisation of expert meetings on anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance aimed at enhancing the implementation of relevant OSCE commitments;
8. Appreciates the initiative by Mr John Mann MP (United Kingdom) to create a world-wide Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism and encourages the parliaments of the OSCE participating States to support this initiative;
9. Urges participating States to present written reports on their activities to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination at the 2009 Annual Session;
10. Reminds participating States to improve methods of monitoring and to report anti-Semitic incidents and other hate crimes to the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) in a timely manner;
11. Recognizes the importance of the ODIHR tools in improving the effectiveness of States' response to anti- Semitism, such as teaching materials on anti-Semitism, the OSCE/ODIHR Law Enforcement Officers Programme (LEOP), which helps police forces within participating States better to identify and combat incitement to anti-Semitism and other hate crimes, and civil society capacity-building to combat anti-Semitism and hate crimes, including through the development of networks and coalitions with Muslim, Roma, African descendent and other communities combating intolerance; and recommends that other States make use of these tools;
12. Expresses appreciation of the commitment by 10 countries — Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine — in co-developing with ODIHR and the Anne Frank House teaching materials on the history of Jews and anti-Semitism in Europe, and encourages all other OSCE participating States to adopt these teaching materials in their respective national languages and put them into practice;
13. Encourages participating States to adopt the guide for educators entitled Addressing Anti-Semitism — WHY and HOW, developed by ODIHR in co-operation with Yad Vashem, in their respective national languages and put them into practice;
14. Urges governments to create and employ curricula that go beyond Holocaust education in dealing with Jewish life, history and culture;
15. Condemns continued incidents of anti-Semitic stereotypes appearing in the media, including news reports, news commentaries, as well as published commentaries by readers;
16. Condemns the use of double standards in media coverage of Israel and its role in the Middle East conflict;
17. Calls upon the media to have discussions on the impact of language and imagery on Judaism, anti-Zionism and Israel and its consequences on the interaction between communities in the OSCE participating States;
18. Deplores the continued dissemination of anti-Semitic content via the Internet, including through websites, blogs and email;
19. Urges participating States to increase their efforts to counter the spread of anti-Semitic content, including its dissemination through the Internet, within the framework of their respective national legislation;
20. Urges editors to refrain from publishing anti-Semitic material and to develop a self-regulated code of ethics for dealing with anti-Semitism in media;
21. Calls upon participating States to prevent the distribution of television programmes and other media which promote anti-Semitic views and incite anti-Semitic crimes, including, but not limited to, satellite broadcasting;
22. Reminds participating States of measures to combat the dissemination of racist and anti-Semitic material via the Internet suggested at the 2004 OSCE Meeting on the Relationship between Racist, Xenophobic and Anti-Semitic Propaganda on the Internet and Hate Crimes, that include calls to:
- pursue complementary parallel strategies,
- train investigators and prosecutors on how to address bias-motivated crimes on the Internet,
- support the establishment of programmes to educate children about bias-motivated expression they may encounter on the Internet,
- promote industry codes of conduct,
- gather data on the full extent of the distribution of anti-Semitic hate messages on the Internet;
23. Deplores the continued intellectualization of anti-Semitism in academic spheres, particularly through publications and public events at universities;
24. Suggests the preparation of standards and guidelines on academic responsibility to ensure the protection of Jewish and other minority students from harassment, discrimination and abuse in the academic environment;
25. Urges all participants of the upcoming Durban Review Conference in Geneva to make sure that pressing issues of racism around the world will be properly assessed and that the conference will not be misused as a platform for promoting anti-Semitism;
26. Suggests that the delegations of the OSCE participating States hold a meeting on the eve of the Durban Review Conference to discuss and evaluate the Durban Review process;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that the words "That the Senate endorse'' at the beginning of the motion be replaced by the words "That the Senate take note of''.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
March 11, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Baker, P.C.:
That the Senate endorse the following Resolution, adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at its 17th Annual Session, held at Astana, Kazakhstan, from June 29 to July 3, 2008:
RESOLUTION ON A MEDITERRANEAN FREE TRADE AREA
1. Reiterating the fundamental importance of the economic and environmental aspects of the OSCE concept of security,
2. Recognizing that without economic growth there can be no peace or stability,
3. Recalling the importance that the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly accords to the development of international trade, as underlined by the Assembly's fifth economic conference on the theme of Strengthening Stability and Co- operation through International Trade, which was held in Andorra, in May 2007,
4. Maintaining that creating a free trade area will, inter alia, contribute significantly to the efforts to achieve peace,
5. Recalling that the European Union itself was made possible by the establishment of free-trade areas, first the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and then the European Economic Community in 1957,
6. Recalling the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, in which OSCE participating States expressed their intention "to encourage with the non-participating Mediterranean States the development of mutually beneficial co-operation in the various fields of economic activity'' and to "contribute to a diversified development of the economies of the non-participating Mediterranean countries'',
7. Recalling the Helsinki Final Act, in which OSCE participating States recognized "the importance of bilateral and multilateral intergovernmental and other agreements for the long-term development of trade'' and undertook "to reduce or progressively eliminate all kinds of obstacles to the development of trade'',
8. Celebrating the decision made at the OSCE Summit in Budapest in 1994 to create a Contact Group with Mediterranean Partners for Cooperation,
9. Expressing support for the Barcelona Declaration of 1995 regarding the establishment of a free trade area between the members of the European Union and all Mediterranean states by 2010,
10. Saluting the American Middle East Free Trade Area Initiative (MEFTA) launched in 2003,
11. Concerned by the slow pace of economic development in the Middle East, especially in the agriculture sector and the knowledge-based economy, where two-thirds of the population is under the age of 35,
12. Considering the obstacles to economic growth posed by agricultural trade and tariff barriers, as discussed at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Rhodes in 2004,
13. Considering the lack of direct foreign investment in Middle Eastern Arab countries and the concentration of such investment in a small number of these countries,
14. Noting that despite the efforts made in the Middle East to stimulate free trade, economic growth in Mediterranean countries is markedly stronger in the Israel-Europe-North America axis than among countries in the region, and
15. Encouraged by the increased literacy rate and the increased participation of women in the domestic economies of countries in the Mediterranean basin,
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
16. Recommends the creation of a Mediterranean Economic Commission whose objective would be to quickly reduce trade barriers and facilitate the transition to a knowledge-based economy in countries in the region;
17. Recommends the creation of a Mediterranean Agricultural Marketing Board whose objective would be to create jobs in the agriculture sector for young people in the region;
18. Invites OSCE participating countries and partner states for co-operation to intensify their efforts under the Barcelona Process and to more fully benefit from the MEFTA Initiative in order to expedite the establishment of a free-trade area among all Mediterranean countries;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that the words "That the Senate endorse'' at the beginning of the motion be replaced by the words "That the Senate take note of''.—(Honourable Senator Cools)
February 3, 2009—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Segal calling the attention of the Senate to the government of Iran's imminent nuclear war capacity and its preparations for war in the Middle East, and to the commitment of Canada and its allies, including the USA, Russia, Turkey, the Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others, to diplomatic and strategic initiatives that exclude first-use nuclear attack, the ability of Canada to engage with its allies in order to understand, measure and contain this threat, and the capacity of Canada to support allied efforts to prevent a thermonuclear exchange in the Middle East.—(Honourable Senator Tardif)
June 18, 2009—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Spivak calling the attention of the Senate to Canadians' support for new direction in food production. —(Honourable Senator Banks)
June 16, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kenny, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore:
That the Rules of the Senate be amended:
(1) In rule 86(1)(r), by deleting the words ", including veterans affairs''; and
(2) By adding, after rule 86(1)(t), the following:
"(u) The Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, composed of twelve members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which may be referred, as the Senate may decide, bills, messages, petitions, inquiries, papers and other matters relating to veterans affairs generally.''—(Honourable Senator Day)
June 16, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Ringuette:
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the state of the pension system in Canada in view of evidence that approximately five million Canadians may not have enough savings for retirement purposes;
In particular, the Committee shall be authorized to examine:
(a) Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement;
(b) Canada Pension Plan/Quebec Pension Plan;
(c) Private Savings — includes employer-sponsored pension plans, Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs), and other investments and savings;
That the study be national in scope, and include proposed solutions, with an emphasis on collaborative strategies involving federal and provincial governments; and
That the committee submit its final report no later than November 30, 2009, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.—(Honourable Senator Di Nino)
April 21, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk:
That the Senate refer to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament the issue of developing a systematic process for the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it applies to the Senate of Canada.—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
February 4, 2009—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Hubley calling the attention of the Senate to the Treaty on Cluster Munitions.—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
June 9, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Grafstein:
That,
