— Nos. 421-00716, 421-00727, 421-00728, 421-00729, 421-00730, 421-00731, 421-00732, 421-00733, 421-00734, 421-00735 and 421-00740 concerning unborn children. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-5-14;

— No. 421-00720 concerning international trade. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-70-03;

— Nos. 421-00722, 421-00736 and 421-00737 concerning the electoral system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-11-09;

— Nos. 421-00724, 421-00725, 421-00738 and 421-00739 concerning impaired driving. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-7-10;

— No. 421-00744 concerning foreign policy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-87-01.

— by Mr. Spengemann (Mississauga—Lakeshore), one concerning poverty (No. 421-00889);

— by Mr. Viersen (Peace River—Westlock), eleven concerning sexual and violent content in the media (Nos. 421-00890 to 421-00900);

— by Ms. Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot), one concerning poverty (No. 421-00901);

— by Mr. Serré (Nickel Belt), one concerning the electoral system (No. 421-00902);

— by Ms. Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton), one concerning health care services (No. 421-00903);

— by Mr. Choquette (Drummond), one concerning genetic engineering (No. 421-00904);

— by Mr. Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York), one concerning Canadian citizenship (No. 421-00905);

— by Mrs. Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville), one concerning the elderly (No. 421-00906) and one concerning sexual and violent content in the media (No. 421-00907).

Q-520 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and Assembly of First Nations v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal File No. T1340/7008: (a) what are the total legal costs incurred by the government in this matter since January 25, 2016; (b) of the 382 million dollars announced for Jordan’s Principle, (i) who was consulted, (ii) what was the process of consultation, (iii) what is the annual breakdown of this funding, (iv) what is the total breakdown of the allocation of these funds; (c) what is the date on which the budget investments in the child welfare system were initially developed; (d) with respect to adjustments to funding formulae regarding remoteness in the child welfare system, (i) will Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) develop a strategy that takes into account such things, (ii) if so, when will such a strategy will be implemented; (e) with respect to consultation during this legal process, (i) what is the list of the First Nations, First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons that INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, in response to the findings in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s January 26, 2016, decision, (ii) what is INAC’s consultation plan moving forward, (iii) what are the agendas for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, (iv) what are the summaries of discussions for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016; (f) with respect to the allocation of immediate relief funding in Ontario, what are the details of all correspondence between INAC and the Government of Ontario on this topic; (g) with respect to the definition of prevention services in Ontario that was raised in the ruling, (i) will INAC reimburse costs for travel to access physician-prescribed special needs services and assessments, special needs rehabilitative and support services and respite care, and support for families in crisis under the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians, (ii) what are the details of any requests INAC has received for reimbursement of costs for travel to access physician-prescribed special needs services and assessments, special needs rehabilitative and support services and respite care, and support for families in crisis in Ontario; (h) with respect to the infrastructure needs in Ontario that were identified by the ruling, (i) does INAC have an interim strategy to deal with infrastructure needs of FNCFS Agencies in Ontario outside of the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians, (ii) if INAC has such an interim strategy, what are the details of that strategy, (iii) if INAC does not have an interim strategy, has anything been done to develop such a strategy; (i) with respect to eligibility in Ontario, (i) will INAC address access to services for First Nations children in Ontario who are “entitled to be registered” under the Indian Act, (ii) if INAC will address such access to services, when will such access be addressed; (j) with respect to consultation on Jordan’s Principle, (i) what is the list of First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, in response to the findings in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s January 26, 2016, decision, along with INAC’s consultation plan moving forward, (ii) what were the agendas for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, (iii) what are the summaries of discussions for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016; and (k) with respect to the Canadian Incidence Study, (i) is funding being provided for the Aboriginal component of the Study, including whether that component of the Study will include data collection specific to remote and northern First Nations, (ii) if funding is being provided, when will the Study be in the field, (iii) what are the details of methodology used for data collection with regard to the Aboriginal component of the Study and with regard to remote and northern First Nations? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-520.

Q-521 — Mr. Poilievre (Carleton) — With regard to the government’s response to petition No. 388, addressed to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and published on the Office of the Auditor General's website, specifically in response to question three, wherein the government states it would preferably use the Central Experimental Farm for two future-planned studies: (a) what is the objective of each study; (b) based on research conducted by the government, is it possible to determine if each study be concluded by the end of 2022; (c) which characteristics of this specific plot of the Central Experimental Farm are required for these studies, broken down by type; (d) has the government considered whether these studies can be completed on another plot of the Central Experimental Farm, and if so, what was its conclusion; (e) what similar lands or facilities exist that could accommodate these studies; (f) to-date what costs have been incurred in preparing these studies; and (g) has the cost of cancelling these studies been considered, and if so, what would they be? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-521.

