Skip to main content

House Publications

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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
42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Journals

No. 36

Monday, April 11, 2016

11:00 a.m.



Prayer
Private Members' Business

At 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The Order was read for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-239, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable gifts).

Mr. Falk (Provencher), seconded by Mr. Nater (Perth—Wellington), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Debate arose thereon.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the Order was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

WAYS AND MEANS

The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Morneau (Minister of Finance), seconded by Mr. LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), — That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government. (Ways and Means No. 2)

The debate continued.

Ms. Ambrose (Sturgeon River—Parkland), seconded by Ms. Raitt (Milton), moved the following amendment, — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House not approve the budgetary policy of the government as it:

(a) includes a deficit of at least $29.4 billion;

(b) contains wasteful spending;

(c) has no plan to balance the books;

(d) will fail to boost economic growth or create jobs; and

(e) betrays the middle class by raising taxes on families, individuals and small businesses.”.

Debate arose thereon.

Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), seconded by Ms. Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga), moved the following subamendment, — That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “as it” and substituting the following:

“chooses to keep tax loopholes for CEOs and giveaways to profitable corporations over providing immediate help to struggling Canadians, fails to honour the government’s promises to invest in health care, seniors, youth, and First Nations children, does not meaningfully improve access to Employment Insurance or close the black hole for seasonal workers, and lacks transparency; and is of the opinion that the Minister of Finance should amend his budgetary policy so that it actually delivers on the government’s promises, and addresses income inequality in this country.”.

Debate arose thereon.

Statements By Members

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.

Oral Questions

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

Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Ms. Goldsmith-Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs) laid upon the Table, — Copies of the Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations (P.C. 2016-134) and of the Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations (P.C. 2016-135), pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act, S.C. 1992, c. 17, sbs. 7(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-421-495-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development)

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:

— Nos. 421-00065 and 421-00083 concerning genetic engineering. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-26-01;
— No. 421-00066 concerning a national week. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-27-01;
— Nos. 421-00067 and 421-00078 concerning impaired driving. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-7-04;
— No. 421-00068 concerning assisted suicide. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-9-02;
— No. 421-00069 concerning natural gas. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-28-01;
— Nos. 421-00070, 421-00076 and 421-00089 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-3-03;
— Nos. 421-00071, 421-00072, 421-00075, 421-00077, 421-00079, 421-00080, 421-00084, 421-00085, 421-00086, 421-00087, 421-00092, 421-00094, 421-00095, 421-00096, 421-00097, 421-00098, 421-00100, 421-00107, 421-00111, 421-00114, 421-00120 and 421-00125 concerning the electoral system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-11-03;
— No. 421-00073 concerning Old Age Security benefits. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-29-01;
— No. 421-00081 concerning international agreements. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-30-01;
— Nos. 421-00082, 421-00093, 421-00113, 421-00116 and 421-00127 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-31-01;
— No. 421-00088 concerning discrimination. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-32-01;
— No. 421-00090 concerning poverty. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-12-02;
— Nos. 421-00099 and 421-00105 concerning unborn children. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-5-03;
— Nos. 421-00101 and 421-00102 concerning abortion. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-33-01;
— Nos. 421-00103 and 421-00104 concerning sex selection. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-25-02;
— No. 421-00121 concerning China. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-13-02.

Motions

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Ways and Means motion No. 2 be disposed of as follows:

(a) On Tuesday, April 12, 2016, if a subamendment is under consideration at 1:59 p.m. or when no Member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings, the question to dispose of the subamendment be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions the same day;

(b) On Tuesday, April 12, 2016, if an amendment is under consideration at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings, the question to dispose of the amendment be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, April 13, 2016, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions; and

(c) On Thursday, April 14, 2016, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, unless the debate be previously concluded, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings, the question be deemed put on the main motion, a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 19, 2016, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.


Presenting Petitions

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition certified by the Clerk of Petitions was presented as follows:

— by Mr. Stewart (Burnaby South), one concerning cruelty to animals (No. 421-00139).

