Skip to main content Start of 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.

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

Monday, May 15, 2017 (No. 177)


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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.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-9492 — March 30, 2017 — Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope) — With regard to a federal carbon tax or a price on carbon: (a) what analysis was conducted between 2015-2017 by the Department of Natural Resources with regard to the economic impact on the oil, gas and mining sectors, broken down by province and territory, on (i) future employment, (ii) investment, (iii) provincial royalties collected, (iv) tax collected provincially and federally, (v) the effects on Canada’s gross domestic product; (b) of the economic impacts identified in (a), what were the various carbon price levels analyzed by the Department of Natural Resources; and (c) of the various price levels identified in (b), what were the estimated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?
Q-9502 — March 30, 2017 — Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope) — With regard to the decision by the government to designate all Canadian waters in the Arctic as indefinitely off-limits to future oil and gas licensing, a ban that will be reviewed every five years: (a) what scientific analyses were undertaken by the Department of Natural Resources on the impacts of arctic offshore drilling; (b) have the scientific analyses completed in (a) been subjected to scientific peer review and, if so, by whom; (c) was an economic analysis completed to determine the impact this decision will have on the economies of (i) the Northwest Territories, (ii) Yukon, (iii) Nunavut; (d) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, what were the results of this analysis, broken down by territory; (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, what was the rationale for proceeding with the decision; (f) what were the estimated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the decision; (g) broken down by territory, what consultations took place in the areas affected by the decision with (i) indigenous communities, (ii) territorial governments, (iii) local governments, (iv) other organizations; and (h) of the consultations completed in (g) what are the (i) dates, (ii) locations?
Q-9512 — April 3, 2017 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — With regard to the $8.48 billion that was reallocated from 2015-16 to 2035-36: (a) has the government earmarked this money for specific projects, and, if so, to which projects will this funding reallocation be applied; (b) what are the details for each project referred to in (a), including (i) how much funding will be reallocated to the project, (ii) project description; (c) for each project that had its funding reallocated to 2035-36, what is the anticipated average annual inflation cost of each project for the next five years; (d) what is the description of each project referred to in (c); (e) based on calculations from (c), how does the government anticipate that inflation costs will impact the government’s buying power; and (f) are additional funds being set aside in the fiscal framework to account for schedule slippage as a result of the reallocation of $8.48 billion?
Q-9522 — April 3, 2017 — Mr. Aubin (Trois-Rivières) — With regard to developing a scientific standard for concrete aggregates: (a) on what date did the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development or any other department begin the process for developing a scientific standard; (b) has a timeline been set by the department to finalize the process for developing a scientific standard; (c) what section of the department is responsible for developing the scientific standard; (d) what amount is the department investing in the development process for the scientific standard; (e) what is the total number of employees assigned by the department to work on developing the scientific standard; (f) has the department hired external consultants to work on the scientific standard development process; (g) how many external consultants have been hired as part of this process; (h) who are the external consultants that have been hired as part of this process; (i) what amount has the department allocated to hire these external consultants; and (j) what are the documents, scientific standards and guidelines on which this process is based?
Q-9532 — April 3, 2017 — Mr. McColeman (Brantford—Brant) — With regard to at-risk and bonus payments to employees of the federal public service, broken down by year from 2013 to 2016 and by department or agency: (a) how many federal public servants received at-risk payments; (b) how many federal public servants received bonus payments; (c) what amount was allocated in each department’s budget for at-risk payments; (d) what amount was allocated in each department’s budget for bonus payments; (e) what was the cumulative amount of at-risk payments paid out in each department; (f) what was the cumulative amount of bonus payments paid out in each department; (g) how many public servants were eligible for at-risk pay but did not receive it; (h) what were the reasons given for each public servant who received an at-risk payment; (i) what were the reasons given for each public servant who received a bonus payment; and (j) what were the reasons given for each public servant who was eligible for an at-risk payment but did not receive it?
Q-9542 — April 3, 2017 — Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford) — With regard to page 11 of the Guide for Parliamentary Secretaries published by the Privy Council Office in December 2015, where it states that Parliamentary Secretaries are “prohibited from accepting sponsored travel”: (a) does the government consider the trips taken by Parliamentary Secretary Khera and Parliamentary Secretary Virani, which are listed in the 2016 sponsored travel report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, to be a violation of the guide; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what corrective measures were taken to reconcile the violation; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why does the government not consider these trips to be a violation?
Q-9552 — April 3, 2017 — Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford) — With regard to contracts signed by the government with the firm Data Sciences, since November 4, 2015, for each contract: (a) what is the (i) value, (ii) description of the service provided, (iii) date and duration of the contract, (iv) internal tracking or file number; and (b) was the contract sole sourced?
Q-9572 — April 3, 2017 — Mr. Lobb (Huron—Bruce) — With regard to the government’s approval of the takeover of ITF Technologies by O-Net Technology Group: (a) did the government impose any condition on the takeover aimed at preventing the Chinese government from having access to weapon technology; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what were the conditions; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, what was the rationale for not imposing any condition; and (d) did the government receive any communication from the Chinese government encouraging the Canadian government to approve the takeover and, if so, what are the details including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient?
Q-9582 — April 4, 2017 — Ms. Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) — With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and energy efficiency programs, for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017: (a) what programs are in place; (b) what are the eligibility criteria for each of these programs; (c) what tools do the government and the CMHC use to promote these programs to the public (i) at the national level, (ii) at the provincial level; (d) how many people use these programs (i) at the national level, (ii) by province, (iii) in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot; and (e) how much has been spent to advertise these programs (i) at the national level, (ii) in each province?
Q-9592 — April 4, 2017 — Mr. Sweet (Flamborough—Glanbrook) — With regard to the call for proposals for government funding under the Natural Resources Canada’s Energy Innovation Program allocated for Clean Energy Innovation that closed October 31, 2016: (a) what criteria were used to select approved projects; (b) what projects received funding, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) type of project, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received; (c) what projects have been selected to receive funding in the future, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) type of project, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received; and (d) for each project identified in (b) and (c), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Q-9602 — April 4, 2017 — Mr. Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot) — With regard to the announced 372.5 million dollars in repayable loans provided by the government to Bombardier: (a) was the government told during its negotiations with Bombardier that the financial assistance provided by the government would be used for bonuses to executives; (b) did the terms of the financial assistance include any guarantees that the loans would not go towards executive bonuses; and (c) if the answer in (b) is affirmative, what are the details of such guarantees?
Q-9612 — April 4, 2017 — Mr. Saroya (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the choice of July 1, 2018, as the target date for the legalization of marijuana in Canada: (a) why was that specific date chosen; and (b) does the government have any plans in place to ensure that the Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill on July 1, 2018, are not impacted as a result of the legalization of marijuana and, if so, what are the details of any such plan?
Q-9622 — April 5, 2017 — Mr. Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly) — With regard to the high-risk immigration-related detention by Canada Border Services Agency in provincial jails: (a) how many high-risk immigration-related detainees are currently detained in each province; (b) of the total number of detainees in (a), (i) what is the gender ratio, (ii) how many are under 21 years old, (iii) how many are over 65 years old; (c) how many high-risk immigration-related detentions have been prolonged, since October 2015, in the past (i) six months, (ii) one year, (iii) one year and six months; (d) what has the government done with respect to outsourcing of housing for high-risk immigration detainees to provincial jails, since 2000, and related to (i) annual cost, (ii) cost by provinces; and (e) what is the percentage premium, on top of the per-capita costs associated with housing those detainees, paid to each province?
