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. 169 Wednesday, May 3, 2017 2:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
Introduction of Government Bills |
|
Introduction of Private Members' Bills |
|
Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings) |
|
| May 2, 2017 — Mr. Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Leamington) — That the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, April 10, 2017, be concurred in. |
|
|
| May 2, 2017 — Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) — That the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Monday, April 10, 2017, be concurred in. |
|
|
| May 2, 2017 — Mr. Kent (Thornhill) — That the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Monday, April 10, 2017, be concurred in. |
Questions |
|
| Q-10172 — May 2, 2017 — Mr. Aubin (Trois-Rivières) — With regard to the $3.3 million investment, announced in Budget 2016, to fund an in-depth assessment of VIA Rail’s high-frequency rail proposal and other Transport Canada studies and assessments: (a) how much of the $3.3 million has been invested to date, broken down by (i) feasibility study, (ii) contractor; (b) has the in-depth assessment been finalized and, if so, will a full version of the assessment and its conclusions be available on Transport Canada’s website; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, what is the time frame for finalizing the assessment and posting the full version and conclusions on Transport Canada’s website; (d) how many employees are assigned to the assessment; (e) has VIA Rail provided the federal government with studies on the high-frequency rail proposal; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, will Transport Canada post the full versions and conclusions of these studies on Transport Canada’s website; (g) on what date did Transport Canada begin receiving studies from VIA Rail; (h) what have been Transport Canada’s responses to the VIA Rail studies; (i) was CPCS Transcom Limited hired in this assessment process; (j) if the answer to i) is affirmative, will a full version and the conclusions of the study by CPCS Transcom Limited be posted on Transport Canada’s website; (k) how much of the $3.3 million funded the assessment conducted by CPCS Transcom Limited; (l) what are Transport Canada’s responses to CPCS Transcom Limited’s conclusions; (m) on what date did Transport Canada begin receiving conclusions from the assessment conducted by CPCS Transcom Limited; and (n) how many other studies and assessments have been conducted to date in this area by Transport Canada and, where applicable, (i) what are the conclusions of each of these studies, (ii) will the full versions and conclusions of these studies be posted on Transport Canada’s website, (iii) what was the cost of each of these studies, (iv) what are Transport Canada’s responses to each of these studies, (v) on what dates did Transport Canada read these studies? |
| Q-10182 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Harder (Lethbridge) — With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Lethbridge, between April 1, 2016, and April 1, 2017: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they applied for funding under, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Lethbridge that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Lethbridge by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (i.e. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved? |
| Q-10192 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Harder (Lethbridge) — With regard to total funding spent by the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the last five fiscal years: (a) what percentage has been spent inside the National Capital Region versus outside the National Capital Region, including staff costs, operating costs, contract work and transfers to individuals, tribal governments or organizations, broken down by year; (b) what is the total amount spent inside the National Capital Region versus outside the national capital region, including staff costs, operating costs, contract work and transfers to individuals or organizations, broken down by year; (c) what is the percentage of direct transfers to individuals, tribal government, or organizations as opposed to the total amount spent by the Department, broken down by year; (d) what is the total amount of direct transfers to individuals, tribal government, or organizations, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program, (iii) sub-program, (iv) recipient organization, (v) funding amount, (vi) date funds were transferred; and (e) what is the total amount spent by the Department, broken down by year? |
| Q-10202 — May 2, 2017 — Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) — With regard to the Tribute to Liberty’s Memorial to the Victims of Communism: (a) what are the current expected start and completion dates for construction of the Memorial; (b) what is the current status of the Memorial; (c) why was the location of the Memorial changed from in front of the Supreme Court building to the Garden of Provinces and Territories; (d) why was total funding and the government's contribution to the Memorial cut; and (e) why has construction on the Stanley Cup Monument and on the National Holocaust Monument, both six years between the proposal and project's projected completion, been prioritized and fast-tracked while the Memorial to the Victims of Communism has been delayed and is facing a longer timeline? |
| Q-10212 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River) — With regard to the investment made by the government in BC Ferries: (a) what grants has BC Ferries received since it became eligible; (b) what requests for grants were made by stakeholders since they became eligible; (c) how many times has the Prime Minister met with the Ferry Stakeholders and the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to discuss BC Ferries; (d) how many times has the Minister of Transport met with the Ferry Stakeholders and the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to discuss BC Ferries; (e) how many times has the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities met with the Ferry Stakeholders and the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to discuss BC Ferries; (f) what where the results of the meetings in (c), (d), and (e); (g) is the government committed to ensuring same level of ferry service across Canada; (h) has the government studied problems that are hindering interprovincial trade with Coastal Dependent Communities in British Columbia; and (i) has BC Ferries ever been a determinant in hindering interprovincial trade and, if so, (i) what solutions were proposed, (ii) what solutions have been implemented since then? |
| Q-10222 — May 2, 2017 — Mr. Carrie (Oshawa) — With regard to the announcement made by the Government House Leader (GHL) on the evening of April 30, 2017, concerning a government motion proposing to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons: (a) was the decision, which was the subject of the announcement, taken by the Cabinet or a committee of the Cabinet; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, by whom was the decision made, on behalf of the government; (c) in coming to the decision announced, was anyone consulted in this respect; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the relevant names, titles, dates and associated file numbers concerning those consultations; (e) what is the government’s current position concerning the contents of the GHL March 10, 2017, discussion paper; (f) was the GHL letter to the Opposition House Leaders shared with journalists prior to being sent to her colleagues; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, why was the letter shared; (h) with respect to the “specific commitments” in the 2015 Liberal Party platform, referred to by the GHL, what are the so-called specifics; and (i) why were no details concerning, or drafts of, the government’s intended motion provided by the GHL? |
| Q-10232 — May 2, 2017 — Mr. Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou) — With regard to the approval of the purchase of Super Hornets without a tender, and to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Service and Procurement in the House on April 6, 2017, that "I will let the Department of National Defence provide him with details regarding this capability gap": what are the details of any information that would have led to this statement, including those relating specifically to the existence of a "capability gap"? |
| Q-10242 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to the processing of family members under the One-Year Window of Opportunity Provisions for refugees and protected persons, from 2005 to the present time: (a) how many applications have been submitted, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin; (b) how many applications were for spouses, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin; (c) how many applications were for dependents, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) number of dependents per application; (d) what is the processing queue for this program, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin for application; (e) how many applications in the processing queue are for dependents, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) number of dependents per application; (f) how many of the applications in the queue are for spouses, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin; (g) what is the average processing time for applications under this program, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) dependent application specific, (iv) spousal application specific; (h) what is the median processing time, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) dependent application specific, (iv) spousal application specific; and (i) how many applicants have had to do more than one medical exam as a result of the 12 month expiry of the medical examination, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) dependent application specific, (iv) spousal application specific, (v) number of medical exams conducted? |
| Q-10252 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), since the changes made to the refugee determination system in 2012: (a) how many cases have come before the IRB, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the refugee protection division (RPD), (iv) through the refugee appeal division (RAP); (b) of the cases heard at the IRB, how many were ‘legacy cases’, broken down (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (c) what was the average length of delay for a legacy case to be heard, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (d) what is the total funding provided to the IRB by the government, broken down (i) year, (ii) purpose; (e) how much internal funding has been shifted within the IRB to process ‘legacy cases’, broken down (i) year, (ii) area funding was shifted from; (f) how many ‘legacy cases’ have reached final decisions at the IRB, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (g) of the remaining ‘legacy cases’, what average length of time the case has been before the IRB, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (h) does the government have a plan in place to eliminate the backlog of ‘legacy cases’; (i) in what year is it expected that ‘legacy cases’ will be eliminated; (j) how many instances have there been of ‘legacy cases’ having hearings cancelled, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP, (v) rationale for cancellation; (k) what is the average length of time between a ‘legacy case’ hearing cancellation and the hearing being rescheduled, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) through the RPD, (iv) through the RAP; (l) how many instances have there been of ‘legacy case’ hearings being rescheduled multiple times, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) number of hearing cancellations; (m) how many citizenship applications have been suspended due to the cessation of refugee protection provision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant, (iii) duration of period of suspension; (n) how many citizenship applications are being prosecuted due to the cessation of refugee protection provisions, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant; (o) since 2009 how many cessation cases have been initiated pursuant to IRPA s. 108(2) at the Immigration and Refugee Board in total, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of citizenship of person concerned; (p) how many cessation cases are being investigated in total, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin of applicant; (q) what percentage of citizenship application suspensions are triggered by or related to cessation issues, broken down (i) year, (ii) country of citizenship of origin of applicant; (r) what is the average length of time it takes for a cessation case pursuant to IRPA s. 108(2) from its initiation by the Minister of IRCC, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of citizenship of person concerned, (iii) method of determination; (s) what is the number of currently unresolved cessation cases pursuant to IRPA s. 108(2) that are pending before the RPD, broken down by year of initiation by the Minister of IRCC; and (t) what is the average time that currently unresolved cessation cases pursuant to IRPA s. 108(2) that are pending before the RPD, broken down by year of initiation by the Minister of IRCC? |
| Q-10262 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to interprovincial migration of refugees as it relates to resettlement funding: (a) what, if any, accounting is done by the government in anticipation of interprovincial migration when allocating resettlement funding; (b) what measures does the government take to monitor and assess interprovincial migration; (c) on an annual basis, from 2005 to 2016, what levels of interprovincial migration were measured, broken down by (i) province of departure, (ii) province of arrival, (iii) country of origin, (iv) immigration and refugee category; and (d) how much total funding for resettlement services has been provided by the government, broken down by (i) year, (ii) service type, (iii) organization, (iv) province? |
| Q-10272 — May 2, 2017 — Ms. Kwan (Vancouver East) — With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency and since 2009: (a) how many cessation cases in total are begin investigated but are not yet resolved, broken down by (i) year in which investigation was started, (ii) country of citizenship of person concerned; and (b) how many cessation cases have been investigated and resolved, broken down by (i) year in which investigation was started, (ii) country of citizenship of person concerned, (iii) outcome of investigation? |
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers |
|
Business of Supply |
|
| Opposition Motions |
| May 2, 2017 — Ms. Bergen (Portage—Lisgar) — That the House has lost confidence in the Minister of National Defence's ability to carry out his responsibilities on behalf of the Government since, on multiple occasions the Minister misrepresented his military service and provided misleading information to the House. |
|
|
| May 2, 2017 — Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman) — That the House has lost confidence in the Minister of National Defence's ability to carry out his responsibilities on behalf of the Government since, on multiple occasions the Minister misrepresented his military service and provided misleading information to the House. |
Government Business |
|
Private Members' Notices of Motions |
|
Private Members' Business |
| C-305 — March 20, 2017 — Mr. Arya (Nepean) — Consideration at report stage of Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), as reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with amendments. |
| Committee Report — presented on Monday, March 20, 2017, Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-172. |
| Report and third reading stages — limited to 2 sitting days, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2). |
| Motion for third reading — may be made in the same sitting, pursuant to Standing Order 98(2). |
|
|
|
| 2 Response requested within 45 days |
|