Whereas works of art and historical objects, including silver baskets offered as wedding gifts to the Duke of York (who later became King George V), as well as a porcelain set decorated with war scenes by the Canadian Maritime artist Alice Hagen, kept at the Governor General's residence at Rideau Hall but shelved during the last few years, have recently been sold online through the Department of Public Works;
Whereas there does not seem to be any adequate policy regarding the status and management of works of art and historic objects previously at Rideau Hall;
Whereas there is an urgent need to prevent the scattering of other such items without any regard to their historical character or the protection of Canadian heritage,
It is moved that this chamber:
deplore that decorative items related to Canada's history, and in the past to Rideau Hall, were sold publicly without any regard to their special importance to Canadian heritage;
express its surprise that no heritage management policy at Rideau Hall prevents such scatterings;
demand that the contents of rooms reserved for official functions at Rideau Hall be subsequently managed by an authority at arm's length from the building's occupants in order to preserve their historical character;
that the National Capital Commission carefully manage the art and artifacts previously in use at Rideau Hall; and
that surplus moveable art or decorative works of art be offered first to the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Library and Archives Canada or Canadian museums recognized for their role and mandate in preserving and promoting our country's historical heritage. —(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
February 3, 2009—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Banks, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:
That Rule 28(3.1) of the Rules of the Senate be amended as follows:
That after the words "tables a document proposing a user fee,'' the words "or the increase or extension of a user fee,'' be added; and
That after the words "designated in the Senate for the purpose by the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate'', the words ", provided that the respective committee has been properly constituted under the authority of the Senate, and'' be added. —(Honourable Senator Day)
September 30, 2009—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck calling the attention of the Senate to the inability of Canadians in rural and remote regions to receive timely access to emergency passport services. —(Honourable Senator Tardif)
November 18, 2009—That he will call the attention of the Senate to the seriousness of the problem posed by contraband tobacco in Canada, including the grave ramifications of the illegal sale of these products to young people, the detrimental effects on legitimate small businesses and the threat on the livelihoods of hardworking convenience store owners, and the ability of law enforcement agencies to combat those who are responsible for this illegal trade throughout Canada.
October 20, 2009—That in the opinion of the Senate, as the various waterways known as the "Northwest Passage'' are historic internal waters of Canada, the government should endeavour to refer to these waterways as the "Canadian Northwest Passage''.
October 29, 2009—That, for the remainder of this session, select committees shall only meet within their approved meeting times as determined by the Government and Opposition Whips unless:
(a) both whips agree to a variation from this schedule,
(b) there is an order of the Senate authorizing the committee to meet at a different time, or
(c) during the course of a meeting all committee members present agree to an extension of the meeting beyond the end of the approved meeting time.
January 26, 2009—With respect to possible tax evasion:
In 2006, German authorities received information about secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein which were opened by German citizens in order to avoid paying taxes owed to the German state. Since 2006, many Germans have admitted to tax evasion and the government has recovered millions in unpaid taxes.
German authorities also advised the Government of Canada of the names of Canadians with bank accounts in Liechtenstein.
A. Could the Government of Canada provide the following information:
i. How many Canadians have been identified as having undeclared bank accounts in Liechtenstein?
ii. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein have availed of the voluntary disclosure program with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)?
iii. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein have settled with the CRA?
iv. Based on the information about Liechtenstein bank accounts, how many Canadian account holders have been charged with tax evasion?
v. How much money, including unpaid taxes, fines, etc., has the CRA recovered as a result of investigating these secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein?
B. Could the Government of Canada summarize what action, if any, has been taken by Canadian officials to recover unpaid taxes associated with Canadians' undeclared bank accounts in Liechtenstein?
January 26, 2009—With respect to capital requirements for segregated fund products (also known as variable annuities):
Ms. Julie Dickson, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada (OSFI) recently decided to change the amount of funds required for capital models of segregated fund products also known as variable annuities.
It has been reported in the media (Globe and Mail, December 6, 2008) that the President and Chief Executive Officer of Manulife Financial, Mr. Dominic D'Alessandro:
"...was lobbying Ms. Dickson to revise regulatory guidelines on capital and she was persuaded by his argument. On Oct. 28, OSFI announced that it was changing the rules to give insurers a break on the amount of capital they had to set aside for payments that were more than five years away.''
It has also been reported in the media (National Post, January 6, 2009) that Manulife Financial's United States subsidiary John Hancock Financial: "...is draining capital from the parent company because of heavy exposures to volatile financial markets...''
The policy change appears to have been made to benefit insurance companies rather than the Canadian public. Canadians are concerned that as a result of this policy decision, they are now assuming greater financial risk.
A. Could the Government of Canada explain why it decided to change the required amount of capital insurance companies must hold in order to make future payments?
B. Could the Government of Canada explain what additional investment risks are assumed by Canadian investors as a result of this policy change?
C. Could the Government of Canada indicate whether it has requested as quid pro quo that senior management of insurance companies reduce the compensation and bonuses they receive until capital requirements are restored to previous levels?
January 26, 2009—With respect to the new Veterans Charter:
In 2005, as part of the new Veterans Charter, Veterans Affairs Canada began granting a tax-free, lump sum Disability Award and a tax-free, lump-sum Death Benefit.
A. Could the Government of Canada provide the following information for fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008:
i. How many Disability Award or Death Benefit files have been forwarded to the Deputy Minister or Minister of Veterans Affairs' attention, and what was the nature of the problems associated with each case?
ii. How many recipients of the lump-sum Disability Award or the Death Benefit filed a complaint with the department about either benefit?
iii. After receiving a lump-sum payment, how many recipients or their dependants have requested additional funds?
B. Could the Government of Canada advise whether Veterans Affairs Canada experiences a cost-savings associated with the granting of the lump-sum Disability Award and Death Benefit, as compared to other longer-term assistance measures such as, but not limited to, the disability pension and health care benefits?
C. Could the Government of Canada advise if Veterans Affairs Canada has reviewed or evaluated the lump-sum Disability Award and Death Benefit programs? If so, what findings or conclusions have been made?
January 26, 2009—With respect to Burma:
Under the military junta, Burma has achieved one of the worst human rights records in the world. Over three decades of military dictatorship has led to widespread suppression of democratic ideals such as freedom of speech, association and assembly.
Could the Government of Canada provide the following information:
i. What measures is the Government of Canada taking to ensure Canadian corporations end all commercial ties with Burma?
ii. What measures is the Government of Canada taking to ensure that no additional commercial contracts form between Canadian companies and Burma?
iii. What domestic steps is the Government of Canada pursuing to guarantee those Canadian corporations financially benefiting from economic activity in Burma are restricted from securing any contracts from the Government of Canada?
iv. What steps is the Government of Canada taking to assure the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board does not maintain any direct or indirect holdings in companies conducting business with Burma?
v. What bilateral and multilateral efforts is the Government of Canada using to persuade Burma's military junta to relinquish power?
vi. What diplomatic action is occurring between the Government of Canada and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, China, and India to pressure Burma's military junta to end violence against the people of Burma?
vii. What methods is the Government of Canada employing to pressure Burma's military junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy party?
January 26, 2009—With respect to the North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group:
In 1997, the North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group (TWG) on Pesticides was established to serve as a focal point for addressing pesticide related issues. The TWG's primary objective is to facilitate cost effective pesticide regulation and trade among Canada, Mexico, and the United States through harmonization.
Could the Government of Canada provide the following information:
i. How many cases exist where Canadian pesticide standards have been lowered in order to harmonize regulations with the United States?
ii. How many cases exist where Canadian pesticide standards have been increased in order to harmonize regulations with the United States?
iii. How many products were affected from lowering Canadian pesticide standards in order to harmonize pesticide regulations with the United States?
iv. How many products were affected from increasing Canadian pesticide standards in order to harmonize pesticide regulations with the United States?
v. What are the standards Canadian officials use to determine whether or not to lower pesticide standards?
vi. What percentage of Canadian pesticide residue levels are stricter than American standards?
vii. What percentage of products in Canada are found to exceed legal residue limits?
January 26, 2009—With respect to government decentralization:
A. Could the Government of Canada provide information on proposals prepared since 2006 on the relocation of government departments (or parts thereof), agencies and Crown corporations from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?
B. Could the Government of Canada provide information on assessments, completed since 2006, on which government departments (or parts thereof), agencies or Crown corporations could be relocated from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?
January 28, 2009—1. In June 2005, Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed in writing that "A Conservative Government would immediately extend the Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the Veteran passed away or how long they had been receiving the benefit prior to passing away.''
(a) Since January 1, 2006, have officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board Secretariat prepared any estimates of the cost of extending the program to all surviving spouses of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the Veteran passed away or how long they had been receiving the benefit prior to passing away?
(b) If so, would you provide the costs identified in any estimates that were prepared, the time frame in which the estimates were prepared, and the assumptions that were used to calculate each estimate?
2. Have other similar estimates been prepared for an expanded program using different assumptions or eligibility rules? If so, would you provide the estimates, together with the assumptions on which they are based?