Q-9632 — April 5, 2017 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the FedNor, for each fiscal year from 2009-10 to 2017-18: (a) what is the organization’s total approved budget; (b) with respect to the budget in (a), how much was actually spent; (c) with respect to the budget in (a), how much lapsed funding was eligible to be carried over to future years; (d) how much was allocated to the Northern Ontario Development Program; (e) how much was actually spent on the Northern Ontario Development Program; (f) how much was allocated to the Community Futures Program; (g) how much was actually spent on the Community Futures Program; and (h) what were the Full Time Equivalent staffing levels of the organization?
Q-9642 — April 5, 2017 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and the Independent Assessment Process (IAP): (a) following Justice Perrell’s ruling in January 2014 requiring the government to disclose additional documentation that includes police investigations, transcripts of criminal proceedings, and transcripts of civil proceedings (i) what is the number and full list of Narratives that were modified, (ii) what is the number and full list of person of interest reports that were modified, (iii) what is the number of IAP claims, broken down by school, that had been adjudicated under the previous unmodified narratives and person of interest reports, (iv) what is the number of cases, broken down by school, that were re-adjudicated since the narratives and person of interest reports were modified, (v) what steps were taken by federal officials, for each Indian Residential Schools (IRS) where the narrative and Persons of Interest (POI) reports changed, to determine if individual IAP claims had been denied that might otherwise be supported on this new evidence, (vi) what is the number of survivors or his/her claimant counsel who were contacted or notified of the modifications to the narratives or person of interest reports; (b) regarding civil actions related to Indian Residential Schools predating the IRSSA (i) what is the number of civil cases the government is aware of, (ii) what is the number of civil cases the government was involved in, (iii) what is the number of civil cases the government has court transcripts or documentation of, (iv) what is the number of civil cases that were settled, (v) what is the number of civil cases the government has placed any kind of privilege over the documents (civil pleadings and transcripts of examinations for discovery) related to the case, (vi) what is the number of civil cases the government has not provided the documentation (civil pleadings and transcripts of examinations for discovery) to the IAP or to the National Center for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), (vii) what is the full list of reasons the government has failed to provide this documentation, (viii) were there any terms under which any plaintiff in those civil actions were not allowed to provide his/her civil pleading and/or the transcript of his/her examination for discovery to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, (ix) if the settlement agreement was signed before the IRSSA, what steps have been taken by federal officials to permit each plaintiff to file his/her civil pleadings and transcripts of examinations for discovery with the NCTR, (x) if no steps have been taken, what steps are currently being taken, (xi) if steps are not being taken, is direction from the court being sought by the Attorney General, (xii) which federal officials have possession of the transcripts of examinations for discovery, (xiii) what is going to be done with those transcripts when the IRSSA is completed if directions have not been sought from the Court, (xiv) will the Government fund the plaintiff lawyers to communicate with each plaintiff or his/her Estate on this question of the transcripts being filed with the NCTR, (xv) are the Churches in any way constraining the Attorney General of Canada from ensuring that the stories of IRS survivors who were plaintiffs in civil actions, are allowed to be filed with the NCTR; (c) regarding conversation, consultations, or discussions between defendants in the IRSSA such as the government and any church (i) have any conversations, consultations, or discussions occurred over any individual cases in the IAP, (ii) if they occur how common are they, (iii) if they occur what are the matters that are discussed, (iv) if they occur, does this happen when allegations are raised about any current or previous members of either defendant during the IAP hearings; (d) regarding documentation of the IAP (i) what is the number of IAP decisions that have been redacted, (ii) what is the number of IAP transcripts that have been created, (iii) what is the number of IAP transcripts that have been redacted to remove the names of alleged perpetrators; and (e) regarding the IRSSA database (i) what is the number of school narratives in this database, (ii) what is the number of school narratives in this database that have been redacted to remove personal information?
Q-9652 — April 5, 2017 — Mr. MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford) — With regard to crime statistics for the possession of marijuana since October 20, 2015: (a) how many adults over the age of 25 were (i) arrested, (ii) charged, (iii) convicted for possession of marijuana; and (b) how many youth under the age of 25 were (i) arrested, (ii) charged, (iii) convicted for possession of marijuana?
Q-9662 — April 5, 2017 — Mr. Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry) — With regard to page 24 of the Liberal election platform where it said “We will ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices”: (a) does the government plan on keeping this election promise; and (b) in what year does the government plan on introducing legislation which would make such changes?
Q-9672 — April 5, 2017 — Mr. Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan) — With regard to the possible extradition of individuals between the Government of Canada and the Government of China: (a) what are the details of any communication between the governments on the subject including (i) the date, (ii) the form (in person, telephone, email, etc.), (iii) the titles of individuals involved in the communication, (iv) the location, (v) any relevant file numbers; and (b) what are the details of any briefing notes on the subject including the (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number?
Q-9682 — April 5, 2017 — Mr. Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan) — With regard to interaction between the government and The Bradford Exchange: (a) when was the government made aware that the company was planning on producing a talking doll bearing the image of the Prime Minister; (b) did the government authorize the company to produce the doll; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, who provided the authorization; (d) did the government provide any input regarding the phrases which the doll says; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what are the details including (i) who provided the input, (ii) when was the input provided; and (f) what are the details of any briefing notes or memos related to the production of the talking dolls including the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) title and subject matter, (v) file number?
Q-9692 — April 5, 2017 — Mr. Brown (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes) — With regard to the “Sober Second Thinking: How the Senate Deliberates and Decides” discussion paper, circulated by the Government Representative in the Senate, and dated March 31, 2017: (a) does this paper represent the policy of the government; (b) was its preparation, writing, editing and publication coordinated with the Government House Leader’s March 10, 2017, discussion paper entitled “Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons”; (c) was its preparation, writing, editing and publication coordinated in any other manner with the Government House Leader; (d) did the Privy Council Office, or any other department, assist in the preparation, writing, editing and publishing of it; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, with respect to the employees involved, what are their (i) titles, (ii) occupational groups, (iii) levels; (f) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, (i) were any parliamentarians or political parties consulted in the course of their work, (ii) were any staff of the Senate consulted in the course of their work, (iii) were any academics, experts, or any other outside advisors consulted in the course of their work; (g) if the answer to any of (f)(i), (ii) or (iii) is affirmative, what are the names of the persons or organizations consulted, and when were they consulted; (h) were any contractors, paid by the government, involved in the preparation, writing, editing and publishing of the paper; and (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, with respect to the contractors involved, (i) what are their titles, (ii) what services were contracted, (iii) what is the value of the services contracted, (iv) what amount were they paid for their services, (v) what are the related file numbers?
Q-9702 — April 5, 2017 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — With regard to the services related to issuing debt and selling of government bonds, since April 1, 2016: (a) what amount has the government spent on services related to issuing debt and selling government bonds; and (b) for each service in (a), what is the (i) name of the person or firm, (ii) service period, (iii) amount of the contract, (iv) reason that person or firm was chosen to provide the service?
