Questions and responses 42nd Parliament, 1st session December 3, 2015, to September 11, 2019

With respect to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement: (a) what is the number of appeals for decisions and what is the rate of success for these appeals, broken down by year and region; (b) how many cases have been re-opened and how many of these have been successful; and (c) with regard to the monitoring and reporting by the government of financial commitments of the Catholic Church, (i) how much of the $29 million in cash donations owed was given to the survivors, (ii) how much of the $25 million dollars that was supposed to be fundraised, was fundraised, and of that money how much was donated to the survivors, (iii) what was the line by line account for the $25 million of in kind donations, (iv) how much of the total compensation owed was not distributed to survivors, as it was considered an expense, legal cost, or administrative fee of the Church, (v) did government lawyers negotiate with other churches in order to waive their legal obligations, and, if so, when did these negotiations occur?

With regard to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and the Independent Assessment Process (IAP): (a) following Justice Perrell’s ruling in January 2014 requiring the government to disclose additional documentation that includes police investigations, transcripts of criminal proceedings, and transcripts of civil proceedings (i) what is the number and full list of Narratives that were modified, (ii) what is the number and full list of person of interest reports that were modified, (iii) what is the number of IAP claims, broken down by school, that had been adjudicated under the previous unmodified narratives and person of interest reports, (iv) what is the number of cases, broken down by school, that were re-adjudicated since the narratives and person of interest reports were modified, (v) what steps were taken by federal officials, for each Indian Residential Schools (IRS) where the narrative and Persons of Interest (POI) reports changed, to determine if individual IAP claims had been denied that might otherwise be supported on this new evidence, (vi) what is the number of survivors or his/her claimant counsel who were contacted or notified of the modifications to the narratives or person of interest reports; (b) regarding civil actions related to Indian Residential Schools predating the IRSSA (i) what is the number of civil cases the government is aware of, (ii) what is the number of civil cases the government was involved in, (iii) what is the number of civil cases the government has court transcripts or documentation of, (iv) what is the number of civil cases that were settled, (v) what is the number of civil cases the government has placed any kind of privilege over the documents (civil pleadings and transcripts of examinations for discovery) related to the case, (vi) what is the number of civil cases the government has not provided the documentation (civil pleadings and transcripts of examinations for discovery) to the IAP or to the National Center for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), (vii) what is the full list of reasons the government has failed to provide this documentation, (viii) were there any terms under which any plaintiff in those civil actions were not allowed to provide his/her civil pleading and/or the transcript of his/her examination for discovery to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, (ix) if the settlement agreement was signed before the IRSSA, what steps have been taken by federal officials to permit each plaintiff to file his/her civil pleadings and transcripts of examinations for discovery with the NCTR, (x) if no steps have been taken, what steps are currently being taken, (xi) if steps are not being taken, is direction from the court being sought by the Attorney General, (xii) which federal officials have possession of the transcripts of examinations for discovery, (xiii) what is going to be done with those transcripts when the IRSSA is completed if directions have not been sought from the Court, (xiv) will the Government fund the plaintiff lawyers to communicate with each plaintiff or his/her Estate on this question of the transcripts being filed with the NCTR, (xv) are the Churches in any way constraining the Attorney General of Canada from ensuring that the stories of IRS survivors who were plaintiffs in civil actions, are allowed to be filed with the NCTR; (c) regarding conversation, consultations, or discussions between defendants in the IRSSA such as the government and any church (i) have any conversations, consultations, or discussions occurred over any individual cases in the IAP, (ii) if they occur how common are they, (iii) if they occur what are the matters that are discussed, (iv) if they occur, does this happen when allegations are raised about any current or previous members of either defendant during the IAP hearings; (d) regarding documentation of the IAP (i) what is the number of IAP decisions that have been redacted, (ii) what is the number of IAP transcripts that have been created, (iii) what is the number of IAP transcripts that have been redacted to remove the names of alleged perpetrators; and (e) regarding the IRSSA database (i) what is the number of school narratives in this database, (ii) what is the number of school narratives in this database that have been redacted to remove personal information?

With regard to the financial obligations of the Catholic Entities party to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA): (a) what payments were made by Catholic Entities towards fulfillment of the financial obligations detailed in the IRSSA, broken down by (i) date, (ii) name of payee, (iii) name of Catholic Entity, (iv) amount paid; (b) for each Catholic Entity, what were its total obligations and what were the total amounts of financial and in-kind contributions given in accordance with the terms of the IRSSA; and (c) in cases where the amount given by a Catholic Entity, with both in-kind and financial contributions detailed separately, was less than its total obligation, what was the reason for this, for each such Catholic Entity?

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?

With regard to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Independent Assessment Process (IAP): (a) how much of the Common Experience Payment (CEP) fund was paid to survivors and how much was paid to others through education credits; (b) what is the total amount paid to survivors under the IAP to date; (c) what is the total amount paid to survivors’ lawyers under the IAP to date; (d) what is the total amount that was paid to survivors’ lawyers under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) separately from claims under the IAP process; (e) what has been the total amount spent for the IAP administration, including payments to Justice Canada lawyers, arbitrators and other contractors; (f) what was the total amount spent by Justice Canada in defending residential school civil action claims and under the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, before the IRSSA; (g) what has been the total amount spent to date by Health Canada for health supports under the IRSSA; (h) what has been the total amount spent to date by Library and Archives Canada in relation to residential school claims, including under (i) civil court cases, (ii) the ADR process, (iii) the IRSSA; (i) what is the government’s best approximation of the amount spent by Canadian taxpayers for all aspects of the IRSSA; (j) what is the government’s best approximation of the amount spent by Canadian taxpayers for all aspects of residential schools, including all costs associated with defending such claims and operating the ADR process before the IRSSA took effect; (k) what is the total amount that each church was required to pay according to the terms of the IRSSA; (l) what is the total amount that each church agreed to pay according to the terms of its liability-sharing agreement with Canada before the IRSSA, in particular, (i) Anglican agreements, (ii) Presbyterian agreements, (iii) agreements with the United Church, (iv) agreements with the Catholic Church and orders; (m) what is the total amount that the churches each paid directly to Canada to help pay the costs in (l), broken down by denomination; (n) what are the details of the agreement between Justice Canada and the TRC detailing exactly which documents the Department of Justice agreed in 2015 to provide to the TRC or the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation; (o) how many separate documents are in the IAP system; (p) how many IAP compensation claims were denied on the basis that (i) Canada was not responsible for the residential school at the time of the incident, (ii) the residential school child was abused “off premises”, (iii) the claimant was an “employee”, (iv) the touching was not done for a sexual purpose, (v) the school had ceased being a residential school, or that Canada was not jointly responsible for the residential school, or that the school in question was not a “residential” school; (q) what number and percentage of IAP claims fell into the different categories of (i) acts proven that are set out in Schedule D of the IRSSA, (ii) harm that are part of the IAP process and listed in Schedule D of the IRSSA; (r) what was the average IAP payment within each category of (i) acts proven, (ii) level of harm; (s) what number and percentage of IAP claims were made by (i) male claimants, (ii) female claimants; (t) what number and percentage of IAP claims were attributable to (i) each Indian Residential School, (ii) each of the churches that administered residential schools, broken down by denomination; (u) what number and percentage of IAP claims occurred (i) from age 0 to 18, broken down by age, (ii) from 1800 to 1990, broken down by year; (v) what number and percentage of IAP claims were (i) student-on-student abuse, (ii) staff-on-student abuse; (w) how many unique individuals were alleged to have committed abuse; (x) what was the number of IAP claims alleged against each of the alleged perpetrators; (y) what number and percentage of IAP claims were for (i) physical abuse only, (ii) both physical and sexual abuse, (iii) sexual abuse only; (z) what categories of negative impacts were reported in IAP claims and what percentage of IAP claims reported each of those categories, including (i) addiction, (ii) imprisonment, (iii) incomplete education, (iv) damages to loss of earnings, (v) apprehension of children by child welfare authorities; (aa) what amount did the IAP pay to lawyers representing IAP claimants, including (i) through the IAP program, (ii) through the ADR program, (iii) within the Settlement Agreement itself; (bb) how many claims resulted in legal fee reviews and how many of the legal fee reviews resulted in fees being reduced; (cc) how many lawyers had their fees reduced on ten or more occasions; (dd) what are the names of the lawyers who had their fees reduced; (ee) how many claimants were financially abused or negligently treated by their own IAP lawyers; (ff) is the IAP planning to publish the results of its investigations, findings and directives on claims resulting in legal reviews; (gg) is the IAP planning to publish a complete list of court and law society rulings on claims resulting in legal reviews; (hh) how many claimants died before their IAP decision was made or before their compensation was received; and (ii) how many different individuals, including (i) Government of Canada staff, (ii) IAP staff and contractors, (iii) survivors’ lawyers, had access to the IAP decisions database, the master persons of interest list, Canada’s admissions of knowledge of student-on-student abuse and Canada’s school narratives?