House Publications

    [And Canada's 2016 Olympic and Paralympic athletes being present in the chamber:]

    [And Canada’s 2016 Olympic and Paralympic athletes having left the Chamber:]

     With regard to the re-negotiation of the Columbia River Treaty: (a) what is the status of the re-negotiation; (b) have negotiators been named on behalf of Canada; (c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, who has been appointed and for what term; (d) what changes to the Treaty is the government seeking in this re-negotiation; (e) when are negotiations expected to commence and what is the current schedule of negotiations; (f) what representation from First Nations communities will be a part of Canada’s negotiating team; (g) has the government devolved any of the negotiation process to the Province of British Columbia and if so, what processes; and (h) will the consultations undertaken by the Columbia River Treaty Local Governments Committee be taken into consideration by the negotiating team?

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), reviews of the Columbia River Treaty, CRT, have taken place on both sides of the border and, as yet, neither side has given notice of termination or asked for renegotiation. The Government of Canada continues to engage with British Columbia on this issue and maintains regular contact with the United States in preparation for eventual discussions on the future of the CRT.

    With regard to (b) and (c), negotiators have not yet been named on behalf of Canada.

    With regard to (d), the CRT is a flood control and hydropower generation agreement and the original objective was to provide benefits that are shared equitably between the two countries. The Government of Canada will be focused on ensuring that the benefits from the CRT continue to be shared equitably in any future agreement.

    With regard to (e), no negotiations are taking place at this time.

    With regard to (f), the Government of Canada will continue to work with the Province of British Columbia and first nations on developing the process for first nations’ involvement in CRT negotiations.

    With regard to (g), the Government of Canada will work with the province in preparations and during any negotiations on the future of the CRT.

    With regard to (h), Global Affairs Canada has had discussions with representatives of the Columbia River Treaty Local Governments’ Committee about the CRT. The Government of Canada has a representative on the Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee, which was formed by the Columbia River Treaty Local Governments’ Committee and BC Hydro, which, among other purposes, was created to continue engagement with local communities during negotiations of a future CRT. This ongoing conversation and previous contributions from the Local Governments’ Committee will be considered by the Government of Canada as part of any negotiations.

     With regard to real or perceived conflicts of interest: (a) what are the precise reporting requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act with respect to Ministers and staff recusing themselves from decisions which would place them in a conflict of interest; (b) does the government operate under a standard of avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest; (c) if the answer in (b) is in the affirmative, how is this higher standard enforced; and (d) what plans, if any, does the government have to amend the Conflict of Interest Act to mandate this higher standard?

    Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows. With regard to (a), under section 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act, COIA, public office holders, including ministers and their staff, are required to recuse themselves from any discussion, decision, debate or vote on any matter in respect of which they would be in a conflict of interest. Under section 25 of the act, reporting public office holders, including ministers and full-time members of their staff, must make a public declaration of any recusal they have made to avoid a conflict of interest within 60 days after the day on which the recusal took place. This public declaration must include sufficient detail to identify the conflict of interest that was avoided.

    With regard to (b), the conflict of interest standards applicable to ministers, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff, and appointees of the Governor in Council are set out in the Conflict of Interest Act. Section 4 of the COIA defines a conflict of interest as any situation in which a public office holder exercises an official power, duty, or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends, or to improperly further another person’s private interests. The act requires public office holders to arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest. Public office holders are also barred from making a decision or participating in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty, or function if they know or reasonably should know that in the making of the decision, they would be in a conflict of interest. Section 11 of the act prohibits public office holders and their family members from accepting any gift or other advantage that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder in the exercise of an official power, duty, or function. Furthermore, reporting public office holders are prohibited from engaging in outside activities and holding controlled assets, regardless of whether those activities or assets would place the public office holder in an actual conflict of interest.

    The COIA is interpreted and administered by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, an independent officer of Parliament. In her January 30, 2013, submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the commissioner indicated that, in her view, the concepts of “apparent” and “potential” conflicts of interest are included in the current definition of conflict of interest set out in section 4 of the COIA, and are appropriately reflected in the other provisions of the act. The commissioner stated in her submission that she had not identified any provision in the act where the express inclusion of “apparent” or “potential” conflicts of interest would appear to be necessary.

    Beyond the statutory requirements of the COIA, the Prime Minister has set out expectations for the conduct of ministers and other public office holders in “Open and Accountable Government”, a guide for his ministry. This includes the ethical guidelines set out in Annex A, which state that public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. It also includes the guidelines in Annex B on fundraising and dealing with lobbyists, which require ministers and parliamentary secretaries to maintain appropriate boundaries between their political fundraising activities and their dealings with lobbyists and other departmental stakeholders. As stated in these guidelines, ministers and parliamentary secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest, and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest. Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their adherence to these guidelines.

