House Publications

    The House resumed from March 8 consideration of the motion.

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

     With regard to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities’ mandate letter and the government’s announcement on November 18, 2015, that municipal and provincial governments will no longer have to apply for P3 screening for infrastructure projects worth greater than $100 million: (a) how many projects were in line for P3 funding on the day the announcement was made; (b) as a result of this announcement, how many of the projects in (a) will be on hold and delayed for funding; (c) with respect to the projects in (b), what dollar amount that would have been spent by the private sector will now have to be paid for by the government, broken down by province; and (d) before this decision was made and the announcement took place, (i) which consultations were held, (ii) what data was used?

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of January 21, 2016, the P3 screen, which is mandatory under the new Building Canada Fund, was still in place for infrastructure projects of $100 million or more in total eligible costs. As of January 21, 2016, 40 projects submitted under the new Building Canada Fund have had total eligible costs of $100 million or more, the trigger for the P3 screen. Of these, two projects were determined by PPP Canada as a result of the P3 screen to show potential for delivery as a P3.

    With regard to (b), the Government of Canada has not held or delayed any of the projects mentioned in part (a).

    With regard to (c), the Government of Canada has not held or delayed any of the projects mentioned in (b); therefore, no funding was displaced.

    With regard to (d), the Government of Canada is committed to removing the P3 screen, as is outlined in the mandate letter for the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. In the process of making this decision, we consulted with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, who asked us in their 2016 pre-budget submission to “retire the cumbersome [P3 Screening] process, permitting municipalities to determine the best procurement model for local realities.”

    The criteria used to make this decision were as follows: the service standard for PPP Canada to complete the initial P3 screen—that is, to review the proponent's completed P3 questionnaire and provide a written opinion to INFC with respect to P3 potential--is two weeks. Projects that are screened in at this stage, meaning those projects that show potential for P3, are then required to undertake a procurement options analysis, which can take up to 18 months to complete.

     With regard to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities’ mandate letter and its explicit focus on new spending in green infrastructure and social infrastructure: (a) how much funding has been allocated to green infrastructure; (b) how much funding has been allocated to social infrastructure; (c) which projects will receive funding under each respective infrastructure pillar, broken down by province; and (d) what data was used to determine which projects will receive funding and in what priority?

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada has committed to invest an additional $20 billion in green infrastructure over the next 10 years.

    With regard to (b), the Government of Canada has committed to invest an additional $20 billion in social infrastructure over the next 10 years.

    With regard to (c), the Government of Canada is currently developing the program parameters for the new infrastructure programs that will support social and green infrastructure. The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is working with parliamentarians as well as provinces, territories, and municipalities to ensure that these investments will improve the quality of life for Canadians.

    With regard to (d), as we make decisions regarding any new investments, the Government of Canada will be working with our partners to ensure that our policies reflect their needs and priorities. The Government of Canada is committed to making more information available once it is ready.

     With regard to the government’s plan to withdraw Canada’s CF-18 jets from the United States led international coalition’s air combat mission against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and to expand Canada’s training mission in the region: (a) what consultations were conducted with members of the coalition and local authorities; (b) what is the government’s proposed timeline to withdraw the fighter jets; (c) when does the government expect to send additional trainers; (d) how many additional trainers will be deployed and where will they be stationed; (e) what types of training will Canadian troops carry out; (f) what type of force protection will be in place for the Canadian trainers; (g) has any analysis been done to ensure that there is no capability gap in Canada’s contribution to the fight against ISIS; and (h) what affect will this have on the amount of funds allocated for Operation IMPACT?

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada’s decision to end the conduct of airstrikes has been communicated to Canada’s coalition partners and the Governments of Iraq and Kuwait. Moreover, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, DND/CAF, advised United States Central Command, CENTCOM, officials of the possible plan to withdraw the CF-18 jets and to expand the training mission.

    With regard to (b), the CAF ceased airstrike operations as part of Operation Impact on February 15, 2016. As a result, the six CF-18 Hornets, along with associated aircrew and support personnel, will be redeployed in a phased approach consistent with regular processes and required diplomatic engagement.

    With regard to (c), the deployment of additional personnel will commence in the near future, pending host nation and coalition discussions.

    With regard to (d), the total number of personnel deployed under Operation Impact will be increased up to 830. In general terms, Canada will triple the size of its train, advise, assist, and equip mission in northern Iraq. Canada will also offer to provide the Government of Iraq with a team of strategic advisers to the Ministries of Defence and the Interior. Finally, Canada is prepared to provide CAF personnel to enhance capacity-building efforts with security forces in Jordan and Lebanon.

    With regard to (e), the Canadian Armed Forces members deployed will conduct general military training to improve Iraqi security forces skills and proficiency. This includes the deployment of CAF medical personnel to provide training to Iraqi security forces in the conduct of casualty management in a battlefield context, as well as to provide medical support to CAF personnel and partners; the provision of equipment, such as small arms, ammunition, and optics, to assist in the training of the Iraqi security forces; and the examination of ways to enhance in-theatre tactical transport.

    In addition to this, the CAF will seek opportunities to augment the current capacity-building program for the Jordanian Armed Forces and create a new capacity-building program for the Lebanese Armed Forces.

    With regard to (f), commanders at all levels are responsible and accountable for the protection of their personnel and assets. Canadian trainers will be provided force protection commensurate with the assessed level of risk at the training sites.

    With regard to (g), detailed staff planning analysis has been carried out through several layers of headquarters, in consultation with coalition allies and in reference to the coalition statement of requirements, to ensure that no military capability gap exists.

    With regard to (h), as part of the overall $1.6-billion strategy over the next three years, the government will allocate approximately $305 million towards Operation Impact in its expanded role.

     With regard to the cases of Sergei Magnitsky and Borys Nemtsov, what government action has been taken to: (a) identify a list of foreign nationals as defined by the motion introduced by the then Member for Mount Royal and unanimously passed by the House of Commons on March 25, 2015; (b) explore appropriate sanctions as defined in the aforementioned motion; (c) establish a list of each person the government determines (i) to be responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (ii) to have participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (iii) to have financially benefited from the detention abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (iv) was involved in the criminal conspiracy uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky; and (d) identify any individual that is responsible for extra-judicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals who (i) sought to expose illegal activity carried out by officials of the Russian Federation, (ii) sought to obtain, exercise, defend or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections in Russia, (iii) acted as an agent of or on behalf of a person in a matter relating to an activity described in (ii) or (iii)?

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), and (c), Global Affairs Canada has reviewed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, the Magnitsky Act, passed by the United States Senate on December 14, 2012. Canada examined the criteria used to develop rationales for Magnitsky-related designations. Canada closely follows developments related to the Magnitsky Act, including tracking the list of individuals subject to U.S. Magnitsky-related designations. Canada also monitors Magnitsky-related actions taken by other like-minded partners, such as the European Parliament, the British House of Commons, the Dutch Parliament, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or OSCE, and others. Canada closely follows the human rights situation in Russia and will continue to defend and promote human rights issues, including through multilateral channels such as the United Nations Human Rights Council and the OSCE.

    With regard to (d), at this time the Special Economic Measures Act does not allow Canada to place sanctions on Russian individuals or entities unless it is for the purpose of implementing a decision, resolution, or recommendation of an international organization of states or association of states of which Canada is a member that calls on its members to take economic measures against a foreign state, or where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a grave breach of international peace and security has occurred that has resulted in, or is likely to result in, a serious international crisis.

     With regard to Correctional Services Canada’s (CSC) Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI): (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all evaluations and analyses of efficacy of IPPI which were proposed, conducted, and concluded between December 2009 and December 2015 that were (i) conducted by CSC itself, (ii) conducted by any other party; (b) for each item listed in (a), (i) when was it carried out, (ii) who carried it out, (iii) what was the rationale for carrying it out; (c) for each item listed in (a), what were the conclusions of the evaluation or analysis, and the justification for these conclusions, including (i) whether or not IPPI remained consistent with CSC, police service and government-wide priorities and objectives, (ii) whether or not the design of IPPI, as an enhanced supervision partnership, including objectives of information sharing and apprehension of offenders who were unlawfully at large (UAL), was consistent with practices in other jurisdictions, (iii) whether or not the changing offender profile and number of UAL offenders under CSC jurisdiction demonstrated a need for IPPI, (iv) what staffing challenges (including but not limited to staffing shortages and awareness and understanding of IPPI) affected the implementation of IPPI and what the effects were, (v) whether or not the organizational structure and reporting relationships for IPPI were designed and implemented in a way that supported the continued activities of the initiative, as well as what regional variations in reporting relationships existed and how that affected IPPI, (vi) whether or not the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders were well-defined and appropriate and what changes should be made to clarify and improve these roles and responsibilities if necessary, (vii) which police officers were most appropriate for community correctional liaison officer (CCLO) positions, (viii) whether or not CCLOs had completed IPPI training and whether or not that training was viewed as relevant, (ix) whether or not IPPI data was being correctly entered into CSC databases, including but not limited to CCLO contacts, (x) whether or not criteria for higher risk offenders for inclusion in IPPI were clearly defined or communicated, and if not, why not, and what were the consequences of this, (xi) whether or not CCLOs were situated in appropriate locations, (xii) whether or not IPPI faced implementation delays and what the consequences of these delays were, including but not limited to re-profiling of offenders, internal re-allocations, and/or lapses of funding, (xiii) whether or not communication and partnerships between CSC, police services and community stakeholders were effective and in what ways they could be improved, (xiv) whether or not stakeholders were consulted to see if their perceptions of CSC’s mandate and strategies had improved since the implementation of IPPI, (xv) whether or not available data suggested that IPPI had an effect on recidivism rates, (xvi) whether or not UAL apprehensions increased following the implementation of IPPI and by how much, (xvii) whether or not IPPI was cost-effective, and if this determination was not possible, why not; (d) for each item identified in (a), (i) how do each of the findings identified in (c) differ from the findings of Evaluation Report: Integrated Police and Parole Initiative published in November 2008, (ii) for what reasons do each of these findings differ; and (e) with regard to the decision to discontinue IPPI, (i) by what process was this decision reached, (ii) what was the rationale for this decision, (iii) in what way did this decision incorporate the items listed in (a) and the findings outlined in (c), (iv) what was the cost-savings of the discontinuation, (v) has CSC or any other government body considered reintroducing IPPI, (vi) what criteria are being used in this consideration?

     Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) through(d), between December 2009 and December 2015, neither CSC nor any other party of which CSC is aware proposed, conducted, or concluded any evaluation specifically on the efficacy of the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative, or IPPI.

    With regard to (e)(i), the decision to conclude the IPPI was based on the results of a national consultation that took place in 2013 with the stakeholders of the intelligence program. Fiscal constraints within CSC generated the impetus for this consultation, including pressure associated with the deficit reduction action plan and the need to contribute to the government’s efforts to balance the budget. A decision to conclude the IPPI by April 1, 2015, was announced in October 2014.

    With regard to (e)(ii), the decision was made in order to contribute to the government’s efforts to balance the budget and the need for CSC to assess its intelligence functions within the context of fiscal restraint. CSC made determinations about which intelligence functions were the most critical in ensuring that CSC was able to deliver on its public safety mandate. This review guided the decision to conclude the program.

    With regard to (e)(iii), between December 2009 and December 2015, neither CSC nor any other party of which CSC is aware conducted any evaluation specifically on the efficacy of the IPPI.

    With regard to (e)(iv), the total net cost savings from the conclusion of the IPPI was $600,000 annually.

    With regard to (e)(v) and (e)(vi), while there are no plans to reintroduce the IPPI at this point, CSC will continue to work closely with police agencies to maintain partnerships and ensure public safety. More specifically, in 2008-2009, with the provision of integrity funding, CSC established community security intelligence officer, CSIO, positions across the country to enhance community intelligence capacity. Given that the CSIOs are responsible for the planning, coordination, and administration of CSC’s community security intelligence program, CSIOs continue to act as the primary point of contact for police agencies and other partners concerning intelligence-related issues. Furthermore, the preventive security and intelligence program continues to provide decision-makers with reliable and timely intelligence and information on potential threats within the offender population. Since the conclusion of the IPPI, CSC has continued to productively engage with law enforcement on community intelligence issues, the recapture of offenders who have gone unlawfully at large, and offender release planning through effective information sharing and consultation in order to deliver the best possible public safety results for Canadians.

     With regard to the government's policy to establish a Chief Science Officer: (a) will this new officer operate independently of the government; (b) will this new officer advise and report to all of Parliament; (c) will this new officer be an Agent of Parliament; (d) will this new officer be established by way of legislation; (e) will this new officer have their independence, powers, mandate, and annual budget protected by law; (f) will this new officer be appointed following consultation with every recognized party and approval of the appointment by resolution in Parliament; (g) will this new officer be required, in order to qualify for appointment, to have experience conducting original scientific research in his or her field of specialization; (h) will this new officer have access to all government data and records he or she deems necessary to carry out their mandate, except in cases of individual privacy or cabinet confidence; and (i) will all scientific advice and reports prepared by this new office be automatically made available to the public?

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Minister of Science is developing an approach and will make recommendations to the Prime Minister on the creation of a chief science officer, a CSO, whose mandate will include ensuring that government science is freely available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that scientific analyses are appropriately considered when the government makes decisions.

    Decisions on how the government intends to proceed on the establishment of a CSO have not yet been made. The Minister of Science is currently consulting with key representatives of the research community in Canada, as well as with her counterparts, chief science advisers and officers in other countries, and parliamentarians to gather information to inform the creation of this new position and identify an approach that is appropriate for Canada.

    With regard to (b) through (i), as noted in the response to (a), details with regard to the operation of the CSO have not yet been determined.

     With regard to Operation PROVISION and the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) support to the government's initiative to resettle 25 000 Syrian Refugees in Canada by the end of February 2016, including the use of CAF bases to do so: (a) which bases will be used; (b) what is the expected number of refugees that will utilize each base for lodging; (c) how many CAF and Department of National Defence personnel had to leave their living quarters from each base to accommodate the incoming refugees; (d) at each base, what type of construction, renovation, or winterization projects had to be completed in order to accommodate the incoming refugees; (e) what are the individual costs of the projects identified in (b); (f) were all Treasury Board guidelines followed for the tendering and awarding of these contracts; (g) from where are the funds necessary to accommodate refugees on CAF bases being allocated; (h) how many troops and personnel will be deployed as a part of Operation PROVISION and to where will they be deployed; (i) in what type of work will they be engaged while overseas; (j) will they be deployed as civilian or military personnel; (k) will the CAF be providing force protection for the troops deployed as a part Operation PROVISION; (l) if the answer to (k) is negative, who will be providing the force protection and what price; (m) will the government table a copy in the House of any force protection contracts that it has signed as part of Operation PROVISION?

    (Return tabled)

    With regard to the government’s Syrian refugee resettlement initiative, including, but not limited to the measures announced by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on November 24, 2015: (a) what is the total number of existing CIC visa officers and other CIC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), who have been re-assigned since November 4, 2015, from processing applications under other streams or “lines of business” to enhance the processing capacity of Syrian refugee applications, broken down by employees re-assigned from processing (i) spousal sponsorship applications, (ii) economic immigration permanent resident visas, (iii) work permit applications, (iv) student visa applications, (v) all other streams, identifying the stream in question; (b) what was the total number of CIC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), including visa officers, responsible for processing Syrian refugee applications on November 4, 2015; (c) what is the total number of CIC employees, whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), including visa officers, who were responsible for processing Syrian refugee applications on December 10, 2015; (d) what is the anticipated operational impact, expressed in additional application processing time, for each CIC “line of business,” caused by the re-allocation of CIC employee resources to enhance the processing of Syrian refugee applications; (e) what is the total number of cases that were finalized for each week in the 2015 calendar year, up to and including December 10, 2015, for each permanent and temporary resident visa category, broken down by (i) outcome (i.e. “approved,” “refused,” or “withdrawn”), (ii) CIC Visa Office or CIC Processing Office; (f) what is the total number of Syrian refugee applications, broken down by sponsorship category (e.g. Government Sponsored Refugees, Privately Sponsored Refugees, Group of Five, etc.), finalized on or after November 5, 2015; (g) of the total number Syrian refugee applications that were finalized on or after November 5, 2015, how many applications were referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or the Canada Border Services Agency, prior to the visa officer’s decision to either grant or refuse a permanent resident visa, for a (i) record check, (ii) comprehensive security vetting?

    (Return tabled)

     With regards to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to “Act on recommendations of the Cohen Commission on restoring sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River”: (a) what scientific analyses were completed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on each of the 75 recommendations contained in the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River; (b) what recommendations identified in (a) have been implemented in whole or in part; (c) of the recommendations identified in (b) what was the cost of implementation, both on a one-time and ongoing basis; and (d) when will the remaining recommendations of the Cohen Commission, in whole or in part, be implemented?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to the province of Saskatchewan, since November 4, 2015: what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded by the government, broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) constituency, (iii) amount?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to funding for women’s shelters for the fiscal years from 2010 to 2015: (a) how much funding has the government spent on construction of new women’s shelters and new spaces in women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (b) how much money has the government spent on funding for renovation of existing women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (c) how much money has the government spent on non-capital supports for women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (d) when did the government stop accepting applications for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program; and (e) when did the government cancel funding for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to the total expenditures of the government incurred by all departments defending against Aboriginal-rights claims made against the government and appealing against case decisions upholding Aboriginal rights in court: (a) what was the amount spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; (b) what was the amount spent on these activities to date in the current fiscal year; (c) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; and (d) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities for the current fiscal year?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to changes to the machinery of government made on November 4, 2015: (a) for each department that was changed, what is the cost of making those changes (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category of expense; and (b) for each agency, Crown corporation, board, commission, or foundation that has been placed under the authority of a different ministry than was the case in the previous administration, what is the cost of making that change (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for 2015: (a) what was the volume of EI applications in total and broken down by (i) region and province where the claim originated, (ii) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (iii) month; (b) what was the average EI application processing time in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by month; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (h) what were the service standards for call-backs from EI processing staff, broken down by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI processing staff for call-backs, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (j) what was the average number of days for a call-back by EI processing staff, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (k) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres; (l) what was the rate of sick-leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees; (m) what was the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long-term disability; (n) what was the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees; (o) who authored the report on EI processing for which the former parliamentary secretary for Employment and Social Development was credited; (p) what is the table of contents for the report; (q) will the government make the report public; (r) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province where the complaint originated; (s) how long on average did a complaint take to be investigated and resolved, broken down by month; and (t) what were the major themes of the complaints received?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to Employment Insurance (EI): (a) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Commission in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013, (v) 2014; (b) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Boards of Referees in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (c) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by EI Umpires in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (d) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Social Security Tribunal in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (e) how much money has the government spent on the class-action court case regarding women who were denied sickness benefits while on parental leave; (f) how many Justice Department lawyers have been working on the class-action court case; and (g) what was the average cost for an appeal to be considered by the EI Commission, a Board of Referees, and an EI Umpire?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) how many applications were received for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (b) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (c) what was the average processing time for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) National Occupational Classification (NOC) code; (d) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (e) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (f) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (g) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (h) since June 2014, how many employers with fewer than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (i) since June 2014, how many employers with more than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (j) how many work permits have been issued in 2015, in total and broken down by month; (k) how many tips have been received on the confidential tip phone line since its creation, broken down by month; (l) how many tips have been received through the online tip portal since its creation, broken down by month; (m) how many investigations have been conducted as a result of tips received; (n) how many investigations have been the result of multiple tips; (o) how many investigations have resulted in employers being found non-compliant; (p) how many investigations have resulted in penalties being imposed on the employer; (q) how many employers have been required to take corrective action in order to be found compliant as a result of an investigation; (r) how many employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program have been subject to an inspection from 2013 to 2015 inclusively, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (s) how many inspections were conducted because an employer requested a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (t) how many inspections occurred at a time when the employer was not requesting a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (u) how many inspections have revealed non-compliance by employers between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) issues identified, (iii) industry of the employer; (v) how many employers have had to take steps to be considered compliant between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of actions required, (iii) industry of the employer; (w) how many employers have received penalties for non-compliance as a result of an inspection between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of penalty, (iii) industry of the employer; (x) how many inspections conducted between 2013 and 2015 have involved an on-site visit, broken down by month; (y) how many foreign nationals have been removed from Canada because their four-year period of eligibility had expired; and (z) when will Employment and Social Development Canada begin publicly reporting data on the number of temporary foreign workers approved and the names of employers receiving positive Labour Market Impact Assessments?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to Canada's delegation at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP21): (a) what is the total cost incurred by the government for this delegation; (b) what are the details of the expenses incurred by each delegate; and (c) what are the costs of the delegation broken down by (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) lodging, (v) salaries, (vi) per diems, (vii) operations?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to the military equipment currently owned by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) which items have been identified as surplus; (b) how many of each surplus item are in the CAF’s stock; (c) what is the value of each item deemed to be surplus; (d) where is the current surplus equipment being stored, (e) what is the process for liquidating surplus items in the case of (i) DND, (ii) CAF; (f) what regulations are in place that prevent or restrict DND and CAF’s ability to liquidate surplus military equipment; and (g) what is the government’s policy as to the manner in which the revenue generated from the liquidation of surplus assets will be redistributed by the government?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889: (a) does the middle of the main channel of the Ottawa River, from the head of Lake Temiscamingue to the intersection by the prolongation of the western limits of the Seigneurie of Rigaud, such mid-channel being as indicated on a map of the Ottawa Ship Canal Survey by Walter Shanly, C.E., still delineate the boundary between Ontario and Quebec; (b) are copies of the Order of the Governor-General in Council, dated July 21, 1886, that approved the mid-channel boundary described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; (c) are certified copies of the map referred to in the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, showing the mid-channel described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; and (d) has either the Province of Quebec or the Province of Ontario challenged the location of the boundary since the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, received Royal Assent?

    (Return tabled)

     With respect to the September 2015 announcement of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it would effectuate a transfer of information to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS): (a) how many records has the CRA transferred to the IRS to date; (b) on what dates did information transfer occur and how many records were transferred on each date; (c) how many records of individuals have been transferred in total; (d) by what means were the records transferred; (e) how much did it cost the CRA to compile the records for transfer; (f) how much did it cost the CRA to complete the transfer; (g) how were the costs in (e) and (f) calculated and what is the breakdown of those costs; (h) who made the decision to transfer the records; (i) when was the decision made to transfer records; (j) when did the CRA become aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline for such transfer; (k) how was the CRA made aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline; (l) what steps were taken to assess and respond to the notice of deadline extension in (j); (m) what was the policy reason for transferring records despite the deadline extension; (n) when is the next transfer of records scheduled to take place; (o) what analysis was conducted to assess whether the transfer of records during the writ period for the 42nd General Election complied with the "Guidelines on the Conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, Exempt Staff and Public Servants During an Election"; (p) what records exist with respect to any analysis conducted in relation to (o); (q) was information concerning the transfer of records from the CRA to the IRS included in any transition materials prepared for a potential change in government or the Ministers responsible for CRA and Foreign Affairs; (r) what documents exist in relation to (q) and what are their file numbers; (s) has the new Minister responsible for CRA been informed of information transfers to the IRS and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (t) has the new Minister of Justice been informed of the information transfer and been provided with any analysis of its legal implications and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (u) have Canadians who will be affected by the transfer been informed of the transfer of their records; (v) what plans exist with regard to informing Canadians about the transfer of their records; (w) has any proposal to inform Canadians of the transfer of their information to the IRS been evaluated by the government and, if so, with what conclusions; (x) what documents exist in relation to (w) and what are their file numbers; (y) what legal challenges does the government anticipate with respect to information transfer, and how is it preparing to respond; (z) what measures are in place to ensure the security of record transfers to the IRS; and (aa) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted or involved in any way in the preparation or planning of record transfer to ensure conformity with applicable laws regarding the exchange of Canadians' personal information and, if so, to what extent?

    (Return tabled)

     With regard to the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) administered by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2015: (a) what amounts were awarded in the form of contributions to firms and contributions to organizations, broken down by year and by the following regional offices: (i) NRC-IRAP Sherbrooke, (ii) NRC-IRAP Granby, (iii) NRC-IRAP Victoriaville, (iv) NRC-IRAP Longueuil, (v) NRC-IRAP Gatineau, (vi) NRC-IRAP Sept-Îles, (vii) NRC-IRAP Trois-Rivières, (viii) NRC-IRAP Drummondville, (ix) NRC-IRAP Lévis, (x) NRC-IRAP Québec City; (b) how many interactive visits were requested and approved, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (c) how many projects were submitted and approved broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (d) how many projects were submitted and approved under the Business Innovation Access Program (BIAP) administered by IRAP, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); and (e) in what other activities did NRC-IRAP participate, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a)?

    (Return tabled)