House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
|
|
|
Notice PaperNo. 145 Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:45 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
| June 20, 2012 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (genetic characteristics)”. |
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
| June 20, 2012 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — That the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on Wednesday, June 20, 2012, be concurred in. |
| Concurrence motion — may not be moved before either a comprehensive response has been tabled or Thursday, October 18, 2012, whichever shall come first, pursuant to Standing Order 109. |
Questions |
|
| Q-8192 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to temporary foreign workers, for each Labour Market Opinion conducted by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or Service Canada since January 1, 2006, what is the (i) date, (ii) file number, (iii) subject matter, (iv) result? |
| Q-8202 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard Kitsilano Search and Rescue base, for each of the years from 2005-2006 until present: (a) to how many and to what type of search and rescue emergencies has the base responded; (b) what was the outcome of each; (c) what was the overall budget for the base, broken down in all applicable categories; and (d) how many full-time, part-time, and contract employees worked at or for the base, and what were their roles and responsibilities? |
| Q-8212 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With respect to mental health and suicide in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP): (a) how many RCMP members and RCMP veterans participated in Operational Stress Injury Social Support (OSISS) clinics each year from 2005 to 2012 inclusive; (b) of those listed in (a), how many were male RCMP members; (c) of those listed in (a), how many were female RCMP members; (d) how many families of RCMP members participated in OSISS clinics each year from 2005 to 2012 inclusive; (e) what percentage of RCMP members and RCMP veterans suffer from an Operational Stress Injury; (f) what percentage suffer from (i) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, (ii) anxiety, (iii) depression, (iv) substance abuse; (g) what are the statistics on RCMP member and RCMP veteran suicides for the last twenty years, broken down by year; (h) how are suicides tracked for currently serving RCMP and RCMP veterans; (i) what, if any, mental health surveys have been undertaken by the RCMP; (j) what were the survey questions; (k) how many RCMP members were surveyed; (l) what were the conclusions and recommendations of these surveys; (m) what specific steps have been undertaken to address mental health concerns in the RCMP; (n) what efforts have been undertaken within the RCMP to address the stigma of mental health; (o) is the RCMP considering implementing its own OSISS program specific to RCMP members and RCMP veterans; and (p) is the RCMP considering offering its own VIP-type home-care program specific to RCMP members and RCMP veterans or working with Veterans Affairs in offering this benefit? |
| Q-8222 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With regard to government expenditures in Nova Scotia: (a) what is the total amount of all government grants provided to the following Nova Scotia ridings from 2006 to 2012, broken down by year, (i) Halifax West, (ii) Halifax, (iii) Sackville-Eastern Shore, (iv) West Nova, (v) Kings—Hants, (vi) Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, (vii) Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, (viii) Sydney—Victoria, (ix) Central Nova, (x) Cape Breton—Canso, (xi) South Shore—St. Margaret's; and (b) what is the total amount of government loans provided to the Nova Scotia ridings listed in (a)? |
| Q-8232 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to rail freight services in Canada, what is the government and its institutions measuring on a yearly basis in terms of: (a) percentage of rail cars picking up freight on time; (b) percentage of rail cars delivering freight on time; (c) percentage of fulfilled service commitments for the agreed-upon number of rail cars; (d) dollar value of economic damages from delays and service disruptions; (e) dollar value of compensation extended to customers by rail companies; (f) number of complaints received by CN and CP; (g) number of rail freight customers served broken down by industry sectors, including but not limited to (i) agriculture, (ii) logging, (iii) mining, (iv) chemicals, (v) automotive? |
| Q-8242 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to Canada Post, what is the structure and development of its office and branch location network since 2006 broken down by (i) year, (ii) provinces and territories, (iii) municipalities or equivalent level of government, (iv) number of residents served, (v) yearly revenues by location, (vi) employees by location, (vii) year of establishment or disestablishment in the case of closures, (viii) where applicable, the rationale for closing the location, (ix) the number of complaints related to such closures by location? |
| Q-8252 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to air safety in Canada, what is: (a) the government’s process for implementing Transportation Safety Board (TSB) recommendations; (b) the current status of outstanding implementations of TSB recommendations; (c) the rationale behind any existing delays and non-implementations detailed for each recommendation; (d) the approximate timeline for fully implementing the outstanding recommendations; and (e) the government’s yearly assessment of its effectiveness and speediness in implementing TSB recommendations for the past six years? |
| Q-8262 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to government resources allocated to research into sideguards on trucks: (a) listed annually for fiscal years 2006 to 2012, what are the resources allocated for researching, collecting, analyzing and evaluating data, broken down by (i) hours allocated, (ii) expenditures, including but not limited to personnel costs, fees, and research investments; (b) what are the (i) rationale, (ii) costs, (iii) planning and exact timelines for Phase II and Phase III of the National Research Council-conducted research work, with specific details about completion dates of the research work for each phase, draft completion dates, report approval and planned and actual publication dates; (c) what are the planned and budgeted time and resource allocation for truck-sideguard-related research work for the fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015, including information on the funding source(s) or, in the case of an absence of detailed planning, the rationale and decision-making process; (d) what are the planning and decision-making processes for truck-sideguard-related research and policy work in terms of (i) involved entities, including but not limited to Transport Canada, internal and external government institutions, departments, groups, sub-groups, and individuals, (ii) projected and actual timelines, (iii) involvement of external entities including consultants, experts, research organizations, lawyers, lobbyists, industry associations, companies and civic groups and individuals, broken down by name, dates of involvement, duration of involvement, nature and scope of involvement, involvement in outcomes and results; and (e) from 2006 to the present, who are the external entities involved in any part of the research or decision-making process, including consultants, experts, research organizations, lawyers, lobbyists, industry associations, companies and civic groups and other individuals, broken down by (i) name, (ii) dates of involvement, (iii) duration of involvement, (iv) nature and scope of involvement, (v) involvement in outcomes and results? |
| Q-8272 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to environmental assessment on the proposed new bridge on the St. Lawrence River at Montreal: (a) why was this assessment done using a screening type of assessment rather than a comprehensive study; (b) what type of assessment will this project be subject to, under the new regulations and changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as proposed in bill C-38; (c) how many comments did Transport Canada receive concerning this project, before the April 4th Transport Canada deadline, in terms of the Draft Environmental Assessment Guidelines under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, (i) how will these comments be assessed by Transport Canada, (ii) will these comments be made public; (d) what specific expertise will the following federal authorities contribute with respect to the environmental assessment, (i) Health Canada, (ii) Parks Canada, (iii) Federal Bridge Corporation Limited/Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, (iv) St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation; (e) what are the financial costs of the environmental assessment; (f) is Consortium Dessau Cima+ the only firm in charge of environmental assessment, (i) have they agreed to respect the preliminary timeline of mid-2014, (ii) will the drafting of the reports by all firms be made public soon after this date, (iii) what are the details of the contract, number T8080-110362, reference number 236518; (g) have the responsible authorities delegated the performance of the environmental assessment to any other party and, if so, (i) have the other parties agreed to respect the preliminary timeline of mid-2014, (ii) will the drafting of the reports by all firms be made public soon after this date; (h) what is the government’s policy in the eventuality that the responsible authorities conclude that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects; (i) what are the public consultation processes involved in the environmental assessment and their timelines; (j) have the responsible authorities established a list of main interested parties and, if so, is it public, and, if it is not public, why not; (k) how many public consultations have been organized to listen to local constituents’ concerns, what was discussed, and are reports available; (l) which First Nations were included in the consultation, when, what points in the process what were discussed, and are reports available; and (m) will the official opposition have the opportunity to examine and comment on the environmental assessment according to subsection 18(3) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act? |
| Q-8282 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to the proposed new bridge on the St. Lawrence River at Montreal: (a) why did the 2012 budget not include long-term planning for proposed bridge; (b) have the cost estimates been further refined since initial estimates of between three and five billion dollars were made, and how are these estimated costs broken down, in as much detail as is currently possible; (c) what further factors need to be taken into account to refine the estimates; (d) at what time in the financial analysis process will the Treasury Board of Canada or the Department of Finance be involved and to what extent; (e) has Transport Canada chosen the funding model and, if so, which one, and why; (f) will there be any public consultation concerning the funding model; (g) have any economic models been created to understand the financial impacts of the various options for the project; (h) is public-private partnership (P3) still an option (i) who is involved in the making the decision about PPP, (ii) have there been concrete steps made in order to finalize a decision, (iii) will there be any public consultation regarding PPP; (i) what options are being considered by Transport Canada regarding the implementations of tolls; (j) has Transport Canada decided on the type of structure (bridge or tunnel); (k) what are the initial outcomes of the government’s collaboration with the province of Québec to integrate transit onto the new bridge; (l) has Transport Canada been involved in the study of integrating a light rail transit onto the bridge and if so, when will the study be completed and made available; (m) has the number of lanes on the new bridge been established and, if not, (i) what will be the process determining that recommendation, (ii) who is responsible for making the final decision, (iii) are there any plans to include bicycle paths or pedestrian walkways; (n) has the government studied the possibility of a gradual replacement instead of the complete new bridge, such as the proposal brought forward by civil engineer René Therrien, as found at the URL http://solutionpontchamplain.com/la-solution/; and (o) will the preliminary design and financial analysis include a team of architects to consider aesthetic aspects of the new structure, (i) what will be the process determining that recommendation, (ii) who is responsible for making the final decision, (iii) will there be an architecture competition? |
| Q-8292 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — What contingency plan does the government have in case a serious emergency or other factor requires a shut-down of the existing Champlain Bridge at Montreal? |
| Q-8302 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — With regard to the Department of National Defence: (a) how many Members of Parliament wrote to the Minister with respect to the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) unfair deduction of Pension Act Payments from 2007 to 2012 inclusive; (b) how many Conservative MPs wrote the Minister with respect to SISIP from 2007 to 2012 inclusive; (c) what was the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies on the SISIP class action lawsuit including outside legal counsel; (d) what is the estimated cost for settling the SISIP class action lawsuit; and (e) has the government determined how far back it will apply retroactivity to veterans who were part of the SISIP class action lawsuit? |
| Q-8312 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — With regard to support for operational stress injuries affecting Canadian Forces (CF) members, veterans and their families: (a) what percentage of CF members and CF veterans suffer from an Operational Stress Injury; (b) what percentage suffer from (i) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, (ii) anxiety, (iii) depression, (iv) substance abuse; (c) what is the location of each Operational Stress Injury Social Support (OSISS) clinic, broken down by province; (d) what is the number of soldiers accessing each OSISS clinic each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusively; (e) what is the number of family members accessing each OSISS clinic each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusively; (f) what is the annual amount of funding provided for the OSISS clinics each year from 2006 inclusive to 2012; (g) what is the breakdown of funding for each OSISS clinic; (h) what is the annual breakdown of staff costs, and full-time and part-time staff for each OSISS clinic from 2006 inclusive to 2012; (i) how many clients have been admitted to the Residential Treatment Clinic for Operational Stress Injuries from 2010 to 2012; (j) how many days did clients have to wait for admittance to the Residential Treatment Clinic in 2010, 2011 and 2012; (k) how many days did CF members or veterans have to wait for assistance from regular OSISS clinics or OSISS support listing from 2006 to 2012, broken down by year; (l) how many days did family members have to wait for assistance from regular OSISS clinics or OSISS support listing from 2006 to 2012, broken down by year; (m) how many clients have been denied admittance to the Residential Treatment Clinic for Operational Stress Injuries; (n) what is the estimated emotional cost of deployment to the Afghanistan mission; (o) what are the statistics on the number of CF members suicides each year for the last twenty years, broken down by gender; and (p) how are suicides tracked for currently serving CF and CF veterans? |
| Q-8322 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — With respect to services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs: (a) what is the location of all district offices, broken down by province; (b) what are the operating costs of each office; (c) what is the number of part-time and full-time positions at each district office; (d) what is the number of clients served at each district office from 2007 to 2012 inclusive; (e) what is the average number of calls received by the Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) toll-free line per day; (f) what is the cost of operating the VAC toll-free line per day; (g) what is the cost of shared-service delivery with Service Canada with respect to answering calls on the VAC toll-free line; (h) what are the annual fees for pastoral care each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive; and (i) what are the annual costs for commemorative events each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive? |
| Q-8332 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — With regard to contracts and consulting services within the Department of Veterans Affairs: (a) what is the annual cost of the third-party contract with Quantum; (b) how much did the department pay Keith Coulter for consultant services in 2010, 2011 2012; (c) what are the details of the report produced by Keith Coulter; (d) what is the amount spent by the department on other private consultant fees each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive; (e) what are the names of businesses or individuals across the country who provide consultant services for the department and what types of services do they provide; and (f) what is the cost of the contract to third party Medavaie Blue Cross from 2006 to 2012 inclusive? |
| Q-8342 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Sullivan (York South—Weston) — With regard to federal disability programs: (a) what is the amount of spending in the last five fiscal years, broken down by year and province, for the (i) Athlete Assistance Program, (ii) Canadian Deaf Sports Association, (iii) Canadian Paralympic Committee, (iv) federal/provincial/territorial projects related to sports programs for people with disabilities, (v) funding for national sport organizations’ Long-Term Athlete Development Model, (vi) Special Olympics sports funding, (vii) disability component of sports participation funding, (viii) Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding related to disabilities, (ix) Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program for Persons with Disabilities, (x) Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program – Secondary/Garden Suite, (xi) national transportation accessibility, (xii) Enabling Accessibility Fund, (xiii) disability component of Social Development Partnerships, (xiv) Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities, (xv) Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities, (xvi) Permanent Disability Benefit, (xvii) Assisted Living Program, (xviii) Special Education Program for First Nations students, (xix) Entrepreneurs with Disabilities Program; (b) what is the projected spending for the next three fiscal years, broken down by year and province, for (i) Athlete Assistance Program, (ii) Canadian Deaf Sports Association, (iii) Canadian Paralympic Committee, (iv) federal/provincial/territorial projects related to sports programs for people with disabilities, (v) funding for national sport organizations’ Long-Term Athlete Development Model, (vi) Special Olympics sports funding, (vii) disability component of sports participation funding, (viii) Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding related to disabilities, (ix) Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program for Persons with Disabilities, (x) Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program – Secondary/Garden Suite, (xi) national transportation accessibility, (xii) Enabling Accessibility Fund, (xiii) Disability component of Social Development Partnerships, (xiv) Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities, (xv) Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities, (xvi) Permanent Disability Benefit, (xvii) Assisted Living Program, (xviii) Special Education Program for First Nations students, (xix) Entrepreneurs with Disabilities Program; and (c) with respect to successful applications for funding in the last five fiscal years, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by year, province and federal electoral district for the (i) Athlete Assistance Program, (ii) funding for national sport organizations’ Long-Term Athlete Development Model, (iii) disability component of sports participation funding, (iv) Enabling Accessibility Fund, (v) disability component of Social Development Partnerships, (vi) Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities, (vii) Entrepreneurs with Disabilities Program? |
| Q-8352 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Sullivan (York South—Weston) — With regard to the Initiative for Equitable Library Access: (a) what is the amount of spending in the past five fiscal years, broken down by year; (b) what strategy did Library and Archives Canada develop to meet the long-term library and information access needs of Canadians with print disabilities; (c) did Library and Archives Canada present the government with a final report on the outcomes and recommendations of the Initiative and if so, what is its title and date of submission; and (d) when and for what reasons did the federal government’s participation in the Initiative end? |
| Q-8362 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Sullivan (York South—Weston) — With regard to the disposition of federal heritage properties: (a) since 2006, how many federal heritage properties lost their heritage designation, broken down by year and province, and for what reason; (b) of the properties in (a), how many were disposed of by the federal government, broken down by year and province, and to whom; and (c) since 2006, how many federal heritage properties have been disposed of by the federal government, broken down by year and by province, and to whom? |
| Q-8372 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River) — With regard to the MV Ocean Lady and MV Sun Sea migrants: (a) how many passengers since 2009 were detained, broken down by (i) age, (ii) sex, (iii) location of detention centre, (iv) average number of cells per detention centre, (v) average number of detainees per cell, (vi) average length of detention; (b) how many migrants since 2009 have been deported, broken down by (i) country of origin, (ii) destination country, (iii) rationale; (c) how many migrants since 2009 have been found guilty of criminal offences, broken down by (i) type of offence, (ii) location of crime; (d) how many migrants since 2009 have submitted applications for refugee status, broken down by those whose claims are (i) approved, (ii) rejected, (iii) in the queue; and (e) how many migrants since 2009 have submitted applications for permanent residency status, broken down by those whose claims are (i) approved, ii) rejected, (iii) in the queue? |
| Q-8382 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River) — With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) funding in the riding of Scarborough—Rouge River for the last five fiscal years: (a) what is the total amount of spending by (i) year, (ii) program; (b) what is the amount of each spending item by (i) Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership (ASEP), (ii) Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy, (iii) Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment Fund, (iv) Adult Learning Literacy and Essential Skills Program, (v) Apprenticeship Completion Grant, (vi) Apprenticeship Incentive Grant, (vii) Career Development Services Research (Employment Programs), (viii) Canada-European Union Program for Cooperation in Higher Education, Training and Youth (International Academic Mobility Program), (ix) Canada Summer Jobs (Youth Employment Strategy Program), (x) Career Focus (Youth Employment Strategy Program), (xi) Children and Families (Social Development Partnerships Program), (xii) Contributions for Consultation and Partnership-Building and Canadian-Based Cooperative Activities (International Trade and Labour Program), (xiii) Disability Component (Social Development Partnerships Program), (xiv) Employment Programs-Career Development Services Research, (xv) Enabling Accessibility Fund, (xvi) Enabling Fund for Official Language Minority Communities, (xvii) Federal Public Service Youth Internship Program (Youth Employment Strategy Program), (xviii) Fire Prevention Grants, (xviv) Fire Safety Organizations, (xx) Foreign Credential Recognition Program, (xxi) Homelessness Partnering Strategy, (xxii) International Academic Mobility-Canada-European Union Program for Cooperation in Higher Education, Training and Youth, (xxiii) International Academic Mobility-North American Mobility in Higher Education, (xxiv) International Labour Institutions in which Canada Participates Grants (International Trade and Labour Program), (xxv) International Trade and Labour Program (ITLP) Contributions for Consultation and Partnership-Building and Canadian-Based Cooperative Activities, (xxvi) International Trade and Labour Program (ITLP) Grants for Technical Assistance and Foreign-Based Cooperative Activities, (xxvii) International Trade and Labour Program (ITLP) International Labour Institutions in which Canada Participates Grants, (xxviii) Labour-Management Partnership Program, (xxix) Labour Market Agreements, (xxx) Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities, (xxxi) Labour Market Development Agreements, (xxxii) Labour Mobility, (xxxiii) New Horizons for Seniors Program, (xxxiv) Occupational Health and Safety, (xxxv) Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities, (xxxvi) Organizations that Write Occupational Health and Safety Standards, (xxxvii) Sector Council Program, (xxxviii) Skills and Partnership Fund-Aboriginal, (xxxix) Skills Link (Youth Employment Strategy Program), (xl) Small Project Component (Enabling Accessibility Fund), (xli) Social Development Partnerships Program-Children and Families, (xlii) Social Development Partnerships Program-Disability Component, (xliii) Surplus Federal Real Property for Homelessness Initiative, (xliv) Targeted Initiative for Older Workers, (xlv) Technical Assistance and Foreign-Based Cooperative Activities Grants (International Trade and Labour Program), (xlvi) Work-Sharing, (xlvii) Youth Awareness, (xlviii) Youth Employment Strategy-Canada Summer Jobs, (xlix) Youth Employment Strategy-Career Focus, (l) Youth Employment Strategy-Federal Public Service Youth Internship Program, (li) Youth Employment Strategy-Skills Link? |
| Q-8392 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River) — With regard to new jobs created in Scarborough—Rouge River from January 2009 to June 2012: (a) what is the total number of new jobs created by (i) sector, (ii) regional location; (b) how many of the total number of new jobs created are classified as (i) full-time status; (ii) part-time status, (iii) contract status, (iv) student status, (v) seasonal status; (c) how many of the total number of new jobs created are filled by (i) women, (ii) youth, (iii) visible minorities, (iv) Aboriginals, (v) people with a disability; and (d) what are the pay ranges of these jobs? |
| Q-8402 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill) — With respect to the prevention of harassment within the RCMP: (a) what is the official policy on the prevention of harassment in the workplace and when did this policy take effect; (b) what is the definition of harassment used by the RCMP and when did this definition take effect; (c) what are the informal and formal resolution mechanisms of harassment complaints and when did these mechanisms take effect; (d) what unit of the RMCP is responsible for the implementation of the policy mentioned in subquestion (a); (e) how is the implementation of policy mentioned in subquestion (a) reviewed and audited for effectiveness; (f) what are the roles and responsibilities of senior management in preventing harassment; (g) how is the policy mentioned in subquestion (a) communicated to employees and at what frequency; (h) what training was offered on strategies to prevent harassment in the workplace and on the policy mention in subquestion (a), and (i) who administers the training, (ii) who has access to the training, (iii) for each course, how many hours of instruction are provided, (iv) does the training include a course that specifically targets prevention of harassment against women, visible minorities, First Nations, Inuit or Métis, (v) does the training include a course on the prevention of sexual harassment, (vi) which courses are mandatory and which are optional; (i) is the policy mentioned in subquestion (a) available to the public and if so where; (j) in the last ten years, how many different policies to prevent harassment in the work place were made and what were they; and (k) what is the timeline for the gender audit and will the results be made public? |
| Q-8412 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River) — With regard to applications received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) since December 2011: (a) broken down by visa office, (i) how many Parent and Grandparent Super Visa applications have been received, (ii) how many applications for the Parent and Grandparent Super Visa have been denied, (iii) how many applications for the Parent and Grandparent Super Visa have been approved; (b) broken down by visa office, (i) how many family class Permanent Residency applications have been withdrawn, (ii) how many family class Permanent Residency applications have been finalized; (c) broken down by visa office, how many officers work on Parent and Grandparent Super Visa applications; (d) since December 2011, (i) how much money has been spent on advertising and promotion of the Super Visa program abroad, (ii) in which countries is the Super Visa being promoted; (e) has Citizenship and Immigration Canada encountered any problems or complaints concerning the Super Visa and, if so, what were these complaints and where were they located; (f) has Citizenship and Immigration Canada received any complaints concerning the exclusion of the dependent children of parents and grandparents from the Super Visa; and (g) does Citizenship and Immigration Canada foresee the inclusion of dependent children in the Parent and Grandparent Super Visa? |
| Q-8422 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to Service Canada Old Age Security and Canadian Pension Plan call centres for fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of calls broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (b) what was the number of calls that received a high volume message broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (c) what were the national Service Level standards for calls answered by an agent broken down by year; (d) what were the actual Service Level standards achieved for calls answered by an agent broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (e) what were the service standards for call backs broken down by year; (f) what were the service standards achieved for call backs broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (g) what was the average number of days for a call back by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; and (h) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month? |
| Q-8432 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (b) what was the average EI applications processing time broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by 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, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres broken down by year; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs by EI call centre agents broken down by year; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (k) for EI processing centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (l) for EI call centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (m) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (n) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; and (o) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year? |
| Q-8442 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to the increase in the age eligibility for Old Age security (OAS) and the government's contention that it was necessary for the long-term sustainability of the program: (a) what is the measure that the government uses to determine the sustainability level for OAS; (b) what does the government consider OAS sustainability in terms of (i) maximum dollar figure per year expended on OAS, (ii) maximum percentage of the government's annual budget expended on OAS, (iii) maximum percentage of annual GDP spent on OAS; (c) what are the details, including dates and file numbers, of all studies the government has undertaken in determining that the OAS age of eligibility needed to be raised; (d) what is the expected saving in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility, detailing the assumptions included in these calculations, including annual inflation rate; (e) were any other options studied to ensure sustainability of OAS, and if so, what are the details, including dates and file numbers of these options and or studies and why they were not chosen; (f) how many individuals will not be eligible for (i) OAS, (ii) Guaranteed Income Support (GIS) in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility; (g) how many individuals will be eligible for (i) OAS, (ii) GIS, in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility; (h) given OAS and GIS are fully funded from general revenues, was the government anticipating deficits in years 2023 to 2029 and beyond as a reason to decrease OAS and GIS costs, and if so, how large were the anticipated deficits for these years and will the change in age of eligibility eliminate these deficits; (i) what is rationale for choosing 2023 as the year to start implementing the age eligibility increase; and (j) who was consulted, including public and private stakeholder groups, and when on the age of eligibility change? |
| Q-8452 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to children’s health and the environment: (a) what action has the government undertaken to integrate children’s environmental health into existing public health programs; (b) what specific action is the government undertaking to advocate for the consideration and assessment of hazardous environmental influences on children’s health and development, (i) in Canada, (ii) internationally; (c) what specific action is the government undertaking to raise the political profile of children’s environmental health, (i) locally, (ii) regionally, (iii) nationally; (d) in relation to its contaminated sites, (i) what specific action is the government undertaking to raise awareness about children’s environmental health, (ii) what are all contaminated sites where action has been taken to raise awareness, (iii) what was the risk; (iv) what was the action taken; (e) what are all government activities focused on children’s environmental health; (f) what are all existing government activities focused on prevention of environmental exposures aimed at protecting children's health; (g) what governmental action has been undertaken to prevent (i) pre-conception, prenatal, and childhood exposures, (ii) air, consumer products, food, soil/dust, water, and other physical environmental exposures, (iii) biological, chemical, and physical hazards; (h) how has the government taken children's vulnerabilities into account in developing environmental and health policies, regulations, and standards; (i) what targeted environmental and health policies, regulations, and standards have already been put in place to protect children's health, and what policies, regulations, and standards are currently under consideration; (j) what action is being undertaken by the government to measure the extent to which pregnant women and their babies are exposed to common environmental chemicals, and what health risks, if any, are associated with the chemical levels measured; (k) what pregnancy health risks, if any, are associated with exposure to heavy metals, namely, arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, and mercury; (l) what pregnancy health risks, if any, are associated with exposure to bisphenol A, organochlorine pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, phthalates, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polychlorinated biphenyls; (m) what are all federal government bio-monitoring studies to assess the presence of toxic chemicals in Canadians, and particularly, in children, and for each study, what are the details of (i) all baseline data, (ii) reference ranges for concentrations of chemicals in Canadians, (iii) comparisons of exposure levels in subpopulations in Canada, (iv) any trends of exposure levels in Canadians over time, (v) the efforts related to the management of toxic substances that are resulting in better health outcomes; (n) what is the risk management strategy, including, but not limited to, the strategies’ objectives, priorities, and systematic process for periodically assessing progress made in managing risks, for (i) lead, (ii) mercury; (o) what action, if any, has been taken to develop labels to inform consumers of chronic hazards that may result from multiple or long-term use of a product; and (p) what action has the government taken to educate healthcare workers, environment professionals, industry, non-governmental organizations, policy makers, and parents about children’s health and the environment? |
| Q-8462 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Cash (Davenport) — With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency: (a) how many firearms were seized at border crossings from January 2005 to present, broken down on a monthly basis by type of firearm and by crossing location; (b) what was the total number of direct border crossing Full Time Equivalent (FTE) hours from 2005 to present, broken down by province, month, and crossing location; (c) what are the projected number of direct border crossing FTE hours until the year 2015, broken down by province, month, and crossing location; and (d) will staff members be terminated following the implementation of Budget 2012 and, if so, how many? |
| Q-8472 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the Action Plan for the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat: (a) where will the Treasury Board obtain the data regarding the F-35 costs that it intends to use in its review, as per the sixth point of the plan; (b) will there be an independent review of the data sources used in the review; and (c) will the criteria, process and results of the review be made public (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not? |
| Q-8482 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS): (a) has a statement of operational requirements been established, (i) if yes, when was this done and what are the criteria that will be used to determine what ships will be built, (ii) if no, when will it be done, (iii) if it will not be done, what criteria will be used to determine what ships will be built; (b) will there be an open competition for contracts associated with the strategy; (c) what is a current breakdown of the $35 billion contract value that was assessed, specifically, what is the value of each individual component included in this assessed value; (d) where will the technology being used to build the ships come from; (e) what components will be included in each ship (i.e., hull, weapons systems, propulsion, etc.); (f) will the ships have all components necessary for deployment, (i) if not, why not and which components will need to be procured at a future date, (ii) if yes, what contracts have been signed that to account for this answer; (g) how will the contracts be awarded, specifying (i) how many ships will be built, (ii) which shipyards will be used for construction, (iii) what will be the dollar value of contracts awarded to each of the shipyards; (h) what are the details of any changes the government has made to the strategy and associated contracts as a result of delays in delivery (for example, in the case of the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS)) and what are the impacts of the delays in delivery on the overall cost of the project, identifying in particular whether and how delays have impacted the estimated $3.1 billion cost of the AOPS; (i) has there been an evaluation of how many jobs will be created by this strategy, if yes, (i) how many jobs are expected to be created and for what duration, (ii) who conducted this evaluation, (iii) have the job creation projections been independently verified, and, if yes, by whom; (j) for what reasons has the NSPS been in the “definition” phase for over a year; (k) when does the government expect the NSPS will move to the effective project approval and implementation phase; (l) what are the steps of the procurement process that is being used to coordinate the NSPS, including (i) the dates of each step or phase, (ii) for each step or phase where there has been a delay, what are the reasons for the delay and what steps were taken to address the delay, (iii) what delays are expected to occur in future steps or phases of the process? |
| Q-8492 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the F-35 JSF Program: (a) what is the total Canadian dollar value of benefits received by Canadian industry from Canada’s participation in the F-35 JSF Program (i) from the start of the program until December 1, 2011, (ii) from December 2, 2011 to June 22, 2012; (b) what is the projected value of future contracts, from June 22, 2012, onwards, that come as a result of Canada’s participation in the JSF program; (c) for the contracts in (a), what is the value of each contract that was awarded and on what date was each contract signed; (d) what methodology was used to determine the value of (i) the contracts in (a), (ii) the contracts in (b); (e) was there industry involvement in determining the values of (i) the contracts in (a), (ii) the contracts in (b); (f) do these valuations include analysis related to the global supply chain; (g) do these valuations include and/or anticipate changes in the domestic supply chain; (h) is the information used in the valuations updated periodically and, if yes, how frequently; (i) was the methodology used to arrive at the values in (a) and (b) independently audited and, if yes, by whom and what was the result of the audit; (j) since the start of the program, have there been discrepancies between projected and actual value of benefits received by Canadian industry; (k) if the answer to (j) is in the affirmative, what are the specific instances and contracts where discrepancies occurred, including (i) the value of each discrepancy, (ii) the name of each company that was meant to receive the benefit; (l) what, if any, changes have been made to the valuations and projection processes used to determine all and any cost projections related to the F-35 JSF program in response to the recommendations in the April 2, 2012, Auditor General's report; (m) for the contracts in (a), is there a means of ensuring that the contracts are being fulfilled as stated in terms of dollar value; (n) for the benefits in (a), how many jobs have been created as a result of participation in the program, (i) are these new jobs and, if so, how is “new jobs“ defined, (ii) how long are these jobs projected to last (i.e., are they start-up or long-term jobs), (iii) who calculates these job numbers and is there independent auditing of these numbers? |
| Q-8502 — June 20, 2012 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the Action Plan for the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat: (a) will the Department of National Defence’s evaluation of options related to the Canadian Forces’ fighter capability, as per point four of the plan, include looking at aircraft other than the F-35 as a potential replacement for the CF-18; (b) if the answer to (a) is yes, what criteria will be used to determine whether other aircraft are suitable; (c) will the criteria in (b) be made public, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not; (d) will the results of the evaluation in (a) be made public, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not; (e) will the results of the evaluation in (a) be shared with parliament, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not; and (f) if other aircraft are considered as part of the evaluation, will the Secretariat make public what other aircraft are looked at, and (i) if another aircraft is selected, will it make public why, (ii) if another aircraft is not selected, will it make public the reasons why not? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-401 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) develop a strategy to require Canadian industries that manufacture products that contain tin, tantalum, tungsten, or gold, and companies selling products containing one or more of these elements in Canada’s markets, to ensure transparency in their supply chains for minerals from which these elements are extracted to determine whether or not their products contain conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) by (i) tracing back through their supply chains and submitting an annual report to the appropriate governmental body to determine the source of these minerals and, if the source is found to be in the DRC or an adjoining country, providing additional reporting that determines the mine of origin for such minerals and a description of the measures taken to exercise due diligence on the source and supply chain of such minerals to ensure that the purchase of such minerals did not benefit armed groups in the DRC or an adjoining country, (ii) obtaining an independent private sector audit of this reporting to provide independent verification; (b) explore charging an independent monitoring body with a mandate to certify products that have been determined to be “DRC conflict-free” and encourage that all products containing tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold that have been found to be “DRC conflict-free” include a label indicating such, in order for consumers to know at the point of purchase which products are certifiably not fueling armed conflict in the DRC. |
| M-402 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — That this House agree with the findings of the Interim Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that, "Canadians have been denied a full and proper education as to the nature of Aboriginal societies, and the history of the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples"; that, in the opinion of the House, the government must take an active role in promoting awareness and public education to Canadians about this history generally and the residential school system and its impacts on Aboriginal Canadians specifically; that this House call on this government to consult with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and First Nations, Inuit and Métis Canadians to implement a federal funding program for public-education campaigns, and the development of curricula, to inform the general public about the key role the First Peoples have played in our shared history; that, in the opinion of the House, these campaigns or curricula should specifically deal with the tragic impact of the residential school system on both Aboriginal culture and current social challenges; and that, in the opinion of the House, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments, as well as other non-profit and community-based organizations, should have access to this program to educate non-Aboriginals about these important issues. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-370 — May 7, 2012 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Brown (Leeds—Grenville), seconded by Mr. Tweed (Brandon—Souris), — That Bill C-370, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. |
| Debate — 1 hour remaining, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
| Voting — at the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|