|
| C-224 — June 15, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of Bill C-224, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — June 21, 2011 |
| Ms. Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville), Ms. Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île), Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), Ms. Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier), Ms. Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine), Mr. Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord), Ms. Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River), Ms. Ashton (Churchill), Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas), Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke), Ms. Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan), Mr. Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord), Ms. Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel), Ms. Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot), Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) and Ms. Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry) — June 23, 2011 |
| Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — February 1, 2012 |
| Mr. Rankin (Victoria) — May 6, 2013 |
| Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — June 3, 2013 |
|
| C-373 — November 30, 2011 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on National Defence of Bill C-373, An Act to establish the Department of Peace. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — November 30, 2011 |
| Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — December 8, 2011 |
| Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park) — January 25, 2012 |
| Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — February 1, 2012 |
| Ms. Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville) and Ms. Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel) — February 29, 2012 |
| Mr. Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh) and Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — March 1, 2012 |
| Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) and Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — March 6, 2012 |
| Mr. Côté (Beauport—Limoilou) — March 7, 2012 |
| Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — March 23, 2012 |
| Mr. Sullivan (York South—Weston) — April 11, 2012 |
| Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — February 5, 2013 |
| Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — February 27, 2013 |
| Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — June 3, 2013 |
|
| C-443 — September 24, 2012 — Mr. Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill C-443, An Act to establish a National Health and Fitness Day. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), Mr. Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex), Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni), Mr. Leung (Willowdale), Mr. Carmichael (Don Valley West) and Mrs. Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul) — September 25, 2012 |
| Mr. Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock), Mr. Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills), Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North), Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior), Mr. Holder (London West), Mr. Regan (Halifax West), Ms. Leitch (Simcoe—Grey) and Mr. Weston (Saint John) — September 26, 2012 |
| Mr. Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country), Mr. Calkins (Wetaskiwin) and Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — September 27, 2012 |
| Mr. Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) — October 3, 2012 |
| Mr. Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans) — October 12, 2012 |
| Mr. Menegakis (Richmond Hill) — October 17, 2012 |
|
| M-318 — February 14, 2012 — Mr. Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas) — That, in the opinion of the House, the Standing Orders should be amended and a new system should be created to allow Members of Parliament to sponsor electronic petitions on the Parliamentary website in the following manner: (a) unless otherwise stated, or not applicable, the requirements and guidelines for electronic petitions would be the same as the current requirements and guidelines for written petitions; (b) the Clerk of Petitions could invalidate an electronic petition if (i) it duplicates a petition that is already on the Parliamentary website, (ii) it does not follow the current requirements and guidelines for petitions; (c) the grounds on which a petition has been rejected would be posted on the Parliamentary website by the Clerk of Petitions; (d) an electronic petition would be posted on the Parliamentary website for an active submissions period of six months; (e) the Parliamentary website would indicate, for every petition therein, (i) the number of signatures collected, (ii) the date at which the petition would expire; (f) the names of the petitioners would not be posted online; (g) the House would put measures in place to avoid any spamming or automated signatures of electronic petitions; (h) upon reaching 50,000 signatures, (i) the petition would be submitted to the Speaker of the House, who would allocate one hour of debate on the petition in the House, unless there are grounds to dismiss the debate, (ii) this hour would be an extension of the normal sitting hours and would not change the order of business of the House, (iii) in particular, no debate on two petitions that are substantially the same would be allowed during the same session, (iv) if the Speaker of the House dismisses a debate, the grounds on which the decision was made would be posted on the Parliamentary website, (v) the petition would remain online until the expiry of the six-month period; (i) once an electronic petition would reach 25 signatures and would have expired on the Parliamentary website, the government would post its response to the petition on the Parliamentary website within 45 days after the expiry; and (j) online petitions would not replace the current paper petition system. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Ms. Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent), Ms. Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan), Mr. Ravignat (Pontiac), Mr. Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges), Ms. Raynault (Joliette), Mr. Masse (Windsor West), Mr. Choquette (Drummond), Mr. Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber), Mr. Harris (St. John's East), Mr. Allen (Welland), Mr. Harris (Scarborough Southwest), Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), Mr. Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord), Ms. Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue), Mr. Blanchette (Louis-Hébert), Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North), Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior), Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas), Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) and Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) — February 16, 2012 |
|
| M-340 — March 13, 2012 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended: |
|
(a) by deleting Standing Order 86(1) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“86. (1)(a) Any one Member may give notice of an item of Private Members’ Business, and may do so, if he or she chooses, in conjunction with up to as many other Members as the number of parties with official status in the House of Commons minus one.
|
|
(b) Any Member sponsoring an item of Private Members’ Business with another Member may move a motion related to that item with the consent of all the other sponsoring Members of the item, and such a motion will stand in the name of all sponsors of the item.”
|
|
(b) by deleting Standing Order 86(2) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(2) Notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, not more than twenty Members may jointly second an item under Private Members' Business and may indicate their desire to second any motion in conjunction with the Member or Members in whose name or names it first appeared on the Notice Paper, by so indicating, in writing to the Clerk of the House, at any time prior to the item being proposed.”
|
|
(c) by inserting the following new section immediately after Standing Order 87(1)(a)(iii):
|
|
“(iv) An item of Private Members’ Business shall not be dropped from the Order Paper if one or more sponsoring Members become ineligible, unless all sponsors become ineligible.”
|
|
(d) by deleting Standing Order 87(1)(d) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(d) Not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the second sitting day after the day on which the order of precedence is established or replenished, a Member whose name has been placed in the order of precedence may indicate that he or she wishes to have his or her item designated non-votable by informing the Clerk in writing through a notice signed by all sponsors of that item.
|
|
(e) The names of the Members sponsoring an item are removed from the List for the Consideration of Private Members’ Business once the item has been placed in the order of precedence.”
|
|
(e) by deleting Standing Order 90 and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“90. Except as provided pursuant to Standing Order 96, after any bill or other order standing in the name of a private Member or Members has been considered in the House or in any Committee of the Whole and any proceeding thereon has been adjourned or interrupted, the said bill or order shall be placed on the Order Paper for the next sitting at the bottom of the order of precedence under the respective heading for such bills or orders.”
|
|
(f) by deleting Standing Order 92(1)(b)(ii) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(ii) all the sponsors of the item have waived the right to appeal by so notifying the Speaker in writing.”
|
|
(g) by deleting Standing Order 92(2) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(2) Within five sitting days of the deposit of a report referred to in paragraph (1)(a) of this Standing Order, the sponsor or sponsors of an item that is the object of the report shall have the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and to provide a written submission to the Committee to explain why the item should be votable.”
|
|
(h) by deleting Standing Order 92(4)(a) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(4)(a) Where a report pursuant to paragraph (3)(a) of this Standing Order has been presented to the House, any sponsor of the item which is the object of the report may appeal the decision of the Committee by filing with the Speaker within five sitting days of the presentation of the said report, a motion to that effect signed by all sponsors of the item and five other Members of the House representing a majority of the recognized parties in the House, and, if no appeal is filed with the Speaker during the period provided for in this paragraph, or if all the sponsors have waived the right to appeal by so notifying the Speaker in writing, the report is deemed adopted.”
|
|
(i) by deleting Standing Order 92.1(1) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“92.1(1) Where a report pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(a) has been presented to the House, any sponsor of the item that has been designated non-votable may, within five sitting days of the presentation of the said report, give written notice signed by all sponsors of the item of his or her intention to substitute another item of Private Members’ Business for the item designated non-votable.”
|
|
(j) by deleting Standing Order 92.1(2) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(2) When notice has been given pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, the sponsor of the item, or all sponsors in the case of an item with multiple sponsors, who has or have other notices of motion on the Order Paper or Notice Paper or bills on the Order Paper set down for consideration at the second reading stage shall, when forwarding that notice, inform the Clerk which of their items is to replace the non-votable item in the order of precedence and, notwithstanding any other Standing Order, that item shall retain its place in the order of precedence and shall remain subject to the application of Standing Orders 86 to 99.”
|
|
(k) by deleting Standing Order 92.1(3) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(3) When notice has been given pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, the sponsor or sponsors of the item without a notice of motion on the Order Paper or Notice Paper or a bill on the Order Paper set down for consideration at the second reading stage shall, within 20 days of the deposit of the report pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(a), have another notice of motion on the Order Paper or Notice Paper or a bill on the Order Paper set down for consideration at the second reading stage and, notwithstanding any other Standing Order, that item shall be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence and shall remain subject to the application of Standing Orders 86 to 99.”
|
|
(l) by deleting Standing Order 93(3) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(3) Amendments to motions and to the motion for the second reading of a bill may only be moved with the consent of all sponsors of the item.”
|
|
(m) by deleting Standing Order 94(2)(a) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(2)(a) When any Member has given at least forty-eight hours' written notice that he or she is unable to be present to move his or her motion under Private Members' Business on the date required by the order of precedence, the Speaker, with permission of the Members involved, may arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence with.
|
|
(n) by deleting Standing Order 94(2)(c)(i) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(i) the sponsor or sponsors shall be prohibited from requesting an exchange pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a); and”
|
|
(o) by deleting Standing Order 95(1) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“95. (1) When an item of Private Members' Business that is votable is under consideration, the Member moving the motion shall speak for not more than fifteen minutes followed by a five minute period for questions and comments. When an item is sponsored by more than one Member, the sponsors wishing to speak shall share equally a total of fifteen minutes followed by a five minute period of questions and comments. Thereafter, no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes. The Member or Members moving the motion shall, if desired, speak again for not more than five minutes, shared equally by sponsors wishing to speak, at the conclusion of the second hour of debate, or earlier if no other Member rises in debate.”