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answers to questions Q-57, Q-63 and Q-65 on the Order Paper.


Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-50 — Ms. Watts (South Surrey—White Rock) — With regard to the Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component, National and Regional Projects of the New Building Canada Plan, and how much money has been earmarked for projects of interest which have been planned but not yet been announced: (a) what funds have been allocated to each province and territory; (b) what is the number of projects in each province and territory; (c) how much money has been earmarked for each project listed in (b); (d) what data was used to determine which projects would be selected; and (e) when will these projects be announced? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-50.

Q-51 — Mr. Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie) — With regard to ministerial offices outside the National Capital Region: (a) how many offices were opened under the previous government; (b) how many offices have been kept open by the current government; (c) what branches or programs are operated out of these offices; (d) what is the name and purpose of each office, broken down by region and province; (e) what is the address and location of each office; (f) what are the projected annual operating expenses for each office for the coming year; and (g) what is the number of (i) full-time staff, (ii) temporary staff, in each office? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-51.

Q-52 — Mr. Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie) — With respect to data, information, or privacy breaches in government departments, institutions and agencies for 2015: (a) how many breaches have occurred in total, broken down by (i) department, institution, or agency, (ii) number of individuals affected; (b) of those breaches identified in (a), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, broken down by (i) department, institution or agency, (ii) number of individuals affected; and (c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft, broken down by department, institution or agency? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-52.

Q-53 — Mr. Choquette (Drummond) — With regard to the Translation Bureau (TB), which falls under the responsibility of Public Works and Government Services Canada: (a) since 2013-2014, broken down by year, (i) how many translator, interpreter, terminologist and reviser positions has the TB had, (ii) how many client institutions has the TB had; (b) what is the total amount billed to the TB’s client institutions for (i) translation or revision services, (ii) interpretation services; (c) what are the estimated costs of implementing a machine translation tool as of April 1, 2016; (d) what studies were undertaken on (i) the justification for implementing a machine translation tool, (ii) the impact of a machine translation tool on bilingualism in the public service, (iii) the quality of the texts translated by a machine translation tool, (iv) the costs associated with implementing a machine translation tool; (e) since 2005-2006, broken down by year and by department, what has been the total value of the contracts sent to external suppliers rather than the TB, broken down by contracts for (i) translation, (ii) interpretation, (iii) revision; (f) what financial and human resources, in terms of staff working in full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, has the TB devoted to developing its machine translation tool; (g) since 2011-2012, broken down by year and by department, what financial and human resources, in terms of FTEs, have been devoted to external suppliers and allocated to (i) contracting with suppliers for translation and revision, (ii) management of the contracts referred to in (i), (iii) quality assurance for these contracts; (h) since 2005-2006, broken down by year and by department, how many words have been translated by external suppliers rather than the TB; (i) since 2005-2006, broken down by year, how much has the TB paid suppliers of translation services with which it has contracted; (j) since 2005-2006, broken down by year, what financial and human resources, in terms of FTEs, has the TB devoted to (i) contracting with suppliers for translation, (ii) management of these contracts, (iii) quality assurance for these contracts; (k) since 2013-2014, broken down by month, how many words have been sent to the TB by client institutions and (i) translated by translators who are indeterminate employees of the TB, (ii) translated by TB suppliers; (l) has the government taken steps to hire new employees between now and 2019-2020, and if so, how many translators will be hired internally, broken down by year, (i) in indeterminate positions, (ii) in temporary positions; and (m) what is the TB’s current pricing structure? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-53.

