House Publications

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Bilingual view PDF


Tuesday, September 20, 2016 (No. 77)

Questions

The complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available for consultation at the Table in the Chamber and on the Internet. Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.

Q-316² — June 13, 2016 — — With regard to statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the Sergei Magnitsky case: (a) have persons identified as having a role in the detention and murder of Sergei Magnitsky been denied entry into Canada under existing laws; (b) does the Canada Border Services Agency currently have a list of those persons identified as having a role in the detention and murder of Sergei Magnitsky available to its agents; (c) how do existing laws prevent the entry of those identified as having a role in the detention and murder of Sergei Magnitsky from entering Canada; (d) is the government consulting with other jurisdictions who have passed legislation related to the Sergei Magnitsky case; (e) if the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, how detailed is the information sharing; (f) if the answer to (d) is in the negative, how does the government plan to refuse entry to those responsible in the Magnitsky case without detailed information; (g) does the government plan to draft regulations to accompany existing laws specific to those identified in the Magnitsky case; (i) on what date was it determined that existing laws are sufficient enough to refuse entry into Canada to those identified in the Magnitsky case; (j) for the determination made in (i), at what level at Global Affairs Canada was this determination made; (k) what information was taken into consideration in making determinations related to (i) and (j); and (l) what are the details of any documents related to the determination mentioned in (i), (j) and (k)?

Q-353² — June 16, 2016 — — With regard to the re-negotiation of the Columbia River Treaty: (a) what is the status of the re-negotiation; (b) have negotiators been named on behalf of Canada; (c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, who has been appointed and for what term; (d) what changes to the Treaty is the government seeking in this re-negotiation; (e) when are negotiations expected to commence and what is the current schedule of negotiations; (f) what representation from First Nations communities will be a part of Canada’s negotiating team; (g) has the government devolved any of the negotiation process to the Province of British Columbia and if so, what processes; and (h) will the consultations undertaken by the Columbia River Treaty Local Governments Committee be taken into consideration by the negotiating team?

Q-354² — June 16, 2016 — — With regard to consultations on possible electoral reform initiatives being undertaken by the Minister for Democratic Reform: (a) what consultations have been held as of June 1, 2016; (b) for each of the consultations in (a), who has the Minister or her officials consulted and what were the recommendations of each consultation; (c) what proportion of the groups or individuals consulted are (i) activists, (ii) academics, (iii) corporations, (iv) labour unions, (v) professional associations, (vi) Canadians with no official affiliation to a group advocating for electoral reform; (d) what steps have the Minister and her officials taken to receive a representative sample of public opinion on the matter of electoral reform; (e) what steps have the Minister or her officials taken to ensure a full and free discussion of electoral reform options; (f) have the consultations on electoral reform reflected the announcement by the government that 2015 would be the last election held under the first-past-the-post system, and if so, how; (g) if consultations on the current or alternate electoral systems have not yet been held, what steps does the Minister or her officials plan to take to ensure that the outcomes of future consultations are not prejudiced for or against any specific electoral system; (h) of the consultations in (a), which ones have recommended maintaining the current electoral system of first-past-the-post; (i) of the consultations in (a), how many have recommended first-past-the-post, proportional representation (and variants), transferrable ballots (and variants), and other electoral systems, respectively; (j) has the Minister or her officials consulted other countries that have recently modified or considered modifying their electoral system regarding their experience; and (k) if the answer to (j) is in the affirmative, which countries were consulted, and for each consultation, what were the findings of the consultation?

Q-355² — June 16, 2016 — — With respect to Shared Services Canada and the independent review recently ordered by the President of the Treasury Board: (a) what criteria will be used to select the independent contractor or contractors performing the review; (b) which factors were assessed in estimating the cost of the review at $1.4 million; (c) what measures will be in place to ensure that the review is conducted on time and on budget; (d) should the review not be delivered on time and on budget, how does the Treasury Board plan to address this problem; (e) which factors were assessed in estimating the time that the review will take to execute; (f) what are the terms of reference for the review; (g) once the review is completed, when will the resulting report be made public; and (h) what security screening measures will be used to ensure the trustworthiness of the independent contractor or contractors selected for the review?

