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. 112 Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
| November 21, 2016 — The President of the Treasury Board — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act and other Acts”. |
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
Questions |
|
| Q-6162 — November 21, 2016 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the budget of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, broken down by program and sub-program area: (a) from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017, what was the budget amount allocated, divided by base spending and program spending; (b) from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017, what was the budget amount actually spent, divided by base spending and program spending; (c) from 2016-2017 to 2020-2021, what is the amount that is projected to be allocated, divided by base spending and program spending; and (d) what are the amounts in (a), (b) and (c) that will be taken from the lump-sum dollar figure that is set out under the two per cent cap? |
| Q-6172 — November 21, 2016 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Independent Assessment Process (IAP): (a) how much of the Common Experience Payment (CEP) fund was paid to survivors and how much was paid to others through education credits; (b) what is the total amount paid to survivors under the IAP to date; (c) what is the total amount paid to survivors’ lawyers under the IAP to date; (d) what is the total amount that was paid to survivors’ lawyers under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) separately from claims under the IAP process; (e) what has been the total amount spent for the IAP administration, including payments to Justice Canada lawyers, arbitrators and other contractors; (f) what was the total amount spent by Justice Canada in defending residential school civil action claims and under the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, before the IRSSA; (g) what has been the total amount spent to date by Health Canada for health supports under the IRSSA; (h) what has been the total amount spent to date by Library and Archives Canada in relation to residential school claims, including under (i) civil court cases, (ii) the ADR process, (iii) the IRSSA; (i) what is the government’s best approximation of the amount spent by Canadian taxpayers for all aspects of the IRSSA; (j) what is the government’s best approximation of the amount spent by Canadian taxpayers for all aspects of residential schools, including all costs associated with defending such claims and operating the ADR process before the IRSSA took effect; (k) what is the total amount that each church was required to pay according to the terms of the IRSSA; (l) what is the total amount that each church agreed to pay according to the terms of its liability-sharing agreement with Canada before the IRSSA, in particular, (i) Anglican agreements, (ii) Presbyterian agreements, (iii) agreements with the United Church, (iv) agreements with the Catholic church and orders; (m) what is the total amount that the churches each paid directly to Canada to help pay the costs in (l), broken down by denomination; (n) what are the details of the agreement between Justice Canada and the TRC detailing exactly which documents the Department of Justice agreed in 2015 to provide to the TRC or the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation; (o) how many separate documents are in the IAP system; (p) how many IAP compensation claims were denied on the basis that (i) Canada was not responsible for the residential school at the time of the incident, (ii) the residential school child was abused “off premises”, (iii) the claimant was an “employee”, (iv) the touching was not done for a sexual purpose, (v) the school had ceased being a residential school, or that Canada was not jointly responsible for the residential school, or that the school in question was not a “residential” school; (q) what number and percentage of IAP claims fell into the different categories of (i) acts proven that are set out in Schedule D of the IRSSA, (ii) harm that are part of the IAP process and listed in Schedule D of the IRSSA; (r) what was the average IAP payment within each category of (i) acts proven, (ii) level of harm; (s) what number and percentage of IAP claims were made by (i) male claimants, (ii) female claimants; (t) what number and percentage of IAP claims were attributable to (i) each Indian Residential School, (ii) each of the churches that administered residential schools, broken down by denomination; (u) what number and percentage of IAP claims occurred (i) from age 0 to 18, broken down by age, (ii) from 1800 to 1990, broken down by year; (v) what number and percentage of IAP claims were (i) student-on-student abuse, (ii) staff-on-student abuse; (w) how many unique individuals were alleged to have committed abuse; (x) what was the number of IAP claims alleged against each of the alleged perpetrators; (y) what number and percentage of IAP claims were for (i) physical abuse only, (ii) both physical and sexual abuse, (iii) sexual abuse only; (z) what categories of negative impacts were reported in IAP claims and what percentage of IAP claims reported each of those categories, including (i) addiction, (ii) imprisonment, (iii) incomplete education, (iv) damages to loss of earnings, (v) apprehension of children by child welfare authorities; (aa) what amount did the IAP pay to lawyers representing IAP claimants, including (i) through the IAP program, (ii) through the ADR program, (iii) within the Settlement Agreement itself; (bb) how many claims resulted in legal fee reviews and how many of the legal fee reviews resulted in fees being reduced; (cc) how many lawyers had their fees reduced on ten or more occasions; (dd) what are the names of the lawyers who had their fees reduced; (ee) how many claimants were financially abused or negligently treated by their own IAP lawyers; (ff) is the IAP planning to publish the results of its investigations, findings and directives on claims resulting in legal reviews; (gg) is the IAP planning to publish a complete list of court and law society rulings on claims resulting in legal reviews; (hh) how many claimants died before their IAP decision was made or before their compensation was received; and (ii) how many different individuals, including (i) Government of Canada staff, (ii) IAP staff and contractors, (iii) survivors’ lawyers, had access to (i) the IAP decisions database, (ii) the master persons of interest list, (iii) Canada’s admissions of knowledge of student-on-student abuse, (iv) Canada’s school narratives? |
| Q-6182 — November 21, 2016 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to policing and surveillance activities related to journalists and Indigenous activists since October 31 2015: (a) which security agencies or other government bodies have been involved in tracking Indigenous protest activities relating to (i) Idle No More, (ii) the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or other Aboriginal public order events, (iii) the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, (iv) the Northern Gateway Pipeline, (v) the Energy East and Eastern Mainline Projects, (vi) the Site C dam, (vii) the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project, (viii) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, (ix) other industrial or resource development projects; (b) how many Indigenous individuals have been identified by security agencies as potential threats to public safety or security, broken down by agency and province; (c) which indigenous organizations, and activist groups have been the subject of monitoring by Canadian security services, broken down by agency and province; (d) how many events involving Indigenous activists were noted in Government Operations Centre situation reports, broken down by province and month; (e) have any Canadian government agencies including Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) been involved in tracking Canadians travelling to Standing Rock Indian Reservation (North and South Dakota, United States of America); (f) has there been any request by the Canadian government or any of its agencies to the United States government or any of its agencies to share information on the tracking of Canadians citizens engaging in demonstrations at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation; (g) what are the titles and dates of any inter-departmental or inter-agency reports related to indigenous protest activities; (h) how many times have government agencies shared information on indigenous protest activities with private sector companies, and for each instance, which companies received such information, and on what dates; (i) how many meetings have taken place between representatives of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project and (i) RCMP personnel, (ii) CSIS personnel; and (j) what are the answers for (a) through (i) for journalists, instead of for Indigenous individuals or organizations, and only if applicable? |
| Q-6192 — November 21, 2016 — Ms. Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh) — With regard to assistance provided by the government to various offices and agencies in Honduras and diplomatic relations between Canada and Honduras: (a) what is the nature of the financial, technical, advisory or other assistance that Canada is providing to the Honduran General Attorney’s office; (b) regarding the assistance in (a), (i) is Canada providing specific support to the Special Prosecutor of Crimes Against Life (Fiscalía de Crímenes Contra la Vida) or other offices within the Honduran General Attorney’s office and, if so, which ones, (ii) which Canadian government department developed the agreement to provide this assistance, (iii) which Canadian government department is the source of funding or other support for this assistance, (iv) have other organizations or agencies been hired to deliver this assistance and, if so, who are they, (v) what are the terms of reference for Canada’s support to the Honduran General Attorney’s office and related agencies, (vi) what objectives does such assistance seek to meet, (vii) what is the time frame for the assistance, (viii) what is the expected final product or outcomes of this project, (ix) how will these outcomes be made available to the public in Honduras and Canada during or following completion of this initiative; (c) what is the nature of the financial, technical, advisory or other assistance that Canada is providing to the Technical Criminal Investigative Agency (ATIC in Spanish) in Honduras; (d) regarding the assistance in (c), (i) which Canadian government department developed the agreement to provide this assistance, (ii) which Canadian government department is the source of funding or other support for this assistance, (iii) have other organizations or agencies been hired to deliver this assistance and, if so, who are they, (iv) what are the terms of reference for Canada’s support to ATIC, (v) what objectives does such assistance seek to meet, (vi) what is the time frame for the assistance, (vii) what is the expected final product or outcomes of this project, (viii) are there any members of ATIC who have personally received financial or technical support stemming from Canadian support participating in the investigation into the murder of Berta Cáceres and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro Soto; (e) what is the nature of the financial, technical, advisory or other assistance that Canada is providing to (i) judges with national jurisdiction, (ii) the Inter-Agency Security Task Force (FUSINA in Spanish), (iii) the Honduran National Police Investigative Division (DPI in Spanish), (iv) the Military Police for Public Order (PMOP in Spanish), (v) the Intelligence Troop and Special Security Response Groups (TIGRES), (vi) the Strategic Information Collection Collation Analysis and Archiving System (SERCAA in Spanish), (vii) other security agents in Honduras; (f) regarding the assistance in (e), (i) what are the terms of reference for this support, (ii) does the government have information on the resolution or mandate creating FUSINA that was passed by the National Defense and Security Council (Consejo Nacional de Defensa y Seguridad) in 2014 and, if so, what are the details of that information, (iii) have other organizations or agencies been hired to deliver this assistance and, if so, who are they, (iv) what objectives does such assistance seek to meet, (v) what is the time frame for the assistance, (vi) what is the expected final product or outcomes of this project, (vii) are there any members of these agencies who have personally received financial or technical support stemming from Canadian support participating in the investigation into the murder of Berta Cáceres and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro Soto; (g) has Canada specifically urged Honduran officials to allow the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to oversee an independent, international investigation into the murder of Berta Cáceres and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro Soto; (h) has Canada specifically urged Honduran officials to revoke the permits for the Agua Zarca project; and (i) has Canada specifically urged Honduran officials to demilitarize Lenca territory? |
| Q-6202 — November 21, 2016 — Mr. Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan) — With regard to the government's decision to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030, between January 1, 2016 and November 20, 2016: (a) what are the dates, times and locations of any consultations the Minister of Environment and Climate Change or any member of her exempt staff had with the Province of Saskatchewan related to this decision; (b) what are the dates, times, and locations of any meetings the Minister or any member of her exempt staff had with the Pembina Institute or any member of its staff or board of directors where coal-fired electricity was discussed? |
| Q-6212 — November 21, 2016 — Ms. Ramsey (Essex) — With regard to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA): (a) what are the government’s estimates of the financial impacts on (i) prescription drug costs, (ii) provincial and territorial health care systems, (iii) the fisheries and fish processing industries, (iv) the dairy industry, (v) all other industries in Canada that will be affected by CETA, according to sectoral analyses or assessments of costs and benefits completed by the government; (b) has the government received or solicited any third party analysis on the potential impacts of CETA on any sector in Canada; (c) what is the exhaustive list of Canadian public services, at municipal, provincial, territorial and federal levels of government, to which investors would have market access, including (i) transportation infrastructure, including maritime transport, (ii) telecommunications, (iii) postal services, (iv) waste management, including wastewater, solid waste and recycling, (v) water supply networks, (vi) public transportation, (vii) electricity, (viii) education, (ix) emergency services, (x) environmental protection, (xi) health care and associated services, (xii) military, (xiii) public banking, (xiv) public broadcasting, (xv) public libraries, (xvi) public security, (xvii) public housing, (xviii) social welfare; (d) above the threshold of 200 000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) for goods and services, 400 000 SDRs for procurement by utilities entities, and 5 million SDRs for construction services, will minimum local content policies or practices in government procurement be permitted at the municipal, provincial, territorial or federal level; (e) has the government completed a study or assessment of the economic and employment effects that procurement provisions will or may have on the ability of municipalities and provinces to tender contracts locally and, if so, what were the results of this study or assessment; (f) has the government undertaken any consultation with Canadians on CETA and, if so, (i) on what dates, (ii) in which cities, (iii) with whom did the government consult; (g) does the government plan on holding consultations with Canadians, independently of the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, before CETA is ratified; (h) how many (i) labour, (ii) environmental, (iii) indigenous groups or individuals has the government consulted with on the potential costs, benefits and other impacts of CETA, and (i) what were the names of these groups or individuals, (ii) on what date and in which cities did the government consult with these individuals or groups, (iii) what were the results of these consultations; (i) has the government undertaken a study of the impact of having increased entrance of temporary workers and, if so, which sectors or industries has the government considered, and what are the results of these studies; (j) does the government intend to table in the House of Commons all sectoral assessments of financial and other costs and benefits, completed by Global Affairs Canada and other government departments, of the impact of CETA on Canadian industries; (k) does the government intend to table an explanatory memorandum related to CETA, as required by the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament, (i) if so, on what date, (ii) if not, why; (l) did the ministers of Foreign Affairs and of International Trade seek an exemption to the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament from the Prime Minister with regard to CETA and, if so, (i) on what date was the request made, (ii) in what manner, (iii) what was the rationale for the exception; (m) does the government intend to complete the final environmental assessment of CETA as required by the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposal, (i) if so, on what date, (ii) if not, why? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
| M-97 — November 21, 2016 — Ms. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should appoint a Children's Commissioner to: (a) promote and protect the rights of children; (b) ensure that the best interest of the child are factored into government decision-making; and (c) serve as a federal ombudsperson for children's concerns. |
Private Members' Business |
| C-305 — September 27, 2016 — Mr. Arya (Nepean) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|