Q-54 — Mr. Choquette (Drummond) — With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and francophone immigration to Canada: (a) how many full time equivalents (FTEs) are allocated to IRCC to (i) process applications, (ii) develop programs for francophones outside Quebec; (b) how does IRCC take into account the specific needs and realities of francophone communities and of francophone immigrants outside Quebec in order to meet the objective of recruiting and integrating francophone immigrants into minority communities; (c) what are the IRCC’s budgetary resources allocated by year, in the past five years, to (i) promotion and recruitment efforts in francophone countries abroad, (ii) settlement and resettlement services in Canada for francophones in francophone communities outside Quebec; (d) how does IRCC ensure that the resources allocated in (c) contribute to an approach by and for francophone minority communities; (e) what are the results of the francophone promotion and recruitment efforts in francophone countries abroad since 2013; (f) how many francophone immigrants has each of Canada’s provinces and territories taken in per year in the past five years; (g) what is the proportion of francophone immigrants taken in for each of the last five years compared to all immigrants taken in during the same period; (h) in which IRCC immigration categories or programs have francophone immigrants been placed in each of the last five years, broken down by program; (i) what is IRCC’s definition of a francophone immigrant; (j) how many francophone immigrants has Express Entry attracted per year since its creation, broken down by province and territory; (k) have any changes been made to Express Entry since its creation to attract more francophone immigrants and, if so, what are they; (l) are there any formal mechanisms for consulting francophone minority communities and, if so, what are they; and (m) to date, how many members of the Immigration and Refugee Board, broken down by city, (i) have French as their preferred language, (ii) are proficient in both official languages (level B2 or higher)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-54.

Q-55 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, for the fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what was the number of applicants for each of the following programs, (i) Disability and Death Compensation – Disability Pension Program – Disability Pensions, (ii) Disability and Death Compensation, (iii) Disability and Death Compensation – Disability Pension Program, (iv) Disability and Death Compensation – Disability Pension Program – Exceptional Incapacity Allowance, (v) Disability and Death Compensation – Disability Pension Program – Treatment Allowance, (vi) Disability Awards Program, (vii) Disability Awards Program – Disability Awards, (viii) Financial Support Program, (ix) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits, (x) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits – Earnings Loss, (xi) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits – Canadian Forces Income Support, (xii) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits – Supplementary Retirement Benefit, (xiii) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits – Permanent Impairment Allowance, (xiv) Financial Support Program – War Veterans Allowance, (xv) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services, (xvi) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Rehabilitation, (xvii) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Career Transition Services, (xviii) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Health Care Benefits, (xix) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Health Care Benefits – Health Care Benefits and Services, (xx) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Health Care Benefits – Veterans Independence Program – Other Services, (xxi) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Intermediate and Long-Term Care, (xxii) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Intermediate and Long-Term Care – Non-Departmental Institutions – Veterans Independence Program, (xxiii) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Intermediate and Long-Term Care – Non-Departmental Institutions – Long Term Care, (xxiv) Canada Remembers Program – Partnerships and Collaborations, (xxv) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Intermediate and Long-Term Care – Funeral and Burial Program; (b) what was the number of rejected applications for the programs identified in (a); (c) what was the number of completed applications for the programs identified in (a); (d) what was the average length of time for applications to be processed for the programs identified in (a); (e) what was the median length of time for application to be processed for the programs identified in (a); (f) what was the shortest length of time for an application to be processed for the programs identified in (a); and (g) what was the longest length of time for an application to be processed for the programs identified in (a)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-55.

Q-56 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what was the number of applications received; (b) what was the number of applications not granted a hearing; (c) what was the number of successful appeals; (d) what was the average length of time between submission of application and appeal; (e) what was the median length of time between submission of application and appeal; (f) what was the shortest length of time between submission of application and appeal; and (g) what was the longest length of time between submission of application and appeal? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-56.

Q-58 — Mr. Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola) — With respect to border security and the sharing of information with foreign countries: (a) do Canada and Mexico have a coordinated entry-exit information system such as it exists between Canada and the United States; and (b) is any information about Canadians who stay in Mexico for extended periods of time sent, whether through an entry-exit information system or by any other means, to the (i) Canada Revenue Agency, (ii) Mexican tax authorities? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-58.

Q-59 — Mr. Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola) — With regard to agreements on internal trade: (a) what is the number of meetings that ministers, Members of Parliament acting on behalf of the government, or federal public officials have had since November 4, 2015, with provincial counterparts regarding the implementation of a new or updated agreement on internal trade; (b) what were the dates of these meetings; (c) who were the participants of these meetings; (d) how many such meetings did ministers, Members of Parliament acting on behalf of the government, or federal public officials have between February 6, 2006, and November 3, 2015; (e) how many studies has the government undertaken since November 4, 2015, regarding (i) the detrimental effects of interprovincial trade barriers, (ii) the positive impacts of a new or updated agreement on internal trade; (f) what were the findings of the studies identified in (e), including but not limited to specific statistical analysis on (i) how much the Canadian economy is being hindered because of a lack of a new or updated agreement on internal trade, (ii) how much the Canadian economy could grow with a new or updated agreement on internal trade; (g) since November 4, 2015, has the government performed any studies on determining which of the two options for moving forward on interprovincial trade, as articulated in the proposal “One Canada, One National Economy: Modernizing Internal Trade in Canada,” would be preferred, and, if so, what were the findings of any such studies, including but not limited, to specific statistical findings on how one option was better than the other; and (h) how much has the government spent since November 4, 2015, on policy analysis or consultations regarding the implementation of a new or updated agreement on internal trade? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-59.

Q-60 — Mr. Nuttall (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s attendance of a rally held on February 9, 2016, in support of the provincial Liberal candidate in the Whitby—Oshawa byelection: what was the total cost for the Prime Minister’s travel, security, and staffing, in relation to this event? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-60.

Q-61 — Mr. Donnelly (Port Moody—Coquitlam) — With regard to the spread of the Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) virus and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) is the Minister aware that, despite public statements by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that they had been unable to reproduce the ISA virus test results produced by the Kibenge laboratory at the University of Prince Edward Island on British Columbia farmed and wild salmon, the only retesting that was done did produce similar results; (b) is the Minister aware of any government actions to delay, obstruct, or discredit research related to the growing body of scientific evidence regarding the presence and impacts of the ISA virus and other aquaculture-related viruses, in Canada; (c) what measures will the Minister take to respond to the threat posed by this virus following the recommendations of the Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River; and (d) will the measures in (c) include (i) ending the delays in authorizing the full implementation of the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative, (ii) removing impediments to the development of a new screening test for the ISA virus at the Kibenge laboratory in the Atlantic Veterinary College, (iii) authorizing a scientifically rigorous, publicly credible program with active involvement of First Nations and non-governmental scientists to sample farmed and wild fish for use in studying the presence and impacts of the ISA and other aquaculture-related viruses? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-61.

Q-62 — Ms. Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga) — With regard to the amounts allocated to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy: (a) what amounts have not been spent to date for the various regions of Quebec for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; and (b) are there unspent amounts for the other provinces and territories for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and, if so, what are these amounts, broken down by province and territory? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-62.

Q-66 — Mr. Saroya (Markham—Unionville) — With respect to the government’s commitment to lift the visa requirement for Mexican nationals entering Canada: (a) has the department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship conducted a formal visa review, including a technical visit to the country, to provide a holistic, evidence-based assessment of Mexico’s eligibility for a visa exemption under Canada’s objective visa policy framework; (b) if a formal visa review for Mexico has been conducted by technical experts in the public service, (i) over what period of time was the review conducted, (ii) what are the conclusions and recommendations with respect to Mexico’s overall eligibility for a visa exemption under Canada’s visa policy framework; (c) if a formal visa review for Mexico has not been conducted, why has a decision been taken to grant a visa exemption in the absence of evidence for each indicator used to assess risk to Canada and Canadians; (d) under Canada’s existing visa policy framework, what are the indicators that are used to determine a country’s eligibility for a visa exemption, broken down by (i) quantitative indicators, (ii) qualitative indicators; (e) for each quantitative and qualitative indicator identified in (d), (i) which indicators does Mexico currently meet, (ii) which indicators does Mexico currently not meet; (f) for each socio-economic factor that is typically assessed in a formal visa review, (i) what is Canada’s current assessment of the factor in Mexico, (ii) does the evidence demonstrate a “push” factor that could incentivize irregular migration to Canada, if Mexican nationals are exempt from the visa requirement, (iii) does Mexico currently meet Canada’s requirement, under the existing visa policy framework, for each particular indicator, to be eligible for a visa exemption; (g) with respect to migration patterns and trends, for each factor that is typically assessed under Canada’s visa policy framework, (i) what is Canada’s assessment of the current condition in Mexico, (ii) does the evidence demonstrate eligibility for a visa exemption; (h) does Canada’s assessment of Mexico’s travel document integrity indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (i) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found that the Mexican passport is a reliable indicator of identity and nationality; (j) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found that Mexico’s border management practices indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (k) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found third country nationals are using Mexico as a transit point to travel illegally to Canada; (l) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found there are weaknesses in screening and enforcement measures at Mexican Ports of Entry; (m) does Canada’s assessment of security matters in Mexico indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (n) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found there is evidence of corruption or links to organized crime in the ranks of Mexican border officials and law enforcement; (o) have Canadian technical experts found that there is evidence of human smuggling activities and networks operating inside and through Mexico; (p) does Canada’s assessment of human rights matters in Mexico indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (q) with respect to visa refusal rates for Mexican nationals, (i) what is the quantitative threshold, expressed as a numerical percentage, used under Canada’s visa policy framework to indicate an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what is the current visa refusal rate, using the most recent calendar year, (iii) does the current visa refusal rate indicate an acceptable level of risk or an unacceptable level of risk, in the context of granting a visa exemption; (r) with respect to asylum rates for Mexican nationals, (i) what is the threshold used under Canada’s visa policy framework to indicate an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what was the asylum rate for the last calendar year before a visa requirement was imposed, (iii) what was the asylum rate for Mexican nationals for each calendar year, from 2010 to 2015, after the visa requirement was imposed; (s) with respect to asylum claims made in Canada by Mexican nationals in the calendar year prior to the imposition of a visa requirement, (i) how many people were granted refugee status by the Immigration and Refugee Board, (ii) how many people were refused refugee status by the Immigration and Refugee Board, (iii) how many asylum claims were withdrawn, (iv) how many asylum claimants were inadmissible, (v) what was the cost of processing the total number of asylum claims made by Mexican nationals in the calendar year prior to the imposition of a visa requirement, broken down by outcome at the Immigration and Refugee Board, (vi) on average, how long did it take to remove failed Mexican asylum claimants from Canada; (t) with respect to the Immigration Violation Rate, (i) what is the threshold used under Canada’s visa policy framework to determine an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what is the current Immigration Violation Rate for Mexican nationals, with the visa requirement in place, expressed as a numerical percentage for the most recent calendar year, (iii) what was the Immigration Violation Rate for Mexican nationals for period of 2007 to 2009, before the visa requirement was imposed; (u) what was the total number of inadmissible Mexican nationals that arrived on Canadian soil in the calendar year prior to the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, broken down by the nature of the inadmissibility; (v) how many inadmissible Mexican nationals have arrived on Canadian soil for each calendar year since the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) the nature of the inadmissibility; and (w) with respect to inadmissible Mexican nationals who arrived at a Canadian Port of Entry in the calendar year prior to the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, what was (i) the estimated cost of processing the inadmissible cases by the Canada Border Services Agency at Canadian Ports of Entry, (ii) the estimated increase in processing times for all travelers at Canadian Ports of Entry as a result of processing inadmissible Mexican nationals, (iii) the estimated total cost of removing those Mexican nationals deemed inadmissible to Canada, (iv) the average length of time it took to remove those Mexican nationals deemed inadmissible from Canada? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-66.

Q-67 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), and to the gap between identified immediate and future needs and current levels in infrastructure spending for First Nations in Canada: (a) what is the government’s estimate for the size of the deficit, broken down by category, such as, but not exclusively, (i) housing, (ii) education, (iii) water, (iv) roads and bridges, (v) other; (b) what is the number of hotel rooms and cost paid for by the government over the past ten years, broken down by year, due to emergency evacuations or housing shortages on reserve; (c) what is the number of schools on reserve designated as temporary structures; (d) what is the number of schools on reserve listed in (i) good condition, (ii) poor condition; (e) how many First Nations students across Canada currently attend school in facilities that lNAC believes contain health and safety concerns; (f) as of January 1, 2016, what new school construction projects are the top 40 priorities for INAC across Canada; (g) for each of the schools identified in (f), how long has INAC known that health and safety concerns existed in the current facilities; (h) since 2012, what amounts from the "Community Infrastructure" line item have been reallocated either within INAC or to other government departments; (i) how many communities, with projects identified by INAC as priority capital projects, have had letters of approval issued to them; and (j) for each year from 2012 to present, how much capital building expenditure funding, for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities built on First Nations Reserves, was planned but not spent on schools and why, broken down by (i) year, (ii) community? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-67.

Q-68 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, for the fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what was the amount of funding provided by Veterans Affairs Canada for each of the following organizations or establishments that it is partners with, (i) Helmets to Hardhats, (ii) Operational Stress Injury Clinics (OSICs), (iii) Royal Canadian Legion, (iv) all Long-term Care Facilities accommodating veterans, (v) contract beds for veterans run by provinces, (vi) Operational Stress Injury National Network, (vii) OSIC Vancouver, (viii) Operational Trauma and Stress Support Center (OTSSC) Esquimalt, (ix) OSIC Carewest, (x) OSIC Edmonton, (xi) OTSSC Edmonton, (xii) OSIC Deer Lodge, (xiii) OSIC Parkwood, (xiv) OSIC Royal Ottawa, (xv) OTSSC Ottawa, (xvi) OTSSC Petawawa, (xvii) OTSSC Valcartier, (xviii) OSIC Sainte-Anne, (xix) Operational Stress Injury Residential Treatment Clinic, (xx) OSIC Centre hospitalier universitaire de Quebec, (xxi) Horizon Health OSIC Fredericton, (xxii) Nova Scotia Health Authority OSIC Halifax, (xxiii) OTSSC Halifax, (xxiv) OTSSC Gagetown; (b) what percentage of the organization’s funding comes from Veterans Affairs Canada for the organizations identified in (a); (c) how are outcomes from programs measured for the organizations identified in (a); (d) what were the outcomes for each program for the organizations identified in (a); and (e) how long has each organization or establishment been in receipt of money from Veterans Affairs for the organizations and establishments identified in (a)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-68.

Q-69 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, for the fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what actions has the Department taken to address concerns from Veterans and stakeholders, including (i) dissatisfaction with the lump sum Disability Award, (ii) calls from the Veterans Ombudsman and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (ACVA) to further increase Earnings Loss Benefit payments and further enhance the Permanent Impairment Allowance, (iii) more mental health and caregiver support for Veterans suffering from Operation Stress Injuries, and their families, (iv) greater focus on supporting successful transition, (v) improved communications, outreach and program delivery; (b) how much funding has been allocated for each of the areas identified in (a); and (c) what reports or studies have been undertaken or completed for each of the areas identified in (a)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-69.
WAYS AND MEANS

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Morneau (Minister of Finance), seconded by Mr. LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons); (Ways and Means No. 2)

And of the amendment of Ms. Ambrose (Sturgeon River—Parkland), seconded by Ms. Raitt (Milton);

And of the subamendment of Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), seconded by Ms. Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga).

The debate continued.

Returns and Reports Deposited with the Acting Clerk of the House

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

— by Mr. Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs) — Report on Canada's activities as a Member Nation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, pursuant to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-26, s. 4. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-421-559-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development)
— by Mr. Duclos (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development) — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2016-2020 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2016 of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-421-811-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities)
— by Mr. Garneau (Minister of Transport) — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2016-2020 and the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2016 of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-421-842-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)
— by Mr. Garneau (Minister of Transport) — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2016-2020 and the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2016 of the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-421-843-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)
Petitions Filed with the Acting Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition certified by the Clerk of Petitions was filed as follows:

— by Mrs. Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets), one concerning the electoral system (No. 421-00140).
Adjournment Proceedings

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

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

Accordingly, at 6:50 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).