Q-9712 — April 6, 2017 — Mr. McCauley (Edmonton West) — With regard to funding for the implementation and administration of various measures to crack down on tax evasion, combat tax avoidance and enhance tax collections in Budget 2016 for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and referenced in Supplementary Estimates (B) 2016-17: (a) how many full time equivalents (FTEs) were created from this additional funding; (b) what percentage of all FTEs within CRA are dedicated to tax evasion and what was the percentage before the additional funding for tax evasion; (c) of these FTEs, how many employees are targeted toward offshore tax cheats; (d) of the new hires at CRA responsible for going after tax evasion, what is the breakdown by area of focus; and (e) how many new FTEs have been dedicated to address the back-log of low-complexity, medium complexity and high complexity assessment objections?
Q-9722 — April 6, 2017 — Mr. Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola) — With regard to counterfeit goods discovered by the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other relevant government entity, since December, 2015: (a) what is the value of the goods discovered, broken down by month; and (b) what is the breakdown of goods by (i) type, (ii) brand, (iii) country of origin, (iv) location or port of entry where the goods were discovered?
Q-9732 — April 6, 2017 — Mr. Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain) — With regard to videos which appear on the Environment and Climate Change Minister’s Twitter Account between March 23, 2017, and April 6, 2017: (a) what is the total cost associated with the production and distribution of the videos, broken down by individual video; (b) what is the itemized detailed breakdown of the costs; and (c) what are the details of any contracts related to the videos including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of good or service, (iv) file number, (v) date and duration of contract?
Q-9742 — April 6, 2017 — Mr. Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain) — With regard to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs): how many GHGs does the current Prime Minister's motorcade emit every (i) minute, (ii) hour, for which it is running?
Q-9752 — April 6, 2017 — Mr. McCauley (Edmonton West) — With regard to the government’s claim that the February 7, 2017, Bombardier bail-out will result in 1300 new jobs: (a) what were the calculations used to come to that conclusion; (b) what evidence was given to come to that conclusion; (c) in what branch within Bombardier will these jobs be; (d) how many of these jobs are full-time; and (e) how many of these jobs are part-time?
Q-9762 — April 6, 2017 — Mr. McCauley (Edmonton West) — With regard to the Phoenix Pay System and Public Services and Procurement Canada since June, 2016: (a) how much has been spent on researching other payment delivery systems; (b) how many meetings have been held on other payment delivery systems; and (c) for the meetings in (b), what are (i) the names and titles of the staff members that have been present at those meetings, (ii) the dates of the meetings?
Q-9772 — April 10, 2017 — Mr. Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) — With regard to materials prepared for ministers since December 6, 2016: 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?
Q-9782 — April 10, 2017 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Inuit Health Branch: (a) with respect to First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and Assembly of First Nations v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal File No. T134017008, what are the total legal costs incurred by the government in this matter since January 25, 2016; (b) with respect to Budget 2017, (i) how much of the 50 million dollars announced for the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy program is new funding, how much of it is reallocations, and where are the reallocations coming from, (ii) how much of the money to reduce employment barriers for First Nations youth is from unspent funding in this program area, (iii) how much of the money allocated to Indigenous tourism is new money or just a reallocation from the broader spending on attracting international tourists, (iv) what percentage of the backlog of post-secondary students will be addressed by the additional funding in Post-Secondary Support Program and how many students will still remain on the backlog, (v) what are the details of the 4 billion dollar investment for infrastructure, broken down by year for the last ten years, and by program type, (vi) what is the number of homes that will be built with the 300 million dollars for Northern housing broken down by year, as well as by new homes, lots, and renovations, (vii) what are the details of the funding for each individual area, broken down by year, by chronic and infectious diseases, by maternal and child health, by primary care, by mental wellness, by home and palliative care, by non-insured health benefits, and by drug strategy; (c) if the department cannot provide the information requested in (b)(v), (i) is it because there is currently no identified plan for these investments and where they will flow, (ii) then how was this investment figure calculated; and (d) with respect to the First Nations Inuit Health Branch program, what is the most current rate of denials for each level of appeals, broken down by type?
Q-9792 — April 10, 2017 — Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford) — With regard to the ongoing renovations at 24 Sussex Drive: (a) what is the current status of the renovations; (b) what is the expected completion date; (c) what are the expected costs between 2016 and the completion date; and (d) what are the details of any contracts issued since January 1, 2016, related to the renovations including the (i) vendor name, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?
Q-9802 — April 10, 2017 — Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George) — With regard to the protest at the offices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in St. John’s on April 7, 2016: (a) what was the amount of damage to government property caused by the protesters; (b) what are the titles of the government officials who met with the protestors; (c) did the government sign an agreement with the protesters; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the contents of the agreement; (e) did the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard approve (i) the meeting, (ii) the agreement; and (f) were there any Ministerial Exempt Staff in attendance at the meeting and, if so, what are their titles?
Q-9812 — April 10, 2017 — Mr. Stewart (Burnaby South) — With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs Program in 2016 and 2017: (a) how many jobs were approved in each riding for each of the aforementioned years; and (b) how much money was awarded to each riding to support the jobs in (a), for each of the aforementioned years?
Q-9822 — April 10, 2017 — Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove) — With regard to the statement by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in the House of Commons on April 10, 2017, that “Every dollar that comes from putting a price on carbon pollution to the federal government goes directly back to the provinces”: (a) does the government consider this statement to be accurate; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, how is the government disposing of the extra GST collected as a result of collecting GST on the price of carbon; (c) when did the program to send the extra revenue collected from the GST back to the provinces begin; and (d) how much has been paid out to the provinces, broken down by province, as a result of such a program?
Q-9832 — April 11, 2017 — Mr. Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Leamington) — With regard to amounts paid by the government to the Aga Khan in relation to the trip taken to the Bahamas by the Prime Minister in December 2016 and January 2017: (a) what was the total amount paid out to the Aga Khan in (i) per diems, (ii) other payments; (b) how many employees per diems were paid to the Aga Khan; (c) did the Aga Khan submit invoices to the government in relation to the trip; and (d) if the answer in (c) is affirmative, what are the details, including the (i) date of invoice, (ii) amount of invoice, (iii) amount paid by the government, (iv) date of payment, (v) description of goods or service provided?
Q-9842 — April 11, 2017 — Mr. Allison (Niagara West) — With regard to the Prime Ministerial delegation to Vimy, France, in April 2017: (a) who were the members of the delegation; and (b) how were the delegation members chosen?
Q-9852 — April 11, 2017 — Mr. Saroya (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to Access to Information requests submitted to the Privy Council Office between April 1, 2016, and April 1, 2017, excluding instances where no records exist: (a) how many Access to Information requests were completed and; (b) of the completed requests, how many resulted in documents being (i) completely redacted or not disclosed, (ii) partially redacted, (iii) completed disclosed without redaction?
Q-9862 — April 12, 2017 — Mr. Viersen (Peace River—Westlock) — With regard to meetings held by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs with the over 600 First Nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit communities since November 4, 2015: (a) how many meetings has the Minister held, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the First Nation, Métis Nation, or Inuit community, (iv) attendees, (v) recommendations that were made to the Minister; and (b) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence related to the meetings referred to in (a), including the (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number?
Q-9872 — April 12, 2017 — Mr. Viersen (Peace River—Westlock) — With regard to Bill C-38, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) and former private Member's Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons): (a) did the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada undertake consultations with non-government stakeholders; (b) did the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada or any of her officials undertake consultations with any other federal department or agency; (c) if the answer to (a) or (b) is affirmative, (i) what are the names of the persons or organizations consulted, (ii) when were they consulted, (iii) what were the results of the consultations; and (d) on what evidence was the decision to eliminate the mandatory consecutive-sentencing provision (section 3) based?
Q-9882 — April 27, 2017 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With regard to the Safe Foods for Canadians Regulations published in the Gazette, Vol. 151, No. 3 — January 21, 2017, what are the details, including but not limited to the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title of: (a) any correspondence, reports, or documents prepared to brief the Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister’s office related to drafting and publicizing the Regulations; (b) any correspondence, reports, or documents prepared to brief the Health Minister’s office related to drafting and publicizing the Regulations; (c) any correspondence, reports, or documents prepared to brief the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency related to drafting and publicizing the Regulations; and (d) any correspondence, reports, or documents relating to the background research, content, and drafting of section 68(4), "Water given to food animals", of the Regulations?
Q-9892 — April 27, 2017 — Mr. Nuttall (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte) — With regard to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development’s ‘Innovation Agenda’ as published by the ‘Innovation Leaders’ titled “Innovation for a Better Canada, What We Heard” and all related events: (a) who was paid $1,990.21 to translate the document; (b) what are the costs of travel for the ten ‘Innovation Leaders’, broken down by (i) individual, (ii) round table location; (c) why were no travel costs incurred when the group travelled to the UK; (d) for each round table held by the ‘Innovation Leaders’, what are the details for meals and incidentals, broken down by (i) individual, (ii) round table location; (e) for each round table held by the ‘Innovation Leaders’, what are the details for lodging costs, broken down by (i) individual, (ii) round table location; and (f) what are the details for rental space costs, broken down by each of the 28 events?
Q-9902 — April 27, 2017 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With regard to the United States’ continuing compliance with the Safe Third Country Agreement cited by the Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Refugees in an interview with the CBC published March 14, 2017: (a) what are the details of any briefing notes related to this determination provided to (i) the Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and refugees, (ii) the Prime Minister; (b) with respect to the Minister’s summary of the Government's assertion that the United States, under the new administration’s Executive Order dated March 6, 2017, continues to ‘meet and comply with international standards’ what evidence does the Department have that (i) the terms of the Executive Order will not lead to the United States violating the non-refoulement requirement of the 1951 Refugee Convention, (ii) the terms of the Executive Order will not lead to the United States violating any other policies and practices with respect to claims under the 1951 Refugee Convention and obligations under the 1984 Convention Against Torture, (iii) the terms of the Executive Order will not lead to the US failing to provide a “meaningful opportunity to apply for asylum” as required, (iv) the United States remains a safe country where there exists systematic, predictable, and legally compliant enforcement of asylum; and (c) what are the details of any other relevant information regarding the evaluation of the United States under the Minister’s review obligation in s.101(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
Q-9912 — April 27, 2017 — Mr. Webber (Calgary Confederation) — With regard to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Canada and China regarding a collaboration to tackle illegal shipments of opioids and their analogues, as mentioned in the government response to the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled “Report and Recommendations on the Opioid Crisis in Canada”, (i) when was this MOU signed, (ii) who signed the MOU and in what capacity, (iii) was a Minister of the Crown consulted before it was signed, (iv) over what period of time did the MOU negotiations take place, (v) how much funding has been allocated to the implementation of the MOU and from what funding envelope, (iv) when does the MOU expire?
Q-9922 — April 27, 2017 — Ms. Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) — With regard to the Skills Link program: (a) what is the program’s total budget since 2015, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) constituency; (b) what is the program’s total budget per constituency for 2015, 2016 and 2017; and (c) what are the criteria for determining the amount allocated to an applicant?
Q-9932 — April 27, 2017 — Ms. Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) — With regard to the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program, between the program’s launch on January 1, 2015 and April 13, 2017: (a) which proposals have been submitted from the constituency; and (b) which proposals have been approved?
Q-9942 — April 27, 2017 — Ms. Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) — With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in fiscal year 2016-2017: 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 expenditure was allocated, (vi) date?
Q-9952 — April 27, 2017 — Mr. Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) — With respect to the salary increase for RCMP members announced by the Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on April 5, 2017: (a) what is the definition of a “market adjustment”; (b) how does a “market adjustment” differ from a “salary increase”, for example (i) is a “market adjustment” increase pensionable, (ii) is a “market adjustment” increase counted in the calculation of all benefits just as a “salary increase” would be, (iii) what is the process for rescinding a “market adjustment” as opposed to implementing a salary decrease, (iv) what are any other differences between a “market adjustment” and a “salary increase”; and (c) why did the government decide on a “market adjustment“ instead of a further salary increase?
Q-9962 — April 27, 2017 — Mr. Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s and other Cabinet Ministers' private meetings with the American asset management firm BlackRock: (a) what is the list of government officials, cabinet ministers, public office holders, and staff who attended the meeting held on November 14, 2016, at Toronto’s Shangri-La Hotel; (b) what is the complete list of financial institutions, pension funds, sovereign funds, and other financial entities, and the names of their representatives, that attended the meeting in (a); (c) what are the details of the agenda for the meeting in (a); (d) what were the total expenditures of the government associated with the meeting in (a), broken down by (i) cost for renting the rooms, (ii) cost for food and drinks, (iii) cost for security; (e) how many meetings has the Prime Minister had with BlackRock executives or employees since November 1, 2015, and what are the details of these meetings, broken down by (i) meetings held in person or by teleconference, (ii) locations and times of all meetings, broken down by meeting, (iii) costs associated with all meetings, broken down by meeting; (f) how many meetings has the Minister of Finance had with BlackRock executives or employees since November 1, 2015, and what are the details of these meetings, broken down by (i) meetings held in person or by teleconference, (ii) locations and times of all meetings, broken down by meeting, (iii) costs associated with all meetings, broken down by meeting; (g) how many meetings has the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development had with BlackRock executives or employees since November 1, 2015, and what are the details of these meetings, broken down by (i) meetings held in person or by teleconference, (ii) locations and times of all meetings, broken down by meeting, (iii) costs associated with all meetings, broken down by meeting; (h) how many meetings has the Minister of Environment and Climate Change had with BlackRock executives or employees since November 1, 2015, and what are the details of these meetings, broken down by (i) meetings held in person or by teleconference, (ii) locations and times of all meetings, broken down by meeting, (iii) costs associated with all meetings, broken down by meeting; (i) have any other Cabinet Ministers had meetings with BlackRock executives or employees and, if so, how many times have they met with BlackRock executives or employees since November 1, 2015, and what are the details of these meetings, broken down by (i) meetings held in person or by teleconference, (ii) locations and times of all meetings, broken down by meeting, (iii) costs associated with all meetings, broken down by meeting; and (j) how many meetings have the staff and designated public office holders from the Office of the Prime Minister had with BlackRock executives or employees since November 1, 2015, and what are the details of these meetings, broken down by (i) meetings held in person or by teleconference, (ii) locations and times of all meetings, broken down by meeting, (iii) costs associated with all meetings, broken down by meeting?
Q-9972 — April 27, 2017 — Ms. Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) — With respect to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development’s mandate letter and, in particular, the expectation to “undertake a broad review of the EI system with the goal of modernizing our system of income support for unemployed workers that leaves too many workers with no unemployment insurance safety net”: (a) what (i) consultations, (ii) steps, (iii) discussions, have been carried out by the Minister with non governmental stakeholders to modernize the EI system; (b) what (i) consultations, (ii) steps, (iii) discussions, have been carried out with stakeholders by the Minister, his officials, any other minister or any other officials; (c) what was the outcome of these (i) consultations, (ii) steps, (iii) discussions; (d) when does the government expect to undertake a broad review of the EI system with the goal of modernizing our system of income support for unemployed workers; (e) what is the timeframe for the review in (d); and (f) when will the findings of this broad review in (d) be tabled in Parliament?
Q-9982 — April 27, 2017 — Mr. McCauley (Edmonton West) — With regard to the secretariat supporting the Senate Advisory Board within the Privy Council Office: (a) what are the full job descriptions as they are written for each job posting within the secretariat; (b) what is the pay scale, occupational group and level of the positions being filled in the secretariat; (c) what is the budget for the occupational group assigned to the secretariat; (d) how much has been spent by the secretariat, broken down by (i) accommodation, (ii) travel, (iii) per diems, (iv) incidentals, (v) office renovation, (vi) office set-up; and (e) how much has been budgeted for the support group to the Senate selection group?
Q-9992 — April 27, 2017 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — With regard to the number of Canadians with disabilities and disabled persons employed in the federal public service: (a) what is the percentage of public servants who are disabled versus the percentage of the overall Canadian workforce that is disabled; (b) what is the percentage of public servants who are disabled versus the percentage of private sector employees who are disabled; (c) how many disabled people have gone from being unemployed to employed after the intervention of any federally-funded employment program, in the most recent reporting year; (d) what is the average increase in wages earned by disabled people after receiving the federally-funded employment assistance programs referred to in (c); (e) how many disabled people went from unemployed to employed as a result of the funds provided through the Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities, broken down by province, in the most recent reporting year; and (f) how many disabled people went from unemployed to employed as a result of the funds provided through the Opportunities Fund, broken down by province, in the most recent reporting year?
Q-10002 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil) — With regard to the use of malaria prevention drugs in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) for each year since 1990: (a) which deployments were required to have anti-malarial drugs administered; and (b) in each deployment, how many CAF members were given (i) doxycycline, (ii) atovaquone-proguanil, (iii) chloroquine, (iv) primaquine?
Q-10012 — May 1, 2017 — Ms. Watts (South Surrey—White Rock) — With regard to the government’s Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy and the government’s Opioid Action Plan: (a) what, if any, is the government’s strategy on recovery; (b) what is the government’s position on recovery versus treatment; (c) what is the government doing to increase access to recovery; (d) how much has the government committed to recovery programs and initiatives since November 4, 2015; and (e) what is the funding for each item in (d), broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) project, (iii) amount, (iv) date?
Q-10022 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to Medicine Hat, Alberta, from October 13 to 15, 2016: (a) what public business did the Prime Minister conduct on this trip, separate from his business as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada; (b) how many employees of the public service, including employees of the Office of the Prime Minister, traveled with the Prime Minister or were involved in this travel; (c) how many employees of the Privy Council Office (PCO) traveled with the Prime Minister or were involved in the Prime Minister’s travel; (d) what public business did PCO employees, including the technical employees, conduct for this travel; (e) was any of the work conducted by PCO employees partisan or to the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal campaign in Medicine Hat and, if so, was the government reimbursed; (f) did any PCO employees provide any assistance, including technical set-up or assistance, related to the Liberal rally attended by the Prime Minister and, if so, (i) what assistance was provided, (ii) what are the details of any invoice submitted to the campaign resulting from such assistance; (g) was any government property used for partisan purposes during the Prime Minister’s trip and, if so, what amount was the government reimbursed by the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal campaign in Medicine Hat; (h) was the government reimbursed by the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal campaign in Medicine Hat for the Prime Minister’s travel to and from Medicine Hat and, if so, what was the amount of the reimbursement; (i) what personal business (according to the itineraries published on the Prime Minister’s website) did the Prime Minister conduct on October 15 and 16, 2016; and (j) what was the Prime Minister’s physical location on October 15 and 16, 2016?
Q-10032 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) — With regard to carbon emissions, for each minister, including the Prime Minister: what have been each minister’s carbon emissions, calculated as tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted, from November 5, 2015, to February 28, 2017, broken down by (i) transportation via land vehicles to and from locations required in accordance with that minister’s portfolio, (ii) transportation via land vehicles to and from the minister’s constituency, (iii) transportation via air to and from locations required in accordance with that minister’s portfolio, (iv) transportation via air to and from the minister’s constituency, (v) electricity used in the minister’s Ministry offices, (vi) electricity used in the minister’s Parliament Hill offices, (vii) electricity used in the minister’s constituency offices, (viii) natural gas or other fossil fuels used in the minister’s Ministry office, (ix) natural gas or other fossil fuels used in the minister’s Parliament Hill office, (x) natural gas or other fossil fuels used in the minister’s constituency offices, (xi) the minister’s food consumption, (xii) other carbon-emitting activities?
Q-10042 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton) — With regard to merchandise purchased by the government with the Canada 150 logo, since January 1, 2016: (a) what Canada 150 merchandise was manufactured outside of Canada, broken down by individual item; and (b) what is the breakdown of the purchases listed in (a) including (i) item description, (ii) price per item, (iii) country of manufacturing, (iv) quantity purchased?
Q-10052 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton) — With regard to the $545 million of Treasury Board Secretariat funding allocated to “paylist requirements” in Supplementary Estimates (C) 2016-17: (a) how was this amount calculated; and (b) what are the “paylist requirements”, broken down line by line, being accommodated by this funding?
Q-10062 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Obhrai (Calgary Forest Lawn) — With regard to handling of the grievance process relating to Phoenix by government departments: (a) how many grievances have been filed since May 2016; (b) how many Full-Time Equivalents have been added per department to manage grievances; (c) how much has been paid in overtime to the employees hired to manage grievances; and (d) how much has been spent, broken down by department, on arbitration costs and services?
Q-10072 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Obhrai (Calgary Forest Lawn) — With regard to Satellite Pay Centres across Canada, broken down by pay centre: (a) how much has been spent in total on each of the centres; and (b) of the amount in (a), how much has been spent on (i) salaries, (ii) building rental and lease costs, (iii) employee travel, (iv) overtime pay, (v) accommodations, (vi) incidentals, (vii) per diems?
Q-10082 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning) — With regard to the government’s response to Q-575 and the statement made by the Privy Council Office (PCO) that they “have just received new direction that this Q should only be assigned to ECCC” (A-2016-00682, page 16): what are the titles of the employees in the Office of the Prime Minister or the Government House Leader’s Office who provided this new direction to PCO?
Q-10092 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Saroya (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the $911 million in grants allocated to research projects and personnel support in Supplementary Estimates (C) 2016-17 to the Canadian Institute of Health Research: what funds have been granted thus far, broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) project description?
Q-10102 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Nater (Perth—Wellington) — With regard to government procurement and contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to ministers since September 20, 2016: (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?
Q-10112 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Nater (Perth—Wellington) — With regard to spending by the government on private investigators since November 4, 2015, broken down by department, agency, Crown Corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure including for each the (i) vendor, (ii) amount of contract, (iii) date, (iv) file number, (v) situation overview or reason for investigation, (vi) finding of investigation, if completed?
Q-10122 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Nater (Perth—Wellington) — With regard to Budget 2017 and to contracts signed by the government with McKinsey and Company, its partners or consultants, since November 4, 2015, for each contract: (a) what is the (i) value, (ii) description of the service provided, (iii) date and duration, (iv) internal tracking or file number; (b) was the contract sole sourced; (c) what specific role did McKinsey and Company, its partners or consultants, or Dominic Barton play in the preparation of Budget 2017; (d) what specific sections of Budget 2017 were prepared by, in whole or in part, by McKinsey and Company, its partners or consultants; and (e) what are the details of any briefing notes or memorandums regarding Budget 2017, McKinsey and Company, its partners or consultants, or Dominic Barton, including for each the (i) sender, (ii) recipients, (iii) title and subject matter, (iv) date, (v) internal file or tracking number?
Q-10132 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) — With regard to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada: (a) what action has been taken to fulfill a fair wages policy, as is laid out in the last two mandate letters for the Minister; (b) what constitutes a fair wage, as laid out in the last two mandate letters for the Minister; (c) what job sectors are being considered to be included in the proposed fair wages policy; and (d) what are the details of any meetings which have taken place to create a fair wages policy including for each the (i) dates, (ii) attendees?
Q-10142 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) — With regard to the $3.6 million allocated to the Department of Canadian Heritage for the celebration of the 375th anniversary of Montreal in Supplementary Estimates (C) 2016-17: what funds have been awarded thus far, broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) project description?
Q-10152 — May 1, 2017 — 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?
Q-10162 — May 1, 2017 — Mr. Viersen (Peace River—Westlock) — With regard the alternative medicine therapy known as cupping and Health Canada: (a) does Health Canada endorse this therapy; (b) what benefits does this therapy provide; (c) what evidence does Health Canada have that the therapy is effective in providing the benefits identified in (b); (d) what certifications or qualifications does Health Canada require before someone is permitted to administer cupping therapy; (e) does Health Canada consider cupping to be a legitimate medical therapy; and (f) do federal government health care plans cover expenses related to cupping therapy?
Q-10172 — May 2, 2017 — Mr. Aubin (Trois-Rivières) — With regard to the $3.3 million investment, announced in Budget 2016, to fund an in-depth assessment of VIA Rail’s high-frequency rail proposal and other Transport Canada studies and assessments: (a) how much of the $3.3 million has been invested to date, broken down by (i) feasibility study, (ii) contractor; (b) has the in-depth assessment been finalized and, if so, will a full version of the assessment and its conclusions be available on Transport Canada’s website; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, what is the time frame for finalizing the assessment and posting the full version and conclusions on Transport Canada’s website; (d) how many employees are assigned to the assessment; (e) has VIA Rail provided the federal government with studies on the high-frequency rail proposal; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, will Transport Canada post the full versions and conclusions of these studies on Transport Canada’s website; (g) on what date did Transport Canada begin receiving studies from VIA Rail; (h) what have been Transport Canada’s responses to the VIA Rail studies; (i) was CPCS Transcom Limited hired in this assessment process; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, will a full version and the conclusions of the study by CPCS Transcom Limited be posted on Transport Canada’s website; (k) how much of the $3.3 million funded the assessment conducted by CPCS Transcom Limited; (l) what are Transport Canada’s responses to CPCS Transcom Limited’s conclusions; (m) on what date did Transport Canada begin receiving conclusions from the assessment conducted by CPCS Transcom Limited; and (n) how many other studies and assessments have been conducted to date in this area by Transport Canada and, where applicable, (i) what are the conclusions of each of these studies, (ii) will the full versions and conclusions of these studies be posted on Transport Canada’s website, (iii) what was the cost of each of these studies, (iv) what are Transport Canada’s responses to each of these studies, (v) on what dates did Transport Canada read these studies?
Q-10182 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Harder (Lethbridge) — With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Lethbridge, between April 1, 2016, and April 1, 2017: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they applied for funding under, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Lethbridge that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Lethbridge by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (i.e. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Q-10192 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Harder (Lethbridge) — With regard to total funding spent by the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the last five fiscal years: (a) what percentage has been spent inside the National Capital Region versus outside the National Capital Region, including staff costs, operating costs, contract work and transfers to individuals, tribal governments or organizations, broken down by year; (b) what is the total amount spent inside the National Capital Region versus outside the National Capital Region, including staff costs, operating costs, contract work and transfers to individuals or organizations, broken down by year; (c) what is the percentage of direct transfers to individuals, tribal government, or organizations as opposed to the total amount spent by the Department, broken down by year; (d) what is the total amount of direct transfers to individuals, tribal government, or organizations, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program, (iii) sub-program, (iv) recipient organization, (v) funding amount, (vi) date funds were transferred; and (e) what is the total amount spent by the Department, broken down by year?
Q-10202 — May 2, 2017 — Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) — With regard to the Tribute to Liberty’s Memorial to the Victims of Communism: (a) what are the current expected start and completion dates for construction of the Memorial; (b) what is the current status of the Memorial; (c) why was the location of the Memorial changed from in front of the Supreme Court building to the Garden of Provinces and Territories; (d) why was total funding and the government's contribution to the Memorial cut; and (e) why has construction on the Stanley Cup Monument and on the National Holocaust Monument, both which will have six years between the proposal and project's projected completion, been prioritized and fast-tracked while the Memorial to the Victims of Communism has been delayed and is facing a longer timeline?
Q-10212 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — With regard to the investment made by the government in BC Ferries: (a) what grants has BC Ferries received since it became eligible; (b) what requests for grants were made by stakeholders since they became eligible; (c) how many times has the Prime Minister met with the ferry stakeholders and the Premier of British Columbia to discuss BC Ferries; (d) how many times has the Minister of Transport met with the ferry stakeholders and the Premier of British Columbia to discuss BC Ferries; (e) how many times has the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities met with the ferry stakeholders and the Premier of British Columbia to discuss BC Ferries; (f) what where the results of the meetings in (c), (d), and (e); (g) is the government committed to ensuring same level of ferry service across Canada; (h) has the government studied problems that are hindering interprovincial trade with Coastal Dependent Communities in British Columbia; and (i) has BC Ferries ever been a determinant in hindering interprovincial trade and, if so, (i) what solutions were proposed, (ii) what solutions have been implemented since then?
Q-10222 — May 2, 2017 — Mr. Carrie (Oshawa) — With regard to the announcement made by the Government House Leader (GHL) on the evening of April 30, 2017, concerning a government motion proposing to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons: (a) was the decision, which was the subject of the announcement, taken by the Cabinet or a committee of the Cabinet; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, by whom was the decision made, on behalf of the government; (c) in coming to the decision announced, was anyone consulted in this respect; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the relevant names, titles, dates and associated file numbers concerning those consultations; (e) what is the government’s current position concerning the contents of the GHL March 10, 2017, discussion paper; (f) was the GHL letter to the Opposition House Leaders shared with journalists prior to being sent to her colleagues; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, why was the letter shared; (h) with respect to the “specific commitments” in the 2015 Liberal Party platform, referred to by the GHL, what are the so-called specifics; and (i) why were no details concerning, or drafts of, the government’s intended motion provided by the GHL?
Q-10232 — May 2, 2017 — Mr. Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou) — With regard to the approval of the purchase of Super Hornets without a tender, and to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Service and Procurement in the House on April 6, 2017, that "I will let the Department of National Defence provide him with details regarding this capability gap": what are the details of any information that would have led to this statement, including those relating specifically to the existence of a "capability gap"?
Q-10242 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to the processing of family members under the One-year window of opportunity provision for refugees and protected persons, from 2005 to the present time: (a) how many applications have been submitted, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin; (b) how many applications were for spouses, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin; (c) how many applications were for dependents, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) number of dependents per application; (d) what is the processing queue for this program, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin for application; (e) how many applications in the processing queue are for dependents, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) number of dependents per application; (f) how many of the applications in the queue are for spouses, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin; (g) what is the average processing time for applications under this program, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) dependent application specific, (iv) spousal application specific; (h) what is the median processing time, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) dependent application specific, (iv) spousal application specific; and (i) how many applicants have had to do more than one medical exam as a result of the 12 month expiry of the medical examination, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) dependent application specific, (iv) spousal application specific, (v) number of medical exams conducted?
Q-10252 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), since the changes made to the refugee determination system in 2012: (a) how many cases have come before the IRB, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the refugee protection division (RPD), (iv) through the refugee appeal division (RAP); (b) of the cases heard at the IRB, how many were ‘legacy cases’, broken down (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (c) what was the average length of delay for a legacy case to be heard, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (d) what is the total funding provided to the IRB by the government, broken down (i) year, (ii) purpose; (e) how much internal funding has been shifted within the IRB to process ‘legacy cases’, broken down (i) year, (ii) area funding was shifted from; (f) how many ‘legacy cases’ have reached final decisions at the IRB, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (g) of the remaining ‘legacy cases’, what average length of time the case has been before the IRB, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (h) does the government have a plan in place to eliminate the backlog of ‘legacy cases’; (i) in what year is it expected that ‘legacy cases’ will be eliminated; (j) how many instances have there been of ‘legacy cases’ having hearings cancelled, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP, (v) rationale for cancellation; (k) what is the average length of time between a ‘legacy case’ hearing cancellation and the hearing being rescheduled, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (l) how many instances have there been of ‘legacy case’ hearings being rescheduled multiple times, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) number of hearing cancellations; (m) how many citizenship applications have been suspended due to the cessation of refugee protection provision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) duration of period of suspension; (n) how many citizenship applications are being prosecuted due to the cessation of refugee protection provisions, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant; (o) since 2009 how many cessation cases have been initiated pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA ) s. 108(2) at the Immigration and Refugee Board in total, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of citizenship of person concerned; (p) how many cessation cases are being investigated in total, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant; (q) what percentage of citizenship application suspensions are triggered by or related to cessation issues, broken down (i) year, (ii) country of citizenship of origin of applicant; (r) what is the average length of time it takes for a cessation case pursuant to IRPA s. 108(2) from its initiation by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of citizenship of person concerned, (iii) method of determination; (s) what is the number of currently unresolved cessation cases pursuant to IRPA s. 108(2) that are pending before the RPD, broken down by year of initiation by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; and (t) what is the average time that currently unresolved cessation cases pursuant to IRPA s. 108(2) that are pending before the RPD, broken down by year of initiation by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship?
Q-10262 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to interprovincial migration of refugees as it relates to resettlement funding: (a) what, if any, accounting is done by the government in anticipation of interprovincial migration when allocating resettlement funding; (b) what measures does the government take to monitor and assess interprovincial migration; (c) on an annual basis, from 2005 to 2016, what levels of interprovincial migration were measured, broken down by (i) province of departure, (ii) province of arrival, (iii) country of origin, (iv) immigration and refugee category; and (d) how much total funding for resettlement services has been provided by the government, broken down by (i) year, (ii) service type, (iii) organization, (iv) province?
Q-10272 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency and since 2009: (a) how many cessation cases in total are begin investigated but are not yet resolved, broken down by (i) year in which investigation was started, (ii) country of citizenship of person concerned; and (b) how many cessation cases have been investigated and resolved, broken down by (i) year in which investigation was started, (ii) country of citizenship of person concerned, (iii) outcome of investigation?
Q-10282 — May 3, 2017 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to the investigation into the Clyde River Fish Kill in Clyde River and area on Prince Edward Island (PEI): (a) how many personnel from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have been involved in the investigation; (b) with regard to interviews conducted between DFO officials and individuals involved in the case, how many interviews have taken place, and over what period of time; (c) with regard to trips to PEI related to this investigation made by off-island DFO offices, (i) how many trips were made, (ii) how many vehicle hours have been accumulated, (iii) what was the duration of each trip, (iv) what were the accommodation and travel status costs; (d) who requested this extended investigation at the federal level; (e) which individual, or individuals, from PEI requested the assistance of the DFO; (f) has the DFO been provided with a report from Environment Canada on the extraordinary rain event that caused the flooding and, if so, what did the report conclude; and (g) what are the details of all correspondence, both written and electronic, related to this matter, between officials from the PEI Department of the Environment and DFO personnel?
Q-10292 — May 3, 2017 — Ms. Benson (Saskatoon West) — With regard to the Canada Child Benefit (CBB): (a) what is the total number of eligible (i) parents, (ii) children in 2016-17; (b) what is the total number of applications received in 2016-17; (c) how many were successful, meaning how many families actually received the benefit in 2016-17; (d) what is the regional breakdown of applications received and approved; (e) what is the urban and rural breakdown; (f) what are the protocols and service standards for the processing of applications; (g) how many applications, if any, exceeded the processing time specified in the service standard; (h) what were the most common reasons for exceeding the processing time; (i) what remedy is available for cases that have gone beyond the service standards and, if difficult cases are moved to a different unit for treatment, are they then subject to a different set of protocols and service standards; (j) where are these applications processed; (k) are there regional offices with trained staff; (l) do all staff who process applications receive the same training; (m) are there regularly scheduled training or briefing sessions to keep the unit staff current on Ministry policies and practices and, if so, how often do these occur; (n) who is ultimately responsible for incorrect information given to applicants and MP offices, in particular what is the chain of command, or organizational chart for staff processing applications; (o) are all applicants given the same options and information, or is this a flexible standard, depending on the agent and officer; (p) what is the appeal process, if any, for unsuccessful applicants; (q) what are the service standards for the appeal process; (r) has the department identified issues and been made aware of problems with regard to the delivery of the CCB to eligible Canadians and, if so, what are they; (s) how many eligible families are currently not receiving CCB payments; (t) of the families identified in (s) what are the reasons they are not receiving payments; (u) what triggers a review of a CCB file; (v) what documentation is required from persons under review and how are they informed that these documents are required; (w) are benefits suspended during a review and, if so, when are benefits reinstated; and (x) is there a service standard for how the review is conducted and is there an appeal process when a review is conducted?
Q-10302 — May 3, 2017 — Ms. Benson (Saskatoon West) — With regard to the government’s promise to introduce proactive pay equity legislation in 2018: (a) what is the government’s engagement strategy for developing and drafting the proposed legislation; (b) which departments have been tasked with developing and drafting this legislation; (c) what is the timeframe and schedule for (i) the development and implementation of the framework, (ii) the drafting and introduction of the legislation; (d) how are the recommendations of the (i) Pay Equity Task Force (2004), (ii) Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (June 2005), included in the terms of reference and the draft legislation; (e) what criteria does the government anticipate will be used to determine the scope and implementation schedule of the proposed legislation; (f) with regard to the development of the proposed legislation, what consultations has the Minister for the Status of Women or government officials undertaken with (i) parliamentarians of any party, (ii) non-governmental stakeholders, (iii) labour and human rights experts, (iv) witnesses who have appeared before, or provided written submissions to, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and the Special Committee on Pay Equity; (g) have there been, are there any ongoing, or will there be any consultations with individuals or groups outside of the federal government and, if so, (i) who was consulted, (ii) when were or will they be consulted; (h) were or will there be any academics, experts, or any other outside advisors consulted in the development and drafting of the proposed legislation, and were or will they be paid for their services; and (i) what are the details of any correspondence or briefing materials related to the development and drafting of the proposed legislation?
Q-10312 — May 3, 2017 — Mr. Nuttall (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte) — With regard to grants and contributions, including loans and loan guarantees, for research and development, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such grants and contributions including (i) the recipient, (ii) the date, (iii) the amount, (iv) the type (grant, loan, etc.), (v) details on if the contribution is repayable, (vi) the project description, (vii) the address of recipient, (viii) the electoral riding where recipient is located, (ix) the number of jobs expected to be created from each grant and contribution, (x) the number of jobs actually created from each grant or contribution, if available?
Q-10322 — May 3, 2017 — Mr. Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock) — With regard to the decision made by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to charge $100 for a ten minute search for information and $30 for each additional minute, as described in The Hill Times on May 3, 2017: (a) what is the title of the individual who made the decision to charge for information; (b) when was the Minister’s Office made aware of the decision to charge for information; (c) has the Minister or his office issued a statement approving of the decision to charge for information; (d) has the President of the Treasury Board advised IRCC that charging for information is not in keeping with the Prime Minister’s directive to make government data "open by default” and, if so, when was this done; and (e) what was the response by IRCC?
Q-10332 — May 3, 2017 — Mr. Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola) — With regard to Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, and the concerns and objections raised by Parliamentary Budget Officer in his discussion paper entitled “Reforms to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer Proposed in Bill C-44”: (a) what specific measures is the government taking in order to address each of the concerns raised by the Parliamentary Budget Officer; (b) what types of amendments is the government prepared to make in order to address the concerns of the Parliamentary Budget Officer; (c) if there are any concerns raised in the discussion paper which the government does not believe requires amendments to Bill C-44, which specific concerns are those; and (d) for each discounted concern, what is the rationale for not making the suggested amendments?
Q-10342 — May 3, 2017 — Mr. Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola) — With regard to individuals detained at airports by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), since January 1, 2016, broken down by airport and by month: (a) on how many days have CBSA holding cells at airports been (i) at half-capacity, (ii) at capacity, (iii) over-capacity, (iv) empty; and (b) what is the protocol when CBSA holding cells are over-capacity?
Q-10352 — May 3, 2017 — Mr. Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola) — With regard to guest speakers or other cases where individuals were contracted to give speeches: what are the details of all such contracts including the (i) vendor, (ii) date and duration, (iii) amount of contract, (iv) number of speeches to be provided per contract, (v) date of speeches, (vi) topic or purpose of speech, (vii) location of speech?
Q-10362 — May 3, 2017 — Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) — With regard to the Department's response to Q-877: (a) what is the process by which Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada identifies an Indigenous group as a nation, as described by the mandate letter to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs; and (b) how many Indigenous groups and communities has the Minister met with since November 4, 2015, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the Indigenous group or community, (iv) attendees, (v) recommendations that were made to the Minister?
Q-10372 — May 3, 2017 — Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) — With regard to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: (a) has the Minister receive communications from stakeholder groups expressing concerns regarding the National Inquiry; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which stakeholders expressed concern and how many communications were received; (c) has the Minister received communications from individual Canadians expressing concerns regarding the National Inquiry; and (d) if the answer in (c) is affirmative, how many communications were received?
Q-10382 — May 3, 2017 — Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) — With regard to First Nations financial transparency: (a) which bands, leaders, communities and organizations did the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs consult with between November 4, 2015, and May 3, 2017, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the Indigenous group or community, (iv) attendees, (v) recommendations that were made to the Minister; (b) with regard to the consultations in (a), by which criteria did the Minister decide which bands, leaders, communities and organizations to consult with; and (c) what are the details of the discussion questions brought to each meeting?
Q-10392 — May 4, 2017 — Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) — With regard to agreements for buildings or offices leased by the government: (a) how many buildings or offices are currently leased by the government; and (b) what are the names of the companies or individuals who own the buildings or offices leased by the government, broken down by department?
Q-10402 — May 5, 2017 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — With regard to the government's transfer of land to the Ottawa Hospital for the future site of the Civic Campus, known as the Sir John Carling Site or site No. 11: (a) what is the current status of the transfer of land to the Ottawa Hospital; (b) on what date does the government anticipate the land transfer will be complete; (c) did the Ottawa Hospital incur any costs as a result of delaying the construction by a year; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the costs, and will the government reimburse the Ottawa Hospital; (e) how many trees are there at site No. 11; (f) what buildings are currently located at site No. 11, broken down by (i) name and address, (ii) purpose and current use, (iii) whether the building will be demolished or moved to another location; (g) what will be the total cost of preparing the site for the Civic Campus to be built; (h) what will be the additional costs specific to building the Civic Campus at site No. 11, including (i) the cost of building on a sloped surface, (ii) the cost of being located near a fault line, (iii) the cost of removing or transplanting the trees referred to in (e), (iv) any other costs due to site No. 11’s unique features; (i) which organization or level of government will pay for the land preparation and additional costs noted in (g) and (h); (j) does the government have any estimates on the cost of preparing site No. 11 for a large institutional occupant and, if so, what are the details; (k) what is the market value of the land at site No. 11; (l) what will be the rental rate or sale price of site No. 11 to the Ottawa Hospital; (m) which organization or level of government will pay for the at least $11.1 million in contamination remediation, as estimated by Public Services and Procurement Canada; (n) is there any other contamination that needs to be remediated that is not captured in the $11.1 million figure; (o) if the answer to (n) is affirmative, what is the contamination and what is its expected remediation cost; (p) what design, cultural, esthetic, or architectural elements will the National Capital Commission require the Ottawa Hospital to incorporate into the hospital, and what will be the costs of these elements; (q) will the federal government cover the costs of the elements referred to in (p); (r) has the government estimated the additional costs of constructing any building or structure on site No. 11, due to the nearby fault line and, if so, what are the costs; (s) what would have been the total cost of preparing the Central Experimental Farm site directly across the street from the current Civic Campus, known as either site No. 9 or No. 10; (t) are there any known challenges associated with building on site No. 11 and, if so, what are they; and (u) does the government foresee any other factors specific to the Sir John Carling Site that would increase costs or delay construction of the new hospital and, if so, what are they?
Q-10412 — May 8, 2017 — 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?
Q-10422 — May 8, 2017 — 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?
Q-10432 — May 9, 2017 — 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 125 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?
Q-10442 — May 9, 2017 — Mrs. Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek) — With regard to the response by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport on March 10, 2017, how does Transport Canada define a middle class Canadian traveler?
Q-10452 — May 10, 2017 — 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?
Q-10462 — May 10, 2017 — 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”?

2 Response requested within 45 days