;

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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Bilingual view PDF


Wednesday, March 9, 2016 (No. 29)

Questions

The complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available for consultation at the Table in the Chamber and on the Internet. Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.

Q-18² — December 10, 2015 — — 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; and (m) will the government table a copy in the House of any force protection contracts that it has signed as part of Operation PROVISION?

Q-19² — December 10, 2015 — — 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 Citizenship and Immigration Canada (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; and (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?

Q-20² — December 10, 2015 — — With regards to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to “[a]ct 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?

Q-21² — December 10, 2015 — — 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?

Q-22² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-23² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-24² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-25² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-26² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-27² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-28² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-29² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-30² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-31² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-32² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-33² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the cases of Sergei Magnitsky and Boris 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)?

Q-34² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-35² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-36² — January 21, 2016 — — 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)?

Q-37² — January 21, 2016 — — 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?

Q-38² — January 22, 2016 — — With respect to the RCMP for the year 2015, broken down by province and territory: (a) how many investigations led to charges under the Criminal Code, for animal cruelty; (b) how many charges of animal cruelty led to convictions; (c) how many convictions of animal cruelty led to fines; and (d) how many convictions of animal cruelty led to jail time?

Q-39² — January 25, 2016 — — With regard to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations (VORR) and where applicable its Local Authorities’ Guide: (a) what are the details of all applications ever received under Section 4, broken down by (i) date of first contact or initiation of the application, (ii) date of receipt of a completed application, (iii) name and jurisdiction of the local authority making the request, (iv) current status of the application, (v) file, tracking, or reference numbers of all files, correspondence, and other information relating to the application, including title or subject, authors, and recipients, where applicable; (b) what options do local authorities have to simplify or expedite the handling of applications to implement specific limitations to vessel type or speed, on waters within their territories; and (c) what are the details of all regulations and local modifications currently in force under the VORR broken down by (i) date of change or implementation, (ii) requesting authority, (iii) reason for change, (iv) the file, tracking, or reference numbers of all relevant files, correspondence, and other information, including title or subject, authors, and recipients?

Q-40² — January 25, 2016 — — With regard to FedNor, for each fiscal year from 2009-10 to 2015-16: (a) what was FedNor's total approved budget; (b) how much of the budget in (a) was actually spent; (c) how much lapsed funding is eligible to be carried over to future years; (d) how much was allocated to the Northern Ontario Development Program; (e) how much was actually spent on the Northern Ontario Development Program; (f) how much was allocated to the Community Futures Program; (g) how much was actually spent on the Community Futures Program; and (e) what were the full-time equivalent staffing levels of FedNor?

Q-41² — January 25, 2016 — — With respect to government funding: what is the total amount of funding, during the 2014-15 fiscal year, that was allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, specifying each department or agency, initiative, and amount?

Q-42² — January 25, 2016 — — With respect to water and wastewater systems in Indigenous communities across Canada: (a) what is the breakdown of water systems by (i) high overall risk, (ii) medium overall risk, (iii) low overall risk; (b) how many Indigenous communities had drinking water tanks and cisterns fail safety tests; (c) how many Indigenous communities had drinking water tanks and cisterns which received a one hundred percent pass rate on safety tests; (d) how many homes are reported to have no water service; (e) how many communities are currently under boil-water advisories; (f) of the communities in (e), what kind of advisory is in place and what are the names of the specific communities; (g) what is the breakdown of wastewater systems broken down by (i) high overall risk, (ii) medium overall risk, (iii) low overall risk; (h) how many Indigenous communities had wastewater systems fail safety tests; (i) how many Indigenous communities had wastewater systems get a one hundred percent pass rate on safety tests; (j) how many homes are reported to have no wastewater service; (k) how much money has the government spent on sending bottled water into Indigenous communities that are under boil-water advisories; (l) how many bottles of water has the government sent to Indigenous communities; (m) how much funding is required to end every boil-water advisory currently in place over the next five years; (n) how much funding is required to have all water and wastewater systems receive passing grades; (o) how much money is dedicated within the current budget and the current fiscal framework to improve water and wastewater systems on reserves; (p) with respect to the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems National Roll-up Report, (i) how much of the estimated 783 million dollars was spent and is projected to be spent on water systems, (ii) how much of the estimated 300 million dollars was spent and is projected to be spent on wastewater systems, (iii) how much of the 4.7 billion dollars was spent and is projected to be spent over the next ten years; and (q) for each subsection in (p), what are the updated costs and needs for funding on water and wastewater systems?

Q-43² — January 25, 2016 — — With regard to the Department of Finance’s 2016 pre-budget consultation sessions that took place between January 6, 2016, and January 20, 2016: (a) how many sessions were organized by the government; (b) where did these consultation sessions take place, broken down by (i) city, (ii) constituency; (c) what groups and individuals were invited to the consultation sessions; (d) what groups and individuals participated in the consultation sessions; (e) which Members of Parliament attended the consultation sessions; and (f) how many online consultation sessions took place?

Q-44² — January 28, 2016 — — With regard to the setting of the Total Allowable Catch for the Offshore Arctic surf clam by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what scientific analyses of Offshore Arctic surf clam stocks were completed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; (b) what recommendations were provided to the Minister by independent analyses of the Offshore Arctic surf clam stocks; (c) what recommendations have been provided to the Minister by the Surf Clam Advisory Committee (SCAC); (d) who are the current members of the SCAC; (e) whom in the industry has Minister instructed the SCAC to consult; and (f) by what date has the Minister instructed the Committee to make their recommendations?

Q-45² — January 28, 2016 — — With regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ stated intentions in the Ottawa Citizen on November 11, 2015, that the government needs to engage with Iran much more than before: (a) has the government been in contact with any officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to re-opening diplomatic relations with that country; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what has been the response; (c) has the government indicated an intention to re-open a Canadian mission or office in Tehran; (d) has the government done an analysis of the need to protect Canadian officials and assets in the event of a Canadian mission being re-opened in Tehran; (e) has the government decided to lift any of Canada’s current sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran; and (f) has the government taken any measures to impose sanctions on certain Iranian individuals and companies due to recent ballistic missile tests in Iran, as did the Obama Administration?

Q-46^1-2 — January 28, 2016 — — 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?

Q-47² — February 2, 2016 — — With regard to the government’s commitment to land government-assisted and privately-sponsored Syrian refugees in Canada: (a) what is the total number of government-assisted Syrian refugees landed in Canada between November 4, 2015 and January 31, 2016; (b) what is the total number of privately-sponsored Syrian refugees landed in Canada between November 4, 2015 and January 31, 2016; (c) what was the total cost to process applications and provide security clearance for those applicants, to date; (d) how much did the government spend on (i) transportation, (ii) food, (iii) accommodation, (iv) healthcare, (v) clothing, (vi) furnishings, (vii) language instruction, (viii) miscellaneous or incidental allowances, (ix) supervision and support services, (x) all other associated costs related to Syrian refugees landed between November 4, 2015 and January 31, 2016; (e) with regard to both government-assisted and privately-sponsored Syrian refugees who have landed in Canada between November 4, 2015 and January 31, 2016, how many of these refugees are 14 years of age and younger and how many are over the age of 14; and (f) what is the complete and detailed breakdown of all resources, methods and procedures used during screening and security checks of Syrian refugees?

Q-48² — February 2, 2016 — — With regard to the government’s refugee-intake priorities for 2016, what are the government’s planned 2016 refugee allocation numbers for both privately-sponsored and government-assisted categories, broken down by country of origin, including Syria?

Q-49² — February 2, 2016 — — With regard to the Prime Minister's instructions, in his mandate letter to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, that the latter should implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP): (a) is it the government's policy to "consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources"; (b) is it the government’s policy to adhere to the principles of the UNDRIP before it is formally implemented; (c) given the Site C Clean Energy Project’s expected impacts on Aboriginal people, is it the government’s policy to (i) meet with the affected First Nations to hold discussions on treaty infringements, (ii) review the original decision to approve the Site C project, (iii) hold approvals and authorizations until a time when free, prior, and informed consent has been obtained; (d) is it the government's policy that the principle of free, prior, and informed consent will apply with respect to the approval of future pipeline and resource-extraction projects; (e) by what standard does government policy interpret the principle of free, prior, and informed consent; and (f) is it the government’s policy that the principle of free, prior, and informed consent shall apply with respect to the approval of projects under Interim Measures for Pipeline Reviews, and specifically to (i) Trans Mountain Expansion Project, (ii) Energy East Project?

Q-50² — February 11, 2016 — — With regard to the Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component, National and Regional Projects of the New Building Canada Plan, and how much money has been earmarked for projects of interest which have been planned but not yet been announced: (a) what funds have been allocated to each province and territory; (b) what is the number of projects in each province and territory; (c) how much money has been earmarked for each project listed in (b); (d) what data was used to determine which projects would be selected; and (e) when will these projects be announced?

Q-51² — February 16, 2016 — — With regard to ministerial offices outside the National Capital Region: (a) how many offices were opened under the previous government; (b) how many offices have been kept open by the current government; (c) what branches or programs are operated out of these offices; (d) what is the name and purpose of each office, broken down by region and province; (e) what is the address and location of each office; (f) what are the projected annual operating expenses for each office for the coming year; and (g) what is the number of (i) full-time staff, (ii) temporary staff, in each office?

Q-52² — February 16, 2016 — — With respect to data, information, or privacy breaches in government departments, institutions and agencies for 2015: (a) how many breaches have occurred in total, broken down by (i) department, institution, or agency, (ii) number of individuals affected; (b) of those breaches identified in (a), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, broken down by (i) department, institution or agency, (ii) number of individuals affected; and (c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft, broken down by department, institution or agency?

Q-53² — February 16, 2016 — — With regard to the Translation Bureau (TB), which falls under the responsibility of Public Works and Government Services Canada: (a) since 2013-2014, broken down by year, (i) how many translator, interpreter, terminologist and reviser positions has the TB had, (ii) how many client institutions has the TB had; (b) what is the total amount billed to the TB’s client institutions for (i) translation or revision services, (ii) interpretation services; (c) what are the estimated costs of implementing a machine translation tool as of April 1, 2016; (d) what studies were undertaken on (i) the justification for implementing a machine translation tool, (ii) the impact of a machine translation tool on bilingualism in the public service, (iii) the quality of the texts translated by a machine translation tool, (iv) the costs associated with implementing a machine translation tool; (e) since 2005-2006, broken down by year and by department, what has been the total value of the contracts sent to external suppliers rather than the TB, broken down by contracts for (i) translation, (ii) interpretation, (iii) revision; (f) what financial and human resources, in terms of staff working in full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, has the TB devoted to developing its machine translation tool; (g) since 2011-2012, broken down by year and by department, what financial and human resources, in terms of FTEs, have been devoted to external suppliers and allocated to (i) contracting with suppliers for translation and revision, (ii) management of the contracts referred to in (i), (iii) quality assurance for these contracts; (h) since 2005-2006, broken down by year and by department, how many words have been translated by external suppliers rather than the TB; (i) since 2005-2006, broken down by year, how much has the TB paid suppliers of translation services with which it has contracted; (j) since 2005-2006, broken down by year, what financial and human resources, in terms of FTEs, has the TB devoted to (i) contracting with suppliers for translation, (ii) management of these contracts, (iii) quality assurance for these contracts; (k) since 2013-2014, broken down by month, how many words have been sent to the TB by client institutions and (i) translated by translators who are indeterminate employees of the TB, (ii) translated by TB suppliers; (l) has the government taken steps to hire new employees between now and 2019-2020, and if so, how many translators will be hired internally, broken down by year, (i) in indeterminate positions, (ii) in temporary positions; and (m) what is the TB’s current pricing structure?

Q-54² — February 17, 2016 — — With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and francophone immigration to Canada: (a) how many full time equivalents (FTEs) are allocated to IRCC to (i) process applications, (ii) develop programs for francophones outside Quebec; (b) how does IRCC take into account the specific needs and realities of francophone communities and of francophone immigrants outside Quebec in order to meet the objective of recruiting and integrating francophone immigrants into minority communities; (c) what are the IRCC’s budgetary resources allocated by year, in the past five years, to (i) promotion and recruitment efforts in francophone countries abroad, (ii) settlement and resettlement services in Canada for francophones in francophone communities outside Quebec; (d) how does IRCC ensure that the resources allocated in (c) contribute to an approach by and for francophone minority communities; (e) what are the results of the francophone promotion and recruitment efforts in francophone countries abroad since 2013; (f) how many francophone immigrants has each of Canada’s provinces and territories taken in per year in the past five years; (g) what is the proportion of francophone immigrants taken in for each of the last five years compared to all immigrants taken in during the same period; (h) in which IRCC immigration categories or programs have francophone immigrants been placed in each of the last five years, broken down by program; (i) what is IRCC’s definition of a francophone immigrant; (j) how many francophone immigrants has Express Entry attracted per year since its creation, broken down by province and territory; (k) have any changes been made to Express Entry since its creation to attract more francophone immigrants and, if so, what are they; (l) are there any formal mechanisms for consulting francophone minority communities and, if so, what are they; and (m) to date, how many members of the Immigration and Refugee Board, broken down by city, (i) have French as their preferred language, (ii) are proficient in both official languages (level B2 or higher)?

Q-55² — February 17, 2016 — — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, for the fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what was the number of applicants for each of the following programs, (i) Disability and Death Compensation – Disability Pension Program – Disability Pensions, (ii) Disability and Death Compensation, (iii) Disability and Death Compensation – Disability Pension Program, (iv) Disability and Death Compensation – Disability Pension Program – Exceptional Incapacity Allowance, (v) Disability and Death Compensation – Disability Pension Program – Treatment Allowance, (vi) Disability Awards Program, (vii) Disability Awards Program – Disability Awards, (viii) Financial Support Program, (ix) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits, (x) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits – Earnings Loss, (xi) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits – Canadian Forces Income Support, (xii) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits – Supplementary Retirement Benefit, (xiii) Financial Support Program – Financial Benefits – Permanent Impairment Allowance, (xiv) Financial Support Program – War Veterans Allowance, (xv) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services, (xvi) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Rehabilitation, (xvii) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Career Transition Services, (xviii) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Health Care Benefits, (xix) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Health Care Benefits – Health Care Benefits and Services, (xx) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Health Care Benefits – Veterans Independence Program – Other Services, (xxi) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Intermediate and Long-Term Care, (xxii) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Intermediate and Long-Term Care – Non-Departmental Institutions – Veterans Independence Program, (xxiii) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Intermediate and Long-Term Care – Non-Departmental Institutions – Long Term Care, (xxiv) Canada Remembers Program – Partnerships and Collaborations, (xxv) Health Care Program and Reestablishment Services – Intermediate and Long-Term Care – Funeral and Burial Program; (b) what was the number of rejected applications for the programs identified in (a); (c) what was the number of completed applications for the programs identified in (a); (d) what was the average length of time for applications to be processed for the programs identified in (a); (e) what was the median length of time for application to be processed for the programs identified in (a); (f) what was the shortest length of time for an application to be processed for the programs identified in (a); and (g) what was the longest length of time for an application to be processed for the programs identified in (a)?

Q-56² — February 17, 2016 — — With regard to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what was the number of applications received; (b) what was the number of applications not granted a hearing; (c) what was the number of successful appeals; (d) what was the average length of time between submission of application and appeal; (e) what was the median length of time between submission of application and appeal; (f) what was the shortest length of time between submission of application and appeal; and (g) what was the longest length of time between submission of application and appeal?

Q-57² — February 17, 2016 — — With regard to Canada Pension Plan Disability applications, and employing the same calculation method used by the Auditor General in his 2015 Fall Report (Exhibit 6.6), what is the backlog of appeals for Canada Pension Plan Disability decisions as of November 1, 2015?

Q-58² — February 17, 2016 — — With respect to border security and the sharing of information with foreign countries: (a) do Canada and Mexico have a coordinated entry-exit information system such as it exists between Canada and the United States; and (b) is any information about Canadians who stay in Mexico for extended periods of time sent, whether through an entry-exit information system or by any other means, to the (i) Canada Revenue Agency, (ii) Mexican tax authorities?

Q-59² — February 17, 2016 — — With regard to agreements on internal trade: (a) what is the number of meetings that ministers, Members of Parliament acting on behalf of the government, or federal public officials have had since November 4, 2015, with provincial counterparts regarding the implementation of a new or updated agreement on internal trade; (b) what were the dates of these meetings; (c) who were the participants of these meetings; (d) how many such meetings did ministers, Members of Parliament acting on behalf of the government, or federal public officials have between February 6, 2006, and November 3, 2015; (e) how many studies has the government undertaken since November 4, 2015, regarding (i) the detrimental effects of interprovincial trade barriers, (ii) the positive impacts of a new or updated agreement on internal trade; (f) what were the findings of the studies identified in (e), including but not limited to specific statistical analysis on (i) how much the Canadian economy is being hindered because of a lack of a new or updated agreement on internal trade, (ii) how much the Canadian economy could grow with a new or updated agreement on internal trade; (g) since November 4, 2015, has the government performed any studies on determining which of the two options for moving forward on interprovincial trade, as articulated in the proposal “One Canada, One National Economy: Modernizing Internal Trade in Canada,” would be preferred, and, if so, what were the findings of any such studies, including but not limited, to specific statistical findings on how one option was better than the other; and (h) how much has the government spent since November 4, 2015, on policy analysis or consultations regarding the implementation of a new or updated agreement on internal trade?

Q-60² — February 17, 2016 — — With regard to the Prime Minister’s attendance of a rally held on February 9, 2016, in support of the provincial Liberal candidate in the Whitby—Oshawa byelection: what was the total cost for the Prime Minister’s travel, security, and staffing, in relation to this event?

Q-61² — February 18, 2016 — — With regard to the spread of the Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) virus and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) is the Minister aware that, despite public statements by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that they had been unable to reproduce the ISA virus test results produced by the Kibenge laboratory at the University of Prince Edward Island on British Columbia farmed and wild salmon, the only retesting that was done did produce similar results; (b) is the Minister aware of any government actions to delay, obstruct, or discredit research related to the growing body of scientific evidence regarding the presence and impacts of the ISA virus and other aquaculture-related viruses, in Canada; (c) what measures will the Minister take to respond to the threat posed by this virus following the recommendations of the Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River; and (d) will the measures in (c) include (i) ending the delays in authorizing the full implementation of the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative, (ii) removing impediments to the development of a new screening test for the ISA virus at the Kibenge laboratory in the Atlantic Veterinary College, (iii) authorizing a scientifically rigorous, publicly credible program with active involvement of First Nations and non-governmental scientists to sample farmed and wild fish for use in studying the presence and impacts of the ISA and other aquaculture-related viruses?

Q-62² — February 18, 2016 — — With regard to the amounts allocated to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy: (a) what amounts have not been spent to date for the various regions of Quebec for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; and (b) are there unspent amounts for the other provinces and territories for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and, if so, what are these amounts, broken down by province and territory?

Q-63^1-2 — February 19, 2016 — — With regard to the reported unemployment rate of 7.2%, provided by Statistics Canada in January 2016: what is the government’s target for reducing the unemployment rate?

Q-64² — February 19, 2016 — — With regard to the hiring of the current Chief of Staff to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food: (a) what day did she formally begin her position as Chief of Staff and, effectively, start receiving pay; (b) what preparations, policies or protocols has the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food developed to ensure she does not participate in any conversations, activities, or decision making that will lead to a real or perceived conflict of interest; (c) what preparations, policies or protocols has the Minister’s office undertaken to ensure she does not participate in any conversations, activities, or decision making that will lead to a real or perceived conflict of interest; (d) what departmental briefings has she received since her appointment; and (e) which stakeholders has she met with since she was hired?

Q-65² — February 22, 2016 — — With regard to the government’s commitment to implement each one of the 94 recommendations prepared by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: what are the government's projected costs to implement each recommendation, broken down by recommendation?

Q-66² — February 23, 2016 — — With respect to the government’s commitment to lift the visa requirement for Mexican nationals entering Canada: (a) has the department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship conducted a formal visa review, including a technical visit to the country, to provide a holistic, evidence-based assessment of Mexico’s eligibility for a visa exemption under Canada’s objective visa policy framework; (b) if a formal visa review for Mexico has been conducted by technical experts in the public service, (i) over what period of time was the review conducted, (ii) what are the conclusions and recommendations with respect to Mexico’s overall eligibility for a visa exemption under Canada’s visa policy framework; (c) if a formal visa review for Mexico has not been conducted, why has a decision been taken to grant a visa exemption in the absence of evidence for each indicator used to assess risk to Canada and Canadians; (d) under Canada’s existing visa policy framework, what are the indicators that are used to determine a country’s eligibility for a visa exemption, broken down by (i) quantitative indicators, (ii) qualitative indicators; (e) for each quantitative and qualitative indicator identified in (d), (i) which indicators does Mexico currently meet, (ii) which indicators does Mexico currently not meet; (f) for each socio-economic factor that is typically assessed in a formal visa review, (i) what is Canada’s current assessment of the factor in Mexico, (ii) does the evidence demonstrate a “push” factor that could incentivize irregular migration to Canada, if Mexican nationals are exempt from the visa requirement, (iii) does Mexico currently meet Canada’s requirement, under the existing visa policy framework, for each particular indicator, to be eligible for a visa exemption; (g) with respect to migration patterns and trends, for each factor that is typically assessed under Canada’s visa policy framework, (i) what is Canada’s assessment of the current condition in Mexico, (ii) does the evidence demonstrate eligibility for a visa exemption; (h) does Canada’s assessment of Mexico’s travel document integrity indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (i) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found that the Mexican passport is a reliable indicator of identity and nationality; (j) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found that Mexico’s border management practices indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (k) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found third country nationals are using Mexico as a transit point to travel illegally to Canada; (l) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found there are weaknesses in screening and enforcement measures at Mexican Ports of Entry; (m) does Canada’s assessment of security matters in Mexico indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (n) have Canadian technical experts in the public service found there is evidence of corruption or links to organized crime in the ranks of Mexican border officials and law enforcement; (o) have Canadian technical experts found that there is evidence of human smuggling activities and networks operating inside and through Mexico; (p) does Canada’s assessment of human rights matters in Mexico indicate an acceptable level of risk for a visa exemption or an unacceptable level of risk; (q) with respect to visa refusal rates for Mexican nationals, (i) what is the quantitative threshold, expressed as a numerical percentage, used under Canada’s visa policy framework to indicate an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what is the current visa refusal rate, using the most recent calendar year, (iii) does the current visa refusal rate indicate an acceptable level of risk or an unacceptable level of risk, in the context of granting a visa exemption; (r) with respect to asylum rates for Mexican nationals, (i) what is the threshold used under Canada’s visa policy framework to indicate an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what was the asylum rate for the last calendar year before a visa requirement was imposed, (iii) what was the asylum rate for Mexican nationals for each calendar year, from 2010 to 2015, after the visa requirement was imposed; (s) with respect to asylum claims made in Canada by Mexican nationals in the calendar year prior to the imposition of a visa requirement, (i) how many people were granted refugee status by the Immigration and Refugee Board, (ii) how many people were refused refugee status by the Immigration and Refugee Board, (iii) how many asylum claims were withdrawn, (iv) how many asylum claimants were inadmissible, (v) what was the cost of processing the total number of asylum claims made by Mexican nationals in the calendar year prior to the imposition of a visa requirement, broken down by outcome at the Immigration and Refugee Board, (vi) on average, how long did it take to remove failed Mexican asylum claimants from Canada; (t) with respect to the Immigration Violation Rate, (i) what is the threshold used under Canada’s visa policy framework to determine an acceptable level of risk, (ii) what is the current Immigration Violation Rate for Mexican nationals, with the visa requirement in place, expressed as a numerical percentage for the most recent calendar year, (iii) what was the Immigration Violation Rate for Mexican nationals for period of 2007 to 2009, before the visa requirement was imposed; (u) what was the total number of inadmissible Mexican nationals that arrived on Canadian soil in the calendar year prior to the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, broken down by the nature of the inadmissibility; (v) how many inadmissible Mexican nationals have arrived on Canadian soil for each calendar year since the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) the nature of the inadmissibility; and (w) with respect to inadmissible Mexican nationals who arrived at a Canadian Port of Entry in the calendar year prior to the imposition of the visa requirement in 2009, what was (i) the estimated cost of processing the inadmissible cases by the Canada Border Services Agency at Canadian Ports of Entry, (ii) the estimated increase in processing times for all travelers at Canadian Ports of Entry as a result of processing inadmissible Mexican nationals, (iii) the estimated total cost of removing those Mexican nationals deemed inadmissible to Canada, (iv) the average length of time it took to remove those Mexican nationals deemed inadmissible from Canada?

Q-67² — February 23, 2016 — — With respect to the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), and to the gap between identified immediate and future needs and current levels in infrastructure spending for First Nations in Canada: (a) what is the government’s estimate for the size of the deficit, broken down by category, such as, but not exclusively, (i) housing, (ii) education, (iii) water, (iv) roads and bridges, (v) other; (b) what is the number of hotel rooms and cost paid for by the government over the past ten years, broken down by year, due to emergency evacuations or housing shortages on reserve; (c) what is the number of schools on reserve designated as temporary structures; (d) what is the number of schools on reserve listed in (i) good condition, (ii) poor condition; (e) how many First Nations students across Canada currently attend school in facilities that lNAC believes contain health and safety concerns; (f) as of January 1, 2016, what new school construction projects are the top 40 priorities for INAC across Canada; (g) for each of the schools identified in (f), how long has INAC known that health and safety concerns existed in the current facilities; (h) since 2012, what amounts from the "Community Infrastructure" line item have been reallocated either within INAC or to other government departments; (i) how many communities, with projects identified by INAC as priority capital projects, have had letters of approval issued to them; and (j) for each year from 2012 to present, how much capital building expenditure funding, for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities built on First Nations Reserves, was planned but not spent on schools and why, broken down by (i) year, (ii) community?

Q-68² — February 23, 2016 — — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, for the fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what was the amount of funding provided by Veterans Affairs Canada for each of the following organizations or establishments that it is partners with, (i) Helmets to Hardhats, (ii) Operational Stress Injury Clinics (OSICs), (iii) Royal Canadian Legion, (iv) all Long-term Care Facilities accommodating veterans, (v) contract beds for veterans run by provinces, (vi) Operational Stress Injury National Network, (vii) OSIC Vancouver, (viii) Operational Trauma and Stress Support Center (OTSSC) Esquimalt, (ix) OSIC Carewest, (x) OSIC Edmonton, (xi) OTSSC Edmonton, (xii) OSIC Deer Lodge, (xiii) OSIC Parkwood, (xiv) OSIC Royal Ottawa, (xv) OTSSC Ottawa, (xvi) OTSSC Petawawa, (xvii) OTSSC Valcartier, (xviii) OSIC Sainte-Anne, (xix) Operational Stress Injury Residential Treatment Clinic, (xx) OSIC Centre hospitalier universitaire de Quebec, (xxi) Horizon Health OSIC Fredericton, (xxii) Nova Scotia Health Authority OSIC Halifax, (xxiii) OTSSC Halifax, (xxiv) OTSSC Gagetown; (b) what percentage of the organization’s funding comes from Veterans Affairs Canada for the organizations identified in (a); (c) how are outcomes from programs measured for the organizations identified in (a); (d) what were the outcomes for each program for the organizations identified in (a); and (e) how long has each organization or establishment been in receipt of money from Veterans Affairs for the organizations and establishments identified in (a)?

Q-69² — February 23, 2016 — — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, for the fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: (a) what actions has the Department taken to address concerns from Veterans and stakeholders, including (i) dissatisfaction with the lump sum Disability Award, (ii) calls from the Veterans Ombudsman and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (ACVA) to further increase Earnings Loss Benefit payments and further enhance the Permanent Impairment Allowance, (iii) more mental health and caregiver support for Veterans suffering from Operation Stress Injuries, and their families, (iv) greater focus on supporting successful transition, (v) improved communications, outreach and program delivery; (b) how much funding has been allocated for each of the areas identified in (a); and (c) what reports or studies have been undertaken or completed for each of the areas identified in (a)?

Q-70^1-2 — February 25, 2016 — — With regard to the National Energy Board’s review of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project and the interim measures for pipeline reviews announced by the government on January 27, 2016: (a) how many Canadians applied to participate in the National Energy Board’s review of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project, broken down by (i) individuals, groups, and authorized representatives, (ii) province and territory, (iii) whether they wished to participate as a commenter or as an intervenor, (iv) whether they were “directly affected” by the proposed project or had relevant information or expertise; (b) of those Canadians identified in (a), how many were accepted by the National Energy Board to participate as intervenors, broken down by (i) individuals, groups, and authorized representatives, (ii) province and territory, (iii) whether they wished to participate as a commenter or as an intervenor, (iv) whether they were “directly affected” by the proposed project or had relevant information or expertise; (c) of those Canadians identified in (a), how many were accepted by the National Energy Board to participate as commenters, broken down by (i) individuals, groups, and authorized representatives, (ii) province or territory, (iii) whether they wished to participate as a commenter or as an intervenor, (iv) whether they were “directly affected” by the proposed project or had relevant information or expertise; (d) of those Canadians identified in (a), how many were rejected by the National Energy Board from participating either as a commenter or as an intervenor, broken down by (i) individuals, groups, and authorized representatives, (ii) province and territory, (iii) whether they wished to participate as a commenter or as an intervenor, (iv) whether they were “directly affected” by the proposed project or had relevant information or expertise; (e) of those Canadians identified in (d) who were rejected from participating by National Energy Board, will their applications be reconsidered as part of interim review measures for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project announced by the government on January 27, 2016; (f) of those Canadians identified in (d) who were rejected from participating by National Energy Board, will they have an opportunity to apply to participate in the interim review measures for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project announced by the government on January 27, 2016; (g) of those Canadians identified in (d) who were rejected from participating by National Energy Board, will their views and expertise be solicited by the “Ministerial Representative” appointed by the government to “engage communities, including Indigenous communities potentially affected by the project, to seek their views and report back to the Minister of Natural Resources”; (h) of those Canadians identified in (b) who were accepted to participate by National Energy Board as intervenors, will the government provide funding for these individuals or organizations to present evidence and cross-examine as part of the interim review measures; (i) do the interim review measures alter, in any way, the current legislated time limit of May 20, 2016, for the National Energy Board to issue its report on the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project to the Governor in Council; and (j) as a result of the interim review measures, can any amendments be made to the National Energy Board’s final report after it has been issued to the Governor in Council?


¹ Requires Oral Answer ² Response requested within 45 days