Q-356² — June 16, 2016 — — With regard to the legal requirements that Ministers and Ministers’ staff avoid conflicts of interest, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and his staff: (a) how many times has the Minister’s Chief of Staff recused herself from decisions involving policy matters that directly affect egg farmers in Ontario or Canada; (b) for each instance in (a), what were the dates of such recusals; and (c) other than recusing herself from decisions involving policy matters directly affecting egg farmers in Ontario and Canada, how did the Minister’s Chief of Staff comply with legal requirements to avoid conflicts of interest?

Q-357² — June 16, 2016 — — With regard to real or perceived conflicts of interest: (a) what are the precise reporting requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act with respect to Ministers and staff recusing themselves from decisions which would place them in a conflict of interest; (b) does the government operate under a standard of avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest; (c) if the answer in (b) is in the affirmative, how is this higher standard enforced; and (d) what plans, if any, does the government have to amend the Conflict of Interest Act to mandate this higher standard?

Q-358² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to the implementation of the new Phoenix pay system, and its technical issues which have resulted in a disruption of pay to public sector employees: (a) how many employees have experienced a disruption of pay since the system was launched, in total, and broken down by pay cycle; (b) of the employees in (a), (i) how many of those affected had no pay processed, and how many had other payroll errors, (ii) what is their breakdown by department and by sex; (c) how many staff are employed at the pay centre; (d) how many calls have been received regarding pay disruptions since the system launched; (e) what length of time has it taken before pay issues are resolved, on average, and broken down by individual complaint; and (f) how much overtime has been incurred, broken down by hours worked and costs incurred per individual pay period, in order to address these issues?

Q-359² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to the replacement of the universal child care benefit and the Canada child tax benefit with the new Canada child benefit in Budget 2016, what were the Minister of Finance’s considerations concerning families that are just under the cut off adjusted family net income amount of approximately $150 000, who will receive benefits, compared to those at, or slightly above, the $150 000 mark?

Q-360² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to the commitment in Budget 2016 to invest in the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) so as to enhance its efforts to combat tax evasion and avoidance and with regard to the June 7, 2016, meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance’s concerning efforts by the CRA to combat tax avoidance and evasion: (a) did the Minister of Finance, anyone within his office, or Department of Finance, meet with anyone from Canadians For Tax Fairness prior to the release of Budget 2016; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, was this meeting, in whole or in part, on the topic of the use of the proposed funds for the CRA included in Budget 2016; (c) were legislative responses to tax evasion and avoidance considered when drafting solutions to these issues, or was the only solution considered a monetary increase to the CRA’s budget; and (d) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, was there a cost analysis done on whether legislative measures or additional funding for CRA would be more effective?

Q-361² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to the government’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth: (a) when does the Council meet; (b) are minutes taken at its meetings; (c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, what are the details of these minutes; (d) what is the process for choosing the advisors; (e) who chooses the advisors; (f) to what degree does the Council have power over the choices of the government in economic matters; (g) how are the Council’s suggestions weighed in relation to that of the Department of Finance; (h) for each of the following members of the Council, what was the reason that they were selected for the Council, and what contribution do they provide to the Council (i) Dominic Barton, (ii) Elyse Allen, (iii) Katherine Barr, (iv) Jennifer Blanke, (v) Kenneth Courtis, (vi) Brian Ferguson, (vii) Suzanne Fortier, (viii) Carol Anne Hilton, (ix) Carol Lee, (x) Christopher Ragan, (xi) Angela Strange, (xii) Ilse Treurnicht; and (i) with regard to (h)(i), what powers does Dominic Barton hold as chair of the Council?

Q-362² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to the consultations on a voluntary supplement to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), undertaken by the previous government, the results of which were due September 10, 2015: (a) what is the status of these consultations; (b) has the Minister of Finance been briefed on these consultations; (c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, what are the details of the briefing materials provided; (d) have these consultations been taken into consideration in order to determine what measures to take in regards to the CPP; (e) have any reports been drafted from the findings of the consultations; and (f) is the Minister of Finance considering doing a similar consultation on the possible enhancement to the CPP?

Q-363² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to government programs for youth, particularly those concerning substance abuse prevention, mental health and the National Anti-Drug Strategy (NADS): (a) under the NADS, how much was allocated to prevention each year over the past five years; (b) under the NADS, how much is allocated to prevention each year over the next three years; (c) under the NADS, how much was spent on substance abuse prevention among youth under 25 years of age each year over the past five years; (d) under the NADS, how much is allocated to substance abuse prevention among youth under 25 years of age each year over the next three years; (e) under Health Canada’s Substance Use and Abuse program, how much was spent on substance abuse prevention each year over the past five years, and how much is allocated each year over the next three years; (f) has the government prepared a youth education and awareness program in advance of the legalization of marijuana, and if so, what is its budget and how many government employees will work on this issue; (g) what was the value of the government’s annual grant to the Mental Health Commission of Canada over the past five years, and what will it be over the next three years; (h) what are the government programs concerning mental health among youth under 25 years of age, and for each of these programs, what are their annual budgets for this year and over the next three years; and (i) how much does the government plan to spend on programs concerning mental health among Aboriginal youth over the next three years?

Q-364² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to the decision by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to increase carapace size for Lobster Fishing Area 25 by one millimetre to 73 millimetres this year and to 77 millimetres by 2018: (a) what scientific analyses were undertaken by the Department on carapace size prior to this decision; (b) of the scientific analyses completed in (a) has the Department’s work been subjected to scientific peer review; (c) what stakeholders were consulted on increasing carapace size; (d) was an economic analysis completed to determine the impact this decision will have on lobster fishers in Prince Edward Island; (e) if the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, what did the economic impact analysis show would be the impact on PEI lobster fishers; and (f) if the answer to (e) is in the negative, what is the rationale for proceeding with the decision to increase carapace size without considering the negative economic impacts the decision would have?

Q-365² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to the Old Age Security Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement indexation: (a) what has the government done to develop a new measure for the cost of living faced by seniors with a Seniors Price Index; (b) how many government departments and agencies have been tasked with working on the Seniors Price Index; (c) how many people are working on the development of a Seniors Price Index, broken down by government department and agency; and (d) how many working hours have been devoted to the development of a Seniors Price Index, broken down by government department and agency?

Q-366² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retroactive payments for late applications for the years 2011 and 2016: (a) how many requests for retroactive payments have been made, broken down by year and province; (b) how many requests for retroactive payments have been outside the 11 month maximum, broken down by year and province; (c) how many court cases were brought against the government between 2011 and 2016 in order to gain monetary compensation past the 11 month maximum; (d) of the court cases in (c), what were the total legal costs to the government; and (e) what was the total amount of unclaimed CPP payments lost to claimants due to the 11 month retroactive payment limit, broken down by year and province?

Q-367² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for each of the fiscal years from 2011-2016, inclusively: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Q-368² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to all government funding provided through Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: (a) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds, have been cancelled since November 4, 2015; (b) what was the rationale provided for the cancellation of each item identified in (a); (c) what amount of funding had been dispensed to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (d) what amount of funding had been allocated to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (e) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (a) when they were originally proposed, including (i) the grade or score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of the programs as it was originally determined; (f) what are the details of any and all department performance reviews of each item identified in (a) once they were underway, including (i) annual reviews, (ii) quarterly reviews, (iii) reviews undertaken at the request of the Minister; (g) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds have been approved since November 4, 2015; (h) what consultations took place in relation to each item identified in (g) prior to their approval; (i) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (g), including (i) the grade and score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of these programs as it was originally determined; (j) what is the stated section of Budget 2016 under which each item identified in (g) fall, if any are applicable; and (k) what is the departmental mandate under which each of the items identified in (g) fall?

Q-369² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to all government funding provided through Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency: (a) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds, have been cancelled since November 4, 2015; (b) what was the rationale provided for the cancellation of each item identified in (a); (c) what amount of funding had been dispensed to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (d) what amount of funding had been allocated to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (e) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (a) when they were originally proposed, including (i) the grade or score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of the programs as it was originally determined; (f) what are the details of any and all department performance reviews of each item identified in (a) once they were underway, including (i) annual reviews, (ii) quarterly reviews, (iii) reviews undertaken at the request of the Minister; (g) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds have been approved since November 4, 2015; (h) what consultations took place in relation to each item identified in (g) prior to their approval; (i) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (g), including (i) the grade and score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of these programs as it was originally determined; (j) what is the stated section of Budget 2016 under which each item identified in (g) fall, if any are applicable; and (k) what is the departmental mandate under which each of the items identified in (g) fall?

Q-370² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to the federal disability tax credit (DTC) : (a) what is the average DTC amount a successful claimant is eligible to receive per year; (b) what is the total DTC amount claimed for the fiscal year 2015; (c) what is the total number of DTC claimants for the fiscal year 2015; (d) does the rejection of a DTC claim affect the outcome of an application for provincial credits for disabilities; (e) what is the approval rate for DTC applicants who reapplied for the credit with the assistance of a tax credit consultant; and (f) how many times has the procedures manual that Canada Revenue Agency assessors refer to in administration of the DTC program been updated and what are these updates for the past 10 years?

Q-371² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to visa requirements for citizens of Mexico entering Canada, what are the details with respect to: (a) any formal visa exemption review that the department has undertaken; (b) all evidence used to justify a lifting of the current visa; (c) all plans with respect to a possible influx of asylum claimants from Mexico; (d) consultations that were undertaken with respect to lifting the visa, including for each consultation (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the organization and individuals consulted; (e) all assurances given by the Government of Mexico with respect to this decision; and (f) Mexican citizen assylum claimant levels that would trigger a re-imposition of a visa?

Q-372² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to visa requirements for citizens of Bulgaria and Romania entering Canada, what are the details with respect to: (a) any formal visa exemption review that the department has undertaken; (b) each consultation undertaken with respect to lifting the visa requirements, including for each consultation (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the organizations and individuals consulted; (c) how the situation with respect to Bulgaria and Romania differs from the recent decision to provide a visa exemption for citizens of Mexico; and (d) the criteria applied for lifting the visa requirement for the Czech Republic and what, if any, differences are there between the situation with the Czech Republic and that of Bulgaria and Romania?

Q-373² — September 15, 2016 — — With regard to social infrastructure funding and other investments to address housing and homelessness: (a) how much has been allocated per fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2019-2020, overall and broken down by province or territory for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (b) to date, what amounts have actually been spent or are the subject of a funding agreement for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2019-2020, overall and broken down by province or territory for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (c) on what dates does funding come into effect and terminate, broken down by province or territory, for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (d) what is the funding mechanism for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (e) how much funding has been invested in or allocated to existing social housing under long-term arrangements per fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2029-2030 (i) in Canada, (ii) by province, (iii) by social housing project; (f) what is the name of each social housing project and the expiry date of its long-term agreement; (g) since 1995, how many long-term arrangements have expired (i) per year, (ii) per province or territory; (h) how many long-term arrangements are scheduled to expire by 2030 (i) per year, (ii) per province or territory; and (i) what steps is the government taking or does it plan to take over the next 12 months to renew funding for the long-term operating agreements upon which social and cooperative housing organizations across Canada depend, given the impending expiry of funding agreements established under section 56.1 of the former National Housing Act and section 95.1 of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, and agreements entered into by the federal government and the Quebec government pertaining to article 61 of Quebec’s National Housing Act?


² Response requested within 45 days