The Order Paper and Notice Paper is a document that guides the deliberations of the Senate and lists items of business currently before it. These items are listed in several different categories and in a priority according to an arrangement adopted by the Senate as stipulated in the rules. The majority of these items constitute the Orders of the Day which are called following Routine Proceedings. These items are themselves divided into two principal categories - government business and other business. Within each of these two categories are items for bills, motions, inquiries and reports of committees.

The Notice Paper contains the text of motions and inquiries not yet called for debate.

The Order Paper and Notice Paper is prepared every day in advance of the actual sitting.

Order of Business

(The following is an outline of a typical sitting day in the Senate. Variations are possible subject to the Rules and to the decisions of the Senate.)

Senators’ Statements (15 minutes)

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS (30 minutes)

Tabling of Documents Presenting or Tabling Reports from Committees Government Notices of Motions Government Notices of Inquiries Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills First Reading of Commons Public Bills Reading of Petitions for Private Bills Introduction and First Reading of Private Bills Tabling of Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations Notices of Motions Notices of Inquiries Tabling of Petitions

Question Period (30 minutes)

Delayed Answers

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Government Business

Bills – Messages from the House of Commons

Bills – Third Reading

Bills – Reports of Committees

Bills – Second Reading

Reports of Committees – Other

Motions

Inquiries

Other

Other Business

Bills – Messages from the House of Commons

Senate Public Bills – Third Reading

Commons Public Bills – Third Reading

Private Bills – Third Reading

Senate Public Bills – Reports of Committees

Commons Public Bills – Reports of Committees

Private Bills – Reports of Committees

Senate Public Bills – Second Reading

Commons Public Bills – Second Reading

Private Bills – Second Reading

Reports of Committees – Other

Motions

Inquiries

Other

NOTICE PAPER

Notices of Motions

Notices of Inquiries

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Bills — Messages from the House of Commons

Nil

Bills — Third Reading

Nil

Bills — Reports of Committees

Nil

Bills — Second Reading

Nil

Reports of Committees — Other

No. 1.

June 25, 2015—Resuming debate on the consideration of the fifteenth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (Subject matter of Bill C-59 (Division 10 of Part 3)), tabled in the Senate on June 4, 2015;

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, that the report be amended, by deleting the heading " Conclusion '' and all the words following it, and replacing them with the following:

"Your committee is however very troubled that Bill C-59 did not include any amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide that the Director of the Parliamentary Protective Service, and all other RCMP members of the Parliamentary Protective Service, report to and are subject to the control and management of the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons and not the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Your Committee heard that the Director will be accountable to the Speakers "for the management and performance of the parliamentary protective service'', however he will also "be accountable to the RCMP commissioner through the RCMP chain of command to ensure that the RCMP meets its responsibility according to the terms of service that is included in the arrangement between the Speakers, the Minister of Public Safety and the RCMP.'' Your committee is troubled that this places the Director in an untenable conflict of interest, and threatens parliamentary privilege. Your committee notes that in all the years of Liberal governments, including the very challenging time immediately after the terrible events of 9/11, Liberal prime ministers and governments were able to effectively protect Canadians' security and the security of the parliamentary precinct without breaching parliamentary privilege of any parliamentarian or Parliament as a whole. Your committee is troubled that the current government has failed to achieve this balance therefore necessitating the unprecedented changes set out in Bill C-59, and moreover that we are witnessing an attempted takeover of Parliament by the government by placing the Parliamentary precinct under the control of a protective service whose director will be reporting to the RCMP Commissioner who in turn reports to the Minister of Public Safety.'';

And on the subamendment of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, that the motion in amendment be not now adopted, but that it be further amended by adding immediately after the last sentence the following:

" Conclusion Your Committee is therefore concerned that Division 10 of Part 3 of Bill C-59 does not strike the best balance between the competing needs at play in the provision of security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, and that the proposed measures do not fully respect the letter and spirit of the resolutions of February 2015 while upholding parliamentary privilege.''.

No. 2.

June 25, 2015—Resuming debate on the consideration of the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce (Subject matter of Bill C-59 (Divisions 14 and 19 of Part 3)), tabled in the Senate on June 4, 2015;

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., that the report be amended by adding immediately before the words:

"Respectfully submitted''

the following:

"Nevertheless, the committee believes that the changes to the Trust and Loans Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act, and the Cooperative Credit Association Act should be reviewed in three years to determine their effectiveness.''.

No. 3.

June 25, 2015—Resuming debate on the consideration of the twenty-second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Subject matter of Bill C-59 (Division 15 of Part 3)), tabled in the Senate on June 3, 2015.

No. 4.

June 3, 2015—Consideration of the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (Subject matter of Bill C-59 (Divisions 2 and 17 of Part 3)), tabled in the Senate on June 3, 2015.

No. 5.

May 28, 2015—Consideration of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (Subject matter of Bill C-59 (Division 16 of Part 3)), tabled in the Senate on May 28, 2015.

No. 6.

November 26, 2014—Consideration of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Proposal for User Fees and Service Standard for Aquaculture Licenses under the Pacific Aquaculture Regulations, without amendment), tabled in the Senate on November 26, 2014.

Motions

Nil

Inquiries

No. 2.

By the Honourable Senator Martin:

April 22, 2015—That she will call the attention of the Senate to the budget entitled, Strong Leadership: A Balanced- Budget, Low-Tax Plan for Jobs, Growth and Security, tabled in the House of Commons on April 21, 2015, by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Joe Oliver, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on April 22, 2015.

Other

No. 2.

April 1, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall:

That the Senate share the concerns and conclusions expressed by the House of Commons in the message dated March 26, 2014;

That the Senate convey this resolution of the Senate to the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Canada; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

OTHER BUSINESS

Rule 4-15(2) states:

Except as otherwise ordered by the Senate, any item of Other Business on the Order Paper and any motion or inquiry on the Notice Paper that have not been proceeded with during 15 sitting days shall be dropped from the Order Paper and Notice Paper.

Consequently, the number appearing in parenthesis indicates the number of sittings since the item was last proceeded with.

Bills — Messages from the House of Commons

Nil

Senate Public Bills — Third Reading

Nil

Commons Public Bills — Third Reading

Nil

Private Bills — Third Reading

Nil

Senate Public Bills — Reports of Committees

No. 1.

April 21, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Frum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dagenais, for the adoption of the nineteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill S-208, An Act to establish the Canadian Commission on Mental Health and Justice, with a recommendation), presented in the Senate on April 1, 2015. —(Honourable Senator Marshall)

No. 2.

March 31, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Frum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Demers, for the adoption of the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (Bill S- 201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, with amendments), presented in the Senate on February 19, 2015.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

Commons Public Bills — Reports of Committees

No. 1.

March 10, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Runciman, seconded by the Honourable Senator Batters, for the adoption of the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity), with amendments), presented in the Senate on February 26, 2015;

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dyck, that the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be not now adopted, but that it be amended by deleting amendment No. 3.—(Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C.)

No. 2. (one)

June 25, 2015—Consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance), with amendments), presented in the Senate on June 25, 2015. —(Honourable Senator White)

Private Bills — Reports of Committees

Nil

Senate Public Bills — Second Reading

No. 1. (two)

June 22, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Kenny, for the second reading of Bill S-231, An Act to amend the Firearms Act, the Criminal Code and the Defence Production Act.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 2. (two)

June 19, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, for the second reading of Bill S-232, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (Civilian Review and Oversight Council for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ombudsperson) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 3. (two)

June 22, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, for the second reading of Bill S-233, An Act enacting the Underground Infrastructure Safety Enhancement Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts. —(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 4. (three)

June 18, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moore, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, for the second reading of Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins).—(Honourable Senator Johnson)

No. 5. (three)

June 18, 2015—Second reading of Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cruelty-free cosmetics).—(Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen)

No. 6. (seven)

June 10, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Enverga, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ngo, for the second reading of Bill S-228, An Act respecting Hispanic Heritage Month.—(Honourable Senator Fraser)

No. 7. (seven)

June 9, 2015—Second reading of Bill S-229, An Act for the advancement of the aboriginal languages of Canada and to recognize and respect aboriginal language rights.—(Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.)

No. 8. (nine)

December 4, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson, for the second reading of Bill S-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (physician- assisted death). —(Honourable Senator Doyle)

No. 9. (twelve)

May 27, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Segal, seconded by the Honourable Senator Greene, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to establish the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. —(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 10. (twelve)

June 19, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mercer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mitchell, for the second reading of Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act (Speakership of the Senate). —(Honourable Senator Hubley)

No. 11. (thirteen)

June 3, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Segal, for the second reading of Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (shared parenting plans).—(Honourable Senator Marshall)

No. 12. (fourteen)

May 12, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Downe, seconded by the Honourable Senator Massicotte, for the second reading of Bill S-226, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).—(Honourable Senator Martin)

Commons Public Bills — Second Reading

No. 1. (fifteen)

November 26, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall, for the second reading of Bill C-314, An Act respecting the awareness of screening among women with dense breast tissue.—(Honourable Senator Enverga)

No. 2. (eight)

June 4, 2015—Second reading of Bill C-643, An Act to establish National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day. —(Honourable Senator Martin)

Private Bills — Second Reading

Nil

Reports of Committees — Other

No. 1. (three)

September 16, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator White, seconded by the Honourable Senator Frum, for the adoption of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (amendments to the Rules of the Senate), presented in the Senate on June 11, 2014;

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser, that the report not now be adopted, but that it be amended by:

1. Replacing paragraph 1.(j) with the following: "That an item of Other Business that is not a Commons Public Bill be not further adjourned; or''; 2. Replacing the main heading before new rule 6-13 with the following: "Terminating Debate on an Item of Other Business that is not a Commons Public Bill''; 3. Replacing the sub heading before new rule 6-13 with the following: "Notice of motion that item of Other Business that is not a Commons Public Bill be not further adjourned''; 4. In paragraph 2.6-13 (1), adding immediately following the words "Other Business'', the words "that is not a Commons Public Bill''; 5. In the first clause of Paragraph 2.6-13 (3), adding immediately following the words "Other Business'', the words "that is not a Commons Public Bill''; 6. In the first clause of paragraph 2.6-13 (5), adding immediately following the words "Other Business'', the words "that is not a Commons Public Bill'' 7. In paragraph 2.6-13 (7) (c), adding immediately following the words "Other Business'' the words "that is not a Commons Public Bill''; 8. And replacing the last line of paragraph 2.6-13(7) with the following: "This process shall continue until the conclusion of debate on the item of Other Business that is not a Commons Public Bill'';

And on the subamendment of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, that the amendment be not now adopted but that it be amended by adding immediately after paragraph 8 the following:

9. And that the rule changes contained in this report take effect from the date that the Senate begins regularly to provide live audio-visual broadcasting of its daily proceedings.—(Honourable Senator Greene)

No. 2. (seven)

June 2, 2015—Consideration of the seventh report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament entitled: A Matter of Privilege: A Discussion Paper on Canadian Parliamentary Privilege in the 21st Century, tabled in the Senate on June 2, 2015.—(Honourable Senator White)

No. 3. (three)

June 17, 2015—Consideration of the fourteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, entitled: Powering Canada's Territories, tabled in the Senate on June 17, 2015.—(Honourable Senator Neufeld)

Motions

No. 66.

