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. 148 Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-8122 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the changes announced in October 2014 to the Caregiver Program (the Program), formerly known as the Live-In Caregiver Program: (a) what individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments did the government consult as part of the process of developing the changes; (b) when did each consultation in (a) occur; (c) how did each consultation in (a) occur; (d) who in the government carried out each consultation in (a); (e) for past or current participants in the Program, (i) what opportunities existed to participate in consultations, (ii) how did the government make them aware of these opportunities, (iii) when did the government make them aware of these opportunities; (f) for other individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments, (i) how did the government make them aware of the opportunity to participate in consultations, (ii) when did the government make them aware of the opportunity; (g) what results of the consultations in (a) were presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (h) how were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (i) when were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (j) according to what criteria were the inputs that were received through consultations in (a) evaluated by the government; (k) what studies, reports, surveys, or other documents were consulted by the government; (l) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for Children Pathway; (m) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for People with High Medical Needs Pathway; (n) what was the number of principal applicants for permanent residence through the Program for each of the last ten years; (o) do the caps in (l) and (m) refer only to the number of new applications that the government will accept each year, or do they refer to the total number of applications that will be processed each year; (p) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents are currently in Canada as part of the Program; (q) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents have been in Canada as part of the Program for each of the last ten years; (r) how many temporary residents does the government expect to be in Canada as part of the Program for each of the next ten years; (s) what studies has the government carried out or consulted to determine whether the number of temporary residents in Canada as part of the Program is likely to change in the coming years; (t) what are the conclusions of the studies in (s); (u) for each of the last ten years, not including spouses and dependents, how many applications for permanent residence under the Program have been (i) submitted, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied; (v) if the number of principal applicants for permanent residence exceeds the cap of 2750 in either category in a given year, how will the government determine which applications to consider; (w) who will make the determination in (v); (x) based on what factors will the determination in (v) be made; (y) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program are currently being processed, not including spouses and dependents; (z) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program, not including spouses and dependents, does the government intend to process for each of the next five years; (aa) how will the government reduce the backlog of permanent residence applications under the program; (bb) by what date does the government intend to reduce the backlog in (aa); (cc) how many applications must be processed before the government will consider the backlog in (aa) to be reduced; (dd) when will the six-month limit on processing times for applications under the Program take effect; (ee) what impact will the six-month limit in (dd) have on applications underway at the time the limit takes effect; (ff) what measures will be implemented to ensure that applications for permanent residence will be processed within six months; (gg) what recourse will be available to applicants whose applications are not processed within six months; (hh) how will applications that remain in process after six months be dealt with by the government; (ii) will the six-month limit apply regardless of (i) the number of dependents, (ii) the country of origin of the principal applicants, their spouse, or their dependents; (jj) what measures are being introduced to give recourse to temporary residents in Canada under the Program who feel that they are being exploited or treated inappropriately by their employers, whether or not the caregiver lives with the employer; (kk) what changes have been made or will be made to the criteria used to evaluate applications for permanent residence under the Program; (ll) what directives have been or will be issued to visa officers; (mm) when do the directives in (ll) take effect; and (nn) how will applicants with applications currently underway be affected by the changes? |
| Q-8132 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children of Canadian residents: (a) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of Canadian citizens; (b) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (a), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (c) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of non-citizen permanent residents of Canada, excluding the Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP); (d) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (c), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (e) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children under the LCP; (f) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (e), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (g) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a); (h) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (i) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (a) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (j) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c); (k) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (l) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (c) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (m) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e); (n) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (o) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (e) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (p) has the government set processing times it considers acceptable for applications by applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children (i) of Canadian citizens, (ii) of non-citizen permanent residents, (iii) under the live-in caregiver program; (q) how were the acceptable processing times in (p) determined; (r) who determined the acceptable processing times in (p); (s) what variance, if any, exists for acceptable processing times in (p) based on (i) source country, (ii) age of applicant, (iii) visa office, (iv) other factors; (t) what changes, if any, have been made to the acceptable processing times in (p) over the last ten years, and what accounts for these changes; (u) if no acceptable processing times have been set, why have they not been set; (v) what evaluations of processing times has the government undertaken; (w) what were the results of the evaluations in (v); (x) if no evaluations of processing times have been undertaken, why has this not been done; (y) broken down by year, for each of the last ten years, what operational bulletins, changes to operational manuals, or other directives, published or unpublished, formal or informal, written or oral, have been issued by CIC to visa officers regarding applications by individuals seeking permanent residence as dependents of residents of Canada; (z) for each of the directives in (y), (i) how was the directive issued, (ii) by whom was it issued, (iii) what was the objective of the directive, (iv) how were its effects evaluated, (v) is it still in force; and (aa) for each directive in (y) no longer in force, (i) why was it terminated, (ii) who made the decision to terminate it, (iii) how was the decision to terminate it communicated to visa officers? |
