Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 2 of 2
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 394--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) hearings since January 1, 2016: (a) how many times has the government hired external legal representation for CITT hearings, broken down by case (or by department represented if there's an issue of confidentiality) and date of hire; (b) what is the cost associated with the hiring of external legal representation, broken down by case (or by department represented if there's an issue of confidentiality) and date of hire; and (c) what is the cost associated with internal legal representation, broken down by case (or by department represented if there's an issue of confidentiality)?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the amount spent on legal matters brought before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, CITT, since January 1, 2016, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has waived only solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with matters brought before the CITT since January 1, 2016, amount to approximatively $8,105,000. These cases raise a variety of issues falling within the mandate of the CITT, including customs or excise tax matters, complaints by potential suppliers concerning procurement by the federal government, as well as issues arising under the Special Import Measures Act. In most of these files, the Crown did not initiate the proceedings but rather acted as a defendant or respondent. The services concerned are litigation services and litigation support services provided throughout the life of the file, not solely hearings, at the CITT level. They do not include services provided at other stages, for example at the Federal Court of Appeal, if the CITT decision is challenged. Most of these files are handled by Department of Justice, JUS, lawyers. JUS lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants, and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved legal services hourly rates. Actual costs represent the file-related disbursements paid by JUS and then cost-recovered from the client departments or agencies. The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with files handled by JUS lawyers amount to approximatively $7,004,000. The balance, of approximatively $1,101,000, represents the costs associated with files handled by external legal agents. The Government of Canada has hired external legal agents for CITT matters 17 times since January 1, 2016.
The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with files handled by JUS lawyers are based on information currently contained in JUS systems as of February 11, 2021. The costs associated with files handled by external legal agents are based on invoices received from them and taxed by JUS as of February 25, 2021. It was not possible, given the scale of the request and the applicable deadlines, to consult all the departments and agencies responsible for these cases. The amounts provided in this response should therefore be read as approximate.

Question No. 396--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to Transport Canada and flight crew and pilot ‘sit time’ for medical purposes and wait time for licenses: (a) how many licensed pilots are currently medically unfit to pilot an aircraft; (b) how many flight crew personal, excluding pilots, are currently unfit to fly; (c) how many licensed pilots and flight crew have completed the two-year ‘sit time’ and have been waiting (i) for three months for paperwork to be completed so they can return to work, (ii) for six months for paperwork to be completed so they can return to work, (iii) longer that six months for paperwork to be completed so they can return to work; and (d) how many pilot licenses are waiting to be signed by Transport Canada?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), there are 170 pilots who are currently listed as medically unfit to pilot an aircraft in Transport Canada civil aviation’s, TCCA, licensing system.
In response to parts (b) and (c), flight crew, according to the definition in Canadian aviation regulations 100.01, “means a crew member assigned to act as pilot or flight engineer of an aircraft during flight time”. TCCA does not have data about cabin crew members, e.g. flight attendants, as they do not require Transport Canada, TC, medical certification to perform their duties.
Generally, pilots are not waiting on TC to complete licence paperwork in order to return to work. There are currently various COVID-19-related exemptions in place, which allow for pilots to continue using their current credentials to fly while waiting for licence paperwork to be completed.
TC civil aviation medicine, CAM, was one of the first branches at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic to develop exemptions to keep aviators and controllers working without interruption. These CAM exemptions, which were issued in spring 2020 and remain in force, enable renewal of aviation medical certificates, MCs, for pilots, flight engineers and air traffic controllers, while reducing the need for face-to-face medical examinations and the regulatory demand for scarce medical resources. These exemptions allow renewal by attestations and telemedicine consultations. Regular in-person assessments also remain available for renewals and new MC applications.
These processes are consistent with the acceptable renewal options permitted by the International Civil Aviation Organization during the COVID-19 pandemic. These exemptions optimize the use of attestations, i.e., self-declaration, and telemedicine to enable low-risk MC holders to be renewed immediately, i.e., no waiting period. Furthermore, civil aviation medical examiners remain able to renew MC in-office at their discretion.
These renewal options have been successful in enabling the vast majority of pilots, flight engineers and air traffic controllers to retain their aviation MCs without interruption throughout the pandemic.
While the exemptions have proven highly successful in ensuring that aviation MC holders remain certified, COVID-related disruptions to CAM administrative processes, caused by factors such as mail delivery slowdowns and government building lockdowns, have resulted in a significant lag in data entry related to MCs, including for MC holders who have remained fully certified throughout COVID. Thus, the CAM database is not able to provide the data requested.
Furthermore, the data requested would be inaccurate, since the database also includes MC holders who have voluntarily allowed their MCs to expire, which is not necessarily indicative of a licensed pilot being medically unfit to pilot an aircraft.
In response to part (d), if pilots fall within the parameters specified in the exemptions, they may continue to work with expired aviation document booklets as permitted/specified in the exemptions. If pilots are not covered by any of the exemptions, aviation document booklets continue to be issued in these rare cases, provided that the individual is in adherence to the regulations.

Question No. 397--
Ms. Sylvie Bérubé:
With regard to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: has the government, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, other federal ministers and the provinces, started to develop an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration and, if so, does this action plan include (i) measures to combat injustices, (ii) measures to combat prejudice, (iii) measures to eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination, facing Indigenous peoples, as well as Indigenous seniors, youth, children, women and men, Indigenous people with disabilities and gender-diverse or two-spirit Indigenous people, (iv) measures to promote mutual respect and understanding and good relations, including through human rights training, (v) review or oversight measures, (vi) recourse avenues, (vii) redress measures, (viii) other accountability measures respecting the implementation of the Declaration, (ix) measures to follow up on its implementation, assess it and modify it?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was introduced on December 3, 2020 and is currently at the second reading stage in the House of Commons. The introduction of Bill C-15 was a key milestone to support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. While the bill continues to advance through the legislative process, the government has begun preliminary discussions with indigenous peoples to determine the best path forward for the development of the action plan.
As written, this bill would require that the action plan include, at a minimum, measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination against indigenous peoples; to promote mutual respect and understanding, through human rights education; and to develop monitoring, oversight or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the declaration.
It is important to note that Bill C-15 requires preparation and completion of the action plan as soon as practicable, but no later than three years after the day of coming into force, recognizing that the development of an initial action plan in collaboration with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners should take adequate, but not indefinite, time.

Question No. 398--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to statistics held by the government related to the Pleasure Craft Operator Card (PCOC) and reported pleasure craft incidents: (a) how many reported incidents took place each year on Canadian waters since 1999 (or as far back as PCOC statistics are available), broken down by type of incident (accident, injury, fine, etc.); and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) how many involved an operator with a PCOC, (ii) how many involved rented watercraft?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the department does not have a mechanism in place for mandatory reporting of incidents involving pleasure craft. The pleasure craft operator competency database only holds information related to the person who obtained a pleasure craft operator card; it does not track incidents.

Question No. 402--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the agreements between the government and the companies providing the COVID-19 vaccine: (a) on what date did the government ask each of these companies to manufacture those vaccines in Canada, broken down by company; and (b) what was the response of each company, and the rationale provided?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a negotiation team was assembled in June 2020, led by Public Services and Procurement Canada, to initiate negotiations with leading vaccine suppliers. During these early engagements, both Public Services and Procurement Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada raised domestic options for manufacturing vaccines. The specific details of the negotiations cannot be disclosed as it is confidential commercial information.
After reviewing the options, the manufacturers concluded that biomanufacturing capacity in Canada at the time of contracting was too limited to justify the investment of capital and expertise required to start manufacturing in Canada.

Question No. 405--
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval:
With regard to confidential documents: what is the government’s disclosure policy?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the security categorization of documents and the disclosure of documents are addressed through separate policies and processes.
With respect to security categorization, the directive on security management, www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32614, standard on security categorization, www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32614, requires government institutions to assign security categories to information according to the degree of injury that could result if it were compromised. For instance, if unauthorized disclosure could cause injury to the national interest, the information is categorized as “classified” information, i.e., confidential, secret or top secret. Similarly, if information could cause injury outside the national interest, then this information is categorized as “protected” information, i.e., protected A, protected B or protected C, as defined in the standard on security categorization.
With respect to disclosure, government institutions release information through a variety of means, such as by responding to requests submitted under the Access to Information Act. While the security category of a document may indicate the sensitivity of its contents, documents requested under the act may not be withheld on the basis of their security category alone. When a classified document is requested under the act, the government institution processes it like any other document, by conducting a line-by-line review to determine whether any of the exemptions or exclusions listed in the act should be applied to the information contained in the document.
Under the policy on service and digital, www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32603, government institutions are also required to maximize and prioritize the release of departmental information and data as an open resource on the Open Government portal, https://open.canada.ca/en, while respecting information security, privacy, and legal considerations.

Question No. 406--
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval:
With regard to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, since 1993: has the Service signed an information-sharing agreement with the Sûreté du Québec, and, if so, what is the content of that agreement?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of performing its duties and functions under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, CSIS may, with approval of the minister, enter into an arrangement or otherwise co-operate with any department of the Government of Canada or the government of a province or any department thereof, or any police force in a province, with the approval of the minister responsible for policing the province.
Given its mandate and specific operational requirements, CSIS does not generally disclose details related to operational activity, including its information-sharing arrangements.

Question No. 411--
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments on February 16, 2021 about “not applying it to things that don’t meet the very clear internationally recognized criteria around genocide” in reference to not designating the treatment of the Uyghurs by the Chinese government as genocide: what specific criteria has not been met that is preventing the government from declaring it a genocide?
Response
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
The Government of Canada has been clear in the view that human rights violations are occurring against Uighurs. The nature and scale of the violations by Chinese authorities in Xinjiang, under the pretext of countering extremism, are deeply disturbing. Our government is gravely concerned about the existence of a large network of “political re-education” camps where credible reports indicate that over a million people have been arbitrarily detained. We are also deeply concerned by the reports of mass separation of children from their parents.
There are severe restrictions on freedom of religion or belief and the freedoms of movement, association and expression as well as on Uighur culture. Widespread surveillance disproportionately continues to target Uighurs and other minorities. More reports are emerging of forced labour and forced birth control, including sterilization. Actions by the Chinese government are contrary to its own constitution, are in violation of international human rights obligations and are inconsistent with the United Nations’ global counterterrorism strategy.
The Government of the People’s Republic of China denies any and all allegations of human rights abuses against Uighur people and rejects any accountability for wrongdoing, instead casting blame on the victims and those who choose to speak out. Due diligence is needed given mounting evidence that the Chinese government’s systematic ill-treatment of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity and constitutive elements of genocide.
Canada, along with several other countries, has repeatedly called on the Chinese government to allow the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN Special Procedures immediate, unfettered and meaningful access to Xinjiang. Such access would allow independent experts to assess the extent of the human rights abuses taking place.
Canada continues to review options in addressing the gross violations of human rights taking place in Xinjiang, and understands that the most effective path lies in coordinating with our like-minded partners to maintain pressure and international focus on this issue.
Canada has repeatedly called for an investigation so that impartial experts can observe and report on the situation first-hand. The onus must remain on the Chinese government to demonstrate that human rights abuses have ceased and that its obligations to prevent genocide are being fulfilled. More rigorous and comprehensive investigation and evaluation should occur in co-operation with our allies. Our collective voice, grounded in international law, stands to have the strongest possible impact.
Canada continues to take action in addressing the situation based on the information it has regarding this situation. On January 12, the government announced a comprehensive approach to the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including measures to address forced labour. Canada has repeatedly raised concerns alongside our partners at the UN, including before the UN Human Rights Council, HRC, and at the UN General Assembly. In June 2020, during the 44th session of the HRC, Canada and 27 other countries signed a joint statement on the human rights situations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. At the UN General Assembly Third Committee on October 6, 2020, Canada co-signed, along with 38 other countries, a joint statement on the human rights situations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
In coordination with our international partners, we will continue to review available information and consider further options in how we address the situation in Xinjiang. We will continue to work to defend fundamental human rights and freedoms, and to call on China to uphold its international obligations.

Question No. 412--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the processing of student visa applications by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) has IRCC targeted applications from students of certain countries in order to undergo heightened or additional scrutiny; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which countries’ applications are receiving additional scrutiny; (c) what is the reason for why each country has been selected for additional scrutiny, broken down by country; and (d) what is the average additional processing time required by IRCC in order to perform the additional scrutiny?
Response
Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, against the threat of potential exploitation of immigration processes by foreign state actors who seek to advance their interests, the Government of Canada leverages a range of tools to protect national security, including from foreign interference actors.
Foreign interference is a serious threat to the security of Canadians. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, has the mandate to investigate such threat activities and uses the full mandate of the CSIS Act in order to investigate, advise on and reduce these threats. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, has a broad, multi-faceted mandate that allows it to investigate and prevent foreign interference on the basis of various laws. Immigration officers are highly trained to examine all evidence presented as part of an immigration application, including admissibility recommendations, before rendering a final decision in line with requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The Government of Canada takes seriously all allegations of interference by foreign states that would intimidate Canadian communities and applies a whole-of-government approach to protect national security, including from foreign interference actors.
In response to part (a), IRCC does not target applications from students of certain countries in order to undergo heightened or additional scrutiny. All IRCC temporary and permanent residence applications are assessed for security and criminality concerns on a case-by-case basis, based on various indicators.
Since the answer to part (a) is not affirmative, responses are not required for parts (b) through (d).

Question No. 414--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to meetings between Public Services and Procurement Canada and either Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada concerning the procurement or production of vaccines since January 1, 2020: what are the details of all such meetings involving officials at the associate deputy minister level or higher or ministers or their exempt staff, including the (i) date, (ii) title of persons in attendance, (iii) agenda items, (iv) summary of decisions made at meeting?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, PSPC has been in constant contact with key partners including the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, Health Canada, Industry, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, Global Affairs Canada, the COVID Vaccine Task Force and others to plan and execute the procurement of personal protective equipment and medical equipment, such as masks, gloves, sanitizer, gowns, and ventilators; COVID-19 vaccines; and all related supplies, such as syringes and freezers. The minister, the minister’s staff and departmental officials are in constant contact with their colleagues.
Through this close, daily collaboration, the Government of Canada has taken an aggressive procurement approach to fulfill emergent and immediate as well as long-term medical supply requirements. As a result, it has secured more than 2.5 billion articles of various personal protective equipment, and continues to receive steady, ongoing deliveries. Departments are also working together to leverage domestic supply chains.

Question No. 416--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) support, including tax credits, provided to Huawei, since 2016: what is the total amount of SR&ED support provided annually to Huawei, broken down by year and by type of support?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested, as confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent the disclosure of taxpayer-specific information.

Question No. 418--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to the impact of the travel restrictions imposed by the government during the pandemic and the study released by Statistics Canada on October 23, 2020, which provided estimates on the amount of job losses and gross domestic product (GDP) reduction resulting from the travel restrictions: (a) what are the updated statistics on the estimated job losses and GDP reduction for 2020; and (b) what is the projected impact of the travel restrictions on job losses and GDP reduction for 2021?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Statistics Canada study published on October 3, 2020, provided a range of estimates on the economic impact of travel restrictions on the Canadian economy in 2020. These estimates were based on several projection scenarios that were possible when the analysis was being performed, and these projection results differ from true estimates of what really happened. The scenarios involved different assumptions on when travel restrictions would be eased and what the recovery would look like after the easing of restrictions. For each scenario, a monthly recovery path for tourism activities from March to December of 2020 was assumed, as shown in chart A1 and chart A2 in the appendix of the study, which can be found at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/ n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626 -x2020023-eng.htm. The study suggested that travel restrictions would lead to a reduction in gross domestic product, or GDP, ranging from $16 billion to $23 billon and to job losses ranging from 284,000 to 406,000 in the tourism industry in 2020.
Since the publication of the study, Statistics Canada has published several statistics on the tourism industry, including GDP and employment, up to the third quarter of 2020. With an assumption that the fourth quarter of 2020 is similar to the third quarter, this newly released data suggests that the tourism industry could experience in 2020 a reduction in GDP of about $20 billion and job losses of about 190,000 from their 2019 levels.
The estimated impact on jobs as suggested by the newly released data is smaller than what was presented in the study. The difference arises because the initial study focused on the impact of travel restrictions by holding constant other factors. The study explained that behavioural changes made by consumers, businesses and governments in response to shocks are not taken into account; that is, the study assumed no change in the production structure of the economy, no change in the tastes or willingness to work of impacted individuals, and no government intervention. The need for social distancing has introduced changes in the way businesses operate and how individuals work: consumers and businesses rely increasingly on online platforms to purchase and sell products and services.
Also, the Government of Canada has responded to the pandemic with business liquidity support programs, including the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or CEWS; the Canada emergency business account; and the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program. The program take-up statistics for the CEWS suggest that the accommodation and food services industry and the arts, entertainment and recreation industry, main components of the tourism industry, are among the industries with the highest take-up rates.
With regard to (b), Statistics Canada does not currently have an estimate for the impact of travel restrictions for 2021. Given the substantial changes that have occurred in the economy and the uncertainty regarding how consumer behaviour may have changed because of the pandemic, the methodology used in the initial study would produce estimates with unacceptable margins of error.

Question No. 423--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the federal disability tax credit (DTC) that helps persons with disabilities and certain medical conditions defray unavoidable medical expenses, since fiscal year 2017-18: (a) what is the total number of DTC applicants for fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, broken down by year; (b) what is the total DTC amount claimed for fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, broken down by year; (c) what is the total number of DTC claimants for fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, broken down by year; (d) what is the total number of DTC applications that were denied for fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, broken down by year; (e) of the DTC applications that were denied, what were the tabulated and categorized reasons for their denial; (f) what is the total number of DTC applications that cited a doctor’s recommendation stating the applicant qualified for the DTC; (g) what is the total number of DTC applicants in fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, that were previously approved for the DTC; (h) of the DTC applicants in (g), how many were rejected; and (i) in deciding whether or not to approve a re-application for the DTC, what are the criterion utilized by the Canada Revenue Agency to make such a determination, and how are these criterion logged and recorded?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (c) and (d), information is available on the Government of Canada website. This information is compiled by calendar year rather than by fiscal year.
The publication entitled “Disability Tax Credit Statistics – 2011 to 2019 Calendar Years”, which is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/ revenue-agency/programs/ about-canada-revenue-agency-cra /income-statistics- gst-hst-statistics/ disability-tax-credit- statistics/dtc -statistics-2019.html, provides statistics based on information that the CRA processed from applications for the disability tax credit, or DTC, or from individuals who claimed the DTC on their individual T1 income tax and benefit return. Tables 1 to 10 present demographic data by calendar year, while tables 11 to 13 present data on DTC determination and utilization for calendar years 2011-2019.
Tables 1 to 10 contain the number of individuals with an accepted DTC certificate by restriction, age, gender, marital status and province.
Table 11 provides a breakdown of DTC determinations by basic activity of daily living, or BADL, for DTC certificates processed during the calendar year.
Table 12 provides the breakdown of the number of claimants from T1 returns assessed or reassessed over the calendar year. The breakdown by BADL is estimated by allocating that number by the proportion of accepted determinations by BADL published in Table 11.
Table 13 provides the breakdown of DTC utilization from T1 returns assessed or reassessed over the calendar year. The breakdown by BADL is estimated by allocating the “Total Amount of DTC Utilized” by the proportion of accepted determinations by BADL published in Table 11.
Tables 11, 12 and 13 replace the former “Disability Tax Credit at a glance” publication. The CRA is now publishing data by calendar year rather than by fiscal year.
In some cases, totals may not add up due to rounding or suppression for confidentiality purposes. Please refer to the “Confidentiality procedures” section of the explanatory notes for more information.
With regard to (e), the CRA is guided by the criteria as set out in the Income Tax Act, the ITA, and based on the specific medical information provided, the CRA does not record the information in the manner requested.
With regard to (f), the CRA administers the DTC in accordance with the ITA. To that end, the CRA only captures the data needed to administer the DTC as prescribed under the ITA. For this reason, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested, as there is no legislative requirement to capture the information in this manner.
With regard to (g) and (h), this data is not readily available. It would require a manual search that cannot be completed within the time provided under Standing Order 39(5)(a).
With regard to (i), the CRA administers the DTC in accordance with the ITA. To that end, the CRA only captures the data needed to administer the DTC as prescribed under the ITA. For this reason, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested, as there is no legislative requirement to capture the information in this manner.
Please note that the CRA’s role is to determine eligibility for the DTC based on the legislation and the information provided by the medical practitioner who certifies form T2201, the disability tax credit certificate. If the medical practitioner provides the CRA with information that suggests the patient’s severe limitations may improve over time, DTC eligibility is allowed on a temporary basis. When that period ends, it is necessary to submit a new T2201 in order for the CRA to redetermine the eligibility based on the current situation. The determining factor in all cases, whether a first-time claim or a reapplication, is based on the effects of the impairment on a person’s ability to perform the basic activities of daily living, or BADL.
Although the ITA allows the CRA to request a new completed form T2201 at different intervals, all efforts are made to lessen the burden on the taxpayers and the medical practitioners.
Once a determination has been completed, a notice of determination, or NOD, is sent to the taxpayer; the information is updated on the DTC database; and the taxpayer can view the disability information using the CRA’s My Account.

Question No. 428--
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to communication between the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Privy Council Office or the Office of the Prime Minister and the Office of the Clerk of the House of Commons between noon on February 17, 2021, and 4:00 p.m. on February 18, 2021: what are the details of all such communication, including the (i) date and time, (ii) type of communication (email, text message, phone call, verbal exchange, etc.), (iii) names and titles of the participants, (iv) sender and the receiver, if applicable, (v) subject matters, (vi) summary of the contents of the communication?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons consults and interacts with all parties and MPs, as well as with representative of the House of Commons, in order to facilitate the mandate that the Prime Minister has given to him to lead the House leadership team to bring a collaborative and effective approach to the minority Parliament, placing a priority on transparency and communicating with Canadians on the work of their Parliament.

Question No. 430--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to the impact on the Canadian economy of the decision by the President of the United States to cancel the permits related to the Keystone XL pipeline project: (a) what are the government’s estimates on the number of job losses, both direct and indirect, as a result of the decision; and (b) what are the government’s estimates on the economic losses, both direct and indirect, as a result of the decision?
Response
Mr. Marc Serré ((Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, following the recent decision of the U.S. administration on Keystone XL, which the Government of Canada strenuously objected to, the project proponent has stated that 1,000 construction jobs were impacted as construction season activity ceased. It had been anticipated that 2,800 construction jobs would be created in Alberta and Saskatchewan at the height of construction. The proponent has also stated that the project had been expected to create up to 17,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada.

Question No. 437--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) hiring additional temporary employees for the 2021 tax season: (a) how many temporary employees is the CRA hiring; (b) prior to hiring individuals outside of government, did the CRA consider seconding individuals from other government departments or agencies who are on leave or unable to complete their regular work responsibilities due to the pandemic, and, if not, why not; and (c) how many temporary employees hired for this year's tax season were seconded from other government departments or agencies?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the 2021 filing season, the hiring target for CRA call centres was approximately 2,000 temporary employees by March 31, 2021.
With regard to (b), at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CRA was called upon to help administer emergency benefits on behalf of the Government of Canada. The CRA worked closely with Employment and Social Development Canada call centres to ensure adequate support was available to Canadians facing hardship as a result of the pandemic.
In April of 2020, the CRA made a call to employees across the agency, asking those whose workloads had been deemed non-essential to work as temporary call agents. Approximately 7,000 CRA employees came forward to help. However, as CRA business resumption began, the CRA employees began returning to their regular duties.
The CRA did not approach other government departments or agencies because we had made plans for recruitment and training of 2,000 external hires for filing season.
With regard to (c), none of the temporary agents hired for this year's tax season were seconded from other government departments or agencies.

Question No. 438--
Mr. Marc Dalton:
With regard to the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman: (a) how many complaints has the ombudsman received during the pandemic, since March 1, 2020; (b) what is the breakdown of complaints by type of products or services involved; (c) what is the breakdown of complaints by type of complaints; (d) how many of the complaints involved tenders related to products purchased as part of the pandemic response (PPE, ventilators, etc.); and (e) how many of the complaints involved tenders related the administration or implementation of government programs announced in response to the program?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), as per the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the procurement ombudsman can review two types of complaints: complaints respecting compliance with regulations made under the Financial Administration Act regarding the award of certain contracts; and complaints respecting the administration of certain contracts.
Since March 1, 2020, the ombudsman has received a total of five complaints regarding the award or administration of federal contracts.
With regard to part (b), the breakdown of complaints by products or services involved is the following: environmental studies; audiovisual services; air charter services; professional, administrative and management support services; and vehicles, motor vehicles and cycles.
With regard to part (c), of the five complaints, four were regarding the award and one was regarding the administration.
With regard to part (d), there were no complaints regarding the tender of products purchased as part of the pandemic response.
With regard to part (e), there were no complaints related to government programs in response to the pandemic.

Question No. 440--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the former Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Mr. Gary Walbourne: (a) on what dates between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, did he meet with the Minister of National Defence; and (b) on what dates between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, did he hold a scheduled or unscheduled (i) phone call, (ii) video chat (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, etc.), with the Minister of National Defence?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), concerning meetings between the Minister of National Defence and the former ombudsman Mr. Gary Walbourne between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, there was one meeting on March 1, 2018.

Question No. 441--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Minister of National Defence: (a) on what dates between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, did the Minister of National Defence meet with the former Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Mr. Gary Walbourne; and (b) on what dates between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, did the Minister of National Defence hold a scheduled or unscheduled (i) phone call, (ii) video chat (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, etc), with Mr. Walbourne?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, the Minister of National Defence met with the former National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman once, on March 1, 2018.

Question No. 443--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the email exchanges of February 11 and 12, 2020, between Kevin Chan, global director and head of public policy at Facebook, and Owen Ripley, director general at Canadian Heritage, regarding a job offer from Facebook, and the statement from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on January 29, 2021, “I did ask the department to look into the matter”: (a) on what date did the minister become aware of the email exchanges; (b) on what date did the minister ask the department to review the email exchanges; (c) based on which laws, regulations or codes did the minister ask the department to review the email exchanges; (d) what issues did the minister ask the department to review or check; (e) how long did the department’s review last; (f) under which laws, regulations or codes was the review conducted; (g) what were the findings of the department’s review; (h) when did the minister receive the department’s review; (i) what decisions did the department and the minister make following the review; and (j) what is the department’s position on requests to distribute or share job offers from registered lobbyists among public servants?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the minister became aware of the email exchanges on October 28, 2020.
With regard to part (b), on October 28, 2020, the minister’s chief of staff raised the email exchanges with the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage. As the official responsible for ensuring effective departmental management, including the conduct of departmental staff, the deputy minister informed the chief of staff of her intention to carry out a review of the circumstances surrounding the email exchanges.
With regard to part (c), the deputy minister, as the official responsible for ensuring effective departmental management, including the conduct of departmental staff, reviewed the matter pursuant to the values and ethics code for the public sector, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s code of values and ethics, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Treasury Board policy on people management, the Treasury Board directive on conflict of interest, and the Treasury Board directive on terms and conditions of employment.
With regard to part (d), the deputy minister, as the official responsible for ensuring effective departmental management, including the conduct of departmental staff, reviewed the matter pursuant to the values and ethics code for the public sector, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s code of values and ethics, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Treasury Board policy on people management, the Treasury Board directive on conflict of interest, and the Treasury Board directive on terms and conditions of employment.
With regard to part (e), the department’s review lasted from October 28, 2020 to November 3, 2020.
With regard to part (f), the deputy minister, as the official responsible for ensuring effective departmental management, including the conduct of departmental staff, reviewed the matter pursuant to the values and ethics code for the public sector, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s code of value and ethics, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Treasury Board policy on people management, the Treasury Board directive on conflict of interest, and the Treasury Board directive on terms and conditions of employment.
With regard to part (g), based on the information specific to this matter, the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage determined that sharing publicly available information was not a reprehensible act.
With regard to part (h), the results of the review were communicated orally to the minister on November 4, 2020.
With regard to part (i), the deputy minister determined that, based on the facts related to this matter, no further action was required.
With regard to part (j), each situation should be assessed based on their specific facts. While sharing publicly available information is not in and of itself a reprehensible act, departmental staff are expected to meet the highest standards with respect to conflict of interest, values and ethics. The Department of Canadian Heritage takes values and ethics very seriously, and has a solid framework in place to prevent and follow up on such matters.

Question No. 450--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to the impact on the government’s estimates of the importance of the Enbridge Line 5 project: (a) what are the government’s estimates on the number of jobs at stake, both direct and indirect, dependent on the project succeeding; and (b) what are the government’s estimates on the economic impact to the Canadian economy, both direct and indirect, which is dependent on the project?
Response
Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is fully committed to the continued, safe operation of Line 5. According to Enbridge, the Line 5 Sarnia petrochemical complex supports over 4,900 direct jobs and 23,500 indirect jobs. It is also responsible for over $65 billion in direct and indirect revenues, based on $28 billion in direct annual trade between Canada and the United States. In Quebec, Line 5 is a critical source of supply for the province’s refineries, supplying about two-thirds of the crude oil consumed in the province. This supports the refineries’ 1,080 employees, and more than 200 contract workers.
Air transportationAlghabra, OmarBarsalou-Duval, XavierBérubé, SylvieBezan, JamesBloc Québécois CaucusBoulerice, AlexandreBrassard, JohnCabinetCanada Revenue AgencyCanadian International Trade Tribunal ...Show all topics
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
moved that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, which is identical to former Bill C-5.
I am delighted to be reintroducing this important piece of legislation today. I know we in the House are all anxious to see the work that was started by the Hon. Rona Ambrose in 2017 with the introduction of Bill C-337 come to fruition with the quick passage of this bill in this session of Parliament.
Regrettably, Parliament's consideration of Bill C-5 was abruptly interrupted and the study of the justice committee halted by a health crisis that has created unprecedented challenges to all aspects of Canadian society, including our justice system. The pandemic has exposed and exploited underlying conditions that have long plagued our justice system. It brought into stark relief the unacceptable barriers to accessing justice for the most vulnerable in our society. The reintroduction of the bill comes at a time when the need to protect our most vulnerable has never been clearer, nor the importance of ensuring a justice system that treats everyone fairly and with respect more critical.
Bill C-3 is designed to enhance public confidence in our criminal justice system, and in particular the confidence of survivors of sexual assault. It is hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable in the criminal justice system than the women who find the courage to report sexual assault.
The bill will ensure that survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect by the courts and will give them confidence that the judge in their case will enforce sexual assault laws fairly and accurately, as Parliament intended.
It has never been more critical that all of us who serve the public are equipped with the right tools and understanding to ensure that everyone is treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve, no matter what their background or their experiences. This would enhance the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the Canadian public, more broadly, in our justice system. There is no room in our courts for harmful myths or stereotypes.
I know that our government's determination to tackle this problem is shared by parliamentarians from across Canada and of all political persuasions. The bill before us today will help ensure that those appointed to a superior court would undertake to participate in continuing education in relation to sexual assault law and social context.
As the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I take very seriously my responsibility to uphold judicial independence, a constitutional principle that is a cornerstone of our democracy. Judicial independence means that judges must be free to decide each case on its own merits without interference or influence of any kind from any source. For this reason, judicial independence requires judicial control of judicial education, and I salute the work that is being done by the Canadian Judicial Council as well as the National Judicial Institute in Canada in the training they have already begun to provide. Applying this principle to the current bill means that our government's efforts to ensure judges participate in education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context must not undermine the independence of the judiciary.
In that vein, I would like to describe the key elements of the proposed legislation. Bill C-3, as noted previously, is identical to former Bill C-5 and essentially the same as former private member's bill, Bill C-337. Importantly, the bill includes the amendments to Bill C-337 passed unanimously by the House of Commons to include social context education within the requirements of the bill. This requirement is specifically aimed at providing those who preside over cases with deeper insights and best practices to help them better navigate the social and cultural factors that they will likely come across in their time on the bench.
Bill C-3 also includes the amendments recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its study of Bill C-337.
The first key element of the bill is that it proposes to amend the Judges Act to require candidates for superior court judicial appointments to commit to undertaking training in matters related to sexual assault law and social context. This becomes part of the application process. This commitment will become an eligibility requirement for appointment to a superior court.
It is no easy task to bolster public confidence, in particular the confidence of sexual assault survivors, that our criminal justice system will treat victims with dignity, fairness and respect. This is a particularly acute challenge when there are reports in the media of judges doing exactly the opposite. We hear of highly publicized cases in which judges have relied on stereotypes or myths about how a victim of sexual assault should have behaved and have misapplied the carefully crafted law intended to prevent this.
The undertaking to commit to training is aimed at ensuring that Canada's highly developed law and jurisprudence on sexual assault are appropriately applied in the courtroom. It will also ensure that newly appointed judges receive the education and training necessary to understand and appreciate the social context within which they perform their functions, so that personal or societal biases or myths and stereotypes do not have any bearing on their decisions.
Over the past three decades the criminal law has undergone significant reform to encourage reporting of sexual assaults, to improve the criminal justice system's response to sexualized violence and to counter discriminatory views of survivors that stem from myths and stereotypes about how a true victim is expected to behave. As a result, the Criminal Code prohibits all forms of non-consensual sexual activity, provides a clear definition of consent, identifies when consent cannot be obtained and sets out rules for the admissibility of certain types of evidence to deter the introduction of these harmful myths and stereotypes.
Canada's sexual assault law is robust, but is necessarily complex. It applies to the most intimate of human interactions, so to be effective it must be properly understood and applied. This is why judicial education in this area is so significant and Bill C-3 so important.
The second key element is to require that the Canadian Judicial Council develop this sexual-assault training only after it consults with groups and individuals that it considers appropriate, including sexual assault survivors and the groups that support them. This will give the council the opportunity to gather different perspectives on sexual assault informed by the experiences and knowledge of the community.
Transformative change across the criminal justice system will require a sustained collaborative effort by all actors in the justice system, with the support of stakeholders and civil society. Training is needed not only for judges but for all actors in the justice system. We are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts and justice sector stakeholders toward more comprehensive efforts. However, the pivotal public and determinative role judges play must also be taken into account.
The third key component of the bill will require the Canadian Judicial Council to submit to the justice minister an annual report to be tabled in this Parliament about the training on sexual assault law that has been provided and the number of judges who attended. This requirement is designed to enhance accountability in the training of sitting judges on these matters while still acting as an incentive to encourage their participation.
The final element of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to require judges to provide reasons for decisions under sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code. This amendment is intended to enhance the transparency of judicial decisions made in sexual assault proceedings by rendering them accessible, either in writing or on the record of the proceedings. I would like to mention that this proposed amendment to require judges to provide reasons in the determination of sexual assault matters specifically is complementary to three existing requirements.
The requirement to provide reasons will be placed in the other sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code. This will help ensure that all provisions related to sexual offending are clear and accessible to those applying them. This is part of the effort to prevent the misapplication of sexual assault law by helping to ensure that decisions in sexual assault matters are not influenced by myths or stereotypes about sexual assault victims and how they ought to behave. This is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's finding that such myths and stereotypes distort the truth-seeking function of the court.
Being a judge comes with great responsibility. I would like to quote the Hon. Justice Charles Gonthier, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada:
The judge is the pillar of our entire justice system, and of the rights and freedoms which that system is designed to promote and protect. Thus, to the public, judges not only swear by taking their oath to serve the ideals of Justice and Truth on which the rule of law in Canada and the foundations of our democracy are built, but they are asked to embody them....
Justice Gonthier then added the following:
...the personal qualities, conduct and image that a judge projects affect those of the judicial system as a whole and, therefore, the confidence that the public places in it.
Since judges play such a crucial role in upholding democracy and the rule of law, the public rightly expects their conduct to be exemplary. To quote the Canadian Judicial Council:
[1] From the time they are considered for appointment to the Bench, and every day thereafter, superior court judges in Canada are expected to be knowledgeable jurists. They are also expected to demonstrate a number of personal attributes including knowledge of social issues, an awareness of changes in social values, humility, fairness, empathy, tolerance, consideration and respect for others.
[2] In short, Canadians expect their judges to know the law but also to possess empathy and to recognize and question any past personal attitudes and sympathies that might prevent them from acting fairly.
In order for judges to be able to meet these public expectations, it is imperative that they keep abreast of developments in the law and the ever-changing social context in which they carry out their duties. To ensure excellence in judgments, judges must have legal knowledge that is as relevant as it is excellent so that they can make the difficult and life-changing decisions entrusted to them. For this reason, legal education is an essential element of the legislation under consideration.
The bill is carefully tailored to uphold the principle of judicial independence. In particular, it includes the recommendations of the Senate committee for amendments to Bill C-337 that were carefully designed to address the specific concerns raised by representatives of the judiciary.
In that regard, I would like to point out that members of the judiciary appeared before the House committee to call for additional amendments to Bill C-5. It is important to note that a respectful dialogue occurred between representatives of the judicial and legislative branches with regard to Bill C-337 and Bill C-5. I trust that this will also be the case with this bill. The partners in this dialogue all want survivors of sexual assault to have faith in the justice system and to be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve when dealing with that system.
Canada is lucky to have one of the most independent, competent and reputable judiciaries in the world. The Canadian Judicial Council, with the support and co-operation of the National Judicial Institute, is a world leader in training judges. The Canadian judiciary is very committed to ensuring the best training for judges. I commend them for their co-operation in this regard. Finally, Canada is a pioneer in social context education in the justice system.
In its professional development policy, the Canadian Judicial Council recognizes that, in order to be effective, training for judges must include social context education so that court decisions are not influenced by personal or social bias, myths or stereotypes.
Given how important this is, the National Judicial Institute seeks to ensure that all programs cover substantive law, skills development and social context education.
It is important to acknowledge the significant contribution of both the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute to ensuring judges have access to the training they need.
We are blessed with a strong and independent judiciary in Canada. We cannot take this for granted. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that we safeguard and promote it. This bill seeks to balance a legitimate need to enhance public confidence with carefully preserving the judiciary's ability to control judicial education.
The government also allocated significant resources to support this undertaking. The 2017 budget contained $2.7 million over five years for the Canadian Judicial Council and $500,000 per year thereafter to ensure more judges get access to professional development with a greater emphasis on issues related to sex, gender and cultural sensitivity.
Our government is also working with stakeholders to ensure that appropriate training is available to all members of the Canadian judiciary, specifically those not appointed by the federal government.
That said, I hope this bill will prompt everyone in the justice system to take a close look at other measures we can take to bolster the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the public in our justice system.
Finally, following Ms. Ambrose's introduction of the former Bill C-337, a number of provinces followed suit and did just that. At least one province, Prince Edward Island, enacted similar legislation, and I understand that others are carefully considering policy and legislative responses. I note that other countries have already enacted legislation similar to what is being proposed. It is time for all of our jurisdictions to act.
While we believe that reintroducing Bill C-3 is a crucial step, it is not the only action we can take as a government. We have prioritized supporting victims and survivors of crime by a range of different avenues. These include providing funding to provinces and territories to allow them to develop enhanced programs, to provide free and independent legal advice and, in some cases, representation for survivors of sexual assault. Also included is our government's commitment, as emphasized in the Speech from the Throne, to build on the gender-based violence strategy and work with partners to develop a national action plan.
This bill sends a message to all Canadians, and survivors of sexual assault in particular, that their elected officials are listening, that we care about what happens to their cases, and that we are prepared and committed to take whatever action we can to ensure that our justice system is fair and responsive. It is incumbent on all of us: legislators, judges, prosecutors, police and the public.
Right now, there is considerable enthusiasm across the country for meaningful, sustainable changes to our justice system.
This bill is a small but important step toward achieving that. It gives parliamentarians an opportunity to act on their beliefs and show all Canadians, especially survivors of sexual assault, that their voices matter and that anyone who has the courage to report an assault will be listened to and treated with the dignity and respect every member of our community is entitled to.
I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to take this step toward a more constructive, resilient justice system that is more responsive to the needs of those it serves.
I call on all of my colleagues to support this important non-partisan bill.
Results: 1 - 2 of 2

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data