Skip to main content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Journals

No. 200 (Unrevised)

Monday, September 18, 2017

11:00 a.m.



Prayer
Vacancies

The Speaker informed the House that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in the House of Commons, for the Electoral District of Sturgeon River—Parkland, in the Province of Alberta, by reason of the resignation of the Hon. Rona Ambrose, and that, pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, he had addressed, on Tuesday, July 4, 2017, his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy.


The Speaker informed the House that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in the House of Commons, for the Electoral District of Lac-Saint-Jean, in the Province of Quebec, by reason of the resignation of the Hon. Denis Lebel, and that, pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, he had addressed, on Wednesday, August 9, 2017, his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy.


The Speaker informed the House that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in the House of Commons, for the Electoral District of Scarborough—Agincourt, in the Province of Ontario, by reason of the death of Mr. Arnold Chan, and that, pursuant to subsection 28(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, he had addressed, earlier today, his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy.

Board of Internal Economy

Pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, sbs. 50 (4), the Speaker informed the House that Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope) has been appointed a member of the Board of Internal Economy to replace Mr. Brown (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes).

Government Orders

The Order was read for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act.

Mr. Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), seconded by Mr. Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Debate arose thereon.

Statements By Members

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.

Oral Questions

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House proceeded to Oral Questions.

Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), The Speaker presented the report of the parliamentary delegation that travelled to Mexico, from March 27 to 29, 2017. — Sessional Paper No. 8565-421-75-04.


Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:

— No. 421-01325 concerning human diseases. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-114-02;

— No. 421-01327 concerning the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-115-03;

— No. 421-01336 concerning the federal public service. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-79-03;

— Nos. 421-01346, 421-01355, 421-01447, 421-01457, 421-01473, 421-01474, 421-01475, 421-01476, 421-01492, 421-01502, 421-01504, 421-01523, 421-01526, 421-01534, 421-01547, 421-01552 and 421-01608 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-31-24;

— No. 421-01372 concerning national holidays. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-166-01;

— Nos. 421-01380, 421-01442, 421-01557, 421-01558, 421-01559, 421-01560, 421-01561, 421-01562, 421-01563, 421-01564, 421-01565, 421-01566, 421-01567, 421-01568, 421-01569, 421-01570, 421-01571, 421-01572, 421-01573, 421-01574, 421-01575, 421-01576, 421-01577, 421-01578, 421-01579, 421-01580 and 421-01582 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-3-25;

— Nos. 421-01389, 421-01507 and 421-01508 concerning international sanctions. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-109-02;

— Nos. 421-01411, 421-01621, 421-01622 and 421-01623 concerning cannabis. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-93-03;

— No. 421-01412 concerning the labelling of food products. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-105-02;

— No. 421-01414 concerning the Canada Post Corporation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-36-07;

— No. 421-01421 concerning natural gas. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-28-04;

— No. 421-01425 concerning Canadian citizenship. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-89-03;

— No. 421-01438 concerning genetic engineering. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-26-14;

— Nos. 421-01446 and 421-01497 concerning discrimination. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-32-03;

— Nos. 421-01448, 421-01455 and 421-01456 concerning refugees. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-2-07;

— No. 421-01479 concerning disabled and handicapped persons. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-124-03;

— No. 421-01483 concerning hazardous products. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-51-02;

— No. 421-01509 concerning the criminal justice system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-18-05;

— No. 421-01510 concerning foreign policy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-87-02;

— Nos. 421-01521, 421-01551 and 421-01604 concerning immigration. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-23-16;

— No. 421-01529 concerning international development and aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-43-10;

— No. 421-01536 concerning France. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-167-01;

— No. 421-01549 concerning impaired driving. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-7-20;

— Nos. 421-01583, 421-01584 and 421-01619 concerning navigable waters. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-101-07;

— No. 421-01585 concerning food policy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-113-02;

— No. 421-01591 concerning AIDS. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-19-05;

— No. 421-01592 concerning government spending. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-39-05;

— No. 421-01593 concerning assisted suicide. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-9-17;

— No. 421-01618 concerning nuclear weapons. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-168-01;

— No. 421-01620 concerning federal programs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-169-01;

— No. 421-01630 concerning the tax system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-1-18;

— No. 421-01631 concerning India. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-170-01.


Presenting Reports from Committees

Mr. Bagnell (Yukon), from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented the 36th Report of the Committee, which was as follows:

The Committee recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, the following changes to the lists of members of the following standing committees:

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

Jacques Gourde for Pat Kelly
Peter Kent for Matt Jeneroux
Bob Zimmer for Blaine Calkins

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

John Barlow for David Anderson
Luc Berthold for Bev Shipley
Sylvie Boucher for Jacques Gourde

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

Anju Dhillon for Seamus O'Regan
Robert Kitchen for Kevin Waugh
Martin Shields for Larry Maguire

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Larry Maguire for David Tilson
Robert Oliphant for Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

Ed Fast for Jim Eglinski
Robert Sopuck for Martin Shields

Standing Committee on Finance

Tom Kmiec for Gérard Deltell
Michael V. McLeod for Robert-Falcon Ouellette
Pierre Poilievre for Ron Liepert

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

Larry Miller for Robert Sopuck

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development

Ziad Aboultaif for Tom Kmiec
Garnett Genuis for Peter Kent
Erin O'Toole for Dean Allison
Anita Vandenbeld for Peter Fragiskatos
Borys Wrzesnewskyj for John McKay

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

Bev Shipley for Alupa Clarke

Standing Committee on Health

Marilyn Gladu for Colin Carrie
Ron McKinnon for Darshan Singh Kang
Dave Van Kesteren for Rachael Harder

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

Mona Fortier for Anju Dhillon
Phil McColeman for Mark Warawa
Alexander Nuttall for Bob Zimmer
Dianne L. Watts for Pierre Poilievre

Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs

T.J. Harvey for Rémi Massé
Kevin Waugh for David Yurdiga
Salma Zahid for Michael V. McLeod

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Maxime Bernier for Ben Lobb
Jim Eglinski for Alexander Nuttall
Matt Jeneroux for Earl Dreeshen

Standing Committee on International Trade

Dean Allison for Gerry Ritz
Colin Carrie for Randy Hoback
Earl Dreeshen for Dave Van Kesteren

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Ron Liepert for Ted Falk

Standing Committee on National Defence

Mark Warawa for Pierre Paul-Hus
David Yurdiga for Cheryl Gallant

Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Ted Falk for John Barlow
Jamie Schmale for Mark Strahl

Standing Committee on Official Languages

Alupa Clarke for John Nater
Stephanie Kusie for Sylvie Boucher

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Gérard Deltell for Phil McColeman
Randy Hoback for Matt Jeneroux
Rémi Massé for T.J. Harvey

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

Peter Fragiskatos for Nicola Di Iorio
Dave MacKenzie for Dianne L. Watts
John McKay for Robert Oliphant
Glen Motz for Larry Miller
Pierre Paul-Hus for Tony Clement

Standing Committee on the Status of Women

Bernadette Jordan for Karen Ludwig
Emmanuella Lambropoulos for Anita Vandenbeld
Martin Shields for Marilyn Gladu

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Michael Chong for Luc Berthold
Ben Lobb for Alain Rayes

Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs

Steven Blaney for John Brassard
Blaine Calkins for Robert Kitchen

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the names of the following Members be added to the lists of associate members of the following standing committees:

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

Bob Benzen
Blaine Calkins
Matt Jeneroux
Pat Kelly
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

David Anderson
Bob Benzen
Jacques Gourde
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
Bev Shipley

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

Bob Benzen
Stephanie Kusie
Larry Maguire
Glen Motz
Kevin Waugh

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Bob Benzen
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
David Tilson

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

Bob Benzen
Jim Eglinski
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
Martin Shields

Standing Committee on Finance

Bob Benzen
Gérard Deltell
Stephanie Kusie
Ron Liepert
Glen Motz

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

Bob Benzen
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
Robert Sopuck

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development

Dean Allison
Bob Benzen
Peter Fragiskatos
Peter Kent
Tom Kmiec
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

Bob Benzen
Alupa Clarke
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz

Standing Committee on Health

Bob Benzen
Colin Carrie
Rachael Harder
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

Bob Benzen
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
Pierre Poilievre
Mark Warawa
Bob Zimmer

Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Bob Benzen
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
David Yurdiga

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Bob Benzen
Earl Dreeshen
Stephanie Kusie
Ben Lobb
Glen Motz
Alexander Nuttall

Standing Committee on International Trade

Bob Benzen
Randy Hoback
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
Dave Van Kesteren

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Bob Benzen
Ted Falk
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz

Standing Committee on National Defence

Bob Benzen
Cheryl Gallant
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
Pierre Paul-Hus

Standing Committee on Natural Resources

John Barlow
Bob Benzen
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
Mark Strahl

Standing Committee on Official Languages

Bob Benzen
Sylvie Boucher
Glen Motz
John Nater

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

Bob Benzen
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Bob Benzen
Matt Jeneroux
Stephanie Kusie
Phil McColeman
Glen Motz

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

Bob Benzen
Tony Clement
Stephanie Kusie
Larry Miller
Dianne L. Watts

Standing Committee on the Status of Women

Bob Benzen
Marilyn Gladu
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Bob Benzen
Luc Berthold
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz
Alain Rayes

Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs

Bob Benzen
John Brassard
Robert Kitchen
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the names of the following Members be deleted from the lists of associate members of the following standing committees:

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Darshan Singh Kang
Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

Darshan Singh Kang
Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Finance

Arnold Chan
Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development

Arnold Chan
Karina Gould
Ahmed Hussen
Denis Lebel
Seamus O'Regan
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Health

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Arnold Chan
Karina Gould
Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on International Trade

Karina Gould
Ahmed Hussen
Denis Lebel
Seamus O'Regan
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on National Defence

Karina Gould
Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Official Languages

Denis Lebel
Ginette Petitpas Taylor
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on the Status of Women

Denis Lebel
Ginette Petitpas Taylor
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Arnold Chan
Karina Gould
Ahmed Hussen
Darshan Singh Kang
Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs

Denis Lebel
Ginette Petitpas Taylor
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, the following changes to the lists of members of the following standing joint committees:

Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament

Guy Lauzon for Mike Lake
Robert-Falcon Ouellette for Scott Simms
Mark Strahl for Gordon Brown
Chris Warkentin for Kerry Diotte
Alice Wong for Todd Doherty

Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations

Bob Benzen for Garnett Genuis
Anju Dhillon for Salma Zahid
David Tilson for Glen Motz

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the names of the following Members be added to the lists of associate members of the following standing joint committees:

Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament

Bob Benzen
Gordon Brown
Kerry Diotte
Todd Doherty
Stephanie Kusie
Mike Lake
Glen Motz

Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations

Garnett Genuis
Stephanie Kusie
Glen Motz

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the names of the following Members be deleted from the lists of associate members of the following standing joint committees:

Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations

Denis Lebel
Gerry Ritz
Andrew Scheer

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 3) is tabled.


First Reading of Senate Public Bills

Pursuant to Standing Order 69(2), on motion of Mr. Easter (Malpeque), seconded by Mr. Morrissey (Egmont), Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation, was read the first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.


Motions

By unanimous consent, it was resolved, — That the 36th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented earlier today, be concurred in, provided that the membership changes for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics only take effect upon the adjournment of the House later today.


Presenting Petitions

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows:

— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning immigration (No. 421-01632) and one concerning pesticides (No. 421-01633);

— by Mr. Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi), one concerning the protection of the environment (No. 421-01634);

— by Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe), one concerning the manufacturing industry (No. 421-01635) and one concerning navigable waters (No. 421-01636).


Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)) presented the answers to questions Q-1044, Q-1047, Q-1052, Q-1061, Q-1062, Q-1064, Q-1069 to Q-1071, Q-1073, Q-1074, Q-1076, Q-1083, Q-1084, Q-1096, Q-1097 and Q-1099 on the Order Paper.


Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)) presented the revised returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-618 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to policing and surveillance activities related to journalists and Indigenous activists since October 31, 2015: (a) which security agencies or other government bodies have been involved in tracking Indigenous protest activities relating to (i) Idle No More, (ii) the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or other Aboriginal public order events, (iii) the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, (iv) the Northern Gateway Pipeline, (v) the Energy East and Eastern Mainline Projects, (vi) the Site C dam, (vii) the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project, (viii) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, (ix) other industrial or resource development projects; (b) how many Indigenous individuals have been identified by security agencies as potential threats to public safety or security, broken down by agency and province; (c) which indigenous organizations, and activist groups have been the subject of monitoring by Canadian security services, broken down by agency and province; (d) how many events involving Indigenous activists were noted in Government Operations Centre situation reports, broken down by province and month; (e) have any Canadian government agencies, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) been involved in tracking Canadians travelling to Standing Rock Indian Reservation (North and South Dakota, United States of America); (f) has there been any request by the Canadian government or any of its agencies to the United States government or any of its agencies to share information on the tracking of Canadian citizens engaging in demonstrations at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation; (g) what are the titles and dates of any inter-departmental or inter-agency reports related to indigenous protest activities; (h) how many times have government agencies shared information on indigenous protest activities with private sector companies, and for each instance, which companies received such information, and on what dates; (i) how many meetings have taken place between representatives of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project and (i) RCMP personnel, (ii) CSIS personnel; and (j) what are the answers for (a) through (i) for journalists, instead of for Indigenous individuals or organizations, and only if applicable? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-618-01.


Q-630 — Mr. Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly) — With regard to policing and surveillance activities related to Indigenous activists since October 31, 2015: (a) which security agencies or other government bodies have been involved in tracking Indigenous protest activities relating to (i) Idle No More, (ii) the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or other Aboriginal public order events, (iii) the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, (iv) the Northern Gateway Pipeline, (v) the Energy East and Eastern Mainline Projects, (vi) the Site C dam, (vii) the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project, (viii) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, (ix) other industrial or resource development projects; (b) how many Indigenous individuals have been identified by security agencies as potential threats to public safety or security, broken down by agency and province; (c) which indigenous organizations, and activist groups have been the subject of monitoring by Canadian security services, broken down by agency and province; (d) how many events involving Indigenous activists were noted in Government Operations Centre situation reports, broken down by province and month; (e) have any Canadian government agencies, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) been involved in tracking Canadians travelling to Standing Rock Indian Reservation (North and South Dakota, United States of America); (f) has there been any request by the Canadian government or any of its agencies to the United States government or any of its agencies to share information on the tracking of Canadian citizens engaging in demonstrations at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation; (g) what are the titles and dates of any inter-departmental or inter-agency reports related to indigenous protest activities; (h) how many times have government agencies shared information on indigenous protest activities with private sector companies, and for each instance, which companies received such information, and on what dates; and (i) how many meetings have taken place between representatives of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project and (i) RCMP personnel, (ii) CSIS personnel? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-630-01.


Q-1015 — Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) — With regard to the government forgiving student loans owed: (a) how many student loans have been forgiven since November 4, 2015; (b) what criteria is used to determine eligibility for debt forgiveness; (c) what reasons are laid out within the criteria as acceptable to forgive student debt; and (d) for each of the instances in (c), how many loans were forgiven under each reason since November 4, 2015? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1015-01.


Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-1041 — Mr. Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) — With respect to the Enhancing RCMP Accountability Act (S.C. 2013, c. 18) and the Treasury Board’s authority to deem civilian members of the RCMP to be public service employees, appointed under the Public Service Employment Act: (a) what is the breakdown and status of civilian units, including the Current Civilian Member classification group, and the Public Service classification group, identifying for each (i) whether they are deemed, (ii) the deeming date, (iii) the assigned union local, (iv) the Collective Agreement; (b) by what process is the deeming and classification happening and, in each case, (i) have civilian members been consulted in said process, (ii) what and who is involved in the decision of classification, (iii) what and who is involved of the assignment of union; and (c) what does the government plan to do regarding discrepancies before and after deeming of civilian members’ (i) salaries, (ii) benefits, (ii) other items in the collective bargaining agreement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1041.


Q-1042 — Mr. Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) — With respect to funding of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for the Language Training Sub-Sub-Program (currently 3.1.1.1 in 2017-18 Departmental Performance E-tables - Sub-Programs): (a) for 2015, 2016, and 2017, broken down by year, what is or was the budget; (b) for 2015, 2016, and 2017, broken down by year and province, what is or was the budget for level 1 and level 2 for each province, broken down by level; (c) how are decisions made to change funding for the different levels of training; and (d) what was the rationale for removing funding for level 2 training from organizations in Manitoba? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1042.


Q-1043 — Mr. Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil) — With regard to the distribution of flags and other items for Canada Day by the Department of Canadian Heritage through offices of Members of Parliament: (a) how many flags have been distributed or does the government intend to distribute, broken down by type, including (i) large flag post nylon Canadian flags (90 cm x 180 cm), (ii) small desktop nylon Canadian flags (30 cm x 15 cm) with a plastic stand, (iii) large flag post Canada 150 nylon flags (90 cm x 180 cm); and (b) of the items in (a), since January 1, 2017, how many have been distributed to (i) individual Liberal Member offices, (ii) individual Conservative Member offices, (iii) individual New Democratic Party Member offices, (iv) individual Bloc Quebecois Member offices, (v) individual Green Party Member offices? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1043.


Q-1045 — Mr. Richards (Banff—Airdrie) — With regard to sponsored social media posts (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) by the government, including those put out by agencies, Crown Corporations, and other government entities, since November 4, 2015: (a) what amount has been spent on sponsored posts; (b) what is the description and purpose of each sponsored post; and (c) for each sponsored post, what are the details, including the (i) date, (ii) analytic data, views and reach, (iii) details of demographics targeted? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1045.


Q-1046 — Mr. Clement (Parry Sound—Muskoka) — With regard to statements made by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on May 8, 2017, in particular that “crossing the border in an irregular fashion is no free ticket to Canada”, broken down by month, over the last 12 months: (a) what is the average time between an asylum claimant's arrival in Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) issuing a decision; (b) for each decision in (a), (i) how many were positive, (ii) how many were negative; (c) how many of the asylum seekers referred to in (a) arrived “in an irregular fashion”; (d) how many of the individuals in (c) received a (i) positive IRB decision, (ii) negative IRB decision; (e) for those who received a negative decision from the IRB, what was the average time period between the decision and the time when removal was executed by Canadian Border Services Agency; and (f) what was the average time period for removal for those who arrived “in an irregular fashion”? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1046.


Q-1048 — Mrs. Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek) — With regard to VIA Rail’s 2016-2020 corporate report: (a) how many locomotives and cars will be retired in (i) 2017, (ii) 2018, (iii) 2019, (iv) 2020; (b) what impact will these retirements have by 2020 on VIA Rail’s service levels; and (c) what plans are in place to replace the locomotives and wagons? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1048.


Q-1049 — Mr. Aubin (Trois-Rivières) — With regard to the decommissioning and sale of Canadian Coast Guard ship (CCGS) Tracy by the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what were the positions occupied by the managers who planned the decommissioning of CCGS Tracy; (b) was the actual price of CCGS Tracy, including federal investments, set before it was put up for sale and what are the details of this valuation, broken down by (i) assessed value of CCGS Tracy, (ii) value of federal investments in repairs related to CCGS Tracy, made between its acquisition and lay-up, including the names of the repair subcontractors; (c) since the launch of CCGS Tracy until its sale, what was the annual budget, broken down by year, allocated specifically to CCGS Tracy; (d) before CCGS Tracy was decommissioned, was any pre-tender cost planning performed; (e) what are the names of the companies that submitted bids to the government regarding the sale of CCGS Tracy, broken down by (i) company name, (ii) bid price, (iii) bid date; (f) how many meetings took place between the government and the bidding companies, broken down by (i) company name, (ii) meeting date, (iii) departments and titles of government officials attending these meetings, (iv) positions of bidding company officials attending these meetings; (g) how many former crew members of CCGS Tracy left the Canadian Coast Guard once CCGS Tracy was decommissioned, broken down by (i) position, (ii) reassignment to other positions, (iii) pensions and severance packages, (iv) any other benefits over and above the federal pensions they received; (h) before CCGS Tracy was decommissioned, what was the annual operating cost of the buoy work performed by CCGS Tracy; (i) was there a budget allocated directly and only to the vessel’s operations in the Laurentian Region; (j) before CCGS Tracy was decommissioned, did the Canadian Coast Guard plan to tender the buoying operations in order to have them carried out by a private company; (k) what were the buoying operations rates quoted by the bidders; (l) was an additional vessel planned to replace the buoying operations of CCGS Tracy in its area of operations; (m) between November 2016 and March 2017, which Canadian Coast Guard vessel performed buoying operations between Quebec City and Montreal; (n) what was the annual cost of repairs to the air-cushioned vehicle based in Trois-Rivières before CCGS Tracy was decommissioned; (o) were functional limitations issued by the Canadian Coast Guard on the use of air-cushioned vehicles; (p) were letters sent to staff on the functional limitations of air-cushioned vehicles; (q) what was the annual cost of repairs to the air-cushioned vehicle based in Trois-Rivières after CCGS Tracy was decommissioned; (r) after CCGS Tracy was decommissioned, what was the cost of repairs to CCGS Martha L. Black; (s) is CCGS Martha L. Black currently operational; (t) how many months was CCGS Martha L. Black operational and non-operational between January 2010 and March 2017; and (u) what is the rank of the commanding officer of the Central and Arctic Region of the Canadian Coast Guard who made the request to purchase CCGS Tracy after it was decommissioned and the name of the associated shipping company? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1049.


Q-1050 — Ms. Harder (Lethbridge) — With regard to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities’ statement in the House on May 9, 2017, that the government’s spending on infrastructure is to reduce the amount of time people spend being unproductive: (a) what does the government consider to be unproductive time; (b) what is the average weekly impact of unproductive time on the Canadian economy; (c) what is the average weekly amount of unproductive time, per person; (d) how many jobs are not created, on a weekly basis, as a result of unproductive time; (e) what does the government anticipate will be the reduction in the impact of unproductive time on the Canadian economy, specifically as a result of infrastructure spending; and (f) what does the government anticipate will be the reduction on the impact of unproductive time, per person, specifically as a result of infrastructure spending? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1050.


Q-1051 — Ms. Harder (Lethbridge) — With regard to the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) how many times did the Prime Minister meet with potential investors, including BlackRock and its CEO, between November 4, 2015, and May 1, 2017; (b) how many times did the Prime Minister’s staff meet with potential investors, including BlackRock and its CEO, between November 4, 2015, and May 1, 2017; (c) how many times did any Cabinet Minister or his or her staff meet with potential investors, including BlackRock and its CEO, between November 4, 2015, and May 1, 2017; (d) for each meeting in (a), (b), and (c), what are the details, including the (i) date of meeting, (ii) organization, (iii) name of potential investor, (iv) position or title, (v) specific request or offer of potential investment (in Canadian dollars), (vi) agenda or subject matter discussed at the meeting; (e) does the Prime Minister have any investments that could directly or indirectly benefit from the bank and, if so, has this been disclosed to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what was the Commissioner’s response; (g) does any Cabinet Minister have any investment that could directly or indirectly benefit from the bank and, if so, has this been disclosed to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; and (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what was the Commissioner’s response? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1051.


Q-1053 — Ms. Quach (Salaberry—Suroît) — With regard to the Kathryn Spirit, a vessel grounded near Beauharnois: (a) since 2011, what are all the government contracts awarded in connection with the derelict ship, broken down by (i) year, (ii) supplier, (iii) description of the services offered, (iv) contract start date and duration, (v) value of the contract, (vi) sole supplier or call for tenders; (b) with respect to the contract awarded by the government to Groupe Saint-Pierre on November 9, 2016, for the construction of the cofferdam, (i) why did the government choose to proceed with a tender call by mutual agreement (ii) what other companies were contacted by the government for this contract, (iii) what is the list of all other proposals received by the government, (iv) what definitions did the government provide for “exceptional circumstances” and “emergency measures”; (c) with respect to the previous owner of the Kathryn Spirit, Reciclajes Ecológicos Maritimos, how many vessels has the company sent to Canada, broken down by (i) year, (ii) vessel name, (iii) category (bulk carrier, tugboat, etc.), (iv) vessel mission; and (d) for each vessel in (c), how much has the government paid out in public funds, broken down by (i) year, (ii) vessel name, (iii) total costs incurred by the government, (iv) reason justifying such government expenditures (repairs, towing, repatriation of crew, etc.)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1053.


Q-1054 — Mr. Kent (Thornhill) — With regard to the government’s decision to reduce the maximum eligible contribution to a Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) from $10,000 to $5,500: (a) what is the impact or projected impact on federal revenue on a yearly basis, starting in 2016, as a result of the change; and (b) what total eligible amount did Canadians contribute to TFSAs in the (i) 2015 tax year, (ii) 2016 tax year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1054.


Q-1055 — Mr. Nater (Perth—Wellington) — With regard to the Prime Minister's nominee for Commissioner of Official Languages, announced on May 15, 2017: (a) on what date did a Cabinet Minister or a representative of a Cabinet Minister inform Madeleine Meilleur that she had been selected as the Prime Minister's likely nominee; (b) how was Madeleine Meilleur informed that she had been selected as the Prime Minister's nominee; (c) who informed Madeleine Meilleur that she had been selected as the Prime Minister's nominee; (d) what communication has the government had with Madeleine Meilleur regarding her appointment to any position within the government since November 4, 2015, including (i) positions discussed, (ii) dates of contact, (iii) methods of communication, (iv) names of relevant Cabinet Ministers and representatives of Cabinet Ministers; and (e) since November 4, 2015, which Cabinet Ministers have put forward Madeleine Meilleur’s name as a potential candidate for a government appointment and what are the details of each of these recommendations including (i) date, (ii) recommended position, (iii) other relevant details? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1055.


Q-1056 — Mr. Aubin (Trois-Rivières) — With regard to the investigation of the incident in Yamachiche caused by two-metre waves: (a) on what date did Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada learn of the incident; (b) on what date did Transport Canada launch an investigation; (c) what is the timeframe for the investigation; (d) will the report and the findings of the investigation be available to the public and posted on the Transport Canada website; (e) have inspectors been assigned to the investigation; (f) how many inspectors have been assigned to the investigation, if applicable; (g) what is the mandate of the inspectors; (h) what penalties does Transport Canada provide for; (i) is any compensation available to the victims; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, what is this compensation; (k) when is compensation expected to be paid to the victims; (l) what are the details of the investigation files, broken down by file number; (m) how many meetings took place between Transport Canada officials and Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials, broken down by (i) date, (ii) department and titles of government representatives present at the meetings, (iii) subjects discussed at these meetings; and (n) how many meetings took place between officials from Transport Canada and the Corporation of St. Lawrence Pilots Inc., broken down by (i) date, (ii) department and titles of government representatives present at the meetings, (iii) subjects discussed at these meetings? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1056.


Q-1057 — Mr. Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan) — With regard to correspondence related to the procurement of fighter jets, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all correspondence between the Minister of National Defense and Boeing including the (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) recipient, (iv) file number, (v) summary, if available; and (b) what are the details of all correspondence between the Minister of National Defense and Bombardier including the (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) recipient, (iv) file number, (v) summary, if available? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1057.


Q-1058 — Ms. Raitt (Milton) — With regard to government action to combat counterfeit art: (a) what is the official position of the government regarding counterfeit art; (b) does the government have any prohibition against using federal funds to rent or purchase counterfeit art; and (c) what actions are taken by the Canada Border Services Agency when counterfeit art or goods are discovered at border crossings or other point of entry? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1058.


Q-1059 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — With regard to the shellfish harvest issue in British Columbia in zones 15 and 16: (a) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) observed an increase in harvesting in the last years on local beaches and, if so, has the DFO (i) quantified this increase, (ii) determined this increase to be problematic, (iii) recommended measures, (iv) implemented measures; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the measures and what is the status of these recommendations; (c) has the DFO observed an increase in illegal harvesting in the last year on local beaches and, if so, has the DFO (i) quantified this increase, (ii) determined this increase to be problematic, (iii) recommended measures, (iv) implemented measures; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the measures and what is the status of these recommendations; (e) has the DFO identified excess harvesting and, if so, (i) how did the DFO make such a determination, (ii) is the government providing measures aimed at restrictions; (f) who has the authority at the DFO to request a (i) stock assessment, (ii) management advice or biomass survey; (g) does the government have precise data in terms of biodiversity or biomass of shellfish in British Columbia; (h) does the government have precise data in terms of biodiversity or biomass of shellfish in zones 15 and 16; (i) has there been a reduction in biodiversity or biomass of shellfish in zones 15 and 16; (j) in the event that the last biomass survey of the region was conducted more than two years ago, will the DFO conduct a biomass survey next summer and, if not, why; (k) has the government done any studies on quantities and availability of shellfish and, (i) if not, why, (ii) how many studies have been completed and which one is the latest, (iii) what are the conclusions and recommendations of studies in (k)(ii), (iv) what recommendations has the government made with respect to the use and management of this resource, (v) have these recommendations been followed or are there any failures in the implementation of these recommendations; (l) is there any analysis concerning the sustainability of the current harvest and, if so, (i) can the beach sustain the same level of harvest, (ii) can the beach in Powell River sustain the same level of harvest, (iii) can zones 15 and 16 sustain the same level of harvest;

(m) is there any assessment determining maximum sustainable harvest rates and, if so, what are the rates; (n) has the government undertaken an analysis in terms of water temperature conditions required for the development of some shellfish and, if so, (i) will the fecundity rate be affected, (ii) what is the DFO’s recommendation or management advice, (iii) what is the forecast for the next two years in zones 15 and 16, (iv) is the fecundity annual rate preserved for each species, (v) are assessments made regularly, (vi) what is the threshold in identifying an unsustainable harvest; (o) how many people have been asked for their Tidal Waters Sport Fishing licence by fisheries officers in the last (i) year, (ii) five years, (iii) ten years; (p) of the people in (o), how many were caught without their Tidal Waters Sport Fishing licence and how many circumventions have been inspected in the last (i) year, (ii) five years, (iii) ten years; (q) what kind of sanctions have been handed out; (r) how many warnings have been handed out; (s) how many people have been fined in the last ten years, broken down by zone, and (i) what was the average fine amount over the last ten years, broken down by zone, (ii) how many fines per species, (iii) what were the ten most common offences under the Fisheries Act; (t) what were the most common species harvested illegally; (u) what measures does the government have in place to deter people from committing such offences; (v) has the government undertaken an analysis to study the effectiveness of penalties for offences charged under the Fisheries Act and, if so, what were the results of this analysis; (w) has the DFO identified the need for more sanctions and, if so (i) what sanctions were identified, (ii) what steps were taken, (iii) how often does the government review its policies and procedures regarding fines and penalties for offences charged under the Fisheries Act; (x) has the DFO identified the need for more education in order to limit circumventions and, if so, (i) what steps have been taken, (ii) what is the proportion of the DFO budget devoted to this education, (iii) how many staff and officials are involved in education, (iv) how many hours do fisheries officers spend per week and per month on education, (v) where does this education take place, (vi) what kind of tools and means are used for conveying information, (vii) are media, social media networks, daily newspapers and posters used, (viii) what has been the education budget for the last five years; (y) how many calls has the DFO received in regard to harvesting shellfish and (i) has this number increased in the last ten years, (ii) what is the follow up associated calls, (iii) how many investigations have occurred in respect to these calls; (z) do the regulations provide for flexibility in specific cases and measures to be adopted concerning exceptional occurrences such as massive tourism flows, chartered tours specializing in harvest and soaring populations and (i) which specific cases do the regulations provide for, (ii) what are the possible solutions envisioned for each specific case, (iii) are special provisions in place in case of excess harvesting; (aa) what are the DFO’s plans, in conjunction with other departments and agencies, to address and alleviate tension and racialized problems in regards to shellfish harvest;

(bb) how many full-time equivalent (FTE) fisheries officers (i) are assigned in each management area in the pacific region, (ii) how many were there five years ago, (iii) have the number fisheries officers in charge of onsite control been reduced in the last five years; (cc) what is the government employment outlook of fisheries officers for the next two years; (dd) has the question of over harvesting shellfish been tagged as a priority; (ee) have resource management biologists at the DFO raised concerns regarding over harvesting; (ff) have resource management biologists at the DFO raised concerns regarding overharvesting in zones 15 and 16; (gg) has the Regional Resource Manager of Invertebrates raised concerns in zones 15 and 16; (hh) how many times has this topic been discussed with the government and has the question been raised with the Minister or Deputy Minister and, if so, has the Minister provided a response and, if so, what was it; (ii) has there been any briefing with detailed information on the matter and for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number; (jj) concerning the DFO meeting with representatives from Tla’amin Nation that was supposed to establish methods to create stock assessments (i) has this meeting taken place, (ii) if not, when will it take place, (iii) if so, what methods were established and what were the results of the meeting, (iv) what are recommendations, (v) what is the timeline for the stock assessment to take place; (kk) does the government anticipate that there will be a meeting organized in order to make locals have more voice in the settlement of local fishery quotas; (ll) does the government anticipate that local staff will have more power in the management of the quotas in (kk); (mm) does the government anticipate that there will be any openness by the DFO to set local limits and, if so, (i) when will this happen, (ii) what will be the process, (iii) how can Tla’amin Nation be involved in the process, (iv) what kind of power can Tla’amin Nation have (discretionary power, sanction power); and (nn) how often are the regulations governing recreational harvest reviewed? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1059.


Q-1060 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — With regard to the issue of the oil spill at Burdwood Fish Farm: (a) how many square meters of water has the spill affected; (b) is the government capable of determining the amount of oil absorbed by the absorbent pads and, if so, what is the amount; (c) is the government capable of determining the amount of oil on the sea floor and, if so, what is the amount; (d) is the government capable of determining the amount of oil that evaporated and, if so, what is the amount; (e) is the government capable of independently determining the amount of oil spilled; (f) how many pads were put (i) in the fish pens, (ii) outside of the pens; (g) was a report or study done on the response rate and, if so, what were the results; (h) how many times has this topic been discussed with the government and has the question been raised with the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard or his Deputy Minister and has the Minister provided a response and, if so, what was it; (i) has there been any briefing with detailed information on the matter and, for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number; (j) what are the titles of the responsible parties during the oil spill response at (i) the Canadian Coast Guard, (ii) the Department of Environment, (iii) the Western Marine Company, (iv) the Department of Transport, (v) the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); (k) what does the government anticipate will be the long term impact of the oil spill; (l) does the government have precise data in terms of the biodiversity or biomass of shellfish in this zone;

(m) when was the last time a biomass survey of the region was conducted; (n) in the event that the last biomass survey of the region was conducted more than two years ago, will the DFO conduct a biomass survey this summer and, if not, why; (o) has the DFO identified contamination in the clam or other species and, if so, (i) how did the DFO make such a determination, (ii) is the government providing measures aimed at restricting harvest, (iii) what recommendations has the government made with respect to the use and the management of this resource, (iv) have these recommendations been followed or have there been failures in the implementation of these recommendations; (p) how many studies have been made regarding the oil spill and (i) which one is the latest, (ii) what are the details, conclusions and recommendations of these studies; (q) with regard to sampling made following the oil spill, (i) how many samples were ordered to be taken, (ii) how many samples were taken, (iii) how many samples were analysed; (r) why was there a reduction of the number of samples, (i) who made that decision, (ii) why was this decision made; (s) what are the results of the samples in (q); (t) how many years does the government anticipate it will take for the clams to be harvested and edible; (u) how many clams bed have died as a result of the oil spill; (v) what is the impact on the fish in the pens and (i) how many fish were affected, (ii) will the fish at Cermaq be commercialized and, if so, was the DFO or other agencies notified of this decision;

(w) were the fish pens prioritized in the cleanup and, if so, why; (x) was there pressure to clean up the fish pens first and, if so, by whom; (y) what is the impact on wild fish; (z) what is the impact on the ocean floor; (aa) how does the government anticipate First Nations and other groups will have to monitor and evaluate the area in the future; (bb) what are the resources that allow First Nations to monitor and evaluate the area in the future; (cc) how did the government cooperate with First Nations on the ground; (dd) was there ever a circumstance when First Nations were limited access and, if so, what was the reasoning; (ee) was there an investigation into the cause of the oil spill and, if so, (i) who investigated, (ii) what was the results of the investigation, (iii) was it a lack of diligence or training, (iv) what were the recommendations resulting from this investigation, (v) have these recommendation been implemented; (ff) what additional training has been identified in order to prevent this accident; (gg) what other measures have been identified in order to have prevented this accident;

(hh) what where the financial costs for (i) the Canadian Coast Guard, (ii) the Department of the Environment, (iii) the Western Marine company, (iv) the Department of Transport, (v) the DFO, (vi) all other parties involved; (ii) have the costs in (hh) been reimbursed by Cermaq or any other parties; (jj) what polluter pays principles have been applied as a consequence; (kk) how has the government or Cermaq proposed to rectify the loss of a major food source to Kwikwasat’inuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation; (ll) what is the compensation in place or planned for the replacement of income for the First Nation; (mm) has an environmental impact assessment been conducted and, if so, (i) what are the results, (ii) what were the recommendations, (iii) have these recommendations been implemented; (nn) how many times did the DFO complete a follow up; (oo) how many more samples does the government anticipate will be taken in the next five years; (pp) does the government anticipate the results of the samples taken in (oo) will be shared (i) publically, (ii) with First Nations; and (qq) has a schedule been established for the samples in (oo)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1060.


Q-1063 — Mr. Saroya (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the statement from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change on May 18, 2017, that “carbon pricing is the cheapest and most effective way to reduce emissions”: (a) what are the other methods of reducing emissions; (b) for each method referenced in (a), what is the cost, per Canadian citizen; (c) for each method in (a), how was efficacy to reduce emissions measured; and (d) for the government’s chosen carbon tax or price on carbon, what is the cost, per Canadian citizen? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1063.


Q-1065 — Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford) — With regard to the government’s additional information released in its technical paper on the carbon tax or price on carbon on May 18, 2017: (a) what amount of money will the carbon tax collect through the Canada Revenue Agency, by year and by province; (b) what amount of money does the government anticipate will be sent back to the provinces, by year and by province; (c) for the funds referred to in (b), how will they be sent back to the province (e.g. through a cheque to each province’s resident, through a transfer to the provincial government which will in turn decide what to do with the money, etc); (d) how many new public servants will be hired to administer the new carbon pricing system, broken down by (i) Environment and Climate Change Canada, (ii) Canada Revenue Agency, (iii) Finance Canada, (iv) Privy Council Office, (v) Other government departments; (e) how many current public servants will be transferred to positions to administer the new carbon pricing system, broken down by (i) Environment and Climate Change Canada, (ii) Canada Revenue Agency, (iii) Finance Canada, (iv) Privy Council Office; (v) Other government departments; and (f) how much will it cost to implement the public servants required to administer the carbon pricing system referred to in (d) and (e)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1065.


Q-1066 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the Jordan's Principle Child-First Initiative: (a) how many individuals have received services with funds from this initiative; and (b) what was the breakdown of the individuals in (a) by region and by category of health service provided? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1066.


Q-1067 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to government spending on Student Support Services within the Elementary and Secondary Education Program within Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: (a) for each region, and for each fiscal year going back to 1984-85, what monthly, quarterly or other incremental amounts were allocated per student for student accommodations for students attending off-reserve schools; and (b) for each region, and for each fiscal year going back to 1984-85, what monthly, quarterly or other incremental amounts were allocated per student for financial assistance allowances for students attending off-reserve schools? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1067.


Q-1068 — Mr. Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis) — With regard to psychometric tests conducted by the government since January 1, 2016: (a) for which positions or appointments does the government require a psychometric test prior to employment or appointment; (b) how many applicants or potential appointees received psychometric testing; (c) how many individuals being considered for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada received psychometric testing; (d) how was the psychometric testing for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages administered and graded (letter grade, pass/fail, recommended for hire, etc); (e) how did Madeleine Meilleur’s psychometric test results compare with that of the other candidates; and (f) what firm or individual conducted the psychometric tests referred to in (d)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1068.


Q-1072 — Ms. Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith) — With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Nanaimo—Ladysmith in fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17: (a) what grants, loans, contributions and contracts were awarded by the government, broken down by (i) department and agency, (ii) municipality, (iii) name of recipient, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the expenditure was allocated, (vi) date; and (b) for the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program, between the program’s launch on January 1, 2015, and May 29, 2017, (i) which proposals from the constituency have been submitted, (ii) which proposals from the constituency have been approved? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1072.


Q-1075 — Mr. Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil) — With regard to the use of antimalarial drugs in the Canadian Armed Forces, from 2003 to March 9, 2017, broken down by year: (a) which pharmaceutical companies were awarded contracts for administering antimalarial drugs; and (b) what was the unit cost for (i) 250 mg mefloquine, (ii) 100 mg doxycycline, (iii) 250/100 mg atovaquone-proguanil, (iv) 500 mg chloroquine phosphate (300 mg base)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1075.


Q-1077 — Ms. Watts (South Surrey—White Rock) — With regard to the trip by the Minister of International Trade to the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and India at the beginning of March 2017: (a) who were the members of the delegation, excluding security and media; (b) what were the titles of the delegation members; (c) what were the contents of the Minister’s itinerary; (d) what are the details of all meetings attended by the Minister on the trip, including (i) date, (ii) summary or description, (iii) attendees, including organizations and the list of individuals representing them, (iv) topics discussed, (v) location; and (e) what are the details of all deals or agreements signed on the trip? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1077.


Q-1078 — Ms. Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton) — With regard to expenditures made by the government since February 7, 2017, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not Elsewhere Classified): what are the details of each expenditure including (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1078.


Q-1079 — Mr. Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner) — With regard to government procurement and contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to ministers since May 1, 2017: (a) what are the details of contracts, including (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work, (v) value of contract; and (b) in the case of a contract for speechwriting, what is the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered, (iv) number of speeches to be written, (v) cost charged per speech? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1079.


Q-1080 — Mr. McColeman (Brantford—Brant) — With regard to materials prepared for ministers since April 10, 2017: for every briefing document, memorandum or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department's internal tracking number, (iv) recipient? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1080.


Q-1081 — Mr. Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke) — With respect to the periods of service of the Hon. Harjit Singh Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, in the Canadian military in Afghanistan: (a) in terms of Mr. Sajjan’s written terms of employment, terms of deployment, terms of service, terms of engagement or any like conditions of service/employment, what was or were Mr. Sajjan’s jobs, positons, and functions in Afghanistan throughout the periods in which he served in Afghanistan, including as they may have been modified or otherwise developed over time; (b) is it correct, as Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson reports in a letter to Mr. Craig Scott of February 27, 2017, that Mr. Sajjan told the Commissioner that he was “deployed as a reservist to Afghanistan where he was responsible for capacity building with local police forces” and, if so, was this the extent and limit of his role or roles; (c) if Mr. Sajjan had a role or roles going beyond what he told the Commissioner, did he deliberately withhold that information from the Commissioner; (d) when or after General David Fraser had Mr. Sajjan transferred from Kabul to Kandahar, what orders, instructions, changed terms of service, or the like, whether written or verbal, were given from time to time by General Fraser to Mr. Sajjan about what his role or roles would entail in Kandahar; (e) what was or were Mr. Sajjan’s role or roles in Afghanistan in relation to liaising with, working with, mentoring, training, advising, assisting, cooperating with or conducting any similar forms of engagement with the Afghan National Police (ANP), the National Directorate of Security (NDS), the Afghan National Army (ANA), the Governor of Kandahar, and any informal or paramilitary organizations working for or with the aforementioned four organizations; (f) how many meetings and on what dates did Mr. Sajjan attend (i) meetings with the Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) in Kandahar and (ii) meetings on the same day as JCC meetings that consisted of a sub-section of the attendees of the JCC meeting; (g) what was or were Mr. Sajjan’s role or roles with respect to the JCC and with respect to any other meeting consisting of some but not all members of the JCC, and did his role include facilitating and then reporting on intelligence flows from the National Directorate of Security to the Canadian and/or allied militaries;

(h) is any part of what General David Fraser said in the following report by David Pugliese (“Afghan service puts Defence Minister Sajjan in conflict of interest on detainees, say lawyers,” [June 21, 2016] Ottawa Citizen), namely that “Retired Brig.-Gen. David Fraser has said Sajjan’s work as an intelligence officer and his activities in Afghanistan helped lay the foundation for a military operation that led to the death or capture of more than 1,500 insurgents”, untrue and, if so, why and/or to what extent; (i) is any part of what Sean Maloney reports in his book Fighting for Afghanistan: A Rogue Historian at War (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2011) in the following sentence – “Harj [Mr. Sajjan] attended the weekly security meeting and learned that the meeting could become a tool as well. Over time, he developed rapport with all the security ‘players’ in Kandahar.”— untrue and, if so, why and/or to what extent; (j) is any part of what Sean Maloney also reports in his book in the following sentence – “[Following JCC meetings] Harj was able to send two pages of solid intelligence to TF [Task Force] ORION per week. The quality of the intelligence was awesome.” – untrue and, if so, why and/or to what extent; (k) is any part of what Sean Maloney also reports in his book in the following sentence – “[T]he NDS funneled most of the information into the JCC, so it wasn’t all just coming from OEF systems or resources.” – untrue and, if so, why and/or to what extent;

(l) is any part of what Sean Maloney also reports in his book in the following sentence – “[F]rom then on, Harj sent intelligence directly to AEGIS, to ORION, and to the ASIC with his analysis attached.” – untrue and, if so, why and/or to what extent; (m) is any part of what Sean Maloney also reports in his book in the following sentence – “My responsibilities were vague at first. General Fraser had me work with [Governor of Kandahar Province] Asadullah Khalid. But I also worked at the PRT [Provincial Reconstruction Team] to assess emergent Afghan policing issues.” – untrue and, if so, why and to what extent; and (n) when Mr. Sajjan delivered a speech in New Delhi on April 18, 2017, and said from a prepared text – “On my first deployment to Kandahar in 2006, I was the architect of Operation MEDUSA where we removed 1,500 Taliban fighters off the battlefield…” – was he referring, in whole or in part, to his intelligence role for which he was praised by General David Fraser, the commander of Operation MEDUSA, as referenced in (h) above? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1081.


Q-1082 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — With regard to the statement by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities in Maclean’s magazine on June 9, 2017, that “My department has approved more than 2,900 projects with a total investment of over $23 billion since our government took office”: (a) what are the details of the 2,900 projects including (i) project description, (ii) amount of federal contribution, (iii) location, (iv) anticipated completion date; (b) how many of the projects referred to in (a) have “broken ground”; and (c) of the projects that have broken ground, what was the date of the ground breaking ceremony or, alternatively, the date when work commenced? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1082.


Q-1085 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to the automotive and manufacturing industry in Canada, (a) has the government worked with any global automotive or manufacturing companies to increase existing or to bring in a brand new automotive investment in the form of new factories, products, or jobs, to Canada since 2015, (b) is the government considering greenfield or brownfield investment for the automotive and manufacturing industry in Canada, (c) is the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council considering new investment and greenfield or brownfield investment in the automotive and manufacturing industry in Canada, and (d) if so, what municipal locations were considered? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1085.


Q-1086 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — With regard to the right to housing and the upcoming National Housing Strategy: (a) how many stakeholders brought up or advocated for the right to housing during the “Let’s Talk Housing” consultation; (b) what was the government’s response to such demands mentioned in (a); (c) has the government assessed how a human rights based approach to housing can be recognized and furthered through laws and policies; (d) does the government intend to recognize the right to housing, and if not, why (e) does the National Housing Strategy aim at determining whether our laws, policies and practices are sufficient to prevent (i) homelessness, (ii) forced evictions, (iii) discrimination in having adequate housing,; (f) when will be the completion for the examination in (e); (g) which department is responsible for the examination in (e); (h) is the National Housing Strategy based on a human right based approach, and if not, how is the government determining the appropriate framework that ensures (i) accountability, (ii) cohesive outlook beyond the physical structure, (iii) systemic causes of housing insecurity; (i) how many times has the right to housing been discussed or raised with the Minister or Deputy Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and has the Minister provided a response to the right to housing and its inclusion in a National Housing Strategy and, if so, what was it;

(j) has there been any briefing with detailed information on the right to housing, and for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number; (k) how many times has the parliamentary secretary raised the right to housing with the Minister; (l) what are all of Canada’s international obligations, treaties and other legal instruments that ensure everyone in Canada a right to safe or a secure or adequate or an affordable home; (m) why has Canada never formally incorporated the international covenants on the right to housing; (n) has legislation ever been considered for the purpose mentioned in (m), and if not, why; (o) does the government intend to institute a built-in accountability measure to ensure the National Housing Strategy works for all Canadians without a right to housing; (p) how many times has a report from the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing been discussed with the government; (q) has the question mentioned in (p) been raised with any Ministers or Deputy Ministers and has they provided a response and, if so, what was it; (r) has there been any briefing with detailed information on the matter mentioned in (p), and for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number; (s) how does the government plan on eliminating discrimination in housing programs; (t) how does the government plan on setting measurable goal and timelines to reduce poverty with its National Housing Strategy; (u) what measures or means the government intends to have to account when the right to housing are violated; (v) does the government intend to involve people experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness at every step of the elaboration process of the National Housing Strategy; and (w) does the government intend to offer human rights training for those involved with the Strategy? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1086.


Q-1087 — Ms. Quach (Salaberry—Suroît) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s Youth Council and the Privy Council’s Youth Secretariat: (a) what is the decision-making flow chart for the Prime Minister’s Youth Council, including each of the positions associated with the Council; (b) what is the total amount spent and the total budget of the Youth Council since it was established, broken down by year; (c) what amounts in the Youth Council budget are allocated for salaries, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) per diem or any other reimbursement or expense (telecommunications, transportation, office supplies, furniture) offered or attributed to each of the positions mentioned in (a); (d) what are the dates and the locations of each of the meetings held by the Youth Council since it was established, broken down by (i) in-person meetings, (ii) virtual meetings, (iii) number of participants at each of these meetings; (e) how much did the government spend to hold each of the Youth Council meetings mentioned in (c), broken down by (i) costs associated with renting a room, (ii) costs associated with food and drinks, (iii) costs associated with security, (iv) costs associated with transportation and the nature of this transportation, (v) costs associated with telecommunications; (f) what is the decision-making flow chart for the Privy Council’s Youth Secretariat, including each of the positions associated with the Youth Secretariat; (g) what is the total amount spent and the total budget of the Youth Secretariat since it was established, broken down by year; (h) what amounts in the Youth Secretariat budget are allocated for salaries, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) per diem or any other reimbursement or expense (telecommunications, transportation, office supplies, furniture) offered or attributed to each of the positions mentioned in (h)(ii); (i) what is the official mandate of the Youth Secretariat; ( j) what is the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Youth Council and the Youth Secretariat (organizational ties, financial ties, logistical support, etc.); (k) is the Youth Secretariat responsible for youth bursaries, services or programs; and (l) if the answer to (k) is affirmative, what amounts were allocated to these bursaries, services or programs since they were established, broken down by (i) the nature of the bursary, service or program funded, (ii) the location of the program, (iii) the start and end date of the bursary, service or program? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1087.


Q-1088 — Mr. Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Leamington) — With regard to spending on “stock” photographs or images by the government since January 1, 2016, broken down by department, agency, crown corporation, and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; (b) what are the details of each contract or expenditure including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) details and duration of contract, (iv) date, (v) number of photos or images purchased, (vi) where were the photos or images used (internet, billboards, etc.), (vii) description of ad campaign, (viii) file number of contract? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1088.


Q-1089 — Mr. Lobb (Huron—Bruce) — With regard to proposed takeovers of Canadian businesses or firms by foreign entities, since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the complete list of such takeovers which had to be approved by the government; (b) what are the details of each transaction, including the (i) date of approval, (ii) value of takeover, (iii) Minister who was responsible for the approval, (iv) name of Canadian business or firm involved, (v) name of foreign entity involved, (vi) country the foreign entity is from; and (c) how many such proposed takeovers have been rejected by the government since January 1, 2016, and what are the details of the rejected proposals? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1089.


Q-1090 — Mr. Lobb (Huron—Bruce) — With regard to the financial compensation and salaries of ministerial exempt staff, as of June 14, 2017: (a) without revealing the identity of the individuals, how many current exempt staff members receive a salary higher than the range indicated by the Treasury Board guidelines associated with their position; and (b) how many staff members in the Office of the Prime Minister receive a salary in excess of (i) $125,000, (ii) $200,000? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1090.


Q-1091 — Mr. Lobb (Huron—Bruce) — With regard to the Office of the Prime Minister and Minister's offices from April 1, 2016, to June 14, 2017: (a) how much was spent on contracts for (i) temporary employment, (ii) consultants, (iii) advice; (b) what are the names of the individuals and companies that correspond to these amounts; and (c) for each person and company in (b), what were their billing periods and what type of work did they provide? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1091.


Q-1092 — Ms. Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) — With regard to cooperation between the Canadian military and the United States (US) military and intelligence agencies in Afghanistan and Iraq and to findings of the Canadian military Board of Inquiry report of May 4, 2010, on the subject of the “14 June 2006 Afghan Detainee Incident”: (a) when did Canada decide to no longer transfer persons in the care, custody, or control of members of the Canadian military to members of the US military; (b) were there any omissions or exclusions from the scope of this decision at the receiving end, such as US intelligence agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or did the decision apply to transfers to any agent or actor acting on behalf of the US government; (c) at the transferring end, did this decision apply to all members of the Canadian military, including special forces and intelligence officials, and if not, to whom did it not apply; (d) for what reasons was this decision taken; (e) was this decision taken after legal advice had been received on whether it would be lawful to continue to transfer to the US and if so, was the government advised that it would be unlawful to continue the transfers; (f) what was the date of the last transfer before the decision came into effect; (g) did this decision apply to persons who would or could be characterized as Persons Under Control (PUC) by the US Army, units within the US Army, or the CIA, considering that this is a term that the Canadian military Board of Inquiry report of May 4, 2010, referred to as an “American Army Term”; (h) were there any instances of this decision not being implemented, and thus of persons being transferred to the US military or another US agency in situations in which members of the Canadian military themselves characterized a person as a PUC, considering that the same Canadian military Board of Inquiry report of May 4, 2010, observed that the term PUC was in “widespread use” within the Canadian military in Afghanistan; (i) is the government aware of any instances in which persons who were determined not to be “detainees” were transferred on the battlefield or elsewhere to Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) personnel, including the Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army, the National Directorate of Security, and any paramilitary or like organizations working for or alongside the foregoing, to then learn that the person was re-transferred by ANSF personnel to members of the US military, CIA, or private US actors cooperating with the US Army or CIA; (j) is the government aware of any instances in which persons treated by Canada as “detainees” were transferred to ANSF personnel and then re-transferred by ANSF personnel to members of the US military, CIA, etc., especially before the 2007 Transfer Arrangement between Canada and Afghanistan took effect; (k) was this decision conveyed to the US government and if so, what reasons were provided and how did the US government respond; and (l) was this decision ever reversed or revised and if so, on what terms, when, and for what reasons? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1092.


