Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 487
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1261--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to individuals detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (a) broken down by province and by gender, how many individuals were detained in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (b) what was the cost of detaining the individuals in (a) for the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (c) broken down by province, how many of the individuals in (a) were under the age of six in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (d) broken down by province, how many of the individuals in (a) were between the ages of six and nine in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (e) broken down by province, how many of the individuals in (a) were between the ages of ten and 12 in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (f) broken down by province, how many of the individuals in (a) were between the ages of 13 and 17 in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (g) broken down by province, what is the average duration of stay in detention; (h) of those who were in detention between January 2011 and January 2015 how many individuals have remained in detention longer than (i) one year, (ii) two years, (iii) three years, (iv) four years, (v) five years; and (i) as of the most recent information, how many individuals are detained in cells with (i) one other person, (ii) two other persons, (iii) three other persons, (iv) four or more other persons?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1276--
Ms. Christine Moore:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 awarded by Health Canada since April 1, 2014: what is (i) the name of the supplier, (ii) the contract reference number, (iii) the contract date, (iv) the description of services provided, (v) the delivery date, (vi) the original contract amount, (vii) the final contract amount, if different from the original amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1283--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Public Works and Government Services Canada since February 5, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1284--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Justice Canada since January 29, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1286--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to designated countries of origin (DCO): (a) what is the process for removing a country from the DCO list; (b) does the government conduct regular reviews of countries on the DCO list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation; (c )if the government does not conduct regular reviews of countries on the DCO list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation, (i) how is a review triggered, (ii) who decides whether to conduct a review, (iii) based on what factors is the decision to conduct a review made; (d) since the inception of the DCO list, has the government conducted any reviews of countries on the list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation; (e) for each review in (d), (i) what was the country, (ii) when did the review begin, (iii) when did the review end, (iv) how was the review triggered, (v) who decided to conduct the review, (vi) who conducted the review, (vii) what documents were consulted, (viii) what groups or individuals were consulted, (ix) what ministers or ministers’ offices were involved in the review, (x) what was the nature of any ministerial involvement, (xi) what was the outcome, (xii) based on what factors was the outcome determined; (f) based on what factors does the government decide whether to remove a country from the DCO list; (g) in what ways does the government monitor the human rights situation in countries on the DCO list to ensure that the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (h) who does the monitoring in (g); (i) what weight is given to the situation of minority groups in countries on the DCO list when evaluating whether the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (j) what weight is given to the situation of political dissidents in countries on the DCO list when evaluating whether the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (k) what type or extent of change in the human rights situation in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (l) what type or extent of change in the situation of one or more minority groups in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (m) what type or extent of change in the situation of political dissidents in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (n) what type or extent of change in the human rights situation in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (o) what type or extent of change in the situation of one or more minority groups in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (p) what type or extent of change in the situation of political dissidents in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (q) in what ways does the government discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list; (r) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent outside Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year and country where the money was spent; (s) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent within Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year, province or territory where the money was spent, and DCO country in question; (t) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent on advertising outside Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year and country where the money was spent; (u) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent on advertising within Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year, province or territory where the money was spent, and DCO country in question; (v) what evaluations has the government conducted of the advertising in (t) and (u); (w) for each evaluation in (v), (i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) who conducted it, (iv) what were its objectives, (v) what were its outcomes, (vi) how much did it cost; (x) for each year since the inception of the list, how many refugee claims have been made by claimants from countries on the DCO list, broken down by country of origin; (y) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claims in (x) were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) abandoned, (iv) withdrawn; (z) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the failed claimants in (y) sought a review of their claim in Federal Court;(aa)for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (z) were removed from Canada while their claim remained pending in Federal Court; (bb) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (z) left Canada while their claim remained pending in Federal Court; (cc) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many refugee claimants from countries on the DCO list have been deported; (dd) has the government monitored the situation of any failed refugee claimants from countries on the DCO list after they returned to their countries of origin; (ee) broken down by DCO country, how many failed claimants have been the objects of the monitoring in (dd); (ff) broken down by DCO country, regarding the monitoring of each failed claimant in (ee), (i) when did it begin, (ii) when did it end, (iii) who did it, (iv) what was its objective, (v) what was its outcome; (gg) broken down by year and country of origin, how many refugee claims by claimants from countries on the DCO list were accepted by the Federal Court after having been denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board; (hh) broken down by year and country of origin, how many of the claims in (gg) were accepted by the Federal Court after the claimant had left Canada; (ii) broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (hh) now reside in Canada; (jj) what evaluations has the government conducted of the DCO system; (kk) for each evaluation in (jj), (i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) who conducted it, (iv) what were its objectives, (v) what were its outcomes, (vi) how much did it cost; (ll) since the inception of the DCO list, what groups and individuals has the government consulted about the impact of the DCO list; (mm) for each consultation in (ll), (i) when did it occur, (ii) how did it occur, (iii) what recommendations were made to the government, (iv) what recommendations were implemented by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1290--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to hydrocarbon spills in Canada’s waters by commercial entities: (a) how many spills of oil, gas, petrochemical products or fossil fuels have been reported in Canada’s oceans, rivers, lakes or other waterways, broken down by year since 2006; and (b) for each reported spill in (a), identify (i) the product spilled, (ii) the volume of the spill, (iii) the location of the spill, (iv) the name of the commercial entity associated with the spill?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1291--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to government-supported, rental housing in Canada: (a) how many new units were built using federal funding from the Investment in Affordable Housing bilateral agreements, since 2006, broken down by (i) unit size, (ii) province, (iii) year; (b) how many new units were built using federal funding from the National Homelessness Initiative, since 2006, broken down by (i) province, (ii) year; (c) how many new units were built using federal funding under the auspices of any other program, since 2006, broken down by (i) unit size, (ii) year; (d) how many Proposal Development Funding loans were granted by the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, since 2006, broken down by (i) province, (iii) year; and (e) how many Seed Funding grants were granted by the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, broken down by (i) value under $10,000, (ii) value over $10,000?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1292--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Live-in Caregiver and Caregiver programs, broken down by year, from 2010 to 2014: (a) how many applications were received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada; (b) how many applications for Live-in Caregiver and Caregiver visas were approved; (c) how many Canadian residents with Live-in Caregiver or Caregiver visas applied for permanent residency; (d) how many permanent residency applications by Live-in Caregiver or Caregiver visa-holders were approved; (e) what are the top three source countries for live-in caregivers in Canada; and (f) how many residents with Live-in Caregiver visas applied to sponsor their spouses or children, broken down by (i) raw numbers, (ii) percentage of the total?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1294--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With respect to the Canada Border Services Agency’s decision to close the border crossing between Stewart, British Columbia and Hyder, Alaska for eight hours per day, effective April 1, 2015: (a) what is the cost of keeping the border crossing open 24 hours per day; (b) what is the expected savings from this decision; (c) how many entries and exits have occurred at this border entry since April 1, 2005; and (d) what consultations were undertaken by the Canada Border Services Agency with the District of Stewart in advance of this decision being taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1298--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to the investments made in forestry companies in the riding of Pontiac since 2011, (a) how many projects received funding through federal programs such as Canada Economic Development; and (b) of the projects identified in (a), what is the total amount of these investments, broken down by company?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1300--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the following telephone services (i) Service Canada’s (SC) “1-800 O Canada”, (ii) SC’s “Canada Pension Plan (CPP)”, (iii) SC’s “Employer Contact Centre”, SC’s “Employment Insurance (EI)”, (iv) SC’s “Old Age Security (OAS)”, (v) SC’s Passports”, (vi) Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) “Individual income tax and trust enquiries”, (vii) CRA’s “Business enquiries”, (viii) CRA’s “Canada Child Tax Benefit enquiries”, (ix) CRA’s “Goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) credit enquiries” for the previous fiscal year and the current fiscal year to date: (a) what are the service standards and performance indicators; (b) how many calls met the service standards and performance indicators; (c) how many did not meet the service standards and performance indicators; (d) how many calls went through; (e) how many calls did not go through; (f) how does the government monitor for cases such as in (e); (g) what is the accuracy of the monitoring identified in (f); and (h) how long was the average caller on hold?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1303--
Ms. Élaine Michaud:
With regard to government funding, provided by the Department of the Environment, in the riding of Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier since 2011-2012 inclusively, what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (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 providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1304--
Ms. Élaine Michaud:
With regard to government funding granted by the Department of Employment and Social Development, including the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in the constituency of Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier since 2011-2012 inclusively, what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body or group, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality of the recipient, (iii) the date on which the funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, and (vii) the nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1306--
Ms. Élaine Michaud:
With regard to government funding granted by the Department of Infrastructure, including the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, in the constituency of Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier since 2011-2012 inclusively, what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body or group, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality of the recipient, (iii) the date on which the funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, and (vii) the nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1308--
Ms. Nycole Turmel:
With regard to Infrastructure Canada, from fiscal year 2011-2012 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year, what was the total amount allocated, including direct investment from the Government of Canada, in (a) the City of Gatineau, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the amount allocated to the recipient, (iii) the program under which the amount was allocated; (b) the federal constituency of Hull–Aylmer (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the amount allocated to the recipient, (iii) the program under which the amount was allocated; and (c) the administrative region of Outaouais (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the amount allocated to the recipient, (iii) the program under which the amount was allocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1311--
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre:
With regard to the advisory council created by the government in 2012 mandated to promote women on the boards of public and private corporations: (a) in total, how many individuals are on this advisory council, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) name, (iii) position; (b) when did the meetings take place; (c) what were the subjects discussed by this council; (d) what is the expected date for this council’s report; (e) what was discussed during this council’s meetings with respect to (i) pay equity, (ii) the representation of women on the boards of public and private corporations; and (f) can the government table the minutes of this advisory council’s meetings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1312--
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre:
With regard to the Canada Post service reductions announced in December 2013: (a) what are the planned locations for community mailboxes in Laval; (b) how many employees were assigned to Laval before the elimination of home delivery was announced; (c) how many Canada Post employees will be required following the mailbox transition; (d) what was the volume of mail sent in the last ten years (i) from Laval to another destination, (ii) to Laval; (e) how many complaints have been received concerning (i) the transition from home delivery to community mailboxes, (ii) the location of community mailboxes in Laval; (f) how many complaints resulted in (i) an opened file, ii) a change of location of these community mailboxes; (g) what steps are being taken to look after the needs of (i) persons with mobility impairments, (ii) seniors; (h) will current post offices still be active following the transition to community mailboxes; (i) what recourse will be available to residents affected by the location of mailboxes they consider to be dangerous or harmful; (j) what recourse was or continues to be available to residents affected by the installation of a community mailbox over the last 30 years, excluding the current transition; and (k) how many customer service employees at Canada Post, broken down by language of service, are assigned to complaints concerning the installation of community mailboxes from (i) across Canada, (ii) Quebec, (iii) Laval, (iv) the residents of Alfred-Pellan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1317--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Canadian Heritage since January 30, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1318--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Natural Resources Canada since February 5, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1319--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to the United Nations Chiefs of Defence Conference of March 26-27, 2015, at the United Nations headquarters in New York City, and the absence of Chief of Defence Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, General Thomas Lawson, from the Conference: (a) what was the reason for General Lawson’s absence; (b) which members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development were present at the Conference; and (c) what measures were taken to communicate Canada’s priorities and concerns with regard to international peacekeeping to those present at the Conference?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-412-1261 Detainees8555-412-1276 Government contracts8555-412-1283 Government contracts8555-412-1284 Government contracts8555-412-1286 Designated countries of origin8555-412-1290 Fuel spills8555-412-1291 Affordable housing8555-412-1292 Live-in caregivers8555-412-1294 Canada Border Service Agency8555-412-1298 Government investments8555-412-1300 Telephone services ...Show all topics
View Mike Sullivan Profile
NDP (ON)
View Mike Sullivan Profile
2015-06-11 11:18 [p.14937]
Mr. Speaker, the bill, as I understand it, would protect all forms of service dogs, both service dogs in the forces of law enforcement, but also service dogs that are helping persons with disabilities, such as the blind, persons who use dogs as therapy, et cetera.
We really appreciate the fact that the government is trying to protect these animals, but we are concerned that the use of mandatory minimums, as always, goes too far with the current government. It could, in fact, result in judges being unable to hand down convictions because they realize the mandatory minimum would in fact be too harsh a penalty.
Would the member like to comment?
View Ève Péclet Profile
NDP (QC)
View Ève Péclet Profile
2015-06-11 11:19 [p.14937]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question. I know how important matters related to persons with disabilities are to him.
Diane Bergeron from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind came to committee to testify and said how extremely important the bill is to her because it acknowledges the value of service animals for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility. To her, it is essential that we finally recognize how important these animals are to people's daily lives.
As the hon. member said in the second part of his question, the problem that often comes up in animal cruelty cases is that these offences are withdrawn when there is an agreement between the Crown and the defence lawyers. Offenders often are not prosecuted because the offences are considered less serious than others.
Mandatory minimum sentences could cause a problem. If an agreement is made, a person will agree to plead guilty to some offences, but not to animal cruelty offences because they come with a minimum sentence. As I said, we should take a balanced approach to animal cruelty offences. We must ensure that there are more convictions and not prevent convictions.
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2015-06-09 10:06 [p.14782]
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-687, An Act respecting the development of a national employment strategy for persons with disabilities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to introduce a private member's bill, seconded by the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. The bill is a product of the Create Your Canada contest in my riding. It owes its genesis to the imagination and hard work of a young high school student in Vancouver Kingsway, Harriet Crossfield from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School.
Harriet's idea, enshrined in this bill, calls for the development of a national employment strategy for persons with disabilities. This legislation would require the Minister of Employment and Social Development to draft a plan to improve the economic participation of persons with disabilities throughout Canada. Included in this plan would be measures to educate private-sector employers about the great potential of persons with disabilities to contribute to the workforce, encourage more inclusive hiring practices, and reduce stigma. Harriet's idea would tackle the unfair social exclusion faced by too many persons with disabilities in Canada, and create new potential for a more dynamic and inclusive labour force.
I would like to congratulate Harriet on her contribution to Parliament and our country, and thank her teachers and all who entered this contest from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School.
View Manon Perreault Profile
Ind. (QC)
View Manon Perreault Profile
2015-05-29 13:04 [p.14360]
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to present my bill entitled An Act to establish National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day. I am very pleased that it has reached this stage and that it was all done so cordially.
This bill made it through all of the previous stages and has progressed nicely to this point. That is the result of everyone working together, and I sincerely hope that this will be a turning point in the lives of people living with a spinal cord injury.
I must also mention our partners who have supported us throughout this process and who were all involved in some way in the development of this bill. I am thinking about the Rick Hansen Institute, which provided us with data, Bobby White, the director of Spinal Cord Injury Canada, and Walter Zelaya, from MEMO-Que, who gave their full support without reservation.
With this bill, we want to designate the third Friday of September as national spinal cord injury awareness day. After a number of discussions, we concluded that this awareness day could be very useful to individuals, employers and stakeholders in various fields. It will certainly also have a very positive and significant impact on people living with spinal cord injuries.
I am quite certain that I will be able to show my esteemed colleagues that implementing this bill, which will not cost anything, can have a major and meaningful impact on people with spinal cord injuries. It will do so much to raise widespread awareness of their needs and abilities.
This bill would designate the third Friday of September as national spinal cord injury awareness day. Why that day? We took a number of factors into consideration, including two major ones: accidents that happen in the summer and accidents related to winter sports. The third Friday of September is also symbolic. There is an analogy here. When someone has just suffered a spinal cord injury, it is like autumn: they see dark days ahead. In the months after a spinal cord injury, patients have to cope with a kind of darkness that is comparable to a difficult and trying winter.
This simple and effective bill that will cost nothing provides one more tool to those involved in helping people with spinal cord injuries, as well as to agencies that work on prevention and raising public awareness and recognize the harsh reality just outside the door of the rehabilitation centre. That is exactly when spinal cord injury patients first feel that those around them really are looking at them differently, that each and every outing will require considerable effort and that their new limitations mean that they have to dig to the very depths of themselves as they try to improve their lives each day and start living anywhere close to the way they did previously. They have to have the courage to forgo some activities or to summon the perseverance they need to adapt those activities to their new reality.
This bill has three components. Naturally, raising awareness among our fellow Canadians is the first objective. We want people with spinal cord injuries to feel more encouraged to take an active part in society without any prejudice towards them. If possible, they should be encouraged to develop a talent and, even better, to use it for the benefit of others. In my view, that is a fundamental part of human activity.
This day will allow people with spinal cord injuries to communicate with each other, gather information about the possibilities open to them, and listen to people with experiences to share.
It is also about recognizing the determination of those with spinal cord injuries to build a new life. One of the biggest accomplishments for anyone with a spinal cord injury is understanding that life is going to have its challenges and costs. The higher the injury is on the spinal cord, the more severe the physiological damage is and the faster the aging process seems to go.
Even people whose work requires little physical effort run into problems in terms of getting around, transfers, personal care, housekeeping, ice, snow clearing and so on.
We also want to recognize the dedication of the people who help out on a daily basis. Thanks to them, the injured persons can resume a nearly normal life. This help goes a long way toward alleviating anxiety, problems of all kinds, and especially physical exhaustion. However, what is most important in my view is that these people gently force the injured to be disciplined and to tune out the little voice in their head that tells them in the morning that they do not have the desire, energy or need to get out of bed. Believe me, that little voice is tenacious and having someone to rely on during those times is truly a blessing.
I want to acknowledge the perseverance of scientists who, through their research, are improving the lives of thousands of people with spinal cord injuries. In recent years, there have been significant advances in the neurosciences, which study everything to do with the nervous system, such as the mapping of the sensorimotor cortex.
At the trauma unit at the Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, you learn that the spinal cord is made up of nervous tissue and cells and that it looks like a cable the thickness of your little finger. It begins at the base of the brain and passes through each vertebra, ending between the first and second vertebrae. Basically, the spinal cord is the communication link between the brain and the body.
Adapting to a spinal cord injury is very difficult and takes a long time. It requires a great deal of personal effort by the injured person and the people around him or her. It turns a person's life upside down and is often accompanied by many negative emotions such as fear, anxiety and anger. It brings long hours of reflection interspersed with highs and lows.
However, as with any situation, there are also positives. Those with new injuries are taken care of by an interdisciplinary team that quickly addresses the objectives identified by specialists based on the injuries.
For several years, the notion of inclusion has dominated the debate on the place of people with disabilities in our society. A so-called inclusive society adapts to individual differences and anticipates people's needs in order to give them the best possible chance of success in life. As a result, in order for a society to be truly inclusive, collective will and collective mobilization are needed, on the part of society and the economic and political communities. They need to change their way of thinking and the way they organize things in order to integrate people who are sometimes more fragile.
Every little action to improve the living conditions of people with disabilities requires a collective and political effort, and I think that we are making such an effort today.
I also believe that as elected representatives, we must promote inclusiveness. We must position ourselves as open people who create bridges with our living environments. Of course, the inclusion of people with disabilities in society cannot be done without the support and knowledge of the medical, social and political sectors.
Finally, I sometimes get the impression that we have incorporated the notion of inclusion into our speeches, but it is difficult for a person with a disability to be convinced that political authorities are truly committed to the notion of inclusion because so much remains to be done in terms of accessibility and home care.
It is important to understand that the bill to designate a national spinal cord injury awareness day is much more than symbolic. It has the potential to help save lives and reduce the number of spinal cord injuries that happen in Canada every year.
Let us not miss this opportunity to help everyone. As I often say, spinal cord injuries do not discriminate.
As I went through the process that got me to the point of talking about this bill again today, I believe that I developed a better understanding of the real needs of people with spinal cord injuries. Let me explain. Naturally, people might think that I do not really understand them, but talking to other people can sometimes help us see other problems.
I gained a better understanding of what this special day on the calendar can contribute. This bill is representative of the political work we are all here to do because it helps us all better ourselves as a society in meaningful ways.
Sometimes we get the feeling that we are not doing enough, but in this case, even though this bill seems like a modest initiative at first glance, it is an incredible tool that leads us to a new stage in our progress toward accepting people with disabilities in Canada.
This step forward will lead to others and so on. The quality of life of all our fellow citizens, whether they are affected by spinal cord injuries or not, will certainly improve.
Creating a national spinal cord injury awareness day will ultimately significantly help improve health care, promote treatment advances, technological innovations and research in medical science, and even contribute to the Canadian economy.
Raising hope is a winning strategy, and today, the first thing we must do is make sure that this bill continues to make its way through the legislative process. We also need to make social acceptance more universal and to raise awareness among employers of the unsuspected qualities of those with spinal cord injuries, thereby making our communities more effective, productive and just.
The practical nature of this reality and the idealism of these principles work well together in this much-needed bill. We have to promote acceptance within social networks and value inclusion because it is both compassionate and for the common good.
I should mention that governments are doing their part when it comes to research, but most of the funding comes from appeals to the public's generosity. Creating a national spinal cord injury awareness day will allow for new fundraising opportunities. It will not cost us anything to provide this opportunity to organizations that offer services to persons with disabilities, and the potential returns could be extremely beneficial.
To sum up, this bill will help raise public awareness and acceptance of spinal cord injury victims. It will maximize funding and research initiatives and stimulate volunteer support and personal involvement in general. It can help communicate and draw attention to specific issues, while bringing together people on similar paths. It will validate the help and support provided by loved ones, family members, colleagues, neighbours and specialists, as well as the exceptional contribution of researchers in this area of expertise.
We are all equal before this terrible scourge and every bit of progress is a victory for all. My personal experience and that of the people I consulted, as well as the conversations I have taken part in, have convinced me that creating a national spinal cord injury awareness day is a productive, effective, economical and sensible way to do our part for Canadians with disabilities.
I often say that people living with a physical limitation who meet daily challenges have the same very strong abilities, qualities and character of people drawn to extreme sports. I am sure that my colleague across the way will agree with me. They have to have determination, courage, perseverance, and especially the will to improve their daily lives.
I think that we can do a better job of equipping these people to deal with what others would see as insurmountable obstacles. I recognize that it is often stressful and painful for the people around us, because they are not living it and do not truly understand. It is up to us to reassure them, if we want to maintain their friendship and respect, and to recognize that they may be an incredible, and even vital, source of support.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2015-05-29 13:16 [p.14362]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bill before the House and applaud the member for the effort she has no doubt put in to making this possible. I understand that September 18, the third Friday, would be our first national awareness day.
Could the member provide some further comment on the importance of health care services for spinal cord injuries? Designating this day would provide an opportunity for those individuals to look at appealing to governments at different levels and different organizations. The member made reference to fundraising. There are all sorts of unlimited possibilities in recognizing this.
Could she provide some comment on the importance of research and health care dollars for this?
View Manon Perreault Profile
Ind. (QC)
View Manon Perreault Profile
2015-05-29 13:17 [p.14362]
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to research I naturally think of the Rick Hansen Institute. The institute has done much to advance research on spinal cord injuries.
There is still a lot of work to be done, but nevertheless there have been some significant advances. I am not a doctor, but rehabilitation centres are currently working very hard to ensure that spinal cord injury victims are taken care of as quickly as possible after their accident. Over the years, they have come to realize that the earlier you can operate on these individuals, the greater the chance of their muscles responding to rehabilitation.
View Steven Fletcher Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for bringing this bill forward. Could the member elaborate on how society could remove systemic barriers that historically prevent persons with disabilities or mobility challenges? What can society do to be inclusive for all Canadians of every ability?
View Manon Perreault Profile
Ind. (QC)
View Manon Perreault Profile
2015-05-29 13:19 [p.14362]
Mr. Speaker, when someone asks me what we could do to make our society more inclusive, two things quickly come to mind: accessibility and transportation. I would like to focus on transportation, because right now, that is really the biggest problem for people in wheelchairs who need to get to work. Often these people do not have access to transportation. For example, if I take the Montcalm commuter train, not all of the exits are wheelchair accessible. Some exits are, but not all of them. Nevertheless, this infrastructure was just built in the past few years. There is therefore an enormous amount of work to be done to make transportation and buildings accessible.
I would like to add that just because there is a sign saying that a building is wheelchair accessible, that does not make it true. One of the biggest problems we have is simply going to the washroom. Wheelchairs cannot always fit through the washroom door. The member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia is laughing, but I know he knows exactly what I am talking about.
I would like to invite all of my colleagues to come spend an entire day following us around in wheelchairs and to do push-ups every time we have to transfer in and out of our wheelchairs. They will see that it is very physically demanding.
With regard to both transportation and accessibility, there is still much to be done.
View Steven Fletcher Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for her leadership in the area of spinal cord injury and disability and for her contribution to Canada as a whole. Public service is difficult, and the member for Montcalm has distinguished herself.
I would like to pick up where the member left off on the washroom issue and the idea of encouraging everyone to spend a day in a wheelchair. We do that. My colleague from Edmonton has done that.
I used to bring people together in the morning. They would come and gather in my office. They would get their wheelchair, and I would be sure to give them lots of coffee. At the end of the day, if anyone said that he or she had spent the entire day in the wheelchair, I knew for sure that the person was telling a white lie, because the washrooms are hard to find, and when one gets there, it is hard to know what to do if one is in a wheelchair.
That is something that is really emblematic of what happens. Just having a flush entrance does not mean a facility is accessible.
With regard to spinal cord awareness week, the United Kingdom has a day and Australia has a week. Part of spinal cord awareness week is awareness. What happens to the body when people have a spinal cord injury is not well understood. It is because nobody wants to talk about what it actually means. It is very uncomfortable. I am going to use this opportunity to explain some of the uncomfortable realities of a spinal cord injury.
Generally, there are quadriplegics and paraplegics. A paraplegic is one who has use of his or her arms. A quadriplegic is someone who is, like me, paralyzed from the neck down.
What does paralyzed from the neck down mean? The obvious thing is that the person cannot move any muscles below the neck. However, it also means not feeling hunger, not feeling hot or cold, not having the sense of touch. It is a bit like being a turtle on a log. One moves toward the ambient temperature of the room or the environment in which one finds oneself.
People who are quadriplegics cannot feed themselves. They cannot dress or undress themselves. They cannot shower. People at a high level, as in my case, need people 24 hours a day to help with the activities of daily living, including going to the washroom. Again, this is really icky, but it is a reality. There are a variety of things that people do, such as using indwelling catheters and other kinds of medical devices. It is the same situation on the bowel side. The individual with the injury needs help with all of that. That is really difficult.
Then we combine it with the need for proper care, which is always difficult to find and finance. Some people are fortunate to have insurance. In most cases the insurance is not nearly enough. That is something auto insurance companies and workers' comp need to look at because most spinal cord injuries occur come from a driving or work accident.
Also, the issue of reproduction is compromised as well. It is a fundamental part of being human. We are physical creatures. The change in the lifestyle that the member for Montcalm describes is almost a metamorphosis into a different kind of existence. I have to live in my mind and I am very glad that I live in Canada where someone like the member for Montcalm, or myself or many others can be a quadriplegic or paraplegic and still contribute to society.
However, there are many barriers and they include attitudinal issues. I am sure the member for Montcalm has had this happen to her. When I go to a restaurant, someone asks the person who I am with what I want to eat. The person responds “Why don't you ask the person in the wheelchair?” Then the person will sort of raise their voice and say “What would you like to eat?” It is like there is some sort of cognitive or hearing impairment associated with the wheelchair.
These are well intentioned people, but too many people do not have the awareness. I admit that I was one of those people before my accident in 1996.
Another thing is accommodation in the workplace. In the House of Commons, I would like to thank all my colleagues for allowing a stranger in the House, my caregiver who sits with me. Here, in committees and in cabinet, no one raises an eyebrow.
There have also been efforts to adjust the seating to accommodate wheelchairs. I remember when I got here, they put me over on the opposition side because we were in opposition. Claude, the architect, described all the things he had to do to accommodate me. I told him all of that was temporary, and he kind of looked at me. I told him that in a few months I would be on the government side of the House. He laughed. Then I looked him in the eye and said “Then I'm going to run for Speaker”. If we want to see an architect melt down, that is one way to do it.
I give those examples as if those most sensitive committees at the highest level in Canadian society can accommodate a quadriplegic who cannot even move a finger, there is no reason workplaces, educational institutions or any other part of society cannot accommodate people with a disabilities. They may not be able to answer or solve a problem the same way most people can, but they will get there. Technology is a great equalizer.
Since I am not competing to play football or anything, I focus on my strengths. When I ran the first time, people said interesting things. First was that I did not sound disabled. That was a classic. I was asked why would anyone vote for me, given I was really a nobody and in this physical situation. This was on the radio too. My response to that was “I would rather be paralyzed from the neck down than from the neck up“.
The point is that we need to evaluate people on the content of their character and their ability to contribute, and we need to be creative in how that contribution is made. We also have to ensure that we have the supports in home care, transportation, and the education system. We need to empower people so that they can make the best decisions for themselves, so we need to remove the systemic barriers that exist.
What we need for spinal cord injury applies to senior citizens. Members may be interested to know that. It applies as well to people with temporary or episodic disabilities. It goes on and on.
The last comment I would like to make is that Dr. Fehlings at Toronto Western Research Institute is a medical hero in Canada. Just last week in the media he announced that research had allowed paraplegics to gain more sensation through his work and that of his team with respect to the central nervous system. That is a game changer.
The government has invested in this, and I know all of the parties support that kind of investment. Would it not be wonderful if someday spinal cord or brain injuries were something for the history books and that we would all be able to live long and prosperous lives?
We live in the best country in the world. It is the best time in human history to be alive. God bless Canada.
View Mike Sullivan Profile
NDP (ON)
View Mike Sullivan Profile
2015-05-29 13:34 [p.14364]
Mr. Speaker, as I rise in my place, and I say that because my two colleagues who preceded me could not rise in their place. They are the bravest human beings in this room. I want to thank both of them for all their courage, efforts and wonderful heartfelt speeches.
I certainly cannot add anything to what was said by those two incredible individuals. Both of them are living proof that we can adapt our society no matter what the need to accommodate those individuals who need accommodation in the workplace, society and ordinary daily living, and on transportation, as the member for Montcalm has said,
On the spinal cord awareness day, I tried to be in a wheelchair for a full day, and it was not easy. Bathrooms were difficult to manoeuver, but I did stick to it. Eventually I had to give up waiting for a bus because the folks running the buses said that they did not have enough buses and that were unable to transport me in time to make it back for a vote. However, I did get back into the chair after that occurrence.
My brother has multiple sclerosis, and while it is not a spinal cord injury, he is well on his way to being full-time in a wheelchair. He is not there yet, but I watch him and realize that, in his case, it is not a sudden and traumatic injury but a long, gradual, painful transition to where the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia and the member for Montcalm are now.
It is sad and hard to watch, but it makes me all the more determined, as the critic for persons with disabilities, to create a Canada in which everything we can possibly do is done, not just to raise awareness and to do research but to actually make it possible for everyone to live as though they were no different than anyone else.
I am thankful for this opportunity. I want to again thank my colleagues for their incredible speeches.
God Bless Canada. God bless them.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2015-05-29 13:37 [p.14364]
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add a few thoughts on this issue and thank the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia for a very passionate speech and the member for Montcalm for her tenacity. It does take a great deal of tenacity in order to not only generate the idea and put it on a piece of paper but also to get it through the House. It depends upon a bit on luck too, I must say. She was in a great position to do something of some substance, and we are debating this issue today because of her efforts.
However, let me get back to my friend from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, who I think articulated exceptionally well why we as a society need to get a better understanding of the impact of some of the things that happen virtually every day in our community or in our vast country, and their consequences. He speaks with obvious first-hand experience.
I have known of the member for many years, probably more years than he has likely known of me, and I am in admiration of the member's desire to have change and the recognition that is necessary, not only on this particular issue but on other issues as well, whether at the University of Manitoba or on the streets in Winnipeg.
I applaud the fact that he took the time to share some of those personal stories, because we do take things for granted, whether it is changing or eating or some of those normal daily functions. It is hard for individuals to have empathy unless they have experienced these situations first-hand, as the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia has.
It is very enlightening for all of us, and the viewers, to listen to what the member was sharing with not only members of this chamber but with those who were tuned in through CPAC.
Recognizing a national spinal cord injury awareness day is important. It is important for the very reasons we just witnessed—that is, it would enlighten and bring awareness to a wide variety of Canadians.
I would like to share some thoughts with respect to just how wide a variety it really can be. Both speakers, the introducer and the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia in particular, talked about some of the issues they have to face. Government spends literally hundreds of millions of dollars annually dealing with this issue in our health care system through hospitals or other types of institutions, but what we really need to focus on is ensuring a sense of independent living. This is something both speakers referred to, whether directly or indirectly.
There are very tangible things that government can do. The single largest landlord is, in fact, the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the different provincial governments. We build non-profit housing or low-income housing or provide life-lease housing. We promote housing co-ops and all sorts of government-initiated programs to revitalize communities, which includes the revitalization of housing units. All of these, I would suggest, should always take into consideration the issue of disabilities. Accessibility is an issue. It is a very serious issue.
I was intrigued when the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia described his office gathering, where he provided a lot of coffee for those individuals who were about to make the commitment to spend the day in a wheelchair, and his reference to the white lie. It is very much a valid story that provides a better understanding of that one very basic issue.
I have the privilege of having Parminder Buttar working in my constituency office. He is in a wheelchair and is very dependent on the rest of civil society, as people in wheelchairs are, in ensuring that we are sensitive to the needs and respect those needs, and where we can take action that we do so.
It means ensuring that washrooms are accessible. It is to ensure that when we look at purchasing or acquiring new city buses that we take that into consideration. It is to ensure that when it comes time to build another large housing complex, that disability is taken into consideration.
So much can be done, and it is not only at the federal level. What I like about the motion before us today, is that it is Ottawa recognizing the importance of the issue and designating a day in the year. This year will be the first year we recognize it, with the understanding that the bill will get royal assent. September 18 will not only be a wonderful opportunity to educate people, but also to promote the many different positive attributes individuals, whether they are paraplegic or quadriplegic, have contributed to our society in every aspect.
In many ways it is special and is a different type of challenge. When the mover of the bill made reference to the super sports athletes, we will find that also applies to individuals in wheelchairs. They are exceptionally well motivated. Their contributions are immense and of equal nature in many different ways.
I have had the opportunity to speak on other days of action. With the passage of this legislation, members of Parliament will be afforded the opportunity to promote this going forward. The most obvious ways of promoting this are with our ten parceners or householders, or through other forms of communication that we might have with technology, the Internet and so forth.
Other ways would be to look at our local schools, taking the time where it is possible, to encourage education or awareness within a school atmosphere or to look at employers and encourage them to get more engaged in the day. I suspect there will be wide and a fairly general appreciation of the true value of having a day of this nature designated.
If we were to look at the number of days of recognition that have been passed through the House, this would be ranked as one of those issues that really and truly merits a much wider appreciation not only in Ottawa but also at the different levels of government.
I do not know, for example, if my provincial government of Manitoba has acknowledged the importance of this day. If it has not, hopefully one of the MLAs in the Manitoba legislature will do so. Even local municipalities and city councillors can get engaged on this issue. We can do much more and I encourage people to do what they can, given what has been asked of us today.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I want to thank the mover of the motion for coming up with the idea and bringing it forward. I suspect that it will receive the unanimous support of the House as we try to deal with those important issues Canadians have to face day in and day out.
The issue of disability deserves a great deal more debate in the House of Commons, in the different legislatures, and by the public at large.
View John Duncan Profile
CPC (BC)
View John Duncan Profile
2015-05-29 13:48 [p.14365]
Mr. Speaker, I will not take all of the time, but I did want to speak to this motion from the member for Montcalm and seconded by the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.
I cannot remember the exact year, but I was the seatmate of the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, and it was during that time that he wrote his book. We had a book unveiling in Ottawa. As a member of the caucus, and particularly because the member was my seatmate, it was incumbent upon me to get to know him much better. Now we have been caucus colleagues for at least a decade. The adversity that I realize the member has gone through, and the inspiration he provides, have carried on. There is no member of this caucus of which the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia is a member who has ever heard him utter a complaint. The member is constructive, and as everyone has witnessed today, he is quite hilarious.
I realize that I am restricting my comments to the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia rather than to the member for Montcalm. It is not for any reason other than that I know the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia much more intimately. There is no slight intended.
We are reminded every time we see the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia attending meetings, whether they are early or late, that whatever adversity or struggles we may be going through, they pale in comparison. This is part of the ongoing inspiration we all feel.
There was a time, after 13 years of serving in the opposition in this place, that I actually lost an election. It was the very year we formed government. On my way, as I departed from Ottawa by car, guess who called? It was the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia. He was thinking about me. I have never forgotten that.
We all have to recognize that these members who brought this motion forward are more than contributing members of Parliament. They are much more than full members, in a sense. I know from many discussions that the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia is actively engaged in the Treasury Board, for example. He is pursuing advanced education. He is a great student of Canadian history. There are many things all of us could learn about Canadian history from just having a short conversation with the member.
I believe that we have a strong responsibility to know our colleagues who face adversity. Today is one of those opportunities, but there is another opportunity, and it is called “every day”.
What we witnessed today is consistent with the motion that has been put forward by the member for Montcalm and seconded by the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia. I congratulate them, and I know that this place will be happy to adopt this motion.
View Manon Perreault Profile
Ind. (QC)
View Manon Perreault Profile
2015-05-29 13:53 [p.14365]
Mr. Speaker, I often tell people that it is more difficult for them to approach us than it is for us to go and talk to them. I think that this national day will make more and more people aware of this issue.
When I came to this place in 2011 and I met people, they told me that they were surprised to see me in a wheelchair, and all I could do was nod. However, when I was campaigning, I did not hide it from anyone. It seems that people did not realize it until they met me.
I also realized that people often say that they think we are very nice. That makes me laugh, because everyone is nice. Being in a wheelchair does not stop you from being nice.
Last week I received an invitation from Mr. Demers to take a horse out on a racetrack. I think everyone here knows that I had a riding accident and that horseback riding was one of my great passions. A little earlier, we were talking about accessibility and changing how we look at things. That gentleman let me take his racehorse out on a track. That was such a wonderful thing for me.
When something like that happens, you have to take another look at everything you used to love doing so you can do it again. Excuse me, I am having a hard time because this is so emotional for me.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Demers from the bottom of my heart. He helped me understand that even though my accident happened in 1993, and even though I could no longer ride, I could find other ways to pursue my passion. I honestly never thought I would be able to do it. I am very proud of that.
We have to salute those who are open-minded and are helping our society become more inclusive so that everyone has a place in it.
I often say that people with disabilities have their limitations, and that is true, but we all have our limitations, and in many cases, we impose them on ourselves. When we meet people who are ready to help us challenge those limitations, they almost become heroes to us.
My colleague may understand what I am saying. Regardless, I am very happy to see that all of my colleagues in the House have so readily supported my bill. I realize that there are many national days and that they are all important. However, I know that this national day will help give people a greater voice in society.
I will end my speech there, since I am a bit overwhelmed talking about all of this.
View Manon Perreault Profile
Ind. (QC)
View Manon Perreault Profile
2015-05-26 19:07 [p.14209]
Mr. Speaker, this morning I was speaking with a woman from my riding of Montcalm, Ms. Francoeur, of the Résidence coopérative Quatre-Soleils in Saint-Lin–Laurentides. She was very pleased to have finally received funding from the Government of Canada for accommodations at her centre.
I would like to recognize the efforts that are made every year in Quebec and Canada to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities. The resources invested mean a great deal to people living with physical limitations. The government plays a key role, but there is so much work still to be done before we can talk about a truly inclusive society.
These resources, as much as they are appreciated, are certainly very modest. Investing in the integration of people with disabilities and in accessibility is something that goes far beyond compassionate or altruistic considerations. To put it simply, such investments are good social decisions and actions that demonstrate the goodwill behind the government's public policies.
I have said it before and I will say it again: an investment in people with disabilities is, above all, an investment that is good for everyone and one that contributes directly to our communities.
Had we gotten into the habit of handling funding requests for projects that meet the needs of people with disabilities the same way we handle economic requests, we might have much more effective practices for those people now.
People with disabilities are people first, and each step toward social inclusion is a sure way to help all of them and all affected families thrive.
I deplore the lack of stable programs and the dearth of information about their recurrence. The government has to be consistent and offer more independence to people with disabilities and greater social cohesiveness for all.
The enabling accessibility fund accepts applications at much too unpredictable intervals, making it impossible for organizations to prepare applications in advance for specific projects.
When an organization that helps people with disabilities has a specific need, it asks many community groups for help finding solutions. Everyone—from family caregivers to workers in the network, advocates, professionals and volunteers—pitches in to improve services and contribute to a solution. Funding is piecemeal. Donations from members of the public, private interests and civil society all do their part.
To give an idea of the situation, these organizations often survive thanks to charitable individuals and the generosity of their community. However, there comes a time when the federal government must take responsibility and encourage such efforts, resourcefulness and ingenuity.
Good programs do exist, and their impact has been measured at length. They are clearly beneficial. Unfortunately, the lack of consistency of programs provided to organizations that help people with disabilities, as well as the stability, recurrence and coherence of the programs, must be vastly improved.
Would it be possible to make the enabling accessibility fund a permanent program, with recurring application dates everyone is aware of, in order to improve the stability of government assistance provided to organizations that help people with disabilities?
I realize that reviewing the enabling accessibility fund requires that we be prepared, above all, to implement diverse solutions in order to improve this program's performance. I also believe that as elected officials, we must promote inclusiveness. We must position ourselves as open people who create bridges with our living environments.
The inclusion of people with disabilities in society cannot be done without the support and knowledge of the medical, social and political sectors. It is difficult for a disabled person to be convinced that political authorities are truly committed to the notion of inclusion because so much remains to be done in terms of accessibility, transportation, home care and so forth.
View Scott Armstrong Profile
CPC (NS)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question, but I also want to thank the hon. member for her advocacy for disabled people across the country. I welcome the opportunity to address this important issue brought forward by the hon. member for Montcalm.
First, I would like to remind the member that, as soon as the Minister of Employment and Social Development heard about a situation in his riding, he immediately pulled everybody together to find a solution to keep Canadians working. They found that situation swiftly and corrected the issue very swiftly. As the minister said of the 50 hard-working Canadians with intellectual disabilities who have been serving the government well for the past 35 years by sorting, recycling, and shredding sensitive government documents, their determination and dedication to work despite their limitations inspires us all, and we certainly need to continue supporting them and disabled Canadians across the country.
That is why the minister quickly announced that their contract would be renewed for at least three more years. As for their salaries, my hon. colleague would know that they are set by the association and not by the Government of Canada. We partner with many organizations like this across Canada that help Canadians with disabilities get good jobs and fully participate within their communities.
Our government is proud of our improved registered disability savings plan that is available to more than 100,000 Canadians with disabilities. We are also proud of the Canada disability savings grants and bonds, which help Canadians with disabilities save money for their future. We believe that all Canadians, including Canadians with disabilities, should have the opportunity to contribute to our country's economy and contribute positively to their community.
Yes, disabled people are still very under-represented in the workforce, and this is concerning, but we are working at ensuring they have access to better jobs. That is why our government, through economic action plan 2015, would invest $40 million annually in the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. Not only that; we would also invest $15 million over three years into the ready, willing, and able initiative of the Canadian Association for Community Living, which helps connect persons with disabilities with jobs. In my own experience as a parliamentary secretary, I have seen programs like this support literally hundreds of disabled Canadians, connecting them with available jobs.
Currently, there are more than 800,000 disabled people in the country who are unemployed. Of those people, 400,000 have some form of post-secondary education. Conversely, we have employers across the country who are saying they cannot find qualified employees to take jobs. I encourage them all to look within the disabled community. We have able, ready, and willing employees there who want to work and who have a drive to work and be self-sustainable in their lives. It may take some accommodation in the workplace to employ a person with disabilities. It may take a little flexibility by the employer and maybe by the employee to ensure she or he can fill that job. However, I know from talking to employers who have employed disabled Canadians, as recently as a month ago, that they say that when they put the accommodations in place and support those workers they get very good workers. This money would be in addition to the $222 million per year to better meet the employment needs of Canadian businesses and improve the employment prospects for persons with disabilities through a new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities. That is $222 million.
In closing, we are getting the job done for the disabled community in this country. I thank the member for her interest and her support for that community. We will continue to support employers and employees as they move to jobs in Canada.
View Manon Perreault Profile
Ind. (QC)
View Manon Perreault Profile
2015-05-26 19:15 [p.14210]
Mr. Speaker, I honestly feel as if we were participating in two different debates. I am talking about the enabling accessibility fund. Rather than dealing with productive programs that have proven to be effective on an ad hoc basis, doling out funding in dribs and drabs year after year, it would be better if the government made the enabling accessibility fund into a well-established, transparent program with recurrent funding.
Given the urgent needs of the organizations, which at this very moment are waiting for the next call for proposals to be announced for this program, can the government at least give the applicants some more information?
The government can help change these people's lives, and I am convinced that it has the power to live up to its intentions. I am therefore asking the government whether it could, at the very least, post the date when the next call for proposals will be held, make funding recurrent and improve the transparency of the program. In so doing, it would provide a little more stability for organizations that help people with disabilities.
View Scott Armstrong Profile
CPC (NS)
Mr. Speaker, our government is working hard to improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities.
On top of the measures I mentioned earlier, we are also extending the enabling accessibility fund to improve accessibility in workplaces and other facilities across Canada.
These expanded criteria will support the disabled people the member across is asking about. We are also supporting many organizations dedicated to the well-being of persons with disabilities, helping them connect with available jobs and equipping them with the skills and training they need.
The 50 workers I spoke about earlier have been providing excellent service to Canadians for over three decades now, and thanks to this government they will be able to continue their great work and keep on inspiring us all.
We will continue to be there for the disabled community. We will continue to support the accessibility fund.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-05-11 14:49 [p.13717]
Mr. Speaker, it has been over five months since this House unanimously agreed to provide full support to thalidomide survivors. They are fed up with the current government's failure to make detailed commitments, so they now say they are going to be forced to return to Ottawa on May 25.
Survivors like Bernadette Bainbridge need immediate answers so they can plan their futures and start receiving the support they so desperately need now. However, they cannot do that as long as the current minister keeps hiding behind vague promises.
Will the government provide them with clear answers before the May 25 deadline?
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, of course this tragic event from the 1960s reminds us how important drug safety is and, of course, there was deep pain and suffering inflicted on the thalidomide survivors. We cannot undo that pain and suffering, but what the government has done is provide a lump sum payment already. There is $125,000 tax free. We are in the process of negotiating the remainder, which is going to be $180 million for fewer than 100 survivors. That will ensure that they have ongoing yearly support. Of course, there is an extraordinary medical assistance fund that will also be available.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, victims have waited long enough. Every day their health deteriorates. It has been more than five months since the government supported our motion to compensate thalidomide victims.
After giving some hope to victims who have waited 50 years, the Conservatives have now forgotten them again. Supporting the motion is not enough. It is high time for the government to give us details on the compensation.
Does the government at least understand how its lax attitude affects victims?
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, we do agree that it is time, and that is why each survivor got $125,000 in an immediate tax-free payment. We are committed to providing ongoing support to them. There is $180 million that has been designated for ongoing support for fewer than 100 people. Of course, there is going to be an extraordinary medical assistance fund. Again, we are committed to doing the right thing and we are moving forward in due process and haste.
View Claude Gravelle Profile
NDP (ON)
View Claude Gravelle Profile
2015-05-11 14:52 [p.13717]
Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the few G7 countries without a national dementia strategy, and the number of Canadians with dementia will double over the next 15 years. Canada needs a dementia plan now.
However, many Conservatives, including the Minister of Health, voted against my bill to create a national dementia strategy. A Liberal member's failure to stand up sealed the bill's fate.
Why are the Conservatives and the Liberals ignoring the looming crisis? Why did they not support this important bill?
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the health minister has been working in good haste with the provinces to develop a pan-Canadian strategy. What is really important is the research that is going to be done that the federal government is responsible for. We have $1 billion in neuroscience since 2006. We have 400 research projects investigating dementia this year alone.
In partnership with the provinces and territories, we are moving. I believe it is an important issue and we need to get to some good solutions. Research is an important process forward.
View Hedy Fry Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Hedy Fry Profile
2015-05-11 14:54 [p.13718]
Mr. Speaker, five months ago this House voted unanimously for full compensation to the victims of thalidomide. There were 97 of them. They asked for a $250,000 lump sum and an annual pension of $75,000 to $150,000 depending on disability. To date, they have been given half the lump sum and zero for annual living expenses.
Since that broken promise, three victims have died. The minister's answer is she is working hard. Well, people are hurting hard. Will she give them the help they need now?
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic. This member was part of the government for 13 years. They did nothing. We have a motion in this House. We have moved forward. We have given $125,000 immediately, tax free, and we are committed to having a solution that is going to serve these victims into the future.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, it has become a habit for the Conservatives. They deliberately refuse to keep their promises.
In the case of thalidomide victims, they do not have the right to create false hope. As a result of an NDP motion, the House unanimously voted to provide financial compensation. However, five months later there is nothing in the budget. Not only is Health Canada not releasing its assistance plan to the public, but it is even refusing to provide the details to thalidomide victims.
When will the minister finally treat these victims with dignity?
View Rona Ambrose Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, we are working closely with TVAC, the organization. It was always our understanding after we announced the historic assistance to cover the survivors' needs that we would be working with the organization on the tax-free, ongoing yearly support. We have already, obviously, and as identified by the organization, given a cheque of $125,000 to every individual in TVAC so that they can deal with any urgent needs immediately.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-04-28 14:51 [p.13134]
Mr. Speaker, the government's behaviour is simply inexcusable. Five months after the House voted unanimously to provide thalidomide survivors with full support the Conservatives have offered them nothing but half measures and broken promises. Survivors need financial certainty now. They deserve to know now that their needs will be met, but the government is flatly refusing to answer their questions and there is no sign of the annual compensation the government promised.
Why are the Conservatives failing to keep their promise? Will the minister announce today that she will fully implement the program approved by all of us in the House?
View Rona Ambrose Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, we announced historic assistance to cover survivors' needs and that includes up to $180 million that will be distributed throughout the survivors, until every last living survivor is taken care of. We have already given each survivor $125,000 tax-free cash. They received that payment already to get them through the next year. We also have $168 million tax-free, ongoing yearly support, and in addition, the extraordinary medical assistance fund.
Right now, Health Canada is working out the particular issues around dealing with a third party administrator and working out details of the yearly compensation.
View Stella Ambler Profile
CPC (ON)
View Stella Ambler Profile
2015-04-23 13:54 [p.12939]
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour today to speak to budget 2015, our economic action plan for Canadians.
Traditionally at this time of year while I am speaking to the budget I like to pick a few initiatives that are my favourites and tell the House about them by page number. I will start with the home accessibility tax credit on page 245 and the reason it is important to me and important to my constituents in Mississauga South.
Seniors and Canadians with disabilities may face special challenges related to gaining access to their homes, or being mobile or functional within it, and making improvements to improve safety, access and functionality of a dwelling can be costly. The home accessibility tax credit will help seniors and elderly Canadians stay in their own homes. Some people may install a railing, grab bars, wheelchair ramps, walk-in bathtubs, chair rails, or perhaps non-slip flooring. Canadians will be able to claim $10,000 in eligible expenses under the new home accessibility tax credit, which will result in federal tax relief of $1,500 for the 2016 taxation year.
These improvements will enable seniors and disabled Canadians to be more mobile, safe and functional in their own homes, ensuring that they can live healthy, independent lives in the comfort of their homes or in the homes of their families.
I would like to turn to page 190 and talk about the Canada 150 community infrastructure proposal. This is a new measure. In addition to the unprecedented spending on infrastructure by this government, members probably know about the 10-year new building Canada plan. This dedicated fund is for renovation, expansion and improvement of existing community infrastructure in all regions of the country.
Community-based facilities, like the Small Arms Inspection Building in Lakeview in Mississauga South, contribute to the quality of life and heritage of small communities and large urban areas alike across Canada. The Small Arms Inspection Building is an example of community infrastructure with a rich history and one with enormous potential. It was at this location that over 6,000 employees worked during World War II making Lee-Enfield rifles for the entire allied effort. Most of these employees were women doing their part to support the war effort from home.
There are big plans for the improvement and renovation of this iconic place, and infrastructure funds like this one, which will be cost-shared with municipalities, community organizations and not-for-profit entities, will support projects that celebrate our shared heritage as well as create jobs and improve quality of life.
I would also like to talk to members about an important initiative on page 240 of the budget to extend compassionate care benefits. Family and friends have been described as the invisible backbone of the Canadian health care system. Giving care can often place people in grave financial hardship, especially when they are forced to quit their jobs or work fewer hours as a result of the responsibility of caring for a loved one. It is for this reason that budget 2015 and this Conservative government will extend EI compassionate care benefits from six weeks to six months.
We do not believe that Canadians should have to choose between keeping their job and caring for a gravely ill family member. I have heard from my constituents in Mississauga South about this issue and the hardships that they face. There is more in the report of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care about the financial realities associated with caring for a dying family member. With this enhancement, the government is ensuring that the employment insurance program will continue to help Canadians when they need it most.
I would also like to tell members about a lesser known measure in the budget on page 303. That is the renewal and enhancement of Canada's honour system. This will bring the system of citations and honours for Canadians closer to all Canadians, with a commitment of $13.4 million over five years, plus $2.8 million in ongoing support to modernize the system. This matters to the constituents of Mississauga South because it is important to commemorate great Canadians. It will increase the number of nominations in particular to the Order of Canada.
I am hopeful that a great Canadian resident of Mississauga South, an icon and true patriot, hockey commentator Don Cherry will be recognized soon. Just imagine the jacket he would wear for the occasion.
View Peter Kent Profile
CPC (ON)
View Peter Kent Profile
2015-04-22 16:11 [p.12880]
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the suggestion from my hon. colleague in the official opposition indicating that he will be supporting our legislation for balanced budgets.
I was also delighted to hear the member fondly remember the home retrofit program that our government so successfully introduced and executed. It was certainly an oversubscribed program. Our government discovered that, in fact, Canadians' intentions had been jump-started by the program, and that they were overwhelmingly, program or not, going to invest in the retrofitting of their homes in the same ways the original program had supported.
My friend seems to have overlooked one of the chapters and provisions in economic action plan 2015, and that is the home accessibility tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities. It proposes a new permanent home accessibility tax credit, a 15% non-refundable income tax credit applying to up to $10,000 of eligible home renovation expenditures per year, providing $1,500 in tax relief, and which would be associated with the purchase and installation, for example, of wheelchair ramps, walk-in bathtubs, and wheel-in showers. It is a good benefit for the disabled and for seniors, but also for the small businesses and contractors—
View Ron Cannan Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ron Cannan Profile
2015-04-21 14:57 [p.12838]
Mr. Speaker, families in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country are looking forward to the enhanced universal child care credit and family tax cut.
I am proud to say that it is our government that has introduced these measures because we understand that all Canadian children deserve support. This includes children living with disabilities.
Could the caring and compassionate Minister of State for Social Development please inform the House how our government is helping these children?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2015-04-21 14:57 [p.12838]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his consideration for the families in his riding.
Our government is helping children with disabilities by launching our enabling accessibility fund program to help make playgrounds more accessible for children with disabilities.
In addition to that, I was very pleased to announce at the Starbright Children's Development Centre in Kelowna that we would be funding that specific program. Families were thrilled to hear that and to hear about our expanded universal child care benefit and family tax cut.
We are cutting taxes for Canadian families with children. The Liberals and the NDP want to increase taxes, increase debt, increase burdens on Canadian families.
View Tilly O'Neill Gordon Profile
CPC (NB)
View Tilly O'Neill Gordon Profile
2015-03-12 14:09 [p.12048]
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced the retirement income security benefit, which will provide financial stability to veterans who are moderately to seriously injured and their families. This benefit, in addition to existing services and benefits, will establish a continuum of support that spans a disabled veteran's entire life.
The president of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 4 in Fredericton said that it is going to help in the future and is needed for the protection of our service people.
The Veterans Ombudsman said:
...this will be a game-changer for Canada's most seriously injured veterans and their families.
I am immensely proud that our government is standing up for veterans and their families and is ensuring that they get the support and services they need, when they need them.
View Mathieu Ravignat Profile
NDP (QC)
View Mathieu Ravignat Profile
2015-03-12 14:33 [p.12052]
Mr. Speaker, the fact that proposals do not meet departmental officials' criteria is no obstacle to helping the Prime Minister's good friends. Such things can be overlooked, which is what happened in Markham after the Prime Minister's former chief of staff got involved.
However, when an opportunity arose to punish voters who turned their backs on the Conservatives, a project that Lawrence Cannon had promised suddenly failed to meet the criteria.
Seriously. Is there one set of rules for the Prime Minister's friends and another for his enemies? Is Nigel Wright in charge of enforcing those rules?
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2015-03-12 14:33 [p.12052]
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the NDP is siding with Patrick Brazeau to try to break the rules, but it is not surprising that the NDP would have to raise taxes to pay for this kind of irresponsible spending decision.
The NDP would say yes to anything just because someone lobbied for it. On this side, we make investments that are justifiable after we go through evaluations. That is why we have been able to balance the budget and cut taxes for Canadians. We will keep doing that.
View Ève Péclet Profile
NDP (QC)
View Ève Péclet Profile
2015-03-12 14:34 [p.12052]
Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Employment and Social Development is describing is exactly what the Minister of Public Works and Government Services did.
Since the ethics commissioner's damning report was released, memory loss has run rampant. The minister says she does not recall talking to Nigel Wright, and the Prime Minister does not even remember the project.
However, it was important enough for three of his ministers and two of his close advisors to intervene on behalf of a good friend of the Prime Minister and overturn a decision made by departmental officials.
If that is not favouritism, then how does the Prime Minister explain the fact that three ministers and two staffers got involved in awarding a grant?
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2015-03-12 14:35 [p.12052]
Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times, I have always believed that this project to improve access to the Markham centre for people with disabilities was worthwhile and in the public interest.
I myself made the decision, and I have always believed that this project was good for the people of Markham.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2015-03-12 14:35 [p.12052]
Mr. Speaker, the minister has been found guilty and here is the problem with her defence. She says that she cannot remember speaking to Nigel Wright about the project. Then she said, “Don't worry, there was nothing political”, which raises this question. Why was Nigel Wright phoning her about the project in the first place?
Let me try to jog her memory. She took a rejected project from the bottom of the pile and pushed it above 160 other qualified projects. Will she at least tell the House what was it that caught her eye about this rejected proposal? Why were so many key Conservatives so keen to give one of their friends so much public money?
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2015-03-12 14:36 [p.12053]
Mr. Speaker, our government is very proud to have launched the enabling accessibility fund, which has helped millions of people across the country to have full inclusion and the ability to participate. It is unfortunate that the NDP voted against this program that has benefited virtually all of their constituents.
I always knew there was value in this project. I always believed it would be in the public interest. I co-operated fully during the three years of this investigation.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2015-03-12 14:37 [p.12053]
Mr. Speaker, she hides behind disabled children to explain why she was feeling guilty for breaking the rules to give money to her friends—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2015-03-12 14:37 [p.12053]
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about what part of the truth hurt her so much, but as the Prime Minister would say, let us sort it out.
We have this dodgy project sitting at the bottom of a pile of a bunch of worthy projects, and we have three cabinet ministers, Nigel Wright, the principal secretary, and the Prime Minister's Office, who all get their paws on this one dodgy project.
What is the connection with the promoter of this project that made her light such a fire that she has been found guilty of breaching the Conflict of Interest Act? What was it?
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2015-03-12 14:38 [p.12053]
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had actually read the report, he would have found that the commission made it very clear that neither I nor any member of my family or my friends had any personal interest in this particular—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, she also found that not only was I not friends with Rabbi Mendelsohn , but, in fact, we had never met.
I believe that this project to improve accessibility for the disabled in Markham was a worthy project.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Speaker, I think she is missing the point. A failed funding application was fast-tracked and approved for over $1 million only after the Prime Minister had told chief of staff Nigel Wright to “sort it out”. Why? We know, because it benefited the Conservative Party.
Just a reminder that out of 167 applications, this project came in 163rd. The common thread, just like with Duffy, is the involvement of the Prime Minister's closest adviser acting on the explicit instructions of the Prime Minister.
How can the Prime Minister defend this corruption?
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2015-03-12 14:39 [p.12053]
Mr. Speaker, the ethics commissioner made it very clear that the Prime Minister had no participation in this decision, which projects were evaluated, or even how they were evaluated, and what was awarded any funding.
When it comes to corruption, I would remind the member that he is sitting in a party that used be government, and when it was government, it took $40 million of taxpayers' dollars that is still unaccounted for.
View Marc Garneau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that the Mike Duffy cover-up began only after Nigel Wright allegedly stated, “We are good to go from the PM”.
Funding of $1 million for a project that helped the Conservative Party but failed miserably when compared to the others was granted only after the Prime Minister allegedly asked Nigel Wright to deal with this file.
How can the Prime Minister defend this corruption?
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2015-03-12 14:40 [p.12053]
Mr. Speaker, as the ethics commissioner said, the Prime Minister had absolutely no involvement in the funding of this centre to improve accessibility for the handicapped in Markham. That was very clear.
All along, I believed that this project was a worthwhile one that was in the best public interest.
View Judy Foote Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister is the most controlling in Canada's history. Nothing happens in the government without his approval.
RCMP documents show the PM's direct involvement in the Mike Duffy cover-up. The ethic commissioner's report shows his direct involvement in funding a failed project that benefited only the Conservative Party.
This is corruption at its highest level. How can the Prime Minister defend this?
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2015-03-12 14:41 [p.12053]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get her facts right. What the ethics commissioner said in her report was, in fact, that the Prime Minister had absolutely no involvement in the decision making on this project to help the disabled have better access at the Markham centre.
That decision was mine. I did so believing, as I always have, that this project was in the best interest of the community. It was a worthy project and it was in the public interest.
View Manon Perreault Profile
Ind. (QC)
View Manon Perreault Profile
2015-03-12 15:03 [p.12057]
Mr. Speaker, I regularly get requests for help from organizations in the riding of Montcalm hoping for grants to help cover the cost of renovating their buildings to make them accessible. However, the enabling accessibility fund is inconsistent. Calls for proposals are issued at unpredictable intervals, and this does not allow organizations to prepare applications for specific projects in advance.
Will the government consider keeping this program open year-round and letting people know when the program will be accepting new proposals?
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2015-03-12 15:04 [p.12057]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. We certainly should be working to improve quality of life for people with disabilities and mobility issues.
That is why we created the fund to help community groups do renovations, and that is also why we created the registered disability savings plan for families with a child with a disability.
I am certainly available to work with the hon. member to improve these initiatives, and I thank her once again for her question.
View Mike Sullivan Profile
NDP (ON)
View Mike Sullivan Profile
2015-03-11 14:15 [p.11977]
Mr. Speaker, in my role as NDP critic for persons with disabilities, I get to speak with disability groups across Canada, and repeatedly I get the same messages: This government should be working with its provincial partners to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it should be addressing income security issues facing the disabled, and it should be doing more to accommodate those disabled people who wish to work.
The NDP has already committed to implement the UN convention, but today I want to address the issue of income security for the disabled. The fact is that a person with a disability is twice as likely to experience poverty as other Canadians.
Today I have tabled a motion to establish a special committee of the House to review income security for persons with disabilities, to consult broadly with those persons and with disability organizations, and to report back to the House with concrete recommendations to improve their income security.
Canada's commitment under the UN convention is to ensure that persons with disabilities can participate fully in our society. One important step would be to lift them out of poverty. I hope all members will support this.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of Health suddenly announced financial assistance for thalidomide victims. However, this was done without consulting the victims, who were notified just a few minutes before the minister's press conference, and the announcement was short on details.
Why did the minister not meet with the members of the victims' rights group before making her announcement?
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, these events from the 1960s remind us of why we need to take drug safety so seriously.
On Friday, the minister announced historic assistance to cover the health care needs. There is going to be up to $180 million distributed among fewer than 100 survivors, until that last living survivor.
She has been in ongoing conversations with the group. Of course, these will be important payments: a $125-million immediate payment, tax free, and then $168 million, tax free, in ongoing support.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-03-09 14:51 [p.11851]
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has a moral obligation to help thalidomide survivors.
They have paid a lifelong price for the government's belief that thalidomide was safe, but three months after the House unanimously passed a motion calling for full support, the minister announced a package that may or may not meet the needs of the thalidomide survivors.
There was no consultation and very little communication from the minister. Before making the announcement, what did the minister do to ensure that the compensation would meet the needs of the thalidomide survivors?
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, nothing can ever change, and we certainly have deep sympathy and regret for the ongoing struggle thalidomide inflicted.
There have been ongoing conversations since the motion passed in the House, and actually prior to that. In actual fact, the historic announcement the minister made on Friday is for up to $180 million for the fewer than 100 survivors. This support is going to be available for the last living survivor.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to stand in the House today to speak about spinal cord injuries. This important issue deserves a discussion not only in Parliament but at the national level. I would like to take a moment to thank the hon. member for Montcalm for introducing this bill.
Bill C-643, an act to establish national spinal cord injury awareness day, proposes the designation of the third Friday of September each year as national spinal cord injury awareness day. At a fundamental level, this bill is about raising awareness of spinal cord injuries across Canada. It acknowledges the many challenges faced by Canadians living with spinal cord injuries as well as the critical role played by those who provide support and care for people with spinal cord injuries. It recognizes the important and significant contribution of the scientific community in improving the lives of thousands of people living with spinal cord injuries through research.
According to the final report of the national population health study of neurological conditions, entitled “Mapping Connections: An understanding of neurological conditions in Canada”, there are approximately 120,000 Canadians living with neurological conditions caused by spinal cord injuries. From this report, we also know that the incidence of spinal cord injuries is likely to be anywhere in the range of 1,400 to 1,700 a year over the next 20 years. These are alarming statistics. However, for Canadians living with spinal cord injuries, they are not just numbers.
Our Conservative government recognizes the significant impact spinal cord injuries have on the individuals affected, their families and friends, their community, and society at large. Spinal cord injuries entail enormous human, social, and economic burdens. There are staggering personal costs, including the cost of care and support over a lifetime. That is why raising awareness of injury prevention initiatives is critical. This includes the important initiatives our government has undertaken as well as those undertaken by national and regional non-governmental organizations. Reducing injuries among all Canadians, including spinal cord injuries, is important and achievable by increasing awareness of spinal cord injuries and by reducing the risks.
Who of us, in our younger days, did not dive into a body of water not knowing what the depth was? There are many risks we take, and awareness is certainly important.
Through the Public Health Agency of Canada, our government is involved in enhancing efforts to increase awareness of sports-related injuries among children and youth, which in turn will help to reduce many different preventable injuries, including spinal cord injuries.
I will give the House some examples over the next few minutes of some of the interventions that are happening.
In 2011, our government provided $5 million over two years to support injury prevention initiatives that reached Canadian children and youth in the communities where they live and play. The overall goal of the active and safe initiative was to reduce sports and recreation-related injuries sustained by children and youth, up to the age of 19, who participate in hockey, snow sports, cycling, and swimming. Through community-based activities, this investment increases injury awareness in sports and recreational activities by empowering Canadians to make safe choices for their children to reduce the risk of serious injuries, such as brain and spinal injuries.
We have recently gained a better understanding of the impact of falls on older Canadians with the release of the Public Health Agency of Canada's “Seniors' Falls in Canada: Second Report”, which was released in May, 2014. This report confirms that falls are the leading cause of injury among Canadians over the age of 65, with approximately 20% to 30% of seniors experiencing one or more falls per year. Of those seniors who experienced injuries due to falls, 8% involved injuries to the back or spine. That is a statistic I was completely unaware of.
In addition to supporting injury prevention initiatives, our government continues to support spinal cord injury research through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The work of its top researchers contributes to understanding the changes in neurons and support cells that could prevent and alleviate chronic neuropathic pain syndrome and could improve the recovery of limb function following spinal cord trauma or neurotrauma.
There are number other world-renowned organizations that work tirelessly toward reducing spinal cord injuries and disabilities. They advocate for improved quality of life for Canadians with spinal cord injury and continue to raise awareness of this issue. One of these organizations, which is a name familiar to many of us in this chamber and to Canadians across the country, is the Rick Hansen Foundation.
Before I speak specifically about the foundation, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the truly inspirational Canadian that Rick Hansen is. Although Rick suffered a life-changing spinal cord injury as a teenager, losing the use of his legs due to an automobile accident, he maintained a positive outlook. Through rehabilitation and steadfast determination, he continued to keep moving forward. Rick was involved in sports and eventually became a highly respected advocate for people living with a disability. At the 1982 Pan Am Games, held in Halifax, Rick took home nine gold medals. He was also hugely successful at both the 1980 and 1984 Paralympic Summer Games, winning gold, silver and bronze medals.
In 1985, Rick set out on a two-year journey known as the “Man in Motion World Tour”. This was a visionary quest to demonstrate to the world that people living with a disability had huge potential and could contribute to society if communities were more accessible and inclusive. This was the raison d'être for raising awareness of spinal cord injuries and disabilities in Canada and around the world.
Shortly after completing this tour, the Rick Hansen Foundation was established in 1988. In addition to finding a cure, the foundation endeavours to accelerate the progress in prevention and care of spinal cord injury as well as raising both awareness and funds to support people with disabilities.
On the 20th anniversary of the Man in Motion World Tour in 2007, our government announced funding for the foundation in support of its search for a cure for spinal cord injuries.
From 2007 to 2013, we have provided $30 million to the foundation to implement a spinal cord injury data system across the country and to support spinal cord injury research and the promotion of best practices in spinal cord injury care so Canadians affected by spinal cord injury can benefit from an improved quality of life.
The spinal cord injury registry started in Vancouver in 2003 and has since expanded across Canada. As of 2013, the registry was operational in 31 facilities in 15 cities. It is a huge accomplishment for the foundation, and our government is proud that we have played a role in its success.
Some of this funding also supported the creation of the Rick Hansen Institute in 2007, which is focused on research and care management. This institute is an independent not-for-profit organization committed to accelerating the translation of discoveries and best practices into improved treatments for people with spinal cord injury. This means that the institute leads a network of people with spinal cord injuries, researchers, service providers and other stakeholders that facilitate greater collaboration within the care and cure communities nationally and around the world. It is truly commendable work and it showcases the steadfast pursuit to achieve a world without paralysis after a spinal cord injury.
To keep the momentum going, the government announced $35 million to support some additional work of the Rick Hansen Foundation in spinal cord research.
Many other activities are currently happening, but certainly the designation of the third Friday in September as a national spinal cord awareness day would highlight these and other related commemorative events throughout the year.
Raising awareness about an issue such as spinal cord injury is a positive action. It is a simple action that can have profound effects on those living with a spinal cord injury. Most important, if we can prevent future injuries so we can turn the tide on the troubling statistics, it will be time and effort well spent.
View Bob Dechert Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bob Dechert Profile
2015-02-24 10:42 [p.11568]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in today's debate on the way forward in responding to the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of physician-assisted dying.
The issue of physician-assisted dying is very complex and evokes a range of deeply held feelings and responses that depend in large part on the experiences of each individual. Perspectives cut across demographic, political, and religious lines. This is a personal issue, above all else.
The member for Papineau, the Liberal leader, mentioned earlier that his views were informed by the last days he spent with his father. I think we have all had those personal experiences. I certainly went through that with my parents, with other family members, and with good friends. I think every Canadian has lived through a situation with a loved one where they saw a difficult end-of-life situation. We all have a view on this, and I think Canadians broadly need to be consulted in the process, because it is such a personal thing to every Canadian.
This issue will require us to confront the reality that every one of us will face death and the possibility that each of us will experience suffering at some point in our lives that may make it necessary to seek the assistance and support of others. These are fundamental aspects of what it means to be human.
I would like to assure all members that our government fully appreciates the serious nature of the challenges that lie ahead. We will be opposing the motion, because we intend to launch meaningful consultations soon with Canadians and key stakeholders so that we can hear all perspectives on this difficult issue.
It will be imperative for Canadians to also appreciate the complex and difficult nature of these issues. There are no easy answers here. We will ensure that during the months to come Canadians understand the subtleties of the issues before us and also understand the existing landscape of health care options at the end of life. For instance, every person can refuse treatment or stop treatment that has already been started, even where the result is that they will die. Many Canadians may be unaware of this existing right. Many seem to believe that physician-assisted dying means that they would now have the right to refuse life-prolonging treatment at the end of life. We must ensure that everyone understands what is already legal so that they are not confusing these measures with physician-assisted dying.
More specifically, we are here today because on February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the Criminal Code provisions on physician-assisted dying are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In so doing, the court reversed its own previous decision in the Rodriguez case, decided in 1993, just over 20 years ago. This time, the Supreme Court found that the prohibition deprived some people of the right to liberty and security of the person, which encompasses protection for choice and autonomy in fundamental life decisions about one's own body. It also found that the provisions deprived some people of the right to life, because they have the effect of forcing them to end their lives prematurely for fear that they will be unable to do so when the suffering becomes intolerable. These deprivations were held not to be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The court also held that the charter recognizes the value of life and honours the role autonomy and dignity play at the end of that life.
The court came to its conclusion after having considered the situations of the particular claimants in this case, in particular Gloria Taylor. In 2009, Ms. Taylor was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as ALS, a fatal neurodegenerative disease that causes progressive muscle weakness. ALS patients first lose the ability to use their hands and feet, then the ability to walk, chew, and swallow, and eventually to breathe. For Ms. Taylor and people like her, the court found that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying left her with what she described as a cruel choice between killing herself while she was still physically capable of doing so or giving up the ability to exercise any control over the manner and timing of her death.
The court concluded that the charter protects the right to physician-assisted death for competent adults who clearly consent and who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, including an illness, disease, or disability, that causes enduring and intolerable suffering. As a result, it found two sections of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional: the criminal prohibition against assisted suicide and the rule that a person cannot legally consent to death being inflicted upon oneself. The court found that the purpose of these laws was to protect vulnerable individuals from having their lives ended in times of weakness or through the coercion or abuse of others.
Since these laws apply to everyone, the court found that they violated the rights of individuals who are not vulnerable and who want to have physician-assisted death when they are grievously or irremediably ill.
The court also confirmed that Parliament's criminal jurisdiction includes the power to prohibit or regulate medical treatments, because they are dangerous. At the same time, it also affirmed that both the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments can legislate with respect to health, depending on the aspect being legislated.
The court suspended the legal effect of its ruling for 12 months in order to give Parliament time to develop an appropriate legislative response. During this time period, physician-assisted dying remains illegal.
While the Supreme Court framed its judgment around the concept of physician-assisted dying, I believe it is important at this early stage of the debate to distinguish between physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when a physician provides a patient with the means to end their own life, such as by prescribing a lethal dose of medication that the patient then self administers. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a physician actively causes a person's death at their request, typically through a lethal injection.
From the perspective of a person who is suffering intolerably and wishes to die with a physician's assistance, these two practices may appear indistinguishable. However, from the current criminal law perspective, they are different crimes with different penalties.
Under the current law, voluntary euthanasia meets the definition of murder, even when it is motivated by compassion or mercy, and even when the person requests or consents to dying. Murder is the most serious offence in our criminal law and is punishable by a mandatory life sentence. In contrast, a physician who aids a person in taking their own life falls within the offence of assisting suicide. This offence is punishable by a maximum of 14 years in prison.
Of the few jurisdictions that now regulate physician-assisted dying, some permit only euthanasia, some permit only assisted suicide, and some permit both. There is evidence suggesting that the risks and implications of the two practices are distinct. These are important distinctions to bear in mind.
The Supreme Court was clear in stating that it was confining itself to assessing the rights of those who would seek assistance in dying, rather than of those who might be tasked with providing such assistance, namely physicians. However, the reality is that the legal effect of the ruling is to require that the criminal law free physicians from criminal responsibility for their participation in helping some people die, or in actively causing death.
The fact that the law must now permit a zone of lawful participation in bringing about the death of others, however, raises some concerns. Many such concerns were raised before the courts in the Carter litigation as reasons justifying the absolute prohibition of these practices. Although the court has now rejected those arguments with respect to an absolute prohibition, this does not mean that those concerns and risks are not important and legitimate considerations moving forward. Indeed, the trial judge and the Supreme Court were clear that those risks and concerns are real. I would like to quote from the trial judge, who said:
...the risks inherent in permitting physician-assisted death can be identified and very substantially minimized through a carefully-designed system imposing stringent limits that are scrupulously monitored and enforced.
I consider this to be a key passage in the trial judgment, and it is one that is referred to several times by the Supreme Court. There are several things to note in this passage. First, the trial judge found that there are risks inherent in permitting physician-assisted dying. These risks will be borne by vulnerable individuals. Second, the risks can be identified and substantially minimized through a carefully designed regime with stringent limits and safeguards, although they cannot be eliminated entirely. Third, the limits and safeguards must be carefully implemented, monitored, and enforced.
This passage helps us see the path that lies ahead. We will need to identify the various risks to vulnerable individuals so that we can design a regime with limits and safeguards aimed at minimizing their occurrence. We will also need to consider mechanisms to ensure that physicians are clear about the law and how to apply it, and that the relevant authorities will be equally vigilant in monitoring and enforcing any violations.
The courts agree that there is no room for complacency, either in designing a legislative response or in its implementation. In my view, we must be very careful in designing these procedures. There is a lot that we already know about the nature of these risks. A great deal of evidence was presented to the courts in the Carter litigation about those risks.
Some risks that have already been identified relate to the difficulties that physicians may have in detecting whether a person's request to die is affected by depression or by the influence of third parties, such as family members. This last concern is especially acute in relation to the elderly. As we all know, elder abuse is a growing concern. All too often, people take advantage of a trust that an elderly person places in them. It is far from inconceivable that an adult child of an elderly person could suddenly suggest to him or her that he or she has lived a full life and no longer needs to suffer in a weakened or ill state. Adult children who may be eager to get at their parents' estate could conceivably try to influence their parent to choose assisted dying.
As a lawyer, I am very concerned about undue pressure on and manipulation of sick and elderly persons by unscrupulous beneficiaries. Anyone who has practised law in this country, and especially in the area of wills and estates law, would know about this. These lawyers have seen situations where elderly people have been subjected to a lot of pressure to enter into a certain will arrangement, in particular testamentary trust arrangements, which takes it to a different level. We need to be very cautious about how we proceed in this area. We would hope that such things would never happen, but in this process we will only hurt vulnerable individuals if we naively assume that such behaviour is outside the realm of possibility. The real question is how to guard against its resulting in an unwanted death.
Other risks relate to concerns that individuals could choose to seek death because of a faulty diagnosis or prognosis. While medicine is a science, diagnosing illness and disease and prognosticating over how long a person with an illness has to live are difficult medical determinations. My own father was a medical practitioner. He is retired now, currently in a hospital in Hamilton, Ontario. He told me many times about diagnoses that changed over time and test results that were inconclusive. As a child, I remember his telling me of a patient he had in Toronto about 40 years ago. A young man was injured in a high-school football accident and was in a coma for 21 years. After 21 years, he woke up and walked out of hospital one day. His mother sat by his side every single day for 21 years. Science is expanding all the time, but every day we learn more about the human body and its ability to heal itself.
My father graduated from medical school in 1953, and his entire career was about prolonging life and saving life. I worry about future generations of medical students and how they will deal now with the added responsibility to consider how to end a life.
There was also evidence presented to the court that persons with disabilities would face special risks under a regime that is overly permissive. The trial judge accepted evidence that people with disabilities face prejudice in the health care context because some physicians have subconscious biases that cause them to presume that the quality of life of disabled individuals is lower than those disabled individuals subjectively experience it to be. One concern is that a request to die from a person with a disability would too easily be accepted by his or her physician and that not enough time and energy would be spent looking behind the words to understand the reasons for the request. At a more general level, the concern of disability rights groups is that physician-assisted death would suddenly reinforce the more generalized social prejudice and stereotypes that disabled lives have less value and quality than those of other Canadians. Many disabled individuals find the assumption that life with a disability is less meaningful or somehow of lesser quality to be devaluing. We must take these concerns seriously.
Again, my experience is informed by my own personal experience with my late mother who passed away three years ago, suffering from the effects of Alzheimer's. Her last five years were not good. She was confined to an over-sized wheelchair. She had to be lifted in and out of that chair and in and out of bed. Many times she did not know where she was or who she was or to whom she was speaking. However, even in the final year, some days, out of the blue she would say something that was extremely appropriate, that was pithy, that was apropos to the moment, that was insightful, and we never knew when that would happen.
My brother and sister and I struggled to bring her out of the care home she was in to attend family events. There had to be special logistical arrangements and special caregivers, but every moment we spent with her was worthwhile, and we all wish that she was still with us today.
At a more general level, to be sure, there are differing views within the disability community, but these are the concerns that have been voiced by large national organizations in Canada and abroad. Hearing all voices over the coming months will be of critical importance, so that we can develop adequate responses and safeguards that affirm the equal and inherent dignity and value of all Canadians, including those with disabilities.
Many are likely to view the question of physician-assisted dying as a private matter between patients and their doctors when viewed through the lens of the single individual who genuinely and desperately wants to die because he or she has a medical condition that is causing intolerable suffering. The question of legalizing physician-assisted dying does appear to be a private one.
From the perspective of a person who truly wants to die, the issue may seem like a relatively simple one. However, as I have described, there are many issues that must be considered from the broader public perspective.
Some people may choose assisted dying after having lived a vibrant and full life, with the support of family and friends, after having been able to accomplish all of their dreams. However, not everyone is so fortunate. Some people may choose death as the most reasonable option because they are not supported by their families, they are lonely, or they are lacking the resources necessary to make life manageable. If these individuals request assistance to die from their physicians, how should they be treated?
There are likely several different options for a possible way forward on this issue. It would be critical to review the existing regimes internationally, as was done by the courts in the Carter decision. At present, they seem to fall into two groups. In the United States, there are three states—Oregon, Washington, and Vermont—that have legalized physician-assisted suicide only through a prescription of a lethal substance for those who are terminally ill. By contrast, three countries in Europe—Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg—have legalized and regulated euthanasia for persons suffering intolerably from any kind of medical condition.
Under these regimes, most people who obtain euthanasia are cancer patients at the end of life, but there are a growing number of people with psychiatric disorders and other types of conditions that are not life threatening. Difficult choices will need to be made. Do we as a society see the suffering of those who are dying differently from the suffering of those who still have a lot of life left to live? Are we doing all that we can to alleviate suffering in various forms?
I would like to mention palliative care at this point and pay special tribute to those very special people, the caregivers, nurses, and doctors, who work in the palliative care field. They are truly special angels and deserve our supports and thanks. I have seen family members go into palliative care and have a much better situation at the end of life than without it. That needs to be part of our debate. Any time that I think I have a difficult day at the office, I think of those who work in palliative care. God bless them.
How will we ensure that suicide prevention initiatives continue to improve while we offer assistance in death to some people? How can we help Canadians be less afraid to talk to their doctors and families about death and dying and consider preparing advance directives setting out their wishes if they should become unable to express their wishes?
Physician-assisted dying raises many difficult issues of great importance to all Canadians. It involves matters of life and death, questions of human dignity and suffering, and the inherent value and equality of all Canadians no matter what their medical conditions, age, or physical limitations and challenges. These are very profound questions. Our government opposes this motion because we have committed to consulting widely with Canadians in a meaningful and effective way. This will take some time and it behooves us to take the appropriate time now to carefully consider all perspectives and options.
We must all come together to work out solutions in a respectful and compassionate way. How we resolve these often conflicting values will speak to who we are as a society for many years to come. In my view, the special committee structure and the timeframe suggested in the Liberal motion would not allow for the proper consideration of all aspects of this very serious matter.
View Manon Perreault Profile
Ind. (QC)
View Manon Perreault Profile
2015-02-23 13:59 [p.11518]
Mr. Speaker, thalidomide victims are grateful to all members of Parliament for unanimously adopting a motion to give the victims financial compensation for the injustices against them and their years of pain and suffering.
However, the government has to make arrangements to ensure that the compensation promised is paid out as soon as possible. The victims cannot wait any longer. A woman in Montcalm called to thank us for the motion adopted in December, but now she is asking if we are going to keep our promise and how long that will take.
I am calling on the government to do everything it can to compensate the thalidomide victims without further delay. Madam Minister of Health, it is your responsibility to get the ball rolling so that the thalidomide victims do not have to wait any longer.
It is high time to put words into action.
View Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet Profile
NDP (QC)
View Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet Profile
2015-02-18 14:55 [p.11354]
Mr. Speaker, we would not recommend that a person with dual Canadian-American citizenship contribute to a registered disability savings plan. The current situation is completely unfair. The person is taxed by the United States when the money is deposited and, surprise, taxed again by Canada when the money is withdrawn.
Will the minister change the tax treaty in order to protect the thousands of citizens living with a disability?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2015-02-18 14:56 [p.11354]
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the registered disability savings plan, the only one of its kind in the world. It was created and really birthed by the late Jim Flaherty. It is one that allows families to save for their children or adult children who have disabilities, because for most parents, a very deep concern is what is going to happen to their children when they are gone.
We are absolutely very proud of our registered disability savings plan. We are proud that there has been more and more uptake on it, and we encourage any family that has a child with a disability to invest, because we are providing a huge amount of grant money for that.
View Mike Sullivan Profile
NDP (ON)
View Mike Sullivan Profile
2015-02-18 14:56 [p.11354]
Mr. Speaker, the government is double-taxing the disabled. That is a Conservative failure.
Canadian-American citizens are being taxed twice, once by Canada and once by the U.S., when contributing to their child's disability savings plan. Money invested is meant to increase the financial security of children living with a disability throughout their lifetime.
Why is the minister not listening to families and amending our tax treaty? Why are Conservatives penalizing parents for saving to secure their children's futures?
View Kevin Sorenson Profile
CPC (AB)
View Kevin Sorenson Profile
2015-02-18 14:57 [p.11355]
Mr. Speaker, again, we are delivering historic tax relief, leaving money in all Canadians' pockets. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We have introduced the family tax cut. We continue to bring forward measures to keep money in the pockets of Canadians.
View Carolyn Bennett Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Carolyn Bennett Profile
2015-02-02 14:51 [p.10915]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is cynically trying to balance its budget by holding back money that is allocated to Canadians with disabilities. In previous years, almost every penny allocated to the enabling accessibility fund was spent, but last year the government lapsed more than a third of that budget. More shocking is where this small amount of money is going; almost three-quarters of the money is spent in Conservative-held ridings.
Will the government stop playing politics with some of Canada's most vulnerable people?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2015-02-02 14:52 [p.10915]
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the enabling accessibility fund. We have funded over 1,800 projects across the country. Of course, projects need to actually be applied for in order to receive the funding, and the ridings and regions that have received funding are in direct proportion to the applications they have submitted.
We look forward to applications coming in from every corner of the country, from every riding, and to continuing to fund the enabling accessibility fund for people with disabilities.
View Stéphane Dion Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Quebec received only 7% of the funding available to renovate buildings to make them accessible to people with disabilities. Why did Quebec receive only 7%?
Is it because the Conservatives are allocating two-thirds or more of this funding to Conservative ridings, which are few and far between in Quebec? Is it because the Conservatives are neglecting Quebec? Is it because the Quebec ministers are asleep at the wheel? Is it for all of the above reasons?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2015-02-02 14:53 [p.10915]
Mr. Speaker, the proportion of funds that were allocated to projects are consistent with the applications received.
Let me give an example. In Ontario that particular year, there were a total of 1,092 applications received. In Quebec there were 206.
I would encourage all members to let their constituents, their community places know about the enabling accessibility fund. We are continuing to fund these projects, but I would encourage them to let their ridings know. Whatever their province they are from, those members of Parliament should help their community places know about our enabling accessibility fund.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, in 1961 the Canadian government made a terrible mistake when it approved thalidomide and was slow to pull it off the shelves. It was not until 2014 that the House unanimously voiced its support for compensation for hundreds of victims and adopted a motion to that effect. Today was the deadline for the government to move from the motion to action. However, nothing has been done.
Can the minister guarantee that the victims will receive compensation as soon as possible?
View Eve Adams Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Eve Adams Profile
2015-01-26 14:59 [p.10583]
Mr. Speaker, I can absolutely assure the House that we remain committed to working collaboratively with the survivors to ensure that their health care needs are supported.
Officials from Health Canada are working to undertake the analyses needed to approve this new spending. As one can imagine, in government all sorts of spending programs will have checks and balances that need to be covered off.
We are hopeful that the minister will be able to make an announcement very shortly.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-01-26 15:00 [p.10583]
Mr. Speaker, thalidomide survivors just do not have the luxury of time. They have been suffering from their disabilities their whole lives. The Canadian government told their mothers that thalidomide was safe. That means we have a moral responsibility to provide them with support now.
In December, the House vowed to make things right, but today an important deadline has passed and the government still has not moved to action.
Will the minister act quickly to give survivors the support they so desperately need?
View Eve Adams Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Eve Adams Profile
2015-01-26 15:00 [p.10583]
Mr. Speaker, nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering that has been inflicted on these survivors. This tragic event from the 1960s reminds us why we need to take drug safety so seriously.
I have had the pleasure of meeting with many members of the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada and will continue working to ensure that survivors are properly supported.
We hope that the minister will be able to make an announcement very shortly.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 768--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to travel paid for by government departments and agencies for Members of Parliament and Senators other than the minister, Minister of State, or Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the department: since 2010-2011 inclusively, (a) what was the total cost for each trip; (b) what was the cost for each trip, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) gifts; (c) what was the reason for each trip; (d) what was the name of the Member of Parliament or Senator on each trip; (e) what was the itinerary for each trip; (f) was the Member accompanied by staff and, if so, what was the cost for the staff member or members, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) gifts; and (g) was a press release issued regarding the trip and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 769--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program announced on February 21, 2012: (a) how much funding has been disbursed; (b) which organizations have received funding; and (c) for each funding award, (i) how many participants have there been, (ii) how many participants are expected to take part over the course of the program, (iii) where is the program located, (iv) what is the estimated at-risk population in each city, town, or municipality concerned, (v) how much funding did the project receive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 770--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to the Treasury Board Secretariat: (a) does the Directive on Open Government, dated October 9, 2014, apply to tabular material prepared by departments, agencies, or crown corporations in response to written questions placed on the Order Paper by Members of the House of Commons or Senators; (b) if the response to (a) is negative, (i) why does the Directive not apply, (ii) who made this determination, (iii) when was this determination made; and (c) what are the titles and file numbers of any file, briefing note, dossier, or any other document, created or held by either the Treasury Board Secretariat or the Privy Council Office, relating to the application of the Directive on Open Government to government responses to written questions placed on the Order Paper by Members of the House of Commons or Senators?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 771--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to the rental or charter of private aircraft for the use of ministers and parliamentary secretaries since January 1, 2010: (a) what was the cost for each rental or charter; (b) what was the passenger manifest for each flight; (c) what was the purpose of the trip; (d) what was the itinerary for each trip; and (e) was a press release issued regarding the trip and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 772--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to Passport Canada: what was the total number of passport applications received in each year since 2006 inclusive, broken down by (i) in-person location, (ii) Service Canada receiving agent location, (iii) Canada Post receiving agent, and (iv) mail?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 774--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the statutes, regulations, policies and practices governing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans related to the issuing and administration of commercial fishing licences and fisheries resource allocation decisions: (a) what is the definition of (i) a commercial fishing licence, (ii) a commercial fishing permit; (b) what are the differences between a commercial fishing licence and a commercial fishing permit in terms of (i) the rights and responsibilities of the harvester holding either a licence or a permit respectively, (ii) the rights and responsibilities of the Minister in terms of resource allocation policy; (c) what is the definition of the “Last-in – First-out” (LIFO) policy; (d) how often has the LIFO policy been acted upon in determining allocations of annual quotas to either commercial fisheries licences or to permit holders that have experienced any year-over-year decline in the total allowable catch, broken down by (i) year, (ii) each such regulated harvesting category within any of the fisheries management areas of each fisheries stock area within the Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf, the Maritime and the Quebec regions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, further broken down in turn by (iii) species fished, (iv) individual fisheries management area within the species stock area within the past ten years, including the total quota levels for each such species and for each such fisheries management area within each stock area in each year; and (e) in each of the occurrences reported in answering (d), for each of the past ten years described, what was the total number of fish licence holders or permit holders who were directly affected by a reduction in quota on a year-over-year basis and were subject to the application and enactment of the LIFO policy, broken down by (i) species, (ii) individual fisheries management area within each fisheries stock area?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 778--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to the application of the Access to Information Act: (a) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all directives, orders, memoranda, reports, dossiers, or other documents that deal with the security concerns associated with the release of documents pursuant to Access to Information requests in digital formats or on digital media; and (b) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all directives, orders, memoranda, reports, dossiers, or other documents in which the Privy Council Office has set down or promulgated its policies concerning the provision or non-provision of documents released pursuant to Access to Information requests in digital formats or on digital media?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 779--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the ship Kathryn Spirit moored in Beauharnois, Quebec: (a) has Environment Canada or Transport Canada received a towing plan or an environmental certificate application from the ship’s owner and, if so, when was this plan received; (b) according to government information, is Reciclajes Ecologicos Maritimos the ship’s owner; (c) if the answer to (b) is no, who owns the ship, according to government information; (d) has the government conducted an analysis as to whether federal legislation allows the ship to be dismantled at its mooring location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (e) has the government conducted an analysis of the risk of pollution from dismantling the ship and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (f) according to government information, does the ship contain toxic materials and, if so, what are they; (g) is there a port equipped to dismantle such a ship in Canada and, if so, where is it; (h) has the government analyzed whether federal legislation allows it to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (i) does the government intend to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location; and (j) has the government conducted an analysis on dismantling the ship in the Port of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield or in another port elsewhere in the country and, if so, has it estimated the cost of such an operation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 780--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to government expenditures on sporting event tickets: since January 1, 2013, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) ticket cost, (iv) identity of persons using the tickets, (v) nature of the sporting event, for all sporting event tickets purchased by any department, agency or crown corporation, or any person acting on behalf of a department, agency, or crown corporation, whether the event was held in Canada or outside Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 782--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to government advertising since September 1, 2012: (a) how much has been spent on billboards, advertising and other information campaigns, broken down by (i) date released, (ii) cost, (iii) topic, (iv) whether any analysis of the effectiveness of the advertising campaign was carried out and, if so, the details of that analysis, (v) medium, including publication or media outlet and type of media used, (vi) purpose, (vii) duration of campaign (including those that are ongoing), (viii) targeted audience, (ix) estimated audience; and (b) what are the details of all records of related correspondence regarding the aforementioned billboards, advertising and other information campaigns broken down by (i) relevant file numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 783--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk and moose: (a) since 2006, what government funding has been allocated or provided to research this disease, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) year; (b) what documents have been produced by government departments or agencies with regard to existing or future economic, health or environmental impacts of CWD including, for each document, the (i) date, (ii) authoring department or agency; (c) what documents have been produced by government departments or agencies regarding CWD generally including, for each document, the (i) date, (ii) authoring department or agency; (d) for each year since 2006, what measures have been taken by the government to mitigate the spread of CWD in Canada, including (i) the department or agency responsible for each measure, (ii) the date each measure was initiated, (iii) the duration of each measure, (iv) the objective of each measure, (v) whether those objectives were met; (e) what strategies and programs are currently in place or are being developed to deal with the potential spread of CWD to animals not currently susceptible to the disease, and to humans; (f) since 2006, what meetings or consultations have been conducted with provincial or territorial governments regarding CWD and what documents or decisions were produced from those meetings or consultations, including (i) the initiating and responsible federal department or agency, (ii) the date of the document that was produced or of the decision that was taken; (g) since 2006, what consultations, meetings or outreach has any federal department or agency had with any First Nations, Inuit or Metis government, organization or representative, including the (i) date of the interaction, (ii) names of participants, (iii) topics discussed, (iv) outcomes, (v) documents produced as a result of the interaction; (h) since 2006, what measures has the government put in place to monitor the spread of CWD, including (i) the department or agency initiating each measure, (ii) the date each measure was initiated, (iii) the duration of each measure; and (i) what measures are currently being considered by government departments or agencies as a result of, or in relation to, CWD?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 784--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act: how much have payments increased on average for (i) the 2,717 veterans entitled to increased earnings loss benefits, (ii) the 590 veterans entitled to increased Permanent Incapacity Allowances, (iii) the 202 veterans entitled to Exceptional Incapacity Allowances?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 786--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to the benefit provided by the government for veterans' funeral and burial expenses: (a) what is the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program for funeral services; (b) how does the amount in (a) compare to the allowable maximum established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces; (c) in order to qualify for the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program, at what must a veteran's estate be valued; (d) how does the amount in (c) compare to the means test established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces; (e) how many requests for assistance with burial costs were made in each of the fiscal years from 2006 to 2013; (f) how many of the requests in (e) were approved; (g) for each request in (e), broken down by fiscal year, what were the reasons for rejecting the request; and (h) what is the total number of requests that were rejected for each particular reason mentioned in (g)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 787--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to the Income Tax Act: during each of the last five taxation years, (a) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been reviewed, broken down by income tax filers who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (iii) in a location other than a Northern or Intermediate Zone; (b) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been audited, broken down by income tax filers who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (iii) in a location other than a Northern or Intermediate Zone; (c) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been (i) reviewed, (ii) audited, broken down by income tax filers who have claimed any northern residents deduction and those who have not claimed any northern residents deduction; (d) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, after having been (i) reviewed, (ii) audited, have had their claim for the northern residents deduction rejected, broken down by those income tax filers who have claimed the northern residents deduction in a Prescribed Northern Zone and those who have claimed the northern residents deduction in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone; (e) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, in respect of the northern residents deduction, have been asked to document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city, broken down by those who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction; (f) of the tax filers enumerated in (e), what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, in respect of the northern residents deduction, informed the Canada Revenue Agency that they could not document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city; and (g) of the tax filers enumerated in (e), what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory whose claim of the northern residents deduction has been rejected because they could not document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 788--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to the administration of the Income Tax Act: (a) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the cost-effectiveness of reviewing or auditing income tax filers who claim the northern residents deduction; (b) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (a); (c) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the administrative burden faced by income tax filers who claim the northern residents deduction; (d) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (c); (e) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the administrative burden faced by the Canada Revenue Agency in administering the northern residents deduction; and (f) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 789--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to Public Private Partnerships involving Infrastructure Canada or PPP Canada: since January 1, 2006, for each such project, what are (a) the details of the project; (b) the time taken to design the bidding process; (c) the length of the bidding process from the initial expression of interest to the close; and (d) the cost to proponents of preparing a bid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 790--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs: how many clients were served each year from 2010 to 2014 inclusively at each Veterans Affairs office location, including the nine offices that have recently closed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 793--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to government spending in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing: what was the total amount spent, from fiscal year 2010-2011 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the funds were received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program through which the funding was allocated, (iv) the department responsible, (v) the designated recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 794--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to licenses and permits issued by government departments, related to any maritime activity for potential use anywhere within, or in the waters of, the Atlantic provinces: (a) for each license or permit issued since 2009, (i) on what date was each license or permit issued, (ii) who were the owners or operators, (iii) under what conditions concerning the use, retention, or renewal of the license or permit, was it issued; (b) for each vessel whose license was suspended, rejected, or for which a renewal was denied, (i) on what date was the license suspended, rejected, or the renewal denied, (ii) for what reasons, (iii) by whose authority; (c) what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and all entities, departments, companies, contractors, or individuals, relating to the suspension, rejection or denial of license renewal, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) date, (iv) purpose, (v) origin, (vi) intended destination, (vii) other officials copied or involved; (d) what are the specific rules for the retention or renewal of any such license or permits; (e) what are all rules, files, and correspondence related to observer and dockside monitoring of these license-holders and users, broken down by (i) all relevant file numbers, (ii) entities, companies, contractors, or individuals, (iii) minister or department, (iv) correspondence or file type, (v) date, (vi) purpose, (vii) origin, (viii) intended destination, (ix) other officials copied or involved, (x) military base, asset, or facility, (xi) type of activity or contract; (f) what differences exist in the conditions for licenses or permits among different regions, zones, or provinces; and (g) what are the rules governing the keeping, as opposed to the releasing, of fish caught on boats used for recreational or touristic purposes, broken down by (i) province, (ii) number of applicable licensees or permits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 796--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces Task Force Libeccio in Operation Mobile: what were the (a) full and incremental costs from March 2011 to October 2011, broken down by month; (b) full and incremental costs for the (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140; (c) total flying hours for the (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140; (d) full and incremental costs of all base support arrangements (e.g. accommodations, meals, amenities, infrastructure, utilities) including any in-kind support received; (e) full and incremental costs of all deployment, supply, and re-deployment flights, including Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and charter aircraft; (f) ordnance ammunition used and its full and incremental costs; (g) full and incremental costs related to fuel delivered by RCAF tankers; (h) full and incremental costs of repair and overhaul; (i) full and incremental costs of any special pay or allowances for deployed personnel; (j) full and incremental costs associated with Home Leave Travel Assistance; (k) full and incremental costs associated with Class C Reserves deployed on operations; and (l) full and incremental costs associated with Class B Reserves employed as backfill in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 797--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces Operation IMPACT: what are the estimated (for the entire six-month operation) and actual (to-date) (a) full and incremental costs for the mission, broken down by month; (b) full and incremental costs for the (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; (c) total flying hours for the (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; (d) full and incremental costs of all base support arrangements (e.g. accommodations, meals, amenities, infrastructure, utilities) including any in-kind support received; (e) full and incremental costs of all deployment, supply, and re-deployment flights, including Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and charter aircraft; (f) ordnance ammunition (i) used, (ii) to be used, and its full and incremental costs; (g) full and incremental costs related to fuel delivered by RCAF tankers; (h) full and incremental costs of repair and overhaul; (i) full and incremental costs of any special pay or allowances for deployed personnel; (j) full and incremental costs associated with Home Leave Travel Assistance; (k) full and incremental costs associated with Class C Reserves deployed on operations; and (l) full and incremental costs associated with Class B Reserves employed as backfill in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 798--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) for the data collected in the Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS), for all the Department’s various program components, what were the processing times for grant and contribution applications between the time the program received the application and the time the Department made a funding decision, broken down by program component and quarter, for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively; and (b) for the Department’s executive committee responsible for reviewing the data on processing times collected in the GCIMS, (i) who are the members of the executive committee, (ii) how often does it meet, (iii) what is its operating budget, (iv) what were its recommendations to the Minister’s office, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (v) what were its recommendations to the deputy ministers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (vi) what were its recommendations to the assistant deputy ministers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (vii) what were its recommendations to directors general, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (viii) what were its recommendations to program managers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 799--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the government’s Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Summit (the Summit) held in Toronto, May 28-30, 2014: (a) who within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development was responsible for the organization of the Summit; (b) what was the initial budget of the event, (i) did the Summit go over budget, (ii) if so, what were the cost overruns, (iii) were there unforeseen expenses; (c) what was the total cost of the Summit; (d) what was the total cost for the venue rental (Fairmont Royal York); (e) how many bedrooms in the Fairmont Royal York were paid for by the government and at what cost; (f) how many names were on the final guest list and what were the names; (g) how many government officials and employees attended the Summit and what are their names; (h) how many guests who are not employees of the government had their stay at the Fairmont Royal York paid for by the government and what are their names; (i) did the government pay for the travel expenses of international visitors; (j) how was the Fairmont Royal York chosen as a venue for the Summit, (i) on what date was the hotel first contacted with regard to the Summit, (ii) on what date was the contract with the hotel signed, (iii) did the Summit organizers contact venues other than the Fairmont Royal York and, if so, how many; (k) what was the total cost for security; (l) what was the total cost of meals and hospitality; and (m) was the Summit paid for by funds dedicated to the Muskoka Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 804--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Mount Polley mine spill: (a) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) or Environment Canada filed charges regarding the spill, (i) if so, what are the details of the charges, (ii) if not, why not; (b) what role are DFO and Environment Canada playing in the ongoing investigation being led by British Columbia conservation officers; (c) are DFO and Environment Canada reviewing the rehabilitation plan developed by Imperial Metals Corporation, (i) if so, what are the findings of any such review, (ii) if not, why not; (d) has the government obtained the approval of the Secwepemc people for the investigation process or the review of the rehabilitation plan; (e) has the government studied the impact of the waste that remains in the Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake Watershed; (f) during and following the rehabilitation process, how will DFO and Environment Canada ensure that there are no ongoing violations of the Fisheries Act; (g) how is the government monitoring and enforcing compliance with best practice standards by Imperial Metals Corporation at its other mine sites; (h) how will the government ensure that there are additional layers of control to prevent loopholes in regulatory oversight and enforcement by the province; (i) will the government be examining any proposals concerning (i) repairs to the tailings storage facility, (ii) the resumption of operations at the mine; (j) how will the government ensure that the interests of the affected First Nations are addressed prior to any resumption of operation; (k) what steps will the government take to ensure that First Nation rights are addressed; and (l) what are the internal tracking numbers of all documents, communications or briefing notes regarding the Mount Polley spill for senior departmental officials at the Regional Director General level and above, at both DFO and Environment Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 805--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation (ECBC): for each year from 2005 to 2014 inclusively, (a) how much did the ECBC spend on infrastructure; and (b) what were all the projects of the ECBC, including but not limited to details such as the project’s name, purpose, and cost?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 806--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to federal government employees in Nova Scotia: for each year from 2005 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by department, how many government employees worked in (i) Cape Breton Regional Municipality, (ii) Victoria County, (iii) Inverness County, (iv) Richmond County?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 807--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario), how much government funding has been approved and distributed to each of the 37 census divisions by year since 2009?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 808--
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé:
With respect to the Canada Job Grant: (a) how much is each province and territory receiving in federal transfers under the Canada Job Fund for the current fiscal year, and for each subsequent fiscal year until the Fund is fully phased-in; (b) how much did each province and territory receive in federal transfers under the Labour Market Agreements in 2013-2014; (c) how much is, or is projected to be, the federal portion of the Canada Job Grant, year-to-date and for each of the coming fiscal years until the program is fully phased-in; (d) is the federal contribution to the Canada Job Grant paid out of the 40 % funds earmarked for employer-driven training under the Canada Job Fund; (e) if the federal portion of the Canada Job Grant is not paid out of the Canada Job Fund, from which program envelope is the contribution drawn; (f) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has the government actually spent on the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (g) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has each province and territory contributed to the Canada Job Grant from the Canada Job Fund; (h) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has been the employer contribution to the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (i) how much is the employer contribution projected to be for the Canada Job Grant for each of the coming fiscal years, until the program is fully phased-in; (j) how many businesses are projected to be eligible to provide “in-kind contribution” as their share of the Canada Job Grant when the program is fully-phased in; (k) what are eligible contributions “in-kind” for an employer’s participation in the Canada Job Grant; (l) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how many Canadians have been trained with the help of the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (m) how many Canadians will be trained with help of the Canada Job Grant for each of the fiscal years until it is fully phased-in; and (n) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, for which occupations have Canadians been trained with the help of the Canada Job Grant (using the National Occupational Classification system)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 811--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to government records: what information, asset management systems, correspondence tracking systems, telecommunications logs, vehicle logs, and all other forms of records are (a) kept, broken down by (i) department, (ii) record type, (iii) duration of preservation, (iv) frequency of update, (v) date of oldest currently preserved record, (vi) method of disposal, (vii) file numbering or similar record access system, (viii) list of employees (by title), contractors or other individuals with access to the records, (ix) method of keeping track of access requests to the records; and (b) not kept, including the details pertaining to what was not kept and why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 812--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the changes announced in October 2014 to the Caregiver Program (the Program), formerly known as the Live-In Caregiver Program: (a) what individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments did the government consult as part of the process of developing the changes; (b) when did each consultation in (a) occur; (c) how did each consultation in (a) occur; (d) who in the government carried out each consultation in (a); (e) for past or current participants in the Program, (i) what opportunities existed to participate in consultations, (ii) how did the government make them aware of these opportunities, (iii) when did the government make them aware of these opportunities; (f) for other individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments, (i) how did the government make them aware of the opportunity to participate in consultations, (ii) when did the government make them aware of the opportunity; (g) what results of the consultations in (a) were presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (h) how were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (i) when were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (j) according to what criteria were the inputs that were received through consultations in (a) evaluated by the government; (k) what studies, reports, surveys, or other documents were consulted by the government; (l) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for Children Pathway; (m) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for People with High Medical Needs Pathway; (n) what was the number of principal applicants for permanent residence through the Program for each of the last ten years; (o) do the caps in (l) and (m) refer only to the number of new applications that the government will accept each year, or do they refer to the total number of applications that will be processed each year; (p) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents are currently in Canada as part of the Program; (q) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents have been in Canada as part of the Program for each of the last ten years; (r) how many temporary residents does the government expect to be in Canada as part of the Program for each of the next ten years; (s) what studies has the government carried out or consulted to determine whether the number of temporary residents in Canada as part of the Program is likely to change in the coming years; (t) what are the conclusions of the studies in (s); (u) for each of the last ten years, not including spouses and dependents, how many applications for permanent residence under the Program have been (i) submitted, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied; (v) if the number of principal applicants for permanent residence exceeds the cap of 2750 in either category in a given year, how will the government determine which applications to consider; (w) who will make the determination in (v); (x) based on what factors will the determination in (v) be made; (y) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program are currently being processed, not including spouses and dependents; (z) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program, not including spouses and dependents, does the government intend to process for each of the next five years; (aa) how will the government reduce the backlog of permanent residence applications under the program; (bb) by what date does the government intend to reduce the backlog in (aa); (cc) how many applications must be processed before the government will consider the backlog in (aa) to be reduced; (dd) when will the six-month limit on processing times for applications under the Program take effect; (ee) what impact will the six-month limit in (dd) have on applications underway at the time the limit takes effect; (ff) what measures will be implemented to ensure that applications for permanent residence will be processed within six months; (gg) what recourse will be available to applicants whose applications are not processed within six months; (hh) how will applications that remain in process after six months be dealt with by the government; (ii) will the six-month limit apply regardless of (i) the number of dependents, (ii) the country of origin of the principal applicants, their spouse, or their dependents; (jj) what measures are being introduced to give recourse to temporary residents in Canada under the Program who feel that they are being exploited or treated inappropriately by their employers, whether or not the caregiver lives with the employer; (kk) what changes have been made or will be made to the criteria used to evaluate applications for permanent residence under the Program; (ll) what directives have been or will be issued to visa officers; (mm) when do the directives in (ll) take effect; and (nn) how will applicants with applications currently underway be affected by the changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 813--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children of Canadian residents: (a) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of Canadian citizens; (b) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (a), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (c) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of non-citizen permanent residents of Canada, excluding the Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP); (d) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (c), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (e) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children under the LCP; (f) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (e), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (g) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a); (h) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (i) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (a) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (j) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c); (k) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (l) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (c) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (m) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e); (n) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (o) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (e) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (p) has the government set processing times it considers acceptable for applications by applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children (i) of Canadian citizens, (ii) of non-citizen permanent residents, (iii) under the live-in caregiver program; (q) how were the acceptable processing times in (p) determined; (r) who determined the acceptable processing times in (p); (s) what variance, if any, exists for acceptable processing times in (p) based on (i) source country, (ii) age of applicant, (iii) visa office, (iv) other factors; (t) what changes, if any, have been made to the acceptable processing times in (p) over the last ten years, and what accounts for these changes; (u) if no acceptable processing times have been set, why have they not been set; (v) what evaluations of processing times has the government undertaken; (w) what were the results of the evaluations in (v); (x) if no evaluations of processing times have been undertaken, why has this not been done; (y) broken down by year, for each of the last ten years, what operational bulletins, changes to operational manuals, or other directives, published or unpublished, formal or informal, written or oral, have been issued by CIC to visa officers regarding applications by individuals seeking permanent residence as dependents of residents of Canada; (z) for each of the directives in (y), (i) how was the directive issued, (ii) by whom was it issued, (iii) what was the objective of the directive, (iv) how were its effects evaluated, (v) is it still in force; and (aa) for each directive in (y) no longer in force, (i) why was it terminated, (ii) who made the decision to terminate it, (iii) how was the decision to terminate it communicated to visa officers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 814--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the government’s implementation of motion M-456, a Pan-Canadian Strategy for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: (a) what steps has the government taken or do they plan on taking to implement this strategy; (b) what are the needs identified by the government that this strategy could address; (c) what information or data has been provided or solicited from Statistics Canada or the Canadian Institute for Health of Information regarding patient needs for palliative and end-of-life care; (d) what standards and best practices have been identified for this strategy; (e) what stakeholders and medical experts have been identified as collaborators in developing this strategy, and which of them have been approached; (f) which provinces and territories have been approached to discuss the establishment of this strategy; (g) what steps has the government taken to implement this strategy for the jurisdictions where it has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners; and (h) what palliative and end-of-life care programs are currently in place where the government has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 816--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance through Enhanced Exchange of Information under the Convention Between the United States of America and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (the Agreement), the government’s Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament (the Policy), and the statement of Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader, in the House on Monday, April 28, 2014, that “in this case, the fact is that the government, the cabinet, actually did grant such an exemption to the tabling policy. As such, the very words of the policy, the requirements of the policy, have been followed. The processes for obtaining the exemption were obtained. As a result, the requirement that it be tabled in the House 21 days in advance of the legislation being introduced is not necessary and the policy is fully complied with” (the Statement): (a) was an exemption to the government’s Policy granted with respect to the Agreement; (b) what is the difference between an “exemption” and an “exception” in terms of the Policy; (c) if the word “exception” is substituted for “exemption” is the Statement accurate; (d) on what basis was the Statement made; (e) how was the Government House Leader informed of the exemption or exception being granted to the Policy; (f) what documents or memos were created regarding this exemption or exception and what are their access or control numbers; (g) who was involved in this decision to grant an exemption or exception and at what stage were they involved; (h) what was the process, step-by-step, by which this Agreement was granted an exemption or exception; (i) who reviewed the decision to grant an exemption or exception, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii) how; (j) does the Policy apply to the Agreement, and how; (k) between what departments does correspondence exist regarding the tabling of the Agreement under the Policy and what are the file numbers for these documents; (l) on what date was the Agreement concluded; (m) on what date was the Agreement tabled in Parliament; (n) on what date was the Agreement ratified; (o) when was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (p) how was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (q) when was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (r) how was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (s) when and by what means is the House usually informed that an exception has been granted to the Policy; (t) in the absence of the point of order prompting the Government House Leader's response, how and when would the House have been informed of the exemption; (u) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exceptions being granted to the Policy; (v) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exceptions have been granted; (w) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exemptions being granted to the Policy; (x) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exemptions have been granted; (y) what does “urgent” mean in the context of the Policy; (z) how was the ratification of the Agreement determined to be urgent; (aa) who made the determination in (z), (i) how, (ii) on the basis of what information, (iii) with what authority, (iv) under what criteria; (bb) how was the decision in (z) reviewed, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) when, (iv) by what criteria; (cc) who are or were the lead ministers with respect to the Agreement in terms of the Policy and how was this determined; (dd) when and how did the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the lead ministers seek approval from the Prime Minister for an exemption to the treaty tabling process; (ee) when was the approval in (dd) granted and how; (ff) what correspondence is available – with file and control number--to corroborate the information provided in response to (dd) and (ee); (gg) was a “joint-letter that clearly articulates the rationale to proceed with the ratification, without tabling in the House of Commons” created; (hh) with respect to the letter in (gg), (i) who created this letter, (ii) when is it dated, (iii) how can it be obtained, (iv) who has access to it, (v) to whom is it addressed; (ii) was the letter drafted in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the relevant Secretariat in the Privy Council Office; (jj) what documentation exists – with file or control number for each document--to corroborate the information provided in response to (ii); (kk) who is responsible for retention and access of such joint letters; (ll) with respect to the Agreement, were the responsible ministers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware early on of the need to request an exemption to the treaty process prior to obtaining Cabinet authority to sign a treaty; (mm) how is “early on” defined for purposes of the Policy; (nn) how is “aware” defined for purposes of this provision in the Policy; (oo) was a request made in a Memorandum to Cabinet, seeking policy approval for the Agreement; (pp) what Memorandums to Cabinet exist relative to this agreement, (i) what are their dates, (ii) are they subject to privilege, (iii) who made them, (iv) what are their record or control numbers; (qq) which document in (pp) can be said to “clearly articulate the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process”; (rr) what is the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process with respect to the Agreement; (ss) who determines the rationale per the Policy; (tt) what is an acceptable rationale per the Policy; (uu) how is rationale defined in terms of the Policy; (vv) is there a minimal level of sufficiency for a rationale per the Policy and if so what is it; (ww) when was the exception granted; (xx) did the Minister of Foreign Affairs “inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification” per the Policy; (yy) when did the actions in (xx) occur and how; (zz) in 2014, how many exemptions or exceptions were granted under the Policy before the Agreement; (aaa) in 2014, was the Agreement’s rationale for exception unique; (bbb) in 2014, was the Agreement the only item determined to be urgent in terms of the Policy; (ccc) is the Government House Leader always informed of exceptions and exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (ddd) is the House always informed of exceptions or exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (eee) how early could the Agreement have been tabled in Parliament; (fff) how was the date in (eee) determined; (ggg) if the Agreement could have been tabled earlier in Parliament than the date in (o), (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis; and (hhh) if the Statement could have been made sooner in the House than Monday, April 28, 2014, (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 817--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Statistics Canada: (a) have studies been done on how to use alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (b) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered prior to 2011 to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (c) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered from 2011 to the present to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (d) prior to 2011, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (e) from 2011 to the present, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (f) what studies, reports or assessments have been prepared by Statistics Canada regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (g) what briefing documents have been prepared for ministers and their staff regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (h) before 2011, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key; and (i) from 2011 to the present, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 818--
Ms. Peggy Nash:
With regard to government funding: for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present, (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Parkdale—High Park, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 820--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement of $5.8 billion in new infrastructure investments on November 24, 2014, in London, Ontario, and each of the commitments detailed in the accompanying backgrounder: (a) what department and program does each commitment fall under; (b) how much will be spent on each commitment in each of the next five fiscal years; (c) were these funds in the fiscal framework in Budget 2014; (d) do any of these commitments constitute an increase in planned spending and, if so, (i) which, (ii) by how much; (e) on each of these programs for capital and infrastructure investments in each fiscal year since 2004-2005, what was (i) allocated, (ii) spent, (iii) lapsed; and (f) was the expenditure of these funds already accounted for in the economic forecasts used by the Finance Department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 821--
Ms. Laurin Liu:
With regard to government funding for the aerospace industry since 2010: how much has been invested in the form of loans or research and development tax credits, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province and territory, (iii) federal program, (iv) funding type (tax credit, repayable loan, non-repayable loan), (v) individual company?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 826--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the Prime Minister's trips to Northern Canada in or about August 2006, August 2007, August 2008, August 2009, August 2010, August 2011, August 2012, and August 2013: what are the details concerning the costs of these trips, including those costs of federal personnel already on the ground in Northern Canada tasked with support, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) department or agency, (iv) purpose or nature of the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 827--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to Veterans Affairs delegations to Cyprus in March 2014, to Normandy in June 2014, and to Italy in November 2014: (a) for each delegation, what was the (i) total cost to each department which incurred expenditures related to the delegation, (ii) total cost for accommodation, (iii) total cost for travel, (iv) total cost for gifts, (v) total cost for meals and incidentals, (iv) complete list of delegation members, (vii) complete itinerary, (viii) reason for each delegation; (b) for each member of the delegation, what was the (i) total cost to each department which incurred expenditures related to the delegation, (ii) total cost for accommodation, (iii) total cost for travel, (iv) total cost for gifts, (v) total cost for meals and incidentals, (vi) reason for inclusion on the delegation; (c) for each contract for accommodations, was the contract competitively or non-competitively sourced and, if non-competitively, what was the rationale for non-competitive sourcing; and (d) for each delegation, (i) when was the itinerary tentatively established, (ii) when was the itinerary finalized, (iii) when was the Minister of Veterans Affairs own travel booked, (iv) if there were any changes to the booking referred to in (iii), what were those changes and when were they made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 828--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to Health Canada’s marketing campaign concerning marijuana and prescription drugs, launched on or about October 20, 2014: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted leading up to this decision; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (c) what are the dates, times, and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted; (d) how much funding has been allocated to the deployment of this proposal for fiscal year 2014-2015; (e) what are the next steps in this marketing campaign; (f) how is the effectiveness, reach, and impact of this campaign measured; and (g) what other methods is the Department or government considering to make Canadians more aware of the real dangers of drug abuse?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 830--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to government advertising: what was (a) the total amount spent on radio or television advertisements; and (b) the total number of placements in each medium, broken down by (i) subject matter of the advertisement and title of the advertising campaign, (ii) broadcast outlet on which the advertisements were placed, (iii) identification number, Media Authorization Number, or ADV number, (iv) name, (v) time-period when the advertisement was broadcast, namely, from September 5, 2014, to October 11, 2014, from October 12, 2014, to November 17, 2014, and on or after November 18, 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 831--
Ms. Laurin Liu :
With respect to the Canada Accelerator and Incubator Program launched in September 2013: (a) how much money was budgeted for the program, broken down by year; (b) how many applications have been received, broken down by province and territory; (c) how much money will be allocated, broken down by province and territory; (d) which groups have received funding; and (e) which groups have received a pledge of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 838--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the access to information system: broken down by government department, institution and agency, for each year from 2004 to 2014, (a) what is the budget for managing access to information requests; (b) how much was spent on the access to information system; (c) how much was spent on full-time equivalent employees; (d) how much was spent on non-full-time equivalent employees, such as consultants and temporary hiring services, to carry out access to information activities; (e) how much did these non-full-time equivalent employees cost per hour; (f) what were these non-full-time equivalent employees hired to do; and (g) what are the security clearances of these non-full time equivalent employees?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 840--
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:
With regard to the government’s announcement that it will transfer to the National Capital Commission up to 60 acres of land belonging to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for the construction of a hospital and teaching facilities: (a) was this decision preceded by public and private consultations; (b) what was the consultation process and what were the methods involved; (c) when was the consultation process launched; and (d) what organizations were consulted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 841--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to public revenue: for each government organization, including a department, agency, or Crown corporation, (a) when providing a good or service, does that organization charge a fuel surcharge or any other charge or fee related to the cost of fuel; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) what is the nature or description of the good or service provided for which a fuel surcharge or related fee is charged, (ii) in each case, when was the fuel surcharge or fee first instituted, (iii) how often is the fuel surcharge or fee adjusted, (iv) what were the dates of each occasion on which the fuel surcharge or fee was adjusted or set since January 1, 2011, (v) for each adjustment or setting of a fuel surcharge or fee referred to in (iv), what was the amount established on that date for the fuel surcharge or fee?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 842--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to the court cases on the changes to the Interim Federal Health Program: (a) what are the costs, including legal fees, incurred by the government to date; and (b) what are the estimated total costs, including legal fees, of the government’s appeal of the Federal Court’s ruling?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 843--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With respect the procurement of goods and services for use by the Department of National Defence: for each awarded contract over $25,000 for which a supplier cancelled or failed to meet a delivery date after March 31, 2011, what is (a) the name of the contract; (b) the type of contract or method of supply; (c) the reference number, solicitation number, and tracking number; (d) the names of all parties to the contract; (e) the date the contract was awarded; (f) the description of the good or service to be supplied; (g) the value of the contract; (h) the delivery date specified in the contract; (i) the value of monies paid by the government to the supplier in advance of delivery, if applicable; (j) the date that the good or service was delivered, for goods and services that were delivered late; (k) the planned future delivery date, for deliveries that remain outstanding; (l) the date the contract was cancelled, for cancelled contracts; (m) the reason for the cancellation of the contract, for cancelled contracts; (n) the value of advance payments returned to the government, for undelivered goods and services; (o) the values and conditions of the contractual penalties for late and failed delivery; and (p) the value of monies recuperated by the government pursuant to penalties for late or failed delivery?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 847--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to meteorological services: (a) what is the name, location and identifying number or code of each terrestrial Automated Weather Observing Station which has been in service in Canada at any time since January 1, 2006; (b) what is the name, location, identifying number or code, and model type of each Ocean Data Acquisition System buoy which has been in service in Canadian waters, or in international waters but operated by the Government of Canada, since January 1, 2006; (c) what is the name, location and identifying number or code of each weather radar station which has been in service in Canada at any time since January 1, 2006; (d) what is the name, location and identifying number or code of each lightning sensor which has been in service in Canada at any time since January 1, 2006; and (e) for each station, buoy or sensor referred to in (a) through (d), for each month since January 1, 2006, (i) on how many days has it been out of service, (ii) what was the reason for which it was not in service, (iii) was it returned to service, (iv) which department or agency is responsible for maintaining it?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 848--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to government public relations, for each contract for the provision of photography services to the office of the Prime Minister, a minister, a Minister of State, or a Parliamentary Secretary, since January 1, 2006: (a) what was the date, file number, and value of the contract; (b) what were the dates on which the photography was carried out; (c) what was the event or occasion, if any, to which the photography related; (d) were the photographs which were produced used in any government publications or on any government websites; (e) were the photographs used in any other way, specifying the way in which they were so used; (f) who has custody or care of the photographs which were produced; (g) if no longer required for the day-to-day operations of the office, have the photographs been transferred, or will they be transferred, to a library or historical division within the department, a national museum, or Library and Archives Canada; (h) does the department, agency, or other government organization for which the Minister, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary is responsible, have an office or position which has the capacity to carry out photography, identifying the office or position; and (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, why were the services of an outside photographer engaged?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 849--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to government procurement: what are the details of all contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to ministers since June 6, 2014 specifying (a) for each such contract (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work; and (b) in the case of a contract for speechwriting, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 850--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to government communications since September 18, 2014: (a) for each press release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by any government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject matter; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed on (i) the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) Marketwire, (iii) Canada Newswire, (iv) any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using the service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 851--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to Parks Canada, in respect of Beaubassin National Historic Site of Canada (“Beaubassin”): (a) what are the details of all expenditures, broken down by fiscal year since 2002-2003 inclusive, related to the (i) acquisition, (ii) maintenance, (iii) archeological research, (iv) archival research, (v) other expenditures, specifying the nature of those other expenditures; (b) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all reports or documents concerning the operation of Beaubassin; (c) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all reports or documents concerning archaeological or historical research related to Beaubassin; and (d) what are the bibliographic details of all published reports or articles relating to Beaubassin authored, co-authored, or contributed to by any archaeologist or researcher working for, on behalf of, or in association with the government or an employee or officer of the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 852--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Mint's television advertising activities since January 1, 2009: for any communication between the Mint and any agency, department, Crown corporation, or other organization of government other than the Mint, (a) what is the date; (b) who are the sender and recipient; and (c) what is the file or reference number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 853--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government communications, for each department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government body: (a) how far back in time does its website archive of press releases and backgrounders extend; (b) what is the rationale for the date range of press releases and backgrounders which are retained for on-line access; (c) are press releases and backgrounders which pre-date the date limit retained elsewhere; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, where are they retained, and are they accessible to the public; (e) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document, order, policy, directive, or other record in which the current policy pertaining to the retention of press releases and backgrounders on websites is set forth; (f) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document, order, policy, directive, or other record in which any former policy pertaining to the retention of press releases and backgrounders on websites was set forth; (g) is there a government-wide policy pertaining to the retention of press releases and backgrounders on websites; and (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document, order, policy, directive, or other record in which the current policy, or any former policy, is or was set forth?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 854--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to regional ministerial responsibilities, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusively: (a) which ministers have had regional representation responsibilities, and for which provinces, territories or other regions; (b) what were the start and end dates of those responsibilities; (c) what were the instructions given to each minister in respect of his or her regional ministerial responsibilities; (d) what were the operating expenditures for each minister in respect of his or her regional representation responsibilities, including the amount spent on wages, salaries, contracts for the provision of services, contracts for the provision of goods, office leases, and other expenditures, giving particulars of those expenditures; (e) where were these leased offices located; (f) how many employees are or were employed by each minister’s regional office; (g) where did each employee have his or her principal place of employment; and (h) what were the travel and hospitality expenses of each minister or minister’s employee in respect of their regional ministerial responsibilities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 855--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to a verification strategy for Métis identification systems: (a) what are the purposes of proposed or actual contracts with the Canadian Standards Association to develop a verification strategy for Métis identification systems; (b) what is the monetary value of the contract or contracts; (c) what are the effective dates of the contract or contracts; (d) what is the file number of the contract or contracts; (e) what is the scope of the work to be carried out under any such contract; (f) was any such contract awarded on a sole-source or competitive basis; (g) if any such contract was awarded on a competitive basis, how many bids were received; (h) are there provisions for Métis employment or procurement benefits under this contract; (i) has the government consulted with Métis representative organizations concerning Métis identification generally or as concerns this contract in particular and, if so, (i) with which Métis representative organizations has it consulted, (ii) what was the nature, duration, and extent of such consultations, (iii) what was the outcome of those consultations; (j) what definitions of “Métis” are to be used for this verification strategy; (k) what is the rationale behind the definition or definitions of “Métis” that are to be used; and (l) is the verification strategy consistent with Articles 9 and 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, if not, what is the nature and extent of the inconsistency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 856--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With respect to the report entitled "The Unified Family Court Summative Evaluation", released in March 2009 by the Department of Justice: (a) what progress has been made on each of the three recommendations outlined in section 8; (b) since fiscal year 2002-2003, what initiatives, as indicated on page 8 of the English version of the report, has the Department of Justice launched to enhance the level of services that provincial and territorial governments provide in the area of family law; and (c) how much federal funding was spent in each fiscal year since 2002-2003 on every initiative identified in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 857--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Canada Science and Technology Museum, what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all briefing notes, briefing materials, reports, engineering assessments, or other documents, produced, created, or modified since January 1, 2006, concerning either the condition of the building housing the Canada Science and Technology Museum on St. Laurent Boulevard in Ottawa, repairs which have been made to that building, or which are or have been contemplated to be made, or options for the replacement of the building, held by: (a) the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation; (b) the Department of Canadian Heritage; (c) Public Works and Government Services Canada; (d) the National Capital Commission, (e) the Treasury Board Secretariat; and (f) the Privy Council Office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 859--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With respect to Crown copyright: (a) what is the total revenue collected, in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive, by each department, agency, or other government organization, for the licensing of the use of works for which copyright is held by Canada or a department, agency, or other government organization; (b) what are the works which have been so licensed, specifying the title or nature of the work, and the date of publication or creation of the work; (c) what has been the total cost to each department or agency to administer the licensing of those works in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (d) how many infringements of Crown or federal government copyright have been the subject of litigation or other action in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (e) what have been the outcomes or resolutions of each such litigation or other action in (d); (f) how many applications to license the use of Crown copyright works have been declined or rejected since fiscal year 2005-2006, specifying the title or nature of the work, the date of publication or creation of the work and the reason for denying or rejecting the application; and (g) what steps, if any, has the government taken to mitigate the impact or costs to users of perpetual Crown copyright in unpublished works?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 860--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the public service, for each fiscal year since 2008-2009 inclusive: (a) how many days of sick leave were due to public service employees at the end of each fiscal year, or as of the most recent date in the current fiscal year, as the case may be; (b) how many public service employees retired; (c) how many public service employees left the public service for reasons other than retirement, distinguishing those who left because of (i) disability, (ii) resignation, (iii) termination, (iv) death, (v) other reasons; (d) of the total sick leave referred to in (a), how many sick days were not paid, broken down by the categories of termination enumerated in (b) and (c); and (e) what is the dollar value of the sick days referred to in each of (a), (d) and (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 861--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: what is the amount and percentage of all “lapsed spending,” broken down by year, from 2006 to 2013?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 863--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to Employment Insurance benefits: (a) what are the amounts paid out for Employment Insurance benefits in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (b) how many beneficiaries have there been in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (c) how many applications for Employment Insurance benefits have there been in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (d) how many Employment Insurance applications in Prince Edward Island have been rejected from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (e) what is the average waiting time for Employment Insurance applications in Prince Edward Island to be processed from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available, and what is the longest single waiting time on record; (f) what is the number of Employment Insurance appeals in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available, (iii) number of positive decisions on appeals, (iv) number of negative decisions on appeals; (g) what is the average wait time for decisions made on Employment Insurance appeals in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available, and what is the longest single waiting time on record; and (h) if any of the information requested is not available, what are the reasons, in detail, as to why that is the case?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 864--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the administration of the Access to Information Act: (a) what are the criteria and what is the process by which the government judges that a request made under the act is frivolous or vexatious in nature; (b) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of the documents in which the criteria and process are set forth; (c) for each government institution, how many requests has the institution processed since January 1, 2014; (d) of the number of requests in (c), how many were considered frivolous or vexatious according to the criteria and process set out in (a); and (e) for each government institution, what were the ten most recent requests processed which, in the opinion of government, are frivolous or vexatious, providing the file number of the request, the text of the request, and the category of requester, distinguishing the following categories, (i) academia, (ii) business (private sector), (iii) media, (iv) organization, (v) member of the public, (vi) decline to identify?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 865--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the government’s processing of immigration applications: (a) what is the total average cost to government and time required to complete a single application for (i) federal skilled worker, (ii) federal skilled trade, (iii) Canadian Experience Class, (iv) Quebec-selected skilled workers, (v) Provincial Nominee Program, (vi) start-up visa, (vii) self-employed people, (viii) spouse, common-law, or conjugal partner, or dependent children sponsorship, (ix) parent and grandparents sponsorship, (x) inland asylum claimant, (xi) government-sponsored refugee, (xii) privately sponsored refugee, (xiii) temporary resident visa, (xiv) parents and grandparents super visa, (xv) Express Entry system; and (b) in each fiscal year since 2009-2010 inclusive, how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) accepted, (iv) rejected, (v) otherwise treated, providing details of that treatment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 866--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to government communications: for each department, agency or crown corporation, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports, memoranda, orders, directives, guidelines, manuals, or any other records pertaining to the use of the phrase “Harper Government” in press releases or other communications material?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 867--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to legislative drafting: (a) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports, memoranda, or any other records since January 1, 2008, concerning practices and procedures related to the drafting of the titles, short titles, or alternative titles of government bills introduced in the Senate or the House of Commons; and (b) for each government bill introduced in the Senate or the House of Commons since January 1, 2008, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports, memoranda, or any other records, since January 1, 2008, concerning the titles, short titles, or alternative titles of that bill?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 868--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to materials prepared for past or current Parliamentary Secretaries or their staff from April 1, 2013, to the present: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 869--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund, since September 2011: (a) how many applications (i) were successful and received funding under this program, (ii) were rejected through calls for proposals; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) corresponding file and reference number; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far for each year since 2011; (d) how much funding is left; (e) how many major projects under this program will go to, or went to, expanding existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects applications that went to (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Mid-Sized Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications that went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (i) what is the reason most often given for rejecting an application; (j) what are the reasons given for rejecting an application and what is the frequency of each reason; (k) will the program be renovated next year and, if so, when will the next call for proposals be issued; and (l) with respect to rejected applications, what was the location and value of each proposal, broken down by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) corresponding file and reference number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 873--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) how many applications were received for Labour Market Opinions from 2012 to 2014 inclusively, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (b) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were approved from 2012 to 2014 inclusively, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (c) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were received for high skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (d) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were received for low skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (e) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were approved for high skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (f) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were approved for low skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (g) how many applications were received for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2014, broken down by (i) total number, (ii) month, (iii) province; (h) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved in 2014, broken down by (i) total number, (ii) month, (iii) province; (i) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (j) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for low wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (k) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (l) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for low wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (m) how many work permits were issued from 2012 to 2014 inclusively, broken down by (i) total number per year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (n) how many work permits were issued for high skill temporary foreign workers from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (o) how many work permits were issued for low skill temporary foreign workers from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (p) how many work permits were issued for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (q) how many work permits were issued for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (r) how many employers with fewer than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments since June 2014; and (s) how many employers with more than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments since June 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 874--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) when will Employment and Social Development Canada begin publicly reporting data on the number of temporary foreign workers approved and the names of employers receiving positive Labour Market Impact Assessments; (b) for which National Occupation Codes are employers no longer allowed to seek temporary foreign workers in regions with unemployment rates of more than 6%; (c) how many provinces and territories, and which ones, have negotiated new annex agreements regarding Labour Market Impact Assessment exemptions with the federal government; (d) how many information-sharing deals have been signed with provinces and territories regarding the temporary foreign worker program, and which provinces and territories are they; (e) how many information-sharing agreements between federal government departments have been revised since June 2014; (f) when will the new Statistics Canada surveys on Job Vacancies and National Wages be implemented; (g) when will the new Job Matching service be implemented, and how will it work; (h) what is the target date for offering the option of applying for jobs online directly through the Job Bank; (i) what specific safeguards will be in place to protect the privacy of applicants, if program officers are able to see the number of applicants and the relevance of their skills; (j) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the inclusion of this data in the operation of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (k) how many investigators are assigned to follow up on tips from the government’s confidential tip line and the online tip portal; (l) what is the budget for the confidential tip line and the online tip portal; (m) how many tips have been received on the confidential tip line since April, broken down by month; (n) how many tips have been received through the online tip portal since its creation, broken down by month; (o) how many investigations have been conducted as a result of tips received; (p) how many employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program have been subject to an inspection in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (q) how many inspections conducted in 2013-2014 have involved an on-site visit; (r) when is the new regulatory framework for penalties for non-compliance expected to be in place; (s) how many comments were received on the government’s Discussion Paper on the regulatory framework; (t) how many letters of complaint has the Department received about the increase in fees for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (u) when is the new privilege fee expected to be introduced; (v) when is the review of Labour Market Impact Assessment-exempt streams expected to be completed, and who will be consulted as part of that process; (w) how many errors on the government’s list of employers with temporary foreign workers were determined to have been the result of employers giving the government the wrong information, and how many employers will face sanctions as a result; and (x) what action will the Department take in cases where Canadians are laid off after temporary foreign workers are hired?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 875--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many ISS members assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability benefit cases have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, (ii) a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, (iii) a provincial or territorial licence in nursing, (iv) a provincial or territorial licence in occupational therapy, (v) a provincial or territorial licence in pharmacy, (vi) a provincial or territorial licence in physiotherapy, (vii) a provincial or territorial licence in psychology, (viii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (k) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) but currently assigned to the ISS have been assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability benefit cases, and of those members, how many have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, (ii) a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, (iii) a provincial or territorial licence in nursing, (iv) a provincial or territorial licence in occupational therapy, (v) a provincial or territorial licence in pharmacy, (vi) a provincial or territorial licence in physiotherapy, (vii) a provincial or territorial licence in psychology, (viii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (l) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (m) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (o) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (p) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (u) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (v) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS, in total and broken down by year; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed, in total and broken down by year; (x) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (y) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (dd) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (ee) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD, in total and broken down by year; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed, in total and broken down by year; (gg) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (hh) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (nn) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (oo) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness, broken down by (i) year, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (rr) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship, broken down by (i) year, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (ss) how many AD members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (tt) how many ISS members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (uu) how many EIS members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (vv) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ww) when is the consultants’ report on productivity due to be completed and will the report be made public; (xx) when did the Tribunal begin assigning cases to members in 2013, broken down by (i) ISS, (ii) EIS, (iii) AD; (yy) at what point in 2013 did all existing members have case files assigned to them, broken down by (i) ISS, (ii) EIS, (iii) AD; (zz) what was the rationale for not maintaining the old Boards of Referees, EI Umpires, Review Tribunals, and Pensions Appeal Board until their existing caseloads were completely finished; and (aaa) what was the rationale for imposing a cap on the number of Tribunal members at the time of the Tribunal’s creation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 876--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to Veterans’ Affairs Canada offices: how many clients have been served each year from 2006 to 2014 inclusively in each Veterans Affairs Canada office (excluding Service Canada locations, Operational Stress Injury clinics, and Integrated Personnel Support Centres), including the nine recently closed offices in Thunder Bay, Sydney, Charlottetown, Corner Brook, Windsor, Brandon, Saskatoon, Kelowna, and Prince George?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 877--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor): what are the total annual expenditures, for each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to the present, for (a) the Northern Ontario Development Program; (b) the Community Futures Program; (c) the Economic Development Initiative; (d) the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund; (e) general administration; and (f) any other temporary or permanent program or service delivered by the FedNor during this time period that is not listed above?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 878--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to the visit to Canada of the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission on September 26, 2014: (a) when was the invitation first sent by the government; (b) what was the planned agenda for the visit; (c) which department was responsible for the visit; (d) what was the budget for the visit, broken down by department; (e) when was the Toronto portion added to the visit; (f) which department added the Toronto portion; (g) who was on the guest list for the Toronto event, including the name, the company or organization, and which department or Minister’s office placed them on the list; (h) what was the cost of the Toronto event, broken down by (i) food, (ii) room rental, (iii) staging, (iv) other costs; (i) did the government do a value for money assessment for the Toronto event and, if so, (i) what is the tracking number, (ii) what are the conclusions; (j) how much did the flight for the Presidents to Europe cost; (k) did the government look at other options than the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) flight and, if so, (i) which options were reviewed, (ii) why were they rejected; (l) what was the passenger manifest for the trip; (m) did the flight make any stops on the way to or from Brussels; (n) if the answer in (m) is no, how did the Prime Minister travel from Toronto, including the cost of this trip if not included with the trip to Brussels; (o) has the government offered the use of RCAF planes for travel of other visiting dignitaries since 2006 and, if so, for which visitors; (p) was the venue for the Toronto event tendered, (i) if so, what was the Request for Proposal reference number, (ii) if not, which exception from the procurement directive was invoked and when did this receive approval from cabinet; (q) which government officials attended the Toronto event, including their travel method and cost; and (r) were there any passengers on the RCAF flight to Toronto from Ottawa who were not government employees and, if so, what are their names and their reason for being on the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 879--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to government’s loans and grants to businesses since 2006: (a) what are the names of the companies that received grants and loans, including (i) the program that the loan was granted under, (ii) the amount of the loan, (iii) the amount that has currently paid back, (iv) the amount that is currently outstanding, (v) the amount that was originally announced, (vi) the reason for any write down or write off, (vii) the number of jobs that were supposed to be created by the loan, (viii) the number of jobs that were actually created after the loan was issued, (ix) the number of jobs that were committed to be maintained because of the loan, (x) the number of jobs that were actually maintained; and (b) for companies that failed to meet their job numbers, what action has the government taken to address the missed target?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 880--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to government and agency contracts for communications since 2006: (a) how much has the government spent on contracts for communications products; (b) whom has the government contracted for writing, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the type of service provided, (iii) the event or announcement that was linked to the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered, (v) how much the contract was for, including whether the contract value changed, (vi) the date the product was release, (vii) the date of the announcement; (c) whom has the government contracted for media training, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the persons that the training was provided to, including their title, (iii) whether the contract was tendered, (iv) how much the contract was for, including whether the contract value changed, (v) the date of the contract; (d) whom has the government contracted for media monitoring, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the length of the contract, (iii) the cost of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered; (e) whom has the government contracted for distribution of press releases, including (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the length of the contract, (iii) the cost of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered; (f) whom has the government contracted for event staging, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the type of service provided, (iii) the event or announcement that was linked to the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered, (v) how much the contract was for, including whether the contract value changed, (vi) the date the product was release, (vii) the date of the announcement; and (g) whom has the government contracted for any other communications product, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the length of the contract, (iii) the cost of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered, (v) what the contract was for?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 881--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to the government’s sale of assets over $1,000 after 2007: (a) what were the assets sold, specifying (i) the asset sale price, (ii) the name of the purchaser, (iii) whether multiple bids were received, (iv) what amount the asset was purchased for by the government, (v) the reason for the sale; (b) was a third party used for the sale and, if so, (i) what is the name of the third party, (ii) was this contract tendered or not; (c) in the case where a third party was used, how much was the third party paid for their services; (d) for the government’s sale of stocks, (i) how much of the stock was sold, (ii) how much does the government still hold; (e) for sale of privately held companies in which the government held a position, (i) does the government still hold a position in the company, (ii) did the government have a market assessment done before the sale and, if so, by whom, (iii) what was the difference in the amount the government projected from the sale and the actual amount received; (f) how much income did the asset bring in in the year prior to its sale; and (g) how much was spent marketing the sale of each asset?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 882--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to Service Canada: for the past five fiscal years, (a) how many staff in the Integrity unit have been allocated in each year to (i) Employment Insurance (EI), (ii) the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), (iii) Old Age Security (OAS), (iv) Canada Pension Plan (CPP); (b) what is the average caseload for EI inspectors annually; (c) how many EI overpayments have been made annually by number and by amount; (d) how many EI overpayments have been collected annually by number and by amount; (e) how many EI overpayments have been written off annually by number and by amount; (f) what is the average caseload for CPP inspectors annually; (g) how many CPP overpayments have been made annually by number and by amount; (h) how many CPP overpayments have been collected annually by number and by amount; (i) how many CPP overpayments have been written off annually by number and by amount; (j) what is the average caseload for OAS inspectors annually; (k) how many OAS overpayments have been made annually by number and by amount; (l) how many OAS overpayments have been collected annually by number and by amount; (m) how many OAS overpayments have been written off annually by number and by amount; (n) what is the average caseload for TFWP inspectors; (o) what is the number of Service Canada employees on long-term disability leave every year, excluding those on parental leave, in total and broken down by (i) EI call centres, (ii) EI processing centres, (iii) CPP and OAS call centres, (iv) Labour Market Impact Assessment processing centres; (p) what is the definition for the performance indicator “future expenditure reduction” for the Integrity Section listed in the 2013-2014 Departmental Performance Report; and (q) what has been the Department’s performance on “future expenditure reduction” annually, broken down by (i) EI, (ii) CPP, (iii) OAS?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 884--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to the government's Global Markets Action Plan (GMAP): (a) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (b) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted during the creation of GMAP; (c) what is the total of all government expenditures related to the consultation process related to GMAP, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses, including transportation, accommodation, rental meeting spaces or equipment, food and other travel-related expenses, (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, broken down by all related details; (d) what are the titles and file names of all reports, emails and briefing notes prepared in relation to the development and consultation process involved in the creation of GMAP?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 887--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to the federal public service employed in Prince Edward Island and the City of Charlottetown, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive, for both the province and the city separately, public service wide and for each department: (a) how many persons were employed; (b) how many public service employees were hired; (c) how many public service employees retired; (d) how many public service employees left the public service for reasons other than retirement, distinguishing those who left because of (i) disability, (ii) resignation, (iii) termination, (iv) death, (v) other reasons; (e) how many of those employees, by both number and percentage, were (i) full-time, (ii) part-time, (iii) students, (iv) any other employment category in the public service; (f) what occupational tier level did the employees occupy by both number and percentage; (g) what was the mean, median, and modal salary for a full-time employee; and (h) what was the total paid to employees (i) in salary, (ii) in other benefits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 888--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to Health Canada: for the last ten years, (a) how many drug safety inspectors has Health Canada employed, broken down by year; (b) how many inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies has Health Canada conducted within Canada, broken down by year; (c) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected within Canada have received a warning letter or citation from Health Canada, broken down by year; (d) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected within Canada have had penalties imposed, broken down by year; (e) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected within Canada have been subject to a ban, broken down by year; (f) how many inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies has Health Canada conducted internationally, broken down by year; (g) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have received a warning letter or citation from Health Canada, broken down by year; (h) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have had penalties imposed, broken down by year; (i) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have been subject to a ban, broken down by year; (j) how many notices of violation concerning companies operating in Canada has Health Canada received from foreign regulators, broken down by year; (k) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies has Health Canada inspected because of a notification received from a foreign regulator, broken down by year; (l) how many clinical trials has Health Canada inspected, broken down by year; (m) how many clinical trials received a warning letter or citation from Health Canada following an inspection, broken down by year; (n) how many clinical trials have been shut down by Health Canada following an inspection, broken down by year; (o) how many investigations has Health Canada conducted regarding promotion of off-label prescription of drugs by pharmaceutical companies, broken down by year; (p) how many fines or penalties has Health Canada levied for off-label promotions, broken down by year; (q) how many reports of side effects relating to off-label prescriptions of pharmaceuticals has Health Canada received, broken down by year; and (r) when will Health Canada begin including side effects related to off-label prescriptions in its public database?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 890--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
—With regard to the case before the courts between Daniel Christopher Scott, Mark Douglas Campbell, Gavin Michael David Flett, Kevin Albert Matthew Berry, Bradley Darren Quast, and Aaron Michael Bedard, Respondents (Plaintiffs) and Attorney General of Canada Appellant (Defendant): (a) what has been the total cost to the government to pursue this matter in the courts, broken down by expense and (i) cost incurred before September 6, 2013, (ii) cost incurred since September 6, 2013; (b) who has been consulted by the government throughout the proceedings, broken down by (i) name, (ii) date; (c) what are the internal tracking numbers of all documents, communications or briefing notes regarding the aforementioned case; and (d) how much more has the government budgeted to spend on this file?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 892--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and subsequently the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development: during the period from 2004 to 2014, what is the total number of employees who were posted outside of Canada for ten or more consecutive years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 893--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to the interim Canadian Wheat Board (CWB): (a) what is the salary range afforded to the executive management of the interim CWB; (b) what information does the government possess as to the bonuses, benefits, fees, and other forms of compensation are the members of the executive management receiving; (c) what information does the government possess as to the bonuses, benefits, fees, and other forms of compensation will the members of the executive management receive upon the transfer of the interim CWB to new ownership; and (d) what commitments have been made regarding bonuses, benefits, fees, and other forms of compensation for the members of executive management after the transfer of the interim CWB to new ownership?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 894--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to changes to Canada’s food safety laws: (a) what is the status of regulations requiring better labelling of food safety risks caused by meat tenderization and related processing techniques; (b) what communications and consultations have taken place with industry in the last year regarding these new regulations; (c) what compliance rates have been measured in regard to the new regulations; (d) what is the status of new regulations developed in regards to ensuring better traceability for Canadian fresh produce and meat products; (e) what is the status of the implementation of regulations related to Bill S-11, the Safe Food For Canadians Act; (f) what has been the cost of developing new regulations related to Bill S-11; (g) what is the status of the implementation of all of the recommendations to improve food safety that were outlined in the Weatherill report; (h) what are the names and costs of food safety programs that will sunset in the years 2014 and 2015; and (i) who was consulted with regards to new regulations related to the implementation of Bill S-11?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 895--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to International Mobility Programs: (a) when will Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) begin proactively posting more data, what data will be posted, and how often; (b) when will the new compliance fee for employer-specific work permits be levied, and at what level will the fee be set; (c) when will the new privilege fee be in place for open work permit holders; (d) how many CIC staff are assigned to investigations of employers for compliance; (e) how many employers have been investigated in 2014, broken down by month; (f) what penalty regime is in place for employers who break the rules; (g) how many employers have been subjected to penalties or sanctions for breaking the rules; (h) how many investigations have included an on-site inspection; (i) how many information-sharing agreements have been signed with other federal government departments; (j) how many information-sharing agreements have been signed with provincial and territorial governments, and which provinces and territories are they; (k) which streams have seen changes to their guidelines or requirements since June 2014; (l) has the review of Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA)-exempt streams to determine if they should become part of the LMIA-required stream taken place yet and, if so, what are the outcomes of that review; (m) what measures have been taken to promote the International Experience Canada program to Canadians; and (n) what is the new wage floor for Intra-Company Transferees with specialized knowledge and when did it come into effect?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 896--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to International Mobility Programs, for the years 2006 to 2014: (a) for each year, how many work permits were issued under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in total and by source country; (b) for each year, how many Canadians worked in the United States and Mexico under the auspices of NAFTA; (c) which other Free Trade Agreements (FTA) include provisions on worker mobility, and for each FTA how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (d) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under the auspices of a FTA and which countries did they work in; (e) for each year, how many work permits were issued under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), in total and by source country; (f) for each year, how many Canadians worked abroad under the auspices of GATS and which countries did they work in; (g) which international agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment and, for each agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (h) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under these same international agreements and in which countries did they work; (i) which provincial agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (j) which reciprocal employment programs or agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (k) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under these same reciprocal programs or agreements and in which countries did they work; (l) which employment benefit programs or agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (m) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under employment benefit programs or agreements and in which countries did they work; (n) which research or studies-related programs or agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (o) which programs or agreements fall under “Other Canadian interests,” and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (p) which programs or agreements fall under “Other work permit holders without Labour Market Opinion,” and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; and (q) for each year, how many spouse/common law partners were issued work permits, in total and by source country?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 897--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to International Experience Canada, for the years 2013 and 2014: (a) with which countries did Canada have an agreement; (b) what were the reciprocal quotas; (c) how many Canadians travelled to each country under the auspices of the agreement; (d) how many youths from each country travelled to Canada under the auspices of the agreement; (e) what measures has the government taken to promote the program to Canadians; and (f) what measures has the government undertaken to reduce barriers to Canadian participants in some countries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 898--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to Express Entry: (a) with whom did the government consult in regard to the creation and design of the program, and on what dates; (b) with whom did the government consult in regard to the development of the point system, and on what dates; (c) what studies did the government conduct before the decision was made to introduce Express Entry; (d) what studies did the government conduct in designing the program; (e) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the design of the program; (f) what is the target date for matching prospective immigrants with potential employers; (g) what precautions will be taken to ensure that employers have tried to hire eligible Canadians before they are allowed to search for prospective immigrants; (h) how will the system identify potential candidates for employers; (i) how often will draws for names be conducted; (j) who will decide how many names will be drawn in each draw; (k) who will decide how names drawn will be divided among the three immigration streams included in Express Entry; (l) when will the first evaluation of Express Entry be conducted; and (m) what is the projected budget for the next three years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 899--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to the Live-In Caregiver Program: (a) how many applications did the government receive for permanent residence from live-in caregivers for each year from 2010 to 2014 inclusively; (b) for each year, how many of the applications came from caregivers who had cared for children and how many came from caregivers who had cared for seniors or persons living with a disability; (c) how many staff were assigned to process applications for permanent residence from live-in caregivers in each year; (d) whom did the government consult before making changes to the program and on which date did the consultations take place; (e) did the government conduct any studies regarding the impact of a cap on permanent resident applications from live-in caregivers; (f) will caregivers be allowed to study in Canada before achieving permanent residence, and if so, will they be allowed to pay domestic tuition; and (g) what are the current requirements for advertising for applicants for a Labour Market Impact Assessment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 900--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to refugee applications from 2010 to 2014: (a) what is the average processing time for refugee applications, broken down by (i) year, (ii) processing centre, (iii) government-assisted refugees, (iv) privately sponsored refugees; (b) for each year, where were application processing centres located; and (c) for each year and for each centre, how many staff worked on processing refugee applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 901--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to the government’s event entitled “Strong Girls, Strong World” scheduled to be held in Toronto on October 22, 2014: (a) who within the government was responsible for the organization of the event; (b) what was the entire budget of the event, (i) did the event go over budget, (ii) if so, what were the cost overruns, (iii) were there unforeseen expenses, (iv) if the event was cancelled, what was the amount of money the government was able to recover, (v) if the event was cancelled, what was the amount of money the government was unable to recover; (c) if the event was cancelled, will the event be rescheduled in 2015 and, if so, (i) what is the new date of the event, (ii) what is the estimated budget of the new event; (d) what was the total cost for the venue rental at the Central Technical School; (e) how many names were on the final guest list and what were the names; (f) did the government pay for the travel expenses of international visitors; (g) how was the Central Technical School chosen as a venue for the event, (i) on what date was the school first contacted with regard to the Summit, (ii) how many other venues did the event organizers contact other than the Central Technical School; (h) what was the total cost for security for the event; (i) what was the total cost for meals and hospitality for the event; and (j) was the event paid for from general consolidated revenue?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 902--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to government funding: for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present, (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral districts of Etobicoke North, Etobicoke Centre, and Etobicoke—Lakeshore, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 903--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s “Implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) and the Outcomes of the Twenty-Third Special Session of the General Assembly (2000) in the Context of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women and the Adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action: Canada’s National Review, June 2014”: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted during the creation of this review; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (c) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted during the creation of this plan; (d) what is the total of all government expenditures related to the consultation process related to the plan, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses, including transportation, accommodation, rental meeting spaces or equipment, food and other travel-related expenses, (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, broken down by all related details; (e) what are the titles and file names of all reports, emails and briefing notes prepared in relation to the development and consultation process involved in finalizing the creation of the Review; and (f) how much funding has been allocated to the deployment of this proposal for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 904--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s Action Plan to Address Family Violence and Violent Crimes Against Aboriginal Women and Girls (the Plan): (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted during the creation of the Plan; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (c) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted during the creation of the Plan; (d) what is the total of all government expenditures related to the consultation process related to the Plan, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses, including transportation, accommodation, rental meeting spaces or equipment, food and other travel-related expenses, (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, broken down by all related details; (e) what are the titles and file names of all reports, emails and briefing notes prepared in relation to the development and consultation process involved in finalizing the creation of the Plan; (f) what is the fiscal year breakdown and allocation of the $25 million pledged for the Plan; (g) what are the deadlines; (h) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with various provincial and territorial representations consulted during the creation of the Plan; (i) what are the projected deadlines for the government’s safety plans set out in the Plan; (j) during which fiscal years will Public Safety Canada begin allocating the $1.72 million to support Aboriginal communities to develop safety plans; (k) during which fiscal years will Justice Canada begin allocating the $500,000 to support Aboriginal communities to break intergenerational cycles of violence; (l) during which fiscal years will Status of Women Canada begin allocating the $5 million to work with First Nations, Inuit and Metis communities to denounce and prevent violence against Aboriginal women, and what is the breakdown per year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 905--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for deputy heads or their staff from September 19, 2014, to the present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 906--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for Assistant Deputy Ministers from September 19, 2014, to the present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 907--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for ministers or their staff from September 19, 2014, to the present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 908--
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé:
With regard to the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program: (a) how many staff are currently assigned to processing applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIA); (b) how many staff were assigned to processing applications for Labour Market Opinions (LMO) from 2011 to 2013; (c) what is the average time to process an application for an LMIA; (d) what was the average time to process an application for an LMO from 2011 to 2013; (e) how many applications have taken more than two months to process from 2011 to 2014; (f) what is the average time to process an application for a work permit; (g) what was the average time to process an application for a work permit from 2011 to 2014; (h) how many complaints has the government received about workers not arriving until after the harvest has begun; and (i) how many complaints has the government received about workers not arriving until after the harvest is over?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 909--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to Service Canada: (a) who is responsible for handling Employment Insurance (EI) callbacks; (b) what is the service standard for EI callbacks; (c) for the last five fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for EI call backs; (d) for the last two fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for EI callbacks broken down by month; (e) for the last five fiscal years, what was the average number of days for an EI callback; (f) who is responsible for handling Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) callbacks; (g) what is the service standard for CPP and OAS callbacks; (h) for the last five fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for CPP and OAS callbacks; (i) for the last two fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for CPP and OAS callbacks, broken down by month; (j) for the last five fiscal years, what was the average number of days for a CPP and OAS callback; (k) who made the decision to change the service standard for EI call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes; (l) who was consulted in making the decision to change the service standard for EI call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes; (m) who made the decision to change the service standard for CPP and OAS call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes; and (n) who was consulted in making the decision to change the service standard for CPP and OAS call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 910--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to Health Canada: for the last ten years, broken down by year, (a) how many complaints have been received regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers; (b) how many penalties or fines have been imposed for violations of the regulations regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers; (c) how many warning letters or citations have been issued for violations of the regulations regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers; and (d) which companies have been found to have violated the regulations regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 912--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the ineligibility for Employment Insurance (EI) Sickness Benefits for parents (claimants) who fell ill or became injured while receiving parental benefits because they were not considered to be otherwise available for work under the Employment Insurance Act: for fiscal years 2003-2004 to 2013-2014: (a) how many claimants (i) were denied their initial application for EI sickness benefits by the government because they were deemed to otherwise be not available for work, (ii) appealed their denial of sickness benefits to the Board of Referees, broken down by each fiscal year; (b) how many claimants on parental leave were denied sickness benefits after the Canadian Umpire Benefit (CUB) 77039 decision on March 24, 2013; (c) did Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) appeal CUB 77039, and if not, why not; (d) if HRSDC did not appeal the decision, did it accept the ruling, and if not, why not; (e) is a CUB ruling that is not successfully appealed final and binding on the government; (f) what were the policy implications for HRSDC in the interpretation of the Employment Insurance Act after the significant CUB decision; (g) what process was HRSDC supposed to have followed after the CUB decision (or appeal of said decision) to change implementation of relevant EI policy; (h) what was the specific impact of CUB 77039 on HRSDC policy concerning eligibility of claimants on parental leave accessing sickness benefits; (i) as a result of the CUB 77039 decision, what specific policy directives were made by HRSDC and, if none were made, why not; (j) did the government undertake any analysis or studies concerning the impact of CUB 77039 and, if so, what are the titles, files numbers, and results of any such analysis or studies; (k) did HRSDC deny sickness benefits to claimants post CUB 77039 up to March 24, 2013, and, if so, what is the justification; (l) how many Claimants had active appeals outstanding with the Board of Referees and EI Umpire regarding their denial by the government of sickness benefits while on parental leave as of March 24, 2013; (m) how many of the claimants in (l) did the government subsequently settle with, (i) what was the average settlement cost per claimant, (ii) what were the total legal fees associated with the settlement with the claimants, (iii) what was the total cost of the settlement; (n) what was the rationale for settling with claimants in (m); (o) when did the government decide to settle and when did it settle with claimants described in (m); (p) was the enhanced access to EI sickness benefits announced in Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, the direct result of the CUB 77039 decision; (q) was the CUB 77039 decision disclosed to parliamentarians in either the technical briefing provided by the government to parliamentarians on September 26, 2012, or during the legislative process for Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, if not, why; (r) when did the government realize that the 2002 legislative changes to EI stacking provisions by Bill C-49, Budget Implementation Act 2001, were intended to make sickness benefits available to women who become ill during receipt of parental benefits and what was done about it; (s) what is the total cost of legal services to date to defend against the McCrea v. Canada - Federal Court file number T-210-12; (t) what are the HRSDC reference details of all documents related to CUB 77039 prepared for the Minister or his staff, including, but not limited to, briefings, analysis, and reports, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) titles or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number; and (u) after both the CUB 77039 and CUB 79390A decisions determined that sickness benefits were to be paid to Natalya Rougas and Jane Kittmer, why did the government issue news releases concerning Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, dated September 20, 2012, October 2, 2012, November 20, 2012, December 12, 2012, and March 10, 2013, with the statement “currently, people receiving parental benefits under the EI program do not qualify for sickness benefits because they are not considered to be otherwise available for work”?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 913--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to international trade, respecting the Canada-European Union Summit in Ottawa and Toronto on September 25 and 26, 2014: what are the details of all contracts for goods or services relating to the summit, providing for each contract: (i) the name of the contractor, (ii) a description of the goods or services provided, (iii) the value of the contract, (iv) whether or not there was an open bidding process for the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 914--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to international trade, respecting the Canada-European Union Summit in Ottawa and Toronto on September 25 and 26, 2014: (a) what were the expenses incurred in relation to travel by government officials from the current Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to Ottawa, or to any European location, specifying the location, broken down by (i) department, (ii) individual incurring the expense, (iii) details of the expense; and (b) what were the expenses incurred in Ottawa and in Toronto in relation to all receptions, press conferences, signing ceremonies, official meetings, or bilateral meetings, for Canadian and European officials broken down by (i) department, (ii) individual incurring the expense, (iii) details of the expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 916--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to foreign affairs: (a) what are the dates, locations, and attendees of all meetings held from March 1, 2010, to December 4, 2014, attended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his staff, or officials from his Department, concerning the Global Market Action Plan; and (b) for all briefing materials or documents prepared for the Minister, his staff, or officials relative to such meetings, whether prepared before or after the meeting, what is (i) the date of the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the Department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 917--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to international trade: (a) what are the dates, locations, and attendees of all meetings held from March 1, 2010, to December 4, 2014, attended by the Minister of International Trade, his staff, or officials from his Department, concerning the 2014 Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy; and (b) for all briefing materials or documents prepared for the Minister, his staff, or officials relative to such meetings, whether prepared before or after the meeting, what is (i) the date of the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the Department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 918--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS): (a) does the strategy include (i) acquisition of three strategic air transport aircraft and stationing them at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Trenton, (ii) doubling the size of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), (iii) acquisition of three armed naval heavy icebreakers, and stationing them in the area of Iqaluit, (iv) building a new civilian-military deepwater docking facility to accommodate the three armed naval heavy icebreakers mentioned in (iii), (v) establishing a new underwater sensor system, (vi) building a new army training centre in the area of Cambridge Bay, (vii) stationing new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle squadrons at both CFB Goose Bay and CFB Comox, (viii) stationing new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft in Yellowknife, (ix) increasing the size of the Canadian Rangers by 500, (x) establishing a 650-member regular forces battalion at CFB Comox, CFB Goose Bay, CFB Trenton, and CFB Bagotville respectively, (xi) adding 1,000 regular force and 750 reserve force personnel to the army in Quebec, (xii) establishing a territorial defence unit in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint John, St. John's, Halifax and the Niagara-Windsor corridor respectively, (xiii) recruiting 1,000 regular force personnel for the purpose of improving and enlarging the Atlantic fleet, (xiv) increasing the number of personnel in CFB Gagetown, (xv) stationing new aircraft and personnel at CFB Greenwood, (xvi) increasing the numbers of Pacific navy regular force personnel by about 500, (xvii) deploying new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft at CFB Comox and CFB Winnipeg, (xviii) upgrading fighter aircraft at CFB Cold Lake; (b) what is the rationale for the inclusion or exclusion, from the CFDS, of each of the items mentioned in (a)(i) to (a)(xviii); and (c) for each item mentioned in (a)(i) to (a)(xviii) that is not a part of the strategy, (i) has the government taken any steps since January 1, 2012, to carry out or implement the item, (ii) if the government has not taken any such steps, does it intend to do so, (iii) if the government does intend to implement the item, when does it intend to do so, (iv) if the government does not intend to implement the item, when was this decision made, and what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document related to that decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 920--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to foreign affairs: for each foreign visit or delegation described under the heading “Travel Expenses for Canadian Representation at International Conferences and Meetings” in the Public Accounts for fiscal years 2006-2007 to 2013-2014 inclusive, for each traveller or delegate who falls under the rubric of “Others” or “Stakeholders”, but not including parliamentarians or spouses of parliamentarians, what is his or her full name and the reason for which he or she was selected to join the visit or delegation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 921--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Departmental Performance Review of actual spending for 2013-2014 on international development and humanitarian assistance to low-income countries: (a) what low-income countries received financial assistance; (b) how much was spent on each of those countries; (c) what countries that were previously in the low-income country category were moved to the categories “fragile states” and “crisis-affected countries”; (d) how much was spent on those newly identified fragile states and crisis-affected countries; and (e) will the $125.9 million in lapsed funding be allocated as end-of-year funding to other programs and, if so, (i) which other programs, (ii) in which specific locations, (iii) how much is allocated for each program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 922--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements: (a) has the 70% federal share of the $400-million federal-provincial fund to support fisheries industry enhancements, announced on October 29, 2013, by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, been accounted for in the fiscal framework; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) in which department, (ii) for which fiscal year, (iii) under which authority, (iv) under which program and sub-program has the funding been accounted for in the fiscal framework; (c) was there any involvement by the government in the announcement of October 29, 2013; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the nature of that involvement; (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, what were the reasons for the non-involvement; (f) why does the press release issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on December 6, 2013, titled “Minister Shea Highlights Benefits of Canada-European Union Trade Agreement to Newfoundland and Labrador”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (g) why does the press release issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on June 26, 2014, titled “Ministers Continue Collaboration to Protect Fisheries and Support Canadian Fishing and Aquaculture Industries”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (h) why does the press release issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on August 5, 2014, titled “Complete Canada-EU Text Reached”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (i) why does the backgrounder issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on September 26, 2014, titled “Canada-European Union Trade Agreement Summary of Benefits”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (j) what were the dates and locations of all meetings held between federal and provincial officials concerning the $400-million fund referred to in (a); and (k) what are the dates, titles and file numbers of all dockets, dossiers, reports, documents, briefing notes, briefing materials, or other records concerning the $400-million fund referred to in (a), held by (i) the Privy Council Office, (ii) the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, (iii) the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, (iv) the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, (v) the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 923--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to the administration of pay by the government: (a) what is the current and total number of government employees; (b) what is the complete listing of government institutions, with the number of employees, broken down by each institution identified; (c) what are the actual costs, including but not limited to, A-Base, B-Based, and sunset funding, for salaries and wages as well as operations and maintenance, and funding sources for the operations of administration of pay, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) organizations specified in (b) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (d) what is the complete list of all government institutions participating in the Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC) Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, with the number of employees, broken down by each institution identified; (e) what is the itemized list and the comprehensive range of all the pay services or activities that are processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi, New Brunswick; (f) what is the itemized list of all the pay services or activities that are not, in whole or in part, processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi, but that are reliant, in whole or in part, on compensation advisors outside of the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi or that are reliant on compensation advisors within institutions specified in (d); (g) what are the detailed rationales for each item in (f); (h) what is the complete list of all government institutions that are either excluded, in whole or in part, from having any other separate arrangement apart from the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, with the number of employees affected, broken down by each institution identified; (i) what are the detailed rationales and reasons for each item in (h); (j) what are the details of all framework documentation and Treasury Board Submissions (TB-Subs) related to the PWGSC Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative project life cycle, including, but not limited to, (i) business case, (ii) project charter, (iii) work plans, (iv) roadmap, (v) project complexity and risk assessment, (vi) projected schedule and timeline, (vii) projected budget tables, (viii) projected costing tables, (ix) inception/definition phase, (x) identification phase (initiation, feasibility, analysis, close out), (xi) delivery phase (planning, design, implementation, close out), (xii) preliminary project approval, (xiii) effective project approval (EPA); (k) what are the details of all documentation after EPA in (j), including, but not limited to, (i) on-going readiness assessment reports, (ii) internal PWGSC audits, reviews, and reporting, (iii) Treasury Board audits, reviews, and reporting, (iv) external audits, reviews, and reporting from professional services providers and consulting firms, (v) subsequent TB-Subs modifications, amendments, and changes; (l) what are the actual costs and funding sources for the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iv) institutions specified in (d) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (m) what are the actual budgetary and cost impacts from the perspective and standpoint of each affected institution specified in (d) related to the implementation of the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); and (n) what are the details of all PWGSC prequel documentation prior to, preceding, and leading to and from the earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), including, but not limited to, (i) all scenarios, reports, analysis with projected projects budgets, (ii) briefing notes to ministers and deputy heads, (iii) budget and costs, broken down by each fiscal year, from the earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), (iv) funding sources related specifically to the carrying out of the prequel phase exercise?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 924--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to the administration of pensions by the government: (a) what is the current and total number of pension members, active and retired; (b) what is the complete listing of government institutions, with the number of members, active and retired, broken down by each institution identified; (c) what are the actual costs, including but not limited to, A-Base, B-Based, and sunset funding, for salaries and wages as well as operations and maintenance, and funding sources for the operations of administration of pension, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) institutions specified in (b) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (d) what is the complete list of all government institutions participating in the Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC) Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, with the number of members involved, active and retired, broken down by each institution identified; (e) what is the itemized list and the comprehensive range of all the pension services or activities that are processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the Public Service Pension Centre (PSPC) in Shediac, New Brunswick; (f) what is the itemized list of all the pension services or activities that are not, in whole or in part, processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the PSPC, but that are reliant, in whole or in part, on compensation advisors outside of the PSPC in Shediac and that are reliant on compensation advisors within institutions specified in (d); (g) what are the detailed rationales for each item in (f); (h) what is the complete list of all government institutions that are either excluded, in whole or in part, from having any other separate arrangement apart from the Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, with the number of members affected, active and retired, broken down by each institution identified; (i) what are the detailed rationales for each item in (h); (j) what are the details of all framework documentation and Treasury Board Submissions (TB-Subs) related to the PWGSC Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative project life cycle, including, but not limited to, (i) business case, (ii) project charter, (iii) work plans, (iv) roadmap, (v) project complexity and risk assessment, (vi) projected schedule and timeline, (vii) projected budget tables, (viii) projected costing tables, (ix) inception/definition phase, (x) identification phase (initiation, feasibility, analysis, close out), (xi) delivery phase (planning, design, implementation, close out), (xii) preliminary project approval, (xiii) effective project approval (EPA); (k) what are the details of all documentation after EPA of question (j), including, but not limited to, (i) on-going readiness assessment reports, (ii) internal PWGSC audits, reviews, and reporting, (iii) Treasury Board audits, reviews, and reporting, (iv) external audits, reviews, and reporting from professional services providers and consulting firms, (v) subsequent TB-Subs modifications, amendments, and changes; (l) what are the actual costs and funding sources for the Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iv) institutions specified in (d) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (m) what are the actual budgetary and cost impacts from the perspective and standpoint of each affected institution specified in (d) related to the implementation of the Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (n) what are the details of all PWGSC prequel documentation prior to, preceding, and leading to and from the earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), including, but not limited to (i) all scenarios, reports, analysis with projected projects budgets, (ii) briefing notes to ministers and deputy heads, (iii) budget and costs broken down by each fiscal year between earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), (iv) funding sources related specifically to the carrying out of the prequel phase exercise?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 925--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With respect to workforce adjustments since 2012: (a) how many employees received (i) pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus period, (ii) a transition support measure, (iii) an education allowance, (iv) retention payment or other payment as a result of an alternative delivery initiative under a work force adjustment agreement, (v) a lump sum payment under the Directive on Career Transition for Executives; and (b) what was the total amount spent on (i) pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus periods, (ii) transition support measures, (iii) education allowances, (iv) retention payments or other payments as a result of an alternative delivery initiative under a work force adjustment agreement, (v) lump sum payments under the Directive on Career Transition for Executives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 926--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to payments in lieu of taxes regarding national historic sites as designated by Parks Canada: from 2009 to date, what amounts have been granted by the department of Public Works and Government Services to each taxing authority, broken down by (i) historic site, (ii) year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 927--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to “nudge” policies discussed in Policy Horizons Canada, March 2012, ISBN number: PH4-134/2012E-PDF, 978-1-100-21668-3: (a) has the government communicated about nudge policies with other countries that use such policies and, if so, which countries; (b) has the government produced any analysis of them and, if so, what is the (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) department, (iv) author, (v) record number of those documents; (c) has the government implemented or tested these policies and, if so, (i) how, (ii) where, (iii) by whom, (iv) what were the results; and (d) if the government has not implemented or tested these policies, what was the rationale for that decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 928--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to federal taxes, including tariffs, service charges and fees: since 2005, (a) in which instance was there an increase, a new imposition or the elimination of a credit or benefit, broken down by (i) the particular tax, tariff, charge, fee or credit, (ii) the rate or amount, (iii) the date it took effect, (iv) the revenue it has generated, (v) the department that made the change; and (b) what is the annual total of revenue generated by each of the changes in (a), broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 929--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the role of Canadian diplomatic personnel in respect to the operations of Canadian extractive companies outside Canada: (a) what is this role; (b) what policies, guidelines, and directives govern this role; (c) for each of the policies, guidelines, and directives in (b), (i) when was it enacted, (ii) by whom was it enacted, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) has its objective been met, (v) how does the government determine whether its objective has been met, (vi) how was it communicated to Canadian diplomatic personnel, (vii) what former policy, guideline, or directive did it replace or modify; (d) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel support the operations of Canadian extractive companies; (e) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel facilitate the establishment of new operations, projects, or facilities by Canadian extractive companies; (f) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel intervene in interactions between Canadian extractive companies and (i) local governments, (ii) local law enforcement, (iii) local civil society, (iv) local residents; (g) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to ensure compliance by Canadian extractive companies with (i) local laws and regulations, (ii) Canadian laws and regulations, (iii) international laws and regulations, (iv) local standards regarding human rights, (v) Canadian standards regarding human rights, (vi) international standards regarding human rights, (vii) local standards regarding environmental protection, (viii) Canadian standards regarding environmental protection, (ix) international standards regarding environmental protection; (h) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to reduce resistance to the operations of Canadian extractive companies on the part of (i) local governments, (ii) local civil society, (iii) local residents; (i) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel help Canadian extractive companies reduce resistance to their operations on the part of (i) local governments, (ii) local civil society, (iii) local residents; (j) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to facilitate the operations of Canadian extractive companies by advocating for changes to local laws or regulations; (k) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to facilitate the operations of Canadian extractive companies by advocating against changes to local laws or regulations; (l) based on what factors do Canadian diplomatic missions evaluate requests from extractive companies for assistance or services, including services offered as part of the Global Markets Action Plan; (m) for each of the last five years, broken down by country where the diplomatic mission is located, how many requests for assistance or services have Canadian diplomatic missions received from Canadian extractive companies; (n) for each request in (m), (i) what company made the request, (ii) what assistance or service was sought by the company, (iii) what assistance or service was provided to the company, (iv) who evaluated the request, (v) if the request was not granted, on what grounds was it not granted, (vi) who provided the assistance or service, (vii) what was the cost of providing the assistance or service, (viii) what was the objective of providing the assistance or service, (ix) in what way was that objective achieved; (o) in what circumstances do Canadian diplomatic missions provide assistance or services, including services offered as part of the Global Markets Action Plan, to an extractive company without a request from that company; (p) for each of the last five years, broken down by country where the diplomatic mission is located, (i) what companies have received assistance or services from a Canadian diplomatic mission without making a request, (ii) what was the nature of that assistance or service, (iii) who made the decision to provide the assistance or service, (iv) who provided the assistance or service, (v) what was the cost of providing the assistance or service, (vi) what was the objective of providing the assistance or service, (vii) in what way was that objective achieved; (q) for each of the last five years, broken down by country, in what legal proceedings outside Canada involving Canadian extractive companies has Canada intervened; (r) for each intervention in (q), (i) what was the nature of the intervention, (ii) what was the objective of the intervention, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to intervene, (v) who carried out the intervention, (vi) what outside counsel was retained, (vii) what is the breakdown of the cost of the intervention, (viii) what are the access or control numbers of any legal filings made by Canada; (s) based on what criteria do Canadian diplomatic personnel determine whether a Canadian extractive company is complying with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards, particularly those standards set out in November 2014 in Doing Business the Canadian Way: A Strategy to Advance CSR in Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad; (t) how frequently do Canadian diplomatic personnel evaluate the compliance of Canadian companies with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (u) what action do Canadian diplomatic personnel take when a company is found not to comply with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (v) for each of the last five years, broken down by country in which the diplomatic mission is located, what extractive companies have been deemed in non-compliance with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (w) for each company in (v), what action has been taken by Canadian diplomatic personnel to address the non-compliance; (x) what training do Canadian diplomatic personnel receive to ensure that they can advise and monitor Canadian extractive companies with respect to corporate social responsibility; (y) what assistance or services have Canadian diplomatic personnel provided to (i) Tahoe Resources in Guatemala, (ii) Nevsun Resources in Eritrea, (iii) Fortuna Silver in Mexico, (iv) Excellon Resources in Mexico, (v) IAMGOLD in Ecuador, (vi) Cornerstone Capital Resources in Ecuador, (vii) Kinross Gold Corporation in Ecuador, (viii) Lundin Mining in Ecuador, (ix) Barrick Gold in Chile, (x) Goldcorp in Chile, (xi) Yamana Gold in Argentina, (xii) Barrick Gold in Peru, (xiii) Candente Copper in Peru, (xiv) Bear Creek Mining in Peru, (xv) HudBay Minerals in Peru, (xvi) Eldorado Gold in Greece, (xvii) Esperanza Resources in Mexico, (xviii) TVI Pacific in the Philippines, (xix) Infinito Gold in Costa Rica, (xx) Blackfire Exploration in Mexico, (xxi) Skye Resources in Guatemala, (xxii) Glamis Gold in Guatemala; (z) for each instance in (y) of providing assistance or service, (i) what was the cost, (ii) what was the objective, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to provide the assistance or service, (v) who provided the assistance or service; (aa) what lobbying or advocacy activities have Canadian diplomatic personnel undertaken with respect to (i) laws relating to the extractive sector in Guatemala, including Decree 22-2014, (ii) laws relating to the extractive sector in Ecuador, including Ley Orgánica Reformatoria a la Ley de Minería, a la Ley Reformatoria para la Equidad Tributaria en el Ecuador y a la Ley Orgánica de Régimen Tributario Interno in Ecuador, (iii) laws relating to the extractive sector in Honduras, including amendments to the Honduran General Mining Law; and (bb) for each instance of lobbying or advocacy in (aa), (i) what was the cost, (ii) what was the objective, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to engage in lobbying or advocacy, (v) who carried out the lobbying or advocacy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 930--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to Employment Insurance: (a) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Employment Insurance Commission for each year from 2010 to the present; (b) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees for each year from 2010 to 2013 inclusively; (c) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by Employment Insurance Umpires for each year from 2010 to 2013 inclusively; (d) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Social Security Tribunal in 2013 and 2014; (e) how much money has the government spent on the class-action court case regarding women who were denied sickness benefits while on parental leave; (f) how many Justice Department lawyers have been working on the class-action court case; and (g) what was the average cost for an appeal to be considered by the Employment Insurance Commission, the Board of Referees, and an Employment Insurance Umpire?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 931--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada: (a) what specific action has the government taken since January 2013 to ensure the sufficiency of the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) to provide a reasonable quality of life for each recipient, specifically, (i) what updates to the GIS have accounted for the rising cost of food, (ii) what GIS alterations have been made to increase access to non-insured prescription and non-prescription medications for low-income seniors, (iii) what GIS alterations have been considered for low-income senior homeowners and renters to offset housing costs; (b) what are the details of the government’s promise to begin automatic enrollment for seniors in the GIS program, specifically, (i) the number of calls made to Service Canada about the program, (ii) the dates when these calls were made, (iii) the number of people auto-enrolled, (iv) the number of people still to be auto-enrolled, (v) the number of calls from citizens with questions regarding auto-enrollment at Service Canada, (vi) the most common complaint received by Service Canada, (vii) details on how the auto-enrollment program was rolled out across Canada; and (c) what are the details of the government’s proactive GIS enrollment program, specifically, (i) the number of calls made to Service Canada about the program, (ii) the dates when these calls were made, (iii) the number of people enrolled through the program, (iv) the number of people still to be auto-enrolled, (v) the number of calls from citizens with questions regarding auto-enrollment at Service Canada, (vi) the most common complaint received by Service Canada, (vii) details on how the proactive enrollment program was rolled out across Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 933--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada, since January 2013, in the campaign to combat elder abuse: (a) what is the total amount spent, further broken down by each category of spending; (b) in which ridings was the money spent; and (c) what has been the observable change in the number of elders being abused?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 934--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) in fiscal year 2013-2014: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each of the following components of the FTCS, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Aboriginals of Canada; and (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-412-768 Cost of travel by parliamen ...8555-412-769 Youth Gang Prevention Fund ...8555-412-770 Treasury Board Secretariat8555-412-771 Ministerial use of private ...8555-412-772 Passport Canada8555-412-774 Department of Fisheries and ...8555-412-778 Access to Information Act8555-412-779 Kathryn Spirit8555-412-780 Sporting event tickets8555-412-782 Government advertising8555-412-783 Chronic Wasting Disease