|
Q-1358
|
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 |
With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada and CORCAN: (a) what have been CORCAN’s annual expenses and revenues, broken down by business line and year, since 1992; (b) which companies have CORCAN entered into public-private partnerships with, by year, and for what duration, since 1992; (c) which CORCAN enterprises are currently operating in federal institutions, broken down by institution; (d) how many offenders are currently employed in CORCAN jobs in federal institutions; (e) how many offenders are currently employed in non-CORCAN jobs in federal institutions; (f) how many offenders under supervision in the community are currently employed by CORCAN; (g) in fiscal year 2025-26, how much did CORCAN spend on non-offender salaries; (h) how many non-offender staff are currently employed by CORCAN; (i) how many Correctional Service of Canada positions have been eliminated, broken down by employment category (librarians, educators and teachers, employment coordinators, parole officers, guards, administrative personnel, CORCAN staff, other) by month, since January 1, 2025, and what were the estimated savings, by employment category in that period; (j) what specific educational, vocational, mental health, or other correctional programs have been eliminated, by month, since January 1, 2025, broken down by institution or region, and what were the estimated savings, by program in that period; and (k) what other specific cost-reduction measures have been taken by the Correctional Service of Canada, by month, since January 1, 2025, what were the estimated savings in that period, and what are the estimated savings from now until March 31, 2030? |
Awaiting response |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1329
|
Monday, June 15, 2026 |
With regard to Alto, High Frequency Rail, and VIA HFR - VIA TGF Inc.: (a) has the government commissioned a replacement business case for the 300 km/h Alto specification to supersede the December 10, 2021 Joint Project Office Business Case Update; (b) if a replacement business case has been commissioned or completed, on what date was it completed, which firm or institution produced it, what is its Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio for the 300 km/h specification, and when will it be published; (c) if a replacement business case has not been completed, what is the analytical basis for the $60–$90 billion cost range and the $35 billion annual gross domestic product return figure cited in supporting materials at the February 19, 2025 announcement; (d) does the government agree that the December 2021 Business Case is outdated and largely, if not entirely, no longer applicable; (e) what is the current internal cost estimate held by Transport Canada for the full Alto project, classified by cost estimation class as defined in Alto's Amended Corporate Plan 2024-25 to 2028-29; (f) what is the current internal cost estimate held by Alto Inc. for the full Alto project, classified by cost estimation class as defined in Alto's Amended Corporate Plan 2024-25 to 2028-29; (g) to what extent do the provisions of the High-Speed Rail Network Act referring to land, interest, right, or immovable real right refer to (i) the operational right-of-way, (ii) development land for station hubs beyond the operational footprint, (iii) land for storage, maintenance, repair, or emergency capabilities or facilities, (iv) land for electrical infrastructure, (v) land for any other purpose relating to the high-speed rail network; (h) what, if any, limitations exist on the ability of Alto or a minister of the Crown to designate land, interest, right, or immovable real right for the purposes of (g)(i) to (g)(v); (i) does the phrase "lands needed for the project," including for the purposes of the expropriation powers in the High-Speed Rail Network Act, refer only to the operational right-of-way, or does it also include development land for station hubs beyond the operational footprint; (j) to the extent that any element of the responses to (g) or (i) refer to development land for station hubs, (i) what is the geographic extent of the land contemplated for acquisition around each proposed station, (ii) on what basis is that land deemed "needed for the project"; (k) is land value capture, in any of its fiscal, regulatory, or land-assembly forms, contemplated as a financing mechanism or revenue source for the Alto project; (l) is transit-oriented development, in any of its fiscal, regulatory, or land-assembly forms, contemplated as a financing mechanism or revenue source for the Alto project; (m) if land value capture or transit-oriented development is contemplated as a financing mechanism or revenue source for the Alto project, which mechanisms are under consideration, including but not limited to fiscal and regulatory tools such as levies, development charges, density bonuses, or tax increment financing, or land assembly in which the government acquires a development portfolio around a station for subsequent sale, lease, or joint development; (n) what is the projected revenue from any contemplated land value capture, transit-oriented development, or station-area development, over what period, and to what extent does this projection form part of the Net Present Value or Benefit-Cost Ratio in any government financial analysis of the project; (o) has any station-area land acquisition and development strategy been implemented or carried forward into the Co-Development Phase with Cadence Rail, and, if so, in what form and to what extent; (p) why has the government's public communication on Alto land acquisition referred to the operational right-of-way of approximately 60 metres; (q) when, how, and to what extent has Alto or Transport Canada publicly communicated on station-area land acquisition or procured land value capture or transit-oriented development advisory services and, if no such public communications have occurred, for what reason; (r) was the