| Q-8142 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the government’s implementation of M-456, a Pan-Canadian Strategy for Palliative and End of Life Care: (a) what steps has the government taken or do they plan on taking to implement this strategy; (b) what are the needs identified by the government that this strategy could address; (c) what information or data has been provided or solicited from Statistics Canada or the Canadian Institute for Health of Information regarding patient needs for palliative and end-of-life care; (d) what standards and best practices have been identified for this strategy; (e) what stakeholders and medical experts have been identified as collaborators in developing this strategy, and which of them have been approached; (f) which provinces and territories have been approached to discuss the establishment of this strategy; (g) what steps has the government taken to implement this strategy for the jurisdictions where it has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners; and (h) what palliative and end-of-life care programs are currently in place where the government has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners? |
| Q-8152 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With respect to each expenditure contained in each budget or budget implementation bill since 2006-2007, inclusively: (a) has the Department of Finance done an economic impact analysis of the expenditure; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what is the date, name and file number of any record which constitutes part of that analysis; (c) has the Department of Finance relied on any economic impact analysis of any organization outside government on the expenditure or not; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) which organizations analysed the measure, (ii) what is the date, name and file number of any record obtained from that organization which constitutes part of that analysis? |
| Q-8162 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance through Enhanced Exchange of Information under the Convention Between the United States of America and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (the Agreement), the government’s Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament (the Policy), and the statement of Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader, in the House on Monday, April 28, 2014, that “in this case, the fact is that the government, the cabinet, actually did grant such an exemption to the tabling policy. As such, the very words of the policy, the requirements of the policy, have been followed. The processes for obtaining the exemption were obtained. As a result, the requirement that it be tabled in the House 21 days in advance of the legislation being introduced is not necessary and the policy is fully complied with” (the Statement) : (a) was an exemption to the government’s Policy granted with respect to the Agreement; (b) what is the difference between an “exemption” and an “exception” in terms of the Policy; (c) if the word “exception” is substituted for “exemption” is the Statement accurate; (d) on what basis was the Statement made; (e) how was the Government House Leader informed of the exemption or exception being granted to the Policy; (f) what documents or memos were created regarding this exemption or exception and what are their access or control numbers; (g) who was involved in this decision to grant an exemption or exception and at what stage were they involved; (h) what was the process, step-by-step, by which this Agreement was granted an exemption or exception; (i) who reviewed the decision to grant an exemption or exception, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii) how; (j) does the Policy apply to the agreement, and how ; (k) between what departments does correspondence exist regarding the tabling of the Agreement under the Policy and what are the file numbers for these documents; (l) on what date was the Agreement concluded; (m) on what date was the Agreement tabled in Parliament; (n) on what date was the Agreement ratified; (o) when was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (p) how was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (q) when was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (r) how was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (s) when and by what means is the House usually informed that an exception has been granted to the Policy; (t) in the absence of the point of order prompting the Government House Leader's response, how and when would the House have been informed of the exemption; (u) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exceptions being granted to the Policy; (v) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exceptions have been granted; (w) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exemptions being granted to the Policy; (x) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exemptions have been granted; (y) what does “urgent” mean in the context of the Policy; (z) how was the ratification of the Agreement determined to be urgent; (aa) who made the determination in (z), (i) how, (ii) on the basis of what information, (iii) with what authority, (iv) under what criteria; (bb) how was the decision in (z) reviewed, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) when, (iv) by what criteria; (cc) who are or were the lead ministers with respect to the Agreement in terms of the Policy and how was this determined; (dd) when and how did the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the lead ministers seek approval from the Prime Minister for an exemption to the treaty tabling process; (ee) when was the approval in (dd) granted and how; (ff) what correspondence is available – with file and control number – to corroborate the information provided in response to (dd) and (ee); (gg) was a “joint-letter that clearly articulates the rationale to proceed with the ratification, without tabling in the House of Commons” created; (hh) with respect to the letter in (gg), (i) who created this letter, (ii) when is it dated, (iii) how can it be obtained, (iv) who has access to it, (v) to whom is it addressed; (ii) was the letter drafted in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the relevant Secretariat in the Privy Council Office; (jj) what documentation exists – with file or control number for each document – to corroborate the information provided in response to (ii); (kk) who is responsible for retention and access of such joint letters; (ll) with respect to the Agreement, were the responsible ministers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware early on of the need to request an exemption to the treaty process prior to obtaining Cabinet authority to sign a treaty; (mm) how is “early on” defined for purposes of the Policy; (nn) how is “aware” defined for purposes of this provision in the Policy; (oo) was a request made in a Memorandum to Cabinet, seeking policy approval for the Agreement; (pp) what Memorandums to Cabinet exist relative to this agreement, (i) what are their dates, (ii) are they subject to privilege, (iii) who made them, (iv) what are their record or control numbers; (qq) which document in (pp) can be said to “clearly articulate the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process”; (rr) what is the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process with respect to the Agreement; (ss) who determines the rationale per the Policy; (tt) what is an acceptable rationale per the Policy; (uu) how is rationale defined in terms of the Policy; (vv) is there a minimal level of sufficiency for a rationale per the Policy and if so what is it; (ww) when was the exception granted; (xx) did the Minister of Foreign Affairs “inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification” per the Policy; (yy) when did the actions in (xx) occur and how; (zz) in 2014, how many exemptions or exceptions were granted under the Policy before the Agreement; (aaa) in 2014, was the Agreement’s rationale for exception unique; (bbb) in 2014, was the Agreement the only item determined to be urgent in terms of the Policy; (ccc) is the Government House Leader always informed of exceptions and exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (ddd) is the House always informed of exceptions or exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (eee) how early could the Agreement have been tabled in Parliament; (fff) how was the date in (eee) determined; (ggg) if the Agreement could have been tabled earlier in Parliament than the date in (o), (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis; and (hhh) if the Statement could have been made sooner in Parliament than Monday, April 28, 2014, (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis? |
| Q-8172 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to Statistics Canada: (a) have studies been done on how to use alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (b) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered prior to 2011 to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (c) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered from 2011 to the present to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (d) prior to 2011, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (e) from 2011 to the present, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (f) what studies, reports or assessments have been prepared by Statistics Canada regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (g) what briefing documents have been prepared for ministers and their staff regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (h) before 2011, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key; and (i) from 2011 to the present, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key? |
| Q-8182 — November 24, 2014 — Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park) — With regard to government funding: for each fiscal year from 2011 to present, inclusively, (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Parkdale—High Park, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release? |
| Q-8192 — November 24, 2014 — Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park) — With regard to Canada Post: (a) what are the details of the five-point turnaround plan to put Canada Post on track for financial sustainability by 2020; (b) what is the annual budget for advertising campaigns, broken down by (i) medium, (ii) region, (iii) product or service line, (iv) any additional internal categories used not included in this question; (c) what are the internal metrics for measuring success of any advertising outlined in (b); and (d) what is the cost of any advertising campaigns from (b) in (i) fiscal year 2012-2013, (ii) fiscal year-to-date 2013-2014? |
| Q-8202 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement of $5.8 billion in new infrastructure investments on November 24, 2014, in London, Ontario, and each of the commitments detailed in the accompanying backgrounder: (a) what department and program does each commitment fall under; (b) how much will be spent on each commitment in each of the next five fiscal years; (c) were these funds in the fiscal framework in Budget 2014; (d) do any of these commitments constitute an increase in planned spending and, if so, (i) which, (ii) by how much; (e) what was (i) allocated, (ii) spent, (iii) lapsed, on each of these programs for capital and infrastructure investments in each fiscal year since 2004-2005; and (f) was the expenditure of these funds already accounted for in the economic forecasts used by the Finance Department? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-545 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington) — That this House recognize the Stratford Festival's distinct cultural and economic contributions to Stratford, southwestern Ontario and Canada since its inception in 1953. |
| M-546 — November 24, 2014 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of the House: (a) full support should be offered to survivors of thalidomide; (b) the urgent need to defend the rights and dignity of those affected by thalidomide should be recognized; and (c) the government should provide support to survivors, as requested by the Thalidomide Survivors Taskforce. |
Private Members' Business |
| M-532 — October 20, 2014 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Hawn (Edmonton Centre), seconded by Mr. Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should examine all possible options to ensure a fully unified “continuum of care” approach is in place to serve Canada's men and women in uniform and veterans, so as to: (a) eliminate all unnecessary bureaucratic processes, both within and between departments, related to service delivery; (b) eliminate duplication and overlap in the delivery of available services and supports; (c) further improve care and support, particularly for seriously injured veterans; (d) provide continuous support for veterans' families during and after service; and (e) strengthen the connections between the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada. |
| Pursuant to Standing Order 86(3), jointly seconded by: |
| Mr. Maguire (Brandon—Souris) — October 10, 2014 |
| 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 |
|