Journals
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 44
2015-06-19 [p.2849]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal), seconded by Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), Bill C-701, An Act to establish the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2015-06-18 [p.2835]
— by Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal), one concerning the situation in Venezuela (No. 412-6138), one concerning human rights (No. 412-6139) and one concerning immigration (No. 412-6140);
2015-06-16 [p.2784]
Q-1286 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to designated countries of origin (DCO): (a) what is the process for removing a country from the DCO list; (b) does the government conduct regular reviews of countries on the DCO list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation; (c) if the government does not conduct regular reviews of countries on the DCO list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation, (i) how is a review triggered, (ii) who decides whether to conduct a review, (iii) based on what factors is the decision to conduct a review made; (d) since the inception of the DCO list, has the government conducted any reviews of countries on the list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation; (e) for each review in (d), (i) what was the country, (ii) when did the review begin, (iii) when did the review end, (iv) how was the review triggered, (v) who decided to conduct the review, (vi) who conducted the review, (vii) what documents were consulted, (viii) what groups or individuals were consulted, (ix) what ministers or ministers’ offices were involved in the review, (x) what was the nature of any ministerial involvement, (xi) what was the outcome, (xii) based on what factors was the outcome determined; (f) based on what factors does the government decide whether to remove a country from the DCO list; (g) in what ways does the government monitor the human rights situation in countries on the DCO list to ensure that the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (h) who does the monitoring in (g); (i) what weight is given to the situation of minority groups in countries on the DCO list when evaluating whether the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (j) what weight is given to the situation of political dissidents in countries on the DCO list when evaluating whether the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (k) what type or extent of change in the human rights situation in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (l) what type or extent of change in the situation of one or more minority groups in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (m) what type or extent of change in the situation of political dissidents in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (n) what type or extent of change in the human rights situation in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (o) what type or extent of change in the situation of one or more minority groups in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (p) what type or extent of change in the situation of political dissidents in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (q) in what ways does the government discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list; (r) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent outside Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year and country where the money was spent; (s) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent within Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year, province or territory where the money was spent, and DCO country in question; (t) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent on advertising outside Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year and country where the money was spent; (u) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent on advertising within Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year, province or territory where the money was spent, and DCO country in question; (v) what evaluations has the government conducted of the advertising in (t) and (u); (w) for each evaluation in (v), (i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) who conducted it, (iv) what were its objectives, (v) what were its outcomes, (vi) how much did it cost; (x) for each year since the inception of the list, how many refugee claims have been made by claimants from countries on the DCO list, broken down by country of origin; (y) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claims in (x) were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) abandoned, (iv) withdrawn; (z) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the failed claimants in (y) sought a review of their claim in Federal Court; (aa) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (z) were removed from Canada while their claim remained pending in Federal Court; (bb) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (z) left Canada while their claim remained pending in Federal Court; (cc) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many refugee claimants from countries on the DCO list have been deported; (dd) has the government monitored the situation of any failed refugee claimants from countries on the DCO list after they returned to their countries of origin; (ee) broken down by DCO country, how many failed claimants have been the objects of the monitoring in (dd); (ff) broken down by DCO country, regarding the monitoring of each failed claimant in (ee), (i) when did it begin, (ii) when did it end, (iii) who did it, (iv) what was its objective, (v) what was its outcome; (gg) broken down by year and country of origin, how many refugee claims by claimants from countries on the DCO list were accepted by the Federal Court after having been denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board; (hh) broken down by year and country of origin, how many of the claims in (gg) were accepted by the Federal Court after the claimant had left Canada; (ii) broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (hh) now reside in Canada; (jj) what evaluations has the government conducted of the DCO system; (kk) for each evaluation in (jj), (i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) who conducted it, (iv) what were its objectives, (v) what were its outcomes, (vi) how much did it cost; (ll) since the inception of the DCO list, what groups and individuals has the government consulted about the impact of the DCO list; (mm) for each consultation in (ll), (i) when did it occur, (ii) how did it occur, (iii) what recommendations were made to the government, (iv) what recommendations were implemented by the government? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1286.
