House of Commons Hansard #246 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was riding.

Topics

Falun GongPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to table a petition that is very timely, given that a delegation of cabinet ministers is currently in China. It is a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians across the country who are calling on the government and the House to take action to stop the Chinese Communist regime from systematically killing Falun Gong practitioners, whose organs are often harvested and sold.

The petition also calls on the government to amend Canadian laws in order to combat illegal organ trafficking and to publicly demand an end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1253, 1256 and 1258.

Question No. 1253Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

With regard to disbursements through the Treasury Board Secretariat for trustee fees, in order to establish and maintain a blind trust, since November 4, 2015: (a) did the Minister of Finance claim any such expenses; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the amounts?

Question No. 1253Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, Finance Canada has not disbursed trustee fees in order to establish and maintain a blind trust since November 4, 2015.

Question No. 1256Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

With regard to the implementation of a lottery system for the parent and grandparent stream of family reunification, broken down by province and by country of origin of sponsored individuals: (a) how many online applications for the 10,000 sponsorship spots were submitted; (b) how many applications were repeat submissions from the same sponsor; (c) how many applications were repeat submissions for the same sponsored individual; (d) of the original 10,000 applications that were drawn, how many were deemed ineligible on the basis of (i) being incomplete, (ii) not meeting financial requirements, (iii) not submitting the full application after being selected, (iv) was a repeat submission by the same sponsor, (v) was a repeat submission for the same individual being sponsored (iv) other reasons; (e) when were department officials made aware that fewer than 10,000 eligible applications were selected; (f) what was the decision-making process to determine a second lottery drawing would occur; (g) to date, how many completed applications have been submitted; (h) how many completed applications have been returned due to errors; (i) what is the current average processing time for these applications; (j) how many online applications were considered eligible for the draw; and (k) how many applications will be selected in the second lottery draw?

Question No. 1256Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

York South—Weston Ontario

Liberal

Ahmed Hussen LiberalMinister of Immigration

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), IRCC received 100,211 interest to sponsor web form submissions.

With regard to part (b), from the 100,211 interest to sponsor web form submissions received, the department identified and removed 5,113 duplicates.

With regard to part (c), the interest to sponsor web form did not include a field to identify the individual(s) to be sponsored. As such, the department cannot determine how many of those who submitted an interest to sponsor wish to sponsor the same individual. If a potential sponsor was chosen, they could sponsor their parent(s) and grandparent(s).

With regard to part (d), the department is still receiving parent and grandparent applications for 2017. For the first round of invitations, potential sponsors had until August 4, 2017, for IRCC to receive their complete applications. IRCC received 6,020 applications. IRCC validates that the sponsor was invited to submit an application and conducts a completeness check before starting processing. Eligibility is determined as part of processing an application. As such, IRCC does not know how many applications will be ineligible.

With regard to part (e), for the first round of invitations, potential sponsors were given until August 4, 2017, for IRCC to receive a complete application. The department confirmed that 6,020 applications were received from the first round of invitations and has now invited additional potential sponsors to submit complete applications. These potential sponsors have until December 8, 2017, for IRCC to receive a complete application. Eligibility is determined as part of processing an application. As such, we do not know how many applications will be ineligible.

With regard to part (f), since the department did not receive 10,000 complete applications as of August 4, 2017, additional individuals from the randomized list of persons who submitted an interest to sponsor were invited to submit an application to sponsor their parents or grandparents. The department is committed to receiving as close to 10,000 complete applications as possible in 2017.

With regard to part (g), the department is still receiving parent and grandparent applications for 2017 and completeness checks are ongoing. For the first round of invitations, sponsors had until August 4, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application. IRCC received 6,020 applications in the first round of invitations. For the second round of invitations, potential sponsors have until December 8, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application.

With regard to part (h), IRCC is still receiving parent and grandparent applications for 2017 and completeness checks are ongoing. For the first round of invitations, potential sponsors had until August 4, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application. For the second round of invitations, potential sponsors have until December 8, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application. If potential sponsors are missing a document, they are able to submit a letter of explanation in lieu of the document. IRCC is being facilitative in order to minimize rejections.

With regard to part (i), processing times are posted on the IRCC website. Please see the following link for the latest processing times for parent and grandparent applications: www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/times/index.asp.

With regard to part (j), IRCC received 100,211 interest to sponsor web form submissions. After duplicates were removed, the department had 95,098 interest to sponsor web forms. IRCC validates and checks the completeness of the applications before starting processing. Eligibility is determined as part of processing an application. As such, we do not know how many applications will be ineligible.

With regard to part (k), IRCC worked to determine how many potential sponsors should be invited throughout the year to yield up to 10,000 complete applications. Applications received are still being validated to confirm the sponsor was invited to submit an application and to ensure the application is complete. Potential sponsors who were invited in the second round of invitations have until December 8, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application.

Question No. 1258Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

With regard to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985: did the Minister of Finance sign the memorandum to Cabinet proposing the Bill?

Question No. 1258Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the name of a minister who signed a memorandum to cabinet, like the memorandum itself, is a cabinet confidence.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 1252, 1254, 1255, 1257 and 1259 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 1252Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

NDP

Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK

With regard to federal funding in the constituencies of Regina—Lewvan, Regina—Qu'Appelle and Regina—Wascana, for each period from November 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016, and January 1, 2017, to October 1, 2017: (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 the application for funding was made, (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 three constituencies 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 funding was received, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the three constituencies, broken down by organization 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 under which funding was received, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1254Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

With regard to permanent residence applications that were rejected pursuant to section 38(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, since the Act came into force: (a) what is the yearly breakdown of rejected permanent residence applications, including (i) the category of application, (ii) whether the rejection was caused by the principal applicant or a family member, (iii) the age of the applicant found inadmissible, (iv) the health condition which was found likely to cause excessive demand, (v) how many were due to excessive demand on health services, (vi) how many were due to excessive demand on social services and, if applicable, details of social services affected, (vii) estimated cost to health services and social services; (b) what is the yearly breakdown of rejected permanent residence applications, that were appealed, including (i) the category of application, (ii) whether the rejection was caused by the principal applicant or a family member, (iii) the age of the applicant found inadmissible, (iv) the health condition which was found likely to cause excessive demand, (v) how many were due to excessive demand on health services, (vi) how many were due to excessive demand on social services and, if applicable, details of social services affected, (vii) estimated cost to health services and social services; (c) what is the yearly breakdown of rejected permanent residence applications, that were appealed and overturned, including (i) the category of application, (ii) whether the rejection was caused by the principal applicant or a family member, (iii) the age of the applicant found inadmissible, (iv) the health condition which was found likely to cause excessive demand, (v) how many were due to excessive demand on health services, (vi) how many were due to excessive demand on social services and, if applicable, details of social services affected, (vii) estimated cost to health services and social services; (d) what is the formula used to calculate excessive demand for (i) medical costs, (ii) social services; (e) how many cases of medical inadmissibility have had ministerial intervention to overturn the decision; and (f) how many outstanding applications are currently awaiting decision based on medical inadmissibility criteria?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1255Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

With regard to the permanent residence applications submitted under the former Live-in Caregiver Program since 2000, broken down by year and by country of origin: (a) how many applications remain to be processed, broken down by year of application; (b) what is the average processing time; (c) how many medical checks on average has each application had to undergo; (d) how many work permit renewals on average has each applicant had to apply for; (e) what was the average time for security screenings for spouses and dependents to be approved; (f) for applications with above average security screenings, how many involved spouses or dependents that were employees of the country of origin's (i) police force, (ii) military, (iii) correctional services; (g) how many applications have seen dependents become too old to sponsor due to delays; (h) how many applications have dependents or spouses removed; (i) what is the average time an application is in process before a dependent or spouse is removed; (j) how many full-time equivalent are used for processing live-in caregiver permanent residence applications, broken down by location of staff; and (k) what was the budget allocation for processing these applications?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1257Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

December 6th, 2017 / 4 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s processing times for various common interactions with taxpayers: (a) what is the median processing time for delivering Notices of Assessment for individual income tax returns; (b) what is the maximum processing time for delivering Notices of Assessment for individual income tax returns; (c) what percentage of Notices of Assessment for individual tax returns exceed 30 days to deliver; (d) what percentage of Notices of Assessment for individual tax returns exceed 60 days to deliver; (e) what percentage of Notices of Assessment for individual tax returns exceed 90 days to deliver; (f) what percentage of Notices of Assessment for individual tax returns exceed 120 days to deliver; (g) what are the respective processing times and percentages in (a) to (f) with respect to reviews of individual income tax filings; (h) what are the respective processing times and percentages in (a) to (f) with respect to adjustment requests; (i) on a year over year basis since 2010, is the percentage of cases in (a) to (h), which exceed 12 weeks to deliver, increasing or decreasing, and by how much; (j) how many employees at the Canada Revenue Agency are assigned to take telephone inquiries by taxpayers; (k) on average, how many telephone requests from taxpayers does the Canada Revenue Agency receive each business day; (l) what is the median time taxpayers spend on hold when calling the Canada Revenue Agency; and (m) how much of the new funding for the Canada Revenue Agency provided by Budgets 2016 and 2017 has been allocated to client services, including (i) telephone inquiries, (ii) adjustments, (iii) Problem Resolution Program?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1259Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

With regard to government correspondence: (a) what are the details of all correspondence between the Department of Finance and Morneau Shepell since November 4, 2015, including for each the (i) internal tracking number, (ii) topic or title, (iii) format (email, letter, facsimile, etc.), (iv) position or title of the Department of Finance employee sending or receiving the correspondence, (v) position or title of the Morneau Shepell employee sending or receiving the correspondence; (b) what are the details of all correspondence between the Department of Finance and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) since November 4, 2015, including for each the (i) internal tracking number, (ii) topic or title, (iii) format (email, letter, facsimile, etc.), (iv) position or title of the Department of Finance employee sending or receiving the correspondence, (v) position or title of the OSFI employee sending or receiving the correspondence; and (c) what are the details of all correspondence between the OSFI and Morneau Shepell since November 4, 2015, including for each the (i) internal tracking number, (ii) topic or title, (iii) format (email, letter, facsimile, etc.), (iv) position or title of the OSFI employee sending or receiving the correspondence, (v) position or title of the Morneau Shepell employee sending or receiving the correspondence?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand.