Question No. 958--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions under all international trade and investment agreements to which Canada is a party: (a) how many ISDS proceedings is Canada involved in (i) as a claimant, (ii) as a respondent; (b) for each year between 1994 and 2014, how much money has Canada spent (i) advancing its legal claims as a claimant, (ii) defending its legal claims as a respondent; and (c) how many ISDS claims has Canada lost as a respondent and how much money has it been ordered to pay to each successful claimant for each year between 1994 and 2014, with each claimant and award amount separately identified?
Response
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to international trade, the government’s top priority is creating jobs and economic opportunities for hard-working Canadians and their families.
Investor state dispute settlement, ISDS, has been a core element of Canada’s trade policy for more than a generation.
Trade and investment agreements protect Canadian investors abroad, including against discrimination and expropriation without compensation. They provide Canadian businesses with access to impartial recourse to an independent, international body to resolve disputes. ISDS allows Canadian investors to seek remedies directly for violations of investment protection obligations.
None of Canada’s trade and investment agreements prevent any level of government in Canada from regulating in the public interest, nor do they exempt foreign companies that operate in Canada from Canadian laws and regulations.
ISDS allows Canadian investors to bring claims directly against foreign governments. Therefore it is not possible for Canada to be a claimant in an investor state dispute. Canadian investors can and have been claimants abroad.
Canada has been a respondent in 22 investor state disputes: twelve are concluded, two were submitted to arbitration but were withdrawn, and eight are ongoing. The Government of Canada is committed to transparency in ISDS and therefore posts online information about all ongoing cases. For details, see: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng.
ISDS allows Canadian investors to bring claims directly against foreign governments. Therefore it is not possible for Canada to be a claimant in an investor state dispute. Canadian investors can and have been claimants abroad.
Approximately $27,350,446.22 has been spent relating to the defence of its legal claims as a respondent. In three cases, the tribunal ordered $1,650,200.55 of these expenditure amounts to be reimbursed to Canada. This amount is not reflected here.
Since 1994, Canada has lost three investor state disputes as a respondent: S.D. Myers v. Canada, Pope & Talbot v. Canada and Mobil & Murphy v. Canada. In respect of these cases, Canada has paid the following: in the S.D. Myers v. Canada dispute, $6.9 million Canadian plus interest for legal costs and damages; and in the Pope & Talbot v. Canada dispute, $581,766 U.S., or approximately $6 million Canadian plus interest for a portion of the arbitral fees and damages. No payment has been made to date to Mobil & Murphy.
To the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by litigation privilege, the federal crown asserts that privilege and, in this case, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total aggregate legal cost.
Question No. 961--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to lands owned by the government or crown corporations: (a) what is the total number of distinct properties that exist within the municipality of Vancouver, broken down by (i) name, (ii) address, (iii) current use; and (b) what is the total number of distinct properties that exist within the boundaries of the federal electoral district of Vancouver Kingsway, broken down by (i) name, (ii) address, (iii) current use?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Directory of Federal Real Property is the central record and only complete listing of real property holdings of the Government of Canada.
The directory can be accessed at the following website:
www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dfrp-rbif/introduction-eng.aspx.
Question No. 978--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to Canada Post and the process described on its “Canada Post Pay Equity Decision” webpage, further to the Supreme Court ruling of November 17, 2011, in favour of the Public Service Alliance of Canada: how many employees or former employees (a) have applied online; (b) have confirmed their postal code; (c) have been sent the information package; (d) have provided the information requested in the package; (e) have been sent their payment; (f) have not yet been sent their payment; and (g) have an active file that has not yet been closed due to a payment or a refusal of payment?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has been working diligently on the pay equity file to ensure accurate data and process payments as quickly as possible.
Canada Post has sent out payments to almost 10,000 individuals identified as eligible. Every current and former eligible employee that Canada Post has been able to locate a current address for has been paid. Canada Post is working with the Canada Revenue Agency to find others that it may not have current information for, in order to complete any outstanding cases.
Question No. 996--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada's pilot project for LGBT refugees: (a) to date, how many refugees have been sponsored through the project; (b) how many of the sponsored refugees are present in Canada; (c) how much of the funding budgeted for the pilot project by the government has been spent; (d) how many sponsors participated in the pilot project; and (e) have any evaluations been conducted on the pilot project?
Response
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada is concerned, (a) to date, 32 refugees have been sponsored through the Rainbow Refugee Committee project and,
(b) 26 persons sponsored under this initiative have arrived in Canada.
(c) All of the $100,000 budgeted for this pilot project has been spent.
(d) Five sponsorship agreement holders have participated in the pilot project.
(e)There has been no evaluation of the pilot project to date.
Question No. 1001--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to permanent frozen allotments: (a) which departments or agencies have been directed by the Treasury Board to permanently withhold spending on one or more specific initiatives in fiscal year (i) 2014-2015, (ii) 2015-2016, (iii) 2016-2017; (b) what is the official name for each frozen allotment in fiscal year (i) 2014-2015, (ii) 2015-2016, (iii) 2016-2017; (c) what are the details of each initiative subject to a permanent frozen allotment in fiscal year (i) 2014-2015, (ii) 2015-2016, (iii) 2016-2017; and (d) how much money has been frozen for each identified initiative in fiscal year (i) 2014-2015, (ii) 2015-2016, (iii) 2016-2017?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board acts on all matters relating to the general administrative policy in the federal public administration and financial management. As well, the Treasury Board reviews annual and longer-term expenditure plans and programs of departments, and the determination of priorities with respect thereof.
With regard to (a), Treasury Board is a cabinet committee and as such its decisions are cabinet confidences. The powers of the Treasury Board are laid out in the Financial Administration Act and do not include the power to direct departments and agencies to permanently withhold spending.
With regard to (b), (c) and (d), volume III of the Public Accounts will publish, for each departmental vote, the total amount that remained frozen at year-end, at which point all remaining frozen allotments will be considered to be “permanent”. The documents will be available at:
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/index-eng.html.
Question No. 1002--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to frozen allotments: (a) which departments or agencies were directed by the Treasury Board to withhold spending on one or more specific initiatives in fiscal year (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014; (b) what is the official name for each frozen allotment in fiscal year (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014; (c) what are the details of each initiative subject to a permanent frozen allotment in fiscal year (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014; and (d) how much money was frozen for each identified initiative in fiscal year (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, volume III of the Public Accounts published, for each departmental vote, the total amount that remained frozen at year-end, at which point all remaining frozen allotments are considered to be “permanent” for that year.
Here are the links to relevant online documents.
For 2011-12, please see:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/html/2012/recgen/cpc-pac/2012/vol3/s10/bdgtr-ffcttn-eng.html.
For 2012-13, please see:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/html/2013/recgen/cpc-pac/2013/vol3/s10/dba-bda-eng.html.
For 2013-14, please see:
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2014/vol3/s10/dba-bda-eng.html.
Question No. 1014--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to the home-equity assistance program administered by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS): (a) what were the costs to TBS for the federal court case initiated by Major Marcus Brauer, broken down by (i) legal costs, (ii) staff costs; (b) what was the cost of the third party review of the Bon Accord real estate market order by Judge Richard Mosley; and (c) what is the estimated cost to the TBS for the class action suit for home equity assistance?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the home equity assistance program administered by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the legal costs to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat for the Federal Court case initiated by Major Marcus Brauer were $58,646.26. This includes $25,376.04 corresponding to Mr. Brauer’s legal fees and disbursements and $33,270.22 corresponding to the federal government legal costs. It is not possible to ascertain the staff costs attributable to this specific case.
The cost of the third party review of the Bon Accord real estate market order by Judge Richard Mosley was $5,998.36.
The proposed class action suit for home equity assistance in Dodsworth v. Her Majesty the Queen is still at a preliminary stage before the Federal Court.