Q-523 — Mr. Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound) — With regard to moving expenses for individuals working on a contract basis, broken down by government department and agency, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many individuals working on a contract basis have had their moving or temporary accommodation expenses paid for by the government; (b) how much was paid, broken down by expense type; (c) how many individuals working on a contract basis for a Minister's office have had their moving or temporary accommodation expenses paid for by the government; and (d) for each case referred to in (c), (i) how much was paid, (ii) what is the specific breakdown of expenses paid? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-523.

Q-525 — Mr. Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) — With regard to cyber attacks, broken down by month, and by department, agency, and crown corporation, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many cyber attacks have occurred, either against a department, agency or crown corporation or on one of their servers or networks; (b) how many of the attacks referred to in (a) resulted in government information being stolen; (c) how many of the attacks referred to in (b) resulted in classified government information being stolen; (d) how many of the attacks referred to in (a) resulted in individuals' personal information being stolen; (e) for each of the attacks referred to in (d), how many individuals' personal information were stolen; (f) were the individuals from whom information was stolen informed of the theft, and, if so, how were they informed; and (g) for each case where individuals' information was stolen, was the Privacy Commissioner notified? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-525.

Q-526 — Mr. Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) — With regard to official government social media accounts, including ministerial accounts, broken down by department and agency, and broken down by social media account: (a) what social media platforms does the government currently use; (b) what is each account's name, handle, or other identifier, broken down by platform; and (c) which accounts' contents are managed by (i) departmental officials, (ii) ministerial exempt staff, (iii) both? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-526.

Q-527 — Mr. Eglinski (Yellowhead) — With regard to government employees and their security clearance, broken down by government department and agency, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many employees have had their security clearance cancelled or revoked, excluding retiring employees or term employees whose term ended; (b) how many of the employees in (a) were terminated after having their security clearance cancelled or revoked; (c) what is the breakdown of reasons or rationale as to why employees had their security clearance cancelled or revoked; and (d) for each reason or rationale, how many employees had their security clearance cancelled or revoked? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-527.

Q-528 — Mr. Eglinski (Yellowhead) — With regard to contracts granted by any government department or agency to the law firm Cox & Palmer or to the marketing firm m5 (or group m5) since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the vendors' names; (b) what are the contracts' reference and file numbers; (c) what are the dates of the contracts; (d) what are the descriptions of the services provided; (e) what are the delivery dates; (f) what are the original contracts' values; and (g) what are the final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-528.

Q-529 — Mr. Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent) — With regard to contracts granted by the Privy Council, since November 4, 2015, to Delivery Associates Limited, its principals, or its partners: (a) what are the vendors' names; (b) what are the contracts' reference and file numbers; (c) what are the dates of the contracts; (d) what are the descriptions of the services provided; (e) what are the delivery dates; (f) what are the original contracts' values; (g) what are the final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values; and (h) what are the details of the information, recommendations, or advice provided to the government as a result of such contracts? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-529.

“Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses with a view to hearing from witnesses in relation to the impact of the Bill on freedom of expression.”.

— by Ms. Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) — Orders in Council approving certain appointments made by the Governor General in Council, pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), as follows:

— P.C. 2016-921. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-2-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food)

— P.C. 2016-889 and P.C. 2016-944. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-3-10. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage)

— P.C. 2016-920 and P.C. 2016-925. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-9-06. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on Finance)

— P.C. 2016-918 and P.C. 2016-923. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-4-09. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates)

— P.C. 2016-917. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-18-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on Health)

— P.C. 2016-924. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-22-06. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology)

— P.C. 2016-919. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-28-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade)

— P.C. 2016-890. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-17-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence)

— P.C. 2016-880, P.C. 2016-881, P.C. 2016-882 and P.C. 2016-883. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-29-04. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)

— P.C. 2016-886, P.C. 2016-887, P.C. 2016-888 and P.C. 2016-922. — Sessional Paper No. 8540-421-30-05. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security)

— by Ms. Hutchings (Long Range Mountains), one concerning aboriginal affairs (No. 421-00908);

— by Mr. Viersen (Peace River—Westlock), one concerning assisted suicide (No. 421-00909);

— by Mr. Choquette (Drummond), one concerning the tax system (No. 421-00910) and one concerning pay equity (No. 421-00911).