3. At a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on June 8, 2006, the Minister of Veterans Affairs used an estimate of $500 million annually to expand the Veterans Independence Program to all those (veterans, spouses and caregivers) who are currently ineligible.
(a) Was this estimate provided by officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board Secretariat? If not, who prepared it?
(b) Would you provide a copy of at least one departmental memo, briefing note or other document that contains the estimate the Minister used at the committee meeting?
Please note that I would like to receive a response within 45 days of tabling these questions.
January 28, 2009—1. What were the total net assets of the Canada Pension Plan fund at the end of the most recent fiscal year? Of the previous fiscal year? What portion of these assets was in the form of cash for each year?
2. What was the total amount of benefits paid out during the most recent fiscal year? During the previous fiscal year?
3. Would you provide the latest actuarial assessment of the Canada Pension Plan fund with respect to its capacity to meet anticipated demand for benefits?
(a) When was this assessment performed?
(b) When is the next assessment planned?
4. In the past 5 years, have officials at Canada Pension Plan, Finance Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat or Human Resources and Social Development Canada performed any assessment or estimate of the cost of making changes to the limitation on benefits paid retroactive from the date of application?
(a) If so, would you provide the resulting assessments and/or estimates?
(b) If so, would you provide any evaluation that was made about the impact of each option on the actuarial soundness of the Plan?
5. Has any assessment or estimate been made of the cost of matching the Quebec Pension Plan's policy of making retroactive payments for up to 60 months?
(a) If so, would you provide the resulting assessments and/or estimates?
(b) If so, would you provide any evaluation that was made about the impact of each option on the actuarial soundness of the Plan?
6. Has any assessment or estimate been made of the cost of removing the limit altogether, and allowing applicants to receive payment for all retroactive benefits?
(a) If so, would you provide the resulting assessments and/or estimates?
(b) If so, would you provide any evaluation that was made about the impact of each option on the actuarial soundness of the Plan?
Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling these questions.
February 12, 2009—Has the Department of Finance performed any modeling or calculations to project the anticipated transfers under the Equalization program in various economic conditions for the next three to five years?
If yes,
(a) For each of the provinces or territories, what is the projected transfer calculated for the best-case economic scenario?
(b) For each of the provinces or territories, what is the projected transfer calculated for the worst-case economic scenario?
February 24, 2009—Could the government provide all documents, briefing notes and assessments related to the development of an Action Plan that was announced in Budget Plan 2008 pertaining to the advancement of, "the equality of women across Canada through the improvement of their economic and social conditions and their participation in democratic life,'' (Budget Plan 2008, p. 118). Could the government also provide an estimate for the completion and release of this Action Plan?
Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling this question.
February 24, 2009—In regards to the Employment Equity Act could the government provide a specific estimate of:
(a) The number of federal government public service employees that are not members of a union and do not have access to a collective bargaining process?
(b) The number of federally regulated employees that are not members of a union and do not have access to a collective bargaining process?
Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling this question.
February 24, 2009—With respect to the purchase and provision of single-use bottled water bottles by the Government of Canada could the following figures be provided?
(a) What was the total federal government expenditure in fiscal year 2007-2008 on the provision of bottled water in all federal government departments or agencies?
(b) What was the total federal government expenditure on the provision of bottled water in all federal government departments or agencies for each of the past five fiscal years?
(c) For the fiscal year 2007-2008, how much did each federal government department or agency spend on the provision of bottled water?
(d) With respect to the amount requested in section (c), what percentage of the total expenditure was for government departments or agencies located in the National Capital Region?
(e) For the fiscal year 2007-2008, what was the total expenditure by the Parliament of Canada for the provision of bottled water?
Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling this question.
March 3, 2009—1. In 2007, the Office of Literacy and Essential Skills (OLES) posted a call for proposals for the funding of literacy projects. Each project was screened against three sets of mandatory criteria: the eligibility criteria of the program, priorities and merit criteria.
(a) What, in detail, were the eligibility criteria of the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program (ALLESP)?
(b) What, in detail, were the priorities in place at the time of the 2007 call for proposals?
(c) What, in detail, were the merit criteria for the 2007 call for proposal?
2. PEI Volunteers for Literacy submitted a proposal to improve family literacy in 2007. This organization had long received federal funding, but in the 2007 call for proposals, received a letter stating that its project was not eligible for funding.
(a) In what way, if any, did the PEI Volunteers for Literacy proposal not meet the eligibility criteria of the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program (ALLESP)?
(b) In what way, if any, did the PEI Volunteers for Literacy proposal not meet the priorities in place at the time of the 2007 call for proposals?
(c) In what way, if any, did the PEI Volunteers for Literacy proposal not meet the merit criteria for the 2007 call for proposal?
3. Holland College and the Institute of Adult and Community Education submitted a proposal in 2007. This organization had long received federal funding, but in the 2007 call for proposals, received a letter stating that its project was not eligible for funding.
(a) In what way, if any, did the Holland College and the Institute of Adult and Community Education proposal not meet the eligibility criteria of the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program (ALLESP)?
(b) In what way, if any, did the Holland College and the Institute of Adult and Community Education proposal not meet the priorities in place at the time of the 2007 call for proposals?
(c) In what way, if any, did the Holland College and the Institute of Adult and Community Education proposal not meet the merit criteria for the 2007 call for proposal?
4. La société éducative de l'Î.-P.-É. submitted a proposal in 2007. This organization had long received federal funding, but in the 2007 call for proposals, received a letter stating that its project was not eligible for funding.
(a) In what way, if any, did La société éducative de l'Î.-P.-É. proposal not meet the eligibility criteria of the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program (ALLESP)?
(b) In what way, if any, did La société éducative de l'Î.-P.-É. proposal not meet the priorities in place at the time of the 2007 call for proposals?
(c) In what way, if any, did La société éducative de l'Î.-P.-É. proposal not meet the merit criteria for the 2007 call for proposal?
5. With regard to the OLES' 2007 Call for Proposals,
(a) How much funding was allocated overall?
(b) How much was actually dispersed nationwide?
(c) How much funding was allocated to each province?
(d) How much was actually dispersed to each province?
(e) How many proposals were received in the OLES' 2007 Call for Proposals nationwide?
(f) How many were not recommended by the internal review committee?
6. With regard to the OLES' 2008 Call for Proposals,
(a) How much funding was allocated overall?
(b) How much was actually dispersed nationwide?
(c) How much funding was allocated to each province?
(d) How much was actually dispersed to each province?
(e) How many proposals were received nationwide?
(f) How many were not recommended by the internal review committee?
7. How much funding was allocated and dispersed in the National Literacy Secretariat's 2005 call for proposals for provincial literacy grants? In the 2004 call for proposals for provincial literacy grants?
March 12, 2009—Will the Leader of the government in the Senate please provide us with information that explains the process the government followed before announcing a cap on equalization payments to the provinces:
Specifically:
1. Will the Leader please provide us with the names of the officials in each provincial government who was contacted by the government and informed about the imposition of this cap and would she please inform us of the date of this communication?
2. Will the Leader please provide the projections from the Department of Finance that informed the unilateral decision taken by this government regarding the equalization payments?
3. Will the Leader provide the government's calculations of best and worse case economic scenarios for each province following the imposition of this cap on equalization payments?
April 2, 2009—On 24 November 2005, the former government announced a Goose Bay Diversification Fund, worth $20 million over five years, to diversify the economy and develop new enterprises at Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador.
Could the Government of Canada provide the following information:
1. What money has been spent on what projects under this fund, and what have been the results?
2. Does money remain in this fund, and if so, what are the plans for it?
3. Has the current government launched or does it plan any other specific programs or special efforts oriented to economic or other development, military or civilian, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?
4. Has the current government made a thorough assessment of the economic and development prospects at Happy Valley-Goose Bay since 2005, what were the results, and what reports are available?
5. What were the resources of Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay in 2005, in terms of military and civilian personnel, aircraft, major facilities and equipment, overall budget, and any other salient parameters; what are those resources today; and in what years and what respects did significant changes take place?
April 2, 2009—Increased air, land, and marine activity in northern areas require a suitable Search and Rescue capability within a reasonable time frame.
Could the Government of Canada provide the following information regarding Nunavut, Nunavik, Labrador, and the waters off their shores:
1. What Search and Rescue aircraft are typically available at CFB Goose Bay, what incidents at what locations have they responded to in the last five years, and what was the elapsed time in each incident from the summons to the arrival of the aircraft at the site?
2. How many times in the last five years have aircraft from Trenton, Ontario or Greenwood, Nova Scotia responded to Search and Rescue incidents in Labrador, Nunavik, or Nunavut, or in waters off their shores; what were the distress sites in each incident; and what was the elapsed time in each incident from the summons to the arrival of the aircraft at the distress site?
3. For a Cormorant helicopter, what would be the flying time from Greenwood, from Trenton, and from Goose Bay to Iqaluit?
4. What naval or other government ships are typically available for Search and Rescue in waters off Labrador, Nunavik, or Nunavut in the four different seasons of the year?
May 12, 2009—With respect to Agent Orange:
The Government of Canada has confirmed that the Department of Justice spent $2,186,414.00 from July 2005 to December 31, 2008, in legal costs fighting against Canadian veterans who have been trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange spraying at CFB Gagetown.
On September 12, 2007, the Harper Government announced a disappointing compensation package for those affected by the spraying of Agent Orange, offering payment only to those who served between 1966 and 1967. While campaigning in the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper stated:
"Our government will stand up for full compensation for persons exposed to defoliant spraying during the period from 1956 to 1984.''
In order to receive the compensation that was promised to them, and force Prime Minister Stephen Harper to honour his commitment, these deserving Canadian veterans have had to undertake a class action lawsuit against the Government of Canada.
1. Could the Government of Canada provide the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to May 1, 2009, in its fight against our Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?
2. Could the Government of Canada provide the total amount of money it has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to May 1, 2009, in its fight against our Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?
3. Could the Government of Canada provide the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to May 1, 2009, fighting against our Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?
May 26, 2009—Would the Government of Canada please provide the following information regarding its financial contribution to the 400th Anniversary of the founding of Québec City, specifically related to:
(a) the total dollar amount spent by the Government of Canada for the 400th Anniversary of Québec City.
(b) a summary of all non-monetary support provided by the Government of Canada to assist in the celebration of the 400th Anniversary of Québec.
(c) the Government wide budget for the celebration of the 400th Anniversary of Québec, and the amount actually spent.
May 27, 2009—Could the government provide the amount of funding received by the National Microbiology Laboratories located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, over the past four fiscal years with a breakdown of what funding was allocated for and also any amounts of future funding commitments.
Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling this question.
September 15, 2009—1. Further to the unanimous passage by the Senate of a motion proposed by Senator Meighen calling for the awarding of an appropriate medal for Canadians who flew with Bomber Command out of the UK during World War II, can the Minister report on what action if any the Ministers of Defence, Veterans' Affairs or the Chancellery of Honours at Rideau Hall have taken in the 14 months and 4 weeks since the motion was passed by the Senate on June 19, 2008.
2. In view of the advanced age of many of the flyers and crew who served with such great courage in the face of the highest rate of casualties of any allied theatre of war, can the Minister explain why there appears no apparent sense of urgency on the part of the appropriate departments of government?
3. In view of the difficult and danger-filled role played by Canadian, British and other allied pilots who served in Bomber Command, bringing the reality of war to the enemy military factories, shipyards and other vital military and strategic targets after enemy bombers had done the same to a wide variety of targets and populations in Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Russia, the UK, in Asia and elsewhere including merchant shipping at sea, has the government decided that essential airborne Canadian and allied contribution should be explicitly excluded from official recognition and if so, why?
4. Has the government consulted with the Labour government of the United Kingdom on this issue and if not, why not?
5. As we have, through various decisions on pensions and allowances giving due and appropriate recognition to allies of Canada who fought valiantly alongside Canadian forces in World War II, has the government given any consideration to a theatre decoration, not only for Canadians who served as pilots, air and ground crew for Canadian sorties during the time of Bomber Command, but also for those British, American and other allies who flew alongside both Canadian RCAF squadrons and as part of RAF squadrons and whose casualty and injury rate were as high on a per capita basis as those experienced by Canadian crews?
6. As the regrettable and tragic death and suffering of civilian populations adjacent to strategic targets is often cited by those who have opposed appropriate recognition for Canadian members of Bomber Command, does the present government intend to deny theatre decorations to Canadian soldiers, airmen and special forces serving or who have served in Afghanistan if regrettable civilian casualties resulted from their efforts as part of NATO in the Afghan theatre? And if so, when was that decision made and by whom? And if not, why would a double- standard apply relative to World War II vs. present combat engagements?
7. Is there an official policy position within DND, Foreign Affairs, PCO or the Chancellery of Decorations re: Bomber Command and if so, could the minutes of any meetings or copies of policy papers on the matter be tabled in the Senate?
8. Is there a general policy that excludes theatre decorations for Canadian forces personnel based on post-factum controversies despite the loyal, courageous and determined performances of members of the forces who were encouraged by their Commanders, military and democratic leaders to perform their duties with courage and determination in defence of Canada's interests — and if so could it be tabled in the Senate?
