Debates of Jan. 30th, 2017

(Return tabled)

Question No. 597

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

With regard to youth programs and services: (a) what are all of the federal programs for young people aged 15 to 24 or for organizations that help people in this age group, broken down by department, for the year 2016; and (b) for each of these programs and services, (i) what is their operating budget, (ii) what are their objectives, (iii) what are their criteria for determining the amount to grant to the requester?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 599

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

With regard to the Fifty per cent Aboriginal Hiring Strategy agreed to by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), now Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC): (a) between 1996 and 2016, what percentage of employees of AANDC/INAC have identified as Aboriginal, broken down by year (i) at the director level and below, (ii) at the director-general level and above; (b) between 1996 and 2016, how many individuals who have self-identified as Aboriginal (i) have been hired into full-time positions, (ii) have been hired into part-time positions, (iii) have been promoted within the department; (c) since 1996, what efforts have been made by AANDC/INAC to (i) increase the recruitment of Aboriginal employees, (ii) increase the retention of Aboriginal employees, (iii) provide promotions to Aboriginal employees; and (d) between 1996 and 2016, what percentage of part-time employees who have self-identified as Aboriginal have become permanent employees?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 600

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces’ Operation IMPACT: (a) what was the original risk score assigned to the mission; (b) what is the current risk score assigned to the mission; (c) since the beginning of the mission, has the risk score changed and, if so, (i) when did it change, (ii) how many times has it changed, (iii) for each change, what was the original score and the new score; (d) are various risk scores applied to different Canadian Armed Forces personnel based on (i) location, (ii) rank, (iii) task; (e) if any responses to (d) are in the affirmative, what are all the risk scores that have been designated since the beginning of Operation IMPACT; (f) has the Department of Finance or the Department of National Defence changed the tax relief for personnel deployed on designated international operational missions for Operation IMPACT; (g) are all members of the Canadian Armed Forces deployed on Operation IMPACT entitled to the same tax relief measures; and (h) have any members received the tax relief measures provided to the members deployed since the beginning of the mission and, if so, what are the specific details of such relief measures?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 602

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

With regard to the collection and retention of metadata or associated data by CSIS: (a) on what dates were the present or former Ministers of Public Safety informed of (i) the existence of the Operational Data Analysis Centre, (ii) the retention of metadata or associated data pertaining to third-parties or individuals who were deemed not to pose a threat, (iii) the possibility this practice could be deemed unlawful; (b) how was the information communicated for each instance in (a); (c) on what dates were the present or former Ministers of Justice informed of (i) the existence of the Operational Data Analysis Centre, (ii) the retention of metadata or associated data pertaining to third-parties or individuals who were deemed not to pose a threat, (iii) the possibility this practice could be deemed unlawful, (iv) the fact that the Federal Court had not been properly informed of this practice; (d) how was the information communicated for each instance in (c); and (e) what is the total number of Canadians whose metadata has been stored by CSIS in each year since 2006?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 603

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

With regard to all government funding to the province of Manitoba: (a) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of disbursing government funds, have been cancelled since November 4, 2015; (b) what was the rationale provided for the cancellation of each item identified in (a); (c) what amount of funding had been dispensed to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation; (d) what was the estimated value of each item identified in (a) prior to cancellation; and (e) what consultations, if any, took place in relation to the items identified in (a) prior to their approval?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 604

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

With regard to the government’s planned legalization and regulation of marijuana, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of any consultations or meetings which have been held with stakeholders including (i) date, (ii) locations, (iii) attendees; (b) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence related to the meetings referred to in (a), including (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number; (c) what is the content of any information provided to the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretaries by (i) the Department of Justice, (ii) the Department of Health, (iii) the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, (iv) the Department of Finance, (v) the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; (d) has the Minister of Justice or her officials consulted other jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana; and (e) if the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, what are the details, including (i) jurisdictions consulted, (ii) findings for each consultation?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 607

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

With regard to the involvement of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) does the Minister intend for the government to become the owner of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric facility, its high voltage power lines and its underwater cable if it has to make good on the loan guarantee; (b) has the Minister analyzed the constitutionality, especially as regards section 92(a) of the BNAA, of a situation where the government would own or operate a facility to produce electricity on provincial land and, if so, what were the findings of this analysis; (c) has the Department considered the possibly that, if the loan guarantee were called upon and the government of Canada takes possession of the facility, it could dispose of the Muskrat Falls assets, including transferring them to another province or one of its Crown corporations, without the approval of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what were the Department’s conclusions; (e) has the Department assessed the consequences for Quebec of its involvement in the Muskrat Falls project, in particular the arrival of a new competitor for the export markets sought after by Hydro-Québec in the Atlantic provinces and the northeastern United States; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what were the Department’s conclusions; (g) have the Minister or the Department contacted the Government of Quebec regarding this file, and what have they done to address the issues identified by the Quebec National Assembly in its unanimous resolutions of April 6, 2011, and November 30, 2012; and (h) has the government discussed with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador the possibility of authorizing infrastructure to transport electricity across Quebec’s territory?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 610

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

With regard to the government`s commitment to implement all 94 calls to action in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, broken down by call to action: (a) what specific steps has the government undertaken towards implementation; (b) what are the next steps that the government will take towards implementation; (c) what is the projected implementation date; (d) what are the details of the costs to date; and (e) what are the projected costs to fully implement?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 612

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

With regard to consultation surveys posted on various government websites, broken down by individual survey: (a) what is the title and description of each survey; (b) what steps were taken to ensure that results were representative of the Canadian population as identified by Statistics Canada; (c) what controls are used to ensure that those responding to the survey are from Canada and not from another country; (d) what efforts have been made to prevent an individual from taking the same survey multiple times; (e) were any outside groups or organizations consulted in the development of any survey; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what are the names of all groups or organizations that were directly consulted in the development of the survey questions, broken down by survey; and (g) what is the total cost of each survey?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 614

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

With regard to the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program, between the program’s launch and November 18, 2016, what projects have been submitted from the constituency of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 616

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

With regard to the budget of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, broken down by program and sub-program area: (a) from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017, what was the budget amount allocated, divided by base spending and program spending; (b) from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017, what was the budget amount actually spent, divided by base spending and program spending; (c) from 2016-2017 to 2020-2021, what is the amount that is projected to be allocated, divided by base spending and program spending; and (d) what are the amounts in (a), (b) and (c) that will be taken from the lump-sum dollar figure that is set out under the two per cent cap?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 617

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

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 (i) the IAP decisions database, (ii) the master persons of interest list, (iii) Canada’s admissions of knowledge of student-on-student abuse, (iv) Canada’s school narratives?

(Return tabled)