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

Notice Paper

No. 19

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

2:00 p.m.


Introduction of Government Bills

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

February 18, 2020 — Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)”.

February 18, 2020 — Mr. Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac) — Bill entitled “An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism”.

February 18, 2020 — Ms. Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec)”.

February 18, 2020 — Mr. Simard (Jonquière) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act and other Acts (application of provincial law)”.

February 18, 2020 — Mr. Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (special benefits)”.

Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)

Questions

Q-3162 — February 18, 2020 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) administered by Service Canada on behalf Employment and Social Development Canada since January 2017, broken down by year and month: (a) How many Canadians received the GIS; (b) how many eligible seniors did not receive the GIS; (c) how many GIS recipients were deemed no longer entitled to receive the GIS; (d) of those in (c), how many had their GIS reinstated that same calendar year; (e) for (a) through (d), what was the year over year percentage difference; (f) what was the average time for the reinstatement of benefits mentioned in (d); (g) were there any regulatory and/or policy changes to the process by which eligibility for the GIS is determined, and, if so, what are the details of these changes; and (h) were there any regulatory and/or policy changes to the process by which those in (c) are re-evaluated for eligibility for the GIS, and, if so, what are the details of these changes?
Q-3172 — February 18, 2020 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by year for the most recent 10 fiscal years for which data is available: (a) what was the number of disability benefit applications received; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) rejected, (ii) approved, (iii) appealed, (iv) rejected upon appeal, (v) approved upon appeal; (c) what was the average wait time for a decision; (d) what was the median wait time for a decision; (e) what was the ratio of veteran to Case Manager at the end of each fiscal year; (f) what was the number of applications awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year; and (g) what was the number of veterans awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year?
Q-3182 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) since January 23, 2018: (a) for each fiscal year, funding stream and province, as well as the sum total across Canada, (i) how many statements of interest have been received, (ii) how many statements of interest were from companies with 499 employees or fewer, headquartered in Canada and not subsidiaries of a corporation headquartered abroad, (iii) how many applications have been received in total, (iv) how many applications were received from companies with 499 employees or fewer, headquartered in Canada and not subsidiaries of a corporation headquartered abroad, (v) how many successful applicants were companies with 499 employees or fewer, headquartered in Canada and not subsidiaries of a corporation headquartered abroad; (b) what was the total amount of money disbursed by the SIF for each fiscal year, funding stream and province; (c) have any SIF recipient companies failed to complete one or more reporting requirements; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) which recipients failed to do so, (ii) when did the failure occur, (iii) what has the department done to enforce its reporting policy; (e) did any recipients indicate on their statements of interest that any of the activities of their proposed project were expected to occur outside of Canada; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what percentage of total project cost did they expect to incur outside of Canada?
Q-3192 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage, broken down by quarter for each fiscal year since 2011-12 to date : (a) for data collected in the Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS), broken down by program component for all departmental programs, what is the processing time for grants and contribution applications between the time the program acknowledges receipt of the application and the time the department makes a decision on the application for funding; (b) for the departmental executive committee responsible for reviewing the results of the processing time data collected in GCIMS, (i) who are the members of this executive committee, (ii) how often do they meet, (iii) what is the budget allocated for its operation, (iv) what were its recommendations to the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (v) what were its recommendations to deputy ministers, (vi) what were its recommendations to assistant deputy ministers, (vii) what were its recommendations to directors general, (viii) what were its recommendations to program managers?
Q-3202 — February 18, 2020 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — officeWith regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by job title, including national first level appeals officer, national second level appeals officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator; (b) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the average number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by (i) job title, including national first level appeals officer, national second level appeals officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (c) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total cost of overtime, further broken down by (i) job title, including national first level appeals officer, national second level appeals officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (d) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of disability benefit claims, further broken down by (i) new claims, (ii) claims awaiting a decision, (iii) approved claims, (iv) denied claims, (v) appealed claims; (e) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many new disability benefit claims were transferred to a different VAC than that which conducted the intake; (f) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the number of (i) case managers, (ii) veterans service agents; (g) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many case managers took a leave of absence, and what was the average length of the leave of absence; (h) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, accounting for all leaves of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many full-time equivalent case managers were present and working, and what was the case manager to veteran ratio; (i) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were disengaged from their case manager; (j) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the highest number of cases assigned to an individual case manager; (k) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were on a waitlist for a case manager; (l) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, for work usually done by regularly employed case managers and veteran service agents, (i) how many contracts were awarded, (ii) what was the duration of each contract, (iii) what was the value of each contract; (m) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by VAC office, what were the service standard results; (n) what is the mechanism for tracking the transfer of cases between case managers when a case manager takes a leave of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave; (o) what is the department’s current method for calculating the case manager to veteran ratio; (p) what are the department’s quality assurance measures for case managers and how do they change based on the number of cases a case manager has at that time; (q) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many individuals were hired by the department; (r) how many of the individuals in (q) remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (s) of the individuals in (q) who did not remain employed beyond the probation period, how many did not have their contracts extended by the department; (t) does the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what are the reasons for which employees were not kept beyond the probation period; (u) for the individuals in (q) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office; (v) during the last five fiscal years for which data is available, broken down by month, how many Canadian Armed Forces service veterans were hired by the department; (w) of the veterans in (v), how many remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (x) of the veterans in (v) who are no longer employed by the department, (i) how many did not have their employment contracts extended by the department, (ii) how many were rejected on probation; (y) if the department tracks the reasons why employees are not kept beyond the probation period, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what are the reasons why veteran employees are not kept beyond the probation period; (z) for the veterans in (v) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what were the reasons for their departure, broken down by VAC office; (aa) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many employees have quit their job at VAC; and (bb) for the employees in (aa) who quit their job, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office?
Q-3212 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. McCauley (Edmonton West) — With regard to the transport of the CCGS McIntyre Bay and CCGS Pachena Bay from the east coast to the west coast: (a) who paid for the transport of the ships; (b) which company provided the transport; (c) was the company reimbursed to bring the ships out; (d) did the government go to public tender to provide the transport; (e) was transport included in the Request for Proposal for the tugboats (Emergency Towing Vessels RFP – F7017-160056/c), and, if so, were points awarded to the winning bid given to the company that provided the transport; (f) did Atlantic Towing produce certification confirming output after all required engine driven consumers (shaft generators, etc.) were taken into account; (g) were there competing bids to bring the two ships out by truck or another method, and, if so, what were they and the associated bid costs; (h) what was the cost to load the McIntyre Bay and Pachena onto the Atlantic Raven; and (i) what was the cost to unload them once reaching their final pacific destination?
Q-3222 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola) — With regard to the Employment Insurance (EI) adjudication process and the current status of EI applications: (a) what is the current backlog of adjudications waiting in the queue; (b) what is the current average time between the beginning of an adjudication process and its completion; (c) what percentage of the applications are removed from the automated process after 28 days and sent to manual adjudication; (d) what percentage of EI applications are handled automatically (i.e. without manual intervention); (e) what percentage of applications are handled by the automated system and is that close to the original estimate of 85%; and (f) what action is the government taking to address the delays and backlog in the adjudication system?
Q-3232 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and its research report entitled “Tax Gap: A Brief Overview”, which estimated that the tax gap for the 2014 tax year was between $21.8 billion and $26 billion: (a) what is the estimated tax gap, broken down by each of the last five years; and (b) for each of the last five years, what is the (i) federal tax gap estimate before audit, (ii) percentage of corresponding revenues, broken down by tax gap component?
Q-3242 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. Melillo (Kenora) — With regard to the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway 17 between Kenora and the Manitoba border: (a) what is the total amount of money the government has allocated to date for the project; (b) when was each amount in (a) allocated, and under what program; (c) if no money has been allocated to date, will the government be allocating funding for the project, and, if so, how much money; and (d) will the government commit to the formula that was used in the past, whereby the federal government provides 50% of the funding, while the provincial government of Ontario provides the other 50%, and, if not, what funding formula will the government commit to in relation to this project?
Q-3252 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton) — With regard to the government’s administration of section 42.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (a) how many applications have been received under this section, since 2013, broken down by year; and (b) what is the status of each application in (a), including (i) date the application was received, (ii) date a decision was made, (iii) decision, (iv) number of days between the date the application was received and the date a decision was made?
Q-3262 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. Barlow (Foothills) — With regard to the comments of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to the media at CropConnect in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in February 2020, stating “I already had data from the department last fall or earlier this winter”, in reference to the impact of the carbon tax on farmers: (a) what data did the minister receive from the department; and (b) on what date was the data received?
Q-3272 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. Barlow (Foothills) — With regard to the government’s AgriStability Program: (a) what was the actual or estimated cost to administer the program, for each of the last five years, broken down by year; and (b) how many employees or full-time equivalents at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have been assigned to administer the program, broken down by each of the last five years?
Q-3282 — February 18, 2020 — Mr. Barlow (Foothills) — With regard to the Efficient Grain Dryer Program announced by the government on February 10, 2020: (a) what is the projected cost to administer the program, broken down by type of cost; and (b) how many employees or full-time equivalents at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have been assigned to administer the program?