9. Could the government list other major operational theatres of World War II, Korea or UN and NATO operations since, where the decision has been made to deny surviving Canadian participants appropriate recognition?
10. Will the government of Canada undertake by Remembrance Day, 2009 to review the inertial or active decision NOT to recognize the Canadians who flew with both RAF units and RCAF squadrons of Bomber Command and have the government's present view on the matter made public?
September 17, 2009—The past year has proven to be a difficult time for Canadians stranded abroad. As we have seen from resolutions in the cases of Mr. Abousfian Abdelrazik, in the Sudan, and Ms. Suaad Hagi Mohamud, in Kenya, these occurrences have not always been met with swift action by the Government of Canada.
The Canadian government has the obligation to protect its citizens when traveling abroad from undue hardship, detention, or threats to their personal safety. Can you tell me, does the Government of Canada plan to develop a policy to curb other such occurrences?
How many Canadian citizens have been denied entrance into Canada in the past 3 years? And, if still abroad, in what countries are they stranded?
October 6, 2009—Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about the high levels of sodium contained in prepared foods, and they are looking for action and leadership from the Government of Canada.
The fact that the amount of sodium in a given food product differs between countries, and that in many cases the levels of sodium are higher in foods prepared and distributed for consumption in Canada, deserves serious consideration. Given the well-known health risks associated with high sodium intake—including the increased risk of high blood pressure which is a major risk factor for stroke, heart disease and kidney disease—this issue demands immediate attention by the federal government.
Canadians deserve action that goes beyond encouraging food companies to make voluntary changes. In Finland, legislation was introduced that set limits for sodium content and established mandatory labelling so that foods high in sodium carry a `high in salt content' warning for consumers. New York City has undertaken a campaign to lower the amount of sodium Americans eat, and has advised food industries that it will consider legislative options if they fail to make significant progress. These ambitious attempts at reducing sodium intake offer fine models for Canada.
(a) Could the Government of Canada explain why Health Canada is only pursuing voluntary measures with the food industry to reduce sodium in prepared foods instead of following Finland's example of introducing legislation that sets limits for sodium content?
(b) Could the Government of Canada indicate whether Health Canada's Working Group on Dietary Sodium Reduction is adhering to its schedule and (i) has completed the preparatory and assessment stages, (ii) developed a strategic framework and (iii) is currently working on implementation of a plan?
(c) Could the Government of Canada indicate when a national strategy for the reduction of sodium will be launched?
October 29, 2009—With Respect to the Do Not Call List:
The Government of Canada's Do Not Call List was created to reduce the number of unwanted telemarketing calls received by Canadians. Instead, many citizens have complained that since registering their telephone numbers on the Do Not Call List, they are now receiving more telephone solicitation calls than ever.
The Conservative Government is allowing anyone, including foreign telemarketers and scam artists, to purchase the Do Not Call List for $55.00 from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) website.
The Conservative Government is refusing to take any action to correct this extremely flawed system. Currently over 700 complaints have been filed, but to date only nine fines have been levied, and those companies that have been fined are refusing to pay. In February 2008, the CRTC issued a Request for Proposal to find a contractor to carry out investigations of complaints related to the Do Not Call List, but abandoned the request.
The Conservative Government does not allow the CRTC to lay criminal charges—the legislation and regulations allow the CRTC to only impose administrative monetary penalties. Further, the CRTC conducts hearings in secret without any transparency to Canadians, allowing some to believe that the companies violating the law are being protected.
Why must Canadians continue to wait for the Conservative Government to take action to correct this problem?
1. Could the Government of Canada provide the following information with regard to the Do Not Call List, as of October 29, 2009:
(a) the total number of complaints filed;
(b) the number of active investigations; and
(c) the number of notices of violations issued.
2. Could the Government of Canada explain why it does not share with Canadians the names of companies violating the Do Not Call List?
3. Could the Government of Canada explain why the CRTC's hearings on Do Not Call List violations are not open to the Canadian public or to the media?
4. Given that the CRTC does not have the authority to lay criminal charges, could the Government of Canada indicate whether the CRTC forwards information on Do Not Call List violations to the RCMP for further investigation?
November 3, 2009—To the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs:
1. Has a federal negotiator been appointed for negotiations between Six Nations of the Grand River Territory with respect to the occupation and blockades set up in the Douglas Creek Estates subdivision in Caledonia?
2. What is the name of the negotiator and what is the mandate?
3. Has an independent mechanism been put in place to ensure good faith negotiations including a neutral tribunal to resolve grievances?