|
|
(p) by deleting Standing Order 95(2) and replacing it with the following:
|
|
“(2) When an item of Private Members' Business that is not votable is proposed, the Member moving the motion shall speak for not more than fifteen minutes. When such an item is proposed by more than one Member, the sponsors wishing to speak shall share equally a total of fifteen minutes. Thereafter, no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes for a period not exceeding forty minutes. After forty minutes, or earlier if no other Member rises in debate, any Member moving the motion shall, if he or she chooses, speak again for not more than five minutes, shared equally by all Members moving the motion who wish to speak. Debate is thereby concluded.”;
|
|
and that the Clerk be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential amendments.
|
|
| M-395 — June 15, 2012 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that the government of Vietnam has made progress in the protection and promotion of human rights in Vietnam, and especially that it has made progress in: (a) halting all violent oppression of minorities, including the murder of dozens of Hmong Christians, attacks on and plots to seize land of Thai Ha Parish, attacks and torture at Con Dau parish, attacks on Falun Gong practitioners, conviction of the Mennonite Church pastors, and torture of Montagnard Christians; (b) releasing all political and religious prisoners from imprisonment, house arrest, or other forms of detention; (c) respecting the right to freedom of religion for all Vietnam’s diverse religious communities, including the right to participate in religious activities and institutions without interference, harassment, or involvement of the government; (d) restoring estates and properties that have been confiscated from churches and religious communities; (e) respecting the right to freedom of expression, assembly, and association as enshrined in Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the release of independent journalists, bloggers, and democracy and labour activists; (f) repealing or revising laws, such as articles 79 and 88 of the penal code, that criminalize peaceful dissent, independent media, unsanctioned religious activity, and nonviolent demonstrations and rallies, in accordance with international standards and treaties; (g) allowing Vietnamese nationals free and open access to international refugee programs; (h) respecting the human rights of members of all ethnic and minority groups; (i) addressing the complicity of any official of the government of Vietnam, or any agency wholly or partly owned by the government of Vietnam, engaged in the trafficking in persons and taking all appropriate steps to end any such complicity and hold such official, agency, or entity fully accountable for its conduct; (j) ensuring freedom of information and ceasing the ongoing censure of human rights advocates, lawyers, media, and internet sites that advocate on behalf of those who have been deprived of their freedoms; (k) shutting down the reported one hundred or more abusive forced labor facilities and “education centers” across Vietnam that force detainees into hard labour; (l) halting police brutality and the use of torture against detainees and prisoners; and (m) holding annual talks with the Canadian government and other international partners on human rights in Vietnam. |
|
| M-408 — September 26, 2012 — Mr. Warawa (Langley) — That the House condemn discrimination against females occuring through sex-selective pregnancy termination. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mrs. Ambler (Mississauga South) and Mrs. Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) — September 27, 2012 |
| Mrs. Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells), Ms. James (Scarborough Centre) and Mrs. Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul) — October 3, 2012 |
| Designation as a non votable item — 47th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs — Thursday, March 28, 2013. |
| Report deemed adopted not later than Friday, April 19, 2013, if no appeal is filed, pursuant to Standing Order 92(4). |
| Notice of the sponsor’s intention to substitute the item — April 18, 2013 |
| Item substituted in the order of precedence by Bill C-489 — April 18, 2013 |
|
| M-410 — September 27, 2012 — Mr. Goldring (Edmonton East) — That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to conduct a review of state-owned corporate social responsibility when determining whether a foreign state-owned enterprise is an acceptable bidder or applicant for taking over a Canadian company or corporation, whether 100 percent or controlling a majority stake, and that for this committee, the Nexen takeover will be the case study that will be explored; |
|
that the membership of the special committee consist of 12 members, which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;
|
|
that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);
|
|
that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and
|
|
that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,
|
|
(i) are such takeovers conducted on an equitable basis keeping in mind human rights, citizen rights, workers' rights, and environmental practices, (ii) is due diligence being done on foreign state-owned enterprises, both the corporation as well as their home country, who are looking to take over a Canadian owned company, (iii) what will the long term effects be for Canada and Canadians with regards to the industry in question, (iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace existing legislation regarding foreign state-owned enterprises taking over Canadians companies or corporations.
|
|
| M-445 — May 9, 2013 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement an Artist Resale Right that: (a) provides visual artists with a right to a resale royalty for their artistic works; (b) is developed in consultation with artists and artists’ organizations including First Nations, Métis and Inuit artists and artists’ organizations, art galleries, museums, auction houses, art dealers, and other art market professionals; (c) is fully consistent with the rights of Aboriginal Peoples as recognized and affirmed in Canada and under International Law; and (d) permits collection and remuneration through collective societies which will also allow Canadian artists to benefit from reciprocal international arrangements with the 69 nations who have already implemented an Artist Resale Right. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) and Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — May 28, 2013 |
| Mr. Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan), Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou), Mr. Cash (Davenport), Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) and Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — May 29, 2013 |
| Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) and Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas) — May 30, 2013 |
| Ms. Ashton (Churchill) — May 31, 2013 |
| Mr. Mulcair (Outremont) — June 6, 2013 |