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

Business of Supply

Opposition Motions
February 18, 2020 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the House has lost confidence in the government.

February 18, 2020 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the House condemn the government’s inaction in response to the illegal blockades of railways, highways and bridges by activists not impacted by the Coastal GasLink project, and call on the government to take action immediately to restore access to important economic infrastructure.
Notice also received from:
Ms. Bergen (Portage—Lisgar), Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George), Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), Mr. Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock) and Mr. Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — February 18, 2020

February 18, 2020 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the House stand in solidarity with every elected band council on the Coastal GasLink route, the majority of hereditary chiefs, and the vast majority of the Wet’suwet’en people, who support the Coastal GasLink project, and condemn the radical activists who are exploiting divisions within the Wet’suwet’en community, holding the Canadian economy hostage, and threatening jobs and opportunities in Indigenous communities.
Notice also received from:
Ms. Bergen (Portage—Lisgar), Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George), Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), Mr. Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock) and Mr. Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — February 18, 2020

February 18, 2020 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the House request that the Parliamentary Budget Officer deliver a report no later than March 31, 2020, quantifying the financial impact of the current rail disruption on individuals, companies, and the Canadian economy.
Notice also received from:
Ms. Bergen (Portage—Lisgar), Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George), Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), Mr. Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock) and Mr. Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — February 18, 2020

February 18, 2020 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be instructed to conduct a study of the alleged funding by foreign groups of protestors against the Canadian energy sector, including those involved in the current illegal blockades.
Notice also received from:
Ms. Bergen (Portage—Lisgar), Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George), Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), Mr. Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock) and Mr. Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — February 18, 2020

February 18, 2020 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — That the House endorse the recommendations of the independent Joint Review Panel and call on the government to approve the Teck Frontier mine project.
Notice also received from:
Ms. Bergen (Portage—Lisgar), Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), Mr. Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock) and Mr. Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — February 18, 2020

Government Business

Private Members' Notices of Motions


2 Response requested within 45 days