    With regard to (c), the COIA is interpreted and administered by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. This includes administration of the public and confidential reporting requirements for reporting public office holders. After consultation with the commissioner, public office holders may adopt agreed compliance measures, such as the use of “ethical screens” to avoid having matters come before them in areas of potential conflict. Information about such measures is published in the online registry maintained by the commissioner. The commissioner is also mandated to investigate and report on possible breaches of the act, and impose administrative monetary penalties for breaches of the act’s reporting requirements.

    Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for meeting the expectations for their conduct set out in “Open and Accountable Government”.

    With regard to (d), the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has indicated that the standards of “apparent” and “potential” conflicts of interest are already included in the definition of conflict of interest set out in section 4 of the COIA, and are appropriately reflected in the other provisions of the act.

     With regard to the decision by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to increase carapace size for Lobster Fishing Area 25 by one millimetre to 73 millimetres this year and to 77 millimetres by 2018: (a) what scientific analyses were undertaken by the Department on carapace size prior to this decision; (b) of the scientific analyses completed in (a) has the Department’s work been subjected to scientific peer review; (c) what stakeholders were consulted on increasing carapace size; (d) was an economic analysis completed to determine the impact this decision will have on lobster fishers in Prince Edward Island; (e) if the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, what did the economic impact analysis show would be the impact on P.E.I. lobster fishers; and (f) if the answer to (e) is in the negative, what is the rationale for proceeding with the decision to increase carapace size without considering the negative economic impacts the decision would have?

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), scientific background information from peer-reviewed publications informed the decision on carapace size. See (b) below for a list of documents containing relevant scientific information and analyses. The key elements in achieving a healthy lobster fishery are good egg production, a reasonable fishing mortality, that is, the exploitation rate, and a biomass composed of several year classes. The lobster fishery in LFA 25 still operates under a regime of high exploitation rates greater than 50% and allows harvesting of up to 50% of immature females. In these circumstances, although lobster stocks have traditionally been quite resilient, there is still a risk of recruitment failure if the biomass is to change to a decreasing trend.

    For long-term healthy lobster populations that are resilient to natural population fluctuations, while supporting an active fishery with a high exploitation rate of greater than 50% every year, more female lobsters that produce eggs need to remain in the water. Increasing the carapace size would, therefore, have sustainability benefits in this fishing area.

    With regard to (b), the following peer-reviewed scientific publications informed the decision on carapace size: 1, Comeau, M., and Savoie, F., 2002, “Maturity and reproduction cycle of the female American lobster, Homarus americanus, in the southwestern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada”, Journal of Crustacean Biology 22(4), pages 762-774; 2, Comeau, M., and LeBreton, M., 2012, “A bio-economic model for the lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery in Canada”, pages 273-295, in Kruse, G.H., H.I. Browman, K.L. Cochrane, D. Evans, G.S. Jamieson, P.A. Livingston, D. Woodby, and C.I. Zhang (eds.), Global Progress in Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management, Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 396 pp., doi,10.4027/gpebfm.2012.014; 3, DFO, 2013, “American lobster, Homarus americanus, stock status in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence: LFA 23, 24, 25, 26a and 26b”, DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/029; 4, DFO, 2014, “Reference point options for the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence lobster stock (Lobster Fishing Areas 23, 24, 25, 26A, 26B)”, DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2014/027; 5, Rondeau, A., Comeau, M., and Surette, T., 2015, “American Lobster, Homarus americanus, stock status in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence: LFA 23, 24, 25, 26A and 26B”, DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2014/036, xii + 92 p.

    A table of female maturity studies from 1994 to 2014 was also used as background science information, but is not yet published.

    With regard to (c), numerous meetings over the last several years have been held on the carapace size issue, the latest being the Lobster Fishing Area 25 Management Committee Meeting held on April 14, 2016. The decision to increase the minimum lobster carapace size was made following lengthy consultations with a number of stakeholders, including the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association, the Maritime Fishermen’s Union, the Gulf Nova Scotia Fishermen’s Coalition, first nations and aboriginal organizations, provincial representatives and processors from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia.

    With regard to (d), the bio-economic model used in Comeau and LeBreton 2012 was specifically built for Lobster Fishing Area 25 and showed that in terms of the lobster population, an increase in the minimum legal size produced an increase in egg production. The model simulations of increased carapace size also resulted in an increase in the weighted average landings. Both 1 and 2 millimeter minimum legal size increases resulted in an increase in landings by year 2, with significant increases in landings up to 6 years after the initial size increase. The simulations also showed cumulative revenues becoming positive. Also, looking at other lobster fishing areas of the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence where the minimum carapace size has increased in recent years, the economic and conservation benefits have been positive.