2015-06-15 [p.2762]
Q-1230 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Program (the Program): (a) what is the Program’s most recent report on its activities; (b) where can the report in (a) be accessed; (c) has the Program produced any reports on its activities since the 12th Report on Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program; (d) where can the reports in (c) be accessed; (e) has the Program produced any annual reports on its activities since the 11th annual report on Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program; (f) where can the reports in (e) be accessed; (g) if the Program has not produced any annual reports on its activities since the 11th annual report on Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program, what accounts for the lack of any such reports; (h) if the Program has not produced any reports on its activities since the 12th Report on Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program, what accounts for the lack of any such reports; (i) is the Program currently producing a report on its activities; (j) when will the report in (i) be publicly available; (k) what were the objectives of producing annual reports; (l) how have the objectives in (k) been achieved since the publication of (i) the 11th annual report, (ii) the 12th report; (m) for each year since the Program’s creation in 1998, what funds have been allocated to it, broken down by department or agency; (n) for each year since the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force in 2002, what funds have been allocated by Canada to the International Criminal Court; (o) for each year since the Program’s creation in 1998, how many employees were assigned to the Program, broken down by department or agency; (p) regarding the consideration of future funding options referred to in the government’s response to Q-478, provided on December 7, 2009, (i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) what were its objectives, (iv) what were its outcomes, (v) who in the government was involved, (vi) who outside the government was consulted, (vii) what did it cost; (q) if the government has undertaken any considerations of future funding options since the consideration in (o), (i) when did they begin, (ii) when were they completed, (iii) what were their objectives, (iv) what were their outcomes, (v) who in the government was involved, (vi) who outside the government was consulted, (vii) what did they cost; (r) for each year since 1998, how many investigations has the Program initiated; (s) for each year since 1998, how many arrests have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program; (t) for each year since 1998, how many prosecutions have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program; (u) for each year since 1998, how many convictions have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program; (v) for each year since 1998, how many extraditions have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program, broken down by country to which the individual was extradited; (w) for each year since 1998, how many deportations have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program, broken down by country to which the individual was deported; (x) what measures does the government take to ensure that individuals extradited or deported as a result of investigations initiated by the Program face prosecution; (y) what measures does the government take to ensure that the individuals in (v) are treated fairly and humanely; (z) broken down by country of origin, how many investigations initiated by the Program are ongoing; and (aa) when did each investigation in (x) begin? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1230.
2015-06-12 [p.2750]
Q-1217 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the process for filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada that will be created by the retirement of Justice Marshall Rothstein on August 31, 2015: (a) when did the government learn of Justice Rothstein’s intention to retire; (b) how did the government learn of Justice Rothstein’s intention to retire; (c) what steps has the government taken to find a replacement for Justice Rothstein; (d) when were each of the steps in (c) taken; (e) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to developing a process to find Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (f) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to choosing Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (g) when did the consultations in (e) occur; (h) when did the consultations in (f) occur; (i) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to developing a process to find Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (j) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to choosing Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (k) when will the consultations in (i) occur; (l) when will the consultations in (j) occur; (m) what date has the government set by which Justice Rothstein’s replacement must be nominated; (n) what date has the government set by which Justice Rothstein’s replacement must be appointed; (o) by what date does the government intend to nominate Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (p) by what date does the government intend to appoint Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (q) when were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (r) who set the dates in (m) to (p); (s) based on what factors were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (t) if no dates have been set regarding the nomination or appointment of Justice Rothstein’s replacement, why have no dates been set; (u) based on what criteria has the government evaluated candidates to replace Justice Rothstein, and if no evaluations have occurred thus far, based on what criteria will the government evaluate candidates to replace Justice Rothstein; (v) how do the criteria in (u) differ from those used to evaluate candidates in the appointment processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon, (iv) Justice Côté; (w) what materials have been sought from the candidates to replace Justice Rothstein; (x) what materials will be sought from the candidates to replace Justice Rothstein; (y) how do the materials in (w) and (x) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon, (iv) Justice Côté; (z) if the materials in (w) and (x) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, Gascon and Côté, (i) why were changes made, (ii) who decided to make these changes, (iii) when was that decision made; (aa) what process has been or will be used to evaluate candidates and make an appointment to replace Justice Rothstein; (bb) in what way does the process to replace Justice Rothstein differ from the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, Gascon and Côté; (cc) if the process to replace Justice Rothstein differs from the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, Gascon and Côté, (i) why was the process changed, (ii) who decided to change it, (iii) when was the decision made to change it; (dd) in what way have parliamentarians been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (ee) what goals have been served by parliamentary involvement in previous Supreme Court appointment processes; (ff) how will the goals in (ee) be served in the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (gg) in what way have members of the legal community been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (hh) other than parliamentarians and members of the legal community, who has been or will be involved in the process to replace Justice Rothstein, and in what way; (ii) will candidates to replace Justice Rothstein be reviewed by an advisory panel; (jj) if candidates to replace Justice Rothstein will be reviewed by an advisory panel, (i) when will the panel be constituted, (ii) of how many members will it be comprised, (iii) who will select its members, (iv) based on what criteria will its members be selected, (v) what will be its mandate, (vi) who will set its mandate, (vi) will its membership include parliamentarians; (kk) will the candidate nominated to replace Justice Rothstein appear before a parliamentary committee, ad hoc or otherwise; (ll) has the process for appointing Supreme Court judges been reviewed by the government since the appointment of Justice Côté; (mm) if the process for appointing Supreme Court judges has been reviewed by the government since the appointment of Justice Côté, (i) when did the review begin, (ii) when did the review end, (iii) who conducted the review, (iv) what groups and individuals participated in the review, (v) what were the objectives of the review, (vi) what were the outcomes of the review; (nn) what has been, or what will be, the cost of the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (oo) what is the breakdown of the cost in (nn); (pp) in what way will the process to replace Justice Rothstein be (i) transparent, (ii) accountable, (iii) inclusive; and (qq) will the process used for the appointment of Justice Rothstein’s replacement be used for future appointments? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1217.
2015-06-09 [p.2677]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal), seconded by Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), Bill C-689, An Act to enact the Global Human Rights Accountability Act and to make related amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2015-04-27 [p.2418]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal), seconded by Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood), Bill C-671, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (hate speech), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2015-04-24 [p.2408]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal), seconded by Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria), Bill C-669, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
2015-04-02 [p.2353]
— by Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal), one concerning the grain industry (No. 412-5287) and one concerning health care services (No. 412-5288);
2015-04-01 [p.2338]
Q-1046 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the use of administrative segregation in Canadian federal prisons: (a) how does the government define “administrative segregation”; (b) how has the government’s definition of “administrative segregation” changed over the past ten years; (c) with regard to the changes in (b), (i) when were they made, (ii) who made them, (iii) for what reason were they made; (d) what are the objectives of administrative segregation; (e) over the last five years, how has the use of administrative segregation met the objectives in (d); (f) over the last five years, what means of achieving the objectives in (d), other than administrative segregation, has the government (i) considered, (ii) implemented; (g) what are the costs of the means in (f); (h) what factors are considered when determining (i) whether to place an inmate in administrative segregation, (ii) the length of time an inmate spends in administrative segregation, (iii) whether to remove an inmate from administrative segregation, (iv) the conditions of an inmate’s administrative segregation; (i) if any factors in (h) have changed over the last ten years, (i) which factors changed, (ii) when did they change, (iii) who changed them, (iv) what was the objective of the change, (v) in what way has the objective been met; (j) who determines (i) whether to place an inmate in administrative segregation, (ii) the length of time an inmate spends in administrative segregation, (iii) whether to remove an inmate from administrative segregation, (iv) the conditions of an inmate’s administrative segregation; (k) in what ways does the government ensure that the use of administrative segregation in Canada complies with (i) the United Nations Convention against Torture, (ii) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (iii) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (iv) other international laws and standards;
(l) over the last five years, what evaluations or studies of the use of administrative segregation has the government conducted, commissioned, or consulted; (m) what are the conclusions of the evaluations and studies in (l); (n) by what amount does placement in administrative detention increase or decrease the cost of housing an inmate; (o) for the last five years, how many inmates were held in administrative segregation, broken down by (i) year, (ii) facility; (p) for the last five years, how many inmates were held in the general population, broken down by (i) year, (ii) facility; (q) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were held in administrative segregation for (i) less than two consecutive days, (ii) between two and seven consecutive days, (iii) between eight and 30 consecutive days, (iv) between 31 and consecutive 100 days, (v) more than 100 consecutive days; (r) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were held in administrative segregation for a total of (i) less than two days, (ii) between two and seven days, (iii) between eight and 30 days, (iv) between 30 and 100 days, (v) over 100 days; (s) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were placed in administrative segregation at the their own request; (t) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were (i) visible minorities, (ii) aboriginals;
(u) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many, at the time of their placement in administrative segregation, were (i) under 20 years old, (ii) between 21 and 25 years old, (iii) between 26 and 35 years old, (iv) over 36 years old; (v) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many had been sentenced to prison terms of (i) less than two years, (ii) between two and five years, (iii) between five and 10 years, (iv) between 10 and 20 years, (v) over 20 years; (w) what procedures or guidelines are in place for assessing the mental health of inmates (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) following their placement in administrative segregation; (x) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were diagnosed with a mental illness (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) following their placement in administrative segregation; (y) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many attempted suicide (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation; (z) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many committed suicide (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation; (aa) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many committed acts of self-injury (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation;
(bb) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many committed acts of violence against other inmates (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation; (cc) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many committed acts of violence against prison personnel (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation; (dd) while an inmate is in administrative segregation, what measures are taken to prevent the inmate from committing acts of (i) self-injury, (ii) violence against other inmates, (iii) violence against prison personnel; (ee) after an inmate is removed from administrative segregation, what measures are taken to prevent the inmate from committing acts of (i) self-injury, (ii) violence against other inmates, (iii) violence against prison personnel; (ff) of the inmates in (o), how many developed health problems while in administrative segregation, broken down by (i) year, (ii) facility; (gg) of the inmates in (o), how many died while in administrative segregation, broken down by (i) year, (ii) facility; (hh) what review of policies and practices, if any, is the government undertaking or will the government undertake; (ii) who has conducted, is conducting, or will conduct the reviews in (hh); (jj) what are the objectives of the reviews in (hh); (kk) when will the reviews in (hh) be completed; (ll) when will the results of the reviews in (hh) be made public; and (mm) what is the cost of the reviews in (hh)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1046.
2015-03-31 [p.2321]
Q-1044 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the resettlement of refugees under the Government Assisted Refugees (GAR) program: (a) for each of the last ten years, what was the annual admissions target; (b) for each of the last ten years, what was the annual admissions target for GARs referred by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); (c) what is the breakdown, by source country, of the targets in (a) and (b); (d) for the last ten years, broken down by source country, how many refugees have been resettled in Canada; (e) for each of the last ten years, how many individuals has the UNHCR asked Canada to accept as refugees; (f) what is the breakdown, by source country, of the individuals in (e); (g) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country, how many of the individuals in (e) have been (i) deemed admissible by Canada, (ii) selected by Canada for resettlement, (iii) resettled in Canada, (iv) deemed inadmissible by Canada; (h) broken down by year and source country, for the individuals in (e) deemed inadmissible by Canada, (i) on what grounds were they deemed inadmissible, (ii) who made the determination that they were inadmissible, (iii) how was that determination communicated to the UNHCR, (iv) how was that determination communicated to the individual; (i) broken down by year and source country, how many of the individuals in (e) were deemed inadmissible by Canada (i) following an in-person interview by a Canadian visa officer, (ii) based on the results of a medical examination, (iii) based on the results of a security screening, (iv) based on the results of a criminal screening, (v) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in a criminal organization, (vi) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in human rights violations, (vii) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in terrorism;
(j) based on what factors does Canada evaluate referrals from the UNHCR; (k) who carries out the evaluations in (j); (l) what changes have been made to the factors in (j) over the past ten years; (m) for each change in (l), (i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) on whose authority was it made, (iv) what was its objective, (v) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (n) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country and organization, how many individuals were referred to Canada for resettlement as refugees by organizations other than the UNHCR; (o) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country and government, how many individuals were referred to Canada for resettlement as refugees by foreign governments; (p) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country and organization, how many of the individuals in (n) have been (i) deemed admissible by Canada, (ii) selected by Canada for resettlement, (iii) resettled in Canada, (iv) deemed inadmissible by Canada, (v) denied entry into Canada; (q) broken down by year and source country, how many of the individuals in (n) have been denied resettlement in Canada (i) based on the results of a security screening, (ii) based on a finding that the claimant had engaged in criminal activity, (iii) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in a criminal organization, (iv) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in human rights violations, (v) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in terrorism; (r) what is the standard of proof for finding a claimant inadmissible for reasons of (i) criminal activity, (ii) involvement in a criminal organization, (iii) involvement in human rights violations, (iv) involvement in terrorism; (s) for each of the last ten years, have there been countries, regions, or refugee camps from which Canada did not accept refugee claimants as a matter of policy; (t) what are the countries, regions, or refugee camps in (s);