Q-1093 — Ms. Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) — With respect to the characterization of persons in the care, custody or control of the Canadian military as Persons Under Control (PUCs) or use of like categories, whether or not such terms were or are used officially or unofficially: (a) in relation to a statement by Donald P. Wright et al. in A Different Kind of War: The United States Army in Operation – ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) October 2001-September 2005 (Combat Studies Institute, 2010), at p. 221: “Detainees in Coalition hands in Afghanistan were referred to as persons under control (PUCs) instead of EPWs or detainees,”, does this reference to “Coalition” apply to the Canadian military, including special forces in any part of the 2001-2005 period in question; (b) in relation to a claim by Ahmed Rashid in Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation-Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia (Penguin, 2009), at pp. 304-305: “In spring 2002, …CIA lawyers further twisted legal boundaries by establishing a new category of prisoner: Persons Under Control, or PUC. Anyone held as PUC was automatically denied access to the ICRC, and even his existence was denied...PUCs were flown around the world to different locations on private jets belonging to dummy companies owned by the CIA.”, is the government aware of whether this is an accurate statement of one use to which the category of “PUC” was put by the United States; (c) in relation to an observation in Center for Law and Military Operations (United States Army, Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School), Lessons Learned from Afghanistan and Iraq: Volume I - Major Combat Operations (11 September 2001 – 1 May 2003) (August 1, 2004) [Lessons Learned]: “[P]ersons detained were either classified as ‘persons under control’ (PUCs) or simply as ‘detainees.’… Persons captured on the battlefield were initially brought to the classified location to establish their identity and determine if they met the criteria for potential transfer to Guantanamo. During this phase, detained personnel were classified as ‘PUCs’.”, is the government aware of whether, during such windows of time, CIA agents or persons working for the CIA would sometimes take custody of PUCs from the US Army before they could be officially designated as “detainees” by the Army; (d) in relation to a claim in Chris Mackey and Greg Miller, The Interrogators: Task Force 500 and America’s Secret War Against Al-Qaeda (Back Bay Books, 2004), at pp. 250-251: “In June [2002]…our [US Army] command in Bagram …came up with a whole new prisoner category called “persons under U.S. control”, or PUCs. The whole idea was to create a sort of limbo status, a bureaucratic blank spot where prisoners could reside temporarily without entering any official database or numbering system.”: is the government aware of whether or not this US Army PUC category was created in concert with and used by the CIA as a way to secure custody of PUCs while they were still in a “bureaucratic blank spot”; (e) in relation to the observations in Lessons Learned that “the term ‘PUC’ did not develop until the [US] XVIIIth Airborne Corps arrived in Afghanistan” in 2002, did Canadian Forces, including special forces, ever conduct joint operations with the US’ XVIIIth Airbone Corps in which captives were taken;

(f) is the government aware of whether the commanding officer of the US’ XVIIIth Airborne Corps, Lt. Gen. Dan McNeill, was a direct source of, or conduit for, the notion of “PUC” and if so, whether Lt. Gen. Dan McNeill was working in concert or tandem with the CIA in introducing this term into the Afghanistan theatre; (g) after General Walter Natynczyk was seconded to command 35,000 US forces in Iraq during the US’ Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq from January 2004 to January 2005, did he bring any knowledge of the use of PUC practices or a PUC system from Iraq to the Canada-Afghanistan context when he became head of the Canadian Forces’ Land Force Doctrine and Training system in 2005 and when he was appointed Vice-Chief of Defence Staff in 2006, and if so, was such practices introduced in any way to this doctrine and training system; (h) prior to August 2015 by which time the first Canadian Forces troops had arrived in Kandahar, were there meetings between Canadian Lt. Gen. Michel Gauthier and US Under-Secretary of Defence for Intelligence Steve Cambone or any other officials in the US Department of Defense or in the Pentagon in which they discussed, inter alia, Canada aligning or otherwise coordinating its policy and practices in Kandahar with those of the US, including in relation to detainees, as a condition of the US agreeing that Canada be assigned Kandahar; (i) prior to August 2015 by which time the first Canadian Forces troops had arrived in Kandahar, were there meetings between Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier and any officials in the US Department of Defense or in the Pentagon in which they discussed, inter alia, Canada aligning or otherwise coordinating its policy and practices in Kandahar with those of the US, including in relation to detainees, as a condition of the US agreeing that Canada be assigned Kandahar; (j) prior to August 2015 by which time the first Canadian Forces troops had arrived in Kandahar, were there meetings between any Canadian Forces officers apart from Generals Gauthier and Hillier in which they discussed, inter alia, Canada aligning or otherwise coordinating its policy and practices in Kandahar with those of the US, including in relation to detainees, as a condition of the US agreeing that Canada be assigned Kandahar; and (k) is the mini-biography of Mr. Gauthier on The Governance Network’s website correct in saying Gauthier “[l]ed Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, responsible for all CF operational missions abroad, the Canadian mission in southern Afghanistan” and if so, did this include authority over policy and decisions related to the transfer of captives to other states? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1093.


Q-1094 — Ms. Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) — With respect to the characterization of persons in the care, custody or control of the Canadian military as “PUCs” and “Persons Under Control”, or use of like categories, whether or not such terms were or are used officially or unofficially: (a) does the government accept the accuracy of the finding of a Canadian military Board of Inquiry (BOI) on the subject of the “14 June 2006 Afghan Detainee Incident” [BOI June 2006 Incident Report], in its report of May 4, 2010, (para 30, part II) that the term “PUC” was in “widespread use” amongst Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2006; (b) in relation to a BOI June 2006 Incident Report observation (para 30, part II), stating that “[T]he B Coy MP [B Company Military Police officer] testified that he was directed during ROTO 1 [rotation/deployment 1] to always use the term “PUC” and to avoid the term “Detainee.””, who directed this Military Police (MP) to systematically use “PUC” and to avoid “detainee” and for what reasons was this MP so directed; (c) in relation to a BOI June 2006 Incident Report finding (para 30, part II), stating that “When made aware of the term the TFA Advisors (LEGAD and PM) endeavoured to remove it [“PUC”] from the tactical reporting lexicon, as it had no legal foundation in detainee policy.”, (i) when and how were the Task Force Afghanistan (TFA) Advisors “made aware of the term”, (ii) for what period did “PUC” appear in tactical reporting, (iii) did its use in tactical reporting end, and if it ended, when did it end and was this the result of the initiative of the TFA Advisors; (d) in relation to the same report finding as in (c), was any person in position of strategic command in the Canadian Forces, including Generals Rick Hillier, Walter Natynzyk, Michel Gauthier and David Fraser, at any time aware of the use of the term “PUC” and if so, what actions did one or more of them take in relation to its use; (e) does the government accept the BOI June 2006 Incident Report finding that persons characterized by Canadian soldiers and commanders during one or more periods in 2006 as “PUCs” were transferred to Afghan authorities without also being characterized as “detainees” with the result that there was no triggering of the record-keeping and reporting (including reporting to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)) connected to official detainee policy and to the 2005 Transfer Arrangement with Afghanistan, and if so, what is the number of such PUCs transferred without record or reporting to the ICRC;

(f) in relation to the observation in the BOI June 2006 Incident Report (para 33, Part II), that, in relation to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published Canadian military reports from the field that 26 persons were “captured” on May 17, 2006, by Task Force ORION, those 26 were transferred to the Afghan National Police without ever being processed as detainees, were those persons treated as PUCs by TF ORION; (g) in relation to question (m) of Order Paper Question Q-1117 (41st Parliament, first session; filed by Craig Scott, MP) that asked the government to set out how 11 captured persons referenced at page 96 of a book by the commanding officer of Task Force ORION, Ian Hope – Dancing with the Dushman: Command Imperatives for the Counter-Insurgency Fight in Afghanistan (Canadian Defence Agency Press, 2008) – were processed, were these 11 persons processed as “detainees” with attendant record-keeping and reporting or were they instead treated as “PUCs” and transferred to Afghan authorities on that basis, with no attendant record-keeping or reporting to the ICRC; (h) in view of the statement in a report by the Directorate of Special Examinations and Inquiries (DESI), in “Directorate of Special Examinations and Inquiries Investigation—Passage of Information, Final Report (14 June 2006 Afghanistan Detainee Incident)”, document number 7045-72-09/26, that it was “of very significant concern …that a number of TF ORION War Diary records for the period 13 May – 17 June 2006 could not be located”, have some or all of those war diary records since been located; (i) if some or all of the war diaries referenced in (h) have been located, do they shed light on the use of “PUCs” or like designations as a way to avoid labelling a captive as a “detainee”; (j) in relation to point (o) in Q-1117 (41st Parliament, first session) – “were there persons under the control of Canadian forces who were transferred to Afghanistan, but who were not treated by Canada as covered by the provisions of the 2005 and 2007 Canada-Afghanistan Memorandums of Understanding on detainee transfer and if so, on what basis were transfers of such persons not deemed covered by the agreements?” – that the government did not then answer in the affirmative, would the government now like to change its answer; (k) in relation to point (p) in Q-1117 (41st Parliament, first session) – “were there persons under the control of Canadian forces who were transferred to Afghanistan but whose existence and transfer was not made known to the International Committee of the Red Cross and if so, on what basis was the Red Cross not informed?” – that the government did not then answer in the affirmative, would the government now like to change its answer; (l) in relation to point (n) of Q-1117 (41st Parliament, first session) – “at any period and if so, which periods, [were] there …one or more categories of persons who Canada passed on to either Afghan or American authorities but who were not categorized as detainees, and did such categories have a designation, whether formal or informal?” – why did the government not reveal the existence of “PUCs” as an informal category;

(m) in relation to, inter alia, the government answers to points (n), (o), and (p) of Q-1117 (41st Parliament, first session), does the present government consider that the former government deliberately sought to mislead or even deceive the then Member of Parliament who submitted Q-1117 (41st Parliament, first session); (n) inclusive of points (n), (o), and (p) of Q-1117 (41st Parliament, first session), are there any answers to this question that the present government considers were incorrect or untruthful; (o) in relation to a September 19, 2016, letter from Mr. Craig Scott, former MP for Toronto–Danforth, to the current Prime Minister in which Mr. Scott presented reasons as to why he “believe[d] it to be likely that the Department of National Defence crafted its answer to Order Paper Question Q-1117 (41st Parliament, first session) in order to avoid revealing” the existence of persons who were transferred to Afghanistan without being recorded or reported to the ICRC as “detainees”, has that letter resulted in any inquiries by or on behalf of the Prime Minister and if so, of what sort and with what result; (p) when on December 8, 2009, then Member of Parliament the Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh asked a question to former Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk in the latter’s appearance before the Standing Committee on National Defence in which Mr. Dosanjh quoted from a Globe and Mail article in which a Military Police officer’s field notes used the term “PUC”, did the government conduct any other investigation into why “PUC” had been used apart from the ordering of Board of Inquiry and Chief of Review Services investigations into aspects of the underlying incident and if so, what was the result; and (q) in relation to findings in BOI June 2006 Incident Report (para 12, Part II), stating that “Although BGen [David] Fraser did not become familiar with TSO [Theatre Standing Order] 321A until arriving in Kandahar…, its underlying principle of transferring detainees to ANSF was made clear to him before departing Canada. Direction provided to him verbally by the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) [General Rick Hillier] emphasized that Afghan detainees were to be transferred to Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) as far forward in the field and as rapidly as possible; indeed, that their transfer from CF to ANSF custody was to be measured in terms of “minutes to hours.”, does the government consider that this constituted an instruction by General Hillier to circumvent the formal “detainee” system with a “PUC” practice? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1094.


Q-1095 — Ms. Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) — With regard to all operational contexts in which members of the Canadian military have been involved since September 11, 2001, up to the present and with respect to all military orders, directives, instructions, etc., whether binding or non-binding, interim, provisional, or final, related to persons in the care, custody, or control of members of the Canadian military and to all persons with whom members of the Canadian military come into contact but who are judged as being in the care, custody, or control of armed forces, security, and intelligence forces, and police forces of another state: (a) what were the numbers, titles and dates of all Canadian Forces Theatre Standing Orders and the identity of the issuing official; (b) what were the numbers, titles, and dates of all Fragmentary Orders and the identity of the issuing official; (c) what were the numbers, titles, and dates of all International Security Assistance Force orders of a similar nature issued in relation to the conflict in Afghanistan and the name of the issuing official or entity which issued them; and (d) what were the numbers, titles, and dates of any orders of a similar nature issued by American, Iraqi, or other forces, including Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq, that apply in any way, directly or indirectly, to Canadian soldiers who come into contact with detainees while serving in Iraq and the name of the issuing official or entity which issued them? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1095.


Q-1098 — Mr. Rankin (Victoria) — In relation to Canada’s transfer of captives in Afghanistan to the authorities of other states, including the United States and Afghanistan, from 2001 onward: (a) have there been any investigations by any federal agency, including but not limited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Armed Forces National Investigation Service, of senior officers in the Canadian Forces up to and including the Chief of Defence Staff for possible criminal conduct in violation of one or more Canadian statutes and one or more international legal obligations; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, (i) between what dates, (ii) with respect to what conduct, (iii) with what result were these investigations conducted; (c) have there been any investigations by any federal agency, including but not limited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Armed Forces National Investigation Service, of any Minister of the Crown including the Prime Minister for possible criminal conduct in violation of one or more Canadian statutes and one or more international legal obligations; (d) if the answer in (c) is affirmative, (i) between what dates, (ii) with respect to what conduct, (iii) with what result were these investigations conducted; (e) have there been any investigations by any federal agency, including but not limited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Armed Forces National Investigation Service, of any member of the public service for possible criminal conduct in violation of one or more Canadian statutes and one or more international legal obligations; (f) if the answer in (e) is affirmative, (i) between what dates, (ii) with respect to what conduct, (iii) with what result were these investigations conducted; and (g) have there been any investigations by any federal agency, including but not limited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Armed Forces National Investigation Service, of any member of the a minister’s political staff including any member of the Prime Minister’s Office for possible criminal conduct in violation of one or more Canadian statutes and one or more international legal obligations; and (h) if the answer in (g) is affirmative, (i) between what dates, (ii) with respect to what conduct, (iii) with what result were these investigations conducted? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1098.


Q-1100 — Mr. O'Toole (Durham) — With regard to the government’s nomination of a new Clerk of the House of Commons, and its general commitment to “open, transparent and merit-based” selection processes: (a) what process was followed to select the nominee; (b) how many candidates applied for the position; (c) were any tests or assessments administered to the candidates; (d) how many candidates were interviewed; (e) who were the members of the selection board or interview panel; (f) were candidates’ professional and character references checked; (g) how many candidates were psychometrically tested; (h) what was the role of the Prime Minister in the selection process; (i) what was the role of the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Principal Secretary and Director of Appointments in the selection process; (j) what was the role of the Government House Leader in the selection process; (k) what was the role of the Chief of Staff to the Government House Leader in the selection process; (l) what was the role of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard in the selection process; (m) what was the role of the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard in the selection process; (n) did any ministers or exempt staff, not named in parts (h) to (m), have a role in the selection process; (o) what was the role of the Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Results and Delivery) in the selection process; (p) what role was provided or offered to the Speaker of the House of Commons, or any personal representative of him, in the selection process; (q) were executive search firms, consultants, or other contractors retained to support the selection process; (r) if the answer in (q) is affirmative, (i) who was retained, (ii) what services were provided, (iii) what was the value of the services provided; (s) when was the nominee notified he was the government’s choice, and who notified him; (t) were the opposition parties’ House leaders consulted on the choice of nominee, and if so, by whom and when; and (u) was the Speaker of the House of Commons consulted on the choice of nominee, and if so, by whom and when? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1100.


Q-1101 — Mr. Richards (Banff—Airdrie) — With regard to the most recent Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) compliance test on small businesses with regard to active vs. passive income: (a) what date did the compliance test (i) begin, (ii) end; (b) how many small businesses were (i) assessed in this test, (ii) determined to owe a greater amount to the CRA than initially assessed, (iii) determined to owe a lesser amount than initially assessed; (c) how were these small businesses selected for assessment; (d) how many of the businesses assessed were (i) campgrounds, (ii) self-storage facilities, (iii) from other sectors, as broken down by the North American Industry Classification System; (e) what conclusions, if any, were reached about (i) the CRA’s interpretation of the rules regarding “active” and “passive” income of the small businesses involved, (ii) the application of the CRA’s interpretation of the rules regarding the eligibility of the small businesses involved to receive the small business tax deduction; (f) what other conclusions were reached; and (g) what standards were used to determine whether a small business (i) provided a sufficient number of services for its generated income to be considered active, (ii) engaged or hired a sufficient number of year-round full-time employees for its generated income to be considered active? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1101.


Q-1102 — Mr. Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge) — With regard to the government’s decision to permit the Hytera takeover of Norsat International Incorporated: (a) did the transaction undergo a complete national security review as defined by the Investment Canada Act; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including (i) when did the national security review commence, (ii) when did the review conclude; and (c) when did the government approve the transaction? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1102.

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), seconded by Mr. Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development), — That Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

The debate continued.

Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were laid upon the Table as follows:

— by Mr. Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development) and Ms. Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage) — Response of the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, "The Enumeration of Rights-Holders Under Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Toward a Census that Supports the Charter" (Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-204), presented to the House on Tuesday, May 9, 2017. — Sessional Paper No. 8512-421-204.

— by Mr. Carr (Minister of Natural Resources) — Response of the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, "The Future of Canada’s Mining Sector: Sustainable Growth Beyond the Global Downturn" (Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-159), presented to the House on Tuesday, March 7, 2017. — Sessional Paper No. 8512-421-159.

— by Mr. Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) — Response of the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to the 24th Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, "Report 1, The Beyond the Border Action Plan, of the Fall 2016 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada" (Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-197), presented to the House on Tuesday, May 2, 2017. — Sessional Paper No. 8512-421-197.

— by Mr. Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) — Response of the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to the 26th Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, "Report 3, Preparing Indigenous Offenders for Release, of the Fall 2016 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada" (Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-216), presented to the House on Monday, May 15, 2017. — Sessional Paper No. 8512-421-216.

— by Ms. Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage) — Report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, pursuant to the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11, sbs. 71(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-421-86-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage)

— by Ms. Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage) — Report of Telefilm Canada, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, pursuant to the Telefilm Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-16, sbs. 23(2). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-421-91-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage)

— by Mr. Morneau (Minister of Finance) — Report of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-421-78-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Finance)

Adjournment Proceedings

At 6:30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 38(1), the question “That this House do now adjourn” was deemed to have been proposed.

After debate, the question was deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, at 6:59 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).