Interventions in the House of Commons
For assistance, please contact us
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, four years ago, the Prime Minister campaigned on a lot of promises. He was going to fix all of his predecessors' mistakes and get Quebec and Canada back on track. Like in a fairytale, it was all make-believe. It did not happen.
He promised that Quebec would be well served by his government. On the contrary, he betrayed us the first chance he got by trying to rob Davie of a major contract and the thousand jobs that went with it. Quebec deserves better.
He promised harmony with the provinces, but more than half of them, including Quebec, are fighting with him. Quebec deserves better.
He did not lift a finger to stop the influx of illegal migrants entering Quebec every day, rendering the Canada-Quebec accord on immigration meaningless.
Our relationships with our key international partners have deteriorated, not to mention the embarrassment that Quebeckers felt in the wake of the Prime Minister's trip to India.
Quebec deserves better.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2019-03-20 15:23 [p.26185]
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will split my time with the member for Lethbridge.
Today I rise on a motion to get to the truth in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Here is a quick recap of how we got here.
A year ago, the Prime Minister had his finance minister introduce a budget amending the Criminal Code to allow powerful corporations accused of fraud, bribery and other forms of corruption to get the charges shelved by signing something called a deferred prosecution agreement. We were all wondering where this was coming from and who was advocating for such special deals. We found out in February of this year, when The Globe and Mail reported that the former attorney general faced interference, veiled threats, pressure, hounding and other inappropriate pressure from the Prime Minister and those around him to offer such a deal to SNC-Lavalin.
SNC-Lavalin is a company facing over $100 million in fraud and bribery charges. Among the charges are that the company bought prostitutes for the former Libyan dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, and that it bribed him and his officials to defraud among the poorest people in the world of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Prime Minister was acting in a manner that was highly unusual. To take direct interest in a criminal trial of any kind would be strange on any day, but to try to defend alleged corporate criminals who engaged in malfeasance on this scale was particularly unusual. Of course, the Prime Minister said he did nothing wrong, that the story was false and that his attorney general was behind him all the way. The next day, she resigned. The Prime Minister dismissed her, saying that he was disappointed and surprised. We found out later, during her testimony, that he should not have been either. The reality is that she told him that she was worried about the level of interference by his office.
That brings me to numerous unanswered questions we now need to pursue. First, the Prime Minister said that she never raised any concerns with him at all and that if she was worried about the 20 times his office and his officials contacted her about this criminal prosecution, why did she not say something? It turns out she did.
Yes, she did, despite the heckling against her, again, by Liberal members across the way. Shame on them for heckling a fellow Liberal member. That is shameful.
On September 17, she asked the Prime Minister, “Are you interfering...with my role as the Attorney General?”, because if he was, she said, “I would strongly advise against it.” The Prime Minister was stating a falsehood when he said otherwise.
Then he said that it was all about jobs. If this powerful, Liberal-linked corporation did not get its charges shelved, 9,000 jobs would vanish into thin air. When his top adviser, Gerald Butts, appeared before committee, the Green Party leader asked him if he had any evidence that 9,000 jobs would disappear. His answer was that he had nothing specific. That was after two hours of testimony during which he claimed that he was tied in knots about all the families who would lose their jobs.
Then we asked Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, who had been involved in all the meetings and proceedings leading up to this interference, what reports he had to prove that 9,000 jobs would vanish. He said that he had nothing in particular. All of this aroused suspicion that the jobs claim was a bunch of nonsense, a suspicion that is supported by a lot of evidence.
Let me lay out that evidence. First, the company has the five biggest construction projects in Canada now, worth $52 billion. I want to offer a bit of a hint about how construction jobs work, for our friends across the way. They have to be done where the construction projects are. For example, in Ottawa, SNC-Lavalin has been retained to build the north-south mass-transit project, a $600-million project. It will lay track from near downtown Ottawa all the way out to deep in the south end of the city.
Rail cannot be built in Beijing or London, England and be dropped from a helicopter onto the nation's capital. It has to be built in the city. The same is true with all construction projects SNC-Lavalin is doing in the country.
The second claim the government makes regarding jobs is that if the company is convicted, then it will lose all access to federal contracts. We now know that is not true. The public procurement minister is already making revisions to the procurement policy allowing corporate criminals to continue to bid if they get an exemption. SNC-Lavalin already earned such an exemption, or at least was granted one, early in the days of the Liberal government. In fact, it was one of the very first acts the Liberal government rushed to take.
In December of 2015, the company, which had been banned from federal bidding after being charged with fraud and bribery, was then given an exception by the government so it could continue bidding, and it plans to do exactly the same thing even if a conviction occurs. In other words, if the government is just worried about protecting bidding opportunities for federal projects, it can do that without preventing the trial from going ahead. Therefore, that is fallacious excuse is as well.
Back in September, it was said that the Prime Minister told the former attorney general that if she did not immediately shelve the charges into SNC-Lavalin's corruption, the company would move its headquarters to London, England. He made that claim twice in that meeting. The Clerk of the Privy Council also made that claim in that meeting. The chief of staff to the finance minister would go to staff members of the former attorney general and say the same thing. Ben Chin said that the announcement of the move of the headquarters could happen within days and that it needed to be prevented because there was a Quebec election going on.
That seemed mighty suspicious, because a little research on doctor Google would prove that moving the SNC headquarters is impossible. A $1.5-billion loan agreement between the company and the Quebec pension plan requires that the headquarters stay there until the year 2024, another half-decade. The company just signed a 20-year lease on its headquarters there, and is in the process of spending millions of dollars to renovate specifically for the purpose of accommodating its 2,000 employees in that city. It is not only contractually impossible, it is physically unbelievable that the company would leave.
If people do not take any of that as sufficient enough proof, today the CEO of SNC-Lavalin made clear that was not going to happen. In fact, he was asked where this came from. He said that he did not know how people got ideas like that in their heads. Only the Prime Minister knows how that idea came into his head. Today he denied ever making the headquarters claim.
When one does not tell the truth, the problem is that it becomes very difficult to keep track of one's story. Unfortunately for him, we have him on tape, claiming that SNC would leave Canada altogether if it was convicted of fraud and bribery. He said it in his famous non-apology press conference, where he repeated that false claim that he had earlier said to the former attorney general. Therefore, we know he was going around stating that falsehood.
It is bad enough that the Prime Minister of Canada faces allegations of interfering with a criminal prosecution to get charges set aside. However, this scandal reaches a whole new level of criminal culpability if the Prime Minister or anyone around him deliberately stated a falsehood to a law officer in order to shelve criminal charges. It is an offence under section 139 of the Criminal Code to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. Lying to a law officer to get her to set aside charges would obstruct, pervert and defeat the course of justice.
It is possible that during her testimony, the former attorney general did not realize that this falsehood had been stated to her and that it was not true. However, these are the questions we need answered. That is why we need to end the cover-up, let the former attorney general complete her testimony and proceed with an investigation at the ethics committee.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-10-30 15:11 [p.23033]
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 18, 2018, by the member for Montcalm regarding an alleged misleading statement made by the Prime Minister during question period.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Montcalm for having raised the matter.
During his intervention, the member for Montcalm argued that the Prime Minister had misled the House by providing inaccurate information when, during question period on October 17, 2018, he said that the provinces had asked the federal government for a period of eight to twelve weeks between the time the bill legalizing marijuana came into force and the substance’s actual legalization. This answer, according to the member, contradicts a motion adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on November 16, 2017, one which the member further claimed the Prime Minister was aware of. The hon. member for Montcalm thus feels that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House, a contempt that constitutes a breach of privilege.
The question of whether a member has intentionally misled the House is always a serious one, and the member for Montcalm reminded us of this when he enumerated the three well-established questions the Speaker must answer when deciding whether such an accusation is a valid question of privilege.
Additionally, as I stated during a ruling I made on November 20, 2017, at page 15303 of the Debates:
Members know well that in any case in which the veracity of what a member of the House has said is called into question, the Chair's role is very limited to the review of the statements made in a proceeding of Parliament. In other words, the Chair cannot comment on what transpires outside of the deliberations of the House or its committees.
As a result, apart from the Prime Minister's response during question period, the Speaker cannot be officially apprised of anything said to have transpired outside the walls of this place and on which the hon. member for Montcalm is basing his argument.
As Speaker Milliken said on January 31, 2008, at page 2435 of the Debates:
any dispute regarding the accuracy...of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge.
The proceedings in the House are a forum for differing opinions to be vigorously debated. This is the reason why I remind members to demonstrate the greatest care to ensure that the information recited to the House is clear; doing so will allow everyone to fulfill their roles as they should.
Based on the remarks made in the House on October 17, 2018, there is no clear evidence that would lead me to conclude that the criteria for a deliberately misleading statement were met. Accordingly, I do not find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank all hon. members for their attention.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2018-10-18 15:05 [p.22571]
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege.
In response to our question yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House by providing incorrect information. The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois asked him why the rush to legalize cannabis by October 17, and the Prime Minister replied:
The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks.
However, Quebec asked to push cannabis legislation back to July 1, 2019. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion to that effect on November 16, 2017. It reads:
THAT the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to defer the cannabis legalization currently scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2018 until at least 1 July 2019.
The Prime Minister's statement was misleading.
In addition, after the National Assembly adopted this motion, it also unanimously agreed to send this motion to the Prime Minister and to all Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec.
The Prime Minister therefore had knowledge of the resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The Prime Minister therefore knew when he was making that statement that it was incorrect.
Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and that the Prime Minister made a statement that he knew to be incorrect, it seems clear to us that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. Just this morning we received the selected decisions from May 7, 2012, of the Speaker who preceded you. On page 31, it states:
It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House.
Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and incorrect—as we have demonstrated—and given that he knew, when he was making the statement, that it was misleading and incorrect—as we have demonstrated—what other intention could he have had apart from misleading the House by saying these falsehoods?
I repeat the Prime Minister's reply:
The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks.
I would like to clarify that I raised my question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because the most recent information was obtained during yesterday's question period.
Finally, should you consider it to be a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: That the House acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled the House and ask him to correct the answer to the question posed October 17, 2018, by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, and to apologize to the House.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-10-18 15:10 [p.22572]
I thank the hon. member for Montcalm for his intervention. I will take the matter into consideration and will come back to the House in due course.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1078--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to expenditures made by the government since February 7, 2017, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not Elsewhere Classified): what are the details of each expenditure including (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1392--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to all expenditures on hospitality (Treasury Board Object Code 0822), since January 1, 2017, and broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1408--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to fees collected by government departments and agencies, since December 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount collected by the government; (b) what is the monthly breakdown of fees collected, broken down by department or agency; and (c) what is the monthly breakdown of fees collected by specific fee?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1420--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to expenditures made by the government since June 12, 2017, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not Elsewhere Classified): what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1424--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to all contracts awarded by the government, since January 1, 2017, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to a foreign firm, individual, business, or other entity with a mailing address outside of Canada; (b) for each contract in (a), what is the (i) name of vendor, (ii) date of contract, (iii) summary or description of goods or services provided, (iv) file or tracking number, (v) amount; (c) for each contract in (a), was the contract awarded competitively or was it sole-sourced; and (d) what is the total value of all contracts in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1472--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to federal spending from October 20, 2015, to December 31, 2017: (a) what expenditures were made in the following municipalities (i) City of Saguenay, (ii) City of Saint-Honoré, (iii) Municipality of St-Ambroise, (iv) Municipality of Saint-Fulgence, (v) Municipality of Sainte-Rose-du-Nord, (vi) Municipality of Saint-Charles-de-Bourget, (vii) Municipality of Bégin, (viii) Municipality of Saint-Nazaire, (ix) Municipality of Labrecque, (x) Municipality of Lamarche, (xi) Municipality of Larouche, (xii) Municipality of Saint-David-de-Falardeau; and (b) what are the particulars of all grants, contributions and loans, broken down by (i) name of recipient, (ii) date of funding, (iii) granting department or agency, (iv) amount received, (v) granting program, (vi) purpose of the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1619--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to government spending in the federal ridings of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and Gaspésie–Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, respectively, between October 19, 2015, and today: (a) how much did the government invest in projects under the Canada Community Infrastructure Program and the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program, broken down by (i) name of the project, (ii) type of project, (iii) location of the project, (iv) submission date of the project, (v) approval date of the project, (vi) projected cost of the project, (vii) total cost of the project; and (b) how much did the government invest through the various government programs other than the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program (such as, but not limited to, the New Building Canada Fund—Quebec, New Horizons and the various Canadian Heritage funds), broken down by (i) name of the project, (ii) type of project, (iii) location of the project, (iv) submission date of the project, (v) approval date of the project, (vi) projected cost of the project, (vii) total cost of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1643--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the government’s use of temporary help services and contracts: (a) what are the companies contracted by the government to provide temporary help services, broken down by department and agency; (b) what is the average length of employment for temporary workers, broken down by department and agency; (c) what mechanisms does the government use to track the work done by contractors across government departments and agencies; (d) how many temporary staff were hired by the government, broken down by (i) region and province where they were hired, (ii) year; (e) how much is disbursed by the government on average for (i) temporary staff, in terms of annual full time equivalency, broken down by classification, (ii) permanent staff, in terms of annual full time equivalency, broken down by classification; (f) what is the percentage change in expenditures for temporary help services and salary costs for indeterminate, term, and casual employees from 2015 to 2017-18 (in unadjusted dollars, reference year 1999-2000); (g) what were the reasons given for engaging temporary help services, broken down by year, beginning from 2015-16; (h) what were the percentages of contracts allocated for temporary help services for each cost range of less than $20,000, between $20,000 and $60,000 and more than $60,000, by reasons provided for the hires, broken down by year beginning from 2015-16; and (i) what is the average age of temporary staff hired, broken down by (i) region, (ii) department or agency, (iii) classification?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1665--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to expenditures made by the government since December 11, 2017, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not Elsewhere Classified): what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1697--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With regard to federal spending in the riding of Trois-Rivières, for each fiscal year since 2015-16, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1713--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to all expenditures on hospitality (Treasury Board Object Code 0822), since December 6, 2017, and broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number, (vii) number of government employees in attendance, (viii) number of other attendees?