(u) based on what factors did the government decide not to accept the claimants in (s); (v) who made the decisions in (u); (w) from what countries, regions, or refugee camps does Canada currently not accept refugee claimants as a matter of policy; (x) based on what factors has the government decided not to accept the claimants in (w); (y) who made the decisions in (x); (z) has Canada ever communicated to the UNHCR, formally or informally, that it would not accept claimants from particular countries, regions, or refugee camps; (aa) what are the countries, regions, or refugee camps in (z); (bb) when did Canada make the communications in (z); (cc) what was the response of the UNHCR to the communications in (z); (dd) how many requests has Canada received from the UNHCR to resettle refugees from the Camp Liberty or Camp Ashraf refugee camps in Iraq; (ee) when was each of the requests in (dd) received; (ff) how many of the refugees in (dd) has Canada (i) accepted, (ii) resettled in Canada, (iii) rejected; (gg) based on what factors did Canada reject the claimants in (dd); (hh) for each of the last ten years, what groups has Canada undertaken to resettle via group processing; (ii) for each group in (hh), (i) when did Canada decide to resettle members of the group via group processing, (ii) who made that decision, (iii) on whose authority was the decision made, (iv) based on what factors was that decision made, (v) how many members of the group has the government undertaken to resettle in Canada, (vi) how many members of the group does the government intend to resettle in Canada, (vii) how many members of the group have been resettled in Canada;
(jj) since the start of the ongoing conflict in Syria in 2011, how many refugees from Syria has the government committed to resettle in Canada; (kk) when, how, and to whom did the government make the commitment in (jj); (ll) who determined the number of refugees in (jj); (mm) based on what factors was the determination in (jj) made; (nn) what changes have been made to the factors in (mm) since the start of the ongoing conflict in Syria in 2011; (oo) for each change in (nn), (i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) on whose authority was it made, (iv) what was its objective, (v) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (pp) since the start of the ongoing conflict in Syria in 2011, broken down by month, how many refugee claimants from Syria have been (i) resettled in Canada, (ii) deemed admissible by Canada, (iii) deemed inadmissible by Canada; (qq) based on what factors were claimants in (pp) deemed inadmissible by Canada; and (rr) what accounts for any discrepancy between the number of claimants in (pp) deemed admissible by Canada and the number of claimants in (pp) resettled in Canada? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1044.
2015-03-31 [p.2323]
Q-1045 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the process for appointing individuals to the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC): (a) which individuals have been appointed to SIRC over the last ten years; (b) for each individual in (a), (i) when was he or she appointed, (ii) how long was the term for which he or she was appointed, (iii) when did he or she leave SIRC; (c) for each appointment in (a), (i) when did the government begin the appointment process, (ii) what did the appointment process entail, (iii) when did the appointment process conclude; (d) for each appointment in (a), (i) who was involved in selecting the appointee, (ii) who selected the appointee, (iii) who oversaw the appointment process; (e) for each appointment in (a), what groups, individuals, or governments were consulted as part of the appointment process; (f) for each appointment in (a), how many candidates (i) applied, (ii) were considered, (iii) were contacted by the government; (g) for each appointment in (a), what is the breakdown of the cost of the appointment process; (h) how has the appointment process changed over the last ten years; (i) for each change in (h), (i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (j) according to what criteria does the government evaluate candidates; (k) how have the criteria in (j) changed in the last ten years; (l) for each change in (k), (i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) on whose authority was it made, (iv) what was its objective, (v) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (m) what reviews of the appointment process have been conducted or commissioned by the government over the last ten years; (n) what are the results of the reviews in (m); (o) what were the objectives of the reviews in (m); (p) in what ways were the objectives in (o) accomplished; (q) what reviews of the appointment process are (i) underway, (ii) planned; (r) what are the objectives of the reviews in (q); (s) when will the reviews in (q) be completed; (t) when will the results of the reviews in (q) be made public; (u) if an appointment process is currently underway, (i) when did it begin, (ii) who is overseeing or has overseen the process, (iii) who is or has been involved in the process, (iv) what group, individuals, or governments have been consulted, (v) when will the process be completed, (vi) when will the government announce the appointee; (v) how is the process in (u) different from previous appointment processes; (w) what is the breakdown of the cost of the process in (u) thus far; (x) what security or background checks are conducted on candidates; (y) who conducts security or background checks on candidates; and (z) for each appointment in the last ten years, (i) who conducted security or background checks on the candidates, (ii) what was the cost of the security or background checks? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1045.
2015-02-20 [p.2156]
— by Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal), one concerning foreign aid (No. 412-4993);
Results: 1 - 15 of 44 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data