    With regard to (e), the value of the lobster fishery in LFA 25 was over $56 million in 2015. The “canner” lobster represented 58% of this total. At 81 mm, lobsters are considered “market size” in all LFAs in the Gulf region. Even at a carapace size of 76 millimeters, the Prince Edward Island fishing industry would still have access to a portion of their catch as “canners” for their market.

     With regard to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retroactive payments for late applications for the years 2011 and 2016: (a) how many requests for retroactive payments have been made, broken down by year and province; (b) how many requests for retroactive payments have been outside the 11 month maximum, broken down by year and province; (c) how many court cases were brought against the government between 2011 and 2016 in order to gain monetary compensation past the 11 month maximum; (d) of the court cases in (c), what were the total legal costs to the government; and (e) what was the total amount of unclaimed CPP payments lost to claimants due to the 11 month retroactive payment limit, broken down by year and province?

    Mr. Speaker, this is with regard to the Canada Pension Plan, CPP, retroactive payments for late applications for the years 2011 and 2016. In terms of parts (a) and (b) of the question, the requested information is not captured in the system used to deliver the Canada Pension Plan.

    With regard to part (c), there have been four challenges to the retroactivity of CPP disability benefits. These cases involved claimants who had made a second application for disability benefits who were seeking benefits back to their first applications for benefits.

    There have been three challenges to the retroactivity of CPP disability benefits where the claimants stated that they were incapable of forming the intention to apply for benefits, and therefore their applications for benefits should be deemed to have been received earlier, which would provide them with further retroactivity.

    There have been two challenges to the retroactivity provisions respecting the disabled contributors child benefit, DCCB. Both of these applicants also sought relief under subsection 66(4) of the CPP, regarding administrative error and erroneous advice, in order to obtain the retroactivity that they were seeking.

    There have been seven cases that seek retroactivity relying on subsection 66(4) of the CPP. This gives a total of 16 cases.

    In terms of part (d), the department cannot confirm the total legal costs for the court cases that were brought against the government in order to gain monetary compensation past the 11-month maximum, as described in part (c).

    With regard to part (e), the requested information is not captured in the system used to deliver the Canada Pension Plan.

     With regard to all government funding provided through Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: (a) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds, have been cancelled since November 4, 2015; (b) what was the rationale provided for the cancellation of each item identified in (a); (c) what amount of funding had been dispensed to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (d) what amount of funding had been allocated to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (e) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (a) when they were originally proposed, including (i) the grade or score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of the programs as it was originally determined; (f) what are the details of any and all department performance reviews of each item identified in (a) once they were underway, including (i) annual reviews, (ii) quarterly reviews, (iii) reviews undertaken at the request of the Minister; (g) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds have been approved since November 4, 2015; (h) what consultations took place in relation to each item identified in (g) prior to their approval; (i) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (g), including (i) the grade and score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of these programs as it was originally determined; (j) what is the stated section of Budget 2016 under which each item identified in (g) fall, if any are applicable; and (k) what is the departmental mandate under which each of the items identified in (g) fall?

     Mr. Speaker, at the program level, no cancellations of funding have occurred since November 4, 2015. The department cannot identify possible cancellations in other areas.

     With regard to visa requirements for citizens of Bulgaria and Romania entering Canada, what are the details with respect to: (a) any formal visa exemption review that the department has undertaken; (b) each consultation undertaken with respect to lifting the visa requirements, including for each consultation (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the organizations and individuals consulted; (c) how the situation with respect to Bulgaria and Romania differs from the recent decision to provide a visa exemption for citizens of Mexico; and (d) the criteria applied for lifting the visa requirement for the Czech Republic and what, if any, differences are there between the situation with the Czech Republic and that of Bulgaria and Romania?

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the government is undertaking a comprehensive analysis with federal departments and agencies, analyzing relevant criteria set out in Canada’s visa policy framework. Canada launched visa dialogues with each of these countries in spring, 2016. The dialogues are bilateral processes to gather information related to pre-identified areas of concern or interest under Canada’s visa policy criteria. As a part of the dialogues, Canadian officials from IRCC, the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP; and Global Affairs Canada, GAC, conducted a technical visit to Romania in June 2016, and Bulgaria in July 2016, to assess both countries against Canada’s visa policy criteria.

