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)

1. Tabling of Documents

2. Presenting or Tabling Reports from Committees

3. Government Notices of Motions

4. Government Notices of Inquiries

5. Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills

6. Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills

7. First Reading of Commons Public Bills

8. Reading of Petitions for Private Bills

9. Introduction and First Reading of Private Bills

10. Tabling of Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations

11. Notices of Motions

12. Notices of Inquiries

13. 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

No. 1.

November 30, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Campbell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Omidvar, for the second reading of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

No. 2.

November 30, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dean, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest, for the second reading of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts.

No. 3.

November 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Omidvar, for the second reading of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

No. 4.

November 9, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the second reading of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Reports of Committees – Other

Nil

Motions

No. 1.

December 8, 2015—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy:

That the following Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

No. 145.

By the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

November 30, 2017—That, in accordance with section 49 of the Official Languages Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.), the Senate approve the appointment of Raymond Théberge as Commissioner of Official Languages.

Inquiries

No. 2.

By the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

March 28, 2017—That he will call the attention of the Senate to the budget entitled Building a Strong Middle Class, tabled in the House of Commons on March 22, 2017, by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Bill Morneau, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on March 28, 2017.

Other

No. 1.

AT 7 P.M., PURSUANT TO THE ORDER ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 30, 2017

November 30, 2017—The Senate in Committee of the Whole in order to receive Raymond Théberge respecting his nomination as Commissioner of Official Languages.

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 parentheses 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

No. 1.

October 31, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator McPhedran, for the third reading of Bill S-210, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.—(Honourable Senator Plett)

No. 2. (two)

March 28, 2017—Third reading of Bill S-213, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act (Speakership of the Senate).—(Honourable Senator Mercer)

No. 3.

June 13, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., for the third reading of Bill S-219, An Act to deter Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations.—(Honourable Senator Cools)

Commons Public Bills – Third Reading

No. 1. (ten)

March 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, for the third reading of Bill C-210, An Act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender).

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Beyak, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dagenais:

That Bill C-210 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, on page 1, by adding the following after line 6:

“2 This Act comes into force on the later of July 1, 2017 and the day on which it receives royal assent.”.

And on the subamendment of the Honourable Senator Ngo, seconded by the Honourable Senator Enverga:

That the motion in amendment moved by the Honourable Senator Beyak be amended by replacing the words “the later of July 1, 2017 and the day on which it receives royal assent” with the words “December 1, 2017”.—(Honourable Senator Plett)

No. 2. (two)

November 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Eaton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, for the third reading of Bill C-277, An Act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C.:

That Bill C-277 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 2, on page 2,

(a)by replacing line 12 with the following:

“frameworks, strategies and best practices;”; and

(b)by replacing line 15 with the following:

“End-of-Life Care; and

(h)identifies measures for public education and awareness on palliative care.”.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

Private Bills – Third Reading

Nil

Senate Public Bills – Reports of Committees

No. 1. (two)

November 28, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Manning, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the adoption of the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), with amendments), presented in the Senate on October 31, 2017.—(Honourable Senator McInnis)

No. 2. (fifteen)

October 17, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ogilvie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson, for the adoption of the sixteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill S-214, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cruelty-free cosmetics), with amendments), presented in the Senate on October 5, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Ringuette)

Commons Public Bills – Reports of Committees

Nil

Private Bills – Reports of Committees

Nil

Senate Public Bills – Second Reading

No. 1. (twelve)

February 2, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-206, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children against standard child-rearing violence).—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)

No. 2. (ten)

March 24, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Enverga, for the second reading of Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Property qualifications of Senators).—(Honourable Senator Smith)

No. 3. (six)

June 1, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Frum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (eliminating foreign funding).—(Honourable Senator Woo)

No. 4. (seven)

October 31, 2017—Second reading of Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).—(Honourable Senator Ataullahjan)

No. 5. (six)

November 1, 2017—Second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day.—(Honourable Senator Jaffer)

No. 6. (six)

November 1, 2017—Second reading of Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Competition Act (misrepresentations to public).—(Honourable Senator Enverga)

No. 7. (two)

November 28, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Downe, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-243, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).—(Honourable Senator Martin)

Commons Public Bills – Second Reading

No. 1. (nine)

October 26, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator White, seconded by the Honourable Senator Enverga, for the second reading of Bill C-211, An Act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder.—(Honourable Senator White)

No. 2. (eleven)

June 14, 2017—Second reading of Bill C-243, An Act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy.—(Honourable Senator Day)

No. 3.

October 24, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-309, An Act to establish Gender Equality Week.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 4. (nine)

June 6, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, for the second reading of Bill C-337, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code (sexual assault).—(Honourable Senator Sinclair)

Private Bills – Second Reading

Nil

Reports of Committees – Other

No. 1. (two)

November 15, 2016—Resuming debate on the consideration of the first report (interim) of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on October 4, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Omidvar)

No. 5. (eleven)

November 2, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the adoption of the sixth report (interim) of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward (Speakership), presented in the Senate on October 5, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Mercer)

No. 6. (five)

November 22, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Massicotte, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore for the adoption of the seventh report (interim), as amended, of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward (Regional interest), presented in the Senate on October 18, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Wells)

No. 7. (eight)

February 28, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Frum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beyak for the adoption of the ninth report (interim) of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward (Question Period), presented in the Senate on October 25, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Mercer)

No. 8. (five)

December 12, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy for the adoption of the tenth report (interim), as amended, of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward (Nature), presented in the Senate on October 26, 2016.—(Honourable Senator Fraser)

No. 10.

March 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson:

That the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, entitled Pipelines for Oil: Protecting our Economy, Respecting our Environment, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on December 7, 2016 be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Natural Resources being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Ministers of Transport and Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.—(Honourable Senator Day)

No. 15. (thirteen)

March 28, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley for the adoption of the fourth report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Sessional Order, presented in the Senate on March 7, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Poirier)

No. 29. (nine)

May 9, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lang, seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith, for the adoption of the tenth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled Military underfunded: The walk must match the talk, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on April 13, 2017.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:

That the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be not now adopted, but that it be amended by deleting the second recommendation.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 33. (nine)

May 11, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lang, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin:

That the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces: A plan for the future, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on May 8, 2017, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of National Defence being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:

That the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be not now adopted, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for consideration, particularly in light of the document entitled Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada’s Defence Policy, tabled in the Senate on June 7, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 50. (seven)

November 1, 2017—Resuming debate on the consideration of the tenth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, entitled Decarbonizing Transportation in Canada, tabled in the Senate on June 22, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 51. (seven)

November 1, 2017—Resuming debate on the consideration of the nineteenth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, entitled Getting Ready: For a new generation of active seniors, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 27, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Mockler)

No. 52. (seven)

November 1, 2017—Resuming debate on the consideration of the twentieth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, entitled Smarter Planning, Smarter Spending: Ensuring Transparency, Accountability and Predictability in Federal Infrastructure Programs, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on July 6, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Mockler)

No. 61. (eight)

October 31, 2017—Consideration of the seventeenth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, entitled Credit unions and the use of the word banking, tabled in the Senate on October 31, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Tkachuk)

No. 64. (two)

November 28, 2017—Consideration of the twenty-first report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (Audit and Oversight), presented in the Senate on November 28, 2017.—(Honourable Senator Campbell)

Motions

No. 31. (five)

February 2, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Enverga:

That the Senate — in order to ensure transparency in the awarding of public funds and foster efficiency in infrastructure projects in the larger context of economic diversification and movement toward a greener economy, all while avoiding undue intervention in the federal-provincial division of powers — encourage the government to make provision in the budget for the creation of the Canadian Infrastructure Oversight and Best Practices Council, made up of experts in infrastructure projects from the provinces and territories, whose principal roles would be to:

1.collect information on federally funded infrastructure projects;

2. study the costs and benefits of federally funded infrastructure projects;

3. identify procurements best practices and of risk sharing;

4. promote these best practices among governments; and

5. promote project managers skills development; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House with the above.—(Honourable Senator Plett)

No. 73. (eight)

March 24, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Runciman:

Whereas the Senate provides representation for groups that are often underrepresented in Parliament, such as Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and women;

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires that, in order to be qualified for appointment to and to maintain a place in the Senate, a person must own land with a net worth of at least four thousand dollars in the province for which he or she is appointed;

Whereas a person’s personal circumstances or the availability of real property in a particular location may prevent him or her from owning the required property;

Whereas appointment to the Senate should not be restricted to those who own real property of a minimum net worth;

Whereas the existing real property qualification is inconsistent with the democratic values of modern Canadian society and is no longer an appropriate or relevant measure of the fitness of a person to serve in the Senate;

Whereas, in the case of Quebec, each of the twenty-four Senators representing the province must be appointed for and must have either their real property qualification in or be resident of a specified Electoral Division;

Whereas an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that a full repeal of paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867, respecting the real property qualification of Senators, would require a resolution of the Quebec National Assembly pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the Schedule hereto.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1.(1) Paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is repealed.

(2) Section 23 of the Act is amended by replacing the semi-colon at the end of paragraph (5) with a period and by repealing paragraph (6).

2.The Declaration of Qualification set out in The Fifth Schedule to the Act is replaced by the following:

I, A.B., do declare and testify that I am by law duly qualified to be appointed a member of the Senate of Canada.

3.This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Real property qualification of Senators).—(Honourable Senator Ringuette)

No. 89. (twelve)

May 12, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

That, in order to ensure that legislative reports of Senate committees follow a transparent, comprehensible and non-partisan methodology, the Rules of the Senate be amended by replacing rule 12-23(1) by the following:

“Obligation to report bill

12-23. (1) The committee to which a bill has been referred shall report the bill to the Senate. The report shall set out any amendments that the committee is recommending. In addition, the report shall have appended to it the committee’s observations on:

(a) whether the bill generally conforms with the Constitution of Canada, including:

(i) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and

(ii) the division of legislative powers between Parliament and the provincial and territorial legislatures;

(b) whether the bill conforms with treaties and international agreements that Canada has signed or ratified;

(c) whether the bill unduly impinges on any minority or economically disadvantaged groups;

(d) whether the bill has any impact on one or more provinces or territories;

(e) whether the appropriate consultations have been conducted;

(f) whether the bill contains any obvious drafting errors;

(g) all amendments moved but not adopted in the committee, including the text of these amendments; and

(h) any other matter that, in the committee’s opinion, should be brought to the attention of the Senate.”

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by:

1.adding the following new subsection after proposed subsection (c):

“(d) whether the bill has received substantive gender-based analysis;”; and

2.by changing the designation for current proposed subsections (d) to (h) to (e) to (i).—(Honourable Senator Wells)

No. 92. (eight)

May 17, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ngo, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan:

That the Senate note with concern the escalating and hostile behaviour exhibited by the People’s Republic of China in the South China Sea and consequently urge the Government of Canada to encourage all parties involved, and in particular the People’s Republic of China, to:

(a) recognize and uphold the rights of freedom of navigation and overflight as enshrined in customary international law and in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;

(b) cease all activities that would complicate or escalate the disputes, such as the construction of artificial islands, land reclamation, and further militarization of the region;

(c) abide by all previous multilateral efforts to resolve the disputes and commit to the successful implementation of a binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea;

(d) commit to finding a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the disputes in line with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and respect the settlements reached through international arbitration; and

(e) strengthen efforts to significantly reduce the environmental impacts of the disputes upon the fragile ecosystem of the South China Sea;

That the Senate also urge the Government of Canada to support its regional partners and allies and to take additional steps necessary to de-escalate tensions and restore the peace and stability of the region; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint it with the foregoing.—(Honourable Senator Day)

No. 139. (twelve)

February 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.:

That with Canada celebrating 150 years as a nation and acknowledging the lasting contribution of the First Nations, early settlers, and the continuing immigration of peoples from around the world who have made and continue to make Canada the great nation that it is, the Senate urge the Government to commit to establishing a National Portrait Gallery using the former US Embassy across from Parliament Hill as a lasting legacy to mark this important milestone in Canada’s history and in recognition of the people who contributed to its success.—(Honourable Senator Wells)

No. 146. (nine)

December 12, 2016—Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C.:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce be authorized to:

(a)Review the operations of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC), the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI), and ADR Chambers Banking Ombuds Office (ADRBO);

(b)Review the agencies’ interaction with and respect for provincial jurisdictions;

(c)Review and determine best practices from similar agencies in other jurisdictions;

(d)Provide recommendations to ensure that the FCAC, OBSI, and ADRBO can better protect consumers and respect provincial jurisdiction; and

That the Committee submit its final report no later than March 18, 2018, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.—(Honourable Senator Omidvar)

No. 158.

February 7, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Merchant, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

That the Senate call upon the government of Canada:

(a) to recognize the genocide of the Pontic Greeks of 1916 to 1923 and to condemn any attempt to deny or distort a historical truth as being anything less than genocide, a crime against humanity; and

(b) to designate May 19th of every year hereafter throughout Canada as a day of remembrance of the over 353,000 Pontic Greeks who were killed or expelled from their homes.—(Honourable Senator Day)

No. 174. (six)

May 18, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Enverga, seconded by the Honourable Senator Runciman:

That the Rules of the Senate be amended by replacing rule 4 by the following:

“Prayers and National Anthem

4-1.(1) The Speaker shall proceed to Prayers as soon as a quorum is seen, and, on a Tuesday, shall then call upon a Senator or guests to lead in singing the bilingual version of O Canada.

Guest singers

4-1.(2) The Speaker may invite guests to enter the galleries to lead in singing the National Anthem.”—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 189. (four)

May 8, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator McCoy:

That the Rules of the Senate be amended by:

1.replacing the period at the end of rule 12-7(16) by the following:

“; and

Human Resources

12-7. (17) the Standing Senate Committee on Human Resources, to which may be referred matters relating to human resources generally.”; and

2.updating all cross references in the Rules accordingly.—(Honourable Senator Gold)

No. 206. (six)

June 1, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mercer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser:

That a Special Committee on the Charitable Sector be appointed to examine the impact of federal and provincial laws and policies governing charities, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and other similar groups; and to examine the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada;

That the committee be composed of eight members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that four 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, 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 September 28, 2018, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 60 days after the tabling of the final report.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 215. (seven)

June 20, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson:

That the Senate take note of Agenda 2030 and the related sustainable development goals adopted by the United Nations on September 25, 2015, and encourage the Government of Canada to take account of them as it drafts legislation and develops policy relating to sustainable development.—(Honourable Senator Ataullahjan)

No. 245. (three)

October 17, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Griffin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin:

That the Senate affirm that literacy is a core component to active citizenship, a determinant for healthy outcomes, and, at its core, key to building an innovative economy with good, sustainable jobs;

That the Senate urge the Government to take into consideration the particular regional circumstances of Atlantic Canada based on smaller populations, many of which are in rural areas, when determining whether to implement programs using project-based funding compared to core funding;

That the Senate further urge the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to make an exception to the present terms and conditions of the Office of Literacy and Essential Skills project-based funding programs in order to request an emergency submission to the Treasury Board for $600,000 of core funding for the Atlantic Partnership for Literacy and Essential Skills based on their 2017 pre-budget consultation submission to Parliament; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house with the foregoing.—(Honourable Senator Greene)

Inquiries

No. 8.

May 5, 2016—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, calling the attention of the Senate to the Senate’s legislative work from the 24th to the 41st Parliament and on elements of evaluation.—(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)

No. 12. (one)

May 18, 2016—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Seidman, calling the attention of the Senate to its role in the protection of regional and minority representation.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 13.

October 25, 2016—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, calling the attention of the Senate to the relevance of full employment in the 21st century in a Globalized economy.—(Honourable Senator Petitclerc)

No. 14. (ten)

November 29, 2016—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Hubley, calling the attention of the Senate to the current state of literacy and literacy programs on Prince Edward Island, including the need for federal support of the PEI Literacy Alliance.—(Honourable Senator Duffy)

No. 19. (three)

December 8, 2016—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Pate, calling the attention of the Senate to the circumstances of some of the most marginalized, victimized, criminalized and institutionalized in Canada, particularly the increasing over-representation of Indigenous women in Canadian prisons.—(Honourable Senator Dyck)

No. 20. (five)

February 14, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Tardif, calling the attention of the Senate to regional universities and the important role they play in Canada.—(Honourable Senator Cordy)

No. 23. (nine)

June 13, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cordy, calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of identifying palliative care as an insured health service covered under the Canada Health Act and to the importance of developing a national strategy for uniform standards and delivery of palliative care.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

No. 24.

May 16, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Wallin, calling the attention of the Senate to the proposal put forward by Senator Harder, titled “Sober Second Thinking”, which reviews the Senate’s performance since the appointment of independent senators, and recommends the creation of a Senate business committee.—(Honourable Senator Omidvar)

No. 25. (six)

May 11, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Maltais, calling the attention of the Senate to the softwood lumber crisis.—(Honourable Senator Plett)

No. 26. (eleven)

May 30, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, calling the attention of the Senate to the important opportunity we have to review our principles and procedures with a view to ensuring that the Senate has the strongest most effective policies and mechanisms possible to respond to complaints against senators of sexual or other kinds of harassment.—(Honourable Senator Hartling)

No. 28. (six)

June 21, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Bovey, calling the attention of the Senate to the crisis in Churchill, Manitoba.—(Honourable Senator Mercer)

No. 31.

October 3, 2017—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Munson, calling the attention of the Senate to the 10th anniversary of its groundbreaking report Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis.—(Honourable Senator Martin)

Other

Nil

Notice Paper

Motions

No. 267. (two)

By the Honourable Senator Manning:

November 28, 2017—That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, February 16, 2016, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in relation to its study of issues relating to the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans be extended from December 31, 2017 to December 31, 2018.

No. 269. (one)

By the Honourable Senator Tkachuk:

November 29, 2017—That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, March 9, 2017, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in relation to its study on the regulatory and technical issues related to the deployment of connected and automated vehicles be extended from December 31, 2017 to March 1, 2018.

Inquiries

Nil

Written Questions

No. 53.

By the Honourable Senator Pate:

June 21, 2017—With respect to Bill C-56 — An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act:

On Monday, June 19th, Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act, received first reading in the Other Place. This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things, limit the use of administrative segregation to 21 days.

In October 2011, then UN Special Rapporteur on torture Juan E. Méndez called on all countries to ban the solitary confinement, also known as segregation, medical observation, management plans, intensive psychiatric care and various other emerging euphemisms. He said:

“Indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15 days should also be subject to an absolute prohibition”….“Considering the severe mental pain or suffering solitary confinement may cause, it can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment…”

The recommendations of the inquest jury that examined the death by homicide of Ashley Smith recommended an end to the use of segregation and the use of transfers to mental health institutions pursuant to s. 29 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In his mandate letter to the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister tasked Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould with implementing those recommendations.

Segregation and solitary confinement pose a direct threat to the security of prisoners, creating situations that both exacerbate and create disabling mental health issues. This is especially true for Indigenous women. Many have advocated for a ban of the use of segregation — by whatever name — for women prisoners. Such advocates include the Honourable Louise Arbour, the Canadian and Ontario Human Rights Commissions, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and the DisAbled Women’s Network and Native Women’s Association of Canada.

Why did the Government of Canada choose this approach, rather than abolish the use of the cruel and unusual punishment for women, particularly Indigenous women and those with disabling mental health issues altogether? Furthermore, will the government ensure that the proposed external oversight is judicial in nature?

No. 55.

By the Honourable Senator Dyck:

September 19, 2017—1.Please provide information on all major capital water and waste water projects funded over the last ten years (2005-06 to 2015-16). The following information is requested for each project:

•the total cost of the project;

• whether the project is a water or waste water project;

•whether the project is a greenfield project, an expansion or a retrofit; and

•the total number of houses initially (and/or currently) served by the project.

2.Please provide budget details for all infrastructure programming directed to First Nation communities during the past 10 years (2005-06 to 2015-16). The following details are requested:

•the total amount budgeted for the program;

•the amount transferred to support mandatory programs;

•the amount dedicated to Major Capital projects;

•the amount dedicated to Minor Capital; and

•the amount of Minor Capital dedicated to housing.

No. 57.

By the Honourable Senator McPhedran:

October 4, 2017—The federal budget 2017 included Canada’s first ever Gender Statement, an important symbol of leadership. This was a welcome step toward progress in closing the gender gap to build an inclusive more vibrant economy. But reality for women still paints a stark picture. Statistics Canada revealed earlier this year that women still only earn 74 cents for every dollar men earn. They also make up 60 per cent of minimum wage earners and 67 per cent of part-time workers. Women spend 50 per cent more time than men on unpaid care work. The gender gap is wide and entrenched. Increasing opportunities for women in our economy is key to the demographics that challenge our future.

International research in 50 countries shows that feminist women’s organizations are the single most effective means to building better public policy and better lives for women in countering violence (https://malahtun.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/2012-htun-weldon-apsr.pdf). Yet, they are typically the most underfunded organizations in the non-profit sector in Canada. The Women’s Program at Status of Women represents less than 1/110th of 1 per cent of total federal program spending, amounting to about $1 per woman in Canada. Women’s rights organizations in Canada have been decimated over the past decade under the previous government. The few survivors still operate with modest funding, at best, even with the very welcome funding that Minister Monsef has been announcing.

This government has demonstrated significant leadership over the past year in advancing its feminist agenda and adopting a feminist approach to policy-making. Feminist budgeting is core to realizing equality rights in ways that actually result in positive changes in the lives of women and their families – in other words “lived rights”. Gender budgeting is not merely a technical exercise, but a process that has women’s lived rights at its heart. A feminist approach to budgeting and fiscal policy ensures women’s organizations are well resourced to play their important role in policy-making and are actively included in consultations.

•Will this government commit to increasing direct funding to Canadian women’s organizations, including by increasing the funding envelope for the Women’s Program at Status of Women Canada, and when will this government lift the secrecy of the gender-based methodology and findings used in its budget process?

•What is this government prepared to do, to provide resources needed to engage women’s rights organizations in policy development, with sufficient resources and access, to provide the government with needed policy advice — from beyond government departments?

No. 59.

By the Honourable Senator Pate:

October 18, 2017—In light of the appearance of the Honourable Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources, in the Chamber at Question Period on October 17, 2017:

1.Too often in cases of resource development, Indigenous individuals and communities find their views ignored and their concerns left unaddressed. At the Muskrat Falls site, this culminated in the jailing of Indigenous land protectors who were seeking to have their voices heard regarding the project’s impact on traditional lands and ways of life. Prison is an abhorrent response that can only serve to exacerbate the historic colonial treatment of Indigenous Peoples and interfere with the government’s commitment to developing a new nation-to-nation relationship, in keeping with the Truth and Reconciliation process.

What concrete steps are being taken to fulfill the requirement of the mandate letter of the Minister of Natural Resources to work with other Ministers to make “provisions to enhance the engagement of Indigenous groups in reviewing and monitoring major resource development projects” and to ensure that protest, with a risk of criminalization, is not the only means available to Indigenous Peoples to make their voices heard in decisions regarding their lands?

2.Recent research has shown that as of 2015, the National Energy Board (NEB) approved nearly 100 percent of applications for resource development projects where Indigenous consultation remained an outstanding issue. In the past several months, Minister Carr has spoken about the modernization of the NEB. Additionally, the mandate letter of the Minister of Natural Resources requires the inclusion of expertise on Indigenous traditional knowledge within the NEB and outlines that the nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and Indigenous Peoples is a priority for the government. The recent 2017 Supreme Court of Canada ruling from the Chippewa of the Thames case presumes that the NEB is capable of fulfilling the federal government’s duty to consult.

What concrete steps have been taken to include expertise in Indigenous traditional knowledge in the NEB’s consideration of projects, to give a modernized NEB the independence and ability to reject development projects due to issues of consultation, and to ensure that the NEB will actually use this power?

3.Bill C-51 expanded the government’s surveillance abilities. In response to Mr. Charlie Angus’ question in the other place in December 2016, the Government of Canada disclosed that several federal departments, including Public Safety, Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and Natural Resources, continue to “maintain awareness” of the activity of Indigenous organizations and individuals in speaking out critically, rallying, and peacefully protesting.

What and why is information being gathered? Of the information gathered, how and for what purpose is it collected, monitored and analyzed? How is the monitoring and surveillance of Indigenous Peoples and organizations in relation to questions of Indigenous land use congruent with the process of Truth and Reconciliation, and moving beyond the colonial legacy in Canada?

No. 60.

By the Honourable Senator Boisvenu:

October 18, 2017—Regarding “transfers under terms of the International Transfer of Offenders Act”:

How many offenders made applications for a transfer to Canada after November 3, 2015?

How many of these applications were denied by the minister?

Between June 13, 2012 and November 3, 2015,

(a)how many offenders transferred to Canada were convicted of homicide?

(b)how many offenders transferred to Canada were convicted of sexual offences?

(c)how many offenders transferred to Canada were convicted of other offences involving violence?

After November 3, 2015,

(a)how many offenders transferred to Canada were convicted of homicide?

(b)how many offenders transferred to Canada were convicted of sexual offences?

(c)how many offenders transferred to Canada were convicted of other offences involving violence?

Between June 13, 2012 and November 3, 2015,

(a)how many offenders transferred to Canada served life sentences?

After November 3, 2015,

(a) how many offenders transferred to Canada served life sentences?

Between June 13, 2012 and November 3, 2015,

(b)how many offenders transferred from Canada to another country?

After November 3, 2015

(b)how many offenders transferred from Canada to another country?

No. 61.

By the Honourable Senator Pate:

October 26, 2017—In light of the appearance of the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, in the chamber at Question Period on October 24, 2017:

1.In light of the ongoing work of the Working Group of Ministers in reviewing laws, policies and operational practices that affect Indigenous peoples and their rights and interests, what concrete steps have been taken in the course of the review to eliminate the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in prisons in Canada, in accordance with the government’s commitment to implement the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? In particular, what concrete steps have been taken to make provision for alternatives to incarceration for Indigenous Peoples?

2.In 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez called for an absolute ban on the use of solitary confinement with respect to those with mental health issues on the grounds that it constituted torture. Former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, the Native Women Association Canada, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the Canadian and Ontario Human Rights Commissions have called for the elimination of the use of segregation and other forms of isolation, most particularly for those with mental health issues. With the tenth anniversary of Ashley Smith’s death on October 19, 2017, what concrete steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Coroner’s Inquest Touching the Death of Ashley Smith with respect to providing alternatives to prison and to segregation for those with mental health issues?

No. 62.

By the Honourable Senator Downe:

October 31, 2017—The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) continues to play its games when it comes to keeping the public informed about its activities. Stonewalling independent verification of its claims at every point, the Agency continues to hide behind a wall of carefully calculated talking points and statistics, producing vague claims of progress while avoiding a frank description of what they are actually doing, or failing to do.

For example, on October 20, 2017, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Kamal Khera, made the following statements in the House of Commons:

We are on track to recover $25 billion from our efforts against tax evasion and avoidance since coming to office. More work is under way... We have had 627 cases transferred to criminal investigations. We have had 268 search warrants executed, and 78 convictions.

Six weeks previously, in a statement dated September 7, Minister of National Revenue Diane Lebouthillier provided the following indications of CRA activity:

•335 cases referred for criminal investigations

•123 search warrants executed

•32 criminal charges laid under the Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act and/or the Criminal Code

•37 convictions

•$10 million in court fines and 50.6 years of jail time

•111,712 audits completed

•$12.5 billions in fiscal impact

The statistics cited by the Minister refer to Fiscal Year 2016-17, but the Parliamentary Secretary’s remarks do not refer to a timeframe. However they do suggest that the Canada Revenue Agency has done as much to fight tax evasion in the last six months as they had in the previous year, a spectacular level of success unsupported by any recent announcements by the Agency or the “Convictions” page of the CRA website

Therefore, with respect to the expected recovery of $25 billion, please provide:

1.The amount of the expected recovery related to overseas tax evasion.

2.The amount of the expected recovery related to overseas tax evasion that has actually been collected.

3.The amount of money actually recovered as of November 1, 2017.

With respect to these convictions, please provide:

1.The details of each conviction, including:

(a)The name of the individual(s) convicted;

(b)The name and type (i.e. civil or criminal) of offense;

(c)The amount of money or the type of asset and the value of the asset involved;

(d)The location of the money or asset involved;

(e)The possible range of penalties/sentences upon conviction;

(f)The actual penalty and/or sentence received;

(g)Whether the conviction was achieved through sentencing, plea bargain, settlement, etc.; and,

(h)The amount of time that passed between the commencement of an audit, investigation, or some other form of compliance action in respect of the offence and the date of conviction;

2.The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were considered/referred for civil prosecution but never pursued;

3.The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were considered/referred for criminal prosecution but never pursued;

4.The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were prosecuted civilly but were thrown out of court or lost in court; and

5.The total number of offences related to money and other assets held offshore that were prosecuted criminally but were thrown out of court or lost in court.

No. 63.

By the Honourable Senator Seidman:

October 31, 2017—With respect to Health Canada’s consultation on regulatory proposals related to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law) outlined in Health Canada’s 2017 consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions:

(a)How many submissions were received by Health Canada?

(b)What are the names of the individuals and/or organizations that made submissions to the consultation?

(c)What are the names of the other individuals and/or organizations that held meetings with Health Canada officials where regulatory proposals contained in the consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions was discussed?

(d)Did Health Canada meet with drug safety advocates, including Drug Safety Canada, to discuss the regulatory proposals contained in the consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions?

(e)Did Health Canada meet with former Member of Parliament Terence Young to discuss the regulatory proposals contained in the consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions?

(f)Will Health Canada make the submissions to this consultation public in their entirety?

(g)If Health Canada does not plan to make the submissions public, why not?

With respect to the regulatory proposals related to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law) outlined in Health Canada’s 2017 consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions:

Health Canada’s 2016 issue identification paper Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Healthcare Institutions notes that Health Canada entered into consultations on mandatory reporting of serious adverse drug reactions and medical incidents by healthcare institutions with a position that required the reporting of all serious adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents. Health Canada’s 2017 consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions proposes that prescribed health care institutions be required to provide Health Canada with information about a subset of serious ADRs according to the judgement of healthcare professionals.

(a)What is the rationale for this significant change in Health Canada’s approach?

(b)On whose advice was this change made and why?

(c)Is it the position of the Government of Canada that limiting reporting of serious ADRs to ‘unexpected’ reactions determined at the discretion of healthcare providers meets the intent of the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act?

(d)Has Health Canada identified under-reporting of adverse drug reactions by health care professionals as a problem in the past?

With respect to the regulatory proposals related to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law) outlined in Health Canada’s 2017 consultation document Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions:

(a)When did adverse drug reactions associated with cisapride (Prepulsid) first become known to Health Canada?

(b)How many reports of adverse reactions associated with Prepulsid had Health Canada received as of December 1999?

(c)How many reports of adverse drug reactions associated with Prepulsid involving heart and rhythm disorders had Health Canada received as of December 1999?

(d)Did Prepulsid’s product monograph identify cardiac risks associated with Prepulsid as of December 1999?

(e)Given that the regulatory proposal related to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law) outlined in Health Canada’s 2017 consultation paper Toward Mandatory Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions and Medical Device Incidents by Health Care Institutions defines a serious unexpected adverse drug reaction (ADR) as defined in Division 1 of the Food and Drug Regulations to be “a serious ADR that is not identified in nature, severity or frequency in the risk information set out on the label of the drug”, would an adverse drug reaction associated with Prepulsid resulting in arrhythmia followed by cardiac arrest today be considered an unexpected adverse drug reaction under Health Canada’s current proposed regulatory approach with regard to the scope of reportable serious adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents?

(f)Would the death of Vanessa Young in April 2000 due to arrhythmia followed by cardiac arrest resulting from the effects of bulimia nervosa in conjunction with cisapride (Prepulsid) toxicity today be considered an unexpected adverse drug reaction by Health Canada according to the proposed regulations?

(g)Would the death of Vanessa Young in April 2000 from an adverse drug reaction today be exempt from mandatory reporting according to the proposed regulations?

No. 64.

By the Honourable Senator Griffin:

November 1, 2017—Further to my question to the Honourable Harjit Sajjan, Minister of National Defence in this chamber at Question Period on October 31, 2017 on national shipbuilding spending and ensuring equitable spending for each province, I ask the following:

1.What is the amount of money spent per province on national shipbuilding?

2.On a per capita basis, what is the amount of money spent per province on national shipbuilding?

No. 65.

By the Honourable Senator Downe:

November 2, 2017—Regarding the Veterans Priority Program Secretariat:

In the answer tabled on September 19, 2017 to Written Question No. 45, the Government stated that the Veterans Priority Program Secretariat of Veterans Affairs Canada is “resourced for nine full time employees as well as employs students on an ongoing basis. Three positions are currently vacant though are to be staffed imminently. Four of the current compliment are former Canadian Armed Forces members.”

1.Has the Secretariat been fully staffed?

2.Who is currently employed by the Secretariat?

3.How many employees of the Secretariat are former Canadian Armed Forces members?

4.What was the rank of each former Canadian Armed Forces member upon leaving the military?

No. 66.

By the Honourable Senator Downe:

November 2, 2017—Regarding the International Experience Canada program, which provides young Canadians the opportunity to travel and work in countries that have a bilateral youth mobility arrangement with Canada:

For each of the countries with which Canada has youth mobility arrangement, for each of the years 2013-17:

1.How many openings were there for Canadian youths to travel to each country under the auspices of the agreement?

2.How many Canadian youths travelled to each country under the auspices of the agreement?

3.How many openings were there for youths of each country to travel to Canada under the auspices of the agreement?

4.How many youths of each country travelled to Canada under the auspices of the agreement?

No. 67.

By the Honourable Senator Downe:

November 22, 2017—Regarding the Canada Child Tax Benefit:

In fiscal year 2016-17, $96 million was provided to Prince Edward Islanders under the Canada Child Tax Benefit program.

1.How much money was provided via the Benefit per federal electoral district in Prince Edward Island?

2.What was the average monthly payment for those Prince Edward Islanders receiving the Benefit?

3.What percentage of recipients in Prince Edward Island had adjusted net family annual income:

(a)Under $30,000

(b)Between $30,000 and $49,999

(c)Between $50,000 and $79,999

(d)Over $80,000

4.What was the average adjusted net family income for those Prince Edward Islanders receiving the Benefit?