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1718--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to reports of “March madness” expenditures where the government makes purchases before the end of the fiscal year so that departmental funds do not go “unspent”, broken down by department agency or other government entity: (a) what were the total expenditures during February and March of 2018 on (i) materials and supplies (standard object 07), (ii) acquisition of machinery and equipment, including parts and consumable tools (standard object 09); and (b) what are the details of each such expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) delivery date, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1765--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to the fiscal expenditure under sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act (Deductibility of advertising expenses), hereafter referred to as deductions, and certain other measures concerning media: (a) does the government measure the total deductions of advertising under sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act for (i) newspapers, (ii) periodicals, (iii) broadcasting undertakings, (iv) internet advertising on Canadian platforms, (v) internet advertising on foreign-owned or foreign-based platforms; (b) does the government measure the fiscal expenditure under (i) section 19, (ii) section 19.01, (iii) section 19.1, (iv) for internet advertising; (c) if the government does measure the deductions and expenditure discussed in (a) and (b), is this done (i) quarterly, (ii) yearly, (iii) by province, (iv) by corporations; (d) what is the total fiscal expenditure for the last ten years, broken down by fiscal year, for deductions of advertising for (i) newspapers, (ii) periodicals, (iii) broadcasting undertakings, (iv) internet advertising on Canadian platforms, (v) internet advertising on foreign-owned or foreign-based platforms; (e) how many entities claimed these deductions in the last fiscal year; (f) does the government gather information on which advertising platforms or media, including online platforms, supply the advertising products or services for which tax deductions under sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act are claimed; (g) if the government does gather the information discussed in (f), what are the 20 largest platforms or suppliers, broken down by (i) the total of advertising expenses, as submitted to the government for tax deduction claims purposes, (ii) the country of billing or invoicing of the platform or supplier; (h) which entities have received the largest deductions for advertising (i) in newspapers, (ii) in periodicals, (iii) on broadcasting undertakings, (iv) on Canadian online platforms, (v) on foreign online platforms; (i) has the total fiscal expenditure for deductions in advertising increased or decreased over the last ten years and, if so, by what percentage, in the case of (i) newspapers, (ii) periodicals, (iii) broadcasting undertakings, (iv) internet advertising on Canadian platforms, (v) internet advertising on foreign-owned or foreign-based platforms; (j) if the government does not study or calculate any of the information requested in (a) through (h), why not; (k) why did the government decide in 1996 that tax deductions for advertising on online publications and media should not be subject to the same restrictions as the deductions for advertising in newspapers, periodicals and broadcasting undertakings; (l) does the government consider that advertisements purchased on foreign-based or foreign-owned platforms such as Facebook, particularly those specifically targeting demographic groups in Canada or Canadian postal codes, are advertisements directed primarily to a market in Canada as defined by the Income Tax Act; (m) does the government consider that foreign-owned or foreign-based digital platforms providing content in Canada are media; (n) since online platforms were not considered to be broadcasters in 1996, but are now important distributors of similar audiovisual content to that distributed by Canadian broadcasting undertakings, and since the CRTC currently recognizes such platforms as “new media broadcasting undertakings”, does the government consider that foreign-owned or foreign-based digital platforms distributing audiovisual content are foreign broadcasting undertakings; (o) is it the government’s position that Canadians should be denied a tax deduction under sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act for advertising expenses made in foreign newspapers, periodicals and other media, but should be eligible for a tax deduction under those sections for advertising expenses made on foreign online platforms; (p) has the government considered or studied the possibility of issuing new interpretations of sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act to include digital platforms that compete in the Canadian newspaper, periodical and broadcasting market and, if so, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii) what were the recommendations made and the conclusions of such studies; (q) has the Income Tax Rulings Directorate studied any part of sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act, or issued any advance income tax rulings or technical interpretations concerning these sections, in the last ten years on the subject of the digital economy and, if so, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii), what were the recommendations made and the conclusions of such studies, rulings or interpretations; (r) has the government considered or studied the possibility of amending the Income Tax Act to include digital platforms competing in the Canadian newspaper, periodical and broadcasting market and, if so, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii), what were the recommendations made and the conclusions of such studies; (s) does the government consider, in the context of the current effective duopoly in the Canadian online advertising market, within which two foreign companies control over two-thirds of advertising revenue according to a Public Policy Forum report requested by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, that the tax deduction on advertising on foreign-based media platforms could place Canadian media at a disadvantage; (t) is it the government's position that the tax deduction for advertising on foreign-based online media is fair; (u) does the government acknowledge that its fiscal policy, and particularly the tax deduction for advertising on foreign-based online media, places Canadian media at a significant competitive disadvantage in the advertising market and is contributing to the current crisis in Canadian media, as stated by two reports to the government on the state of Canadian media in the last year; (v) has the government conducted any studies on the advertising deductibility provision in sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act, if not why and, if so, (i) how many studies have been completed and when, (ii) do these include any studies on the specific issue of online advertising, (iii) what are the conclusions and recommendations of studies in (v)(i) and (v)(ii); (w) out of the 32 recommendations made in the January 2017 report on media, requested by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and entitled “The Shattered Mirror”, and in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage about media presented in June 2017, how many and which recommendations (i) have been implemented by the government, (ii) are being implemented, (iii) are likely to be implemented before October 2019, (iv) are being considered or studied, (v) will not be implemented by the government; (x) how many times have the recommendations in (w), including changes to sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act, been discussed between the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Canadian Heritage, and have these recommendations been raised with the Minister or Deputy Minister and, if so, has the Minister provided a response and, if so, what are the details of the response; (y) regarding the recommendations in (w), has there been any briefing to the Minister or briefing documents or docket prepared, including on changes to sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act and, if so, for every briefing documents or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department's internal tracking number; (z) following the two reports in (w), has there been a ministerial directive or recommendations to the Minister of Canadian Heritage concerning sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act or more broadly online advertising deductibility and, if so, what were they; (aa) what are the challenges, problems, impediments, hindrances, or obstructions that limit or otherwise affect the government’s ability to amend or reinterpret the tax deductions on online advertising and to encourage advertising in Canadian publications, media or online platforms; (bb) how many times has the government been lobbied to maintain the tax deductions under sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act; and (cc) since November 4, 2015, who has lobbied the government to maintain the tax deductions under sections 19, 19.01 and 19.1 of the Income Tax Act and when?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1766--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to the ability to charge electric vehicles at the various workplaces of federal departments and the national zero-emissions vehicle strategy: (a) which departments have electric charging stations for Crown-owned electric vehicles, and how many stations have these departments installed and where; (b) is the number of these charging stations proportional to the number of electric vehicles each of their offices owns, and what is the ratio of charging stations to electric vehicles at each of their locations; (c) which departments have electric charging stations for employees’ personal vehicles, and how many of these charging stations have these departments installed and where; (d) are there written instructions stating that employees are not allowed to connect their personal electric vehicles to standard 120 volt outlets at workplaces; (e) are there written instructions stating that employees are allowed to connect their personal electric vehicles to standard 120 volt outlets at workplaces; (f) since January 2016, what private businesses have benefitted from Government of Canada investments, from the Strategic Innovation Fund or any other program, for transportation electrification; (g) since January 2016, how much has the government transferred to the provinces to enhance their network of charging stations, and how many stations have been installed per province owing to these investments; (h) how many meetings have been held by the expert advisory group mandated to develop a national strategy to increase the number of zero-emissions vehicles on the country’s roads and find ways of eliminating the barriers to the use of zero-emissions vehicles; and (i) what is the government's budget for the creation of the advisory group in (h), and how much has it cost to operate since it was established?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1767--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to the trip by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to Asia and Europe from April 9 to 18, 2018, inclusively: (a) what were the costs of the trip to Asia and Europe by the Minister and her delegation, broken down by (i) country, (ii) expenditure, (iii) person; (b) what are the details of all the Minister’s meetings, broken down by (i) persons met with, (ii) delegates in attendance, (iii) location of the meeting, (iv) length of the meeting, (v) agenda and minutes, (vi) purpose of the meeting; (c) who were the members of the Canadian delegation for the Minister’s trip, broken down by country; and (d) what were the cultural, economic, partnership and trade benefits and objectives and the agreements concluded during the Minister’s trip, broken down by country and by meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1769--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With regard to the impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project on Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas: (a) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project on Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis; (b) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project on Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (c) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of a potential spill of bitumen from the Kinder Morgan pipeline project in Jasper National Park, and what were the results of this analysis; (d) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of any spills of bitumen from the Kinder Morgan pipeline project in Canada’s National Parks, including in Jasper National Park; (e) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project on the water supply in National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis; (f) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project on the water supply in National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (g) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project on species at risk, and what were the results of this analysis; (h) what plans does the federal government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project on species at risk; (i) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of the increased tanker traffic resulting from the Kinder Morgan pipeline project on Canada’s Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis; (j) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of the increased tanker traffic resulting from the Kinder Morgan pipeline project on Canada’s Marine Conservation Areas; (k) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project regarding the threat of introducing invasive species, and what were the results of this analysis; and (l) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the threat of invasive species resulting from the Kinder Morgan pipeline project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1770--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With respect to federal investment in the village of Field in British Columbia: (a) what amount has the government invested in Field, broken down by year, in the last fifteen years; (b) what projects have been undertaken by the government in Field, broken down by year, over the last fifteen years; (c) what measures does the government have in place to attract potential residents to Field; (d) what measures does the government have in place to ensure adequate, affordable housing in Field; (e) what analysis has the government undertaken of the state of available housing in Field, and what were the results of this analysis; and (f) what measures does the government have in place to provide employment opportunities in Field?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1771--
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau:
With regard to the Dairy Farm Investment Program (DFIP): (a) what is the total number of applications received from producers from the creation of the program to May 2, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) applications approved per province and territory, (iii) applications rejected per province and territory, (iv) applications put on a waiting list per province and territory; (b) how many applications for large investment projects were received from the creation of the program to May 2, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) applications approved per province and territory, (iii) applications rejected per province and territory, (iv) applications put on a waiting list per province and territory; (c) how many applications for small investment projects were received from the creation of the program to May 2, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) applications approved per province and territory, (iii) applications rejected per province and territory, (iv) applications put on a waiting list per province and territory; (d) how much of the total $250 million in DFIP funding has been allocated as of May 2, broken down by (i) large investment project, (ii) small investment project, (iii) province and territory; (e) what is the total value of funding applications that has been rejected as of May 2, broken down by (i) large investment project, (ii) small investment project, (iii) province and territory; (f) how much of the total amount has already been allocated to Quebec producers as of May 2, broken down by (i) large investment project, (ii) small investment project; (g) what amounts have been approved or rejected as of May 2 for each province and territory, under the DFIP, broken down by (i) approved or rejected applicant’s place of residence (city and postal code), (ii) the date and specific hour at which the application was made, (iii) the amount allocated, if relevant, (iv) the reason for refusal, if relevant; (h) how many applications were processed within the 100 days, broken down by (i) number of funding requests approved within the 100 days, (ii) number of funding requests approved and rejected within the 100 days, (iii) number of funding requests approved and rejected beyond the 100 days set by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; (i) how many complaints have been made concerning the DFIP from its creation to May 2, 2018, broken down by (i) location of complaint, (ii) type of complaint, (iii) action taken by the department; (j) what is the average actual waiting time, regardless of the amount allocated, that DFIP applicants must wait before receiving part or all of the amounts they are owed for applications made during the first application funding window; (k) what are the total amounts allocated to date for fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18, broken down by (i) province, (ii) amount allocated; (l) what are the expenditure forecasts for fiscal years 2018-19, 2019 , 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22; (m) what is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s cost of administering the DFIP from its creation to May 2, 2018, broken down by (i) year, (ii) operating cost, (iii) cost of unforeseen additional expenses; (n) when will Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s DFIP second application funding window open; (o) how did Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada ensure the order of priority, first-come, first-served, during the DFIP first application funding window?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1772--
Ms. Sheri Benson:
With regard to mitigating the effects from the closure of the Saskatchewan Transportation Company in May 2017: (a) what meetings have taken place since May 2017, between the Minister of Transport, Parliamentary Secretary or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, and representatives from the provincial government, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (b) what meetings have taken place, since May 2017, between the Minister of Transport, Parliamentary Secretary or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, and representatives from municipal governments, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (c) what meetings have taken place, since May 2017, between the Minister of Innovation, Parliamentary Secretary or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, and representatives from the provincial government, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (d) what meetings have taken place, since May 2017, between the Minister of Innovation, Parliamentary Secretary or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, and representatives from municipal governments, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (e) what meetings have taken place, since May 2017, between other government officials, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, and representatives from municipal governments and the Saskatchewan provincial government, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (f) which transportation companies or providers have met with the Minister of Transport, Parliamentary Secretary, or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff regarding the possible replacement of services formerly provided by the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, since May 2017, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (g) which transportation companies or providers have met with the Minister of Innovation, Parliamentary Secretary, or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, regarding the possible replacement of services formerly provided by the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, since May 2017, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (h) what meetings have taken place, since May 2017, between the Minister of Transport, Parliamentary Secretary or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, and Members of Parliament, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (i) what meetings have taken place, since May 2017, between the Minister of Innovation, Parliamentary Secretary or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, and Members of Parliament, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) lists of attendees, (iii) locations, (iv) agendas; (j) if no meetings have taken place, what is the timeline for such meetings to occur for each of these groups and with each Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff; (k) which provincial or municipal representatives have received correspondence from government officials like Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff, regarding the possible replacement of services formerly provided by the Saskatchewan Transportation Company since May 2017, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles, (v) subjects, (vi) summaries, (vii) file numbers; (l) which transportation companies or providers have received correspondence from government officials like Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff regarding the possible replacement of services formerly provided by the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, since May 2017, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles, (v) subjects, (vi) summaries, (vii) file numbers; (n) which Members of Parliament have received correspondence, since May 2017, from the Minister of Transport, Parliamentary Secretary, or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff regarding the possible replacement of services formerly provided by the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles, (v) subjects, (vi) summaries, (vii) file numbers; (o) which Members of Parliament have received correspondence, since May 2017, from the Minister of Innovation, Parliamentary Secretary, or departmental officials, including Ministerial Exempt Staff regarding the possible replacement of services formerly provided by the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles, (v) subjects, (vi) summaries, (vii) file numbers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1773--
Ms. Georgina Jolibois:
With regard to the promised Indigenous Languages Legislation by the government: (a) what minutes, reports and memos have resulted from meetings, since November 1, 2015 until today, broken down by (i) year, (ii) departments, (iii) date of the minutes, memo or report, (iv) type of documents (v) person, deputy or minister to whom the document was intended; and (b) which Indigenous communities, organizations or experts have been consulted, since November 1, 2015 until today, for an Indigenous Languages Legislation by the departments of Canadian Heritage, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada or any other department, broken down by (i) years, (ii) names of organizations or experts consulted, (iii) departments who have consulted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1774--
Ms. Sheila Malcolmson:
With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Nanaimo—Ladysmith in fiscal year 2017-2018: (a) what grants, loans, contributions and contracts were awarded by the government, broken down by (i) department and agency, (ii) municipality, (iii) name of recipient, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the expenditure was allocated, (vi) date; and (b) for the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program, which proposals from the constituency have been approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1775--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With respect to funding educational services on reserve in the Churchill – Keewatinook Aski federal riding: (a) what is the total amount of federal government funding, since the fiscal year 2006-07 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated to First Nations education, broken down by reserve and by year; (b) what is the total amount of federal government funding, since the fiscal year 2006-07 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated in Churchill – Keewatinook Aski, on First Nations education from the ages of Kindergarten to grade 12, broken down by reserve and by year; and (c) what is the total amount of federal government funding, since the fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated in Churchill – Keewatinook Aski, on First Nations post-secondary education, broken down by reserve and by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1776--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With respect to funding and operating housing programs and services on reserve in the federal riding of Churchill – Keewatinook Aski: (a) what is the current number of people on housing waiting lists, broken down by reserve, and what was the number of people on housing waiting lists in Churchill – Keewatinook Aski at the end of every fiscal year, beginning in 2006-07 up to and including the previous fiscal year, broken down by reserve and by year; (b) what is the total amount of federal government funding, since the fiscal year 2006-07 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated in Churchill – Keewatinook Aski for housing and housing services, broken down by reserve and by year; and (c) what is the total amount of housing units built, since the fiscal year 2006-07 up to and including the current fiscal year, in Churchill – Keewatinook Aski, broken down by reserve and by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1777--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the government’s development of a federal co-operative strategy, as called upon by M-100: (a) what is the overall status of developing such a strategy; (b) what organizations, including provincial, municipal, and territorial governments and Indigenous representative organizations have been consulted; (c) how does the government plan to integrate the strategy into existing economic development programming, such as regional economic development agencies or the Community Futures Program; (d) what “goals and targets” as stated in the motion does the government plan to use to assess the strategy’s success; and (e) how is the government planning to support next-generation and innovative cooperative forms such as platform cooperatives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1778--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to direct contacts (i.e. phone calls or in-person meetings) between public servants at the Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief of Staff or Senior Policy Advisor level or equivalent and Facebook and subsidiaries, Alphabet and subsidiaries, and Amazon and subsidiaries: for each such instance, what was the date, the method of contact, the subject matter discussed and the job title of any public servants present for it?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1779--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry (MMIW): (a) how much money has been allocated to the MMIW Inquiry for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 fiscal years; (b) what are the Inquiry’s anticipated budgetary needs for each of these two fiscal years; (c) is the Inquiry expected to overrun its monetary allocations in either or both of these years; and (d) if the answer to (c) is in any way affirmative, what contingencies or plans are in place to ensure the continuing function of the Inquiry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1780---
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement by the Department of Justice Canada and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: how much has been spent on settled cases, requests for direction, and other proceedings where Canada has been either the plaintiff or defendant before appellate courts (such as the Ontario Superior Court or the Supreme Court of British Columbia) related to survivors of St. Anne’s Residential School since 2013? 2013?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1781--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) planned re-establishment of penitentiary farm programming and agribusiness operations: (a) which of the six former penitentiary farm locations that were closed in 2010 does CSC plan to re-open; (b) does CSC plan to open any penitentiary farm locations other than the six locations that were closed in 2010 and, if so, what are those locations; (c) for any locations identified in (a) that CSC does not plan to re-open, for what reasons, broken down by location, has CSC decided not to re-open them; (d) for each location identified in (a), (i) since 2010, has CSC sold or otherwise divested itself of any portions of the land on which the penitentiary farms were located and, if so, how much of each location’s land, and at what price or benefit to CSC, (ii) has CSC re-acquired any land, or use thereof, that it had previously sold or otherwise divested itself of, or acquired new land, or use thereof, on which it plans to open those locations and, if so, how much land and at what cost to CSC, (iii) what facilities that were operated at the time of closing in 2010, or within five years before closing, does CSC plan to re-open or re-establish, (iv) for facilities identified in (d)(iii), what costs will CSC incur to re-acquire, renovate, and re-open them, itemized by type of expense; (e) for each location identified in (b), has CSC acquired any land, or use thereof and, if so, how much land and at what cost to CSC; (f) for each location identified in (a) and (b), (i) what are the dates on or time ranges during which CSC plans to open each location, (ii) what is the date or time range at which each is to be opened, (iii) what are the purposes, training and employment programs and agribusiness operations that CSC plans to operate, (iv) what livestock, and from what sources, does CSC plan to acquire for agribusiness-related training, programs and operations, (v) for livestock identified in (f)(iv), what alternative livestock were considered, and on what basis did CSC make its decision, (vi) what are the Internet sites where studies or research commissioned or used by CSC in its decision to re-open the penitentiary farm are available; (g) for each location identified in (a) and (b), what costs does CSC project to incur, broken down by fiscal year, to (i) build new agribusiness-related buildings and other agribusiness-related facilities, (ii) acquire or secure the use of capital equipment, existing buildings, vehicles, and other facilities for agribusiness-related use, (iii) employ or retain staff to administer and operate agribusiness-related programs and facilities, (iv) maintain agribusiness-related land and facilities, (v) operate agribusiness-related programming, (vi) acquire livestock, (vii) acquire other agricultural materials; (h) what skills does CSC aim to have gained by offenders who participate in agribusiness-related training, programs and operations; (i) how many and what percentage of all offenders, on an annual basis, does CSC project will participate in agribusiness-related training, programs and operations, and on what basis does CSC make this projection; (j) what is the projected employment rate, within one year of release, and on what basis does CSC make this projection, for (i) all released offenders, (ii) released offenders who participated in agribusiness-related training, programs and operations, (iii) released offenders who participated in agribusiness-related training, programs and operations, and who are employed in positions that require the agribusiness skills obtained while incarcerated; (k) what is the projected recidivism rate, within five years, and on what basis does CSC make this projection, for (i) all released offenders, (ii) released offenders who participated in agribusiness-related training, programs and operations, (iii) released offenders who participated in agribusiness-related training, programs and operations, and who are employed in positions that require the agribusiness skills obtained while incarcerated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1782--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to the Atlantic investment tax credit from 1977 to 2017: (a) what is the total amount and the amount broken down by year received by individuals, businesses and organizations for the entire targeted region; and (b) what is the amount for each year broken down by (i) eligible investment, as defined by the Canada Revenue Agency, (ii) eligible sector, as defined by the Canada Revenue Agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1783--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to international development funding, since April 1, 2017: what are the details of all funding provided to civil society organizations, including the (i) name of the organization, (ii) amount received, (iii) amount requested, (iv) purpose of the funding and the description of related projects, (v) date of the funding announcement, (vi) start and end date of the project receiving funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1786---
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the government's tendering and awarding of contracts, between 2008 and 2018 inclusively: (a) how many contracts for goods and services and for services associated with goods and construction were awarded without a government tendering process, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department, (iii) name of company or organization awarded with the contract, (iv) value of award in dollars, (v) details of the contract, (vi) reason for the absence of a tendering process; and (b) how many contracts for goods and services and for services associated with goods and construction were awarded through a government tendering process, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department, (iii) name of company or organization awarded with the contract, (iv) value of award in dollars, (v) details of the contract, (vi) reason for the absence of other tenderers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1787--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the $327 million announced by the government in November 2017 to combat gun and gang violence: (a) what specific initiatives or organizations have received funding from the $327 million, as of June 1, 2018; (b) what is the total of all funding referenced in (a); and (c) broken down by initiative and organization, what are the details of all funding received as of June 1, 2018, including the (i) name, (ii) project description, (iii) amount, (iv) date of the announcement, (v) duration of the project or program funded by the announcement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1788--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to government statistics in relation to the transportation of firearms by criminals: (a) what percentage of criminals register their guns; (b) what percentage of criminals receive permission to transport their guns; and (c) what percentage of criminals does the government project will abide by the firearms transportation provisions set out in Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1790--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the government’s involvement in relation to the Churchill rail line, since January 1, 2017: (a) what are the details of all briefing documents and memorandums related to the rail line, including the (i) recipient, (ii) date, (iii) title, (iv) summary, (v) file number; and (b) what are the details of all correspondence between the government and Grand Chief Arlen Dumas, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1791--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to reports of ageism in the hiring of ministerial exempt staff: (a) what is the total number of exempt staff members who are (i) 18-29, (ii) 30-39, (iii) 40-49, (iv) 50-59, (v) 60 and over, as of June 1, 2018; and (b) what is the total number of the Office of the Prime Minister staff members who are (i) 18-29, (ii) 30-39, (iii) 40-49, (iv) 50-59, (v) 60 and over, as of June 1, 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1792--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to errors made and corrected on proactive disclosure, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity covered by proactive disclosure: (a) what were the total number of errors discovered; (b) for each error, what were the details of the original posting, including what information was originally published on the proactive disclosure website; (c) for each correction, what are the details of the corrected information, including the contents of both the (i) original information, (ii) corrected information; and (d) for each error, on what date was the (i) erroneous information published, (ii) corrected information published?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1797--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to correspondence, both written and electronic, received by the Office of the Prime Minister from the general public, since November 4, 2015: (a) what were the top 10 topics or subjects matters, in terms of volume of correspondence; and (b) for each of the top 10 topics in (a), how many pieces of correspondence were received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1799--
Mr. Alexander Nuttall:
With regard to expenditures with the Internet media company BuzzFeed, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of expenditure or ad campaign, (iv) title for each “quiz” or “story” purchased?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1802--
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the comments by the Auditor General in relation to his reports’ that “we always get the department agreeing to our recommendation but then somehow we come back five years later, ten years later and we find the same problems”: (a) what specific actions or changes have been implemented for each of the recommendations made in the Auditor General's Fall and Spring reports of 2016, 2017 and 2018, broken down by recommendation; and (b) for each recommendation which has yet to be acted upon, what is the rationale for not following the Auditor General’s recommendation, and why has implementation of the recommended changes been delayed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1804--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the 1,559 Canada Summer Jobs funding applications in 2018 which were rejected due to issues with the attestation: what is the breakdown of the 1,559 rejected applications, by riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1805--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to Canada-Taiwan relations and reports that the government of China is requiring Canadian private companies, including Air Canada and the Royal Bank of Canada, to label Taiwan as part of China: (a) has the government raised this issue with the government of China and, if so, what message was conveyed and what was China’s response; (b) has the government discussed this issue with the government of Taiwan and, if so, what message was conveyed and what was Taiwan’s response; (c) does the government approve of these new policies set by Air Canada and the Royal Bank of Canada to label Taiwan as part of China; (d) has there been a change in the government’s policy with respect to Canada-Taiwan relations; and (e) what is the status of negotiations on a Foreign Investment Protection Agreement with Taiwan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1806--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the shipments of sculptures to Canadian missions, embassies, consulates, or other properties utilized by Global Affairs Canada abroad, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all shipments, including (i) origin, (ii) destination, (iii) date, (iv) vendor, (v) cost of shipping, (vi) name or description of sculpture?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1807--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to government procurement and contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to ministers since June 12, 2017: (a) what are the details of all contracts, including (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file numbers, (iv) nature or description of the work, (v) value of contracts; and (b) in the case of a contract for speechwriting, what is the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered, (iv) number of speeches to be written, (v) cost charged per speech?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1810--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to seizures of illegal drugs and narcotics by the Canada Border Services Agency since January 1, 2017: (a) how many times were illegal drugs or narcotics seized; (b) what is the total amount seized, broken down by substance; and (c) what are the details of each seizure, including (i) date, (ii) substance, (iii) amount, (iv) location, (v) country from which the substance was imported, (vi) estimated cash value?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1811--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the purchase of televisions, since February 1, 2017, broken down by department and agency: (a) what is the total value of televisions purchased; (b) how many televisions have been purchased; and (c) what are the details of each purchase, including (i) make and model, (ii) size, (iii) price per unit, (iv) quantity, (v) was the television a 4K television, (vi) was the television a 3-D television?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1812--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the consumption of alcohol and food on flights taken on government-owned Airbus and Challenger aircraft since December 1, 2017: (a) on which flights was alcohol consumed; and (b) for each flight where alcohol was consumed (i) what is the value of alcohol consumed, (ii) what was the origin and destination of the flight, (iii) what was the flight date, (iv) what is the breakdown of alcoholic beverages consumed by specific beverage and quantity, (v) what is the cost of food consumed on each flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1813--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the sharing economy: (a) has the government done any studies on the potential savings if civil servants were to use Uber or Lyft as opposed to traditional taxi services; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each study, including (i) who conducted the study, (ii) methodology, (iii) date study was completed, (iv) projected yearly savings; (c) what is the total amount spent on taxis by the government in 2017-18 fiscal year, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity; and (d) what is each department and agency’s policy regarding allowing employees who prefer to use Uber or Lyft, as opposed to traditional taxis, for government business, the opportunity to do so?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1815--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to appointments to federal boards, agencies, and associations since December 1, 2016, for each appointment: what are the details of each appointee, including (i) name, (ii) province, (iii) position, (iv) start and end date of term, (v) was appointment a reappointment or a new appointment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1816--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to interest payments on the federal debt: (a) how much did the government pay in interest payments in the (i) 2015-16, (ii) 2016-17, (iii) 2017-18 fiscal years; and (b) how much is the government projected to pay in interest payments in each of the next ten fiscal years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1819--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to Minister’s Regional Offices (MROs), as of June 7, 2018: (a) what are the locations of all MROs in operation; (b) what are the locations of all MROs not in operation; (c) broken down by location, what is the number of employees or full-time equivalents based out of each MRO; and (d) broken down by location, what is the number of ministerial exempt staff members based out of each MRO?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1821--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the acquisition of buildings by government departments or agencies, since October 1, 2016, for each transaction: (i) what is the location of the building, (ii) what is the amount paid, (iii) what is the type of building, (iv) what is the file number, (v) what is the date of transaction, (vi) what is the reason for acquisition, (vii) who was the owner of building prior to government acquisition, (viii) what is the government-wide object code?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1822--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to all contracts awarded by the government since December 1, 2017, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to a foreign firm, individual, business, or other entity with a mailing address outside of Canada; (b) for each contract in (a), what is the (i) name of vendor, (ii) date of contract, (iii) summary or description of goods or services provided, (iv) file or tracking number, (v) country of mailing address; and (c) for each contract in (a), was the contract awarded competitively or sole-sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1823--
Mr. David Yurdiga:
With regard to the Recognition of Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination discussion tables: what are the details of all discussion tables, broken down by (i) name and title of the First Nations, groups and individuals, (ii) dates of discussions, (iii) participating ministers, Members of Parliament and other government officials, (iv) topics of discussion, (v) recommendations that were made to the Department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1824--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to management consulting contracts signed by the government since January 1, 2017, broken down by department, agency, and crown corporation: (a) what was the total amount spent; (b) for each contract, what was the (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) file number; (c) each time a management consultant was brought in, what was the desired outcome or goals; (d) how does the government measure whether or not the goals in (c) were met; (e) does the government have any recourse if the goals in (c) were not met; (f) for which contracts were the goals met; and (g) for which contracts were the goals not met?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1825--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to government expenditures on membership fees, broken down by department, agency and crown corporation, since October 19, 2016: (a) how much has been spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure including name of organization or vendor, date of purchase, and amount spent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1826--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the Canada C3 Expedition: (a) what was the total number of individuals who took part in the expedition as passengers, broken down by leg; (b) what was the total number of expedition personnel, broken down by leg; and (c) what was the total number of ship’s crew, broken down by leg?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1827--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) into two new Departments: (a) how many staff or full-time equivalents (FTEs) employed with INAC at the time of dissolution have been transferred to (i) Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, (ii) Indigenous Services Canada, (iii) another government department or agency, broken down by department or agency; (b) how many FTEs, excluding temporary summer students, are currently employed by the (i) Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, (ii) Indigenous Services Canada; (c) what was the total cost of internal services for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada in the 2017-18 fiscal year; (d) what is the anticipated cost of internal services for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada in the 2018-19 fiscal year; (e) what was the total cost of internal services for Indigenous Services Canada in the 2017-18 fiscal year; and (f) what is the anticipated cost of internal services for Indigenous Services Canada in the 2018-19 fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1828--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to First Nations financial transparency: how many First Nations bands complied with the requirements of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act between 2013 and 2018, broken down by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1829--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the federal carbon tax or price on carbon: (a) what are the details of all memorandums or briefing notes, since November 4, 2015, regarding the impact of a carbon tax or price on carbon on Indigenous Canadians including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number; (b) what are the details of all memorandums or briefing notes, since November 4, 2015, regarding the impact of a carbon tax or price on carbon on northern Canadians including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number; (c) what analysis has been conducted from 2015 to present by the government with regard to the impact on northern family household budgets and northern community budgets; (d) what analysis has been conducted from 2015 to present by Employment and Social Development Canada with regard to the impact on northern persons and families falling below the low-income cut-off line; (e) what analysis has been conducted from 2015 to present by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada with regard to the impact on (i) Inuit persons and families falling below the low-income cut-off line, (ii) the cost of building and maintaining community infrastructure, including power generation; (f) what analysis has been conducted from 2015 to present by Health Canada with regard to the impact on the cost of delivering on-reserve health care; (g) when fully implemented, how much does the government anticipate the $50-a-tonne price on carbon will increase food prices for the average northern family of four, broken down by province and territory; (h) how much does the government anticipate a $50-a-tonne carbon tax will increase electricity costs, in percentage terms, broken down by province and territory; (i) has the government calculated the average financial impact of the carbon tax on northern people living below the low-income cut-off line and, if so, what is the average monetary impact on the average Indigenous family of four, living below the low-income cut-off line; (j) how many northern individuals does the government anticipate will fall beneath the low-income cut-off line as a result of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon; (k) did either the Department of Finance Canada or Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada conduct analyses regarding the impact of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon on Indigenous low-income families and, if so, what were the conclusions of these analyses; (l) did either the Department of Finance Canada or Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada conduct analyses regarding the impact of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon on the distribution of wealth and income in Canada and, if so, what were the conclusions of these analyses; and (m) by how much does the government estimate a $50-a-tonne price on carbon will reduce carbon emissions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1831--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to application processing and wait times at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, from the date an application is received by the Department to the date it is processed, and as June 11, 2018, or the most recent available data: (a) what is the average wait time for an individual who applies for a work permit in Canada; (b) what is the average wait time for an individual who applies for a visitor visa in Canada; (c) what is the average wait time for an individual who applies for a student visa in Canada; and (d) what is the average processing time for an application made under the spousal sponsorship program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1832--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to government communications, for each announcement made by a minister or parliamentary secretary in the National Capital Region in a location other than the parliamentary precinct or the National Press Theatre, since December 5, 2016: (a) what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) purpose or subject matter, (iv) name and portfolio of the minister or parliamentary secretary involved; and (b) what were the amounts and details of all expenses related to making each such announcement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1833--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to private security expenditures by the government, broken down by department, agency, crown corporation, or other government entity, since January 1, 2017: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each such expenditure, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) details of contract, including duration, (v) location where security was to be provided, (vi) whether the contract was competitive or sole-sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1834--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to payments and reimbursements made by the government in 2018: (a) what are the details of all payments, including reimbursements the government made to Vikram Vij or any of his enterprises, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) purpose of payment; and (b) did the government pay for Vikram Vij’s travel to India in February 2018 and, if so, what was the total amount spent on (i) airfare, (ii) hotels?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1835--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the February 2018 trip to India taken by the Prime Minister and other ministers: (a) what is the total of all costs incurred to date related to the trip; and (b) what are the details of all contracts and invoices related to the trip, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1836--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to all expenditures on hospitality (Treasury Board Object Code 0822), since April 25, 2017, and broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number, (vii) number of government employees in attendance, (viii) number of other attendees?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1837--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to relocation costs for exempt staff moving to the National Capital Region since December 1, 2016: (a) what is the total cost paid by the government for relocation services and hotel stays related to moving these staff to the National Capital Region; (b) for each individual reimbursement, what is the (i) total payout, (ii) cost for moving services, (iii) cost for hotel stays; and (c) what changes has the government made to the relocation policy for exempt staff following the moving expense controversy involving Katie Telford and Gerald Butts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1839--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to government funding within the constituency of Vancouver Kingsway: what is the total amount of funding, including the department or agency, the initiative, and the amount, broken down by each fiscal year from 2015 to 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1840--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the irregular border crossings taking place along Canada’s border with the United States, since December 1, 2016: (a) how many individuals who entered Canada irregularly made asylum claims in the United States prior to entering Canada; (b) how many individuals who entered Canada irregularly and made asylum claims were under a removal order in the United States prior to entering Canada; (c) of the number identified in (b), how many of those individuals (i) are presently in Canada awaiting hearings, (ii) are presently in Canada but have been ordered removed, (iii) have been removed from Canada in response to a removal order, (iv) have voluntarily left Canada; (d) for the individuals in (c)(iii), what was the average time between initial entry to Canada and removal from Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1841--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Global Affairs Canada, since October 1, 2017: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the goods or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1842--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to the total amount of late-payment charges for telephone services, since September 1, 2016, and broken down by late charges incurred by government department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what is the total amount late-payment charges and interest charges incurred in each month for services provided by (i) Rogers, (ii) Bell, (iii) Telus, (iv) other cellular or cable provider?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1843--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to spending related to the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: (a) what was the initial budget for the summit; (b) what is the latest projected total cost of the summit, broken down by type of expense; and (c) what are the details of each expenditure to date related to the summit, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services, including quantity of each item?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1844--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs funding provided to the Islamic Humanitarian Service: (a) has the group had their funding revoked after Sheikh Shafiq Hudda of the Islamic Humanitarian Service called for genocide and the eradication of Israelis, and if not, why not; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, on what date was the funding revoked?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1845--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to expenses claims by a minister or ministerial exempt staff which were paid out, since September 1, 2016, but then later paid-back to the Receiver General: what are the details of each such payment or reimbursement, including (i) date of expense claim, (ii) date money was reimbursed to the Receiver General, (iii) amount of initial expense claim and payment, (iv) amount reimbursed to the Receiver General, (v) description of products or services for each claim, (vi) reason for reimbursement to the Receiver General?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1846--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to spending on photographers or photography services since September 19, 2016, and broken down by department or agency: (a) how much has been spent; (b) what were the dates and duration of each photography contract; (c) what was the initial and final value of each contract; (d) what were the events or occasions which were meant to be photographed as a result of each contract; and (e) what were the locations where the photography work was performed for each contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1847--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the purchase of promotional products for handouts or giveaways at trade shows, conferences, and other events, since December 1, 2017 and broken down by department, agency, or crown corporation: (a) what products were purchased; (b) what quantity of each product was purchased; (c) what was the amount spent; (d) what was the price per unit; (e) at what events, or type of events, were the products distributed at; (f) what country was each product manufactured in; and (g) what is the relevant file number for each purchase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1848--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski :
With regard to the use of government aircraft by Members of Parliament and Senators, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of each flight where a Member of Parliament or a Senator was a passenger, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) names of parliamentarians on the flight, (v) type or aircraft?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1852--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With regard to the impacts of invasive species on Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas: (a) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of invasive species on Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis; (b) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of invasive species on Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (c) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of invasive species on fire management in Canada’s National Parks, and what were the results of this analysis; (d) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of invasive species on fire management in National Parks; (e) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of invasive species on species at risk, and what were the results of this analysis; (f) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts of invasive species on species at risk; (g) what has been the cost of efforts to reduce the spread of invasive species, broken down by year, over the past 10 years; (h) what are the top 10 invasive species currently of most concern in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and in which National Park or Marine Conservation Area are they a concern; and (i) how often does the government review its policies and procedures regarding invasive species in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1853--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to the government's campaign for a United Nations Security Council seat in 2021: (a) what are the total expenses to date directly related to the campaign; (b) what is the breakdown in (a), by type of expense; and (c) what are the details of all contracts related to the campaign, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1854--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to government advertising, since January 1, 2016: (a) how much has been spent on billboards; and (b) for each expenditure in (a), what was the (i) start and end date, (ii) cost, (iii) topic, (iv) number of billboards, (v) locations of billboards, (vi) vendor, (vii) type of billboards, such as electronic or traditional?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1855--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) discharged members: how many members of the CAF have been discharged under item 5(f), Unsuitable for Further Service, of the table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, that at the time also had a medical condition including but not limited to post-traumatic stress disorder, broken down by year, since 1990?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1856--
Mr. Rob Nicholson:
With regard to judicial appointments made by the government, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many total appointments have there been; (b) how many vacancies are there as of June 1, 2018; and (c) of the appointees in (a), how many were considered (i) “highly qualified”, (ii) “qualified”, (iii) “not qualified”?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1858--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the statements issued by the Delegation from Tibet that addressed the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on May 8, 2018, whereby Mr. Baimawangdui, head of the delegation and deputy of the People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), claimed that “the China-Canada is maintaining a good momentum of development with close contact between the higher levels”: (a) since 2016, how many requests has the Government of Canada made to the Chinese government for permission to visit Tibet, and, of those requests, (i) how many were denied, (ii) how many were approved; (b) of those approved in (a), when did the visits take place, and over the course of these meetings (i) where in Tibet did Canadian diplomats visit, (ii) were any limits or restrictions placed on Canadian delegation regarding where they could travel and who they could speak with, (iii) were Canadian diplomats invited to address the local People's Congress; and (c) since 2016, how many official delegations from Tibet have visited Canada, and during those visits (i) where in Canada did the delegations visit, (ii) were any limits or restrictions placed on the visiting delegation regarding where they could travel and who they could speak with, (iii) did Canadian officials meet with the delegation members, and, If so, from which ministries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1859--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the Middle Way Approach (MWA), which supports genuine autonomy for Tibet within the framework of Chinese constitution: (a) has the government, at any point in time, endorsed the MWA; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, did the government at one point in time has since altered its position and, if so, (i) when did this change of position occur, (ii) what prompted this change of position, (iii) what is Canada’s current position on the MWA; (c) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, what steps has the government undertaken to engage with the MWA when engaging with (i) official delegations from Tibet visiting Canada, (ii) human rights violations in the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and in Tibetan areas of China including Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan, and Gansu; and (d) if the answer in (a) is negative, (i) what is the government’s official position on Tibet’s political status, (ii) what alternative approach is used when engaging with human rights violations in the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and in Tibetan areas of China including in Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan, and Gansu?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1860--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to immigration to Canada between December 7, 2016, to December 6, 2017: (a) how many economic class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (b) how many family class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (c) how many refugees have been admitted to Canada; (d) how many temporary student visas were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary student visa; (e) how many temporary worker permits were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary worker permit; (f) how many temporary visitor records were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary visitor record; (g) how many temporary resident permits were issued; (h) how many temporary resident permits were approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; (i) for (a) to (h), what is the breakdown by source country by each class of migrant: (j) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (k) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (l) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (m) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and (n) for application for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and presented in the exact same format of the government’s response to Q-696?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1862--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to funding provided by the government to STEM Camp: (a) what are the details of all funding the organization has received since January 1, 2016, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) program under which funding was delivered; and (b) what is the maximum amount of Canada Summer Jobs funding for 2018 which the organization has been approved for?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1863--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) electronic tax filing systems (e-filing system), including each electronic filing system for each category of taxes for which they are available: (a) for each year since 2013 inclusively, for how many days has the e-filing system been unavailable for use by tax filers due to routine maintenance (down for maintenance); (b) for each year in (a), how many of the days on which the e-filing system was down for maintenance fell on deadlines for filing (i) personal income taxes, (ii) corporate income taxes, (iii) sales tax quarterly returns, (iv) installment payments; (c) for each year in (a), how many of the days on which the e-filing system was down for maintenance fell within the three business days immediately preceding the deadlines in (b); (d) after subtracting the deadlines in (b) and the three business days preceding them, for each year in (a), how many business days on which routine maintenance remained; (e) how many taxpayers in each category in (b) attempted to file on days on which the e-filing system was down for maintenance; (f) of the taxpayers in (e), for how many did the inability to file their taxes due to the e-filing system being down for maintenance cause their filings to be late; and (g) with respect to the filings in (f), how much was assessed in interest and penalties?