    With regard to part (b), IRCC does not hold public consultations on matters of visa policy. Federal partners, namely GAC, Public Safety Canada, the CBSA, and the RCMP were consulted on the necessary elements of the technical visits conducted this summer, as well as the findings of the visit. As these discussions are a part of ongoing regular business, specific dates and locations cannot be provided.

    In response to part (c), in both cases, Canada has undertaken a comprehensive analysis to vigorously assess the criteria set out in Canada’s visa policy framework, and has engaged extensively with Mexican, Romanian, and Bulgarian officials. Canada is building on existing collaboration with Mexico to implement specific mitigation measures prior to the visa lift date and to support a sustainable visa lift. While the approach may not be identical, Canada is working collaboratively with Romania and Bulgaria on the visa issue as evidenced by the launch of the visa dialogues. Romania and Bulgaria remain important partners for Canada, and Canada maintains its commitment to work towards the shared goal of visa-free travel for citizens of all European Union member states.

    With regard to part (d), Canada’s visa policy criteria are applied universally. The criteria applied in the assessment of the Czech Republic’s readiness for a visa exemption were the same as those being currently applied to Romania and Bulgaria. Visa policy criteria cover a variety of aspects, including socio-economic conditions, migration trends, travel document integrity, border management, safety and security issues, human rights issues, and bilateral and multilateral issues.

    With respect to the different circumstances and findings of visa policy assessments of the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Romania, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that it may be injurious to the conduct of international affairs.

     With regard to consultations on possible electoral reform initiatives being undertaken by the Minister for Democratic Reform: (a) what consultations have been held as of June 1, 2016; (b) for each of the consultations in (a), who has the Minister or her officials consulted and what were the recommendations of each consultation; (c) what proportion of the groups or individuals consulted are (i) activists, (ii) academics, (iii) corporations, (iv) labour unions, (v) professional associations, (vi) Canadians with no official affiliation to a group advocating for electoral reform; (d) what steps have the Minister and her officials taken to receive a representative sample of public opinion on the matter of electoral reform; (e) what steps have the Minister or her officials taken to ensure a full and free discussion of electoral reform options; (f) have the consultations on electoral reform reflected the announcement by the government that 2015 would be the last election held under the first-past-the-post system, and if so, how; (g) if consultations on the current or alternate electoral systems have not yet been held, what steps does the Minister or her officials plan to take to ensure that the outcomes of future consultations are not prejudiced for or against any specific electoral system; (h) of the consultations in (a), which consultations have recommended maintaining the current electoral system of first-past-the-post; (i) of the consultations in (a), how many have recommended first-past-the-post, proportional representation (and variants), transferrable ballots (and variants), and other electoral systems, respectively; (j) has the Minister or her officials consulted other countries that have recently modified or considered modifying their electoral system regarding their experience; and (k) if the answer to (j) is in the affirmative, which countries were consulted, and for each consultation, what were the findings of the consultation?

    (Return tabled)

     With respect to Shared Services Canada and the independent review recently ordered by the President of the Treasury Board: (a) what criteria will be used to select the independent contractor or contractors performing the review; (b) which factors were assessed in estimating the cost of the review at $1.4 million; (c) what measures will be in place to ensure that the review is conducted on time and on budget; (d) should the review not be delivered on time and on budget, how does the Treasury Board plan to address this problem; (e) which factors were assessed in estimating the time that the review will take to execute; (f) what are the terms of reference for the review; (g) once the review is completed, when will the resulting report be made public; and (h) what security screening measures will be used to ensure the trustworthiness of the independent contractor or contractors selected for the review?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to the legal requirements that Ministers and Ministers’ staff avoid conflicts of interest, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and his staff: (a) how many times has the Minister’s Chief of Staff recused herself from decisions involving policy matters that directly affect egg farmers in Ontario or Canada; (b) for each instance in (a), what were the dates of such recusals; and (c) other than recusing herself from decisions involving policy matters directly affecting egg farmers in Ontario and Canada, how did the Minister’s Chief of Staff comply with legal requirements to avoid conflicts of interest?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to the implementation of the new Phoenix pay system, and its technical issues which have resulted in a disruption of pay to public sector employees: (a) how many employees have experienced a disruption of pay since the system was launched, in total, and broken down by pay cycle; (b) of the employees in (a), (i) how many of those affected had no pay processed, and how many had other payroll errors, (ii) what is their breakdown by department and by sex; (c) how many staff are employed at the pay centre; (d) how many calls have been received regarding pay disruptions since the system launched; (e) what length of time has it taken before pay issues are resolved, on average, and broken down by individual complaint; and (f) how much overtime has been incurred, broken down by hours worked and costs incurred per individual pay period, in order to address these issues?

    (Return tabled)

    With regard to the replacement of the universal child care benefit and the Canada child tax benefit with the new Canada child benefit in Budget 2016, what were the Minister of Finance’s considerations concerning families that are just under the cut off adjusted family net income amount of approximately $150 000, who will receive benefits, compared to those at, or slightly above, the $150 000 mark?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to government programs for youth, particularly those concerning substance abuse prevention, mental health and the National Anti-Drug Strategy (NADS): (a) under the NADS, how much was allocated to prevention each year over the past five years; (b) under the NADS, how much is allocated to prevention each year over the next three years; (c) under the NADS, how much was spent on substance abuse prevention among youth under 25 years of age each year over the past five years; (d) under the NADS, how much is allocated to substance abuse prevention among youth under 25 years of age each year over the next three years; (e) under Health Canada’s Substance Use and Abuse program, how much was spent on substance abuse prevention each year over the past five years, and how much is allocated each year over the next three years; (f) has the government prepared a youth education and awareness program in advance of the legalization of marijuana, and if so, what is its budget and how many government employees will work on this issue; (g) what was the value of the government’s annual grant to the Mental Health Commission of Canada over the past five years, and what will it be over the next three years; (h) what are the government programs concerning mental health among youth under 25 years of age, and for each of these programs, what are their annual budgets for this year and over the next three years; and (i) how much does the government plan to spend on programs concerning mental health among Aboriginal youth over the next three years?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to the Old Age Security Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement indexation: (a) what has the government done to develop a new measure for the cost of living faced by seniors with a Seniors Price Index; (b) how many government departments and agencies have been tasked with working on the Seniors Price Index; (c) how many people are working on the development of a Seniors Price Index, broken down by government department and agency; and (d) how many working hours have been devoted to the development of a Seniors Price Index, broken down by government department and agency?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for each of the fiscal years from 2011-2016, inclusively: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to all government funding provided through Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency: (a) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds, have been cancelled since November 4, 2015; (b) what was the rationale provided for the cancellation of each item identified in (a); (c) what amount of funding had been dispensed to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (d) what amount of funding had been allocated to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (e) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (a) when they were originally proposed, including (i) the grade or score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of the programs as it was originally determined; (f) what are the details of any and all department performance reviews of each item identified in (a) once they were underway, including (i) annual reviews, (ii) quarterly reviews, (iii) reviews undertaken at the request of the Minister; (g) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds have been approved since November 4, 2015; (h) what consultations took place in relation to each item identified in (g) prior to their approval; (i) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (g), including (i) the grade and score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of these programs as it was originally determined; (j) what is the stated section of Budget 2016 under which each item identified in (g) fall, if any are applicable; and (k) what is the departmental mandate under which each of the items identified in (g) fall?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to visa requirements for citizens of Mexico entering Canada, what are the details with respect to: (a) any formal visa exemption review that the department has undertaken; (b) all evidence used to justify a lifting of the current visa; (c) all plans with respect to a possible influx of asylum claimants from Mexico; (d) consultations that were undertaken with respect to lifting the visa, including for each consultation (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the organization and individuals consulted; (e) all assurances given by the Government of Mexico with respect to this decision; and (f) Mexican citizen assylum claimant levels that would trigger a re-imposition of a visa?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to social infrastructure funding and other investments to address housing and homelessness: (a) how much has been allocated per fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2019-2020, overall and broken down by province or territory for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (b) to date, what amounts have actually been spent or are the subject of a funding agreement for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2019-2020, overall and broken down by province or territory for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (c) on what dates does funding come into effect and terminate, broken down by province or territory, for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (d) what is the funding mechanism for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (e) how much funding has been invested in or allocated to existing social housing under long-term arrangements per fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2029-2030 (i) in Canada, (ii) by province, (iii) by social housing project; (f) what is the name of each social housing project and the expiry date of its long-term agreement; (g) since 1995, how many long-term arrangements have expired (i) per year, (ii) per province or territory; (h) how many long-term arrangements are scheduled to expire by 2030 (i) per year, (ii) per province or territory; and (i) what steps is the government taking or does it plan to take over the next 12 months to renew funding for the long-term operating agreements upon which social and cooperative housing organizations across Canada depend, given the impending expiry of funding agreements established under section 56.1 of the former National Housing Act and section 95.1 of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, and agreements entered into by the federal government and the Quebec government pertaining to article 61 of Quebec’s National Housing Act?

    (Return tabled)

    The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

    The House resumed from October 26, consideration of the motion, as amended.

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

    The House resumed from October 27, consideration of the motion that Bill S-208, An Act respecting National Seal Products Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)