May 8, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:

That a Special Committee on Senate Modernization be appointed to consider methods to make the Senate more effective, more transparent and more responsible, within the current constitutional framework, in order, in part, to increase public confidence in the Senate;

That the committee be composed of nine members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that five members constitute a quorum;

That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses; and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;

That the committee be authorized to hire outside experts;

That, notwithstanding rule 12-18(2)(b)(i), the committee have the power to sit from Monday to Friday, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week; and

That the committee be empowered to report from time to time and to submit its final report no later than December 31, 2015. —(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 79. (one)

October 9, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to study the following:

The assessment and appeals process of the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program (CAIS), including the replacement programs; AgriStability and AgriInvest; The definition, including legal precedent and regulatory framework, and application of the terms "arm's length salaries'' and "non-arm's length salaries'' as used by CAIS and related programs, as well as a comparison of those definitions and the application used by Revenue Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada; and

That the Committee submit its final report no later than March 31, 2015, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.—(Honourable Senator Marshall)

No. 8. (four)

February 6, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion, as modified, of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:

That, the Senate of Canada calls on the Government of Pakistan to immediately release Ms. Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who is being arbitrarily detained due to her religious beliefs;

That, the Senate of Canada declare its intention to request that Canada grant her and her family asylum, if she so requests; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons requesting that House to unite with the Senate for the above purpose. —(Honourable Senator Mockler)

No. 136. (four)

June 11, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion, as modified, of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley:

That Honourable senators whose expenses have been questioned by the Auditor General in his report on Senate spending, are forbidden to sit on the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration as well as the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament until the arbitrator or any other legal proceeding has given them a final decision.—(Honourable Senator Maltais)

No. 73. (five)

June 17, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Jaffer:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to:

Review the temporary foreign workers program and the possible abuse of the system through the hiring of foreign workers to replace qualified and available Canadian workers; Review the criteria and procedure to application assessment and approval; Review the criteria and procedure for compiling a labour market opinion; Review the criteria and procedure for assessing qualifications of foreign workers; Review interdepartmental procedures and responsibilities regarding foreign workers in Canada; Provide recommendations to ensure that the program cannot be abused in any way that negatively affects Canadian workers; and

That the Committee submit its final report no later than March 31, 2015, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report. —(Honourable Senator Hubley)

No. 9. (six)

November 21, 2013—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCoy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rivest:

That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized to examine and report on changes to the Senate's Rules and practices that, while recognizing the independence of parliamentary bodies, will help ensure that Senate proceedings involving the discipline of senators and other individuals follow standards of due process and are generally in keeping with other rights, notably those normally protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than November 30, 2014.—(Honourable Senator Greene)

No. 55. (seven)

March 4, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Downe, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chaput:

That the Senate call upon the Members of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada to join the Senate in its efforts to increase transparency by acknowledging the longstanding request of current and former Auditors General of Canada to examine the accounts of both Houses of Parliament, and thereby inviting the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a comprehensive audit of House of Commons expenses, including Members' expenses, and

That the audits of the House of Commons and the Senate be conducted concurrently, and the results for both Chambers of Parliament be published at the same time.—(Honourable Senator Greene)

No. 62. (ten)

March 27, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy:

That a Special Committee on Senate Transformation be appointed to consider;

1. methods to reduce the role of political parties in the Senate by establishing regional caucuses and systems to provide accountability to citizens; 2. methods to broaden participation of all senators in managing the business of the Senate by establishing a committee to assume those responsibilities, and to provide for equal regional representation on said committee; 3. methods to allow senators to participate in the selection of the Speaker of the Senate by providing a recommendation to the Prime Minister; 4. methods to adapt Question Period to better serve its role as an accountability exercise; and 5. such other matters as may be referred to it by the Senate;

That the committee be composed of nine members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and that four members constitute a quorum;

That, the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses; and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;

That, notwithstanding rule 12-18(2)(b)(i), the committee have power to sit from Monday to Friday, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week; and

That the committee be empowered to report from time to time and to submit its final report no later than June 30, 2015. —(Honourable Senator Fraser)

No. 60. (twelve)

May 6, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.:

That the Senate urges the Government to take the necessary measures to establish a National Commission for the 150th Anniversary of Confederation charged with the responsibility of preparing and implementing celebrations, projects and initiatives across the country to mark the 150th anniversary of Confederation during the year 2017. Further, the Senate urges that the membership of this commission include representatives from all the provinces and territories and that, in addition to any budget voted by Parliament, the commission be able to receive contributions from Canadians.—(Honourable Senator MacDonald)

No. 113. (fourteen)

March 26, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:

That, Whereas the free trade agreement with the European Union contains rules to protect investments accompanied by a dispute settlement mechanism between states and investors through arbitration (ISDS);

Whereas the introduction of such rules could undermine the ability of the Canadian Federal Parliament as well as Provincial and Territorial assemblies or parliaments to legislate, particularly on social, health and environmental issues, exposing the federal, provincial and territorial governments to paying substantial compensation to investors who feel aggrieved by new measures;

Whereas there is already another interstate dispute settlement mechanism for investment, inspired by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization,

The Senate of Canada urges the Government to revise Chapters 10 (Investment) and 33 (Dispute Resolution) of the free trade agreement negotiated with the European Union in order to remove the investor / state dispute settlement mechanism from the agreement.—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)

No. 47. (fifteen)

February 6, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif:

That the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to examine and report on trade between the United States and Canada and the adherence to the laws and principles of all trade agreements, with particular focus on spent fowl and chicken imports, including:

(a) the application of tariffs and quotas on classifications that include blends, food preparation, kits, and sets, as well as the potential for these products to circumvent the law and principle of trade agreements, in particular import quotas; (b) the regulations regarding import tariffs and quotas as established by the Department of Finance; (c) the interpretation and application of those rules and regulations by the Canadian Border Services Agency; (d) the monitoring of products defined as blends, food preparation, kits, and sets; and (e) The reciprocity of US regulations regarding similar Canadian imports;

That the committee provide recommendations for regulatory and legislative actions to ensure fairness for Canadians in the system; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 27, 2014, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.—(Honourable Senator MacDonald)

No. 56. (ten)

March 4, 2014—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson:

That a Special Committee on Equalization and Fiscal Federalism be appointed to consider whether the current formulae for equalization and other related federal transfers affect the ability of Canadians living in all regions of the country to access a basic standard of public services without facing significantly different levels of taxation.

That the committee be composed of nine members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and that four members constitute a quorum;

That, the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses; and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;

That, notwithstanding rule 12-18(2)(b)(i), the committee have power to sit from Monday to Friday, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week; and

That the committee be empowered to report from time to time and to submit its final report no later than March 31, 2015. —(Honourable Senator Munson)

Inquiries

No. 56.

June 23, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Jaffer calling the attention of the Senate to the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, and the mandate of Canada's Office of Religious Freedoms. —(Honourable Senator Cordy)

No. 17. (one)

March 25, 2014—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Nolin calling the attention of the Senate to its role in protecting minorities.—(Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.)

No. 34. (two)

June 19, 2014—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Munson, calling the attention of the Senate to lighthouses as irreplaceable symbols of Canada's maritime heritage and monuments that enrich communities and the landscape of this country.—(Honourable Senator Cowan)

No. 55. (two)

June 22, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to;

(a) our 1988 Senate National Finance Committee study of the Auditor General of Canada; and, to then incumbent Kenneth Dye's February 3 testimony, wherein he described parliament as his "client,'' but also said, ". . . , our office views itself as a servant of Parliament''; and, to his explanation of the comprehensive audit, the term used by the June 6, 2013 Senate government motion, inviting the auditor general to audit exam senators; and, to the Auditor General's term, "performance audit,'' that describes this same audit of senators; and, (b) to the learned research and scholarship on the auditor general's role and its incursion into the political, policy spheres; and, to Carleton University's Professor Sharon Sutherland's January 28, 1988, testimony before our National Finance Committee; and, to the abandonment by auditors general of their traditional audit role as quantitative bean counters; and, to their movement into the policy and advice spheres, the inexorable consequence of the then new 1977 Auditor General Act, the political result of then Auditor General James Macdonell's, successful public media campaign to that end; and, (c) to the political fact that this Act enlarged this auditor's powers to add a new unknown power to judge and opine on the "value for money'' of government expenditures; and, to these judgments which, not amenable to arithmetic measurement and quantification, will inevitably be flawed, because by human nature, such judgments will tend to be social, political and qualitative in character, which judgments, so totally liable to human subjectivity and selectivity, cannot be sound measures to form sound conclusions on government spending; and, (d) to the fact that such auditors' opinions, politicized as they are, having of necessity become public policy opinions, will undermine the constitutional fact that public policy is the exclusive domain of politics, governments and parliaments; and, to Auditor General Act "value for money'' section 7.(2)(d), which says: 7.(2) Each report of the Auditor General under subsection (1) shall call attention to anything that he considers to be of significance and of a nature that should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons, including any cases which he has observed that . . . (d) money has been expended without due regard to economy or efficiency; and, (e) to the fact that Mr. Macdonell's 1977 Auditor General Act wholly altered audit of the public finance; and, to this then new audit role's drift away from the appropriation audit, towards the regulation of government, and now even the houses of parliament, with the result that, in the public mind, the auditors general have become a check on politicians, parliamentarians and senators; and, to this auditor general new role in social and political control, with all its unfortunate results; and, to the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation, founded, financed, and operated by Auditor General Macdonell's office; and, to its famous paper, Comprehensive Auditing — An Overview, which, at page 6, states that: Although the primary function of auditors is to add credibility to financial information, recent developments seem to indicate a growing trend towards viewing them in a broader context as agents of social control, . . . . —(Honourable Senator McCoy)

No. 58. (two)

June 22, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to:

(a) the statutory officer, the Auditor General of Canada, and his powers and duties granted by the current Auditor General Act; and, to our 1878 statute, An Act to provide for the better Auditing of the Public Accounts, which Act created the new auditor general as an independent officer, absolutely and completely separate from government, to be beyond and outside government influence, favour, and disfavour; and, (b) to the powers of the auditor general, by the Auditor General Act section 13.(4), by which section he is a commissioner under the Inquiries Act, Part I; and, to his powers to compel and obtain information that he needs for his audit, and to the fact that these powers have no application to senators; and, to section 13.(4) that states: The Auditor General may examine any person on oath on any matter pertaining to any account subject to audit by him and for the purposes of any such examination the Auditor General may exercise all the powers of a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act. (c) to the February 16, 2011, 9 page paper, The Accountability of Agents of Parliament, and its accompanying 5-line letter, signed by seven office holders, who describe themselves as "agents of parliament,'' in preference to the term "officers of parliament,'' when in fact these office holders are neither; and, (d) to the 1988 Senate National Finance Committee's Eighteenth Report on its consideration of the Main Estimates, and also on its study on the role of the auditor general pursuant to the then still new 1977 Auditor General Act; and, to this Report, which concluded that the auditor general's role is not to judge the merits of public policy; and, (e) to Carleton University Professor Sharon Sutherland's article, The Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Watching the Watchdog, which examined the auditor general's value-for-money audit, which article is chapter 6 in the 1981 book, How Ottawa Spends Your Tax Dollars edited by Bruce Doern.—(Honourable Senator McCoy)

No. 47. (three)

January 28, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Plett, calling the attention of the Senate to the decisions made by certain provinces' law societies to deny accreditation to Trinity Western University's proposed new law school.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 21. (three)

February 13, 2014—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mercer, calling the attention of the Senate to Senate Reform and how the Senate and its Senators can achieve reforms and improve the function of the Senate by examining the role of Senators in their Regions.—(Honourable Senator Hubley)

No. 48. (three)

June 16, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Dyck, calling the attention of the Senate to the National Roundtable on missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls and the Government of Canada's Action Plan to Address Family Violence and Violent Crimes Against Aboriginal Women and Girls.—(Honourable Senator Lovelace Nicholas)

No. 57. (four)

June 11, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to:

(a) the statutory officer the Auditor General of Canada, and to the Auditor General Act, in which parliament wilfully granted him no powers to subject or compel senators or members of parliament, to audit examination; and, to this Act's Powers and Duties sections 5-12, and section 5 that commands: The Auditor General is the auditor of the accounts of Canada, . . . and, (b) to the constitutional truth that the Senate is no part of the accounts of Canada, nor of the public administration, nor of the public service; and, to the constitutional fact that this parliament's upper house the Senate, like the Commons House, is not a department of government headed and directed by a government minister of the crown; and, to the Auditor General Act's section 7 that commands the Auditor General to report to the Commons House on his public accounts audits, but which Act has no section that authorizes this auditor to report to the Senate on anything, and most particularly not on an audit examination of senators, largely because this Act grants no power to report on that which it grants no power to do, and in fact forbids; and, to the critical fact that the Auditor General Act is subject to the abiding law of the constitution, known as the " sovereignty of parliament,'' which he is sworn to uphold; and, (c) to the constitutional fact that the auditor general's audit of the Senate and senators is no part of the data or information he requires "to the fulfillment of his or her responsibilities'' as the auditor of the accounts of Canada, pursuant to the Auditor General Act section 13.(1), 14.(1) and 14.(2); and, to the fact that senators and the Senate are not subject to his Act's section 13.(4) which grants him powers as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act, Part I, because the Senate, is "no part of the accounts of Canada,'' nor of the public service, nor of the public administration; and, (d) to the 1987 Federal Court of Appeal ruling, against the Auditor General in his quest for access to cabinet documents in the Petrofina case, wherein Justice Pratte, concurring with the lead Justice Heald, held that the Auditor General is the "auditor of the accounts of Canada'' and, "whatever be his rights under ss. 13 and 14, he may only exercise them in fulfilling his responsibility as auditor of the accounts of Canada,'' and, to the constitutional fact that audit of the senators is no part of the Auditor General's rights, powers, nor "the fulfillment of his or her responsibilities'' by the Auditor General Act. —(Honourable Senator McCoy)

No. 53. (seven)

June 4, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to:

the Auditor General of Canada, and his public role as "the auditor of the accounts of Canada''; and, to the parliamentary action known as the appropriation audit, which audit was the very purpose for the creation of the new and independent auditor general by the 1878 Canadian statute which followed the British practice of 1866; and, to the parliamentary appropriation audit; and, to this audit that tracked the government's public expenditures in the public service and public administration to certify and verify that the public monies were expended, as dictated in the appropriations acts, adopted by the House of Commons; and, to the fact that the appropriation audit was created and intended to assist the Commons House's control of the national finance, the public revenue and the public expenditure; and, to the House of Commons' pre-eminence in the power of the control of the public purse; and, to the fact that the creation of the appropriation audit and its later universal application to all, not some, of the departments of government, was one of the greatest achievements of the House of Commons, and of parliament; and, to the fact that the whole of the powers and duties of the auditor general follow his duties as the auditor of the accounts of Canada, of which the Senate is no part, as it is no part of the public service or the public administration of Canada.—(Honourable Senator Fraser)

No. 54. (seven)

June 4, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to:

(a) the Auditor General of Canada, a statutory officer whose powers are limited to those expressly stated in the statute, the Auditor General Act; and, to his powers, by this Act, as "the auditor of the accounts of Canada,'' which powers do not include any audit of the Senate and senators; and, to the British House of Commons' great achievement, being the creation of the appropriation audit, to which audit all government departments were subject; and, to this appropriation audit, which inspired Canada's 1878 statute that created the Auditor General of Canada as an officer wholly independent of our finance department and most particularly of the government; and, (b) to the auditor general's role in the appropriation audit, being to verify and to certify that government spending is as the House of Commons dictated and adopted in their appropriation acts; and, to the purpose and function of appropriation audits, which is the examination of the appropriation accounts of government departments, of which the Senate is not one, and therefore not subject to the Auditor General's audit examination; and, (c) to the distinguished British Liberal Leader, William Gladstone, known for his constitutional acumen, and his defence of the powers of the House of Commons in the public finance and the control of the public purse, and who, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sponsored Britain's 1866 Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, which was the basis for Canada's 1878 statute, An Act for the better Auditing of the Public Accounts, which Act established the new independent Auditor General of Canada; and, to Britain's Commons House famous and powerful Public Accounts Committee and its 1865 Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, which Report clarified the role of audit in the public accounts of the departments of government; and, (d) to this Report, that records the auditors' views and opinions on their role and proper function as never advising, controlling, or remonstrating, and also to never correct or prevent, but just to detect; and, to the fact that this great achievement of the appropriation audit is now largely unknown to Canadians, because recently, auditors general, by their own self-definition, have expanded their role away from the quantitative, arithmetic functions of audit, and have moved into the qualitative, policy spheres, to the extent that many Canadians now believe wrongly that the auditor general is the taxpayers' representative and guardian of their tax dollars, which function properly belongs to the Commons House, and not to the auditor general, who has absolutely no representative powers, which powers rightly belong to the elected members of parliament, chosen in representation by population for the purpose of no taxation without representation. —(Honourable Senator Fraser)

No. 51. (seven)

June 2, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to the terms, conditions and tenure of office of the Auditor General of Canada, pursuant to the Auditor General Act, sections 3.(1) and 3.(1.1), that say:

3. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint an Auditor General of Canada after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and House of Commons and approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons. (1.1) The Auditor General holds office during good behaviour for a term of 10 years but may be removed for cause by the Governor in Council on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

and, to his tenure in office, and the unique independence granted to this officer as "the auditor of the accounts of Canada,'' to permit him to verify and certify that government spending is in accord with the appropriation acts, as dictated and adopted by the Commons House; and, to his constitutional duty to support the Public Accounts Committee and the Commons House in their pre-eminence in the national finance and their power in the control of the public purse.—(Honourable Senator Moore)

No. 52. (seven)

June 2, 2015—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to:

(a) the Auditor General of Canada, the statutory officer, that parliament did not, and never intended to give a power to audit it's houses, the Senate and the House of Commons; and, to the predecessor auditor general who, until 1878, was united and merged in the office of the deputy minister of finance; and, to this parliament's An Act to provide for the better Auditing of the Public Accounts, which statute was adopted here in 1878, to completely divide these two offices and functions, and to absolutely separate the auditor general from the finance department and the government, so as to extract him from all government business forever, all of which were for the purpose of constituting the Auditor General of Canada as an wholly independent officer, freed from, and free of, the control, influence, and politics, of the government of the day; and (b) to the sad and unfortunate fact, which the government does not seem to note, that the unique independence granted to this officer, the Auditor General of Canada as the auditor of the public accounts, wholly forbids his obedience to the government's wishes in any way, particularly its motions which, when adopted, become house orders, that subject him to the contempt powers of the houses; and, to the auditor general's audit of the Senate, the upper house, which is a hurtful and menacing compromise of this officer's independence, caused by the fact that this overly-publicized Senate audit was not born of senators, but was born of the Senate Government Leader's government business, at the instance of that government leader's government measure, moved here by that government minister, and hastily adopted last June, with little debate, in a government whipped vote; and, to the fact that senators learned of the government's intention, and the auditor general's agreement to audit senators from that day's media reports; and, to the terrible fact that senators were the last to hear of this unilateral development.—(Honourable Senator Moore)