Joint Project Office Technical Lead responsible for technical validation of the capital cost estimates in the December 2021 Business Case able to provide professional support for the CAPEX position as submitted, and, if not, was that qualification or dissent recorded in any document provided to Transport Canada, Finance Canada, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, Infrastructure Canada, or any minister; (s) was the Business Case Update submitted to the Joint Leaders Committee and subsequently to ministers accompanied by any disclosure that the capital cost estimates had not received field validation, including borehole drilling, topographic surveys, or geotechnical site investigations, due to COVID-19 restrictions, and, if so, in what document and on what date was that disclosure made; (t) on August 3, 2021, did the Canada Infrastructure Bank forward to Finance Canada and Infrastructure Canada an internal Joint Project Office email dated August 1, 2021, disclosing $883 million in new capital cost increases and a negative Net Present Value that had not yet been presented to the Joint Leaders Committee, through an informal channel, and, if so, was that email or its content approved for release by the Joint Leaders Committee before it was sent; (u) what authorization, if any, existed for the transmission of the email referred to in (t) to Finance Canada and Infrastructure Canada; (v) what steps, if any, did Finance Canada take upon receipt of the email referred to in (t) to ensure it did not affect its position at any briefings that occurred on August 3, 2021; (w) was the existence of the email referred to in (t) disclosed to the Joint Leaders Committee or to any minister, and, if so, when, how, to whom, by whom, and at whose direction; (x) what were the two specific sources of the $883 million in capital cost increases disclosed in the email referred to in (t); (y) how and to what extent did the email referred to in (t) refer to (i) costs arising from host railway requirements, including CN Rail capacity study findings for the Montréal approach, previously excluded from the base estimate, (ii) costs arising from a forced alignment change at Toronto resulting from Metrolinx’s rejection of the Don Branch corridor access in favour of the Uxbridge Subdivision, with the Toronto station moving from Eglinton to Kennedy; (z) were either of the two specific sources of the $883 million in capital cost increases disclosed in the email referred to in (t) and their amounts disclosed in the December 2021 Business Case as submitted; (aa) is the Business Case, as submitted in December 2021, supported by field-validated cost estimates, and, if so, to what extent and from what sources; and (ab) did the internal technical reviewer responsible for validation express reservations or concerns about the CAPEX position, and, if so, how and to what extent and for what reasons? |
Awaiting response |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1313
|
Monday, June 15, 2026 |
With regard to Alto, High Frequency Rail, and VIA HFR - VIA TGF Inc.: (a) will the fairness monitor's full report on the procurement be released in its entirety, and, if so, when, and if not, under what provision of the Access to Information Act is the full report being withheld; (b) what was the total value of the contract or task authorization under which the fairness monitor was engaged, including any amendments; (c) did the fairness monitor's mandate or review include any assessment of whether SYSTRA Canada was eligible to participate as a member of the Cadence consortium in the procurement; (d) did the fairness monitor's mandate or review include any assessment of whether WSP Canada was eligible to participate as a member of the QConnexiON Rail Partners consortium in the procurement; (e) has any fairness monitor been engaged to observe the Co-Development Phase between Alto and Cadence, and, if so, who, under what solicitation, and at what cost; (f) did the fairness monitor assess or report on concerns raised by Transport Action Canada regarding the presence and date of addition of Air Canada in the Cadence consortium; (g) did the fairness monitor assess or report on concerns raised by Transport Action Canada regarding access to commercially sensitive VIA Rail information; (h) does the fairness monitor's mandate extend to assessing whether the design of the procurement, as distinct from the conduct of the procurement as designed, permitted firms that authored the project's foundational studies to subsequently bid on it; (i) on what date was the financial and technical peer review engagement on VIA Rail’s proposed High-Frequency Rail business case, or any project designated Project Arrow, initiated and on what date was the final deliverable received by the Canada Development Investment Corporation; (j) were the findings of the financial and technical peer review on VIA Rail’s proposed High-Frequency Rail business case, or any project designated Project Arrow, shared with Transport Canada, Finance Canada, or the Privy Council Office, and, if so, on what dates; (k) does a complete and final report or deliverable, conducted by WSP Canada exist for Project Arrow. and. if so, to what organizations was it delivered, when was it delivered, and when and in what format and in what location was it publicly released; (l) if a complete and final report or deliverable, conducted by WSP Canada, for Project Arrow does not exist, or was not publicly released, what are the reasons for that being the case; (m) on what basis are the numbered ridership findings, contained in documents relating to Project Arrow released by Transport Canada in May 2023 under ATI file A-2016-00827, withheld under sections 18(1)(e) and 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act; (n) during the financial and technical peer review on VIA Rail’s proposed High-Frequency Rail business case, or any project designated Project Arrow, conducted by WSP Canada, were any restraints on VIA Rail’s ability to share information with WSP Canada disclosed to the Privy Council Office or Finance Canada; (o) did the restraints on VIA Rail’s ability to share information with WSP Canada during the financial and technical peer review on VIA Rail’s proposed High-Frequency Rail business case, or any project designated Project Arrow, affect the government’s assessment of the reliability of VIA Rail’s capital cost estimates; and (p) during the 2023 Request for Qualifications process, did Public Services and Procurement Canada, or any other federal institution, apply a conflict-of-interest screening assessment to WSP Canada with respect to its prior role in related peer review processes, and, if so, what was its outcome and where is it documented, and, if not, on what basis did the government determine that WSP Canada’s participation as a commercial bidder in the procurement did not constitute a conflict of interest? |
Awaiting response |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1191
|
Friday, May 1, 2026 |
With regard to Alto (VIA HFR - VIA TGF Inc.) and passenger rail in Canada: (a) on what basis, studies, and facts was the change made from pursuing high-frequency rail to pursuing high-speed rail; (b) why has the government not pursued legislated passenger rail priority, in general or for VIA Rail specifically, on privately-owned rail infrastructure in Canada along established passenger rail routes; (c) what funding has been provided, broken down by year since 1990, for infrastructure improvements along established VIA Rail passenger rail routes; (d) by what instrument or instruments is the public release of records relating to the 2023 Request for Qualifications restrained; (e) by what instrument or instruments is the public release of intellectual property that is owned by the Government of Canada relating to the 2023 Request for Qualifications restrained; (f) with respect to the 2023 Request for Qualifications, what are the details of the independent corridor alignments, Class 5 cost estimates, ridership forecasts and revenue models, operating cost models, financial structures, financial models, construction schedules, and risk and opportunity registers submitted by each of the three shortlisted consortia; (g) what are the upper and lower capital cost estimates submitted by each of the three shortlisted consortia included in the 2023 Request for Qualifications; (h) what were the conclusions of the analyses conducted before 2023 on the financial viability of high-speed rail proposals for Canada; (i) what are the current estimates of the capital cost, net present value, benefit-cost ratio, and 30-year government subsidy requirement for Alto; (j) what are the most recent estimates of the capital cost, net present value, benefit-cost ratio, and 30-year government subsidy requirement for the high-frequency rail predecessor to Alto; (k) what is the government’s estimate of the risk levels of the Alto project exceeding $90 billion in capital costs and by what amounts; (l) on what basis does the government believe Alto’s annual ridership projections are credible; (m) what are the methodology, sensitivity ranges, and baseline assumptions used for Alto’s annual ridership projections; (n) has Alto or the government commissioned a comparative freezing rain, snow, or ice risk assessment for the proposed Alro routes and, if so, what are the details and conclusions; (o) what is Alto's planned service reliability target under freezing rain conditions; (p) has Alto commissioned a full comparative winter weather cost analysis; (q) what public benchmarking mechanism will exist to detect cost escalation in the co-development phase before it becomes irreversible; and (r) what are the time and cost savings projected for the expedited Expropriation process in Bill C-15 versus standard Expropriation Act procedures? |
Answered |
Wednesday, June 17, 2026 |
|
Q-1119
|
Thursday, April 23, 2026 |
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada programs, and the Sudanese family reunification program: (a) how much money in processing fees has been collected from Canadian families and Sudanese applicants through the Sudanese family reunification program; (b) why is Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada able to prioritize processing some pathways above the Levels Plan, but not for Sudanese applicants; (c) for the Sudanese family reunification program, what is the average time (i) from application submission to approval, (ii) from approval to arrival in Canada, (iii) from application submission to arrival in Canada, (iv) between submission of medical information and approval of security checks, or vice versa; (d) what are the details of the policy, directive, instruction, or other instrument that determines the pace of applications for Sudanese individuals versus applications from other programs or streams; (e) has a minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada ever provided directives or instructions to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada with respect to the Sudanese family reunification program in any form, and, if so, what are the details of each instance; (f) how many pending applicants are awaiting approval in the Sudanese family reunification program; (g) how many of the applicants in (f) does Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada expect to have their applications processed to completion by January 1, 2027; (h) by what date does Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada expect applicants who applied for the Sudanese family reunification program in 2024 will have their applications processed to completion; (i) by what date does Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada expect applicants who applied for the Sudanese family reunification program in 2025 will have their applications processed to completion; (j) what is the total amount of funds that anchors have been required to set aside to fulfill application requirements for applicants through the Sudanese family reunification