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1864--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to government’s projections on page 292 of Budget 2018, “Futures contracts currently suggest that the differential between WTI and the CEP will narrow to the US$15 range by the summer [...] and to remain at this level on average over the 2018-2022 forecast horizon”: (a) as of the date of this question, in which year does the government currently project the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, and the Keystone XL Project to become operational; (b) by how much will the differential between the price of West Texas Intermediate and the Canadian Effective price (the discount on Canadian crude oil) diminish if the Trans Mountain Expansion and Keystone XL Projects, respectively, become operational in the years in (a); (c) by how much will the discount on Canadian crude oil diminish if the Trans Mountain Expansion and Keystone XL Projects, respectively, become operational (i) one year after the respective years in (a), (ii) two years after respective years in (a), (iii) five years after the respective years in (a), (iv) ten years after the respective years in (a); (d) by how much will the discount on Canadian crude oil diminish or increase if the Trans Mountain Expansion and Keystone XL Projects, respectively, never become operational; (e) by how much will federal revenue derived from any source related to the extraction, transport, and sale of crude oil increase or decrease if (i) the Trans Mountain Expansion and Keystone XL Projects, respectively, become operational in the year in (a), (ii) become operational in one of the years in (c), (iii) never become operational; (f) how much, if any, of the projections in (e) has the government, in preparing Budget 2018, included in budgetary projections for (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, (iv) 2023; (g) how much, if any, of the projections in (e) will the government include in budgetary projections for the years in (f) in preparing Budget 2019; (h) by how much have the projections in (e) and their inclusion in the budgetary calculations in (f) and (g) increased or decreased since the government purchased Kinder Morgan’s existing Trans Mountain Pipeline assets and assumed responsibility for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project; (i) what is the discount on Canadian crude oil as of the date of this question; (j) if the value of the discount on Canadian crude oil in (i) persists between the date of this question and 2022, how much lower than the projections in Budget 2018 will actual revenue in (e) be; and (k) what budgetary contingency has the government put in place in case of (j)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1865--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to expenditures on “social media influencers”, including any contracts which would use social media influencers as part of a public relations campaign, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) campaign description, (iv) date of contract, (v) name or handle of influencer; and (b) for each campaign which paid an “influencer”, was there a requirement to make public as part of a disclaimer the fact that the “influencer” was being paid by the government and, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1867--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to court proceedings of legal cases originating in Charlotte County, Campobello Island, Deer Island and Grand Manan Island heard at the Provincial Court of New Brunswick in Saint John, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, what are the: (a) itemized expenses in dollar amounts, including mileage, meals, lodging, vehicle rentals, vehicle repairs, parking and all other miscellaneous expenses of the following individuals who were required to appear in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick in Saint John for court proceedings of cases originating in Charlotte County, Campobello Island, Deer Island and Grand Manan Island, broken down by (i) year, (ii) RCMP members required to appear, (iii) Crown prosecutors required to appear, (iv) RCMP members required to transport detained suspects, (v) other government employees required to appear, (vi) victims of crime required to appear; (b) total number of overtime hours submitted by RCMP members and other government employees stationed in Charlotte County, Campobello Island, Deer Island and Grand Manan Island, broken down by (i) year, (ii) number of hours approved, (iii) number of hours rejected; (c) risk analyses performed to evaluate community risk created by reduced presence of RCMP members stationed in Charlotte County, Campobello Island, Deer Island and Grand Manan Island, while they appear in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick in Saint John, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department which requested these analyses, (iii) towns which have the least active RCMP presence; and (d) number of cases originating in Charlotte County, Campobello Island, Deer Island and Grand Manan Island waiting to be heard at the Provincial Court of New Brunswick in Saint John, broken down by (i) year, (ii) length of time on the Crown prosecutor’s docket, (iii) length of waiting time to be heard by the Court of Queen’s Bench, (iv) length of time for a victim of crime to be interviewed by the Crown prosecutor, (v) average length of time for the entire court proceeding to conclude, (vi) rate of court proceedings, (vii) rate of court judgements, (viii) rate of court plea bargains?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1869--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the Office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities: (a) what are the expenditures, since November 4, 2015, spent on office supplies per fiscal year, broken down by (i) office supply category, (ii) amount spent in each category; and (b) what is the detailed description of any item purchased as an office supply with a value over $200?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1870--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to Infrastructure Canada: what are the expenditures, since November 4, 2015, for the Minister’s exempt staff to travel to Edmonton, broken down by (i) name of exempt staff member, (ii) title of exempt staff member, (iii) date of arrival in Edmonton, (iv) date of departure from Edmonton, (v) travel expenditure, (vi) accommodation, (vii) per diem, (viii) incidentals?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1873--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to government funding in the constituency of Vancouver Kingsway: what is the total amount of funding, including the department or agency, the initiative and the amount, broken down by each fiscal year from 2015 to 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1875--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Joint Support Ship Procurement (previously called ALSC): (a) since the program’s inception in 1993, what are, broken down by fiscal year, the (i) program costs, (ii) major Crown project office costs, (iii) the technical services sub-contracts; (b) what steps have the government taken to ensure that the program remains on time and on budget as promised in previous reports to Parliament, since the inception of the National Shipbuilding Strategy to present and, if steps have been taken, what are the details of such step, broken down by individual step; (c) has the Royal Canadian Navy, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Finance or the Privy Council Office received any warnings or concerns of the risks to cutting steel for only the bow section of the Joint Support Ships so early in the project, with ship delivery at least five years away and, if so, (i) what is the highest ranking official who received the warning and, if so, on what date, (ii) did the Minister receive the warning and, if so, on what date; (d) has the government received any internal or third party analysis of risks (budgetary, schedule, employment, construction or management) related to Seaspan’s construction of the Off-Shore Science Fisheries Vessels, the Off-Shore Oceanographic Vessels, the Joint Support Ships and the polar class icebreaker in 2015, 2016, 2017 or 2018 and, if so, what are the details of such reports, including (i) author, (ii) findings, (iii) date report was finalized; and (e) what are the details of any briefing notes, emails or reports prepared in relation to the Joint Support Ship program, since January 1, 2018, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1877--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to expenditures related to the Canada 2020 Annual Conference in June 2018, including tickets, conference fees, sponsorship and other expenses, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what are the details of all expenses, including (i) amount, (ii) description of goods or services; and (b) for all tickets or conference fees purchased, (i) who attended the event, (ii) what was the number of tickets, (iii) what was the amount per ticket?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1879--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government on November 7, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of OPP funds disbursed to date; and (b) what are the details of each project or organization funded by the OPP, including (i) recipient, (ii) location, (iii) date of announcement, (iv) amount received to date, (v) project description or purpose of funding, (vi) duration of project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1880--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the Minister of Health: (a) what are the details of all memorandums or briefing notes on the front of package regulations, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number, (vii) position on front of package proposal (i.e. supportive or opposed); (b) what are the peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses used in the consideration of the proposed regulation, broken down by (i) title of article, (ii) date of publication, (iii) author; (c) what does the government estimate the annual cost for the next two, five and ten years to the industry to implement these changes, broken down by sector, including (i) primary agriculture, (ii) meat processors, (iii) seafood processors, (iv) dairy producers, (v) chicken farmers and processors, (vi) turkey farmers and producers, (vii) corn farmers and producers, (viii) soy farmers and producers (ix) sugar beat farmers and producers; (d) by what percentage in the next five, ten, twenty and forty years is the government expecting a reduction of 2018 rates of the following health concerns due to front of package labelling, (i) heart disease, (ii) obesity rates, (iii) diabetes, (iv) cancers; and (e) what are the details of all correspondence by foreign government on front of package labelling, broken down by (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number (vii) position on front of package proposal (i.e. supportive or opposed)?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-1078 Miscellaneous expenditures ...8555-421-1078-01 Miscellaneous expenditu ...8555-421-1392 Expenditures on hospitalit ...8555-421-1392-01 Expenditures on hospita ...8555-421-1408 Fees collected by governme ...8555-421-1408-01 Fees collected by gover ...8555-421-1420 Government expenditures8555-421-1420-01 Government expenditures8555-421-1424 Contracts awarded by the g ...8555-421-1424-01 Contracts awarded by th ...8555-421-1472 Federal spending
...Show all topics
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2018-04-24 11:07 [p.18660]
Mr. Speaker, for 15 months now I have been raising the issue around irregular border crossings in this House, at committee, and in the public. As members may remember, it started with your granting my request for an emergency debate on this very subject in January 2017.
Since that time, we have seen the influx in irregular border crossings and asylum claims. Back on April 10, 2017, at the immigration and citizenship committee, I moved a motion for the committee to study the issue of irregular crossings. Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the committee saw fit to adjourn debate on my motion repeatedly. Not only did they want to study the issue: they refused to even have a debate on the need to study the situation.
Fast-forward to April 17, 2018. I once again tried to advance the need to study the issue at committee. Again I was impeded from doing so. It was not until last Tuesday that I was able, despite attempts to shut me down, to make mention of a motion I would like to see pass at committee. That motion was for the committee to look at the impact of the increase in asylum claims on the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, the provinces, and the NGOs that provide settlement services in areas where these crossings are more frequent, and for the study to hear from both the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Note that my motion to study the issue differs from that of the Conservatives. It does not aim to misrepresent a situation, create fear, or further inflame anti-refugee sentiments. Since the Trump administration took office, I have called for the Canadian government to condemn Trump's discriminatory anti-immigrant policies and to work with the international community to devise a plan to address the fact that we now have a powerful leader in the free world—our next-door neighbour, no less—openly targeting the immigrant and refugee community, striking fear in their hearts and minds, and creating an unstable environment for their well-being.
It is truly a shame that many developed nations, including the United States, have seen a significant rise in anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric and policy implementation. As a result, despite an unprecedented need for refugee resettlement, many of the world's wealthiest nations are turning their backs on people in desperate need.
I am proud to say that Canadians have gone against this trend, but their compassion and humanitarianism cannot be taken for granted. That is why I first brought this issue up in this place over a year ago. We must ensure the integrity of our system is world class and that Canadians trust it. That is why provinces must not be left to fend for themselves.
In 2017, we saw 20,593 individuals make an inland asylum claim through an irregular crossing and 22,140 individuals make an asylum claim through a regular border crossing. That is a total of 42,733. In 2018, so far we have seen 6,373 irregular crossings. The vast majority of them—5,609, to be exact—crossed over in Quebec. Even though about 40% of them say that they are planning to settle elsewhere in Canada, there is no denying the impact is significant for the province to manage. That is why we need to have leadership from the federal government.
Globally, the United Nations estimates there are over 65 million people forcibly displaced. Of those, 22.5 million are refugees and 50% of the refugees are under the age of 18. These levels are unprecedented. To put everything into perspective Canada's resettlement effort contributions to the global stage, including the Syrian refugee initiative, is only 0.1%. Before anyone jumps up and down and shouts for us to close the borders, we should keep these figures in mind.
That does not mean to say that Canada should not seriously study the issue and devise a plan. The New Democrats have been calling on the Liberals to develop a comprehensive, durable solution that will protect the rights of asylum seekers, maintain the integrity of our system, and ensure this influx does not result in a strain on border communities. I am sad to say that instead of a proactive approach, the Liberals have resorted to a reactionary approach, taking action only when absolutely forced to. This failure to lead is giving oxygen to those who want to misrepresent and fan the fears of division. In fact, the Conservatives' motion before us today positions themselves as champions for exactly that kind of an approach.
To be clear, I support the call for a study, but the deliberate words chosen to misrepresent the situation in the Conservatives' motion is not an approach I support. At the right time, I will move an amendment to the motion, but before I do that, let us fully examine the Conservative motion.
First, on the use of the word “illegal” in the motion, there is no question the Conservatives are intentionally labelling irregular crossings as “illegal” crossings. That is plain wrong. To be clear, asylum seekers crossing at unofficial border crossing are making irregular crossings, not illegal crossings. Crossing the border at a point not designated as a port of entry is not an offence under the Criminal Code. On the contrary, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states specifically in section 133 that:
A person who has claimed refugee protection, and who came to Canada directly or indirectly from the country in respect of which the claim is made, may not be charged with an offence under section 122, paragraph 124(1)(a) or section 127 of this Act or under section 57, paragraph 340(c) or section 354, 366, 368, 374 or 403 of the Criminal Code...
The regulations for the act also state in subsection 27(2):
...a person who seeks to enter Canada at a place other than a port of entry must appear without delay for examination at the port of entry that is nearest to that place.
That is exactly what is happening.
Just so everyone is clear on the process, after crossing irregularly, individuals are taken into custody. They are questioned, and their identity is checked. Once cleared by the RCMP, they are handed over to the CBSA for processing. They are interviewed about their personal history and how they got to Canada. They are fingerprinted, photographed, and asked to fill out paperwork. A background check is done. If the person is deemed admissible, their case is transferred to the IRB to adjudicate their refugee claim. No one is jumping the queue, and individuals found not to have met what is prescribed to be a refugee under Canadian law, his or her claim would be rejected by the IRB. That is how the system works and how it should work. These asylum seekers are following Canadian law.
I was deeply troubled by how quickly the Minister of Immigration capitulated to aggressive questioning from the Conservatives at committee on March 19 about the use of the word “illegal” to describe irregular crossings. In fact, he said he was “happy” to use that term. It is as if the Minister of Immigration is ignorant of sections 117 and 133 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He is the minister responsible for the act. If the issues were not so serious, it would make a good joke.
Second, the motion raises the issue of gaps in screening. The way in which the motion is worded, one would think every irregular border crosser has failed the security screening. To be clear, with the influx in irregular crossings, the government should address gaps in screening where they may exist. However, we should take care not to smear all asylum seekers with the same brush.
Currently only 1% of all asylum seekers, regular and irregular, are detained for security reasons. Officials will use extensive information-sharing with allies around the world to determine an individual's admissibility to Canada. Individuals could be inadmissible for security reasons if they had committed serious crimes, or for other financial or health reasons. People who are deemed inadmissible must leave Canada and may be detained pending removal. That is the current process. Everything is done by the book. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
Third, on the point of the Prime Minister's #WelcomeToCanada tweet, when I saw that, I was proud to be a Canadian. The issue here is not the sentiment behind the tweet, but the fact that the Prime Minister's rhetoric does not match his actions.
The Liberals have failed to ensure adequate resources are provided to the provinces and agencies working on the ground to deal with the influx of irregular crossings. In fact, the federal government provides no resources to NGOs in support of inland refugee claimants. Provinces and agencies should not be abandoned by the federal government when it comes to inland asylum seekers. The federal government needs to take a leadership role and be a true partner with them.
The NDP is therefore calling for the government to match its words with action. Let us talk the talk and walk the walk. The vast majority of Canadians take pride in Canada's compassionate stance in welcoming refugees to Canada. We saw that through the Syrian refugee initiative, when Canadians overwhelmingly stepped up to volunteer and to privately sponsor refugees to Canada. Even today, Canadians continue to call on the government to lift the cap on the privately sponsored refugees to Canada. The failure of the Liberals to match actions with words will only give oxygen to those who want to instill division and fear in the hearts and minds of Canadians. This needs to stop.
Fourth, the Conservatives suggest that this is somehow a loophole in the safe third country agreement. They are wrong. The Conservatives are taking a page out of the Trump discriminatory anti-refugee rhetoric by advocating for Canada to apply the safe third country agreement to the entire border, thereby effectively erecting an invisible wall on Canada's border. At a time when there is an unprecedented number of people in the world who have been forcibly displaced, Canada must continue to do its part.
To put things into perspective, even with the Syrian refugee initiative, Canada's resettlement effort to this global crisis is only 0.1% of the total need. Instead of pandering to the alt-right, the Liberals need to stand strong and reaffirm that Canada is a fair and compassionate country that respects and celebrates our diversity. Canada can afford to continue to be a beacon of hope on the international stage.
For those who are wondering where the money will come from, if Canada closes the stock option loopholes for the ultra-rich and shuts down access to tax havens, we can reinvest those lost revenues to the most vulnerable. To show leadership, the Liberals should not allow this hateful and divisive approach of pitting the vulnerable against the vulnerable to win the day. Canada needs to show leadership and live up to its obligations under the international law as signatories to the 1951 UN refugee convention and its 1967 protocol.
When the Prime Minister on November 23 took a dramatic departure from his original #WelcomeToCanada tweet and started to parrot anti-refugee rhetoric by stating, “Would-be Canadians need more than just a desire for a better economic future if they expect to be granted refugee status in this country”, I was truly ashamed. By insinuating that refugees are trying to cheat the system and jumping the queue is the textbook far-right anti-refugee rhetoric and a level that I did not expect the Prime Minister would stoop too.
If the Prime Minister can reduce himself to that level of rhetoric, no wonder the Conservatives are now suggesting that we close our border to irregular crossings with an invisible wall by declaring the entire border an authorized port of entry. No doubt the Conservatives are inspired by the Trump's overblown obsession to build a wall.
When the Conservatives suggest that irregular border crossings are a loophole in the safe third country agreement, they are deliberating misleading Canadians. Sections 117 and 133 of IRPA clearly show that assertion is false.
The New Democrats and experts agree that the problem on orderly crossings is the safe third country agreement. For over a year now, I have been calling on the government to invoke article 10 of the safe third country agreement and to provide written notice to the United States that we are suspending the agreement.
If the safe third country agreement is suspended, asylum seekers can make safe, orderly crossings at designated ports of entry. This will protect the rights of the asylum seekers, provide safety and stability to Canada's border communities most impacted by this influx, and allow for the government agencies, such as the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, and the IRB, to strategically deploy personnel and resources necessary to establish border infrastructure instead of this ad hoc approach. This is the rational, reasonable response to this situation.
Furthermore, immigration is in the federal jurisdiction. The federal government has a responsibility to provide leadership on this issue, and to ensure that the situation does not negatively impact provincial governments and services.
Quebec has seen the overwhelming majority of irregular border crossings. The situation is having an impact on its budgets and service provision. That is not right. When the Quebec government reached out for assistance, the Minister of Immigration opted to chastise it instead. That is not acceptable.
In addition to suspending the safe third country agreement, the NDP has long been calling on the government to provide the needed resources to provincial governments impacted, government agencies, such as the CBSA, RCMP, IRCC, and IRB, and resettlement agencies on the ground.
It is unacceptable to pit vulnerable groups against vulnerable groups and to allow for an asylum claim influx to negatively impact Canadians' access to vital social and health services. Quebec should not have to fight the federal government for resources it needs to help with the influx. Its request should have been met immediately.
Aside from the support for the provinces, the government also needs to show leadership and ensure that the IRB has the appropriate resources.
I wholeheartedly agree that the government has mishandled the situation, but I cannot support this motion. The Liberals are ignoring the situation and the Conservatives are engaging in fearmongering hyperbole to stoke anti-refugee sentiment. Neither party is approaching this situation responsibly. Suspending the safe third country agreement is the way to go forward.
At this point, I would like to move an amendment to the motion: That the motion be amended by: (a) replacing the words “crisis created by the influx of thousands of illegal border crossers travelling across our southern border between ports of entry, that the agencies responsible for dealing with this crisis have found gaps in security screening for newly arrived refugee claimants,” with the words “situation created by the influx of thousands of irregular border crossers travelling across our southern border between ports of entry, that the agencies responsible for dealing with this influx should address gaps in screening where they may be found”; (b) replacing the words “irresponsibility of tweeting #WelcometoCanada to those seeking to enter Canada through illegal means” with the words “irresponsibility of tweeting #WelcometoCanada to those seeking to enter Canada through irregular means without following rhetoric with action to maintain the integrity of Canada's asylum system;” and (c) deleting all of the words in subparagraph (d)(i), and substituting the following: “address the influx of people irregularly entering Canada from the United States, through the suspension of the safe third country agreement.”
I hope my amendment will be accepted so that we can have a rational debate about the impact of irregular crossings without fearmongering and determine what actions should be taken to address the issues without violating Canada's international commitments.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the very important motion moved by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill.
I want to begin by saying that this is about our country's sovereignty and the control of our borders. Much has been said on the issue. The parties have been throwing around all sorts of ideas, but what is important to me, as the shadow minister for public safety, is that sovereignty and border control be made the top priority.
The Liberal government seems unable to address the crisis created by the influx of thousands of illegal border crossers travelling across our southern border between ports of entry. What is more, the agencies responsible for dealing with this crisis have found gaps in security screening for newly arrived refugee claimants. They have indicated that there is a major backlog in scheduled hearings and in carrying out deportation orders, and that this trend is expected to increase over the summer months.
In our motion, we are calling on the government to ensure that the agencies responsible for our borders are properly equipped so that they can continue to do their jobs effectively and that those arriving at Canadian borders go through the appropriate processes.
We want the government to admit the Prime Minister’s irresponsibility in tweeting #WelcometoCanada to those seeking to enter Canada through illegal means and take responsibility for the massive social services costs burdening the provincial governments. We also want the government to table in the House no later than May 11, 2018, a plan to stop the influx of people illegally entering Canada and take appropriate measures to handle those who have already claimed asylum.
Now that the weather has warmed up, the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, is reporting significantly higher numbers of illegal migrants crossing at non-designated ports of entry, in this case, Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle in Quebec. The number of illegal entries has grown considerably since the Prime Minister's infamous and irresponsible January 2017 tweet in which he told the whole world, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength. #WelcomeToCanada”.
No matter what the Liberals or anyone else says about it, that is at the root of the problem we are discussing today. That extremely unwise and potentially disastrous tweet was heard loud and clear by foreign nationals residing in the United States illegally who know that the U.S. government will take temporary protection status away from hundreds of thousands of them in July 2019. Worse still, the Prime Minister's tweet was heard around the world by people who are not refugees, just people looking for a country where they can make a better life for themselves. CBSA officers told my office that quite a few of the illegal migrants crossing into Quebec at the non-designated port of entry are from Nigeria. As everyone knows, Nigeria is not a poor country. Its GDP is one of the highest in Africa. However, the Liberals want Canadians to believe that all illegal migrants are refugees and that anyone who does not agree with their position is heartless and lacking in compassion. This is really a big problem. With their ideology, the Liberals want everyone to believe that we Conservatives are heartless because we want to protect our border and we want immigrants to come to Canada legally. I would like that to stop. There comes a point when enough is enough.
This crisis is entirely on the Prime Minister. We are talking about the most important elected member, the one with the most power in Canada: the Prime Minister of Canada. This problem is his doing. The Canada Border Services Agency has been swamped by this crisis. To date, more than 20,000 illegal migrants entered Canada through Quebec in 2017. What I am about to say next is important. Border officers are reporting that upper management is pressuring them to drastically reduce security processing. Security processing usually takes eight hours. The process now takes less than two hours.
The Liberal government has been known to give these illegal migrants expedited work permits, health care, and housing services at no cost to them, while those attempting to immigrate to Canada through legal channels have to wait longer and pay immigration fees.
The government has yet to take any steps to stop the influx of these migrants. In 2018, an estimated 400 illegal immigrants will enter Canada daily during the summer at a non-designated point of entry in Quebec. This has already started. Four hundred immigrants a day is 12,000 a month. If we multiply that by the next three or four months when the weather is nice, we get 50,000 immigrants. It adds up quickly.
The $146 million that the federal government owes Quebec for the cost of dealing with illegal migrants in Quebec is nothing compared the anticipated cost in 2018. The Liberals are also guilty of playing with words, since the $85 million that was announced for the Canada Border Services Agency to deal with these new illegal migrants is not even enough to cover overtime pay and other costs related to this crisis.
Meanwhile, the situation at the border is getting increasingly chaotic. It is becoming painfully clear that the safety of Canadians is not a priority for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister needs to understand that Canada's immigration laws were not written and passed by one particular political party. They have been written over a number of years by the Parliament of Canada. This legislation has been introduced by Liberals and Conservatives alike over the years. Immigration procedures in Canada have been administered by all political parties that have been in power for over 150 years.
The same holds true for public safety. Every party that has been in power has worked on developing public safety rules, and we have a duty to enforce them. All of this is in the best interests of Canadians. When they get up in the morning, Canadians need to know that their various governments are there to protect them and ensure that they live in a trouble-free country.
On weekends, when I am out and about in my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, everyone talks to me about the massive fiasco the Prime Minister created with his now infamous tweet. Migrants are flooding into Lacolle, and people are worried, with good reason. I receive a lot of information. I get it from border services officers; they say they want to talk to me but are prohibited from doing so. There are confidentiality issues to consider, of course, but the situation we are in defies belief. These people just want to make sure someone in the opposition knows what is going on. They have tried, in vain, to talk to their bosses and to someone in the government. Border services officers do not feel that the government understands or accepts their concerns.
Officers have a duty to perform. I was in the same situation when I was a soldier. We have an obligation to serve our country as efficiently and professionally as possible. We are sworn to do our duty. The same goes for border services officers and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They are there to enforce the law. When they are asked to do less and to let things slide, they do not understand. It is not in their nature. That is not why they chose this line of work. These people are worried and cannot agree to such a request.
It is still a sensitive subject, but there is one case I could talk about. An officer contacted me and told me that he was baffled, that he was not supposed to be telling me this, but that someone needed to know. I will read out part of what he wrote to me about the migrants coming in right now. On the subject of illegal migrants, the officer wrote:
They land at JFK in New York and head for Roxham Road. Everything is planned in advance. The government says it is monitoring them, but it is not. We are being pressured to minimize detentions. We let in guys from Sudan without a passport, without any ID besides a library card, and they do not get detained. We got a known murderer from Senegal, and we had a really hard time hanging on to him. They want us to exhaust all other options before considering detention...but a murderer?
It is clear that the situation is serious.
Our border services officers question people whose identity is not clear, who have committed crimes in their country, but the government is pushing to not jail them. The government does not want people to say that it is putting people in jail and is asking officers to leave them in the wilderness. Do my colleagues believe that is what Canadians want and that all parties accept this type of situation? I do not think so. Border services officers are getting tired of this.
This is a chaotic situation. Chaos arises when officers are asked to do things that run counter to what they were hired to do and to the pledge they made to serve our country well. On the one hand, the safety of Canadians is at stake. On the other, there is chaos, the cost, and the social impact, especially in Quebec at this time.
What prime minister with a modicum of common sense would allow our border and immigration laws to be flouted by foreigners? Furthermore, what prime minister would allow these abuses to happen and reward them with better service than that actually afforded to genuine immigrants? We often hear about George Soros. Is the Prime Minister really going to swallow what this man says? That is worrisome. Does he not know about the chaos in other countries where lax border policies have left communities in shambles with drastic increases in violence? More importantly, is the Prime Minister imposing his vision of Canada on the Quebec nation?
Quebec signed an immigration agreement with the federal government. By allowing illegal migrants unrestricted access to Quebec communities, the Prime Minister has found a very creative way of undermining Quebec's authority. In other words, the existing immigration agreements between the federal government and the province of Quebec are now void. Actual immigrants and refugees attempting to come to Quebec legally are forced to wait longer because the Prime Minister decided to reward law-breakers first. That is a real shame.
Furthermore, since immigration resources are already stretched so thin, we must consider the other costs for Quebec and the other provinces. The Prime Minister's odd decision to allow illegal immigrants to enter Canada unimpeded puts enormous pressure on provincial social services. Let us be honest. The provinces are responsible for the vast majority of government services provided to newcomers in Canada. Provinces provide income support to newcomers. Food banks, housing, schools, and health care services are all under provincial jurisdiction. As we have seen, Quebec has had a lot to deal with.
Using simple arithmetic, we have a pretty good idea of how much Quebec will have to pay as a result of the Liberal Party's new border policy.
Do my colleagues know that the Prime Minister is setting up a committee to examine the situation and ask illegal immigrants where in Canada they want to live? That is unbelievable. Quebec has said that it has done enough, and rightly so. Rather than resolving the problem and putting a stop to illegal immigration, the Liberals are going to set up a bus stop of sorts, which says “Quebec is full. Where do you want to go? Ontario is this way. Alberta is in the same direction, but a bit farther away.” What is that all about? Is the government saying that people just have to line up and they will be redirected when they arrive in Canada? That will not work. It is unbelievable.
Meanwhile, every week, my colleagues from every party and I are meeting with legal immigrants in our riding offices because they have a problem. Some have been here for three or four years. They submitted their application but, somewhere along the way, one of their documents was lost somewhere in the public service, and they are being threatened with deportation. I am not joking. There are at least 100 immigrants per year in my riding alone who encounter this sort of problem and are constantly worried about being deported because of administrative issues. Meanwhile, illegal immigrants are streaming across our borders and are being directed to different areas of Canada. What is more, the provinces are required to give them money and everything they need.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr. Speaker, an NDP colleague disagrees with what I am saying. She will have her chance to talk later.
Quebec has done enough, and everyone knows that. We need to continue working to protect the other provinces and put an end to this problem immediately.
We therefore have a choice to make as a society. We must choose to enforce our sovereignty, which is what Canadians expect, and especially the sovereignty of our borders. That is why we are calling on the government to adopt a plan, because right now all it is saying is that it will send money, millions of dollars. At the end of the day, the problem will persist. Even if we rehire thousands of border officers and hire hundreds of immigration officers, until the issue of border management is resolved by changing the safe third country agreement, the problem will persist. People will continue coming to Canada, because they know that they can cross into Canada without any problems through the back door.
The government therefore needs to step up, come up with a plan, issue a clear directive, and ask the United States to amend the safe third country agreement to fix the loophole. This message must be sent around the world. The Prime Minister could then tweet something intelligent, telling the world that Canada will continue welcoming them and we are still open, but people must cross our borders legally and stop using roundabout ways to come to our country, because it will not work.
A crisis is brewing. At least eight out of the 10 people arriving here currently do not meet the requirement to be deemed a refugee. These people will have to be deported. At some point in time we will have to track them down because they will try to run and hide. They do not want to be deported. We will be facing a crisis trying to deal with families that have to go back to their country of origin. That will be another problem with its own set of costs, including the human cost.
The Conservatives are accused of being heartless, but that is not so. We do think about things. That is why we want to fix the problem. We see the big picture. We think things through. We currently have a government that simply reacts to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars instead of saying that we have a problem on our hands and we need to address it. It is time to take action. That is all there is to it. If the government could take immediate action then we could come back here in a year and see that everything has changed. People will keep coming to Canada legally and we will gladly welcome them.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2018-04-24 12:34 [p.18672]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. I am sure his speech will do justice to his enormous talent, and we look forward to hearing it.
As this is the first opportunity I have had to address the House since the terrible tragedy that occurred in Toronto, I want to take a moment to talk about it as the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. The people of Lac-Mégantic, who went through their own unimaginable tragedy nearly five years ago now, send their full support. We know how hard it is for everyone directly or indirectly affected by such an event. For the families of the victims and people in general, when a tragedy, attack, or unexpected and incomprehensible accident strikes, one that no one ever wants to experience in their lifetime, the event remains etched in their memories and hearts for a very long time, whether they were directly or indirectly affected.
I wish to extend to all the families, to everyone in Toronto and across Canada, our deepest sympathies to the families and especially to everyone directly affected by this tragedy. Our understanding, our love, and our hearts are with them to help them through this very difficult time.
We are here to talk about the migrant crisis. The official opposition has moved a very important motion. I will read the motion we are debating today for the benefit of those watching and listening to us. This motion was moved by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill and by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles:
That, given the government’s failure to address the crisis created by the influx of thousands of illegal border crossers travelling across our southern border between ports of entry, that the agencies responsible for dealing with this crisis have found gaps in security screening for newly arrived refugee claimants, as well as a backlog in both scheduled hearings and carrying out deportation orders, and that this trend is expected to increase over the summer months; the House call on the government to:
(a) ensure the agencies responsible for our borders are properly equipped so that they can continue to do their jobs effectively and that those arriving at Canadian borders go through the appropriate processes;
(b) admit the Prime Minister’s irresponsibility of tweeting #WelcometoCanada to those seeking to enter Canada through illegal means;
(c) take responsibility for the massive social services costs burdening the provincial governments; and
(d) table in the House no later than May 11, 2018, a plan to
(i) stop the influx of people illegally entering Canada from the United States,
(ii) take appropriate measures to handle those who have already claimed asylum.
As members can see, this is a simple motion that simply reiterates the position that Canada should take with regard to this crisis. We can honestly say that the government has done a very poor job of managing this situation since the Prime Minister sent out his infamous tweet.
In November 2015, Canada was prepared to welcome nearly 40,000 Syrian refugees who were fleeing the war in their country and inhumane living conditions in refugee camps across Europe and the Middle East. Canada's provinces had set up the facilities necessary to receive those refugees.
However, what is currently happening at our borders is quite the opposite. With just a few words, the Prime Minister completely disrupted the security conditions and economic situation of Quebec, and Canada by extension, by tweeting #WelcometoCanada.
Since he posted that irresponsible tweet in January 2017, refugee claims from migrants coming from the United States have skyrocketed. This has placed a considerable burden on Quebec, since this crisis is costing not just money, but also the time and hope of those who are filing legal refugee claims. The repeated postponement of their hearings is causing them stress and distress. The legal time limit of 30 to 60 days is no longer being met. Migrants who have filed private sponsorship applications are also being forced to deal with long delays.
To add to the confusion of the Liberals' immigration strategy, in 2017, the government limited the number of privately sponsored refugee claims from Iraq and Syria. These limits were imposed by the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in order to “reduce the backlog of spousal applicants by 80% and shorten processing times to 12 months”.
However, when we look at Quebec's borders, we see a sieve that lets everything through without restrictions. We should bear in mind that the first thing these people do when they illegally enter Canada is commit an illegal act by breaking Canadian law. Instead of being reprimanded, they are welcomed with open arms, which only further weighs down Quebec's and Canada's health system and budget.
It is beyond comprehension and unacceptable that the first thing these potential future Canadian citizens do is break the law. What they are being shown is that by breaking the law when they arrive in Canada, they are rewarded with housing, a job, and health care more quickly than those who go through the proper channels. That is the message we are sending them. Illegal migrants are entitled to expedited services whereas regular refugees waiting in countries where they face danger every day must nonetheless comply with the process from start to finish.
For example, in August 2017, in the Saguenay, a host family had been waiting more than a year to welcome a family of eight Iraqi refugees, who only landed in Chicoutimi on March 28. There is a long wait. This family finally made it to Canada, but throughout this process they had an incredible amount of stress in their country of origin. Compare that to certain asylum seekers who illegally crossed the border at Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle in recent months and, today, are already working. We must speak out against this two-tier system that does not reward those who do things the right way, but those who choose the quick and illegal way to enter Canada.
All of my colleagues have immigration cases come across their desks. We hear different stories every day, and each case represents a different human being. For example, a young pregnant woman in my riding was recently sent back to her home country because she had not filled out her documents in time, even though she had been in Canada for several years. Meanwhile, the government is accepting illegal immigrants and will give them jobs and money so that they can meet their needs while they are going through the process. Our country's security is also in jeopardy: 1,200 people who were admitted to Canada were found to be criminally inadmissible and were sent back to their home country. These people are currently in this country.
I also want to talk about the economic burden that Quebec is shouldering as a result of the government's mismanagement of this wave of migrants. The province can no longer cover the costs of basic income support for migrants, food banks, housing, education, and health. We are talking about an unexpected $146 million in expenses in a single year. How much will it cost next year if, as experts are predicting, the number of illegal crossings into Canada continues to increase in the coming months?
According to figures from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the number of pending asylum claims doubled in March 2018, when there were 48,000 claims, compared to 21,000 claims in March 2017. In one year, 2,500 children irregularly and illegally arrived in Quebec, and they must obviously have access to education. Teachers in the Montreal area, where the vast majority of these families settle, do not know how they will welcome the next waves of children as the influx of migrants continues to increase. Five Montreal school boards have sounded the alarm.
The Government of Quebec has been dealing with this crisis for over a year now, and yet it was only a few days ago that the Liberal government began accepting its responsibility regarding border management and agreed to have a discussion on the expenses incurred by Quebec, rather than just fixing the situation.
I share the frustration of people back home who have had to speak up and appeal to their federal counterparts for support. The financial assistance might bring some relief for Quebec, but these payments are not a long-term solution. The Liberal government has to get its act together now and create a new system so that the cases of migrants who cross the border illegally are dealt with as efficiently as possible.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
View Alain Rayes Profile
2018-04-24 12:50 [p.18674]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about a critically urgent issue that Canada's Parliament needs to address. That issue is the crisis involving refugees currently crossing our borders illegally.
It is important that those tuning in understand how this situation came to pass, because it is a rather sensitive subject. Things often get mixed up. We know that Canada has a labour shortage and needs a certain level of immigration to meet its needs and support diversity. However, there is another problem, namely that some people are not following the rules.
If we look back to the not-too-distant past of January 2017, we see that one person did something very irresponsible. That person was our Prime Minister. In January 2017, he posted a tweet in response to what was happening on our southern border. As we know, tweeting can be a very powerful tool to send a message to the entire world. He tweeted, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength. #WelcomeToCanada”.
Imagine all of these people that we are seeing crossing the border on the news every evening coming with their cellphones displaying the message from the Prime Minister that says, “welcome to Canada” without any note or link to tell them the proper procedure for coming to our beautiful and magnificent country. According to the Canada Border Services Agency, in 2017 alone, over 20,000 refugee claimants crossed the border “irregularly”. That is the term some members are using to downplay the situation, but the truth is that those people crossed the border illegally. Nearly 90% of them crossed the border into Quebec.
Canadians expect their immigration system to work efficiently in a orderly, safe, and predictable manner. It is also important that the system be fair. Immigrants who cross the border illegally are clogging up the system. A government analysis indicated that it may take the Immigration and Refugee Board up to 11 years to process all of the claims and supporting the system could cost Canadian taxpayers $2.9 billion.
The worst part is that there is no funding in this government's budget for the Immigration and Refugee Board. There is a serious lack of organization and planning on the part of our Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Immigration.
The vast majority of people who enter Canada illegally are deported, but only after having used the services meant for refugees or legitimate asylum seekers. In fact, under the Liberal government's previous rules, 50% of Haitian refugees were rejected. Therefore, despite everything, and after all the mixed messaging, the government has to send the migrants back, no matter the human cost of it all.
The worst part is that our Prime Minister is doing absolutely nothing to change the message he is sending in order to fix the situation. There has been nothing but inaction from this government, this Prime Minister, and this Minister of Immigration.
Journalist Claude Villeneuve described the Prime Minister's conduct as dangerous for Canada and its interests.
Now, here is the situation in Quebec. Schools in the Montreal area are currently having difficulty dealing with the situation. Five school boards raised the alarm with the Quebec government. The schools are already overflowing. There is simply not enough room for these new arrivals who are adding to all the hard work of Canadians and Quebecers to accommodate those who really need to be here and who respect the rules for entering the country.
Last summer alone, an additional 2,500 children entered the school system, the equivalent of five large elementary schools in Quebec. They require more space, professional resources, teachers, principals, and managers, not to mention the extra burden they place on the health care system.
The province’s reception services have reached a level of saturation, and Quebec does not have the resources to continue accepting asylum claimants right now. The opposition parties are often told that they never have anything to propose and that all they do is criticize the government, but that is not true. We have made proposals, and the government needs to take action.
First, the government must find a solution concerning the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement, particularly with the United States. We believe that, by setting up a system that would designate our entire border a border crossing, we would avoid having all these people try to manipulate the system and cross between official ports of entry along the border. That would solve the problem quite simply by giving border officers the legal tools they need to do their job.
This is not just poor Liberal management of our immigration system, although we should not be too surprised, considering the way in which they manage the country’s finances, but a serious lack of compassion on their part for human beings who are being given the wrong information and who will, in the vast majority of cases, have to return to their country with all the hopes the Prime Minister gave them dashed.
Instead of helping people who really need help, this government allows its programs to accumulate huge backlogs and then refuses to manage the influx of refugee claimants entering Canada. We are at a point where obeying the law is a mistake for some people and where people are better off entering the country illegally.
Here is a bit of history. In 2017, although the situation was in the news almost all summer, there was no immigrant crisis, according to the federal Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. We want to solve a problem, and the Minister of Immigration is denying the very existence of the crisis. In my opinion, he is one of the only Canadians who cannot see it, along with his Prime Minister and Liberal colleagues.
In December 2017, not too long ago, during the last holiday season, financial assistance to the asylum seekers arriving by the thousands in Quebec skyrocketed and reached $41.6 million for the previous 11 months.
In January 2018, more than 40,000 asylum seekers were awaiting their hearing before the board, and the Customs and Immigration Union indicated that the Prime Minister's government was not prepared to meet the needs of Salvadorean migrants.
In February 2018, public servants started dealing with asylum seekers on a first-come, first-served basis, since the number of applications had been increasing steadily for four years. This was just two months ago. More than 47,000 new cases were filed with the board in 2017 alone.
In March 2018, Ottawa decided not to reimburse the Government of Quebec, which was asking for $146 million in response to the Prime Minister's and his government's decision to open all of the major crossings instead of putting applications through the legal process. In April 2018, we hit 49,000 applications. This is just getting started and the numbers are increasing.
I spoke about 2017. However, today, there are 20,000 claims in the system for a total of 90,000. This year alone, people who have crossed the border illegally have made 6,373 claims, including the more than 5,600 from Quebec. At this rate, the number of claims will double.
This is what we are asking of the government in this motion:
That, given the government’s failure to address the crisis created by the influx of thousands of illegal border crossers travelling across our southern border between ports of entry [I want to point that out], that the agencies responsible for dealing with this crisis have found gaps in security screening for newly arrived refugee claimants, as well as a backlog in both scheduled hearings and carrying out deportation orders, and that this trend is expected to increase over the summer months; the House call on the government to:
(a) ensure the agencies responsible for our borders are properly equipped so that they can continue to do their jobs effectively and that those arriving at Canadian borders go through the appropriate processes;
(b) admit the Prime Minister’s irresponsibility of tweeting #WelcometoCanada to those seeking to enter Canada through illegal means;
(c) take responsibility for the massive social services costs burdening the provincial governments;
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2018-04-24 13:35 [p.18681]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to share my time today with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, my friend and colleague.
It is an honour for me to speak to this opposition day motion. I will echo the comments made by my friend from Scarborough—Rouge Park. As a greater Toronto area member of Parliament, I was horrified by the attack yesterday. Our prayers and thoughts go out to the families that were affected, the people who were tragically killed, and the 14-plus who were injured. It struck home. The perpetrator was stopped, most effectively, by the Toronto police in front of the building I used to work in, at Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue, for five years when I was with Procter & Gamble. Fortunately, the people on the team I worked with are fine. However, there are families that have been struck by such a horrific act. I think we all echo those sentiments today.
Moving on from shared sentiment, my speech will be directed to the disaster at our border, over which the government is presiding. We hear ridiculous language, such as Canada is going to be closed off like an island or that we are demonizing people, which is highly divisive and unfair. Allowing our system and the trust of Canadians to be eroded over time by not enforcing our border laws will mean that fewer Canadians will have confidence in our immigration and asylum system. What the Liberals could be presiding over is a period when fewer Canadians would see this as the positive. To suggest that following the rules is somehow unreasonable shows how devoid the government is of leadership. I will use my few moments to talk about that.
Last year there were about 23,000 illegal crossings. The minister admitted to the committee that it was illegal. However, the Liberals are bending over backward not to suggest that. We have a process for asylum claims and refugee resettlement. All sides have worked on that and have followed the rules, until the Liberal government.
The exceptional work done by friend, the MP for Calgary Nose Hill, brings this issue to the House for a solid debate. That is what Canadians expect. They do not expect buzzwords like “welcome to Canada”. They do not expect suggestions that we are trying to turn Canada into an isolated island. We all see the tremendous benefit of immigration in Canada, of our fair and rules-based refugee and asylum process. What is happening now is an erosion of that.
My colleague mentioned four different ways to ensure our agencies are properly equipped, because they are not. I will show how the minister has allowed that to happen. She mentioned the Prime Minister's irresponsible tweet. In trying to show the world that he is not the President of the United States, he has caused such a problem that the Liberals are now sending ministers to cities in the U.S. to try to rectify it, rather than the Prime Minister providing any responsibility with respect to clarifying our fair and rules-based process. That was irresponsible grandstanding by the Prime Minister. She mentioned the social services costs, which I will show are in the billions of dollars. The Quebec premier has put the Liberals on notice that the province needs millions of dollars more because of this inaction.
My friend from Calgary Nose Hill wants a plan tabled by May 11. As members will see from my remarks, and from the government's own information, there has been no plan, other than hashtags and the faulty suggestion that somehow by saying it is fair to follow the rules, we are going to close Canada off like some isolated island. That is hyperbole of the highest order and it is hiding the failure of the Liberals with respect to this file.
In September 2017, when there were already problems with people not going to proper border checkpoints in accordance with the safe third country agreement, which the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien negotiated between Canada and the U.S., my colleague asked a simple question with respect to updating the loophole in that agreement. The minister said, “the safe third country agreement works fantastically well for Canada.” However, it is not working fantastically well, because it is being exploited. Not even a year ago, when we were already seeing the provinces of Manitoba and Quebec struggling with the challenges of people not following the rules, the Liberals suggested there was no problem. The minister has not even raised it as something that needs to be updated with his counterpart in the United States, the Homeland Security secretary.
This shows the minister's incapable hands on this file. His own department, a few months before he said that in the House to my colleague, suggested in a memo from his deputy minister that “despite strong collaboration among Canadian agencies and with United States counterparts" a "major humanitarian or security event could create an urgent need to revisit existing policies.” The safe third country agreement is those existing policies.
The documents from the minister's department are leaking out, contradicting what he is telling Parliament. The department said that it was talking to its U.S. counterparts, that things were not working too well, and if it saw another surge, it would have to be revisited urgently. However, the minister in the House of Commons said “fantastically well”. I see his parliamentary secretary is here. I hope he reports back on this, because I do not have confidence in the minister.
My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, in October 2017, had the minister at committee. She responsibly, because she knows the file very well, talked about a backlog of 40,000 cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board. Those people, many of them legitimate refugees, were now waiting because of the backlog caused by inaction at the border. Therefore, my colleague asked about that and asked if there were enough resources.
In fact, the previous speaker, the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park, asked the minister if “mechanisms, timelines, and resources are in place” to handle the surge of illegal crossers. The minister at that time reassured everyone. He said, “We've done it with the resources we have. It's been a question of being a little more efficient, finding innovative ways to deal with this”, which basically suggests there was no problem, and it was being handled. At another point he said in an interview that we had to be a little more nimble but that we could handle the surge, that we did not have to change anything.
In fact, in the October 5, 2017, meeting, my colleague, the capable MP from Calgary Nose Hill, asked the minister if he had spoken to the United States about closing the loophole in the safe third country agreement, and the minister once again said, “We haven't done that.”
Therefore, the Minister of Immigration has been told repeatedly over the course of a year by his department that there is a problem. When the minister appears before parliamentarians, there is no problem at all, that it is working fantastically fine, that we just need to be a little more nimble. I suggest that it is not accurate and I will show why.
Here is perhaps the most damning piece of information about which I would like the minister to tell the House. It is a briefing memo from his deputy minister. While the minister was reassuring parliamentarians and Canadians that there was no problem and to move along, his deputy minister said, “With no new funding allocated to the IRB in budget 2017, the RPD will be unable to keep up this volume of claims, even with the anticipated efficiency increase of 20%.” His deputy said that by the end of 2021, this would lead to a 133-month delay, which is an 11-year wait time.
How is 11 years fair to any Canadian, any asylum seeker, any refugee family, or any family trying to use the system in the way it is meant to be? Eleven years is an admission of failure at the highest level, while the minister is telling the House of Commons and committee that everything is working fantastically well.
The kicker that Quebec is already worried about and that Canadians should be worried about too is that the same note then suggested:
Individuals waiting in the backlog can still continue to utilize social supports, including education, social assistance, and Interim Federal health....For 2016/17, these were calculated...“600 per month per claimant. Therefore, in the above scenario, social support costs for the inventory could climb to...$2.97B from 2017 through 2021.”
If we use the 11-year wait time that the minister's own department has warned us about, the cost to the treasury of many provinces would be $8.2 billion.
That money would pay for some of the national pharmacare program they are talking about. It is a sign that the Liberals are not running the system fairly. It is time for them to be honest with Canadians.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2018-04-24 13:52 [p.18684]
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to pay my respects and send thoughts and prayers to the people of Toronto. The tragedy that happened yesterday hurt me and hurt all Canadians. When something like that happens, it is not only regional or provincial; it is national. All Canadians are with the people of Toronto.
This debate goes to the heart of Canadian identity and what we want to do as Canadians. We all know that Canada is the product of an absolutely extraordinary human collaboration. Canada has always been populated by first nations. I know what I am talking about because Wendake is in my riding, and people have been living on that land since the dawn of time. Beginning in 1534, the first nations have welcomed millions of immigrants from all over the world to Canada.
On August 22, 1958, at around 4:00 a.m., the Arosa Star, a ship from Le Havre, France, docked at the Port of Quebec. On board were some 60 people who wanted to live in Canada, including my father, my mother, and my brother. They set foot on Canadian soil nearly 60 years ago and were welcomed here on August 22, 1958, as recorded in a document at the Port of Quebec. Sixty years later, my parents are still here, and I am here to carry on the family tradition with my children, my brother, my niece, and all the rest of the family.
Canada was built by immigrants. My parents, like millions of people over the centuries, came to Canada by obeying the rules. My mother spent nearly a week at the Canadian embassy in Paris trying her best to convince Canada to welcome my family. Her efforts paid off, to say the least.
In order for Canada to truly prosper, the rules must be obeyed. For over a year now, the situation in Canada, in human terms, has been totally unacceptable. Unfortunately, Canada has simply been allowing thousands of people to enter the country illegally, which is utterly disrespectful to the millions of people around the world who dream of legally immigrating to Canada and contributing to its success. Those who wait in embassies, those who wait in their home country, those who follow the rules have to wait while others enter illegally. I am not talking about two or three people. I am talking about tens of thousands of people.
This completely unacceptable situation was created by the Prime Minister of Canada. He made the ill-advised decision to post a tweet on January 28, 2017, at 3:20 p.m., saying that anyone who wanted to come to Canada was welcome, that Canada was a safe haven. He told them to come and that Canada was expecting them. He just forgot one little thing, and that is that anyone coming to Canada must do so in accordance with our rules and laws. As a result, thousands of people around the world decided that they could and would come to Canada. It threw Canadian embassies around the world into chaos.
On April 3, Marie-Danielle Smith of the National Post quoted a public servant from our embassy in Mexico who said that they needed to know how to respond to the many refugee claims they had received following the Prime Minister's tweet.
A few days later, the first secretary at the Canadian embassy in Mexico said that they were receiving an ever-increasing number of refugee claims as a result of the media attention garnered by the Prime Minister's tweet welcoming immigrants.
It is not Conservative supporters who are saying this. It is employees of our foreign embassy who have to deal with people who want to come to Canada on a daily basis. They are wondering what to tell these people who are watching television and seeing thousands of people going along a narrow path to cross into Canada while others are being asked to go to the embassy to fill out forms so that their claim can be processed. That is the reality. The current government is the one that created this problem.
What happened is that more than 20,000 people came here along the little path by Lacolle last year. Ninety-one percent of them entered via Quebec. Quebec has had to pick up the tab for all that. I will talk more about that later. When they realized what a mess the Prime Minister's tweet had made, the Liberals reacted, but it was too late. They decided to send the members for Bourassa and Honoré-Mercier to meet with people in Miami, Los Angeles, New York, and Dallas and tell them to follow the rules and obey the law. It was very nice of those two MPs to do that, but the problem is that they did it because the Prime Minister had created the mess in the first place by sending a message to the world telling people to come here and everything would be fine.
As a result, over 21,000 people entered Canada illegally, which led to untold grief, untold problems, and untold numbers of sad, deplorable humanitarian cases. In Quebec alone, provincial authorities had to accommodate 2,500 children. Schools had to make room for 2,500 new children. That is like opening five elementary schools from one day to the next. Premier Couillard himself said it was a ridiculous situation.
The same goes for four ministers who came during the past week, and I am sure I will have a chance to say more about that in a few minutes, right?
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2018-03-29 12:32

Question No. 1484--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the exchange of gifts between the Prime Minister and the Aga Khan, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all gifts, both given and received, including (i) date of exchange, (ii) recipient, (iii) description, (iv) estimated value; and (b) for each gift which the Prime Minister gave to the Aga Khan, how much was charged to the taxpayer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1485--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the sale of at least ten CRJ-900 regional jets from Bombardier to the Islamic Republic of Iran and government support for these transactions: (a) what is the name of the corporate entity that has entered into an agreement with Bombardier to purchase these planes; (b) is the agreement referred to in (a) for the purchase or lease of these planes; (c) is the government loaning money in order to facilitate this transaction and, if so, to whom; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what is the total amount of money being provided by the government to facilitate this transaction; (e) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what steps, if any, have been taken to guarantee this government financing; (f) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what steps, if any, have been taken to ensure the proper end use of these planes; and (g) did the loosening of sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2016 by the government allow for this transaction and, if so, how?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1486--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to expenditures on signing bonuses (ledger code 50632), since November 4, 2015, broken down by department and agency: (a) what is the total amount, broken down by month; (b) how many individuals received such a bonus, broken down by month; (c) what is the range of bonuses paid out; and (d) what criteria are used to determine whether or not an employee receives a signing bonus?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1487--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to expenditures on Government Travel Service Booking Fees, since November 4, 2015: what is the total amount spent on such booking fees, broken down by department and agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1488--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to concerns about human rights: what are the details, including dates, of all occasions when the Prime Minister has raised human rights with the following governments (i) China, (ii) Iran, (iii) Russia?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1489--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the 2017 British Columbia wildfires: what are the details, including findings, of any economic assessment which the government has done in relation to the impact of the wildfires?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1490--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the Trudeau Report: (a) what does the government consider to be the report’s “recommendations”; and (b) what specific action has the government taken to implement each recommendation in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1491--
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency and an agreement in principle they signed on September 23, 2017: when does the government anticipate that the Treasury Board Secretariat will ratify the agreement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1492--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to invoices the government has sent out related to the participation of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, in by-election campaigns: what are the details of all invoices that the government has sent to the Liberal Party of Canada, a local riding association, or a by-election campaign, since January 1, 2016, including (i) date of invoice, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) date payment was received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1493--
Mr. Robert Sopuck:
With regard to the government’s decision to cancel the National Wetland Conservation Fund: (a) what is the official reason for cancelling the program; and (b) did any organizations formally request that the fund be cancelled and, if so, what are the details including (i) name of organization, (ii) date request was made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1494--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the Lester B. Pearson Building, since November 4, 2015: (a) on what dates were employees sent home due to a lack of heating, cooling, or other workplace environment issues; (b) for each date in (a), what was the issue which caused employees to be sent home; (c) approximately how many employees were sent home on each date in (a); and (d) what percentage of employees whose normal workplace is the Lester B. Pearson Building does each number in (c) represent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1495--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the Globe and Mail report on February 6, 2018, that China Communications Construction Co. (CCCC) was blacklisted in a foreign country for allegedly bribing government officials: is the government aware of any Canadian government officials who have been offered bribes by CCCC and, if so, what are the details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1496--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to meetings between the government and officials in the Communist Party of China or the Government of the People’s Republic of China, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all meetings, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) list of attendees, (iv) topics or agenda items?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1497--
Ms. Monique Pauzé:
With regard to the application of the OECD’s International VAT/GST Guidelines, which outline that value-added taxes are to be added in the jurisdiction of the residence of the customer using foreign Internet service providers, such as Netflix: (a) does Canada adhere to these guidelines and the mechanisms that ensure the effective collection of VAT/GST on cross-border supplies of services and intangibles; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what measures outlined in these guidelines does Canada intend to adopt, and when; (c) in the correspondence between Netflix and the Canada Revenue Agency, the Department of Finance and the Department of Canadian Heritage, since October 19, 2015, how many times did the application of these measures come up, especially with regard to charging Netflix GST and HST; (d) what are the details of the correspondence in (c), including emails, from the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Finance?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1498--
Mr. Cabriel Ste-Marie:
With regard to federal spending in Quebec ridings for each fiscal year since 2010-11, inclusively: what are the specifics of all grants, contributions, and loans to all organizations, groups, businesses or municipalities, broken down by (i) constituency, (ii) name of recipient, (iii) municipality in which the recipient is located, (iv) date the funding was received, (v) amount received, (vi) granting department or agency, (vii) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was allocated, (viii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1499--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to expenditures related to the legal proceedings of Heyder et al v. Attorney General of Canada and Beattie v. Attorney General of Canada: (a) what expenses have been incurred to date, including an itemized breakdown of the expenses, with salary and benefit costs for staff time related to the following court cases (i) Heyder et al v. Attorney General of Canada, (ii) Beattie v. Attorney General of Canada; and (b) what is the total for (a)(i) and (a)(ii)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1500--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the agreement announced by the government in September 2016, related to the export of beef to China: (a) what are the terms of the agreement; and (b) is the text of the agreement available to the public and to Canadian beef producers and, if so, what is the website location of the agreement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1501--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to expenditures paid out so far, and in relation to the government’s delegation to Davos in January 2018: (a) what are the details of all expenditures, including travel related expenditures, to date and broken down by (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services; (b) what is the total amount for all of the expenditures in (a); and (c) what is the total estimated value of invoices related to Davos which have yet to be received or paid out?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1502--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to expenditures related to legal proceedings involving veterans and veterans’ groups, since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures incurred to date, broken down by case; (b) what are the expenditures in (a), broken down by type and line item; and (c) how are the expenditures in (a) consistent with the commitment on page 49 of the Liberal Party election platform that “will ensure that no veteran has to fight the government for the support and compensation they have earned”?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1503--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to the leaking of information from Cabinet meetings or Cabinet committee meetings, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many instances of leaked information is the government aware of; (b) how many individuals have been, or are, under investigation for leaking such information; and (c) have any ministers been investigated for leaking such information and, if so, which ones?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1504--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to expenditures on executive search, headhunting, recruiting, or other similar types of firms, since January 1, 2017: what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) number and titles of positions filled related to the expenditure, (iv) file number, (v) vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1505--
Mr. Alexander Nuttall:
With regard to loans and repayable contributions issued by the government during the 2016 calendar year: (a) what are the details, including (i) amount, (ii) date, (iii) recipient, (iv) purpose; and (b) for each loan and repayable contribution in (a), how much has been repaid to the government, as of February 8, 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1506--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to VoxPop Labs and business conducted for the government, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many projects are currently underway with VoxPop Labs; (b) how many projects have been completed with VoxPop Labs; (c) what are the details of the projects that have been undertaken, broken down by (i) title, (ii) cost, (iii) region targeted, (iv) number of text group; and (d) of the projects in (c), what were the results of each project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1507--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s YouTube channel since, November 4, 2015: (a) how many full-time equivalents manage the channel; (b) what are the titles and corresponding pay scales of the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (c) how much has been spent on overtime pay for the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (d) how much has been spent on developing content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2017-18 fiscal year; (e) how much has been spent on promoting content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2017-18 fiscal year; (f) is there a cross-platform promotion plan to share content from the channel to other digital media platforms; (g) are the costs associated with (f) included in the YouTube budget, or do they fall within the budget of the other platforms; (h) what are the digital media platforms used to promote or share the Prime Minister’s YouTube content; (i) what is the monthly expenditure on the channel, broken down by month; and (j) what is the annual expenditure on the channel, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1508--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the usage of the government’s fleet of Challenger and Airbus aircraft during the 2017 calendar year: what are the details of each flight, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) time of takeoff, (v) time of landing, (vi) names and titles of passengers, excluding security staff, (vii) type of aircraft?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1509--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to expenditures on “bots”, algorithms, or other technology related to controlling or spreading messages on social media, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all related expenditures, including for each expenditure the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) details of social media accounts, including format and handle or username, (v) purpose or objective of the bot or algorithm?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1510--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the acquisition of land by the government, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of each acquisition, including for each the (i) landowner or entity the land was acquired from, (ii) amount paid, (iii) size and description of the land, (iv) location, (v) date, (vi) reason for acquisition?
Response
(Return tabled)
8530-421-100 Answer to question Q-1510 o ...8530-421-74 Answer to question Q-1484 on ...8530-421-75 Answer to question Q-1485 on ...8530-421-76 Answer to question Q-1486 on ...8530-421-77 Answer to question Q-1487 on ...8530-421-78 Answer to question Q-1488 on ...8530-421-79 Answer to question Q-1489 on ...8530-421-80 Answer to question Q-1490 on ...8530-421-81 Answer to question Q-1491 on ...8530-421-82 Answer to question Q-1492 on ...8530-421-83 Answer to question Q-1493 on ...
...Show all topics
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2018-02-26 15:04 [p.17367]
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister plays dress-up for photo ops, he looks ridiculous and loses all credibility as a government leader. However, insinuating that Quebec's independence movement, a peaceful and democratic movement, is synonymous with violence tarnishes the international reputation of Quebec and the millions of Quebeckers who support this movement for liberty.
Will the Prime Minister apologize for the disgraceful and ill-advised comments that were reported?
View Marc Garneau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister himself said, those reports are false. He never said any such thing. In fact, the Prime Minister has always been clear when it comes to Quebec. Fortunately, here in Canada, we respect diversity, and yes, we express differences of opinion from time to time, but we do so respectfully and peacefully.
Results: 1 - 15 of 24 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Refine Your Search