No. 41. (nine)

October 30, 2014—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to November 11, known to all as Remembrance Day, of this, the centennial year of the July 28 start of hostilities in the 1914-1918 Great War, which day is given to the national and collective mourning of Canadians, on which we remember and honour the many who served and who fell in the service of God, King and Country, and, whose incalculable sacrifice of their lives, we honour in our simultaneous yet individual, personal acts of prayer and remembrance, wherein we pause and bow our heads together in sacred unity, at the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, for the many who gave themselves, and:

To those who served in World War I, with its stupendous sacrifices, its massive mobilisation and fielding of millions of men, on all sides, and to its enormous casualties and losses of life, and, to our young country's noble contribution to this far away overseas War, of 620,000 men, being ten percent of Canada's then population, and, to our 60,661 fallen, being ten percent of those serving, and, to Canada's Prime Minister, the Conservative, Robert Borden's success in earning Canada's representation at the 1919 Allies' Paris Peace Conference, and, to his and his Ministers' presence there, and, to the respect he earned for Canadian contribution to the war, and for Canada's control of its foreign affairs, wars and peace, and, to the changing relations between the Allied leaders, and, to their changing politics at home, and, to Canadians at home and abroad, particularly the Canadian-born British Prime Minister, Andrew Bonar Law and the Canadian Max Aitken, known as Lord Beaverbrook, both of whom were active in British politics in these events, and who endeavoured, in 1922, to avoid a new war at Chanak, in the Turkish Dardanelles.—(Honourable Senator Cools)

No. 44. (nine)

November 6, 2014—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to November 11, known to all as Remembrance Day, of this, the centennial year of the July 28 start of hostilities in the 1914-1918 Great War, which day is given to the national and collective mourning of Canadians, on which we remember and honour the many who served and who fell in the service of God, King and Country, and, whose incalculable sacrifice of their lives, we honour in our simultaneous yet individual, personal acts of prayer and remembrance, wherein we pause and bow our heads together in sacred unity, at the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, for the many who gave themselves, and:

To Canadian and British peace of mind, freed from the fear and sorrow of the possible sacrifice of their beloved sons to war, so soon again, and, to their "blessed relief,'' and, to Canadian unanimity in support of their Prime Minister Mackenzie King's stand against war at Chanak, and, to Canadian events, and, to Canadians such as John Wesley Dafoe, the great journalist-editor of the Manitoba Free Press, later the Winnipeg Free Press, who had attended the 1919 Allies' Paris Peace Conference with Prime Minister Robert Borden's Canadian delegation, and, who had supported Canada's position on Chanak, and, who had strenuously opposed Prime Minister Lloyd George's demands to the Dominions and Canada to send troops there, and, to John Dafoe's brilliant account of Canadians and the Canadian Government's desire to live without war against people who had done them no harm, and, to his historic Manitoba Free Press article, titled, The Rise of the Commonwealth Dominion Responsibility For External Affairs, and, to Canada's influence on British politics and the other Dominions, and, to Canada's firm, principled, and vindicated position not to send Canadian troops to the Dardanelles, at Chanak, and, to Canadian-born British Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law's negotiated and lasting peace with Turkey, in the Treaty of Lausanne, that is still in force, and, to the profound truth that the greatest act of peace is simply to make no unnecessary war, and, to make absolutely no war, for the purpose, that is the pursuit of ambition. —(Honourable Senator Meredith)

No. 42. (eleven)

November 4, 2014—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to November 11, known to all as Remembrance Day, of this, the centennial year of the July 28 start of hostilities in the 1914-1918 Great War, which day is given to the national and collective mourning of Canadians, on which we remember and honour the many who served and who fell in the service of God, King and Country, and, whose incalculable sacrifice of their lives, we honour in our simultaneous yet individual, personal acts of prayer and remembrance, wherein we pause and bow our heads together in sacred unity, at the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, for the many who gave themselves, and:

To two exceptional soldiers and human beings, who fought on opposite sides of the Great War, both of whom, were distinguished generals and accomplished military men, being General Charles Harington, the British Commander in Chief of the Allied occupation army in Constantinople, and the Turkish General, Mustafa Kemal, the Commander of the Turkish peoples' brave national resistance to the Sèvres Treaty's detachment and partition of the Turkish peoples' lands, to give these lands to some of the Allies who so desired them, and, to these two Commanders' respective troops, assembled, battle ready, and awaiting orders for the start of hostilities in October 1922, at Chanak in the Dardanelles, and, to fate, which joined these two commanders there, and, to their determination to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, and, to their remarkable contribution to British, Turkish and world peace, and, to their will to not spend their soldiers' lives in folly, and, to reach the honourable, the just and the true, by their negotiated armistice, agreed and signed on, October 11, 1922 as the Armistice of Mudanya, and, to Canadian born, Andrew Bonar Law who became Prime Minister of Britain on October 23, 1922, and who served for seven months, and who passed away on October 30, 1923, and, to his great commitment to the British-Turkish peace in what the British, the Dominions and Canadians called the Chanak Crisis or the Chanak Affair. —(Honourable Senator Meredith)

No. 43. (eleven)

November 4, 2014—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to November 11, known to all as Remembrance Day, of this, the centennial year of the July 28 start of hostilities in the 1914-1918 Great War, which day is given to the national and collective mourning of Canadians, on which we remember and honour the many who served and who fell in the service of God, King and Country, and, whose incalculable sacrifice of their lives, we honour in our simultaneous yet individual, personal acts of prayer and remembrance, wherein we pause and bow our heads together in sacred unity, at the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, for the many who gave themselves, and:

To the unique political events, just four years after the Great War, known as the 1922 Chanak Crisis, or Chanak Affair, in which Canadian and British politics met in Canada's firm stand for its constitutional autonomy in its foreign affairs, war and peace, and, to Canada's Prime Minister, the Liberal, Mackenzie King's nationally supported refusal to yield to British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and his Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill's persistent demands for Canadian troops to fight a new war at Chanak, now Çanakkale, the tiny Turkish Dardanelles seaport, and, to this new war, wholly unwanted by Canadians and the British, still war-weary, and still mourning their fallen sons, and, to this looming war, the inexorable result of Prime Minister Lloyd George's unjust, inoperative and stillborn Sèvres Treaty, the peace treaty that began with war, and, its humiliating peace terms which would put the Turkish peoples out of their ancient lands in Eastern Thrace and Anatolia, and, to their successful nationalist resistance to this injustice, and, to Canada's role in the lasting peace that avoided this unnecessary and unwanted Chanak war, and, to British politics by which a single vote of the Conservative Caucus prompted the very necessary resignation of Prime Minister Lloyd George and his Liberal Coalition Government, and, to the ascendancy of Canadian born British Prime Minister, Bonar Law, who himself had lost two sons to the Great War, and who was then the most respected man in Great Britain, and, to his Near East policy of peace.—(Honourable Senator Meredith)

No. 45. (fourteen)

December 11, 2014—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Moore, calling the attention of the Senate to Northern Food Security.—(Honourable Senator Fraser)

Other

Nil

NOTICE PAPER

MOTIONS

No. 140. (three)

By the Honourable Senator Ngo:

June 16, 2015—That the Senate take note of the following facts:

(a) The relationship between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has grown substantially in recent years with annual trade between the two countries reaching nearly $3.5 billion in 2014; (b) Vietnam receives substantial international assistance from the Government of Canada reaching nearly $88 million in 2014; (c) Vietnam has made significant economic progress in recent years, but that progress has not been matched with greater respect for international human rights standards; (d) Vietnam is a one-party state whose government, controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam, has denied the Vietnamese people their basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association and freedom of religion; and (e) Vietnam is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council and should be held accountable to the highest standards of international human rights; and

That the Senate call upon the government to:

(a) Condemn the violation of international human rights standards by the government of Vietnam; and (b) Explore a reduction, a freeze, or a termination of international development assistance to Vietnam and the imposition of other sanctions against that country, as appropriate, to act as a deterrent for further violations of international human rights standards.

No. 146. (one)

By the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C.:

June 25, 2015—That, for the remainder of the current session,

(a) the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized, pursuant to rule 12- 18(2)(b)(ii), to sit, even if the Senate is adjourned for more than a week; (b) the Committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, and the reports be deemed to have been presented or tabled in the chamber, as the case may be; and (c) That, notwithstanding any usual practice or provision of the Rules, any presented report deposited with the Clerk under the terms of this order be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next day thereafter during the session that the Senate sits and published in the Journals of that day.

INQUIRIES

No. 50. (eleven)

By the Honourable Senator Plett:

May 14, 2015—That he will call the attention of the Senate to the need for action to ensure prompt payment of federal government construction work.

No. 59. (three)

By the Honourable Senator Jaffer:

June 15, 2015—That she will call the attention of the Senate to the discriminatory practice of carding by law enforcement officers in the Greater Toronto Area, and she will urge Toronto Mayor John Tory to do everything in his power to end carding practices.

No. 61. (three)

By the Honourable Senator Ngo:

June 16, 2015—That he will call the attention of the Senate to the Roundtable on the South-China Sea Territorial Dispute and the Final 1973 Peace Accord on Vietnam, held in Ottawa on December 5, 2014, and to the results of its work.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

No. 3.

By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:

October 17, 2013—In Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Act, the Conservative government set the stage for drastic changes to the Employment Insurance Act, including a new Appeals Tribunal for all federal social programs and a new definition for the term "Suitable Employment''.

Farming and fishing communities, and employers that are seasonally-dependent need a functional Employment Insurance system to make sure that skilled workers can transition smoothly between those seasonal jobs.

In addition, the changes will require Employment Insurance claimants to keep daily detailed records of their job search. Given that more than 42% of Canadians have literacy levels that are considered not functional, many claimants may have difficulty keeping written records of their job search despite actively looking for work.

1. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada conducted any job market study to determine the impact on the availability of skilled workers for seasonally-dependent industries as a result of the changes to the Employment Insurance Act? If so, what were the results? 2. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada considered any job market initiatives in the event that seasonally-dependent employers are unable to find adequate skilled workers? 3. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada estimated the number of anticipated Employment Insurance appeals that the Tribunal be required to hear per year? 4. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada conducted any feasibility study on the workload that will be required by each member of the new Tribunal? 5. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada or Service Canada developed a training system for Tribunal members? If so, what does this training entail? 6. Given that Tribunal members will be Ottawa-based, how will local economic realities be taken into account when hearing Employment Insurance appeals? 7. Has Human Resources and Social Development Canada or Service Canada developed policy or guidelines to address the challenges of possible low functional literacy levels among Employment Insurance claimants? 8. How has Human Resources and Social Development Canada or Service Canada trained its employees to recognize the needs of Employment Insurance claimants with low functional literacy levels?

No. 4.

By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:

October 17, 2013—1. In August 2012, the Minister of Human Resources announced changes to the Working While on Claim Pilot Project. This pilot project allowed Employment Insurance (EI) recipients to collect benefits even if they are able to find part-time work.

The previous system clawed back benefits once the part-time wages exceeded 40% of benefits, or $75 a week, whichever is greater. The change means that the federal government will now clawback all new earnings, from the first dollar earned, at a rate of 50%.

In October, the Minister of Human Resources announced a transition measure that those EI recipients who were working while on claim between August 7, 2011 and August 4, 2012 will be given the option of reverting to the rules that existed under the previous pilot project.

(a) How many individuals have utilized this pilot project in each fiscal year, by province, from the year of the project's inception? (b) Has the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada estimated how many EI recipients who were working while on claim between August 7, 2011 and August 4, 2012 will opt to revert to the rules that existed under the previous pilot project? If so, what are the results? (c) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any analysis or case studies to compare the impact on income, based on factors such as occupation, wage levels, etc., for individuals in each province between the previous and the new pilot project? If so, what are the results? (d) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any study to estimate the negative impact to the overall economies of each province as a result of this change? If so, what are the results? (e) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any study to estimate the cost to social services in each province as a result of this change? If so, what are the results?

2. On September 15, 2012, the Minister of Human Resources allowed the Extended Employment Insurance Benefits Pilot Project to expire. This pilot project provided an extra five weeks of Employment Insurance benefits to people living in 21 designated regions with high unemployment.

As a province with a chronically high unemployment rate, Prince Edward Island is one of those regions. In addition, the three primary industries of the province are seasonal in nature: agriculture, fisheries, and tourism. (a) How many individuals have utilized this pilot project in each fiscal year, by province, from the year of the project's inception? (b) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any study to estimate the negative impact to the overall economies of each province as a result of the cancellation of this pilot project? If so, what are the results? (c) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Service Canada, or Finance Canada undertaken any study to estimate the cost to social services in each province as a result of the cancellation of this pilot project? If so, what are the results? (d) What initiatives will Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or Service Canada implement to ensure that EI recipients who work in seasonal industries can weather five extra weeks without income?

No. 17.

By the Honourable Senator Downe:

March 25, 2014—With respect to the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act:

In response to a written question tabled in the Senate on November 4, 2013, Julian Fantino, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, confirmed that as of August 31, 2013, an incalculable amount of the promised "two billion dollars'' of changes to the New Veterans Charter had been spent on 2717 veterans who were receiving increased monthly financial compensation through the earnings loss benefit; 590 veterans who were receiving increased access to the Permanent Incapacity Allowance; and 202 veterans who were receiving access to the Exception Incapacity Allowance.

Would the Government of Canada provide the following information regarding the answer of the Minister:

A. How much have payments increased on average for the 2717 veterans entitled to increased earnings loss benefits; B. How much have payments increased for each of the 2717 veterans entitled to increased earnings loss benefits; C. How much have payments increased on average for the 590 veterans entitled to increased Permanent Incapacity Allowances; D. How much have payments increased for each of the 590 veterans entitled to increased Permanent Incapacity Allowances; E. How much have payments increased on average for the 202 veterans entitled to Exceptional Incapacity Allowances; and F. How much have payments increased for each of the 202 veterans entitled to Exceptional Incapacity Allowances?

No. 18.

By the Honourable Senator Downe:

March 25, 2014—With respect to the benefit provided by the Government of Canada for veterans' funeral and burial expenses:

A. What is the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program for funeral services? B. How does the amount in (A) compare to the allowable maximum established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces? C. In order to qualify for the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program, what must a veteran's estate be valued at? D. How does the amount in (C) compare to the means test established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces? E. How many requests for assistance with burial costs were made in each of the fiscal years from 2006-2013? F. How many of the requests in (E) were approved? G. For the requests in (E), please provide a breakdown, by fiscal year, summarizing the reasons for rejecting the requests ( e.g. value of estate did not satisfy means test, veteran did not serve in First and Second World War or Korea, etc.) and the number of requests that were rejected for each reason.

No. 31.

By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:

May 1, 2014—1. On July 4, 2011, the federal, provincial and territorial governments committed to a combined $1.4 billion investment under a new Investment in Affordable Housing Framework 2011-2014. This framework was implemented through IAH bilateral agreements between CMHC and most provinces and territories.

For Prince Edward Island in particular, the Government of Canada and the Province announced a combined investment of close to $7 million under the renewal of the existing Affordable Housing Initiative and renovation programs for the 2011-2014 period.

(a) What was the federal share for each province or territory? (b) What was the provincial or territorial share for each province or territory? (c) How much of the federal share has been claimed in each year for each province or territory? (d) How many households/units are funded per year by the AHI in each province or territory?

2. Budget 2013 announced more than $1.25 billion over five years, beginning in April 2014, to extend the Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) to March 31, 2019. This is a significant decrease over the previous 2011-2014 investment.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's (CMHC) website states that it is currently working with provinces and territories on the renewal of affordable housing investments to 2019.

(a) Aside from PEI, which signed its agreements April 25, have agreements been signed with any other province or territory? If so, which one(s)? (b) Is the federal government or CMHC currently negotiating with all provinces and territories? If not, which provinces or territories are engaged in negotiations? (c) At what stage are these negotiations for each province or territory? (d) When does the federal government estimate IAH agreements to be signed with every province or territory? (e) What will be the federal share for each province or territory for each year of the agreements? (f) What will be the provincial or territorial share for each province or territory for each year of the agreements? (g) How many households/units will be funded by this renewal of the AHI in each province or territory in each year of the agreement? (h) What is the federal government's rationale for a more than 45% annual decrease between the 2011-2014 IAH and this extension?

3. Over the next two decades, about $1.7 billion in annual federal funding for long-term social housing will be expiring across the country. This funding accounts for approximately 600,000 social housing units in Canada, and its expiry will put one-third at risk. CMHC also has agreements with housing co-operatives in Canada, which have already begun to expire. The federal government had indicated that they will not be renewed.

For Prince Edward Island, there are approximately 50 agreements with the provincial government and housing co- ops worth about $12 million annually. The federal government subsidizes 3,100 households across the province for seniors and low-income people.

There have been calls from some provinces and the Canadian Federation of Municipalities for the federal government to discuss renewal of these agreements, and develop a long-term social housing plan.

(a) Has the federal government undertaken any discussions to renew the expiring long-term social housing agreements with any province or territory? If so, what were the results? (b) Has the federal government undertaken any discussions to renew the expiring agreements with any housing co-operative? If so, what were the results? (c) Has the federal government undertaken any study to determine the impact of the expiry of these long-term social housing agreements? If so, what were the results? (d) Has the federal government undertaken any study to determine the impact of the expiry of agreements with housing co-operatives? If so, what were the results?

Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling these questions.

No. 32.

By the Honourable Senator Downe:

May 27, 2014—Could the Government provide a list of recipients of all civil and military decorations, awards and commendations granted to individuals or groups by all branches of the Government of Canada for actions in the wake of the crash of Swissair Flight 111 on September 2nd, 1998?

No. 34

By the Honourable Senator Cowan:

February 3, 2015—For the three-year period ending December 31, 2014, in respect to each inmate death in federal institutions under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, what was: