Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 206
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2019-06-13 15:23 [p.29070]
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the message received from the other place with regard to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
I would like to recognize that this is my first official duty debating a piece of legislation as Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government, who is a fabulous minister, I might add.
I also want to acknowledge the many stakeholders who were involved in getting Bill C-58 to this point, starting with our colleagues in the other place, who conducted a very thorough and thoughtful study of this bill.
I must also recognize the contributions of parliamentarians and stakeholders and particularly the contributions of the Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner in the development of Bill C-58, as well as, of course, our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics who worked long and hard on the amendments being proposed.
I would especially like to note the interventions of a number of indigenous organizations, their influence on the matters we are considering today and with whom the government is committed to engaging more closely on these matters in the future.
Together, the ideas and suggestions in the letters and presentations at both committees contributed to ensuring that the concerns of Canadians were taken into consideration and reflected in the final version of the bill.
I would remind the House that the bill would implement some of the most significant changes to the Access to Information Act since it was introduced more than 30 years ago, changes which have not been seen since the advent of the World Wide Web. This is part of the Government of Canada's continuing effort to raise the bar on openness and transparency.
We believe that government information ultimately belongs to the people it serves, and it should be open by default. That is quite simply a fundamental characteristic of a modern democracy, and the bill reflects that belief.
In that context, we welcome many of the proposed amendments that would further advance this objective. I would note, however, that two of the amendments would effectively legislate matters that are beyond the intent of the bill, whose purpose, I would remind the House, is to make targeted amendments to the act.
Those targeted amendments include providing the Information Commissioner with the power to make binding orders for the release of government information and the creation of a new part of the act on the proactive publication of key information.
For the reason that it goes beyond the intent of the bill, the government respectfully disagrees with the amendment that would limit time extensions to respond to a request to 30 days without prior approval of the Information Commissioner.
The government is declining this proposal because these provision have not been the subject of consultation or thorough study in the context of the targeted review that led to Bill C-58. This proposal risks having unintended consequences, particularly for the office of the Information Commissioner.
The government does agree with our friends in the other place that the time extension provisions merit further study. These will be examined as part of the full review of the act which Bill C-58 requires to begin within one year of royal assent.
For the same reason, the government respectfully disagrees with the proposal to create a new criminal offence for the use of any code, moniker or contrived word or phrase in a record in place of the name of any person, corporation, entity, third party or organization. Once again, the provisions of the Access to Information Act concerning criminal offences have not been the subject of consultation or thorough study in the targeted review. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to review changes to this provision in the context of a full review.
A third amendment of concern would require the Information Commissioner to review the operation of proposed part 2 of the act regarding proactive publication and report the results to Parliament on an annual basis. Giving the commissioner oversight of proactive publication by institutions supporting Parliament and the courts would create the potential to infringe on both parliamentary privilege and judicial independence. For this reason, the government respectfully disagrees.
It is also proposed that the Information Commissioner's ability to receive and investigate complaints related to fees and time limit extensions be removed from the act. While the government recognizes the intent of this amendment, which relates to some of the other proposals that were advanced, the commissioner's authority to receive and investigate complaints regarding waiver of fees would be removed from the act, an outcome I am certain hon. members on all sides of the House would agree is undesirable.
Similarly, as the amendment with respect to the extension of a time limit was not agreed to, we must preserve the powers of the Information Commissioner to receive complaints concerning time limits and to investigate these complaints, and therefore this amendment is not necessary.
With these few exceptions, the government is pleased to accept the proposed amendments in the message from the other chamber, subject to some technical adjustments to ensure the proper functioning of these provisions.
For example, we agree with the proposed amendment that would eliminate the government's authority to set and collect fees, apart from the application fee. As the government has committed to Canadians, it will continue to charge no fees other than the application fee of just $5.
A related amendment proposed in the message would retain the right of requesters to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner regarding decisions to waive the application fee. While the Senate amendments would have removed that right, we consider that the Information Commissioner should continue to have oversight over the way the authority to waive fees is exercised by institutions.
Some of the amendments proposed in the other place would foster and, in some cases, require more extensive consultations and better communication between the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This is paramount to continue to ensure privacy protection while the government seeks to foster more openness and better access to government documents.
The bill already provides the Information Commissioner with new power to order the release of government information. To ensure that this does not compromise the right to privacy, an amendment proposes that the Information Commissioner must consult the Privacy Commissioner before ordering a release of personal information. This amendment also proposes that the Information Commissioner have the discretion to consult the Privacy Commissioner when investigating a complaint regarding the application of the personal information exemption. Both of these and some related amendments were suggested by the commissioners themselves, and the government has previously indicated that it supports these amendments. We believe they will strengthen the protection of personal information and further safeguard Canadians' privacy rights.
The government also accepts an amendment that would retain Info Source. Government institutions will continue to be required to publish information about their organization, records and manuals. Canadians seeking to exercise their right of access to government records will continue to have access to this tool.
As hon. members are surely aware, the government processes tens of thousands of access requests each and every year. It is an unfortunate fact that in a small number of cases, the requests are made for reasons that are inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. They may be made to harass a certain employee or work unit, for example. Such requests can have a disproportionate effect on the system and slow down resources on legitimate requests.
The government agrees with the amendment from the other place that the power of government institutions to ask the Information Commissioner for approval in order to refuse to act on requests should be limited to requests that are vexatious, made in bad faith or that would constitute an abuse of the right of access and would backlog the system. That would enable government institutions to focus their efforts on legitimate requests after having obtained approval from the Information Commissioner.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the main objectives of Bill C-58 is to provide the Information Commissioner with the power to issue binding orders for the processing of requests, including the disclosure of records.
The commissioner would be able to publish these orders, establishing a body of precedents to guide institutions as well as users of the system.
Originally, in order to give the commissioner time to prepare to assume this power, it would not come into force until one year after royal assent. However, the commissioner has asked that this power be available immediately upon royal assent. Reflecting the value it places on the commissioner's perspective, the government has already indicated its support for this amendment.
Another amendment asked for the Information Commissioner to file her orders in Federal Court and have them enforced as Federal Court orders. Under Bill C-58, the Information Commissioner's orders are legally binding without the need for certification. We believe that this amendment is unnecessary and would add a step in the process.
However, the government will look at these amendments at the one-year review of the act, with a year's worth of experience under the new system.
Providing the Information Commissioner with the power to issue binding orders to government and institutions is not a trivial change. It is a game-changer for access to information. Whereas now the Information Commissioner must go to court if an institution does not follow her recommendations, Bill C-58 puts the onus on institutions. Should they disagree with an order by the Information Commissioner, institutions will have 30 days to challenge the order in Federal Court.
As for the courts, I would remind the House that the government accepted an amendment that would ensure that Bill C-58 does not encroach on judicial independence. As the House knows, part 2 of the bill would impose proactive publication requirements on 260 departments, government agencies and Crown corporations, as well as the Prime Minister's Office, ministers' offices, senators, MPs, parliamentary entities and institutions that support the courts.
The amendment would also enshrine in law the proactive publication of information of great interest to Canadians, particularly information relevant to increased transparency and responsibility with regard to the use of public funds.
This includes travel and hospitality expenses for ministers and their staff and senior officials across government, contracts over $10,000 and all contracts for MPs and senators, grants and contributions over $25,000, mandate letters and revised mandate letters, briefing packages for new ministers and deputy ministers, lists of briefing notes for ministers or deputy ministers, and the briefing binders used for question period and parliamentary committee appearances.
Putting these requirements into legislation will ensure that Canadians will have access to this kind of information automatically, without having to make a request. It will impose a new degree of transparency on this government and on future governments.
As passed by the House, Bill C-58 would require similar disclosure by the judiciary.
Concerns have since been raised about the impact that the publication of individual judges' expenses could have on judicial independence, and those concerns are exacerbated by the fact that, due to the traditional duty of reserve, judges express themselves only through their judgments and can neither defend themselves nor set the record straight. The amendment proposed in the message that would require the publication of judges' expenses according to each court, rather than on an individual basis, would address these concerns and include additional measures to increase transparency.
The government also welcomes and accepts the amendment to remove the specific criteria requiring requesters to state the specific subject matter of their request, the type of record being requested and the period for which the record is being requested.
This was included in the original bill as a way to ensure that requests provided enough information to enable a timely response.
We listened to the Information Commissioner's concerns about this clause and especially to the indigenous groups who told us that these provisions could impede their access rights. I just want to note that this amendment, along with several others proposed in the message, was suggested by the former Treasury Board president when he appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in October.
The proposal and acceptance of this amendment reflect the government's commitment to guaranteeing that indigenous peoples have access to the information they need to support their claims and seek justice for past wrongs, for example.
As members can imagine, when it comes to records that are several decades or, in some cases, more than a century old, asking someone to state the specific subject matter, type of record and period requested may constitute a barrier to access.
I also want to assure the House that the government has taken careful note of the feedback from indigenous groups who felt that the governments did not consult them properly when drafting Bill C-58.
To respond to these concerns, the government supported the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the National Claims Research directors and the Indigenous Bar Association in surveying selected first nations researchers and policy staff about the issues they were encountering with respect to access to information, compiling and analyzing the results in a discussion paper, and undertaking a legal review of Bill C-58.
Nonetheless, we recognize that further work is needed, with greater collaboration between the government and indigenous groups. I would draw the attention of the House to a letter written by the former president of the Treasury Board and sent to the committee in the other place. The letter detailed specific commitments to engaging indigenous organizations and representatives about how the Access to Information Act needs to evolve to reflect Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, including how information and knowledge of indigenous communities is both protected and made acceptable.
This engagement, as with all engagements with first nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation, will be founded on the fundamental principle of “nothing about us without us”. The government is committed to ensuring that programs, policies and services affecting indigenous peoples are designed in consultation and in collaboration with them.
In that regard, I would remind the House that this bill represents only the first phase of the government's reform to access to information. A full review of the functioning of the act would begin within one year of royal assent of Bill C-58, with mandatory reviews every five years afterward to ensure that the Access to Information Act never again falls so far out of date. I would add that the government recognizes that engagement with indigenous communities and organizations needs to be a central part of these reviews of the act.
In conclusion, I would recall for the House that in its fifth global report, issued in 2018, Canada was ranked number one in the world for openness and transparency by Open Data Barometer, well ahead of many other nations, including many so-called advanced countries. I would note that in this most recent report the author states:
The government’s continued progress reflects a strong performance in virtually all areas—from policies to implementation. Its consistent political backing has been one [of] the keys to its success.
Bill C-58 would continue to advance our progress toward more open and transparent government.
I again thank our friends in the other place for helping to make a good bill even better. I share the Information Commissioner's opinion that Bill C-58 is better than the current act and urge all members to join me in supporting it.
View Cheryl Hardcastle Profile
NDP (ON)
View Cheryl Hardcastle Profile
2019-06-07 12:17 [p.28760]
Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by concerned residents in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, who live in the heart of the Great Lakes freshwater system and so are extremely concerned that the government still has not produced a comprehensive plan or timetable to meet its own targets for greenhouse gas emissions. They call on the government to produce an action plan, including all of the ministries, for the next budget, to enable it to achieve its emission reduction targets by 2030, and also an action plan with the measures needed to meet the commitments made under the Paris Agreement to keep warming under 1.5°C.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2019-05-27 15:56 [p.28066]
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to raise today.
The first is petition e-1090, which is from about 900 Victorians calling on the government to immediately begin turning over all historical documents to public archives and to reform the Access to Information Act and Library and Archives Canada to ensure that historical material does not remain hidden outside of our public archives.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2178--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to federal spending from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018: (a) what expenditures were made in the following municipalities (i) City of Saguenay, (ii) City of Saint-Honoré, (iii) Municipality of St-Ambroise, (iv) Municipality of Saint-Fulgence, (v) Municipality of Sainte-Rose-du-Nord, (vi) Municipality of Saint-Charles-de-Bourget, (vii) Municipality of Bégin, (viii) Municipality of Saint-Nazaire, (ix) Municipality of Labrecque, (x) Municipality of Lamarche, (xi) Municipality of Larouche, (xii) Municipality of Saint-David-de-Falardeau; and (b) what are the particulars of all grants, contributions and loans given to any group, broken down by (i) name of recipient, (ii) date of funding, (iii) department or agency that provided the funding, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the funding was granted, (vi) purpose of the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2347--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regards to the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot program by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) what is the projected cost of administering the program; (b) what were the estimated benefits of this program to rural and northern communities predicted by the Government of Canada; (c) what is the expected financial benefit in quantifiable terms to the Canadian economy from this program; (d) was there an analysis conducted by the department of the negative impact of proposed government policies, including Bill C-68, Bill C-69, Bill C-88, as well as the carbon tax on the economic opportunities of newcomers to these regions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2348--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regards to the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Case Processing Centre in Vegreville Alberta: (a)(i) how many employees requested an extension on the time limit to sell their homes under Section 8.2 of the National Joint Council Relocation Directive (NJCRD), (ii) how many employees have received an extension on the time limit to sell their homes under Section 8.2 of the NJCRD, (iii) how many applications for these employees took longer than the 10-day deadline for the department to respond to the request for an extension on the time limit to sell their homes under Section 8.2 of the NJCRD, (iv) what measures is the department taking to accommodate employees because of the depressed housing market conditions in Vegreville, (v) what steps is the department taking to ensure that the National Joint Council Relocation Directive is followed for these members; (b) of the employees that did not move to Edmonton, (i) how many current and former employees are potentially affected by the adjudication decision in August 2018 by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (Citation: 2018FPSLREB74) that the department failed to offer voluntary programs to employees who were not relocating, (ii) what is the maximum liability to the federal government for the potential cost of transition support measures and education allowances for these employees; (c) what is the current cost of the closure of the Case Process Centre in Vegreville Alberta, broken down by (i) costs related to relocating staff, (ii) costs related to surplus staff that chose not to relocate, (iii) costs related to closing the physical facility in Vegreville, (iv) fit-up costs for the workspace of employees that relocated to Edmonton, (v) fit-up costs for employees that relocated to other locations, (vi) costs related to any grievances and adjudications related to the closure, (vii) all other costs related to the closure, including salary costs of employees outside of the Vegreville Centre (management and internal services, headquarters staff, etc.) that advised, planned and oversaw the closure of the Centre; (d) what steps were taken to follow the “good neighbors policy” through the closure process; and (e) with the inclusion of the potential liabilities of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, what was the initial projected total cost of the closure of the Vegreville Case Processing Centre when the decision was taken to close the centre and what is the current projected total cost of the closure of the Vegreville Case Processing Centre?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2349--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the government’s answering of access to information requests, broken down by year from January 2011 to date : (a) how many times did the government fail to answer an access to information request within (i) 45 days, (ii) 90 days, (iii) 135 days, (iv) 180 days, (v) 225 days, (vi) 270-plus days; and (b) for each question which took over 180 days to answer as identified in (a)(iv), (a)(v) and (a)(vi), (i) what was the question, (ii) how much time did it take to provide an answer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2350--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the government's plan to implement a comprehensive Border Enforcement Strategy as outlined in Budget 2019: (a) when will the details of the strategy be finalized; (b) will the government publicly release the details of the strategy; (c) of the proposed $1.8 billion investment (i) what is the breakdown of the funding by department or agency, (ii) what percentage of the funding will be dedicated to managing irregular migration, (iii) what percentage of the funding will be dedicated to discouraging irregular migration, (iv) what percentage of funding will be dedicated to preventing irregular migration; (d) what specific legislative changes is the government considering to "better manage, discourage and prevent irregular migration"; and (e) what is the government's timeline for introducing the changes identified in (d)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2351--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to federal spending to improve connectivity in Manitoba from November 4, 2015 to present: (a) what are the details of all expenditures made to projects through the Connect to lnnovate program including (i) recipient of funding, (ii) name of project, (iii) project start date, (iv) projected project completion date, (v) amount of funding pledged, (vi) amount of funding actually provided to date; (b) what are the details of all other expenditures intended to improve connectivity, including (i) recipient of funding, (ii) name of project, (iii) project start date, (iv) projected project completion date, (v) amount of funding pledged, (vi) amount of funding actually provided to date (vii) department or agency that provided the funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2352--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to federal spending in Manitoba from November 4, 2015 to present, broken down by year: (a) what expenditures were made in the following electoral districts (i) Brandon—Souris, (ii) Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, (iii) Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, (iv) Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, (v) Elmwood—Transcona, (vi) Kildonan—St. Paul, (vii) Portage—Lisgar, (viii) Provencher, (ix) Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, (x) Selkirk-lnterlake-Eastman, (xi) Winnipeg Centre, (xii) Winnipeg North, (xiii) Winnipeg South, (xiv) Winnipeg South Centre; (b) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans given to any business, group, municipality, or organization including (i) name of recipient, (ii) date of funding, (iii) department or agency that provided the funding, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the funding was granted, (vi) purpose of the expenditure; (c) for infrastructure projects in each of the electoral districts identified in (a), what are the details of each projects including (i) recipient of funding, (ii) name of project, (iii) project start date, (iv) projected project completion date, (v) amount of funding pledged, (vi) amount of funding actually provided to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2353--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to federal spending in Manitoba from November 4, 2015 to present, broken down by year: (a) what expenditures were made in the following municipalities (i) Rural Municipality of De Salaberry, (ii) Rural Municipality of Emerson, (iii) Rural Municipality of Hanover, (iv) Rural Municipality of La Broquerie, (v) Rural Municipality of Montcalm, (vi) Town of Niverville, (vii) Rural Municipality of Piney, (viii) Rural Municipality of Reynolds, (ix) Rural Municipality of Ritchot, (x) Rural Municipality of Springfield, (xi) Village of St. Pierre-Jolys, (xii) Rural Municipality of Ste. Anne, (xiii) Town of Ste. Anne, (xiv) City of Steinbach, (xv) Rural Municipality of Stuartburn, (xvi) Rural Municipality of Taché, (xvii) Rural Municipality of Whitemouth; (b) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans given to any business, group, municipality, or organization including (i) name of recipient, (ii) date of funding, (iii) department or agency that provided the funding, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the funding was granted, (vi) purpose of the expenditure
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2354--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to contract employees, per diem employees or other similar compensation arrangements for all government departments, agencies and Crown corporations, since November 2015: how many people have worked for rates equal to or more than (i) $300/hour, (ii) $400/hour, (iii) $500/hour, (iv) $700/hour, (v) $1000/hour?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2355--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to federal spending in Manitoba from November 4, 2015 to present, broken down by year: (a) what expenditures were made in the following municipalities, (i) City of Brandon, (ii) Rural Municipality of Wallace-Woodworth, (iii) Rural Municipality of Sifton, (iv) Rural Municipality of Pipestone, (v) Rural Municipality of Two Borders, (vi) Town of Virden, (vii) Municipality of Grassland, (viii) Municipality of Brenda-Waskada, (ix) Municipality of Deloraine-Winchester, (x) Municipality Boissevain-Morton, (xi) Municipality of Killarney-Turtle Mountain, (xii) Cartwright-Roblin Municipality, (xiii) Rural Municipality of Argyle, (xiv) Rural Municipality of Prairie Lakes, (xv) Municipality of Glenboro-South Cypress, (xvi) Municipality of Oakland-Wawanesa, (xvii) Municipality of Souris­Glenwood, (xviii) Rural Municipality of Whitehead, (xix) Rural Municipality of Cornwallis, (xx) Town of Melita; (b) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans given to any business, group, municipality, or organization, including (i) name of recipient, (ii) date of funding, (iii) department or agency that provided the funding, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the funding was granted, (vi) purpose of the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2356--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to Statistics Canada’s plan to collect financial transaction data on Canadians: (a) by what means will data be anonymized; (b) which employee’s classification will have access to data that has not been anonymized; and (c) what cyber security protection measures have been put in place to protect this sensitive data?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2357--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the briefings provided to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or his staff by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the titles, dates and subject-matter of all briefing notes provided by the RCMP; (b) what were the dates and subject-matter of oral briefings provided by (i) the Commissioner of the RCMP, (ii) the Deputy Commissioner, Federal Policing, (iii) the Senior General Counsel, (iv) the Chief of Staff to the Commissioner; (c) did any of the oral briefings referred to in (b) relate to an ongoing investigation; and (d) did any of the oral briefings referred to in (b) relate to a matter before the courts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2358--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the disbanding of the “O” Division of the Marine Security Enforcement Team Program: (a) what measures is the government taking to ensure marine security of our Great Lakes; (b) what is the reason for removing protection of most of Ontario’s international border; (c) what is the government’s new plan for patrolling known smuggling routes on the Great Lakes with limited marine capacity; and (d) what enforcement costs are anticipated due to the resulting influx of illegal goods such as firearms and contraband tobacco?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2359--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regards to the implementation of the needle exchange program in Canadian penitentiaries: what are the details of all the meetings between Public Safety Canada officials and union heads, including (i) the dates, (ii) the concerns that were raised, if any, (iii) whether inmate feedback was sough?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2360--
Ms. Georgina Jolibois:
With regards to the Ile-a-la-Crosse Indian Residential School and the Timber Bay Children’s home: (a) how many students attended these schools from their respective openings until the schools were shut down; (b) how much funding from the government was provided to these schools for the duration of their respective operations; (c) on what basis does the government not recognize these schools as residential schools or as part of the residential school settlement; (d) what actions has the government taken to provide justice to the survivors and families of attendees of these schools; (e) what discussions and meetings have taken place since 2015 to provide survivors and families with financial compensation; and (f) by what date can survivors and families expect financial compensation for the experiences at these residential schools?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2361--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With regard to Gatineau Park: (a) what land within the current boundaries of Gatineau Park is provincially owned and controlled; (b) what agency or agencies are responsible for law enforcement in Gatineau Park and under what authority; (c) what are the powers of the National Capital Commission (NCC) conservation officers in Gatineau Park; (d) which level of government is responsible for the water quality of Gatineau Park's lakes, ponds and streams; (e) why does the National Capital Act not require that the responsible Minister report on the state of Gatineau Park at least every two years, as is required by the National Parks Act on the status of National Parks; (f) how does the protection regime in Gatineau Park compare to that in Canada's National Parks; (g) why is Gatineau Park not managed by Parks Canada, the only federal agency which has the requisite experience and expertise to manage an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Category II protected area; (h) how many properties in Gatineau Park acquired by the NCC since 2008 have been leased back to their previous owners or other parties, and under what conditions; (i) how many properties in Gatineau Park acquired since 2008 have been re-naturalized or been left to re-naturalize; (j) how does the NCC evaluate the impact of private property development on the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park; (k) has the NCC sought to undertake negotiations with the responsible municipalities, or the Government of Quebec, with the view to arriving at mutually acceptable standards for private property development in order to mitigate the impact of such development on the natural environment of Gatineau Park; and (l) what impact does provincial ownership of land within the boundaries of Gatineau Park have on the management of the park?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-2178 Federal spending8555-421-2178-01 Federal spending8555-421-2347 Rural and Northern Immigra ...8555-421-2348 Case Processing Centre in ...8555-421-2349 Access to information requests8555-421-2350 Border Enforcement Strategy8555-421-2351 Federal spending to improv ...8555-421-2352 Federal spending in Manitoba8555-421-2353 Federal spending in Manitoba8555-421-2354 Compensation arrangements8555-421-2355 Federal spending in Manitoba ...Show all topics
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the Liberals made a campaign commitment and expressed distress over what they called large omnibus budget legislation.
On the subject of immigration and the division of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, which will not give us an opportunity to talk to affected stakeholders because of how the Liberals have presented this bill, did my colleague commit to that platform and the omnibus legislation? How will he explain this to his constituents now that he has clearly broken a promise?
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2019-04-30 16:47 [p.27204]
Mr. Speaker, the budget bill in front of us is about numbers. It is about the business plan for Canada. It looks at all aspects of operating the country, including the increase we have seen in asylum seekers, which requires more funding from us to support provinces and municipalities with respect to immigration. When we look at what we are doing in the budget, it all comes down to the dollars needed to run effective programs to support the changing needs of Canada.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1720---
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to government advertisements (ads) launched on Facebook since January 1, 2016: (a) how many ads have been launched by month and what were the corresponding campaigns for each (ie. employment insurance, citizenship services, tax credits, grants, etc.); (b) how long was each ad active for online; (c) what were the insights for each ad launched, including (i) how many people were reached by each ad, (ii) what percentage of women and men were reached by each ad, (iii) what were the age group ranges used for each ad, (iv) what were the federal, provincial, or municipal regions targeted by each ad, (v) were specific interests, pages, or likes included in the targeting of the ads, broken down by ad; and (d) who in the department or Minister’s office receives or has access to the data gathered in the insights of these ads?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2193--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to government expenditures with Nesta Holding Company Ltd. or companies owned in whole or in part by Nesta Holding Company since January 1, 2016, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, : (a) what are the total expenditures, broken down by company; (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) company, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) quantity, (vi) price per unit, (vii) file number, if applicable; and (c) on what date did the Chief Executive Officer of Invest in Canada Hub formally resign from the Board of Directors of Nesta Holding Company?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2194--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the government’s plan to create a “critical election incident public protocol” group for the 2019 election: (a) what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that political staff in ministerial offices, including in the Office of the Prime Minister, do not influence any members of the group; (b) will there be a prohibition on communication during the writ period between members of the group and ministers or their exempt staff; and (c) if no prohibition exists, why is the government allowing communication between ministers or their exempt staff and members of the group?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2195--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to “code names” used by the Department of National Defence: what are the code names used for the (i) Chief of Defence Staff, (ii) Minister of National Defence, (iii) various members of the Minister of National Defence’s exempt staff, broken down by individual, (iv) Prime Minister, (v) various members of the Office of the Prime Minister, broken down by individual, (vi) other ministers, broken down by minister, (vii) Clerk of the Privy Council, (viii) Vice-Chief of Defence Staff, (ix) Judge Advocate General, (x) Chief of Military Personnel, (xi) National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, (xii) Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, (xiii) Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, (xiv) Commander of the Canadian Army, (xv) Commander of Canadian Joint Operations Command, (xvi) Director of Staff of the Strategic Joint Staff, (xvii) Canadian Armed Forces Chief Warrant Officer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2196--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to advertisement spending since January 1, 2018: (a) how much has been spent on advertisements originating from U.S. companies, broken down by each expenditure and medium (i.e. print or digital); and (b) how much has been spent on advertisements originating from Canadian companies, broken down by each expenditure and medium (i.e. print or digital)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2199--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit): (a) what is the anticipated cost to taxpayers for its implementation; and (b) what are the findings of any cost analysis done by government departments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2200--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (i.e. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2201--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal employment in the federal electoral district of Timmins—James Bay, broken down by department, municipality, and year since 2004: how many federal government employees are based in the above-named electoral district?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2209--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to water advisories, both boil-water or other water advisories, in Indigenous communities: (a) in addition to the online government website list, how many have been added since January 1, 2016; (b) of those added, how many are still under an advisory; (c) what is the complete list of Indigenous communities currently under a water advisory in addition to the online government website list, broken down by region, including new additions; (d) of the communities in (c), which communities are receiving direct assistance from the federal government to lift the advisory; and (e) of the communities in (d), what type of assistance is being provided by the federal government, broken down by (i) name of the program or initiative, (ii) funding amount if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2210--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the subsidies credited for electric vehicles and charging stations since January 1, 2016: (a) how much has been credited to Canadians; and (b) what is the breakdown of these credits by province and city?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2211--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to government advertisements (ads) launched on Facebook since January 1, 2018: (a) how many ads have been launched by month and what were the corresponding campaigns for each (e.g. Employment Insurance, citizenship services, tax credits, grants, etc.); (b) for how long was each ad active online; (c) what were the insights for each ad launched, including (i) how many people were reached by each ad, (ii) what percentage of women and men were reached by each ad, (iii) what were the age-group ranges used for each ad, (iv) what were the federal, provincial, or municipal regions targeted by each ad, including postal codes, if applicable; and (d) who in the department or Minister's office receives or has access to the data gathered in the insights of these ads?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2219--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to federal spending within the electoral district of Perth—Wellington for each fiscal year from 2015-16 to 2017-18: what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded by the government, broken down by (i) department and agency, (ii) municipality, (iii) name of recipient, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the spending was made, (vi) date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2220--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to abbreviations, code names and code words used by departments or agencies: (a) what is the complete list of abbreviations, code names and code words used by departments and agencies in communication between the department or agencies and the minister’s office; and (b) for each abbreviation, code name or code word in (a), whom or to what does it represent or refer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2221--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to expenditures related to Twitter since January 1, 2016, broken down by department and agency: what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) topic and tweet that was promoted, if known, (iv) description of goods or services provided, if different than a promoted tweet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2222--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to the new steel and aluminum tariffs which the government started collecting in 2018: (a) how much has the government collected to date; (b) of the tariffs collected to date, how much has been distributed back to Canadian steel and aluminum companies, as of present; and (c) what is the complete list of recipients of the funding in (b), including the amount each recipient received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2223--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to government advertising for oil pipeline projects, including approved projects and projects in the evaluation phase, since November 4, 2015: what is the total amount spent on advertising, broken down by (i) year, (ii) pipeline project, (iii) department, (iv) advertising platform, (v) supplier?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2224--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to government interactions with and expenditures related to Canada 2020: (a) what are the details of any roles or expenditures the following organizations have in relation to the “Canada Food Brand Project” being put on by Canada 2020, (i) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, (ii) Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada, (iii) Farm Credit Canada, (iv) National Research Council of Canada; (b) how much did each organization listed in (a) pay Canada 2020 to be listed as a “participant” or “partner” for the project; and (c) what are the details of any other expenditures the organizations in (a) had with Canada 2020 since November 4, 2015, including (i) total, (ii) purpose, (iii) date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2225--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the backlog in security assessments for individuals seeking asylum, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by month: what was the number of individuals in Canada seeking asylum who had not yet received a security assessment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2226--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, since December 2015 and broken down by month: (a) how many individuals were issued a removal order; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many were still in Canada; (c) of the individuals in (a), how many left Canada; (d) how many individuals were issued a deportation order; (e) of the individuals in (d), how many remain in Canada; (f) how many individuals were deported; (g) how many individuals seeking asylum were scheduled to appear at an Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) hearing; (h) how many individuals seeking asylum appeared at an IRB hearing; (i) how many individuals seeking asylum failed to appear at an IRB hearing; and (j) how many individuals seeking asylum have not had their IRB hearing?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2227--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to Employment Insurance (EI), for 2017 and 2018, broken down by year: (a) what was the volume of EI applications in total and broken down by (i) region and province where the claim originated, (ii) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (iii) month; (b) what was the average EI application processing time in total and broken down by (i) region and province where the claim originated, (ii) month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high-volume message in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (f) what were the national service-level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by month; (g) what were the actual service-level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (h) what were the service standards for call backs from EI processing staff, broken down by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI processing staff for call backs, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by EI processing staff, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (k) what were the number and percentage of term employees and indeterminate employees working at EI call centres and processing centres; (l) what was the rate of sick leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees; (m) what was the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long-term disability; (n) what was the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees; (o) who authored the report on EI processing for which the former Parliamentary Secretary for Employment and Social Development was credited; (p) what are the details of the Table of Contents for the report; (q) will the government make the report public; (r) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province where the complaint originated; (s) how long on average did a complaint take to be investigated and resolved, broken down by month; and (t) what were the major themes of the complaints received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2228--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2230--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Vancouver East, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved, (viii) when was funding disbursed; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Vancouver East that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Vancouver East by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved, (v) when was the funding disbursed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2231--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the government's consultations that occurred in development of the new national anti-racism strategy: (a) how many took place; (b) when did they take place; (c) where did they take place; (d) what are the details of the participants, including (i) name, (ii) occupation, (iii) dates of the meetings they attended, (iv) from which province or territory that the group or individual originated, (v) whether the group or individual was invited or petitioned to appear; (e) what was the total cost incurred by the government to hold these consultations; (f) when did the consultations begin; and (g) what is the scheduled date of the final consultation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2232--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to international adoption since 2013: (a) from what countries are the children coming; (b) how many children are coming from each country, broken down by year; (c) how many children were accepted and how many were rejected, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) province or territory of destination; (d) which of the countries of origin practise Sharia Law; (e) how many countries of origin have an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada office; (f) from what countries does Canada currently have a moratorium on international adoptions and how long have they been in place; (g) what is the average processing time for an international adoption, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) province or territory of destination; (h) since 2013, what is the yearly breakdown of the number of international adoptions in Canada; (i) how many applications are currently waiting to be processed, broken down by (i) country of origin, (ii) province or territory of destination; (j) which other departments oversee international adoption; and (k) how many staff of the departments in (j) have been assigned specifically to processing international adoption applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2233--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2234--
Ms. Georgina Jolibois:
With regards to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action No. 57: (a) broken down by department, what initiatives and programs has the government started since January 2015 to provide education to federal public servants on the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law and Aboriginal-Crown relations; (b) which of those programs and initiatives in (a) use skill-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights and anti-racism; (c) broken down by department, how much funding has been provided to initiate the programs in (a); and (d) broken down by department, what measures of success has the government put in place to determine the effectiveness of the programs and initiatives in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2235--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to delays in processing Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests by the Cabinet Confidentiality Legal Unit in the Privy Council Office (PCO) as a result of members of the unit being assigned to work on an ongoing court case rather than on ATIP requests: (a) how many PCO employees in the Cabinet Confidentiality Legal Unit have been assigned to work on documents related to an ongoing court case; (b) what is the average additional delay this is causing to ATIP requests; (c) did the PCO get permission from the Access to Information Commissioner prior to taking this action, which is causing massive delays in ATIP processing and, if not, why; (d) on what date did PCO notify the Access to Information Commissioner that it was causing this delay; (e) how many employees in the Cabinet Confidentiality Legal Unit are left working full time on ATIP requests and have not been tasked in full or in part to working on the ongoing court case; (f) what is the current estimated backlog of ATIP requests waiting to be processed by the Cabinet Confidentiality Legal Unit for (i) requests received by PCO, (ii) requests received by other departments and agencies consulting PCO; and (g) for the requests in (f), what is the (i) shortest, (ii) median, (iii) longest total processing time, from receipt of the ATIP request to the documents being delivered to the requestor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2236--
Mr. Robert Sopuck:
With regard to the development of the new Canada Food Guide: what scientific evidence formed the basis of the decisions to (i) advise Canadians to choose protein foods that come from plants more often, (ii) advise Canadians, in recommending they choose protein foods that come from plants more often, that the benefits of eating more plant-based proteins are greater than the overall benefits of consuming more of the unique nutrient packages found in meat-based proteins, even though the latter include nutrients not as easily accessed from many plant-based proteins such as iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and essential amino acids, (iii) advise Canadians to eat only lower-fat dairy products despite evidence that some products that are higher in fats can provide health benefits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2237--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to the processing times for refugees applications from outside of Canada: (a) broken down by country, what is the current processing time for applicants under the program for (i) government-assisted refugees, (ii) privately sponsored refugees; (b) what are the historical processing times for the applicants in (a), broken down by month since January 1, 2016; (c) what is the current number of privately sponsored refugee applications which are awaiting processing; and (d) how many of the applications in (c) are for Yazidi applicants?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2238--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to federal spending in the current constituency of Beloeil—Chambly and the former constituency of Chambly—Borduas, for the fiscal years of 2011-12 to 2018-19: what are the details of all federal government expenditures, including grants, contributions, loans and investments to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2239--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to federal spending in the current constituency of Beloeil—Chambly and the former constituency of Chambly—Borduas, for the calendar years of 2011 to 2018: what are the details of all federal government expenditures, including grants, contributions, loans and investments to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2240--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the government’s announced intention to merge the Oshawa Port Authority and the Hamilton Port Authority: (a) what is the rationale for merging the organizations; (b) what are the details of any stakeholder consultations conducted on the proposed merger, including (i) date, (ii) organizations consulted, (iii) government participants; (c) which organizations consulted were in favour of the merger and which organizations were against the merger; and (d) did the government conduct an economic analysis related to merging the organizations and, if so, what are the details of the analysis, including the results?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2241--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) fleet, the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessels and the procurement of new ships through the National Shipbuilding Strategy: (a) since the program's inception in 2010, what are the total expenditures, broken down by fiscal year, related to (i) program costs, (ii) major Crown project office costs, (iii) the technical services subcontracts; (b) for each item in (a), what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) details of the project, (iii) name of organization, company or department providing the service, (iv) date of expenditure; (v) was a competitive bid undertaken to provide the service; (c) what steps has the government taken to ensure that the program remains on time and on budget as promised in previous reports to Parliament, since the inception of the National Shipbuilding Strategy to present; (d) if steps have been taken, what are the details of such steps, broken down by individual steps; (e) since 2014, has the CCG, the Department of Finance, Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence or the Privy Council Office received any warnings or concerns related to (i) the state of the CCG fleet, (ii) risks related to operating older vessels in the fleet, (iii) risks related to harm that could be caused in the marine environment, (iv) costs of each ship as part of the CCG fleet, (v) mitigation steps being considered to address operating an older and riskier fleet; (f) regarding all concerns or warnings raised in (e), (i) who were the top three officials in the department who received the warnings and concerns, (ii) on what date were the warnings received, (iii) what was the nature or summary of the warnings or concerns; (g) for all concerns or warnings raised in (e), (i) did the Minister receive the warnings and concerns, (ii) on what date did the Minister receive the warnings, (iii) what was the Ministers’ response; (h) since 2015, have the departments identified in (e) prepared briefing notes based on risks identified and related to the CCG fleet, including, but not limited to, (i) vessel life, (ii) rust and water damage, (iii) budget to replace, (iv) schedule to replace, (v) operational risk, (vi) other challenges at Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards, specifically related to the Offshore Science Fisheries Vessels, the Offshore Oceanographic Vessels, the Joint Support Ships and the Polar Class Icebreaker; and (i) for each briefing note, email or related document in (h), what are the details, including (i) date prepared, (ii) authors, (iii) recipients, (iv) findings, (v) actions taken to address each concern raised, (vi) date which the said actions were taken, (vii) internal filing or reference number for each document?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2242--
Ms. Cheryl Hardcastle:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2243--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2244--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2245--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in the riding of North Island—Powell River on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in the riding of North Island—Powell River as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?
Response
(Return tabled)
8530-421-146 Answer to question Q-1720 o ...8555-421-1720 Government advertisements ...8555-421-1720-01 Government advertisemen ...8555-421-2193 Nesta Holding Company Ltd.8555-421-2194 Critical election incident ...8555-421-2195 Code names used by the Dep ...8555-421-2196 Advertisement spending8555-421-2199 Bill C-3448555-421-2200 Federal funding in the con ...8555-421-2201 Federal employment in the ...8555-421-2209 Water advisories in Indige ... ...Show all topics
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 2149--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, between the fiscal year 2012-13 and the current year: what are all the federal infrastructure investments (including direct transfers to municipalities, to regional district associations or to First Nations, national parks, highways, etc.), broken down by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2150--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, between the fiscal year 2004-05 and the current fiscal year: (a) what are all the official departmental service standards and key performance indicators used to evaluate the performance of the department, (i) monthly, (ii) quarterly, (iii) annually, broken down by fiscal year; (b) what are the annual results for each standard or indicator, broken down by fiscal year; and (c) broken down by fiscal, what are the details of each amendment made to these service standards or indicators, including the (i) effective date, (ii) rationale applied in amending them?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2151--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to Parks Canada, between the fiscal year 2009-10 and the current year: (a) which national historical sites have received funding from the agency; (b) how much funding did each historical site receive; and (c) how many visitors accessed each historical site each year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2152--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to Parks Canada, for each fiscal year between 2010 and 2018: (a) in which national parks did the agency operate life guard and surf guard programs; (b) how much funding did each park receive to administer these programs; (c) how many staff worked in each park in support of these programs; (d) how many visitors accessed each park, broken down by year; and (e) how many rescues or contacts were made under these programs, broken down by park?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2154--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Kootenay—Columbia, for each of the following fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-2018 and 2018-19 to date: what are the details of all grants and contributions, and all loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2155--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Kootenay—Columbia, for the calendar years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: what are the details of all grants and contributions, and all loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2157--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the arbitration case that the Canadian mining company lnfinito Gold brought against Costa Rica, asking for $321 million in compensation, lnfinito Gold's invocation of the 1998-1999 Foreign lnvestment Protection Agreement signed between Canada and Costa Rica, the Government of Canada's request to participate as “amicus curiae" in the case, and Global Affairs Canada recently becoming a non-disputing party in the case: (a) why did the government involve Canada in this four year-old case that dates back to February of 2014; (b) why did the government seek permission to have observer status at the proceedings of the International Centre for Settlement of lnvestment Disputes (ICSID); (c) what new information concerning this case has prompted the government to ask for and receive observer status at this international arbitration, including (i) where did that new information come from, (ii) date the information was shared, (iii) with whom it was shared, (iv) were the relevant ministers notified, (v) was the relevant parliamentary committee notified; (d) what are the details of Global Affairs Canada's “amicus curiae” submission to the ICSID requesting "observer status" in this case dated August 24, 2018, including (i) title, (ii) subject matter, (iii) file numbers, (iv) author, (v) sender, (vi) name of the recipients, (vii) location of the submission online, if available, (viii) the names and titles of all individuals who were involved in negotiating, preparing and approving this written submission on behalf of Global Affairs Canada, (ix) the recommendations that were made by these individuals to the Minister of International Trade and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs; (e) what are the details of the written submission from the government shown as formally registered on November 30, 2018, including (i) title, (ii) subject matter, (iii) file numbers, (iv) author, (v) sender, (vi) name of the recipients, (vii) location of the submission online, if available, (viii) the names and titles of all individuals who were involved in negotiating, preparing, and approving this written submission on behalf of the government, (ix) the recommendations that were made by these individuals to the Minister of International Trade and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs; (f) what Canadian government officials are involved as observers in this case; (g) did Canada indicate a concern about what harm a sizeable award if handed down, well over $400 million for Costa Rica to pay if it loses, might do to Costa Rica's vaunted social and ecological programs and, if not, why; (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what specific measures is the Canadian government taking to address these concerns; (i) following the two submissions to the ICSID on August 24, 2018, and November 30, 2018, what are the details of the ministerial directives or recommendations to the Minister of International Trade and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs; and (j) if the government is celebrating the end of the investor-state provisions in the new USMCA or NAFTA, why is Canada continuing to demand that such damaging provisions be adhered to in the case of a country like Costa Rica?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2158--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to federal spending from October 20, 2015, to December 31, 2018: (a) what expenditures were made in the following municipalities (i) City of Burnaby, (ii) City of New Westminster; and (b) what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans, including (i) name of recipient, (ii) date of funding, (iii) granting department or agency, (iv) amount received, (v) granting program, (vi) purpose of the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2159--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to equalization payments: what are the details of the documents used by the government to determine the annual size of the equalization payments in 2018, 2017 and 2016, including (i) title, (ii) file number, (iii) location, if available online, (iv) type (text, spreadsheet, table, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2160--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to negotiations over modalities for the accounting of climate finance at the Bangkok conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from September 4 to 9, 2018, what is the government’s position on: (a) whether, as per Article 9.7 of the Paris Agreement, following the guidelines for reporting climate finance issued to developing country Parties ought to be mandatory of voluntary; (b) whether, as per Article 4(f) of the Bangkok draft negotiation, climate finance ought to be itemized for ‘loss and damage,’ in addition to ‘adaptation,’ ‘mitigation,’ and ‘cross-cutting’; (c) which, if any, of the following elements should be accounted as climate finance given to developing country Parties, as per Article 4(g) of the draft negotiation (i) a non-concessional loan, (ii) an equity, (iii) a guarantee, (iv) insurance; (d) whether, as per Article 4(h) of the draft negotiation, climate finance reporting should include information about the face value and grant equivalent value of the grant element issued to developing country Parties; (e) whether, as per Article 4(m) of the draft negotiation, climate finance should be reported as a net value that deducts for repayment and interests on loans and returns on investments; (f) whether, as per Article 4(t) of the draft negotiation, climate finance reports should comment on how the support is “new and additional”; (g) if the answer to (f) is in the affirmative, what methodology would the government use to distinguish climate finance as an addition to existing international development assistance; (h) whether, as per Article 4(u) of the draft negotiation, climate finance reports should show how support is targeted at the developing country Party’s NDCs or NAPs; (i) whether and what forms of private sector contributions to Canada’s climate finance should be reported under Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, if at all, and whether such reporting would reflect the full face value of the loan and investment guarantees; (j) whether and by what means support for fossil fuel energy ought to be distinguished in a Party’s climate finance reports; (k) whether climate finance should be reported under Article 9 of the Paris Agreement on a project-to-project basis and whether such reporting should include blended finance involving the private sector; (l) what should be done with the information collected under Article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement relating to expected future climate finance; (m) what steps should be taken and what considerations made in setting a new climate finance goal for 2025; and (n) how much will Canada commit to the Green Climate Fund when the fund is replenished?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2161--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to the statement made by the Minister of Transport before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on November 27, 2018, that 87% of routes dropped by Greyhound Canada have been picked up by private carriers: (a) what is the total number of routes covered to date; (b) which routes have been covered; (c) what date did Greyhound end service for each of these routes; (d) what date did coverage for each of these routes resume; (e) which private carriers are covering each route; (f) what are the departure and end points of each route; (g) what are the schedules for each of these routes; (h) what are the stops along each of these routes; (i) which Canada Post outlets exist along each of these routes; (j) which routes remain uncovered; (k) what date did service end for the uncovered routes; and (l) which Canada Post outlets exist along each of the routes that remain uncovered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2162--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the twinning of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and the statement made multiple times by the Prime Minister in the House on February 13, 2018, that “We will get the pipeline built”: (a) when will the government get the pipeline built; and (b) how many kilometers of the pipeline expansion were built or completed in the 2018 calendar year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2164--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the new Canada Food Guide which was released in January 2019: (a) what is the total of all expenditures related to the production of the guide; and (b) what is the breakdown by type of expense, including (i) graphic design, (ii) layout, (iii) photography, (iv) printing, (v) other, broken down by type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2165--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to federal-provincial-territorial meetings or conferences held since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of each, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) title or purpose of meeting, (iv) ministers in attendance; (b) what are the total government expenditures broken down by meeting or conference; and (c) what is the itemized breakdown of the expenditures in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2166--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to advisory boards or advisory panels set up by the government since November 4, 2015: (a) how many have been set up; and (b) what are the details of each advisory board or panel, including (i) name or title, (ii) date board or panel was announced, (iii) dates of meetings held so far, (iv) specific recommendations made so far, (v) which recommendations have been fully implemented by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2168--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the new ministries announced in 2018, including Export Promotion and Organized Crime and Border Security: what is the total of all costs associated with creating each ministry, including the costs for any office renovations resulting from the creation of the ministries, broken down by line item and ministry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2172--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the position previously taken by the Minister of Justice that piracy “may be beneficial to one’s emotional and social development, and thus justified, ethical and virtuous”: (a) does the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree with the previous position of the Minister of Justice and, if not, why has the Minister not denounced the position; (b) what is the current position of the Minister of Justice regarding piracy; and (c) is the Department of Justice concerned that the previous writings of the current Minister of Justice may undermine any current and future prosecutions related to piracy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2173--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to expenditures on clothing, including outerwear and footwear, but excluding uniforms, by the government since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department or agency: (a) what are the total expenditures broken down by year; (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) date, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods, including brand and quantity; and (c) what was the purpose or reason for each expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2174--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to compensation payments planned or made to Canadians who live in proximity to the border in areas with high level of illegal or irregular border crossers: (a) how many individuals are projected to be eligible for the payments, broken down by province; (b) for (a), what is the breakdown of the number of individuals who will be eligible for the (i) $25,000 payment, (ii) $10,000 payment, (iii) $2,500 payment, (iv) other payment amount, including details of amount and eligibility; (c) what is the total amount projected or budgeted to be paid out from the program; (d) what criteria was used to determine who would receive a payment and what payment level individuals would receive; and (e) are any recipients of the payments required to sign a non-disclosure agreement or gag order and, if so, why is the government requiring a gag order?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2175--
Ms. Georgina Jolibois:
With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2176--
Ms. Georgina Jolibois:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they applied for funding under, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (i.e. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2177--
Ms. Tracey Ramsey:
With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in Essex on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in Essex over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in Essex over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in Essex over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in Essex over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in Essex over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in Essex as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2178--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to federal spending from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018: (a) what expenditures were made in the following municipalities (i) City of Saguenay, (ii) City of Saint-Honoré, (iii) Municipality of St-Ambroise, (iv) Municipality of Saint-Fulgence, (v) Municipality of Sainte-Rose-du-Nord, (vi) Municipality of Saint-Charles-de-Bourget, (vii) Municipality of Bégin, (viii) Municipality of Saint-Nazaire, (ix) Municipality of Labrecque, (x) Municipality of Lamarche, (xi) Municipality of Larouche, (xii) Municipality of Saint-David-de-Falardeau; and (b) what are the particulars of all grants, contributions and loans given to any group, broken down by (i) name of recipient, (ii) date of funding, (iii) department or agency that provided the funding, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the funding was granted, (vi) purpose of the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2179--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent on housing in Salaberry—Suroît over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year and by municipality; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in Salaberry—Suroît over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding was invested in cooperative housing in Salaberry—Suroît over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year and by municipality; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in Salaberry—Suroît over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many housing units were owned by the government in Salaberry—Suroît over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year and by municipality; (f) how many housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the constituency of Salaberry—Suroît over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year and by municipality; and (g) what federal buildings and lands have been identified in Salaberry—Suroît as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2180--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Salaberry—Suroît, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each (i) the name of the organization, (ii) the department, (iii) the program and sub-program through which funding was allocated, (iv) the date of application, (v) the amount requested, (vi) whether funding was approved or not, (vii) the total amount of funding allocated, if applicable, (viii) the amount spent; (b) what funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued in the constituency of Salaberry—Suroît through its various departments and agencies that did not require a direct application, including for each (i) the name of the organization, (ii) the department, (iii) the program and sub-program through which funding was allocated, (iv) the total amount of funding allocated, (v) the amount spent, if applicable; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Salaberry—Suroît by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each (i) the name of the organization, (ii) the department, (iii) the program and sub-program through which funding was allocated, (iv) the total amount of funding, if applicable, (v) the amounts spent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2181--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Canadian delegation which attended the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24) that took place in Poland in December 2018: (a) what was the total number of Canadian delegates who attended the conference; (b) what were the names and titles of the members of the Canadian delegation; (c) what is the total aggregate cost incurred by the government to date for Canadian delegates to attend the Conference, including but not limited to transportation, accommodation, security, and per diem costs; (d) what is the itemized list of costs incurred by the government to date for Canadian delegates to attend the Conference, including but not limited to transportation, accommodation, security, and per diem costs; and (e) of those in the Canadian delegation that travelled to the Conference, how many individuals travelled for the purpose of providing communications, social media, photography, or videography services to members of the delegation, including but not limited to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2182--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Sherbrooke, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they applied for funding under, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Sherbrooke that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Sherbrooke by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2183--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in the constituency of Sherbrooke on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in the constituency of Sherbrooke as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2184--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the White Rock pier in British Columbia: (a) what is the estimated cost to repair the collapsed pier; (b) how much of the estimated cost will be paid for by the government; (c) will the government permit work on the pier to continue uninterrupted through the spring and summer months and, if not, what restrictions is being put on the repair work; and (d) what is the projected completion date of the repairs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2185--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the government sending employees to the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, Nevada, in January 2019: (a) how many employees were sent from each department or agency; (b) what are the total expenses incurred by the government related to attending the event; (c) what is the breakdown of the expenses in (b) by (i) airfare, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and per diems, (iv) other transportation, (v) attendance or conference fees; (vi) other expenditures; and (d) what was the rationale for sending employees to the event?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2187--
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to the Sunshine Village Ski Area site guidelines: (a) what was the process and result of the consultative process to develop the guidelines, including, but not limited to, (i) the dates of all Parks Canada consultations, formal and informal, on draft site guidelines, (ii) how many responses were received, (iii) the details of each of the responses received, (iv) what conversations took place, written, online, spoken or otherwise, regarding the submissions or process of the consultation, (v) how were Sunshine Village and its staff included in the consultation, including all correspondence and notes relating to the staff of Sunshine Village, (vi) how were stakeholder groups consulted on the development of the site guidelines, including but not limited to environmental organisations, tourism organisations, consumer organisations, and sport organisations, (vii) what briefings were produced for the Privy Council Office, the Office of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Office of the Prime Minister or any other government department, (viii) whether the Minister of Tourism, her staff, or her department were contacted on the consultation process and, if so, what was discussed; (b) how were the guidelines related to ecological considerations developed, including but not limited to (i) what conversations took place around changing the boundaries of Sunshine Village, including, but not limited to written, online, or spoken conversations, (ii) which stakeholder groups were consulted in the drafting of the guidelines related to the Upper Healy Wildlife—Gondola Base Corridor, Sunshine Meadow, Lower Bye Bye Bowl, and Eagle Crest, (iii) what reports, documents, opinions, or research were commissioned regarding the Healy Creek Wildlife—Gondola Base Corridor, the Sunshine Meadows, the Lower Bye Bye Bowl, the Eagle Crest and the ecological effects of the Sunshine Village, (iv) what recommendations were taken under consideration in preparing the site guidelines, with reference to ecological considerations, (v) what conversations, written, online, spoken or otherwise, took place to develop the final site guidelines, with reference to ecological considerations, (vi) what were the considered implications, positive and negative, of changing the boundaries of the Sunshine Village site, (vii) were the Minister of Tourism, her staff, or her department contacted on the ecological considerations and, if so, what was discussed; (c) what are the maximum future growth limits of Sunshine Village and how were they calculated, including, but not limited to, (i) which “third-party industry expert” prepared and calculated the maximum future growth limits, as alluded to on page 21 of the Site Guidelines For Development and Use, Sunshine Village Ski Resort, December 14, 2018, (ii) what were the details of the analysis, (iii) what were the recommendations of the analysis, (iv) how did Parks Canada consider the analysis, as demonstrated through written, online, spoken or other forms of communication, (v) were the Minister of Tourism, her staff, or her department contacted on the maximum future growth limits of Sunshine Village Ski Resort and, if so, what was discussed; (d) how were the guidelines surrounding parking developed, including, but not limited to, (i) what reports, documents, opinions or research were consulted in drafting the parking recommendations in site guidelines, (ii) what conversations, online, written, spoken or otherwise, took place between Parks Canada and Sunshine Village in discussing and drafting the guidelines, (iii) what conversations, online, written, spoken, or otherwise, took place amongst Parks Canada officials in determining the parking recommendations, (iv) what consideration, as documented through emails, notes, minutes of meetings, telephone calls or video chat, or other forms of communication, was given to the express wishes and proposals of Sunshine Village with reference to the parking proposals, (v) who approved the parking proposals as indicated to Sunshine Village, (vi) what briefings were produced for the Privy Council Office, the Office of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Office of the Prime Minister or any other government department regarding the parking proposals, (vii) were the Minister of Tourism, her staff or her department contacted on the guidelines surrounding parking and, if so, what was discussed; and (e) how was the decision to require Sunshine Village to accept the draft site guidelines by January 21, 2019, made, including, but not limited to, (i) what conversations, online, written, spoken, or otherwise, took place to decide how to respond to CEO Ralph Scurfield’s letter of November 30, 2018, (ii) what conversations, online, written, spoken, or otherwise took place in determining the January 21, 2019, deadline to accept the draft guidelines, (iii) what conversations, online, written, spoken, or otherwise, took place to prepare for a public request for proposals should Sunshine Village have not agreed to the site guidelines, (iv) what briefings were produced for the Privy Council Office, the Office of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Office of the Prime Minister or any other government departments regarding the January 21, 2019, deadline and potential public request for proposals, (v) were the Minister of Tourism, her staff, or her department contacted on the January 21, 2019, deadline or on the preparation on a public request for proposals and, if so, what was discussed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2188--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to government expenditures on Huawei products or services since January 1, 2016, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation and by year: (a) what is the total amount spent on Huawei products or services; and (b) what are the details of each purchase, including (i) amount, (ii) description of products or services, including quantity, (iii) date, (iv) price per unit, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2189--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) at-sea refueling support requirements and oil replenishment needs not currently supplied by MV Asterix: (a) how many non-Canadian entities or vessels are being used to fulfil the replenishment needs; (b) what is the breakdown of the number of non-Canadian vessels by country of origin; (c) what are the (i) costs to date, (ii) projected future costs of the services provided by non-Canadian vessels; (d) in what countries, ports, and territorial waters do these replenishment services take place; and (e) what is the projected time period for which non-Canadian vessels will continue to provide the RCN with its replenishment needs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2190--
Mr. Alexander Nuttall:
With regard to diplomatic appointments made by the government since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all diplomatic appointments made of individuals who were not diplomats or employees of Global Affairs Canada prior to their appointment, including (i) name, (ii) position, including country and title, (iii) date of appointment, (iv) salary range?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2191--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the concerns raised by dairy farmers about the Canada Food Guide: (a) does the government have any projections on how the new guide will impact the dairy industry and, if so, what are the projections; (b) what role did the Minister of Agriculture play in the development of the guide; (c) does the Minister of Agriculture agree with the decision by Health Canada to remove dairy as its own category from the guide; (d) were possible detrimental impacts to the dairy industry a consideration in the development of the guide and, if so, why were such impacts ignored in the final version of the guide; and (e) has the government done any analysis on what impact the guide will have on the various agricultural industries (dairy, poultry, beef, wheat, etc.) and, if so, what are the results and projections of such analysis, broken down by industry?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-2149 Infrastructure investments ...8555-421-2150 Department of Veterans Affairs8555-421-2151 Parks Canada8555-421-2152 Parks Canada8555-421-2154 Federal spending in the co ...8555-421-2155 Federal spending in the co ...8555-421-2157 Lnfinito Gold8555-421-2158 Federal spending8555-421-2159 Equalization payments8555-421-2160 Modalities for the account ...8555-421-2161 Greyhound Canada ...Show all topics
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2019-02-19 10:52 [p.25480]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the principles of solicitor-client privilege in a government context.
According to the authors, Manes and Silver, the origin of the law of solicitor-client privilege goes back to Tudor times in England and originated as respect for the oath and honour of a lawyer who is duty bound to guard communications with clients. At first, that duty was restricted to an exemption only from testimonial compulsion, that it was the right of the lawyer or client to refuse to testify in court regarding confidential communications. Later, as the law of privilege evolved over time, confidentiality expanded from communications in the context of litigation to any communication for legal advice.
Confidentiality in the communication between the solicitor and the client became a benchmark. It was supposed that if the consultation between the client and the solicitor could not be kept confidential, then clients might be less inclined to be forthcoming with their lawyers, thus reducing the quality of advice that a lawyer could give.
In Canada, over the last few decades, solicitor-client privilege has evolved from not simply a mere rule of evidence to a substantive rule of law, as well as a principle of fundamental justice that is captured within the meaning of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada has described it as “a principle of fundamental justice and a civil right of supreme importance in Canadian law”.
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes the great importance of solicitor-client privilege and the unique role that it plays in our legal system. Solicitor-client privilege is nothing short of a cornerstone of our legal system, regardless of the nature or context of the legal opinion sought.
What is the raison d'être of solicitor-client privilege? Our legal system is very complex. The complexity of rules and procedures is such that in the Supreme Court's view, realistically speaking, it cannot be navigated without a lawyer's expert advice. It is in the public interest that this free flow of legal advice be encouraged. Let me repeat that because it is so tellingly important: It is in the public interest that this free flow of legal advice be encouraged between lawyers and their clients.
The integrity of the administration of justice depends on the unique role of the solicitor who provides legal advice to these clients. Because of that importance, the Supreme Court has often stated that solicitor-client privilege, this cornerstone of our legal system, should not be interfered with unless absolutely necessary. It must remain as close to absolute as possible, with very few exceptions. As such, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted stringent norms to ensure its protection.
The gatekeepers of the solicitor-client privilege are the lawyers themselves. They act and are ethically bound to protect the privileged information that belongs to their clients. What is it exactly that is subject to this stringently protected category of solicitor-client privilege? It is privilege that will attach to every communication between a lawyer and a client that is for the purposes of giving and receiving legal advice and that is intended to be confidential.
The privileged nature of a document or the information it contains does not depend on the category of the document but on its content and what it can reveal about the relationship and communication between a client and his or her notary or lawyer. All communications between a solicitor and a client directly related to the seeking, formulating or giving of legal advice are privileged, along with communications within the continuum in which the solicitor tenders advice.
According to the Federal Court, the continuum protected by privilege includes “matters great and small at various stages…includ[ing] advice as to what should prudently and sensibly be done in the relevant legal context” and other matters “directly related to the performance by the solicitor of his professional duty as legal advisor to the client.”
In determining where the protected continuum ends, one good question is whether a communication forms “part of that necessary exchange of information of which the object is the giving of legal advice”.
If so, it is within the protected continuum. Put another way, does the disclosure of the communication have the potential to undercut the purpose behind the privilege, namely, the need for solicitors and their clients to freely and candidly exchange information and advice so that clients can know their true rights and obligations and act upon them?
For example, where a director of a government department receives legal advice on how certain proceedings should be conducted and the director so instructs those conducting proceedings, the instructions, essentially cribbed from the legal advice, form part of the continuum and are protected. Disclosing such a communication would undercut the ability of the director to freely and candidly seek legal advice.
Public sector counsel is in the same position as private sector in-house counsel with regard to solicitor-client privilege. The client of government lawyers is the Crown, that is the executive. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that solicitor-client privilege attaches to communications between government employees and government lawyers, many of whom belong to the Department of Justice.
As stated by the Federal Court, “The Attorney General and those working for him [or her] as legal advisors are solicitors for the purposes of advising the executive branch of the government of Canada.”
In the public sector as well, solicitor-client privilege has permanence. The privilege belongs to the client not to the lawyer. Courts will not permit a lawyer to disclose a client's confidence. Solicitor-client privilege enjoys a status more elevated than that enjoyed by almost any other recognized privilege, given the central role that this doctrine plays in the effective operation of our legal system, and has for centuries. It is in the public interest that the free flow of legal advice between a lawyer and a client be encouraged and protected. As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2008 Blood Tribe decision, “Without it, access to justice and the quality of justice in this country would be severely compromised.”
As previously mentioned, solicitor-client privilege attaches to communications between solicitors and their clients, communications concerning a consultation, or legal advice that the parties intend to be confidential.
In the government context, the client is the Crown. Who can waive the privilege within government can be a complicated question. Court decisions considering this question have often been inconsistent. However, consistent guidance has been provided on when privilege can be considered to have been waived, whether in the private or public sector context.
For a waiver to occur, the client must be aware of the existence of the privilege and voluntarily express the intent to waive it.
For waiver to occur, disclosure must be voluntary. Courts will only find waiver, whether express or implied waiver, when they are of the view that an objective consideration of the client's conduct demonstrates an intention to waive privilege. For example, this may occur where the privileged communication is shared with a third party, or where the privileged communication is relied on as an element of one's claim or defence. Disclosure compelled by statute is not voluntary and, therefore, cannot constitute waiver of solicitor-client privilege. This is sometimes called the limited waiver exception in legal parlance. It should not be confused with the doctrine of partial waiver, to which I will now turn.
It should not be assumed that if a client waives privilege over one communication that privilege over every other communication is also waived. Clients, the holders of the privilege, have the ability to waive privilege over none, some or all of the confidential communications they have with their lawyers. In considering whether a partial waiver, meaning a voluntary waiver over a particular piece of privileged advice, resulted in a broader waiver, courts will consider all of the factual and surrounding circumstances.
The answer is never easy. As in the case of a partial waiver, it is also the case that not every disclosure will result in a waiver of solicitor-client privilege. For example, common interest privilege allows parties with interests in common to share certain privileged information without waiving the privilege at all. The roots of common interest privilege as an exemption to the waiver are in the litigation context, where sharing in the contents of reasonably anticipated litigation does not result in a waiver of litigation privilege itself.
Some courts have also extended common law interest outside of litigation to the commercial transactions context. Parties that have a common interest in the successful completion of such a transaction may be able to share solicitor-client privileged materials without a waiver occurring. As with traditional solicitor-client privilege, the communication between the parties sharing the common interest must be made on a confidential basis.
I have just referred to what is known as litigation privilege. Litigation privilege protects against the compulsory disclosure of communications and documents with the dominant purpose of the preparation of litigation. Although litigation privilege differs from solicitor-client privilege in several respects, the two concepts overlap to some extent. The classic examples of items to which litigation privilege applies are the lawyer's file and oral or written communications between a lawyer and third parties, such as witnesses or experts, prepared in the context of reasonably anticipated litigation.
Litigation privilege is a common law rule of English origin. It was introduced in Canada in the 20th century as a privilege linked to solicitor-client privilege, which at the time was considered to be a rule of evidence necessary to ensure the proper conduct of trials and legal proceedings. Because of these origins, litigation privilege has sometimes been confused with solicitor-client privilege, but indeed the two are distinct even though they overlap at times.
However, since the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in the case of Blank v. Canada in 2006, it has been settled law that solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege are distinguishable. In Blank v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada stated, “They often co-exist and one is sometimes mistakenly called by the other’s name, but they are not coterminous in space, time or meaning.”
In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada identified the following differences between the two concepts. The purpose of solicitor-client privilege is to protect a relationship, while that of litigation privilege is to ensure the efficacy of the adversarial process. On the one hand, solicitor-client privilege is permanent, whereas litigation privilege is temporary and lapses when the litigation ends. Unlike solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege applies to non-confidential documents. Litigation privilege is not directed at communications between the solicitor and client as such.
The Supreme Court of Canada also stated, “Unlike the solicitor-client privilege, [litigation privilege] is neither absolute in scope nor permanent in duration.”
While it is true that in the decision of Blank v. Canada the Supreme Court of Canada identified clear differences between litigation privilege and solicitor-client privilege, it also recognized that they do have some characteristics in common. For example, the court noted that the two privileges “serve a common cause: The secure and effective administration of justice according to law.”
More specifically, litigation privilege serves that cause by ensuring “the efficacy of the adversarial process” and maintaining “a protected area to facilitate investigation and preparation of a case for trial by the adversarial advocate.”
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2030--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline purchased by the government on August 31, 2018: (a) did the Minister of Natural Resources seek a cost-benefit analysis of acquiring the existing pipeline and of building an expansion; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) when was the analysis sought, (ii) when was the finalized analysis received, (iii) in what format was the finalized analysis received, for instance as a briefing note, a memo, a report, etc.; and (c) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of the analysis, including (i) name and credentials of the author or authors, (ii) date of publication, (iii) the WTI/WCS differential used in the calculations, (iv) the range in years from which data on Canada’s oil industry was captured and analyzed for the study, (v) the impact of an expanded pipeline on jobs in the Parkland refinery, (vi) the estimated number of construction jobs and of permanent jobs created by the expansion project, (vii) the projected construction costs of the pipeline expansion project, (viii) an assessment of the impacts of a tanker spill or pipeline leak on British Columbia’s tourism and fisheries industries, (ix) the government’s liability in the event of a spill or leak, broken down by recovery costs for marine, alluvial, and land-based ecologies (including but not limited to remediation, rehabilitation and restoration of sites and species, especially endangered species) and financial compensation for loss of livelihood and involuntary resettlement of human populations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2031--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to infrastructure projects which were approved for funding by Infrastructure Canada since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all such projects, including (i) location, (ii) project title and description, (iii) amount of federal funding commitment, (iv) amount of federal funding delivered to date, (v) amount of provincial funding commitment, (vi) amount of local funding commitment, including name of municipality or local government, (vii) status of project, (viii) start date, (ix) completion date, or expected completion date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2032--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to cyberattacks on government departments and agencies since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many attempted cyberattacks on government websites or servers were successfully blocked; (b) how many cyberattacks on government websites or servers were not successfully blocked; and (c) for each cyberattack in (b), what are the details, including (i) date, (ii) departments or agencies targeted, (iii) summary of incident, (iv) whether or not police were informed or charges were laid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2033--
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to the Elementary and Secondary Education Program offered by Indigenous Services Canada, broken down by province and territory: (a) how much funding was budgeted for the program for each fiscal year since 2014-15 to date; and (b) how much has been spent on the program for each fiscal year since 2014-15 to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2034--
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to communication between the Office of the Prime Minister or the Office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and persons employed by or on the board of directors of Waterfront Toronto: what are all instances of communication from November 5, 2015, to date, broken down by (i) date, (ii) person in the Office of the Prime Minister or of the Minister, (iii) subject matter, (iv) persons with whom communication occurred and their titles, (v) method of communication?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2036--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the Canada Child Benefit: (a) how many recipients of the benefit (i) are permanent residents of Canada, (ii) are temporary residents of Canada, (iii) have received refugee status, (iv) have made asylum claims that have not yet been adjudicated; (b) what is the total amount of money that has been paid out to the recipients in (a)(iii); and (c) what is the total amount of money that has been paid out to the recipients in (a)(iv)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2042--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With respect to border crossings occurring at unofficial Canadian ports of entry between January 1, 2017, and October 30, 2018: (a) how many border crossers have had family members later present themselves at an official point of entry to claim asylum using the exemption in the Safe Third Country Agreement for family members; and (b) how many of the cases described in (a) are currently at the Immigration and Refugee Board?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2043--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to applications for cannabis licences approved by Health Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency under the Cannabis Act and the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations: (a) how many licensed producers are structured within family trusts; (b) how many licensed producers have a criminal history; (c) what measures were taken to ensure there was no criminal history; (d) were the criminal histories of the parent companies of licensed producers analyzed; (e) how many licensed producers are associated with individuals with a criminal history; (f) how many parent companies of licensed producers are directly or indirectly associated with individuals and businesses with a criminal history; (g) how many licensed producers were reported by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (h) are the parent companies of licensed producers required to obtain a security clearance, and if so, how many parent companies of licensed producers are there; (i) what are the sources of financing of licensed producers, broken down by jurisdiction; (j) what is the detailed ownership structure of each licensed producer; and (k) what specific measures did Health Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency take to identify the true beneficiaries of licensed producers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2045--
Mr. François Choquette:
With respect to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: (a) to which branch of the government does the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages belong, according to the Official Languages Act; (b) before the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages, had the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ever covered the expenses of the appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, why did the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages agree to pay the expenses for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (d) who precisely approached the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to have it sign and pay for a contract with Boyden for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (e) has Parliament ever authorized the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to pay for expenses incurred by the government; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what are the authorizations in question; (g) did Parliament have access to the services from Boyden for which the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages paid in relation to the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (h) if the answer to (g) is negative, why; (i) how, in detail, did the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ensure that the money that it spent for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages was used for the appropriate purposes; (j) does the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages have all the details of how the money that it paid for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages was spent; (k) has the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ever authorized Boyden to subcontract services; and (l) what was the total amount that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages was prepared to pay to cover expenses related to the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2046--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada's Prison Needle Exchange Program: (a) what consultations were done with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers prior to the pilot program launching; (b) on what dates did the consultations in (a) take place; (c) who was in attendance for the consultations in (a); (d) how many inmates are registered for the program; (e) how many needles have been given to inmates in the program; (f) what are the index offences of inmates registered for the program; (g) what plans, if any, exist to begin the program at other penitentiaries; (h) is an inmate's participation in the program noted in their correctional plan; (i) is an inmate's participation in the program disclosed to the Parole Board of Canada; (j) what safety measures, if any, have been put in place to protect correctional officers from needles that are now in circulation; (k) how many cases have been found of inmates not in the program being in possession of needles sourced to the program; (l) how many needles have been returned to administrators of the program; (m) how many needles have gone missing as a result of inmates losing or not returning them; (n) where does the government suspect that the remaining or missing needles are located; (o) how many inmates have been subject to disciplinary measures for either failing to return a prison exchange needle or being in violation of the program's regulations; and (p) what is the rate of inmate assaults on correctional officers since the program began?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2047--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to infrastructure projects approved for funding by Infrastructure Canada since November 4, 2015, in the Waterloo region (defined as the ridings of Kitchener—Conestoga, Kitchener South—Hespeler, Kitchener Center, Waterloo, and Cambridge): what are the details of all such projects, including (i) location, (ii) project title and description, (iii) amount of federal funding commitment, (iv) amount of federal funding delivered to date, (v) amount of provincial funding commitment, (vi) amount of local funding commitment, including name of municipality or local government, (vii) status of project, (viii) start date, (ix) completion date or expected completion date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2048--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to funding allocated in the Main Estimates 2018-19 under the Department of Employment and Social Development: (a) what are the details of funding for programs targeted at seniors, including (i) amount of funding allocated per program, (ii) name of program, (iii) summary of program; and (b) what are the details of all organizations which received funding to date through the allocations referenced in (a), including (i) name of organization, (ii) start and end date of funding, (iii) amount, (iv) description of programs or services for which funding is intended, (v) location (i.e. riding name)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2049--
Ms. Tracey Ramsey:
With regard to federal spending in the riding of Essex, for each fiscal year since 2015-16, inclusively: what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, 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 that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose of the funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2050--
Ms. Tracey Ramsey:
With respect to the federal agency Invest in Canada and its board of directors: (a) what is, to date, the total amount of expenses of the Chair of the board and the members of the board, broken down by type of expenditure; (b) what are the details of implementing a national strategy to attract foreign direct investment to Canada; (c) how many new partnerships have been created, to date, with the departments or agencies of any government in Canada, the private sector in Canada, or other Canadian stakeholders interested in foreign direct investment; (d) how many activities, events, conferences and programs to promote Canada as a destination for investors have so far been created; (e) how much information has so far been collected, prepared and disseminated to assist foreign investors in supporting their foreign direct investment decisions in Canada; (f) how many services have been provided to foreign investors, to date, in respect of their current or potential investments in Canada; (g) who are the foreign investors that the agency has met, to date; (h) what are the suppliers outside of the federal public administration which the agency has used to date; (i) what, to date, are the providers of legal services outside the federal public administration on which the agency has relied; and (j) what are the filters and anti-conflict-of-interest requirements to which the members of the board are subject?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2051--
Ms. Tracey Ramsey:
With respect to the appointment process of the Chair and the members of the board of directors of the federal agency Invest in Canada: (a) did the President and any other member of the board disclose to the Deputy Minister any advice that, if adopted and executed by Invest in Canada, would provide them with a personal or professional financial gain, or bring one to a member of their immediate families or to any organization to which they are affiliated; (b) are the Chair or any other member of the board authorized to disclose to the members of other boards of directors (i) documentation, (ii) deliberations, (iii) records, (iv) advice obtained, (v) updates, (vi) commission data; (c) did the President or any other member of the board report an apparent conflict of interest; (d) did the Chair and any other member of the board object to a discussion or formulation of a recommendation that would conflict with their other interests; and (e) to what regulations, laws or policies relating to conflicts of interest and ethics are the President and any other member of the board subject?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2052--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to problematic issues related to the Phoenix pay system and the implementation of mixed pay teams in the 13 departments in June 2018: (a) what is the evolution of the cumulative backlog, broken down by department; (b) how many people were underpaid by the Phoenix pay system, in total and broken down by department; (c) how many employees experienced a total pay disruption, broken down by department; (d) of those employees in (c), broken down by department and sex, (i) how many did not receive any pay, (ii) how many had other errors related to pay; (e) what is the average error processing time, broken down by individual complaint; and (f) how many hours of overtime were required to address these issues, broken down by hours of work and costs incurred per pay period?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2053--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With respect to applications for the disability tax credit (DTC) by persons with type one diabetes which were rejected after the changes in wording to the letter to physicians in 2017 and were reviewed after the same changes in wording were reversed: (a) how many applications were reviewed; (b) how many of the applications in (a) were approved upon review; (c) how many of the applications in (a) were rejected again upon review; (d) how many of the applicants in (b) were notified of the approval; (e) how many of the applicants in (c) were notified of the rejection; (f) how many of the applicants in (c) were not notified of the rejection; (g) how many of the applicants in (c) appealed the rejection; (h) how many of the applicants in (f) were eligible to appeal the rejection; (i) how many of the applicants in (h) passed the due date for appeals without knowing about the rejection of their applications; and (j) had all applicants in (b) successfully appealed the rejection of their applications, how much would the aggregate disability tax credit claims cost on an annual basis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2054--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to Canadian National Railway’s (CN) potential discontinuance of a portion of the Foothills Subdivision and Mountain Spur in Alberta: (a) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of this discontinuance; (b) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts; (c) what is the government’s position with regard to accepting the line at a cost not higher than the net salvage value of the rail line; (d) what is the government’s estimate of the current net salvage value of this rail line; (e) is the government aware of any other plans by CN to discontinue any other portions of the rail line, and if so, what are these plans; and (f) does the government plan to include funding for the Foothills Subdivision and Mountain Spur and other similar cases in Budget 2019?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2056--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal contracts with SNC-Lavalin: (a) are there any contingency plans in place for the 148 existing contracts in the event that SNC-Lavalin becomes ineligible to receive government contracts; (b) has the government sent tenders, letters of intent, or requests for quotation to SNC-Lavalin since April 27, 2013; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, on what occasions was this done and what were the projects in question; (d) for all contracts awarded to SNC-Lavalin since 2013, what were the successful bid amounts; (e) for all completed contracts awarded to SNC-Lavalin since 2013, what amount of money was actually disbursed for each contract; (f) for any contracts that were amended after being awarded since 2013, (i) what contracts were amended, (ii) for what reason were they amended; (g) in general, what is the process for approving amendments to contracts; (h) which buildings owned by the federal government does SNC-Lavalin currently maintain or manage; and (i) what incidents, broken down by category (e.g. critical, health and safety, security) and date, have occurred in government facilities maintained or operated by SNC-Lavalin, or in SNC-Lavalin facilities occupied by government departments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2057--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regards to the Statutes of Canada, 2018, Chapter 16 (Cannabis Act), where Part 6, Section 93(2) of the Regulations state that "...cannabis may contain residues of a pest control product, its components or derivatives, if they do not exceed any maximum residue limit, in relation to cannabis, specified for the pest control product, its components or derivatives under section 9 or 10 of the Pest Control Products Act...": (a) has Health Canada defined a maximum residue limit for residual chemicals in recreational cannabis as a commodity; (b) if the answer to (a) is positive (i) what is the maximum residue limit, (ii) have the public databases on maximum residue limits been updated to reflect the maximum residue limit for recreational cannabis; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, does Health Canada intend to define a maximum residue limit for residual chemicals in recreational cannabis; (d) if the answer to (c) is positive, when does Health Canada intend to publish the maximum residue limit for residual chemicals in recreational cannabis; and (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, will Part 6, Section 93(2) of the Regulations apply to recreational cannabis as a commodity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2058--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regards to applications for visitor visas since January 1, 2016, broken down by calendar year: (a) what number of people from Pakistan have applied for a visitor visa; (b) for each applicant in (a), what number were identified as Christian on their passports; (c) for each applicant in (b), what number were granted visitor visas; (d) for each applicant in (c), what number of adult applicants had annual incomes of 252,000 Pakistani rupees (PKR), or 3,000 Canadian dollars, or less; (e) for each applicant in (d), what number of people claimed asylum in Canada; (f) for each applicant in (e), what number were granted asylum; and (g) for each response provided in (a) through (f), what is the breakdown by gender?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2059--
Mr. Bernard Généreux:
With regard to expenditures related to the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: (a) what is the total cost of all expenditures to date; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) quantity, (iv) amount, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2060--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the “capability gap” in relation to military aircraft and fighter jets: what are the details of all briefing documents related to the matter since November 4, 2015, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2061--
Mr. Alexander Nuttall:
With regard to Statistics Canada’s plan to harvest data from Canadians’ bank accounts: for each of the next five years, what is the projected revenue that the agency will receive as a result of selling information or statistics obtained as a result of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2062--
Mr. Scott Duvall:
With regard to public consultations planned in Budget 2018 concerning retirement income security following the "Sears" case, between February 2018 and November 2, 2018, broken down by month: (a) did the Minister of Seniors conduct public consultations; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which individuals and organizations did the Minister of Seniors consult; (c) what are the recommendations or conclusions of the persons and organizations consulted, broken down by person and organization consulted; (d) in which municipalities did these meetings take place; (e) in which electoral districts did these meetings take place; and (f) were the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies referred to in (e) invited to these meetings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2063--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's May 14, 2018, decision to suspend the processing of permanent resident visas for adoptive children from Japan: (a) who made the decision; (b) what was the rationale for the decision; (c) what evidence was provided to support the decision; (d) have officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada communicated with the State Department of the United States with respect to the decision; (e) have officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada communicated with the British Columbia Director of Adoption with respect to the decision; (f) why did Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada approve visas for the Japan-born adoptive children of five families from British Columbia in June 2018 despite the suspension on adoptions from Japan; (g) what are the specific questions on which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is seeking clarification from the government of Japan; (h) what were the responses, if any, that the government received from Japan; (i) what concerns, if any, does the government have with the Japan adoption program; and (j) has there been a change in policy with regard to adoption from non-Hague countries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2064--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS), broken down by fiscal year 2016-17 and 2017-18: (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 component of the FTCS, specifically, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (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; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control and, if so, how much was reallocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2066--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the federal agency Invest in Canada: (a) what is the remuneration range for its Board of Directors; (b) what are the details of all travel expenses incurred by Invest in Canada since its inception, including for each expenditure the (i) traveller, (ii) purpose, (iii) dates, (iv) air fare, (v) other transportation, (vi) accommodation, (vii) meals and incidentals, (viii) other, (ix) total; (c) what are the details of all hospitality expenses incurred by Invest in Canada, including for each expenditure the (i) individual, (ii) location and vendor, (iii) total, (iv) description, (v) date, (vi) number of attendees, including government employees and guests; (d) will the agency’s travel and hospitality expenditures be subject to proactive disclosure and, if not, why; and (e) since Invest in Canada’s inception, what are the details of the contracts awarded, including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2067--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s YouTube channel since November 4, 2015: (a) how many full-time equivalents manage the channel; (b) what are the titles and corresponding pay scales of the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (c) how much has been spent on overtime pay for the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (d) how much has been spent on developing content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2018-19 fiscal year; (e) how much has been spent on promoting content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2018-19 fiscal year; (f) is there a cross-platform promotion plan to share content from the channel to other digital media platforms; (g) are the costs associated with the plan described in (f) included in the YouTube budget, or do they fall within the budget of the other platforms; (h) what are the digital media platforms used to promote or share the Minister’s YouTube content; (i) what is the monthly expenditure on the channel, broken down by month; (j) what is the cost associated with each video on the channel; and (k) what is the annual expenditure on the channel, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2068--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Government of Canada electric vehicles: (a) how many electric vehicles does the government have in the greater Ottawa area; (b) of the vehicles in (a) what are the makes, models, and years for each of those vehicles; (c) when were these vehicles purchased, broken down by amount purchased per month; (d) how many charging stations does the government have in the Ottawa area; (e) of the charging stations in (d), when were they installed; (f) to date, what is the cost of the installation of charging stations; and (g) what is the kw/h used at the charging stations by month since they have been installed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2069--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the government's Mandate Letter Tracker tool: (a) what is the methodology in determining the current status of a commitment; (b) what metrics are used to differentiate between a commitment which has “made progress” and those that have “made progress toward ongoing goal”; (c) what metrics are used to determine if a commitment is “facing challenges”; (d) which department is responsible for the mandate letter tracker; (e) how many full-time equivalents monitor and maintain the mandate letter tracker; and (f) of the FTE’s in (e) what are their employment classifications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2073--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the business activities of the Royal Canadian Mint (the Mint) for the fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017: (a) what was the total revenue received from the Mint's numismatic business activities for each year; (b) what was the total revenue received from the Mint's bullion products and services function for each year; (c) what were the total profits earned from the Mint's numismatic business activities for each year; (d) what were the total profits earned from the Mint's bullion products and services function for each year; (e) what countries did the Mint provide numismatic products to in each year, broken down by the percentage of business activity in each country; (f) what countries did the Mint provide bullion products to in each year, broken down by percentage of business activity in each country; (g) what was the total value of bullion products sold by the Mint to Canadian customers for each year; (h) what are the names of the Canadian distributors and customers that the Mint sold bullion products to in each year, broken down by the value of bullion products sold to them; (i) what was the total value of numismatic products sold to Canadian distributors and customers for each year; (j) what are the names of the Canadian distributors and customers that the Mint sold numismatic products to in each year, broken down by the value of numismatic products sold to them; (k) what was the total value of bullion products sold by the Mint to American distributors and customers for each year; (l) what are the names of the American distributors and customers that the Mint sold bullion products to in each year, broken down by the value of bullions product sold to them; (m) what was the total value of numismatic products sold to American distributors and customers for each year; (n) what are the names of the American distributors and customers that the Mint sold numismatic products to in each year, broken down by the value of numismatic products sold to them; and (o) what is the alphabetical list of all approved bullion and numismatic distributors and customers that the Mint sells to for each year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2074--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, since its creation: (a) what is the number of meetings held with Canadian and foreign investors, broken down by (i) month, (ii) country, (iii) investor class; (b) what is the complete list of investors met with; and (c) what are the details of the contracts awarded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2077--
Mr. Alupa A. Clarke:
With regard to all Government of Canada communications (meetings, emails, letters, telephone calls, teleconferences, etc.) regarding (i) the emission of red dust in Limoilou and Québec, (ii) all other possible emissions from the Port of Québec’s industrial and port activities, including various dusts and noxious odours in Limoilou and Québec, (iii) public health, (iv) all forms of emissions under the responsibility of the Ministère des Transports du Québec, in particular from nearby highways, (v) all forms of emissions from the Québec incinerator, (vi) all other forms of dust and emissions that may come from other areas, broken down by subject: what are the details of each communication, including (i) the date, (ii) the sender, (iii) the recipient, (iv) the title and subject, (v) the type of communication, (vi) the file number, (vii) the content surrounding each subject since November 4, 2015, between the government and (a) Port of Québec authorities; (b) the office of the Mayor of Québec; (c) the Government of Quebec; (d) the MNA for Jean-Lesage; (e) the MNA for Taschereau; (f) Quebec Stevedoring Company Ltd. (QSL), formerly Arrimage du Saint-Laurent; (g) companies operating on Port of Québec lands?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2078--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to government spending and charges laid pertaining to matters of national security: (a) how much has been spent annually since 2015 by each department investigating and prosecuting Vice Admiral Mark Norman, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Services, (iii) the Privy Council Office (PCO), (iv) the Department of National Defence (DND), (v) the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), (vi) any other department or agency; (b) how much has been spent by each department investigating the 1,366 incidences of actionable financial intelligence on money laundering identified by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) in 2017, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Service, (iii) PCO, (iv) any other department; (c) how much has been spent by each department investigating and prosecuting the 462 terrorism financing and threats to the security of Canada identified by FINTRAC in 2016 and 2017, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Services, (iii) PCO, (iv) DND, (v) the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), (vi) any other department or agency; (d) how much has been spent by each department investigating and prosecuting the 187 actionable financial transactions related to money laundering, terrorism, terrorism financing and threats to the security of Canada identified by FINTRAC in 2016 and 2017, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Services, (iii) PCO, (iv) DND, (v) CSIS, (vi) any other department or agency; (e) how many charges related to specific incidences of terrorism financing reported by FINTRAC were laid in (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018; and (f) how many of the cases in (e) have resulted in successful prosecutions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2079--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Liechtenstein leaks, the Panama Papers and the Bahamas Leaks: (a) how many Canadian taxpayers were identified in the documents obtained, broken down by information leak and type of taxpayer, that is (i) an individual, (ii) a corporation, (iii) a partnership or trust; (b) how many audits did the CRA launch following the identification of taxpayers in (a), broken down by information leak; (c) of the audits in (b), how many were referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program, broken down by information leak; (d) how many of the investigations in (c) were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, broken down by information leak; (e) how many of the investigations in (d) resulted in a conviction, broken down by information leak; and (f) what was the sentence imposed for each conviction in (e), broken down by information leak?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2080--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to real estate and office space leased by the government from private sector businesses since November 4, 2015, broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all the contracts, including (i) vendor; (ii) amount; (iii) start and end date of the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2081--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to Transport Canada’s Community Participation Funding Program: (a) what are the details of all recipients of funding under the program since November 4, 2015, including the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) start date of the related activity or event, (iv) description and title of the activity or event, (v) purpose of funding; and (b) what are the details of all applicants who were denied funding under the program, including the (i) name, (ii) date of application, (iii) summary or description of the event related to the proposal, (iv) reason why the funding request was denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2082--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the $6 million budget for the Leader’s Debates Commission: what is the breakdown of how the $6 million is projected to be spent by standard object and line item?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2084--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to government contracts with Cossette Communication Inc., especially the decision to pay $499,800 to come up with a brand, logo, name and website for FinDev Canada: (a) on what date was the FinDev Canada contract signed; (b) on what date was the Minister of International Development or the Minister’s office informed that the contract in (a) existed; (c) who authorized the amount of the contract in (a) to be increased from the original value to $499,800; (d) what was the rationale or justification for increasing the original value of the contract in (a); (e) what are the details of all other contracts any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity has entered into with Cossette Communication Inc. since November 4, 2015, including the (i) date and duration (ii) amount, (iii) final contract value, (iv) original contract value, if different than the final, (v) justification for increasing the original contract value, if applicable, (vi) detailed description of goods or services provided, (vii) name of advertising or other campaign relevant to the contract; and (f) what is the total value of contracts entered into with Cossette Communication Inc. since November 4, 2015?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2086--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) in Canada for the three most recent tax years available: (a) what is the total number of TFSAs, broken down by age groups (i) 15 to 24, (ii) 25 to 34, (iii) 35 to 54, (iv) 55 to 64, (v) 65 and above; (b) what is the total value of TFSAs, broken down by amounts (i) under $100,000, (ii) $100,000 to $250,000, (iii) $250,000 to $500,000, (iv) $500,000 to $1,000,000, (v) over $1,000,000; (c) how many individuals have a TFSA; and (d) how many individuals have multiple TFSAs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2087--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the leaking of information from Cabinet meetings or Cabinet committee meetings, since November 4, 2015: (a) of how many instances of leaked information is the government aware; (b) how many individuals have been, or are, under investigation for leaking such information; (c) have any ministers been investigated for leaking such information and, if so, which ones; and (d) have any former ministers been investigated for leaking such information and, if so, which ones?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2088--
Ms. Lisa Raitt:
With regard to communication sent or received by Statistics Canada since January 1, 2017: (a) what are the details of all communication between Statistics Canada and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the Office of the Minister or the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) format (email, letter, teleconference, etc.); (b) what are the details of all communication between Statistics Canada and banks or other financial institutions, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) format (email, letter, teleconference, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all communication between Statistics Canada and the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) format (email, letter, teleconference, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2089--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to the government’s “price on pollution” or carbon tax: what was the “price on pollution” or carbon tax revenue that the federal government received as a result of the 2018 dump of 162 million litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River in or around Longueuil, Quebec?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2090--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to expenditures related to the Fall Economic Statement in November 2018: (a) what is the total of all expenditures related to the statement; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) detailed description of goods or services, (v) location of vendor, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2091--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the government’s policies and protocols in relation to spider sightings and sending government employees home: (a) how many employees from Shared Services Canada were sent home as a result of the alleged spider sightings at the building located at 2300 St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, in 2018; (b) on what dates were employees sent home; (c) what is the breakdown of how many employees were sent home on each date in (b); (d) were any dangerous spiders discovered as a result of the sightings and, if so, which ones; (e) how much did the government spend on fumigation, investigations or other activities resulting from the sightings and what is the detailed breakdown of such expenditures; and (f) what are the government’s policies and protocols for when spiders are allegedly sighted on government property and when to send employees home?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2092--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regards to the three proposed tax provisions in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement to accelerate business investment and their impact on provincial revenue: (a) has the Department of Finance calculated the forgone revenue estimates for provinces and, if not, why; (b) what are the calculated forgone revenue estimates, broken down for each fiscal year until 2023-24, (i) for each province, (ii) by provision; (c) how many times has this topic been discussed with the government and has the question been raised with the Minister or Deputy Minister and, if so, has the Minister provided a response and, if so, what was it; (d) has there been any briefing with detailed information on the matter and for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department's internal tracking number; (e) were provincial officials notified of the government's intent to change these provisions and their fiscal implication and, if not, why; (f) which provincial officials were contacted; (g) which provinces shared concerns about revenues loss stemming from these provisions; and (h) what was the nature of these concerns?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2093--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the August 2018 letter sent by the Minister of Health to the then Quebec Health Minister warning that the government would cut health care transfer payments to the province if it continued to allow patients to pay out of pocket for medical exams: (a) which other provinces or territories have received similar warning letters from the Minister since November 4, 2015; and (b) what are the details of each letter, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) nature and summary of the warning?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2094--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard Statistics Canada’s plan to harvest financial transaction data and the claim by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development that he found out about the plan through the media: (a) on what date did Statistics Canada begin developing the plan; (b) on what date did Statistics Canada notify banks or financial institutions about the plan; (c) on what date did Statistics Canada notify the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development about the plan; and (d) on what date did Statistics Canada notify the Privacy Commissioner about the plan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2095--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to expenditures on cellular services by the Privy Council Office (PCO) and the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO): (a) what is the total of all such expenditures since December 1, 2015, broken down by month; (b) what is the total number of devices in use, broken down by month and type of device; (c) what is the average expenditure for cellular services per device, per month; (d) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by (i) PCO, excluding exempt staff, (ii) exempt staff in the PMO, (iii) exempt staff in other ministers offices under the PCO (Government House Leader, Minister of Democratic Institutions and Minister of lntergovernmental Affairs); and (e) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by vendor or service provider?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2096--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to France in November 2018: (a) who took part in the trip, broken down by (i) exempt staff of the Office of the Prime Minister, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) Senators, (iv) employees of the Privy Council Office, (v) other guests; (b) for each of the participants identified in (a), what were the costs of the trip, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what were the details for all of the hospitality activities and events during the trip, including (i) the dates, (ii) the cities, (iii) the number of attendees, (iv) the total costs; and (d) what agreements or arrangements were signed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2097--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Minister of Finance’s trip to China in November 2018: (a) who went on the trip, broken down by (i) Minister’s staff, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) Senators, (iv) departmental employees, (v) other guests; (b) for each person identified in (a), what were the travel costs, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what are the details of all events and representation activities during the trip, including (i) dates, (ii) cities, (iii) number of participants, (iv) total costs; and (d) what agreements were signed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2098--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the speech made by the Minister of Finance to the Canada China Business Council in November 2018: (a) did the Minister know that journalists had been denied access before making his speech; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, why did the Minister agree to make his speech if journalists were excluded; (c) what are the government’s guidelines regarding journalists’ access to events involving ministers; (d) did the Minister follow the guidelines in (c); and (e) what is the government’s position on the prohibition on journalists during the Minister’s speech?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2099--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to land owned by the Department of National Defence on the slopes of Mont-Saint-Bruno: (a) what are the department’s plans for this 441-hectare wooded area adjacent to the national park; (b) will it respond favourably to the request by the executive committee of the Communauté métropolitiane de Montréal, Mouvement Ceinture Verte, Fondation du Mont-Saint-Bruno and the Municipality of Saint-Bruno-de-Mantarville to incorporate the area in its entirety into Mont-Saint-Bruno provincial park; and (c) when will the Department of National Defence make a decision on the sale, transfer or retention of the area?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2100--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the consultations and roundtables with stakeholders launched in October 2018 by the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction in relation to firearms: (a) what are the details of each consultation or roundtable discussion, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) stakeholders in attendance, (iv) Ministers or Members of Parliament in attendance; (b) who decided which stakeholders would be invited to the discussions, and what criteria was used; and (c) what is the complete list of stakeholders who were (i) invited, (ii) attended the consultations or roundtables?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2103--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regards to Budget 2016 Growing the Middle Class and the median wage income: (a) what are the details of all documents, including spreadsheets, used to create Chart 1 Real median wage income of Canadians, 1975-2015, in the Budget, broken down by (i) median wage income of women, (ii) median wage income of men, (iii) median wage income; (b) is the data regarding the median wage income of Canadians available for the most recent years after 2015 and, if so, which years; and (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what are the details of all documents, including spreadsheets, regarding the median wage income of Canadians for each of the most recent years available after 2015, broken down annually by (i) median wage income of women, (ii) median wage income of men, (iii) median wage income?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2104--
Mr. David Tilson:
With regard to the process for renewing expiring permanent residency cards: (a) what is the average processing time for a card renewal; (b) what is the average time between when an application for renewal is received by the government and when the replacement card is ready; (c) what is the specific process the government undertakes for card renewals; (d) what specific options are available to residents who wish to travel abroad and have submitted their expiring card to the government as part of the renewal application, but who are still waiting for the government to provide them with a replacement card; and (e) what specific changes will the government make in order to make it easier for permanent residents to travel aboard during the renewal period?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2107--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s tweet on December 2, 2018, pledging $50 million to Education Cannot Wait: was this funding approved by the Treasury Board before or after the Prime Minister posted the tweet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2108--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to government policies and procedures: what are the government's policies and procedures when a sitting Cabinet minister is being investigated by the RCMP?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2109--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the Safe Third Country Agreement: how many individuals have been exempted from the Safe Third Country Agreement due to the presence of a relative in Canada who crossed the border “irregularly” since January 1, 2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2110--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to the government's prompt payment consultation process, since consultations started: (a) how many meetings have taken place and where did they take place; (b) how many individuals or companies have participated; (c) how many responses have been received; (d) what are the total costs to undertake the consultations; (e) when are the consultations ending; and (f) when will the consultations and information collected be provided to the Minister's office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2111--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the government’s Connect to Innovate Program first announced in the 2016 Budget: (a) what is the total of all expenditures to date under the program; and (b) what are the details of all projects funded to date under the program, including (i) recipient of funding, (ii) name of the project, (iii) location, (iv) project start date, (v) amount of funding pledged, (vi) amount of funding actually provided to date, (vii) description of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2112--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s recent comment that “There are impacts when you bring construction workers into a rural area”: to what specific impacts was the Prime Minister referring?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2113--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to expenditures on furniture rentals by the government since January 1, 2016, broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the total of all expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) delivery date of the furniture, (v) duration of the rental, (vi) itemized description, including the quantity of rentals, (vii) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2114--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to projects funded since May 1, 2018, under the Atlantic Fisheries Fund: what are the details of all such projects, including (i) project name, (ii) description, (iii) location, (iv) recipient, (v) amount of federal contribution, (vi) date of announcement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2116--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to flights taken on chartered or government aircraft by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all flights, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers; and (b) what are the details of any contract related to the flights in (a), including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date and duration of contract, (iv) description of goods or services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2118--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake and the revelation at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on December 3, 2018, that certain programs at the base were either being moved to Ottawa or are under consideration to be moved to Ottawa: (a) what is the complete list of programs which are either being moved or are under consideration for being moved out of Cold Lake, and to where are each of those programs possibly being moved; and (b) what are the government’s projections regarding the number of individuals subject to transfer away from Cold Lake as a result of each move in (a), broken down by program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2119--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to the Minister of International Trade’s trip to China in November 2018: (a) who went on the trip, broken down by (i) Minister’s staff, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) Senators, (iv) departmental employees, (v) other guests; (b) for each person identified in (a), what were the travel costs, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what are the details of all events and representation activities during the trip, including (i) dates, (ii) cities, (iii) number of participants, (iv) total costs; and (d) what agreements were signed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2120--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to ministerial permits: (a) how many Temporary Resident Visas issued under ministerial permit have been granted, broken down by month between November 2015 and December 2018; and (b) how many Temporary Resident Permits issued under ministerial permit have been granted, broken down by month between November 2015 and December 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2121--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to requests from Members of Parliament for Temporary Resident Visas: (a) what is the number of requests received from Members since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; (b) what is the number of requests received, broken down by individual Member; and (c) what is the number of requests granted, broken down by individual Member?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2122--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to requests from Members of Parliament for Temporary Resident Permits: (a) what is the number of requests received from Members since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; (b) what is the number of requests received, broken down by individual Member; and (c) what is the number of requests granted, broken down by individual Member?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2123--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the Canadian delegation to the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24) in Katowice, Poland: (a) what is the total number of members of the delegation, including any accompanying staff, broken down by organization; (b) what is the title of each member of the delegation, broken down by organization; (c) what is the total allocated budget for the delegation; and (d) what is projected or estimated travel and hospitality expenses for the delegation, broken down by type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2124--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to the lack of enforcement actions by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA): (a) what is the budget of the CTA for the calendar years (i) 2013, (ii) 2014, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2016, (v) 2017, (vi) 2018; (b) what is the number of complaints received by the CTA between 2013 and 2018, broken down by year; (c) what is the number of cases where the CTA representatives turned away any complaints by passengers between 2013 and 2018, broken down by year; (d) what is the number of enforcement actions taken between 2013 and 2018, broken down by year; (e) why has the number of complaints received by the CTA quadrupled between 2013 and 2017, while enforcement actions have seen a near four-fold decrease during the same period; (f) for what reason has the CTA taken no enforcement action against Air Canada for defying Decision No. 12-C-A-2018; (g) why did the Minister of Transport not investigate the allegations of fabrication and fraud levelled against CTA staff who turned away valid complaints by passengers; and (h) what steps has the Minister of Transport taken against the airlines and crew involved in defrauding consumers and authorities in what was referred to as the "Mexican Game", where airlines misled aviation authorities and its passengers about unscheduled stops on flights from Mexico?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2125--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to government expenditures on Canada Goose products since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of the product, including the volume, (iv) rationale for the purchase, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2126--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to expenditures on hospitality by Environment and Climate Change Canada from December 2, 2018, through December 6, 2018: what are the details of each such expenditure, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) vendor name, (v) number of individuals in attendance, (vi) description of the event, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2127--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to applications for grants and contributions to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Canada Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, the Northern Ontario Economic Development Initiative and Western Economic Diversification Canada, since November 2015: (a) what applications were first approved by officials within the agencies and organizations listed above, but then rejected by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by agency and organization; and (b) what applications were first refused by officials within the agencies and organizations listed above, but then approved by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by agency and organization?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2128--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the pensions of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of federal agencies or other federal organizations, since November 2015: (a) how many CEOs are deemed not to be part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act; (b) how many times did a minister or any other public office holder order that a CEO be deemed to be part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, broken down by (i) name of CEO, (ii) federal organization, (iii) minister or public office holder responsible for the order, (vi) the rationale behind the order; and (c) what is the estimated total pension income, broken down for each case where a CEO has been deemed part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act further to an order?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2129--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to Health Canada’s re-evaluation decisions, including RVD2017-01, Glyphosate, and the “Monsanto Papers”: (a) how many and which studies are currently being re-evaluated by Health Canada; (b) for each of the studies in (a), when did Health Canada make the decision to re-evaluate it; (c) has Health Canada verified the independence of the studies in (a); (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the detailed process for verifying the independence of the studies; and (e) does Health Canada have information that approved independent studies were written by Monsanto and, if so, since what date, broken down by study?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2130--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the taxation of businesses, since November 2015: (a) how many Canadian businesses have not paid tax for each of the following fiscal years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018; and (b) how much tax was deferred by the businesses in (a) in fiscal years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2131--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to reports of a $355,950 sole-sourced contract to pay Torstar Corporation, which was cancelled following a complaint to the Procurement Ombudsman: (a) what was the original purpose of the contract; (b) which minister initially approved the contract; (c) does the government have enough employees to monitor parliamentary committees without hiring the Toronto Star; and (d) what is the total number of government employees whose job involved, in whole or in part, monitoring parliamentary committees?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2132--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to classified and protected documents, since January 1, 2017, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many instances have occurred where it was discovered that classified or protected documents were left or stored in a manner which did not meet the requirements of the security level of the documents; (b) how many of the infractions in (a) occurred in the offices of ministerial exempt staff, including the staff of the Prime Minister, broken down by ministerial office; and (c) how many employees have lost their security clearance as a result of such infractions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2133--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to funding on infrastructure and the Prime Minister’s comment that “there are impacts when you bring construction workers into a rural area”: (a) does the Prime Minister’s comment represent the position of the government; (b) how many cities, towns, villages and rural municipalities have declined funding for infrastructure projects because such projects would involve bringing in construction workers; and (c) have any mayors or elected officials of rural towns or cities requested that the government not provide infrastructure funding for projects which would lead to more construction workers and, if so, which ones and what towns or cities do they represent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2134--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the MV Polar Prince and the Canada C3 expedition: (a) since the ship was certified to carry an aggregate of 60 individuals, including passengers, crew and special expedition personnel, why was the vessel over capacity for 6 of the 15 legs of the journey; (b) since the ship was certified to carry 12 passengers, why were more passengers onboard for all 15 legs of the journey; (c) was the Minister of Transport aware that the ship was carrying more individuals, and passengers in particular, than that for which it was certified; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, when was the Minister made aware; and (e) did the Minister approve the vessel to be over capacity and, if so, why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2135--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs: what are the details of all lawsuits settled by the Department between January 2016 and December 2018, including (i) title of case, (ii) reason for lawsuit, (iii) litigants, (iv) legal fees, (v) fiscal total of the settlement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2136--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the government’s response to Q-1982 regarding the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada office located at 365 Hargrave Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba: (a) why was the government’s rationale for no longer allowing access to the general public without an appointment not provided in the response to Q-1982; (b) what is the government’s rationale for not allowing access to the general public without an appointment; (c) how many clients were served at this location between January 2015 and September 2018, broken down by month; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by purpose of visit (Employment Insurance, obtaining a status card, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2137--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the government’s response to Q-2006 that the Global Affairs Summit Management Office did not incur any expenses for yoga teachers for the Prime Minister during the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: (a) did any other departments or agencies incur yoga-related expenses during the G7 Summit in Charlevoix and, if so, what are the details of such expenses, including amounts; and (b) who paid for the Prime Minister’s yoga instructor in Charlevoix during the time of the G7 Summit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2138--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to government and Canadian Armed Forces policies for the Vimy Officers’ Mess in Kingston, Ontario: (a) on what date was the booking accepted by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces for the December 19, 2018, Liberal Party fundraising event with the Prime Minister, which was subsequently cancelled; (b) what is the title of the individual who initially accepted the booking; (c) did the Privy Council Office advise the Office of the Prime Minister that attending a partisan event on Canadian Armed Forces property violated government policy and, if so, when was such advice given; and (d) why did the Prime Minister initially agree to attend an event which was in violation of government policy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2139--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to Hillside Cottage (1915), the oldest structure in Banff National Park: (a) what measures are being undertaken to preserve and restore the structure; (b) what measures are in place to prevent the decay, vandalism or incidental destruction of the structure; and (c) what is being done to promote and recognize the history and significance of the structure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2140--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the proposed Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor project for a pipeline between Fort McMurray, Alberta, and Grassy Point, British Columbia: (a) has the government conducted an analysis of the impact of Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, on the proposed project and, if so, what are the details of such an analysis, including the findings; and (b) will the government exempt vessels transporting oil in relation to the project from the moratorium proposed in Bill C-48?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2141--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the number of RCMP officers: (a) what is the total number of active RCMP officers as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2017, (iii) January 1, 2018, (iv) December 1, 2018; (b) what are the names and locations of each RCMP detachment; and (c) what is the breakdown of the number of RCMP officers assigned to each detachment as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2017, (iii) January 1, 2018, (iv) December 1, 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2142--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to government resources used to handle the situation involving illegal or irregular border crossers and asylum seekers, since January 1, 2016: what is the number of RCMP and CBSA personnel whose duties were, in whole or in part, assigned to handle the illegal or irregular border crossers, broken down by (i) province, (ii) month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2143--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the Minister of Youth, the Prime Minister’s Youth Council, the Youth Secretariat and the Youth Policy for Canada: (a) what is the decision-making flow chart for the Prime Minister’s Youth Council; (b) what is the total amount spent and the total budget for the Youth Council since it was established, broken down by year; (c) what amounts in the Youth Council budget are allocated for salaries, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) per diem or any other reimbursement or expense (telecommunications, transportation, office supplies, furniture, etc.) offered or attributed to each of the positions mentioned in (c)(ii); (d) what are the dates, locations and number of participants for each of the meetings held by the Youth Council since June 2017, broken down by (i) in-person meetings, (ii) virtual meetings; (e) how much did the government spend to hold each of the Youth Council meetings mentioned in (d), broken down by (i) costs associated with renting a room, (ii) costs associated with food and drinks, (iii) costs associated with security, (iv) costs associated with transportation and the nature of this transportation, (v) costs associated with telecommunications; (f) what is the decision-making flow chart for the Privy Council’s Youth Secretariat, including each of the positions associated with the Youth Secretariat; (g) what is the total amount spent and the total budget of the Youth Secretariat since it was established, broken down by year; (h) what amounts in the Youth Secretariat budget are allocated for salaries, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) per diem or any other reimbursement or expense (telecommunications, transportation, office supplies, furniture, etc.) offered or attributed to each of the positions mentioned in (h)(ii); (i) what is the official mandate of the Youth Secretariat; (j) what is the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Youth Council and the Youth Secretariat (organizational ties, financial ties, logistical support, etc.); (k) is the Youth Secretariat responsible for youth bursaries, services or programs; (l) if the answer to (k) is affirmative, what amounts were allocated to these bursaries, services or programs since they were established, broken down by (i) the nature of the bursary, service or program funded, (ii) the location of the program, (iii) the start and end date of the bursary, service or program; (m) who are all the people who are working or have worked on the Youth Policy for Canada as part of the Office of the Prime Minister or the Office of the Minister of Youth, broken down by role and by start and end date; (n) what consultations were carried out in connection with the youth policy, and what are the dates, locations and number of participants for each consultation held, as well as a description of the topics discussed, broken down by (i) in-person meetings, (ii) virtual meetings; and (o) how much did the government spend to hold each of the consultations mentioned in (n), broken down by (i) costs associated with renting a room, (ii) costs associated with food and drinks, (iii) costs associated with security, (iv) costs associated with transportation and the nature of this transportation, (v) costs associated with telecommunications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2145--
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the $19,682,232.17 spent by Environment and Climate Change Canada on payments to other international organizations (object code 2319) during the 2017-2018 fiscal year: what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) recipient, (ii) location of the recipient, (iii) purpose, (iv) date of the expenditure, (v) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2146--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the pipelines passing through the region of Vaudreuil-Soulanges: (a) since 2008, how many hydrostatic tests and any other safety tests (integrity, corrosion, etc.) have been conducted on all the pipelines over their entire length from Ontario to Quebec, broken down by (i) pipeline, (ii) type of test, (iii) date, (iv) federal entity or contractor, (v) test location and province, (vi) test result; (b) when requesting flow reversal for the 9B and Trans-Northern pipelines, did the government or any other entity calculate the greenhouse gas emissions upstream and downstream of the project; (c) if the answer in (b) is affirmative, what are the upstream and downstream emissions for each of the projects; (d) since 2008, how many leaks have there been on all the pipelines, in either Ontario or Quebec, broken down by (i) pipeline, (ii) location and province; (e) for each of the leaks in (d), what is (i) the quantity of the spill in litres, (ii) the company responsible for the pipeline, (iii) the direct or indirect cost to the federal government, (iv) the date of the spill, (v) the date on which the government or one of its regulatory agencies became aware of the spill; (f) since 2008, have the official emergency response plans been sent to the municipal public safety authorities and the regional county municipality for each of these pipelines; (g) if the answer in (f) is affirmative, for each plan sent, what is (i) the date it was sent, (ii) the date of confirmation of receipt, (iii) the names of the sender and the recipient; (h) since 2008, what are the details of all the cases of non-compliance, deficiencies and violations of federal laws and regulations found by the National Energy Board with respect to the pipelines, including (i) the date, (ii) a description of the deficiency found and the corrective action requested, (iii) the location of the deficiency, (iv) the pipeline and the name of the company that owns the pipeline, (v) the amount of the fine paid; (i) for each case of non-compliance, deficiency or violation in (h), on what exact date did the National Energy Board or a federal government department follow up with the respective companies and verify that the corrective action had been carried out; (j) for each follow-up in (i), what actions were taken; (k) since 2008, how many detection system failures have been identified by the National Energy Board on the pipelines and what are the details of each failure, including (i) the date, (ii) the pipeline, (iii) the location, (iv) the reason for the failure; (l) for each pipeline, in the event of a spill in the Soulanges area, what is the expected time (i) to detect it, (ii) to stop the flow of oil, (iii) for emergency services to arrive on site; and (m) where are the companies that have been hired to respond to a spill in the Soulanges area and how long will it take them to arrive on site?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2147--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With respect to the Energy Services Acquisition Program and the modernization plan for the five heating and cooling plants and the associated infrastructure, including pipes and tunnels, in the National Capital Region: (a) has the government conducted any studies or evaluations of the plan, including but not limited to (i) a cost-benefit analysis of proceeding with the plan as a public-private partnership as opposed to a fully public implementation, (ii) an estimate of the plan’s impact on the heating and cooling plants’ greenhouse gas emissions; (b) for each study in (a), what are the details, including (i) dates, (ii) titles, (iii) file numbers, (iv) value for money analysis, (v) metrics developed to assess the benefits of using the public private contract; (c) what are the consequences of this privatization with respect to (i) the number of public service jobs required for the maintenance and operation of the heating and cooling plants, (ii) the reliability of the heating and cooling plants, in particular, during extended power outages and when emergency repairs are required, (iii) site security and the security impact for any buildings served by the heating and cooling plants; (d) in what way were the relevant public sector unions informed of the plan, including (i) dates, (ii) process for consultation, (iii) timeline for participation; (e) in what ways was the input from the relevant public sector unions considered in the decision to move forward with the plan; (f) in what ways were the associated public unions informed of the ultimate decision; and (g) what are the projected impacts and planned changes on (i) the municipal infrastructure, (ii) the rest of the system outside of the heating and cooling plants themselves?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2148--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With respect to the document “Allocations from Treasury Board Central Votes for Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19”, published online: (a) for each allocation from “Vote 25--Operating Budget Carry Forward” and “Vote 35--Capital Budget Carry Forward” to a given “Organization”, what is the corresponding “Authority”; and (b) why are authorities listed proactively for each allocation under “Vote 5 – Government Contingencies” and “Vote 40 – Budget Implementation”, but not those under “Vote 25 – Operating Budget Carry Forward” and “Vote 35 – Capital Budget Carry Forward”?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-2030 Trans Mountain pipeline8555-421-2031 Infrastructure projects8555-421-2032 Cyberattacks8555-421-2033 Communications with the bo ...8555-421-2034 Elementary and Secondary E ...8555-421-2036 Recipients of the Canada C ...8555-421-2042 Unofficial ports of entry ...8555-421-2043 Cannabis licences8555-421-2045 Office of the Commissioner ...8555-421-2046 Prison Needle Exchange Program8555-421-2047 Infrastructure projects in ... ...Show all topics
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2018-12-06 15:13 [p.24520]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.
I would like to begin by thanking everyone who has helped shape Bill C-57. The contributions of many hon. members and senators have been invaluable to the process, and the bill reflects the hard work and collaborative efforts of many individuals.
In particular, I appreciate the Hon. Senator Griffin's efforts in sponsoring this bill and her ongoing support as it has moved forward. I would also like to thank members of the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources for their thoughtful review and valuable insights.
Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to recognize the work of members of the House, including members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, whose unanimous second report, “Federal Sustainability for Future Generations”, served as the foundation for Bill C-57. I look forward to the chamber's discussion of the Senate's amendments to the bill.
Today, I want to start by outlining the importance of the Federal Sustainable Development Act and how Bill C-57 seeks to improve upon the current version of the legislation. Then I will highlight some of the most recent documents we have released under the current act. Finally, I wish to outline our position on the amendments made in the Senate.
First, I will give some of the background. the Federal Sustainable Development Act was the result of a 2008 private member's bill. This was sponsored by the Hon. John Godfrey, former member of Parliament for Don Valley West. The act set out a number of requirements for federal action on sustainable development, including the creation of a federal sustainable development strategy and releasing a report on progress against the strategy every three years. These strategies and reports have been instrumental in guiding, tracking and reporting on Canada's actions on sustainable development in a transparent and accountable manner.
The catalyst for amending the original Federal Sustainable Development Act, as I mentioned previously, was the study conducted by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Bill C-57 responds to the thoughtful recommendations of that committee's report and would update the act to better reflect Canada's current priorities on sustainable development.
The bill proposed to expand the scope of the act and provide a whole-of-government approach to sustainable development. It includes more than 90 departments and agencies and provides the opportunity to add other entities in the future as well. This will help to ensure that the federal sustainable development strategy reflects the Government of Canada's ongoing commitment to sustainable development.
All federal organizations bound by the act will contribute to developing future federal sustainable development strategies and progress reports. The collaborative, whole-of-government approach to sustainable development will provide greater openness and transparency about our actions relating to sustainability.
Further, each federal organization will table its own sustainable development strategies and progress reports in Parliament. This will allow parliamentarians and relevant committees to review the progress of organizations and hold them to account for meeting their targets and goals.
At the heart of Bill C-57 are a number of important principles that would guide progress reports and strategies. For example, the principle of intergenerational equity, that it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, provides an important context for the federal government's contribution toward sustainable development.
Other principles embedded in Bill C-57 include the principle of openness and transparency, the principle of collaboration and the principle of results and delivery. These principles will help guide the development of tangible, relevant and achievable goals and targets. The bill would also require targets in the federal sustainable development strategy be measurable and time-bound.
The bill would contribute to increased demographic representation and indigenous partnership. It would do this in three main ways, the first being through a new principle which would recognize the importance of involving indigenous peoples, because of their traditional knowledge and unique connection to Canada's lands and waters. Second, it would increase the number of indigenous representatives on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council from three to six. Finally, it would require demographic considerations such as age and gender be taken into account when appointing representatives to the council.
Bill C-57 is an important and inclusive step forward in the government's commitment to sustainable development.
Earlier this year, the bill was unanimously passed through the House with the support of all parties. I sincerely hope we can repeat that once more when it comes time for a final vote.
Our work on sustainable development continues. On December 3 of this year, we tabled the 2018 "Progress Report on the 2016 to 2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy” and launched public consultations on the draft 2019 to 2022 strategy. These products present results on where the federal government is in achieving its sustainable development targets and outline the environmental sustainability targets and actions it is proposing to take over the next three years.
We all wish to see a healthy, prosperous, safe and sustainable Canada, regardless of party, and considerable progress has been made toward achieving this vision over the past few years. The recently tabled progress report on the 2016 to 2019 federal sustainable development strategy helped show just how far we had come.
For example, the 2018 progress report shows that we may have met one target and are on track to meet the majority of the other targets laid out in the 2016 to 2019 development strategy. For instance, as of December 2017, almost 8% of coastal and marine areas have been conserved, on track to reach our target of 10% by 2020.
The government is also leading by example by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from federal government buildings and fleets. We have achieved a 28% reduction in GHG emissions relative to 2005 levels, more than halfway to the target of 40% by 2030. The progress report highlights that we are well on our way to achieving this ambitious target.
Just as important, we have identified areas where we need to improve. For example, the progress report reveals that we have some work to do on protecting terrestrial areas and inland waters. To this end, the $1 billion Canada nature fund announced in budget 2018 will help set us back on the path to achieving our target of protecting 17% of terrestrial areas and inland waters by 2020.
This is one of the crucial contributions of the goals and targets in the federal sustainable development strategy and its subsequent reports on progress. They set a path forward and then tell us exactly how we have done and where we need to focus our ongoing efforts. Sustainable development is and will remain a priority for our government, and these strategies and progress reports ensure accountability in meeting our targets.
As I mentioned, the draft 2019 to 2022 federal sustainable development strategy has been released for public consultation. The strategy includes the participation of 16 voluntary organizations beyond the 26 mandated by the act. The draft strategy builds on the 2016 to 2019 strategy. It proposes targets, milestones and actions supporting 13 aspirational, long-term goals that reflect the Canada we want.
We expect to hear from a number of partners, stakeholders and Canadians whose input helped shape past strategies and will continue to be instrumental in helping to shape the 2019 to 2022 strategy.
As hon. members know, some of those partners and stakeholders include the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, the House and Senate committees, which are responsible for regularly dealing with the environment, and the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. Our consultations are open until early April 2019 and we expect to hear from these groups and many other Canadians who are passionate about the environment and sustainable development.
This brings me to the amendments made in the Senate recently. The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources welcomed the bill and there was a fruitful discussion and debate on its various clauses. I thank everyone once again for the thoughtful deliberation. I would like to point out that the dialogue between the two Houses is a fruitful exercise in my opinion. I know the Senate considered the bill in a thoughtful manner and proposed certain amendments, which I am happy to address.
Three amendments were agreed to in the Senate. The first amendment was made to broaden the mandate of the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. This change would allow council members to give advice on sustainable development matters beyond those referred to them by the minister. The Council would, however, continue to focus on the products set out in the Federal Sustainable Development Act. The government is going to accept this amendment.
The second amendment, however, poses certain problems. The amendment to clause 8 seeks to reinsert a section of the Federal Sustainable Development Act that Bill C-57 in its initial form removed. That section deals with performance-based contracts within the Government of Canada. It states that these contracts shall include provisions for meeting the applicable targets referred to in the federal sustainable development strategy and the departmental sustainable development strategies. This section was repealed under Bill C-57 for a number of reasons.
The debate on the issue at the time that the original act was being considered reflects how unclear this section was, and still is. The Hon. John Godfrey, who I mentioned was the initial sponsor of the bill that resulted in the Federal Sustainable Development Act, said that this clause could be interpreted as a contract with an employee or a contract with a construction company. This confusion remains today. Having practised as a litigator in my career before politics, certainty in the meaning of legislation is essential so folks can understand exactly what their obligations are.
Some witnesses who have come before the House and the Senate have interpreted this clause as pertaining to performance agreements with senior officials. Others have interpreted it as pertaining to procurement contract and particularly green procurement. A clause without clarity is not one that should be in a bill.
If Parliament is concerned about procurement, the Treasury Board Secretariat's policy on green procurement already aligns environmental objectives to the departments' procurement activities, meaning this section's inclusion in the bill would be redundant and unnecessary.
Moreover, subclause 10.1, a new addition under Bill C-57, explicitly recognizes the power of the Treasury Board in establishing policies or issuing directives applicable to the sustainable development impacts of designated entities. The proposed amendment not only reinserts an already problematic clause, but it makes it even more problematic, extending it far beyond Bill C-57's intended purpose by entering into the realm of the employer's relationship with public servants. The amendment specifically adds employment contracts to the language on performance-based contracts. It says that these contracts shall include provisions for meeting the applicable goals and targets referred to in the federal sustainable development strategy and any organizational strategy.
It is the government's view that the reference to those contracts are outside the scope of the intent of Bill C-57 and it would be inappropriate to insert such prescriptive wording into the bill. Employment contracts are a matter for Treasury Board as an employer and they should not be subject to a bill whose purpose is to increase transparency of decision-making relating to sustainable development.
Given the expansive nature of performance-based contracts and employment contracts, it would also be difficult to determine what is meant by the use of these different terms, leaving the section option to difficulties in interpretation, which I flagged could pose problems.
Finally, tying targets directly to employment contracts is problematic because, as we know, the responsibility for meeting goals and targets extends broadly across different federal organizations and sometimes across many levels of government. It is not always the case that one department or one individual has complete responsibility for meeting the federal sustainable development strategy's targets. As a result, I do not think it is prudent to use the legislation to tie targets directly to employment contracts.
Accountability is the backbone of Bill C-57. It is what it is all about. While the intent of this amendment is to increase accountability, which I again thank the Senate for giving thoughtful consideration to, it is the government's view that the amendment could create more problems than it would solve.
As discussed earlier, robust accountability mechanisms are already directly embedded in the bill, and we believe they are more than adequate to meet our objectives. These include oversight by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, the House and the Senate, the Sustainable Development Advisory Council and all Canadians. We release reports to the public on an ongoing basis and ask people for their input and insight.
Given the fact that the proposed amendment is imprecise and open to interpretation, the government does not see the benefit of inclusion and suggests removing it from the bill.
The third amendment that came from the other place deals with consequential amendments to the Auditor General Act. These changes would ensure alignment between the two acts and would seek to reconfirm the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's role in reviewing the sustainable development actions of federal organizations. The government supports this amendment.
I greatly appreciate the time and effort of everyone involved in reviewing the bill. The Federal Sustainable Development Act is a cornerstone of sustainable development action in Canada, and Bill C-57 is an important update. I ask the House to accept the consequential amendments and the amendment to clause 5, but remove the amendment to clause 8 and send a message to that effect back to the Senate.
In the spirit of co-operation that we demonstrated back in June, when the House voted unanimously to support the bill, I am asking that we show the same spirit of unanimity in supporting this revised bill, so we can ensure the future is sustainable not just for this generation, but for generations to come.
View Eva Nassif Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Eva Nassif Profile
2018-11-20 14:46 [p.23619]
Mr. Speaker, this week is Gender-based Analysis Plus Awareness Week. This is an opportunity for us as parliamentarians to learn more about GBA+ and its contribution to gender equality.
Recognizing and addressing the different ways government decision-making affects various groups of people is key to achieving gender equality. Can the Minister of Status of Women tell this House what the government is doing to enhance the implementation of GBA+ across federal departments?
View Maryam Monsef Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows, as we all do, that the impact of government decisions is felt differently by Canadians, depending on a variety of factors, including where they live, how they identify and/or their official language of choice. Our government relies on GBA+ to assess and mitigate for any differential impact, and our approach is working. The economy is growing, and we are advancing equality.
This week, at the GBA+ Forum, our government will be sharing our successes and looking for ways to further collaborate with leaders from across sectors so that together we can grow the middle class and support those working hard to join it.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1532--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to immigration to Canada, between December 7, 2016, and December 6, 2017: (a) how many economic class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (b) how many family class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (c) how many refugees have been admitted to Canada; (d) how many temporary student visas were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary student visa; (e) how many temporary worker permits were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary worker permit; (f) how many temporary visitor records were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary visitor record; (g) how many temporary resident permits were issued; (h) how many temporary resident permits were approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; (i) for (a) to (h), what is the breakdown by source country by each class of migrant; and (j) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in (i) section 34, (ii) section 35, (iii) section 36, (iv) section 37, (v) section 40?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1680--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to immigration to Canada between December 7, 2016, to December 6, 2017: (a) how many economic class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (b) how many family class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (c) how many refugees have been admitted to Canada; (d) how many temporary student visas were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary student visa; (e) how many temporary worker permits were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary worker permit; (f) how many temporary visitor records were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary visitor record; (g) how many temporary resident permits were issued; (h) how many temporary resident permits were approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; (i) for (a) to (h), what is the breakdown by source country by each class of migrant; (j) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (k) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (l) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (m) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and (n) for application for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1882--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the New Veterans Charter and the Pension for Life, what is: (a) the number of veterans who applied for and were granted the incapacity allowance under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (b) the number of veterans who applied for the incapacity allowance but were denied under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (c) the number of veterans who applied for and were granted the additional monthly supplement of the incapacity allowance under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (d) the number of veterans who applied for the additional monthly supplement of the incapacity allowance but were denied under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (e) the number of veterans who applied for and were granted the disability award lump sum under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (f) the number of veterans who applied for the disability award lump sum but were denied under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (g) the number of veterans who applied for and were granted the disability award monthly pay-out option under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; and (h) the number of veterans who applied for the disability award monthly pay-out option but were denied under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1883--
Mr. Alexander Nuttall:
With regard to contracts and expenditures with Green Leaf Distribution, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: what are the details of each contracts and expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) file numbers, (v) original contract value, (vi) final contract value, if different than the original value?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1884--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Operation HONOUR, since July 23, 2015: what is the number of sexual assaults involving rape reported and, of those cases, what is (i) the number of times the suspect was removed from the unit while the complaint was under investigation, (ii) the number of times the suspect was removed from the unit once charged, (iii) the number of times the complainants were removed from the unit, (iv) the number of times the complainants were reassigned duties, (v) in cases where charges were filed, the length of time per case from reporting the incident to the time the accused was charged, for each case, (vi) the number of times padres, officiate or chaplain reported cases of rapes confided in them by complainants to the chain of command, (vii) the number of times rape complainants, who called the Op HONOUR line, were asked for their names, (viii) the number of times complainants were told once they sign on to the military the member has ‘unlimited liability’ to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), (ix) the number of people charged, (x) the number of people who admitted guilt to the sexual assault involving raping another member of the CAF, (xi) the number of charges that have been prosecuted, (xii) the length of time between the date of charge and the date of the hearing, trial or court martial, for each case, (xiii) the number of convictions rendered, (xiv) the total length of time between a report of incident to sentencing, for each case, (xv) the number of times convicted members were discharged from the military?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1888--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare (Advisory Council): (a) who will be the members of the Advisory Council, broken down by (i) nomination date, (ii) complete name, (iii) total remuneration, (iv) length of mandate; (b) on what date exactly does the government anticipate appointing the last of the initial members of the Advisory Council; (c) what are the timelines and important dates for the Advisory Council’s consultations; (d) will the Advisory Council’s consultations be held in public; (e) who will be consulted by the Advisory Council, broken down by (i) organizations or individuals already consulted, (ii) organizations or individuals to be consulted, (iii) dates of all previous and planned consultations, (iv) length of consultation period; (f) on what date exactly is the Advisory Council planning to table its interim and final reports; and (g) how will financial and human resources be allocated with respect to the Advisory Council, broken down by (i) types of expenses, (ii) allocated sums?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1890--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to the impending purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline by the government, can the Minister of Natural Resources confirm in relation to the Pipeline Safety Act and National Energy Board Act: (a) whether the government considers itself a company as authorized under these acts to operate a pipeline; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, how this pertains to the National Energy Board’s mandate under these acts to order a company to reimburse the costs incurred by any government institution due to the unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from a pipeline?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1891--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to consultations undertaken by Kinder Morgan with Indigenous groups impacted by the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and given the impending purchase of the pipeline by the government, will the Minister of Natural Resources: (a) table all mutual benefit agreements previously reached between Kinder Morgan and First Nation band councils given that they will soon constitute agreements reached with the Crown; and (b) guarantee that all such agreements established the free, prior and informed consent to the pipeline from each band?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1892--
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau:
With regard to federal spending in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, for each fiscal year since 2014, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1893--
Ms. Linda Duncan:
With regard to Health Canada’s notice of a recall for a list of Valsartan products supplied by Chinese corporation Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals: (a) on what date did Health Canada become aware of the contamination of these drugs with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA); (b) was the recall issued at the request of Canadian authorities; (c) what is deemed a long-term exposure to this carcinogen; (d) if there was a delay in issuing the recall after Health Canada was informed of the contamination, what were the reasons for the delay in the public notice; (e) how was Health Canada made aware of the contamination of the valsartan medicines; (f) did Health Canada directly conduct any laboratory tests on these drugs to determine their safety before approving their use in Canada; (g) has Health Canada or any federal authority undertaken any investigations of the laboratory and manufacturing facilities of Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals; (h) why did Health Canada advise patients to continue taking the Valsartan products despite the knowledge it was contaminated with a carcinogen and who made that decision; (i) are any other products manufactured by Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals currently being distributed, sold or prescribed in Canada; (j) what actions has Health Canada taken to test alternative blood pressure medicines being prescribed in Canada to determine their safety; and (k) what information has been provided to Health Canada on adverse effects reported by Canadians taking Valsartan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1894--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive, which reimburses federal employees when relocating for work, for the calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018: (a) how many employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government made claims for relocation funding each year, broken down by government department or agency; (b) how many employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government were provided with reimbursement for relocation each year, broken down by government department or agency; (c) in the instances where relocation funding was provided, how many instances arose from employer-requested relocation in each year; (d) in the instances where relocation funding was provided, how many instances arose from employee-requested relocation in each year; (e) what was the annual aggregate amount in Canadian dollars spent by each government agency or department in remitting relocation funding, broken down by the benefit categories outlined in appendix B of the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive; (f) which employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government received relocation funding in each year, itemized to include their agency or department, their job title, the amount of relocation funding remitted, broken down by the benefit categories outlined in appendix B of the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive, and where the individual was relocated from and to; (g) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to real estate commission and realtor fees; (h) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to home equity loss; and (i) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to mortgages, mortgage default insurance, and mortgage paydown penalties?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1895--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to “repayable contributions” given out by the government between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2018: (a) what are the details of each contribution, including (i) recipient, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) purpose of contribution; and (b) for each “repayable contribution” in (a), how much has been repaid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1896--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the Court Challenges Program: (a) what is the total amount provided under the program since its announced reinstatement on February 7, 2017; and (b) what are the details of each funding recipient since February 7, 2017, including (i) name, (ii) amount pledged by government, (iii) amount received by recipient, (iv) relevant court case, (v) date funding decision was made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1897--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the criteria listed on pm.gc.ca that states that the government may remove any social media comments that “do not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”: (a) broken down by month, and by platform, since December 2015, how many comments have been removed for not meeting that specific criteria; and (b) does the government consider disagreeing with the values test added by the current government in order to access Canada Summer Jobs funding to be a justification for such comments to be removed from government social media accounts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1898--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to federal regulations, broken down by year since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total cost, broken down by the private sector and the federal government; (b) what is the cost per capita, broken down by province; (c) how many regulations have been repealed; (d) of the regulations in (c), how many repealed regulations were significant; (e) what is the total cost savings to the private sector as a result of the repealed regulations; and (f) how many regulations have been repealed, broken down by department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1899--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to Governor in Council regulations, and broken down by year and by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) how many regulations were finalized since November 4, 2015; (b) how many regulations were deemed significant; (c) of the regulations in (b), how many were deemed (i) low impact, (ii) medium impact, (iii) high impact; (d) of the regulations in (b), how many were (i) quantified only, (ii) monetized only, (iii) quantified and monetized; (e) which regulations had a cost-benefit analysis which found that costs exceeded benefits; and (f) of the regulations in (e), which five regulations were the costliest, and for each of the five, what was the finding of the cost-benefit analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1900--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to Governor in Council regulations, and broken down by year and by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) how many regulations were finalized since November 4, 2015; (b) how many regulations were deemed significant; (c) of the regulations in (b), how many were deemed (i) low impact, (ii) medium impact, (iii) high impact; (d) of the regulations in (b), how many were (i) quantified only, (ii) monetized only, (iii) quantified and monetized; (e) which regulations had a cost-benefit analysis which found that costs exceeded benefits; and (f) of the regulations in (e), which five regulations were the costliest, and for each of the five, what was the finding of the cost-benefit analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1901--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the August 27, 2018 story in The Hill Times which stated that the Minister of Employment would be reaching out to faith leaders across the country in the coming weeks in relation to the Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) what is the complete list of faith leaders to which the Minister reached out, between August 27, 2018 and September 17, 2018; (b) what are the details of each such communication from the Minister, including (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) type of communication (email, in person meeting, phone call, etc); and (c) what criteria did the Minister use to decide to which faith leaders to reach out?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1902--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to expenditures related to “culinary ambassadors” whose expenses were paid for by the government in connection with trips taken by the Prime Minister or other Ministers, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) dates of trip, (ii) origin and destination of trip, (iii) name of “culinary ambassador”, (iv) dates of meals prepared on trip; (b) what are the details of all expenses paid for by the government, broken down by “culinary ambassador” and by trip, including amount spent on (i) airfare, (ii) accommodation, (iii) per diems, (iv) other expenses, (v) total amount; and (c) for each meal prepared by a “culinary ambassador” on a trip, what are the details, including (i) number of guests, (ii) location of meal, (iii) date, (iv) purpose or description of event or meal, (v) total expenditures on meal, including breakdown by type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1903--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the “social media team” from Environment and Climate Change Canada which travelled to COP 23 in November 2017: (a) how many members of the “social media team” travelled to COP23; (b) what was the total amount spent on travel to COP23 for the “social media team”; (c) what is the breakdown of the costs in (b) by (i) airfare, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and per diems, (iv) other transportation, (v) other expenses; (d) what is the total value of all items stolen from the “social media team” during the trip; (e) what is the breakdown of the stolen items, including value of each item; (f) have any of the stolen items been recovered and, if so, which ones; and (g) did any of the stolen items contain any classified information and, if so, which items, and what was the highest level of classification of such information?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1905--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the tweet by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on July 30, 2018, where he stated that “Immigrants are better at creating new businesses and new jobs than Canadian-born people”: (a) does the Prime Minister agree with the statement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs; and (b) has the Prime Minister taken any disciplinary action against the Minister for the statement, and, if so, what are the details of any such action?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1906--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the Canada Boarder Services Agency (CBSA) officers’ ability to carry firearms at airports: (a) does Transport Canada recognize the right of CBSA officers to carry firearms at airports; (b) what is the government’s official position; and (c) has the official position been communicated to Transport Canada and, if so, what are the details of such communication, including (i) date, (ii) method of communication, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1907--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to expenditures on electric vehicle charging stations, since January 1, 2018: (a) what are the total expenditures this year, to date, broken down by location; (b) what are the specific locations of all such stations; and (c) how many stations have been constructed since January 1, 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1909--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the purchase or rental of telepresence robots or other similar robotic type devices which connect to tablets by Policy Horizons Canada, since November, 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) amount, (ii) date, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) whether it was rental or purchase, (vi) purpose of purchase, (vii) contract file number; and (b) has any other department, agency, or government entity purchased or rented such a device and, if so, what are the details of each purchase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1910--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to expenditures on royalties since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) date, (iii) name or description of material for which royalties were paid, (iv) summary of advertising campaign or other use for which materials where used, (v) vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1911--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to expenditures related to the Global Case Management System (GCMS) interfaces at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the total expenditures on maintenance for the GCMS; (b) what are the total expenditures on consultants related to the GCMS; and (c) what are the details of all contracts related to (a) and (b), including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of contract, (iv) duration, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1912--
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money has been allocated to Transport Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Transport Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (c) how much money has been allocated to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the Department and Fisheries and Oceans, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (e) how much money has been allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (f) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Environment and Climate Change Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (g) how much money has been spent under the OPP on efforts to mitigate the potential impacts of oil spills, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (h) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative, since 2016, broken down by year; (i) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; and (j) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that the funding allocated under the OPP is spent on its stated goals in a timely manner?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1915--
Mr. Rob Nicholson:
With regard to military procurement: (a) does the Prime Minister agree with the position put forward by officials at Public Service and Procurement Canada that “Canada may, but will have no obligation, to require that the top-ranked bidder demonstrate any features, functionality and capabilities described in this bid solicitation or in its bid”; (b) of bidders who were awarded contracts since November 4, 2015, how many were unable to demonstrate or fulfill any features, functionality or capabilities described in their bid; and (c) what are the details of all incidents referred to in (b), including (i) bidder, (ii) contract amount, (iii) description of goods or services rendered, (iv) list of specific bid claims which bidder was unable to fulfill, (v) date bid was awarded, (vi) amount recovered by government, as a result of failure to fulfill, (vii) has the bidder been banned from future bidding as a result of making false claims on future bids?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1916--
Mr. Rob Nicholson:
With regard to reports of a data breach at Public Services and Procurement Canada in August 2018, after a device containing personal information was stolen: (a) on what date did the theft occur; (b) on what date was the theft reported to the law enforcement agencies, and to which agencies was the theft reported; (c) on what date was the Office of the Privacy Commissioner notified; (d) how many employees were affected by the data breach, broken down by department or agency; (e) on what date were the affected employees notified; (f) why was there a delay between the breach and the notification date for employees; (g) how are affected employees being compensated for the breach; (h) what type of information was contained on the stolen device; (i) has the government recovered the device; (j) how many data breaches have occurred since January 1, 2016, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity; and (k) for each data breach in (j), what are the details, including (i) how many people were affected, (ii) date of breach, (iii) date those affected were notified, (iv) summary of incident?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1918--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to usage of artificial intelligence (AI) by the government: (a) which departments, agencies, Crown corporations, or other government entities currently use AI; (b) what specific tasks is AI used for; (c) what are the details of all expenditures on commercial AI technology and related products since November 4, 2015, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of products or services, including quantity, if applicable, (iv) date of purchase, (v) file number; and (d) what is the government’s policy regarding the use of AI?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1920--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to government expenditures related to guarding and relocating the killdeer nest which was found near the Canadian War Museum in June 2018 : (a) what was the total cost; (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided; (c) how many government employees contributed to the relocation; and (d) what is the total number of hours dedicated by government employees to the relocation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1922--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to expenditures by the government on subscriptions and data access services by the government in the 2017-18 fiscal year, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) titles of publications or data for each subscription, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1923--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to payments made by the government to news media organizations in the 2017-18 fiscal year, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, and excluding expenditures on advertising services: (a) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) rationale for expenditure, (vi) file number; and (b) what are the details of each grant and contribution including, (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) rationale for expenditure, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1924--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to consultations undertaken by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Minister of Seniors with a view to providing greater security for workplace pension plans: (a) did the government establish a committee on the issue; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) how long has the committee been in place, (ii) how often has it met, (iii) how many government officials have worked on the project, (iv) which stakeholders have been consulted, (v) what means (including legislation) have been considered to provide greater security for workplace pension plans, including in the event of bankruptcy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1926--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to communications between Google, Netflix or Facebook and the government, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all emails, letters or other communication, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number, (vii) form (email, letter, telephone call, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1927--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Privy Council Office, since December 1, 2017: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the products or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-1532 Immigration to Canada8555-421-1532-01 Immigration to Canada8555-421-1680 Immigration to Canada8555-421-1680-01 Immigration to Canada8555-421-1882 New Veterans Charter and P ...8555-421-1883 Contracts and expenditures ...8555-421-1884 Operation HONOUR8555-421-1888 Advisory Council on the Im ...8555-421-1890 Trans Mountain pipeline8555-421-1891 Trans Mountain pipeline8555-421-1892 Federal spending in the ri ... ...Show all topics
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2018-10-30 15:07 [p.23032]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to table a rather large document. It is actually over 800 pages, and no, it is not the Liberals' omnibus budget implementation act. In fact, it is answers from the government in regard to how many departments, agencies, Crown corporations and other government entities have breached the privacy of Canadians. It is over 800 pages' worth, in less than two years, of when privacy has been breached. I wonder if I would have unanimous consent to table this.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-10-30 15:08 [p.23032]
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
View Bryan May Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bryan May Profile
2018-10-17 15:38 [p.22503]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.
I am honoured to stand and speak to Bill C-65. Our government ran on a commitment to take action on workplace harassment and violence, and I am very proud of where we are here today.
Members of the House, from all parties, have worked together to create a strong piece of legislation, one that will address harassment and violence for the hundreds of thousands of employees who work in the federally regulated industries, and closer to home, one that will provide political staff here in the chamber, in the other chamber and in our constituency offices with the same health and safety protections under the Canadian Labour Code as all other workers in this country.
All of us here in the House, no matter our political allegiance, have a unique opportunity. Today we can join forces and take a stand together. We can send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and violence is unacceptable and will not be tolerated any longer. Together we can support Bill C-65 so that it can become law and we can effect real change. Together we can help make a real difference in the lives of Canadian workers in federally regulated workplaces, including all of our staff right here on Parliament Hill.
It is true that this piece of legislation would apply only to federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces. However, we believe that through it, we will be leading by example. We believe that the bill will inspire other governments, businesses, employers and organizations across the country to follow in our footsteps. Indeed, with this new legislation, Canada is being seen as an international leader in addressing workplace harassment and violence.
We believe that we are not the only ones who strongly refuse to tolerate these toxic, destructive behaviours any longer. Harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in the workplace and in our society at large is nothing new. However, over the past few years, it has been top of mind. In fact, over the past few years, social media lit up with campaigns such as #MeToo, #AfterMeToo, and Time's Up. These hashtags became movements and these movements showed just how pervasive and extensive this problem is.
These movements are the result of people. They are the result of brave women and men who thought it was important to show the world how common harassment and sexual violence are in our lives. They found the courage and strength to speak up, and now it is our turn to take action.
Our government ran on a commitment to take action on workplace harassment and violence, and I am sure my colleagues agree that action in this area is long overdue. I am sure they also agree that it affects us all. That is what we are doing here today: taking action.
The new approach we are proposing aims to drive a culture change in federal workplaces. This new approach aims to prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring, to have an effective response when they do occur, and to have support for those affected.
I want to acknowledge the work accomplished by the members in the House and the other place in their careful study of the bill. I also want to acknowledge the generosity of the many witnesses who informed that study, which resulted in important amendments. Amendments were made as the bill passed through this chamber, and several more were proposed by the other chamber. As a result, Bill C-65 is now stronger than ever.
Today I will give an example of how this tremendous work made our proposed legislation so strong.
As we know, members of the other chamber studied the bill carefully, and they proposed a number of amendments. One of the amendments our government is in support of concerns the terminology used in the bill. The members proposed a revision of certain terminology, terminology that they felt could have an adverse effect on the very people we are trying to protect if left unchanged.
Currently, the words “trivial”, “frivolous” and “vexatious” are used to describe the basis upon which a complaint to the labour program could be dismissed. While these terms are generally understood in law and appear throughout the Canada Labour Code, they are, as a member of the other place so rightly pointed out, rooted in prejudice. Our government understands the power of language and we fully support the replacement of these terms with the more neutral term, “abuse of process”.
This is just an example. Our government agrees with a number of other amendments proposed by the other chamber. For example, we agree with explicitly stating that nothing in Bill C-65 takes away from an individual's rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act. We agree with the proposal that anyone designated by the employer to receive complaints related to occurrences of harassment and violence has the appropriate knowledge, training and experience. We agree to the amendment to require data in the annual report on incidents of violence and harassment to be categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Such amendments would strengthen Bill C-65.
At this point, I would be remiss if I did not mention the work also accomplished by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disability, also known as HUMA. It is a privilege of mine to chair that committee. The HUMA committee also proposed some significant amendments, which were made to Bill C-65. These amendments include adding a clear definition of harassment and violence in the Canada Labour Code, including a specific reference to preventing occurrences of harassment and violence in the purpose clause of part II of the code; allowing former employees to come forward with complaints related to occurrences of harassment and violence; a provision allowing employees to complain to someone other than the supervisor if they prefer; an annual report on harassment and violence in all federally regulated workplaces; as well as giving the deputy minister powers normally given to the minister to avoid the possibility of any perceived conflict of interest when political actors are involved.
The work accomplished by members in this House, and in the other, will help us send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and violence is unacceptable and it will not be tolerated any longer. Each and every one of us here in this House can help us send a strong message. I urge everyone here today to help move this bill forward by casting a vote that will help end workplace violence and harassment in Canada.
View Sheila Malcolmson Profile
NDP (BC)
View Sheila Malcolmson Profile
2018-09-26 15:17 [p.21857]
Mr. Speaker, more than 5.3 million Canadians, almost 16% of the population of this country, are living with some form of disability that affects their freedom, independence or quality of life. Of that number, over 200,000 are children and youth.
One in five Canadian women live with disabilities. Women with disabilities are poorer than their male counterparts. They are three times more likely to rely on government programs than women without disabilities and more likely than men with disabilities. They are also particularly susceptible to domestic violence. The rates of violence against women living with disabilities is particularly high. They disproportionately call on women's shelters, face homelessness and are victims of violence. The rate of head injuries associated with women who are victims of domestic violence or intimate partner violence is particularly high. I really commend DAWN Canada for doing groundbreaking work in this area. We were very reliant on its advice and testimony at the status of women committee.
Here we are today hearing about Bill C-81, which is intended to help and support persons living with disabilities. The need is tremendous. Persons living with disabilities within Canada have waited over two years for this bill to be tabled. In particular, I want to mention my constituent Jack Ferrero, who has been most insistent that this legislation be tabled and come as soon as possible to this House. It is regretful that we are three years into this term and are only debating it now.
Canada ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities back in 2010. That convention elaborated a human rights framework for addressing the exclusion and the lack of access persons with disabilities have encountered in Canada. This is both physical access to buildings and access to services. It was intended to establish a society where “persons with disabilities are viewed as full citizens with exactly the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens of Canada.”
Only three provinces in Canada have accessibility laws, and federally, Canada does not. I have heard in great detail from constituents that the need is dire. The following is part of a letter from a man in my riding, Terry Wiens. I am pretty sure that he is a Nanaimo resident. This is a long and heartbreaking letter, which I will read in part. He had polio and is facing extraordinary costs associated with his disability. He writes:
“I recently had to buy a new RoHo Hybrid cushion for my wheelchair ($820) as well as a hospital bed ($1800 mattress not included) so decided to make a one-time withdrawal of $10,000 from my RIF. What I didn't realize was the ripple effect of that decision. That raised my annual income enough to eliminate me from the Guaranteed Income Supplement (all $18/month worth). I have no doubt that next year I will qualify again, but in the meantime, we are penalized for our independence. You can't really compare the income of an individual that is facing costs that the average person never sees. To add insult to injury, losing that GIS also cost me my Premium Medical Services subsidy, another $420 a year, my opportunity for a subsidized assisted living apartment, because GIS qualification is required for the subsidized program, and a cutback to my rental subsidy and doubling (from $450 to $900 yearly) of my Pharmacare deductible. It is not the $18/month payment but the status of qualifying for GIS that is important.”
It is a terrible example of government services not supporting the people who are working the hardest and have the most barriers in front of them.
I have another letter from a person in my riding, who asked to keep her name confidential. She writes:
“It is with great dismay that I write to you about a problem with the pension plans. I am 69 years old, I have some disabilities and my only income is from the government pensions and some money that was awarded to me from a divorce. My total income is under $20,000 per year. I have recently been informed that because I receive $250.00 per month from my divorce judgment that I am losing $1,000.00 per year on my pension. This is a clawback if I have ever seen one. How can the government do this to the very people that for 50 or more years of working and being the back bone of the country do this to their seniors? In B.C., the previous provincial government did this to welfare recipients until they complained, and now it can't claw back those monies.”
“I have personally seen local seniors going through garbage cans looking for cans and bottles just to make ends meet.”
“I take exception to the government saying that we have a class system in our country and they will do everything for the “middle” class and nothing for seniors. To be politically correct, we have low income, medium income and high income. Since when did Canada decide that we have a class system? I have worked all my life, served in the Armed Forces and this is how I get treated. I applied for the disability tax credit, and although I had three things that were on their list to qualify, I was refused and even told that if I went any further with my claim that I might be responsible for legal fees.”
I have a dozen letters like this that describe the people who the social safety net in Canada is meant to be supporting, the people who are meant to be getting help from these government programs and are thwarted again and again.
I am going to read a summary from my fantastic caseworker, Hilary Eastmure, who helps a lot of people out at our front desk. She says:
“Canadians accustomed to getting reliable service are becoming quickly disillusioned with our system, which is getting increasingly difficult to navigate. The shift to online platforms is also a major stumbling block for Canadians of all ages, including those who don't have regular access to a computer or printer or those who are not computer literate. Being told to access or submit a form online is a major source of frustration for people with disabilities, seniors and low-income Canadians, the very people who often require the most support from government agencies.”
We have in front of us Bill C-81, which is meant to remove those barriers. However, I have to emphasize the design of the civil service, the design of the interface between the people the system is meant to serve and their ability to access these programs.
Bill C-81 would empower the government to create accessibility standards or regulations, but it would not require the government to do that. We like the idea of an accessibility commissioner in charge of enforcement.
New Democrats are going to support this proposed legislation at first reading so we can get it to committee and make as many constructive amendments as we can to serve the people with disabilities who need this to work well, but we could not support it if it were to come back in this form.
The bill would not bring us into conformity with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The text on civil rights legislation for persons with disabilities is really the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is dated 1990. We have a good model out there. Canadians should be at least meeting the standard set by the Americans.
My New Democrat fellow MP for New Westminster—Burnaby in 2007 tabled proposed legislation in the House. My fellow MP in this Parliament, the MP for Windsor—Tecumseh, has been very strong as our critic for the NDP on this bill, saying that any accessibility bill tabled has to be seen as enabling legislation for Canada's commitments to the United Nations. Therefore, we will be pushing in committee for mandatory timelines for implementation. Without those, the implementation process, and even a start-up process, could drag on for years.
We will be pushing to require that all federal government laws, policies and programs be studied through a disability law lens. We will be asking that the bill not continue its error right now of giving several public agencies or officials much too much power to grant partial or blanket exemptions from important parts of the bill. The bill right now would separate enforcement and implementation in a confusing way over four different public agencies. In committee the NDP will argue instead that Bill C-81 should provide people with disabilities with a single service location or one-stop shopping so that they can access the services with dignity and the support they need.
Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time, but I have no indication of who it is with. I have finished my speech, though.
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2018-09-26 15:32 [p.21859]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada today. Almost every Canadian family has or knows someone with a disability. They were either born with it or became disabled some time in their life. I have long advocated for the rights of those with disabilities, as I know first hand the daily challenges and barriers they face. My own son, who fell in a work-related accident 14 years ago last week, has shown me how someone, through tremendous perseverance, can come through great adversity.
There are also great Canadian heroes, such as Rick Hansen, who have inspired millions around the globe. Through his Man in Motion World Tour, he raised awareness and helped raise millions of dollars for research. To date, Rick has continued his advocacy and is a beacon of hope to all those who are impacted by disability. In my own constituency, my annual charity golf tournament has donated thousands of dollars to the Rick Hansen Foundation and Special Olympics.
Our society has come a long way in recognizing that those with disabilities have a lot to offer. They are full members of society and must have the same access and rights as anyone else. I am proud to belong a party that has advocated and supported many of the measures that have improved the lives of Canadians who suffer from a disability.
Just next month, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney will be conducted into the Canadian Disability Hall of Fame for his steadfast support, and for being a strong national leader on this issue. He was the first prime minister to appoint a minister responsible for disabled persons. This ensured that there was an advocate for the disabled around the cabinet table. His government also created the disabled persons' participation program, which dramatically increased support for organizations involved with disabled people. It was also his government that expanded disability-related deductions for income tax purposes. Let us never forget that it was the Hon. Jim Flaherty who implemented the registered disabilities savings plan and heavily invested in the opportunities fund to help persons with disabilities get the necessary training to obtain employment.
These are just some of the tangible actions that have dramatically improved people's lives. We know that the first step in breaking down barriers involves education and helping people better understand the everyday challenges those with disabilities face. Since being elected as the member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris, I have been a staunch advocate of the enabling accessibility fund, which has supported projects that have made buildings and community infrastructure more accessible. Just this summer, I worked with a community-led organization in Ninette, Manitoba to make it easier for those in wheelchairs to access Pelican Lake. I have worked with communities to secure the necessary funding to renovate bathrooms in places like the Deloraine theatre, so they can be accessible to seniors. I worked with the Brandon Legion so that veterans can now access all parts of their building as well.
These are just a few of the projects that have happened in my neck of the woods, but they are a good reminder that one does not have to reinvent the wheel to make buildings or workplaces more accessible. I am encouraged that this legislation would establish proactive compliance measures. Making buildings and workplaces accessible should never be an afterthought; it should be at the forefront of any architect or engineer's plans. It is important that we have common accessibility standards across the board.
While I note that this legislation only impacts federally regulated workplaces, it is my sincere hope that it will lead to a much broader conversation within provinces and territories. I believe there is willingness across the country to get this done. There is such opportunity for businesses and organizations to encourage as many people as possible to either be employed, to volunteer, or to shop.
I have been inspired by my colleague, the member for Brantford—Brant, who passed a motion in the last Parliament that called on Canadian employers to take action on hiring persons with disabilities. He started a much-needed conversation about the benefits of hiring people with disabilities and improving their quality of life.
I also want to highlight my colleague, the member for Carleton, who led the charge earlier this year with his proposed opportunity for workers with disabilities act. I strongly support his efforts to reform government policies that financially punish people with disabilities when they get a job, earn a raise or work more hours, forcing them to remain jobless and impoverished. He had widespread support for his legislation and I know that he will continue to be a strong advocate for disabled Canadians.
To provide one more example, my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac championed his motion, Motion No. 157, which encouraged builders and contractors to adhere to visitability guidelines and to be proactive when constructing new buildings. I believe his motion helped inspire many of the elements contained in Bill C-81, and I applaud him for all he has done in this area.
As with any new regulation or law, we must always be mindful about the costs to be borne by those who will be impacted. The other element we have to look at is what it will cost taxpayers to implement, enforce and measure. It costs money to hire people and to perform the day-to-day operations of a new federal entity.
I think all members would agree that we should measure the success or deficiencies of a particular program or organization.
The question at the end of the day is this: Does the federal government need to set up completely new bodies, or can we find ways to harness existing resources? While the fine details will be worked out at a later date, I urge the government to focus squarely on tangible outcomes and projects that will improve accessibility. It would be disappointing if all of the dollars allocated to this legislation just created new full-time equivalents rather than going to bricks and mortar projects. These are the sorts of questions that must be asked up front, because once a government entity is created, it is normally quite difficult to make the necessary changes down the road.
Because this legislation will only impact federally regulated workplaces, most small businesses and community-led organizations will not be directly impacted. That said, the federal government must work hand in hand with federally regulated workplaces and the disabled community. For this legislation to have the impact that we all want it to have, it cannot be drafted in a silo or entirely by the civil service. The regulations and standards must be written in easy-to-comprehend language. There must be crystal clear expectations, coupled with appropriate enforcement measures. I also encourage everyone involved to look for best practices not only in the various provinces, but also around the world, and we must make sure that we do not just create another bureaucratic institution.
Building a new institution that would just create mounds of paperwork and have limited buy-in from workplaces would not be in anyone's best interest. I know that when this legislation goes to committee, there will be great interest in it. It would be prudent for the government to provide the committee with as much information as possible so there is meaningful dialogue. It is imperative that the minister spend the necessary time to get this right. I will definitely be voting in favour of this legislation so that it gets the proper study and engagement it so rightfully deserves.
View Kate Young Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Kate Young Profile
2018-09-26 15:41 [p.21860]
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the implementation and administration of this accessibility legislation is going to take resources and investments. Where possible, I agree that we would build on our existing authorities and expertise. This only makes sense in efficiency and cost savings terms. I am certainly not thinking that the member opposite would suggest that we should not put money and resources to this very important issue.
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2018-09-26 15:41 [p.21860]
Mr. Speaker, we all know there will be resources used to implement the program and move it forward. I see that the government has committed to providing $290 million over six years to upgrade federal workplaces and a number of facilities, but I want to make sure that this money is indeed used for that type of work, as opposed to creating a new bureaucracy, as I said in my speech.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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