program; (k) how many deaths of Canadian anchors or deaths of applicants while their Sudanese family reunification program applications were awaiting processing are Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada aware of; (l) what impact has the deaths of Canadian anchors or deaths of applicants while their applications are awaiting processing had on Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada decision-making within the Sudanese family reunification program; (m) for each year since January 1, 2015, what have been the average times for an application to be processed to completion for applicants under family-based pathways from countries in Central America, the Caribbean, Ukraine, and Sudan; (n) since 2022, for applicants through the Sudanese family reunification program, how many cases is Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada aware of in which Canadian children were born to Sudanese mothers outside of Canada and for whom one or more of the child's parents has subsequently died; and (o) what actions were taken to expedite the applications, approvals, or arrivals of children and mothers indicated in (n) and, in each case, what were the details? |
Answered |
Wednesday, June 10, 2026 |
|
Q-1067
|
Tuesday, April 14, 2026 |
With regard to prisoner participation in the Correctional Service of Canada’s penitentiary agriculture program at Collins Bay and Joyceville Institutions, recognizing that a full-time-equivalent farm job position can be filled by multiple prisoners working part-time or short-term, for the period covering fiscal years 2018-19 through to 2025-26: (a) how many prisoners have participated in the penitentiary agriculture program; (b) how many full-time-equivalent prisoner farm job positions have been available at each winter (January) and summer (July) seasonal period, broken down by season, year, and institution; (c) as of March 31, 2026, how many full-time-equivalent prisoner farm job positions were available, broken down by institution; (d) what is the specific nature of each full-time-equivalent prisoner farm job position available as of March 31, 2026 (syrup, beekeeping, forestry, horticulture, crops, milking, other); and (e) as of March 31, 2026, how many prisoners were participating in the penitentiary agriculture program, broken down by institution? |
Answered |
Monday, June 1, 2026 |
|
Q-1066
|
Tuesday, April 14, 2026 |
With regard to the reestablishment of Correctional Service Canada’s farms at Collins Bay and Joyceville Institutions, for the period covering fiscal years 2018-19 through to 2025-26: (a) what is the total aggregate amount spent on all aspects of the program’s implementation and operation, including consultants, farm staff salaries and benefits, travel, farm supplies (seed, feed, fertilizer, fuel, etc.), subcontracted services (pesticide application, combining and trucking, etc.), vehicles, equipment, repairs and maintenance, animal purchases, deadstock or rendering and veterinary services, demolitions, renovations, new construction, insurance, and all expenses attributable to the reopened CORCAN Agribusiness business line; (b) of this, what is the total aggregate amount spent to date on the dairy cattle barn at Joyceville Institution, including construction, modifications, procurement fees, consultancy fees, travel and meals, contingencies, project management, contract administration, site security, dairy equipment and technology, taxes paid by Correction Service Canada’s, taxes charged by suppliers to Public Services and Procurement Canada that have been settled through Public Services and Procurement Canada, and legal fees, litigation, and claims; (c) how many claims have been brought by contractors against the cattle barn project, what is the amount claimed and the subject matter of each claim, and how much has been paid out to date in response to the claims; (d) on what date was final completion of the cattle barn achieved and on what date was the barn handed over to Correctional Service Canada’s by Public Services and Procurement Canada and the contractor; (e) if not yet achieved, what is the current anticipated date of final completion and project close-out; (f) since 2024, broken down by month, what have been the total revenues from the sale of milk; and (g) is the future goat barn still under consideration, and is it still Correctional Service Canada’s position that the goat program will resume as indicated in the March 5, 2021 news release? |
Answered |
Monday, June 1, 2026 |
|
Q-761
|
Wednesday, December 10, 2025 |
With regard to bulk fertilizer labelling requirements since January 1, 2023: (a) has any federal department, agency or office issued or requested interpretation guidance on applicable regulations, and, if so, for each instance, what was the (i) date on which the guidance was issued or requested, (ii) recipient or office to which the guidance was issued or from which the guidance was requested, (iii) details of the guidance issued or requested; (b) have any briefing, communication or informational materials been provided to any minister, deputy minister, assistant or associate deputy minister or agency head, and, if so, for each instance, what was the (i) date on which the material was provided, (ii) recipient or office to which the material was provided, (iii) topic of the material provided; (c) what are the details of all correspondence between any office or individual in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and any individual in the office of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, including, for each instance, the date, method, originator, recipients and subject; and (d) what are the details of all correspondence on this topic between any office or individual in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and any individual in the office of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, including, for each instance, the date, method, originator, recipients and subject? |
Answered |
Wednesday, March 11, 2026 |
