Interventions in the House of Commons
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1768--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With regard to plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas: (a) how much debris has washed ashore, broken down by Park, in the last ten years; (b) how many deaths of seabirds, marine animals and other species in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas have been attributed to plastic pollution, broken down by Park, over the last ten years; (c) what measures does the government have in place to ensure the appropriate collection of plastic pollution, waste and debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (d) what measures does the government have in place to mitigate and address the potential impacts of plastic pollution, waste and other debris on seabirds, marine animals and other species in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (e) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis; (f) what measures does the government have in place to ensure the timely and coordinated removal of plastic pollution, waste and other debris in, and surrounding, Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; and (g) how often does the government review its policies and procedures regarding plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada takes the protection of national parks and national marine conservation areas very seriously, including pollution from marine debris. Materials such as plastic in oceans are always a concern, as they can entangle marine wildlife, impact habitat and be ingested as food, among other concerns.
The amount of plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s national parks and national marine conservation areas varies widely by site, ranging from microplastics and plastic bags to lost fishing gear and marine debris from lost shipping containers. The amount that accumulates at different sites often depends on the character of the shoreline, currents and tides. Parks Canada has both a comprehensive ecological monitoring program that tracks the health of ecosystems, as well as an incident management system to track and respond to a wide variety of incidents, including pollution events. There is not, however, a national database to track marine debris and plastic pollution.
When marine incidents occur within the boundaries of national parks and national marine conservation areas, Parks Canada’s first action is to report the incident to relevant parties, such as the Canadian Coast Guard, affected first nations and other stakeholders. An action plan is developed to clean up the debris, reduce threats to ecosystems and minimize risks to public health and safety. Removal operations often involve specialized skills and equipment, such as helicopters and barges; at different stages, partners and local volunteers also provide assistance. Parks Canada will conduct an investigation to determine if charges should be laid and seek damages when warranted. This can result in polluters funding clean-up efforts, as was the case with the Hanjin container spill of 2016.
Parks Canada works with coastal communities and other organizations on regular beach clean-ups, e.g., the great Canadian shoreline cleanup. These initiatives not only help clean up coastal areas, but also generate awareness among visitors and other participants of the threat of pollution and marine debris, and ways to achieve zero plastic waste and reduce marine litter.
Most marine debris originates offshore from unknown sources, so there is limited ability to manage this issue except by removing it when it appears. Regulations apply, such as those under the Canada Shipping Act, which prevent the disposal of waste or debris from vessels, and aid the management of marine pollution and debris in both national parks and national marine conservation areas. Parks Canada is working together with other federal departments to co-ordinate efforts to address the ongoing issue of marine debris and to strengthen partnerships with indigenous partners, communities and provincial governments.
Across Canada, Parks Canada facilities offer recycling and waste disposal. The agency also provides comprehensive pre-trip messages to visitors regarding appropriate behaviour and to enlist the support of campers to “keep campsite clean” and “pack it in, pack it out”. Parks Canada has a national policy in place to prevent littering, which is enforced through the national parks general regulations, section 31.
Marine debris is an ever-present issue in the management of protected marine environments. Parks Canada will soon be consulting the public on a new management plan for the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve in the year ahead. We welcome the public’s input on this plan, including the development of a formal protocol for responding to marine debris within the park reserve boundaries.
Parks Canada contributes to the implementation of the greening government strategy through its 2017-2020 departmental sustainable development strategy. The government aims to reduce the environmental impact of waste by diverting at least 75 percent by weight of all non-hazardous operational waste by 2030; diverting at least 90 percent by weight of all construction and demolition waste and striving to achieve 100 percent by 2030; and minimizing environmentally harmful and hazardous chemicals and materials used and disposed of in real property operations.
The greening government strategy is updated every three years.

Question No. 1777--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the government’s development of a federal co-operative strategy, as called upon by M-100: (a) what is the overall status of developing such a strategy; (b) what organizations, including provincial, municipal, and territorial governments and Indigenous representative organizations have been consulted; (c) how does the government plan to integrate the strategy into existing economic development programming, such as regional economic development agencies or the Community Futures Program; (d) what “goals and targets” as stated in the motion does the government plan to use to assess the strategy’s success; and (e) how is the government planning to support next-generation and innovative cooperative forms such as platform cooperatives?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s development of a federal co-operative strategy, and part (a) specifically, on April 5, 2018, the Government of Canada announced a plan to respond to Motion M-100. The plan focuses on three key areas: accessing federal programs and services, including highlighting relevant options for co-operatives while ensuring that these programs are accessible; raising awareness of the co-operative business model among Canadians and across federal departments to ensure that co-operatives are considered in relevant strategies and initiatives; and modernizing co-operative sector data to ensure that Canadians have access to the latest and most relevant data on the co-operative business model. The announcement also outlined a commitment to continued engagement with the co-operative sector, federal, provincial and territorial colleagues, and indigenous communities to identify additional steps it can take to support the co-operative business model. This process will focus on how the model can support government priorities, including indigenous economic development, women and youth entrepreneurship, clean tech and renewable energy, and community-based innovation
With regard to part (b), the three areas outlined in the response were identified on previous consultation and are based on known challenges facing Canadian co-operatives. Also, the Government of Canada has committed to continued engagement on this important issue. Innovation, Science and Economic Development, ISED, will connect directly with provincial and territorial governments through its federal, provincial, territorial working group, with relevant federal departments through the federal network on co-ops and directly with the co-operatives sector, including indigenous-owned co-operatives and indigenous business development organizations. ISED will facilitate a policy forum event in the fall of 2018 that will gather more targeted information on the three key areas of focus, including access to federal programs and services, raising awareness of the co-operative business model, and modernizing co-operative sector data. The forum will also explore how co-operatives contribute to indigenous economic development, women and youth entrepreneurship; clean tech and renewable energy; and community-based innovation.
With regard to part (c), as part of its initial response to the passing of M-100, ISED conducted a scan of its own programming, including regional development agencies, RDA, and other portfolio organizations, to determine current support for the co-operative business model. During the 2016-17 fiscal year, ISED and the portfolio provided a total of $8.9M in support, including grants, loans and loan guarantees. That includes approximately $6.1M through the regional development agencies and $2.8M through the Canada small business financing program. Co-operatives are also eligible for funding under the community futures program. Over the last decade, ISED and the portfolio have provided an estimated $132M in support to more than 530 Canadian co-operatives. In order to ensure that additional action taken is in line with existing economic development programming, representatives from the RDAs and the community futures program will be included in future discussion on how the Government of Canada can continue to support the co-operative sector.
With regard to part (d), the Government of Canada’s response to M-100 will focus on three key areas, including accessing federal programs and services, raising awareness of the co-operative business model and modernizing co-op data. Under the first area, the goal is to ensure that federal programs and services are accessible to co-operatives and that co-operatives are aware of those programs and services, and that front-line business development officers understand the co-operative model. The goal is to increase awareness of the model publicly and across relevant federal departments to ensure that co-operatives are being considered in relevant strategies and emerging priorities. Modernizing co-operative data is about ensuring that the co-operative sector and Canadians have access to the latest and most relevant data on this innovative business model. The continued engagement will be focused on additional steps the Government of Canada can take to support the co-operative business model.
With regard to part (e), platform co-operatives represent another unique opportunity that will be explored during the engagement process. Canada’s innovation and skills plan also represents an opportunity to support innovation in the co-op sector. This ambitious effort aims to make Canada a world-leading centre for innovation, and in the process strengthen and grow the middle class. With a focus on six key areas, including advanced manufacturing, agri-food, clean technology, digital industries, health/bio-sciences and clean resources, the innovation and skills plan focuses on expanding growth and creating jobs. Budget 2018 outlined a historic reform of business innovation programs to create a suite of programs that is easy to navigate.

Question No. 1779--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry (MMIW): (a) how much money has been allocated to the MMIW Inquiry for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 fiscal years; (b) what are the Inquiry’s anticipated budgetary needs for each of these two fiscal years; (c) is the Inquiry expected to overrun its monetary allocations in either or both of these years; and (d) if the answer to (c) is in any way affirmative, what contingencies or plans are in place to ensure the continuing function of the Inquiry?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’, “the Inquiry”, budget over three fiscal years is $5.1M for 2016-17, $34.4M for 2017-18 and $14.2M for 2018-19. As reported in last year’s Public Accounts, the inquiry spent $2,883,721 in fiscal year 2016-17. The inquiry’s expenses for the 2017-18 fiscal year will appear in the Public Accounts scheduled to be tabled this fall 2018.
Commissioners exercise their authority under the Inquires Act and are responsible for planning and managing within their budgets, helping to preserve the investigative and advisory independence of commissions of Inquiry.
Following the recent announcement of an extension to the time provided for the inquiry to complete its final report, the government will work with the inquiry to ensure it has the resources required to complete its mandate.

Question No. 1784--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to the government’s Feminist International Assistance Policy: (a) has the government developed specific qualitative criteria to grade the level of success or lack thereof for the six defined action areas; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) when were the criteria established, (ii) what were the criteria?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the feminist international assistance policy integrated gender equality throughout Canada’s international assistance and positions Canada as a leader on gender equality. The policy advances a more flexible, innovative and integrated approach toward achieving gender equality and addressing the root causes of inequality. This approach also aims at reducing poverty, building peace and addressing humanitarian crises in the world’s least-developed countries and among its most vulnerable populations.
The department has a well-established practice of collecting and analysing programming data for all international assistance programming. Both quantitative and qualitative results data are collected, assessed, and used to inform policy and programming decisions. The data is made available to Parliament and all Canadians through the departmental results report and the report on the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, ODAAA.
The feminist international assistance policy outlines specific changes to which Canada will be contributing in each of the policy’s action areas. To assess progress on each of the policy’s action areas, the department has developed a set of performance indicators. These indicators have evolved as the action area policies have been developed. A full suite of indicators is now being used to assess progress. This includes global indicators that provide data based on international indices, as well key performance indicators that provide data based on Canadian international assistance project results.

Question No. 1785--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the government's decision to expedite work permits for individuals who have entered Canada irregularly and made refugee claims with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, since January 1, 2017: (a) how many individuals have (i) applied for and received a work permit, (ii) applied for but were denied a work permit, (iii) applied for and then withdrew their application for a work permit; (b) of those indentified in (a)(ii), what rationale was given for rejection; and (c) on average, how long is the period from which a work permit application is received by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to the issuance of the permit to the applicant?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), between April 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018, IRCC issued 17,334 work permits to asylum seekers who arrived irregularly across Canada. With regard to (a)(ii), 615 asylum claimants who arrived irregularly applied for and were denied a work permit. With regard to (a)(iii), 8 asylum claimants who arrived irregularly applied for and later withdrew their application for a work permit.
With regard to (b), the most common rationale for the refusal of a work permit was the client having failed to comply with the department’s request for a medical examination, as per subsection 16(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
With regard to (c), on average, work permits for those who entered Canada irregularly were processed within 25 days of IRCC receiving the application.
Note that IRCC began tracking asylum claims made by irregular migrants in the IRCC case management system in April 2017. Historically, asylum claims made by irregular migrants were part of IRCC’s broader overall number of asylum claims.

Question No. 1789--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the government’s decision to move Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) agents away from the Toronto Pearson International Airport to deal with the influx of individuals illegally crossing the border in Quebec: (a) will the government compensate airlines whose services are disrupted as a result of longer processing times; (b) apart from any compensation provided by the airlines, will the government provide passengers stranded on the tarmac or who missed their connections as a result of these actions on the part of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; and (c) does the government have any projections on the economic loss resulting from travel disruptions resulting from its decision to relocated CBSA agents and, if so, what are the projections?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, any decisions to redeploy staff will have no impact on CBSA services at the Toronto Pearson International Airport. As part of its planning, each of the CBSA’s operational regions has initiated the establishment of a “surge capacity workforce” that can be called upon in the event of increased operational requirements. As not all of the CBSA’s staff in the greater Toronto area work at the airport, surge capacity requirements may include administrative staff or non-frontline employees.

Question No. 1793--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to reports that China detained hundreds of thousands of Uyghur Muslims in prison-like detention centres: (a) what estimates does Global Affairs Canada has on the number of Uyghur Muslims being held in such detention centres; and (b) has the government raised concerns about these detentions with the government of China and, if so, what are the details for each occasion, including (i) who raised the concern, (ii) which Chinese government official was the concern raised with, (iii) date, (iv) summary or nature of concern raised?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is deeply concerned about the ongoing persecution and repression of religious and ethnic minorities in China, and in particular the situation facing Uyghur Muslims. Their persecution violates China’s international obligations and is incompatible with its constitution. Canada is particularly concerned by reports that between several hundred thousand and as many as one million people are being held in detention on baseless charges. In Xinjiang province, Uyghurs confront increasingly repressive security and mass surveillance practices deployed by Chinese authorities, which aim to systematically deny Uyghurs their fundamental human rights, including the freedom to practise their faith.
The promotion and protection of human rights are core priorities in our engagement with China. The Government of Canada urges the Chinese authorities to immediately release all individuals detained in China for exercising their human rights, including their right to freedom of religion and expression, and to protect advocates for linguistic and cultural rights. Canada condemns the lack of transparency and due process in the cases of the thousands of Uyghurs detained in so-called “re-education camps,” and has denounced these repressive measures publicly, including through our public statement at the March 2018 session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which raised not only the case of the Uyghurs but also China’s Tibetan minority.
Canada continues to raise its objections about the treatment of Uyghurs directly with the Chinese government. On June 8, 2018, Ambassador John McCallum raised our concerns with a vice-minister of Foreign Affairs. On June 15, 2018, our concerns were conveyed by Canada’s deputy head of mission in Beijing to the Chinese special representative for human rights. At both of these meetings, Canada raised the ongoing detention of Uyghurs and the growing concern, not only on the part of the Canadian government but by many governments around the world, of persecution of this ethnic minority on grounds that are in violation of China’s international obligations, as well as its constitution. We will continue to raise the human rights situation in China, including the persecution of Uyghurs, at every possible opportunity.

Question No. 1794--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the government’s plan to send officials to Nigeria in an attempt to dissuade individuals from illegally crossing the Canadian border: (a) what is the total budget allocated for this campaign; (b) what is the budget, broken down by (i) airfare, (ii) other travel expenses, including accommodation, (iii) other expenses, further broken down by type; and (c) does the government have any projections regarding how many illegal crossing the trip to Nigeria will prevent and, if so, what are the projections?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since January 2018, IRCC has sent a total of three temporary duty (TD) officers to Nigeria on six- to eight-week rotations to work with government authorities and other international partners to deter irregular migration to Canada. These IRCC officers have engaged with U.S. embassy officials in Lagos to establish information exchange protocols related to Nigerian irregular migrants in possession of valid U.S. non-immigrant visas. IRCC officials are also working with U.S. officials to identify cases of mutual concern where one consulate has identified an issue with a case that is common to both countries (e.g., the applicant already has a U.S. visa however fraud is detected when they apply for a Canadian visa). Both Canada and the U.S. are cancelling visas when fraud is encountered in the application process. IRCC officials are also conducting research into local country conditions in order to improve our understanding of the basis of claims for Nigerian claimants including the LGBTQ communities and female genital mutilation and providing this information to other lines of business responsible for refugee determination.
With regard to (a), funding allocations to send officials to Nigeria fall under IRCC irregular migration budget. A breakdown of IRCC’s expenses related to efforts in Nigeria to dissuade irregular migration from January to June 2018 is outlined below.
With regard to (b) (i), airfare costs were approximately $19,000. With regard to (b) (ii), accommodation fees were approximately $19,000. With regard to (b) (iii), meal costs and incidental fees were approximately $22,000. The amounts disbursed from January to June 2018 are for three TD officers.
With regard to (c), it is difficult to predict irregular arrival patterns. However, IRCC and its federal partners are carefully monitoring trends and studying the data in order to ensure Canada is prepared and that effective strategies are used to respond to any fluctuations. The Government of Canada has built a national operations plan, designed to enable departments and agencies to respond quickly to fluctuations in irregular migrants wherever they occur.
The Government of Canada is working closely with provinces as well as other government and non-government organizations to ensure the support provided is as effective and efficient as possible.
IRCC is also supporting targeted communications and outreach to encourage the use of regular migration pathways and highlighting the risks associated with irregular migration. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the department are engaging Nigerian officials on these issues and will continue to do so, as well as continue collaborative work with the U.S. to address the misuse of their visas by those intent on coming to Canada.

Question No. 1795--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to individuals returning to Canada, since November 4, 2015: what is the number of High Risk Returnees who entered Canada, broken down by month?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, given its mandate and specific operational requirements, CSIS does not disclose details related to operational activities.
As stated in the most recent “Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”, as of December 2017, there were just over 60 individuals with a nexus to Canada who had travelled abroad to engage in terrorist activities and subsequently returned to Canada. Those numbers have remained relatively stable over the past two years, as it has become more difficult for extremists to successfully leave or return to Canada. Any further disclosure of more detailed information regarding extremist travellers could identify specific operational interests.

Question No. 1796--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the email sent out on March 8, 2018, by the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments to over 1,500 organizations regarding the upcoming applications review cycle: (a) to which organizations was the email sent; (b) how were the organizations chosen; and (c) were any organizations originally on the list prepared by the Advisory Board Secretariat subsequently removed and, if so, (i) which organizations, (ii) who removed them?
Response
Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments was established to build a more effective and less partisan Senate. Since 2016, 38 independent senators were appointed through this process.
It is important that Senate appointments best reflect all backgrounds and the diversity of Canadians. The independent advisory board has undertaken outreach with various organizations in order to ensure that a diverse slate of individuals, with a variety of backgrounds, skills, knowledge and experience were informed of the process to apply for an appointment. This list, which continues to expand with every applications review cycle, includes indigenous organizations; linguistic, minority and ethnic communities; provincial, territorial and municipal organizations; labour organizations; community-based service groups; arts councils; academia; provincial or territorial chambers of commerce; and many others.
The independent advisory board prepares a report to the Prime Minister at the end of each cycle, which includes data on the outreach undertaken, applications received, costs incurred and the recommendation process. This report is made available on the independent advisory board’s website. The full list of organizations that received an email from the independent advisory board’s outreach during the winter 2017 cycle can be found on its website at: www.canada.ca/en/campaign/independent-advisory-board-for-senate-appointments/report-process-december-2016-june-2017.html#annF.

Question No. 1798--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the comments by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on May 10, 2018, that “You should not engage in behaviour that would provoke or prompt an American border officer to be suspicious about your behaviour”: what specific behaviour is the Minister referring to?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been clear with United States officials that Canada expects travellers crossing the border in either direction to be treated fairly, respectfully and in accordance with the law. Canada has been engaging with U.S. officials to ensure that they understand the intent and effect of Canada's new cannabis laws.
Under the new laws, transporting cannabis across the border in either direction will remain illegal.
Like all countries, the U.S. has the authority to establish standards for admissibility and to provide training and guidance to its border officers about what constitutes suspicious behaviour. Behaviours, odours or other indicators associated with cannabis use may result in additional examination by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers.

Question No. 1800--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the government’s Prison Needle Exchange Program: (a) what specific measures are being taken to ensure that guards do not get stuck or injured from the needles; (b) what specific measures are being taken to prevent inmates from using the needles or syringe as a weapon; (c) does the government have any estimates or projections on the number of guards who will become victims of inmate violence annually following the implementation of a needle exchange program and, if so, what are the projections; and (d) what specific additional safety measures or additional training for correctional service officers will take place directly related to the Needle Exchange Program and how much funding is committed for each?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) to (c), according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, evidence from countries with prison needle exchange programs shows that they are not associated with attacks on employees or inmates. Rather, the evidence shows that these programs can help reduce the sharing of needles and the related spread of infectious diseases, without increasing rates of drug use or violence. These programs have also been found to facilitate referral to drug dependence treatment programs.
Correctional institutions with lower rates of infectious diseases are safer places to work.
A threat risk assessment model similar to the one currently in effect for offenders who possess EpiPens and insulin needles is used to determine who can participate. CSC’s prison needle exchange program (PNEP) kits, which come in transparent containers, must be kept in an approved storage area within the cell and presented to staff for visual inspection on a daily basis.
With regard to (d), at each institution, the implementation pathway for PNEP involves engagement with institutional staff, the distribution of written information to staff and inmates, and information sessions with staff, management, citizen advisory committees, inmate committees, workplace health and safety committees, and others. After the first several weeks, the project lead visits the site to assess implementation and address additional questions and issues that may arise. Costs are being absorbed within existing CSC operational budgets.

Question No. 1801--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the new record-keeping requirements or “registry” being proposed by Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms: (a) will any individual, agency, department, or police force be required to share any information obtained from the new record-keeping requirements or “registry” with the Canada Revenue Agency; and (b) what specific measures, if any, will the government take to ensure that government departments and agencies do not share information obtained or collected as a result of measures contained in Bill C-71?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, if passed, would standardize an existing best practice among firearms businesses by requiring them to keep inventory and sales records of non-restricted firearms, as was the case between 1977 and 2005. Law enforcement would request access to business records in the context of a criminal investigation and in accordance with existing legal authorities, including judicial authorization, where appropriate.
As the Member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe said at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-71 on June 7, 2018, “everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”.
With regard to (a), Bill C-71 does not contain any requirements to this effect.
With regard to (b), sales records will be privately maintained by vendors. Law enforcement will require judicial authorization, where appropriate, in order to access them.

Question No. 1803--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to refugee claimants who have arrived in Canada by irregular means since December 2016, what are the total costs incurred by the government for: (a) Interim Federal Health Program; and (b) transfers to provinces for social services and housing?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in April 2016 the interim federal health program, IFHP, was restored by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to provide refugees and asylum claimants with full health care coverage. Restoring the IFHP has also provided financial relief to Canadians who privately sponsor refugees, reduced the administrative burden faced by health care professions serving refugees, and eased health care funding pressure on provincial and territorial governments.
With regard to (a), from December 2016 up to May 31, 2018, costs related to IFHP for irregular migrants is $20,676,052. Providers have up to six months to submit a claim for reimbursement, therefore the data should be considered preliminary.
IRCC received supplementary funding for the interim federal health program special purpose allotment of $58.8 million in 2017-18 and $89.9 million in 2018-19 to cover the costs related to the provision of health care services for eligible beneficiaries, including resettled refugees, refugee claimants, rejected refugee claimants and certain others who are not eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance.
With regard to (b), from December 2016 up to May 31, 2018, IRCC did not transfer any funds to provinces for social services and housing.
The federal government provides the provinces and territories with support through the Canada social transfer, CST, which is a federal block transfer to provinces and territories in support of post-secondary education, programs for children, social assistance and other programs. For 2018-19, the CST is $14.1 billion compared to $13.7 billion in 2017-18, which represents an increase of $400 million.
Although provinces and territories are responsible for managing and delivering social housing to refugee claimants, IRCC will be making a financial contribution under its resettlement assistance program in the amount of $50 million to provinces in 2018-19, as follows: Quebec $36 million, Ontario $11 million and Manitoba $3 million. This is for extraordinary costs related to the provision of temporary housing for refugee claimants.

Question No. 1808--
Mr. Bernard Généreux:
With regard to the over 26,000 individuals who illegally crossed the border from the United States into Canada, since January 1, 2017: what proportion and number were (i) in the United States on a valid visitor visa, (ii) in the United States on a valid visa of another type, such as a temporary worker visa, (iii) illegally present in the United States prior to crossing, (iv) asylum seekers whose claims have been denied or abandoned in the United States, (v) legal United States residents under a temporary protected status, (vi) United States citizens or permanent residents?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker,between June 30, 2017, and June 3, 2018, there were 25,857 persons intercepted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police across Canada, and of those, 24,657 were in Quebec.
Of the intercepts in Quebec, with regard to (i) and (ii), 13,867, approximately 56%, had a valid United States Non-Immigrant Visa. Since the vast majority of intercepts occur in Quebec, IRCC conducts an in-depth analysis of Quebec intercepts only. IRCC has not analyzed national intercept data in detail. As a result, detailed national data with respect to intercepted persons who had a valid U.S. Non-Immigrant Visa or had legal status in the U.S. is not available at this time.
With regard to (iii), 15,935, or 65%, had legal status in the U.S. prior to their travels to Canada.
With regard to (iv) and (v), IRCC and the RCMP do not track the types of visa held by intercepts prior to entering Canada, the status of a prior refugee claim in the U.S., or whether the intercepts had U.S. Temporary Protected Status or had Permanent Resident Status in the U.S.A.
With regard to (vi), 1,632, or 7%, were U.S. citizens, who were typically the children of non-U.S. parents.
The data is available as of June 30, 2017, as the RCMP did not track irregular migrants to this level of detail prior to this date. The reported number of intercepts by the RCMP is subject to change due to the manner in which it is collected.

Question No. 1809--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the Senate Chamber on May 29, 2018, that “most farmers support the moves we have made to make sure that we put a tax on carbon”: what evidence, if any, does the government have to back up this claim?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, taking action to tackle climate change is essential for the economy and the environment. Carbon pricing is an important part of Canada’s plan to transition to a cleaner and more innovative economy. In many aspects, agriculture is leading the way in our transition to a low-carbon economy. The agriculture sector has a solid track record in using sound management practices, being innovative, and adopting new technologies to improve environmental performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Canadian farmers have long been responsible stewards of the land and will continue to be part of the climate change solution.
Our government recognizes that farmers and farm families are important drivers of the Canadian economy. The federal carbon pricing system has been carefully designed to limit its impact on the agricultural sector. Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and crop production are not subject to carbon pricing, and gasoline and diesel fuels for on-farm use will be exempted from carbon pricing under the federal backstop.
In Canada’s plan to price carbon pollution, the provinces can decide on the type of carbon pricing system to adopt and how the revenues will be invested. Revenues can be used in different ways, such as returning money directly to households and businesses, cutting taxes, or funding programs that reduce the cost of clean technology. In some provinces, there are also opportunities for producers to earn revenue from selling carbon offset credits generated through the adoption of practices such as conservation tillage and precision agriculture techniques.
The government is investing in a number of areas, including science and innovation, to help the agriculture sector grow sustainably and to create opportunities for farmers, businesses, and Canadians. For example, the $3-billion Canadian agricultural partnership between federal, provincial, and territorial governments will help producers continue to take action to address soil and water conservation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adapt to climate change.
The government also delivers climate change programming outside of the partnership. The agricultural greenhouse gas program of $27 million over five years, 2016-2021, supports projects that will create technologies and practices and will transfer information on these advances to enable their successful adoption by farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The agricultural clean technology program, a three-year, $25-million investment, aims to support the research, development, and adoption of clean technologies in the areas of bioproducts and precision agriculture. These technologies will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generate a range of positive impacts, and promote sustainable and clean growth.

Question No. 1817--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what is the complete list of infrastructure projects financed by the bank to date; and (b) for each project in (a), what are the details including (i) amount of federal financing, (ii) location of project, (iii) scheduled completion date of project, (iv) project description?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, to date the bank has not financed any projects. The bank is in the process of engaging with stakeholders in the other orders of government and the private sector to better understand the needs of Canadian communities, and how the bank could play a role in meeting them.
The bank is an important part of the government’s more than $180-billion plan to build stronger, more sustainable, and inclusive communities across Canada. The bank is designed to engage private capital to build better public transit, energy transmission, trade corridors, and more across Canada. By engaging private capital in these projects, public dollars can go further and free up more funding for the record investments being made in areas such as social housing, disaster mitigation, women’s shelters, and clean water and wastewater systems.

Question No. 1820--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to government action in response to the Volkswagen diesel engine emissions scandal: (a) what specific actions has the government taken in response to the scandal; (b) how much GST or federal portion of HST did the government collect on Volkswagen vehicles which were found to violate emissions standards; (c) how many Volkswagen vehicles have been returned to a Canadian vendor in relation to any program or agreement with which the government, or any government agency or entity, was involved; (d) what is the total estimated value of vehicles in (c); (e) how much GST or federal portion of HST has the government remitted to purchasers of Volkswagen vehicles in (c); and (f) does the government plan on reimbursing all the GST or federal portion of the HST to all owners of the effected vehicles, and if not, why not?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Environment and Climate Change Canada routinely conducts emission testing on a sample of on-road and off-road vehicles and engines offered for sale in Canada to verify compliance with applicable emission regulations. This testing is conducted in coordination with the U.S. EPA to help broaden the scope of our coverage and maximize efficiencies in the administration of our respective programs. Various diesel vehicles offered for sale in Canada are being tested as part of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s usual compliance verification testing program. Additionally, the Government expanded its on-going collaborative work with its U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assess vehicles for the potential presence of defeat devices and other compliance issues.
Environment and Climate Change Canada continues to investigate the potential illegal importation into Canada of certain Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche vehicle models equipped with a prohibited defeat device. Environment and Climate Change Canada also launched a separate inquiry into the sale in Canada of 2015 Volkswagen models that received an EPA-approved partial fix following the receipt of an application made pursuant to section 17 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
With regard to (b), this information is not reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada as part of its role of administering the federal vehicle emission regulations.
With regard to (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada has been tracking the quantity of vehicles repaired by Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. authorized dealers through voluntary notices of defect filed under section 157 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. To date, over 19,000 vehicles have been reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada. This includes cases of owners electing to have their vehicle repaired and of owners electing to return vehicles to the company. Volkswagen has informed the department of its intention to resell vehicles that have been returned and repaired.
With regard to (d), the value is not reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada as part of the regulatory reporting process described in question (c).
With regard to (e), the value is not reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada as part of the regulatory reporting process described in question (c); therefore, GST/HST cannot be determined by Environment and Climate Change Canada.
With regard to (f), Environment and Climate Change Canada neither administers nor regulates the GST or federal portion of the HST and is therefore not in a position to comment.

Question No. 1830---
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the skating rink on Parliament Hill: (a) what is the final cost of the skating rink, broken down by item and type of expense; (b) if the final cost is not available, what is the total of all costs incurred to date, broken down by item and type of expense; and (c) does (a) and (b) include the cost of the tear down and repairing the lawn and, if not, what is the total of those costs?
Response
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), and (c), the final costs of the skating rink on Parliament Hill, including the tear-down and the repairing of the lawn, will be available upon receipt of financial reports from the Ottawa International Hockey Festival, the OIHF, in December 2018.

Question No. 1838--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to government expenditures related to David Piot v. Her Majesty the Queen and Joanne Schnurr v. Her Majesty the Queen, including any expenditures related to the appeals associated with the cases: (a) what are the total expenditures on each of the cases, broken down by case; (b) which law firms were retained by the government related to each of the cases; and (c) what are the total expenditures to date on outside law firms related to the cases, broken down by firm?
Response
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts that privilege and, in this case, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total legal cost.
The amount billed by the Department of Justice is $964,575.94 for all matters related to the Piot case and $285,281.04 for all matters related to the Schnurr case. For clarity, the amount billed is for time for departmental lawyers, notaries and paralegals as well as the time of legal advisers in the legal service unit who provide advice to the client. All are salaried public servants, and therefore no external legal costs were incurred.
With regard to (b) and (c), no outside law firms were retained by the government with respect to these cases.

Question No. 1849--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to discipline and incidents of misconduct at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) in each of 2015, 2016, and 2017, how many incidents of mismanagement, fraud, or bribery, respectively, involving CRA employees were discovered; (b) for each category of offence in (a), what was the cost to the Treasury in legal expenses; (c) for each category of offence in (a), what was the cost to the Treasury in damages awarded further to legal action; (d) for each category of offence in (a), what was the cost to the Treasury in lost revenue; (e) with respect to each category of offence in (a), for each year, how many person-hours did CRA expend to address them in each of: (i) Human Resources, (ii) Management (iii) Legal Affairs, (iv) Public Relations, and (v) Government Relations; (f) with respect to each category of offence in (a), for each year, how many person-hours did CRA expend to correct them through activities including but not limited to (i) contacting affected taxpayers, (ii) issuing re-assessments, (ii) reviewing the work of the relevant employees; (g) with respect to the Government’s response to Order Paper Question Q-1626, and to the May 28th, 2018 CBC article titled “More than 1000CRA employees disciplined for misconduct over past 4 years,” of the 1071 cases of discipline over four years, how many cases were for (i) single incidents or offences, (ii) more than one kind of offence or incident by the same employee, (iii) more than one count of the same offence or incident by the same employee; (h) with respect to each category of offence in (a), what is the most frequent means of discovering the offending conduct?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the CRA does not track the information in the manner requested. It should be noted that the number of cases is based on a fiscal year, April to March, and not a calendar year. In addition, the category of fraud is defined by the CRA through the CRA’s code of integrity and professional conduct and is included under the category of “financial management and fraud”.
With regard to parts (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) and with regard to discipline and incidents of misconduct at the CRA, the CRA’s corporate administrative system, the CAS, does not capture the information at the level of detail requested, so a response cannot be provided.
With regard to part (g), the CRA does not track the information in the manner requested. However, the CRA is able to provide the following information: Out of the 1071 employees disciplined over four years, 703 employees were disciplined for inappropriate behaviour that involved only one type of misconduct, meaning that these cases involved a single act of misconduct; 368 employees were disciplined for inappropriate behaviour that involved more than one type of misconduct, meaning that these cases involved multiple misconducts; and 15 employees were disciplined on more than one count, in the specified period, for the same type of misconduct.
With regard to part (h) on the most frequent means of discovering misconduct, the most common source was management notification of the CRA’s Internal Affairs and Fraud Control Division with suspicions of misconduct with respect to fraud.

Question No. 1850--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the government’s response to Order Paper Question Q-1709 concerning the withholding of an application to tax debts of federal and provincial transfer payments, in particular the response to parts (g), (j), (k), and (l) asserting that, “The CRA is unable to provide the information in the manner requested as it could not be completed in the time provided under Standing Order 39(5)(a),”: (a) for each of year 2016, 2017, and 2018, how many transfer or benefit payments did CRA withhold and apply to tax debts before the deadline for paying taxes owing; (b) for each year in (a) in which CRA withheld and applied transfer or benefit payments to tax debts before the deadline for paying taxes owing, how many tax debts to which such payments were applied did taxpayers pay in full by or on the deadline, such that an overpayment resulted; (c) for each year in (a), how many overpayments in (b) did CRA refund to the applicable taxpayers; (d) for each year in (a), how many transfer or benefit payments which CRA withheld and applied to a tax debt which resulted in an overpayment in (b) did CRA retain to apply to taxes owing in the future?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. The CRA is not able to respond as the information is not readily available in the manner requested. Given the detailed nature of the request, to produce the information in the manner requested, including the time needed to identify the proper criteria to respond, perform the requisite data collection and validate and verify the data collected, would require more time than is provided for under House of Commons Standing Order 39(5)(a).

Question No. 1851--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to comments made by the Minister of Natural Resources on June 11, 2018, regarding the “polluter pays” principle in the Pipeline Safety Act, can the minister: (a) confirm whether, as the owner of the Trans Mountain pipeline, the government is required to adhere to the liability provision within the act; and (b) confirm that the government has put aside one billion dollars to meet the absolute liability for any unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from the pipeline?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), regarding liability, the Pipeline Safety Act amended the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, which are both binding on Canada. Anyone that is authorized under the National Energy Board Act to construct or operate a pipeline would be required to adhere to the liability provisions under the act.
In response to (b), section 48.13(1) of the National Energy Board Act requires a company authorized under the act to construct or operate a pipeline to “maintain the amount of financial resources necessary to pay the amount of the limit of liability” that applies to it. While the act does not require the company that operates a given pipeline to actually put aside funds, the company—operator--has to satisfy the National Energy Board, NEB, as the regulator that it meets the requirement to maintain these financial resources and also that it is in compliance with any order that may be issued by the NEB as to the availability of these funds. This ensures that funds are available to respond to an unintended or uncontrolled release from a pipeline. This is consistent with the polluter pays principle and the government’s commitment to a strong pipeline safety regime. This requirement would equally apply to any federal Crown corporation if it were to operate the pipeline.

Question No. 1857--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to access to information requests, broken down by each department or agency of government subject to the Access to Information Act: (a) what is the practice to release records in digital form pursuant to a request made under the Act and in what electronic format are such records released to a requester; (b) following an access to information request, are records released in the original format in which they were created and, if another format is used, what is it; (c) if records are released in digital format, why and, if not, why not; and (d) in what policy, circular, notice, memorandum, directive or other document is the department or agency's policy concerning release or non-release of electronic records contained?
Response
Ms. Joyce Murray (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a), (b) and (c), when requesters submit a request, the requesters are asked to indicate whether they would like to receive an electronic or paper copy of the record, or to examine the record in person. When a requester asks for an electronic copy, it is normal practice to provide documents in PDF or digital image format.
The release in PDF or digital image format is for both operational and security reasons. The software programs currently used by government institutions to process access to information requests rely on records being scanned into the software. The software is then used to black out content on the scanned images to protect any information that has been withheld under the Access to Information Act for reasons of privacy, confidentiality or security. The records are then given to the requester in either PDF image or paper format. These formats prevent the blackout from being reversed to prevent privacy, confidentiality or security breaches.
Some records cannot be provided in electronic formats due to size limitations or the type of originals (such as microfiche) that were requested. Most often, information in response to an access to information request is released in paper or readable PDF format. This reflects both operational limitations and security considerations. For the year 2016–17, 80 per cent of records were released in digital format.
In response to part (d), the interim directive on the administration of the Access to Information Act (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=18310) directs government institutions to ensure that, wherever feasible, requesters will receive information in the format of their choice, including modern and easy-to-use formats. Heads of institutions can decline to provide a record in the format requested by the requester when it would be unreasonable or impracticable to do so, for example, when there would be considerable costs to convert the records to a different format, or when security, confidentiality or privacy could be compromised.
Regarding format of release, clause 7.4.6 of the directive states: “When privacy, confidentiality and security considerations would not be compromised and it would not be unreasonable or impracticable to do so, provide records in the format requested by the requester, including machine-readable and reusable formats.”
Additional requirements on the format of released records are found in subsection 4(2.1) (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-1.html#h-6) and section 25 of the Access to Information Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-5.html#docCont) and subsection 8.1(1) of the access to information regulations (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-83-507/page-1.html#h-8).

Question No. 1861--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the comments by the Commissioner of Lobbying in an interview with the Canadian Press that “If we want to be able to modernize, there is no way we will be able to do it with the current budget”: will the government increase the budget of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying and, if so, by how much?
Response
Ms. Joyce Murray (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to supporting the independence of the Commissioner of Lobbying. Agents of Parliament manage their resources to meet their operational requirements. Where the Commissioner of Lobbying makes a request for additional resources, the government considers such a request to ensure that the office can continue to fulfill its mandate efficiently and effectively.

Question No. 1866--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the new sauna and other upgrades made to Harrington Lake (Lac Mousseau), since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) description of upgrade, (iii) total amount; and (b) what is the breakdown of the amount in (a)(iii) by type of expense, such as installation, re-wiring, ski-trail grooming, etc.?
Response
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the expenditures by the National Capital Commission, NCC, for the sauna at Harrington Lake were to create access for an electrical connection from the main house to the temporary location for the sauna and to connect the electrical cable for the sauna to the main house electrical panel.
The details are: coring work for the electrical conduit, November 21, 2016, in the amount of $1,763.79; electrical connection, December 16, 2016, in the amount of $2,414.71. The total cost was $4,178.50.
Note that the Prime Minister paid for the sauna himself.
The NCC considers upgrades to be capital expenses, not operating expenses, that enhance the buildings or property and extend the life or value of the property and assets in question. No such expenditures have been incurred at Harrington Lake since November 2015. Any capital expenses during this time period were for investigation, research and design work only for potential future projects.
Expenses such as installation, rewiring, ski trail grooming, etc., are considered operational and are therefore charged to the operations and maintenance, O and M, budget. As such, the information requested is not readily available in the NCC’s tracking systems. An extensive manual search would be necessary in order to provide a comprehensive response. This operation cannot be completed within the allotted time frame.

Question No. 1868--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to expenditures by the government on presenters and performers for the Canada Day events on Parliament Hill in 2016 and 2017: (a) what is the total amount spent on performance fees, talent fees and other similar type expenditures for the events, broken down by year; and (b) what is the breakdown of the total amounts in (a) by performer or presenter?
Response
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in 2016, the total amount was $338,910. In 2017, the total amount was $1,341,413.
In response to (b), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and some information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes third party information.

Question No. 1871--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the Chief Science Advisor: for which bills and motions has the Chief Science Advisor provided advice to the government, broken down by (i) bill or motion (number and title), (ii) Minister responsible?
Response
Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Minister of Science and Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the chief science advisor provides advice in the development and implementation of guidelines to ensure that government science is fully available to the public and that federal scientists are able to speak freely about their work. The advisor also provides and coordinates expert advice to the Minister of Science and Sport and members of cabinet, as appropriate and requested, on key science issues, including the preparation of research and oversight papers for public dissemination.
The report of activities of the office of the chief science advisor and the state of government science, including the federal science workforce and federal scientific infrastructure, is delivered by the chief science advisor to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Science and Sport annually.

Question No. 1872--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the national space strategy the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development committed to publishing in June 2017: (a) how many drafts of the strategy have been reviewed by the Minister or his senior staff; (b) how many stakeholders were consulted in direct relation to the strategy; and (c) on what date will be the final strategy be released?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s participation in space science and exploration has benefited Canadians on earth, from the development of new medical technologies to the strengthening of our tech industry economy. It has allowed our space scientists to make important discoveries in areas such as astronomy and contribute to monitoring and understanding climate change.
In recent budgets the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has been committed to supporting scientific research and development, and commercialization of the space sector.
In budget 2016, $379 million was allocated for Canada’s continued participation in the International Space Station through to 2024 and $30 million was allocated for Canada’s continued participation in the European Space Agency programs.
In budget 2017, $80.9 million was allocated to the Canadian Space Agency, CSA, to support new projects and utilize Canadian innovations in space including the quantum encryption and science satellite, QEYSSat, mission.
In budget 2018, $100 million was allocated to focus on supporting projects that relate to low earth orbit satellites that will be available exclusively to the space sector.
With regard to supporting commercialization in the space sector, the CSA has announced planned expenditures of $84.9 million in contracts and contributions through its earth observation application development program and space technology development program since October 2015.
In looking to the long-term benefits and importance of the space sector, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development renewed the mandate of the space advisory board to consult Canadians and help define key elements of a long-term strategy for space.
The minister tasked the board to consult with space sector stakeholders and to report its findings. From April 21 to May 19, 2017, the board held seven round table discussions across Canada, in addition to two webinars focused on youth and the north, involving almost 200 stakeholders from a broad cross-section of industry, academia, civil society and government, to help support the development of space sector priorities and to define key elements of a space strategy.
In addition to round table participation, the board received nearly 350 responses via CSA social media platforms--Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram--and more than 60 email--written--submissions via an Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada online portal at Canada.ca.
The feedback received from these consultations has now been released and will inform the ongoing work on a long-term vision for the space sector.

Question No. 1874--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the recent extension of the Halifax Class in-service support contract: (a) was a fully public competition undertaken for the awarding of this support contract and, if so, what are the details of the competition, including (i) number of bidding companies, (ii) name of bidding companies, (iii) winning bidder, (iv) details of all bids, (v) location of the contract posting on buyandsell.gc.ca; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, who advised the government not to undertake a fully public competition, including (i) names, (ii) dates, (iii) any meetings held on the subject; and (c) will all future extensions of the Halifax Class in-service support contract be conducted in fair and open public bidding processes?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Halifax class in-service support contract was publicly competed and awarded in 2008 to include post-midlife refit, MLR, activities until at least 2019. In response to (i), two companies submitted bids in 2008. In response to (ii), it was Victoria Shipyard Ltd. for the west coast and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. for the east coast. In response to (iii), both companies were awarded contracts. In response to (iv), bidding was conducted in a free and open competition in 2008. Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, cannot release details about the bids because the information is proprietary and commercially sensitive, the disclosure of which could cause irreparable harm to the entities. In response to (v), these contracts were awarded in 2008 prior to implementation of buyandsell; therefore, they were not posted on buyandsell, but rather on MERX at that time. MERX data only goes back seven years, and therefore, further information about this competition is unavailable
Paragraph (b) is not applicable.
In response to (c), the contract extensions are routine amendments throughout the approved contract term. The Government of Canada continues to move forward in establishing a follow-on contract or contracts and has conducted industry consultations. The marine sustainment directorate posted a request for information, RFI, in December 2016 which was followed by an industry day in June 2017. The contracts were awarded with an expiry date of 2019 with an option for one year and five months to 2021. There are no further contract extensions as the process for the new in-service support contracts commenced in December 2016 and is ongoing.

Question No. 1876--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to the national digital and data consultations announced by the government on June 18, 2018: (a) which individuals and organizations were sent invitations to the launch of the consultations; and (b) how were the individuals and organizations in (a) chosen?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on June 19, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development launched national consultations on digital and data transformation with an announcement in the foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill and the opening of the online portal (https://canada.ca/digital-data-consultations). The department sent out media advisory notifying media outlets of the announcement.
Following the launch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada held the first of many cross-Canada round tables. The round tables will take place over the summer/early fall in cities across Canada with business, academia, civil society and others. Because there is strength in our diversity, the round tables will include women, indigenous peoples and other under-represented groups. These round tables will take place in Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Waterloo, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Fredericton, Charlottetown, Halifax, St. John’s, Whitehorse and Iqaluit.
These consultations will allow the government to better understand how Canada can drive innovation, prepare Canadians for the future of work, and ensure they have trust and confidence in how their data is used. Canadians and stakeholders are encouraged to conduct their own round tables and share with us what they heard. The online portal will provide the necessary documents to host these events and allow for direct submissions of these round table reports.

Question No. 1878--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the May 1-3, 2017, Coastal Ocean Research Institute workshop that examined noise impacting southern resident killer whales and the October 11-12, 2017, Southern Resident Killer Whale Symposium, both funded by the government, and broken down by event: (a) who attended each event and what organization did they represent; (b) which attendees received government funding to attend the events; and (c) how much funding did each attendee receive to attend the events?
Response
Mr. Jonathan Wilkinson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding the Coastal Ocean Research Institute, CORI, workshop on May 1 to 3, 2017, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, provided $44,100 through a contribution agreement to the Vancouver Aquarium, CORI, for a scientific workshop.
CORI managed the distribution of these funds, including the selection and invitation of participants, and provision of any honoraria and travel reimbursement for non-government participants and coordination of the workshop. Thus, not all information requested was available from departmental officials. Participants in the workshop included a broad range of experts from government, academia and non-governmental agencies.
Among the participants were five scientific experts from DFO: Patrice Simon, national capital region; Svein Vagle, Pacific region; James Pilkington, Pacific region; Shelia Thornton, Pacific region; Brianna Wright, Pacific region.
On October 11 and 12, 2017, as part of the Government of Canada’s oceans protection plan activities, DFO, Transport Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada co-hosted a symposium on the recovery of the southern resident killer whale population in British Columbia.
Hundreds of participants from government, indigenous organizations, academia, and non-governmental agencies registered to attend the symposium. Attendance of participants was not tracked; however, 67 DFO officials attended some part of the symposium.
DFO provided honoraria for the following participants to participate in a panel discussion at the symposium: Carla George, Squamish Nation, $200; Tim Kulchyski, Cowichan Tribes, $250; Teresa Ryan, University of British Columbia, $750; Carleen Thomas, Tsleil-Waututh Nation, $450.
DFO also reimbursed the travel expenses of Dr. John Ford at a total of $824.31.
Aboriginal peoplesAboriginal reservesAboultaif, ZiadAccess to information requestsAlbrecht, HaroldAngus, CharlieArnold, MelAttorney General of CanadaAutomotive industryBacklogsBains, Navdeep
...Show all topics
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1637--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the foreign income verification statement (T1135) forms that the Canada Revenue Agency received for 2010 and subsequent years: (a) how many returns concerned foreign property of less than $250,000, broken down by (i) type of taxpayer, (ii) country where the specified foreign property is held, (iii) year; (b) for the returns in (a), what was the filers’ total income from all specified foreign property, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; (c) for the returns in (a), what was the total amount of the filers’ gains or losses on the disposition of all specified foreign property, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; (d) of the returns in (a), how many concerned (i) funds held outside Canada, (ii) shares of non-resident corporations, (iii) indebtedness owed by a non-resident, interests in non-resident trusts, (iv) real property outside Canada, (v) other property outside Canada; (e) for the returns in (a), how many returns concerned property held in an account with a Canadian registered securities dealer or a Canadian trust, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; (f) how many returns concerned foreign property of more than $250,000, broken down by (i) type of taxpayer, (ii) country where the specified foreign property was held, (iii) year; (g) for the returns in (f), what was the total income from funds held outside Canada, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; (h) for the returns in (f), what were the total income and gains or losses on the disposition of shares of non-resident corporations, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; (i) for the returns in (h), what were the total income and gains or losses on the disposition of indebtedness owed by a non-resident, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; (j) for the returns in (f), what were the total income and gains or losses on the disposition of indebtedness owed by a non-resident, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; (k) for the returns in (f), what were the total income received, capital received and gains or losses on the disposition of interests in non-resident trusts, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; (l) for the returns in (f), what were the total income and gains or losses on the disposition of real property outside Canada, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; (m) for the returns in (f), what were the total income and gains or losses on the disposition of other property outside Canada, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer; and (n) for the returns in (f), what were the total income and gains or losses on the disposition of property held in an account with a Canadian registered securities dealer or a Canadian trust, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country, (iii) type of taxpayer?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to parts (a) through (n), the CRA is not able to respond as the information is not stored by the CRA in the manner requested. Given the detailed nature of the request, to be able to produce the information in the manner requested would require more time than is provided for under House of Commons Standing Order 39(5)(a).

Question No. 1638--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the information returns relating to controlled and not-controlled foreign affiliates (T1134) received by the Canada Revenue Agency for 2011 and subsequent years, broken down by (i) year, (ii) type of taxpayer, namely, individual, corporation, trust or partnership, (iii) North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code, (iv) country or jurisdiction in which the foreign affiliate carries on a business or other income earning activity, (v) country or jurisdiction of residence of the foreign affiliate: (a) how many returns were received; (b) how many returns concerned a controlled foreign affiliate (CFA), as defined in subsection 95(1) of the Income Tax Act; (c) what was the total book cost of shares of the foreign affiliates’ capital stock owned by the reporting entities as of the end of the reporting entities’ taxation year; (d) what was the total book cost of shares of the foreign affiliates’ capital stock at the end of the reporting entities’ taxation year owned by controlled foreign affiliates of the reporting entities or another person related to the reporting entities; (e) what was the total amount of the debt the foreign affiliates owed to the reporting entities at the end of the reporting entities’ taxation year; (f) what was the total amount of the debt the reporting entities owed to the foreign affiliates at the end of the reporting entities’ taxation year; (g) what was the total amount of assets held by the foreign affiliates; (h) what was the total amount of accounting net income before tax reported by the foreign affiliates; (i) what was the total amount of income or profits tax paid or payable on income reported by the foreign affiliates; (j) how many reporting entities, at any time in the taxation year, received a dividend on a share of the capital stock of a foreign affiliate; (k) what was the total amount of the dividends reported, broken down by surplus account, namely, exempt surplus, taxable surplus, pre-acquisition surplus and hybrid surplus, referred to in (j); (l) how many CFAs had one to five full-time employees or employee equivalents; (m) how many CFAs had more than five full-time employees or employee equivalents; (n) what was the total amount of gross revenue reported by controlled foreign affiliates, broken down by revenue source, namely, (i) interest – from other foreign affiliates of the reporting entities, (ii) interest – other, (iii) dividends – from other foreign affiliates of the reporting entities, (iv) dividends – other, (v) royalties, (vi) rental and leasing activities, (vi) loans or lending activities, (vii) insurance or reinsurance of risks, (viii) factoring of trade accounts receivable, (ix) disposition of investment property; (o) how many CFAs reported foreign accrual property income (FAPI); (p) what was the total gross amount of FAPI reported by CFAs, broken down by (i) FAPI that is income from property under subsection 95(1) of the Act, (ii) FAPI from the sale of property under paragraph 95(2)(a.1) of the Act, (iii) FAPI from the insurance or reinsurance of risks under paragraph 95(2)(a.2) of the Act, (iv) FAPI from indebtedness and lease obligations under paragraph 95(2)(a.3) of the Act, (v) FAPI from indebtedness and lease obligations under paragraph 95(2)(a.4) of the Act, (vi) FAPI from providing services under paragraph 95(2)(b) of the Act, (vii) FAPI from the disposition of capital property, (viii) FAPI under the description of C in the definition of FAPI in subsection 95(1) of the Act; (q) how many CFAs reported disposing of a share in another foreign affiliate that was excluded property or an interest in a partnership that was excluded property; (r) how many CFAs reported disposing of capital property that was not excluded property; (s) how many CFAs reported including income that would otherwise have been included in their income from property in their income from an active business, broken down by source, namely, (i) because of subparagraph 95(2)(a)(i) of the Act, (ii) because of subparagraph 95(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, (iii) because of subparagraph 95(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, (iv) because of subparagraph 95(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, (v) because of subparagraph 95(2)(a)(v) of the Act, (vi) because of subparagraph 95(2)(a)(vi) of the Act, (vii) because of the type of business carried on and the number of persons employed by the foreign affiliate in the business pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of investment business in subsection 95(1) of the Act, (viii) because of paragraph 95(2)(l) of the Act; (t) how many CFAs reported including income that would otherwise have been included in their income from a business other than an active business in their income from an active business, broken down by reason, namely, (i) because of the 90% test in paragraphs 95(2)(a.1) through (a.4) of the Act, (ii) because of subsection 95(2.3) of the Act, (iii) because of subsection 95(2.4) of the Act; and (u) how many foreign affiliates reported that some information requested in the return was not available?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) to (u), the CRA is not able to respond as the information is not stored by the CRA in the manner requested. Given the detailed nature of the request, to be able to produce the information in the manner requested would require more time than is provided for under House of Commons Standing Order 39(5)(a).

Question No. 1639--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to Health Canada’s comprehensive review of the disinfectant THYMOX EXT (DIN: 02390035): how much did it cost Health Canada to carry out this review?
Response
Mr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, based on data extracted from Health Canada’s system, the full cost to review this submission back in 2011 was approximately $5,400.

Question No. 1640--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the side effect reporting forms received by Health Canada since 2010: (a) how many forms have been received; and (b) how many reports were about the drug Fluorouracil (5-FU), broken down by the seriousness of the side effect?
Response
Mr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada’s Canada vigilance program collects and assesses reports of suspected adverse reactions, or ARs, to health products marketed in Canada. Adverse reactions are undesirable responses to health products. Health Canada defines a serious adverse reaction as: “A noxious and unintended response to a drug, which occurs at any dose and requires in-patient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, causes congenital malformation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, is life-threatening or results in death. Important medical events that may not be immediately life-threatening or result in death or hospitalization, but may jeopardize the patient or may require intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above, may also be considered serious.”
Adverse reaction reports are submitted by health professionals and consumers either directly to Health Canada or via market authorization holders--i.e., manufacturers. Manufacturers must report all domestic serious AR reports to Health Canada as per regulatory requirements.
From January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, the Canada vigilance program received a total of 345,189 domestic AR reports. This number does not include follow-up reports. This includes 1,605 reports in which the suspect product was Fluorouracil, 5-FU. Of these 1,605 reports, 1,572 were deemed to be serious by the reporter.
Caveats are as follows: There may be AR reports that have been received from multiple sources representing the same case. For example, a report may be submitted by both a patient and a health care professional but represent the same case. This means that there may be fewer cases than the total of 345,189 AR reports. This also means that there may be fewer cases for Fluorouracil, 5-FU, as the suspect product.
The number of reports received should not be used as a basis for determining the incidence of a reaction, as neither the total number of reactions occurring nor the number of patients exposed to the health product is known.
Often it is not possible to determine if an AR reported to Health Canada is a result of using a specific health product. Other factors contributing to the AR could be a person's health conditions or other health products they are using at the same time.

Question No. 1641--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to financial assistance from Export and Development Canada (EDC): which Canadian businesses, not-for-profit organizations, agencies dedicated to marketing and exports, clusters, and business associations have received funding or loans from EDC, broken down by (i) name of the business or organization, (ii) amount of loan or funding, (iii) type of project?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Export Development Canada, EDC, undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. EDC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
EDC does report individual transaction information on all financing, including guarantees, political risk insurance to lenders, and equity transactions. For transactions signed within the past 15 months, members may refer to the following link: https://www19.edc. ca/edcsecure/disclosure/ DisclosureView. aspx.

Question No. 1642--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Canada 150 Rink on Parliament Hill: (a) what was the initial cost to taxpayers of the Canada 150 Rink; (b) what is the final cost to taxpayers of the Canada 150 Rink after extending its duration to February 25, 2018, including the costs of the Ottawa International Hockey Festival (OIHF); (c) how many games of the OIHF were played on the Canada 150 Rink; (d) what were the attendance numbers for the games in (c); (e) what were the costs of relocating OIHF games to other arenas because of the extreme cold and poor ice conditions; (f) what was the total number of skaters in attendance over the 81 days that the Canada 150 Rink was scheduled to be open; (g) how many days did the rink achieve maximum capacity of skaters during three or more skating sessions; (h) was the Canada 150 Rink closed at any time because of the weather and, if so, how many days were impacted; (i) has Canadian Heritage made a decision on where the board, glass and benches will be donated; (j) what is the criteria used to make the decision in (i); and (k) what financial commitments did the National Hockey League and the Ottawa Senators make to have such prominent placement of their logos on the Canada 150 Rink and the lawn of Parliament Hill?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the final costs will be available upon receipt of financial reports from the Ottawa International Hockey Festival, the OIHF.
With regard to (c) and (d), due to the excessive cold, no games organized by the OIHF were held.
(e) With regard to (e), the costs of relocating the games were absorbed by the OIHF. No additional funding was allocated by the Government of Canada.
With regard to (f), total public skating attendance was 152,089, rink operation hours totalled 1,015, public skating hours totalled 882, and programming hours totalled 133.
With regard to (g), (h), (j), and (k), no data was compiled.
With regard to (i), the choice of the community to receive the rink is under the responsibility of the Ottawa International Hockey Festival. The selection process is under way.

Question No. 1647--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures: does the government consider the 556-page bill to be an omnibus bill and, if not, what is the threshold for omnibus legislation which the bill fails to meet?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 69.1(1), an omnibus bill is a government bill that seeks to repeal, amend, or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked. However, Standing Order 69.1(2) holds that Standing Order 69.1(1) does not apply to a bill that has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation. The government considers Bill C-74 to fall within the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2).

Question No. 1650--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to middle-class Canadians: (a) how many Canadians have joined the middle-class since November 4, 2015; and (b) how many former middle-class Canadians have fallen below the middle-class threshold since November 4, 2015, and are now struggling to rejoin the middle-class?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada defines the middle class using a broader set of characteristics than merely income. As such, there is no official statistical measure of “middle class” in Canada, as it is very difficult to identify a specific range of incomes that characterize the middle class. Middle-class Canadians can generally be identified by the values they hold and the lifestyle they aspire to. Middle-class values are values that are common to most Canadians and from all backgrounds-- they believe in working hard to get ahead and hope for a better future for their children. Middle-class families also aspire to a lifestyle that typically includes adequate housing and health care, educational opportunities for their children, a secure retirement, job security, and adequate income for modest spending on leisure pursuits, among other characteristics.
The income required to attain such a lifestyle can vary greatly based on Canadians’ specific situations, such as whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive. In this context, the government has cut taxes for nearly nine million Canadians; introduced the new Canada child benefit, which has resulted in higher benefits for nine out of 10 families; strengthened the Canada workers benefit, formerly the working income tax benefit; and strengthened the Canada pension plan to the benefit of all Canadians.

Question No. 1651--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the carbon tax: (a) how much will the $50 per tonne carbon tax reduce CO2 emissions in each of the next three years; and (b) if the answer to (a) is not a number, is the government’s refusal to divulge the number because the government does not know the number, or because releasing the information would be embarrassing for the government?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, pricing carbon is widely recognized as an efficient way to reduce emissions at lowest cost to business and consumers and support innovation and clean growth. Carbon pricing sends an important signal to markets and provides incentives to reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency measures. For these reasons, carbon pricing is a central pillar of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, the PCF, signed by first ministers in December 2016.
Over 80% of Canadians already live in a jurisdiction that has a price on carbon pollution. In order to extend this throughout Canada, in October 2016 the Prime Minister announced the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution. This gives provinces and territories the flexibility to implement the type of system that makes sense for their circumstances: either an explicit price-based system, such as British Columbia’s carbon tax or Alberta’s carbon levy and performance-based emissions system, or cap and trade, such as in place in Quebec and Ontario. It also sets some common criteria that all systems must meet to ensure they are fair and effective. For explicit price-based systems, the carbon price is a minimum of $10 per tonne of greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions in 2018, increasing $10 per tonne GHGs annually to $50 per tonne in 2022. Additional information on the pan-Canadian approach is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2016/10/canadian-approach-pricing-carbon-pollution.html.
The federal government also committed to develop and implement a federal carbon pricing backstop system. This will only apply in any province or territory that requests it or that does not have a carbon pricing system in place in 2018 that meets the benchmark. The proposed federal carbon pricing system consists of two elements:a charge on fossil fuels that is generally payable by fuel producers or distributors; and a performance-based system for GHG emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industrial facilities to minimize competitiveness risks while ensuring a carbon price signal and incentive to reduce GHG emissions.
All direct revenue from the federal carbon pricing system will be returned to the jurisdiction of origin. Additional information on the proposed federal system is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2018/01/government_of_canadareleasesfurtherdetailsonfederalcarbon-pollut.html.
No decisions have been made about where the federal system will apply. Provinces have until September 1, 2018 to confirm their plans for pricing carbon pollution.
The Government of Canada released a paper on April 30, 2018, on the estimated results of the federal carbon pollution pricing system. This is available online at https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/estimated-impacts-federal-system.html.
It is based on an illustrative, hypothetical scenario in which the four provinces with carbon pricing systems today, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, representing 80% of Canada’s population, meet the federal standard through 2022, and the other nine provinces and territories implement the federal carbon pricing system.
It finds that carbon pricing will make a significant contribution towards meeting Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction target. A price on carbon could cut carbon pollution across Canada by 80 to 90 million tonnes in 2022, once all provinces and territories have systems that meet the federal standard. This is equivalent to taking 23 million to 26 million cars off the road for a year or shutting down 20 to 23 coal-fired power plants for a year. Without this contribution, more costly regulatory interventions would be needed to meet our target.
The Government of Canada’s approach to pricing carbon pollution will ensure that GHG emissions are reduced, and Canadians are well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition under way.

Question No. 1652--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the backlog of Access to Information requests in the Privy Council Office (PCO) and Prime Minister’s Office: (a) broken down by month, how many additional staff have been hired by PCO’s Access to Information and Privacy division to deal with the backlog, since January 1, 2016; and (b) has any quantifiable progress been made by PCO in addressing the progress and, if so, what are the details of such progress?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.)
Madam Speaker, with regard to the backlog of access to information requests in the Privy Council Office, PCO, and in the Prime Minister’s Office, PMO, and the hiring of additional staff to deal with the increasing number of requests, as of April 16, 2018, there were approximately four additional employees in the access to information and privacy division at PCO than there were on January 1, 2016. Since January 1, 2016, the Privy Council Office has responded to 99.9% of all access to information requests by the legislated deadline.

Question No. 1653--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the contribution provided by the National Research Council to AggregateIQ Data Services Ltd: (a) what was the amount of the contribution; (b) what specific projects was AggregateIQ supposed to work on with the contribution; (c) what was the date of the contribution; (d) has the government referred the project to the Privacy Commissioner for investigation and, if not, why not; (e) who or what was the intended market or potential client for the product which was supposed to be developed in relation to the contribution; and (f) were either the Liberal Party of Canada or Canada 2020 contacted in any way in relation to the project and, if so, what are the details of any such contact?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, with regard to the contribution provided by the National Research Council to AggregateIQ Data Services Ltd, following is a detailed response from the National Research Council Canada, NRC.
In response to (a), the approved amount of the contribution agreement was $100,000.
In response to (b), it was supposed to support the creation of a comprehensive and platform independent political campaign online reporting tool.
In response to (c), the start date was January 1, 2017, and the end date was September 30, 2017.
In response to (d), the NRC’s industrial research assistance program, NRC-IRAP, has not referred the project to the Privacy Commissioner for investigation.
All projects are evaluated through a stringent due diligence process conducted independently by officials at the NRC.
All projects are evaluated through a stringent due diligence process conducted independently by officials at the NRC.
The NRC also reviews projects to ensure they meet appropriate and relevant research and development ethical guidelines, a requirement that IRAP extends to its clients’ projects and that includes an assessment of the treatment of private and personal information related to that project. If there were concerns about privacy or personal information, the NRC would refer the matter to its research ethics board for review.
No privacy concerns associated with this project were identified, nor did the NRC officials observe material privacy breaches during the course of the project that would have required notification to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner
In response to (e), AggregateIQ’s customers include political parties, candidates, independent issue-based organizations, and campaigns.
In response to (f), the NRC did not have any contacts with the Liberal Party of Canada or Canada 2020 in relation to the project. NRC-IRAP is delivered independently by officials at the National Research Council.

Question No. 1654--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to victims of the British Columbia wildfires who lost trees when their property was destroyed: (a) are reports that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is forcing homeowners to claim capital gains on the value of the associated lumber accurate; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, does the Minister responsible agree with the CRA decision?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA.
The CRA’s mission is to administer tax, benefits, and related programs, and to ensure compliance on behalf of governments across Canada.
In 2017, the province of British Columbia was significantly affected by wildfires and many Canadian individuals and businesses were impacted.
In response to parts (a) and (b), the determination of how income from the sale of trees on a woodlot would be taxed under the Income Tax Act is a question that would require a review of the facts and circumstances of the particular situation.
More information on capital gains is available online at Canada.ca. Please refer to T4037, Capital Gains 2017 (https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/t4037.html).
The CRA acknowledges the difficulties faced by Canadians in such circumstances and that natural disasters may cause hardship for taxpayers whose primary concern during such times is their families, homes, and communities.
The CRA administers legislation that gives the Minister of National Revenue discretion to grant relief from penalty or interest when the following types of situations prevent taxpayers from meeting their tax obligations: extraordinary circumstances; actions of the CRA; inability to pay or financial hardship; other circumstances. For more information about the circumstances that may warrant relief from penalties or interest, see Cancel or waive penalties or interest (https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/complaints-disputes/cancel-waive-penalties-interest.html).

Question No. 1655--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the approximately $5.3 million contract awarded to McCarthy Tetrault in relation to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: (a) what is the total value of the contract; (b) what is the start date and end date of the contract; and (c) what is the detailed description of the services or goods being provided to the government in exchange for the $5.3 million?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the approximately $5.3 million contract awarded to McCarthy Tetrault in relation to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows:
In response to (a), $5,320,766.50;
In response to (b), September 15, 2017 to May 15, 2018.
In response to (c), the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls operates independently from the Government of Canada. This was a contract signed and awarded by the commission of inquiry, COI, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Under section 11 of the Inquiries Act, the commissioner has the authority to award contracts.

Question No. 1658--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the skating rink on Parliament Hill: (a) what is the final cost of the skating rink, broken down by item and type of expense; and (b) if not included in (a), what is the cost of the tear down of the rink and repairing or replacing the lawn, broken down by item and type of expense?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
Madam Speaker,in response to (a) and (b), the final costs of the skating rink on Parliament Hill, including the teardown, repairing, or replacing of the lawn, will be available upon receipt of financial reports from the Ottawa International Hockey Festival, OIHF.
Aboriginal peoplesAccess to information requestsAdverse effects and reactionsAggregateIQ Data Services LimitedAlbas, DanAlbrecht, HaroldAllison, DeanBacklogsBains, NavdeepBlair, BillBritish Columbia
...Show all topics
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 797--
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to analysis done on the rationale and cost of the Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what financing gaps currently exist (e.g. risk aversion of private investors, high municipal borrowing costs); (b) what financial products does the government estimate the Bank will have to provide to fill each of the gaps in (a) and on what terms (e.g. market or concessional); (c) will the Bank increase the supply of Canadian infrastructure projects that meet the scale requirements of institutional investors (e.g. above $100 million) and, if so, how; (d) will the Bank expand the number of infrastructure projects that have a revenue stream and, if so, how; (e) would the rationale for the Bank change if (c) or (d) could be achieved independently; (f) does the government have any information about whether the creation of the Bank may crowd out involvement in infrastructure projects by smaller Canadian private investors and contractors; (g) what is the fiscal cost of the Bank on a cash and accrual basis; (h) how does the government estimate that the creation of the Bank will affect the federal balance sheet and net debt; and (i) what measures does the government plan to implement in order to control and prevent high-risk lending, shield taxpayer liabilities, and ensure that investor returns are within reason?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), governments in Canada cannot address all of the country’s infrastructure needs alone. Low interest rates mean that governments have a unique opportunity to significantly enhance their investments in infrastructure. Additionally, there is opportunity to leverage investments in infrastructure by bringing private capital to multiply the level of investment. Large institutional investors, such as Canada’s public pension funds, have a large pool of capital that the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the CIB, can help attract and leverage to meet the country’s infrastructure requirements. The Canada Infrastructure Bank will work with provinces, territories, and municipalities to further the reach of government funding in infrastructure.
With regard to (b), the CIB will be one tool in the Government of Canada’s long-term infrastructure plan to conclude and execute complex infrastructure deals using a wide breadth of financial instruments at its disposal, including loans, loan guarantees, and equity investments. The objective of the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s participation will be to structure its financial support in order to attract private sector capital and conclude project deals.
With regard to (c) and (d), the CIB will play a complementary role in developing innovative infrastructure financing specifically for projects that will have a revenue stream. Without the CIB, these projects may otherwise not be possible. As a result, the overall total investment in infrastructure can increase.
With regard to (f), the CIB will make investments in revenue-generating infrastructure projects and plans that contribute to the long-term sustainability of infrastructure across the country. It will be mandated to work with project sponsors to structure, negotiate, and deliver federal support for infrastructure projects with revenue-generating potential. The Government of Canada will leverage its investments in infrastructure by bringing in private capital to the table to multiply the level of investment.
With regard to (g) and (h), the CIB will be responsible for investing at least $35 billion on a cash basis from the federal government into large infrastructure projects that contribute to economic growth through loans, loan guarantees, and equity investments. Part of this amount—$15 billion—will be sourced from the funding announced in the fall economic statement 2016. An additional $20 billion in capital will be available to the Canada Infrastructure Bank for investments that will result in the bank holding assets in the form of equity or debt. This $20 billion will therefore not result in a fiscal impact for the government.
With regard to (e) and (i), additional details pertaining to how the CIB will operationalize its mandate are still under development and are not yet available. A fundamental principle in this structure will be to ensure taxpayers’ dollars are protected.
Regarding the corporate structure of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, it will be accountable to and partner with government, but will operate at greater arm’s length than a department, working with provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous and investment partners to transform the way infrastructure is planned, funded, and delivered in Canada.

Question No. 805--
Mr. Michel Boudrias:
With regard to the approval to build a new airport on City of Terrebonne and City of Mascouche land announced by the Department of Transport on November 4, 2016: (a) what are the details of the analysis grid used to approve the project, including (i) the complete list of all items to be considered, (ii) the relative weight of each item to be considered, (iii) the indicators to measure the items in (i); (b) what data was compiled by the Department to evaluate the following factors related to building an airport concerning (i) safety issues and hazards associated with its operations, (ii) social and political acceptability, (iii) the environmental impacts on fauna, flora, and humans, including data shared with the Department of the Environment, (iv) economic spin-offs and consequences; (c) what data was taken into account by the Ministry to evaluate the following factors related to building a new airport on City of Terrebonne and City of Mascouche land concerning (i) safety issues and hazards associated with its operations, including those resulting from a nearby landfill, (ii) social and political acceptability, (iii) the environmental impacts on fauna, flora, and humans, including data shared with the Department of the Environment, (iv) economic spin-offs and consequences; (d) does the Department anticipate economic spin-offs from the future airport’s operations; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, to what types, what contexts, and what amounts, broken down by year, do its economic spin-off evaluations correspond; (f) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, does the Department evaluate the possibility of public funds being requested or committed to (i) develop and build the airport, (ii) any type of associated future project, (iii) its ongoing operations and, where applicable, what are the amounts, broken down by source, including programs, ministries, special funds, discretionary funds, etc., of each of its evaluations; (g) did the Department incur costs related to (i) analyzing the file, (ii) taking measures, (iii) collecting existing or non-existing data and, where applicable, what is the value of these costs and the type of each expenditure; (h) when an airport development project receives approval from the Department and there are environmental impacts, does the Department anticipate compensation to offset the project’s ecological losses; (i) what improvements does the Minister of Transport anticipate making to the evaluation process and what is the anticipated timeline for these changes; (j) what is the anticipated timeline for changes to require public consultations announced for early 2017 to be held; and (k) does the Minister of Transport intend to propose changes to the evaluation process so that the consultations to be held are not overseen by the project’s proponent?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada’s top priorities are safety and security. Transport Canada’s primary mission is to serve the public interest by promoting a transportation system in Canada that is safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible.
The minister does not approve projects. Rather he will, according to subsection 4.31(1) of the Aeronautics Act, make an order prohibiting the development or expansion of a given aerodrome or any change to the operation of a given aerodrome, if, in the minister’s opinion, the proposed development, expansion, or change is likely to adversely affect aviation safety or is not in the public interest.
Transport Canada is aware of the concerns that can arise in relation to the development of new aerodromes across Canada, including the project that is currently being developed within the municipalities of Mascouche and Terrebonne.
This is what notably motivated the Minister of Transport’s decision on March 4, 2016, to issue a ministerial order under the Aeronautics Act to prohibit the development of all new aerodromes in the cities of Mascouche and Terrebonne and to require the Corporation de l’aéroport de Mascouche, the Corporation, to hold a full public consultation on the project. The Corporation complied with the requirements of the order and sent Transport Canada all of the comments and documents—including the ones from the Cities of Mascouche and Terrebonne—that were submitted as part of the formal consultation process.
The department thoroughly examined all of the documentation and arguments submitted with regard to the project, both positive and negative, as well as the mitigation measures proposed by the Corporation, in order to address the population’s concerns.
A number of factors were considered in the project’s overall evaluation, including compliance with regulatory requirements, aviation safety, the project’s economic impact, environmental protection, and public and private interests.
The department conducted on-site verifications, reviewed the preliminary plans and the report on the public consultation held by the proponent, as well as the obstacles, all in accordance with TP312, Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices, and TP1247, Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes in effect.
This thorough review of the project allowed Transport Canada to ensure that flight operations will be conducted safely, while having a significant economic impact on the region. To illustrate this last point, the former Mascouche airport’s flying schools employed over 50 people and trained some 185 students in 2016. Over the past two years alone, Transport Canada has issued 116 private pilot licences and 63 commercial pilot licences to candidates from these schools.
There are no public funds involved in this project. The department’s work related to the matter has not incurred any additional costs beyond those for regular operations.
It should be noted that part III of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, subpart 7(307), on consultations for aerodrome work, came into effect on January 1, 2017. Therefore, under these regulations, aerodrome proponents must now consult the interested parties and the communities before developing a new aerodrome or before making major physical changes to an existing aerodrome. No amendments to these regulations or to the department’s evaluation process are currently planned.

Question No. 812--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the government’s response to Q-575: (a) did the Office for the Coordination of Parliamentary Returns (OCPR) at the Privy Council Office (PCO) assign part (b) of Q-575 regarding analysis conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, why was a response not provided by the Minister; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, (i) why was that decision made, (ii) what is the title of the individual who made the decision, (iii) on what date was the decision made; (d) did OCPR assign part (h) of Q-575 regarding analysis conducted by the Department of Finance Canada to the Minister of Finance; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, why was a response not provided by the Minister; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, (i) why was that decision made, (ii) what is the title of the individual who made the decision, (iii) on what date was the decision made; (g) if the answers to either (a) or (d) are negative, did any official from either ESDC or the Department of Finance Canada contact or email PCO regarding the non-assignment to their department and, if so, what are the details of these communications; (h) did anyone from either the Prime Minister’s Office or the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons provide any advice or instruction to the PCO regarding the decision to have the response to Q-575 only come from Environment and Climate Change Canada and, if so, what are the specific details of these communications including the titles of the individuals who provided the advice or instruction and what specific advice or instructions were given; and (i) did anyone at Environment and Climate Change Canada question the PCO decision to only have Environment and Climate Change Canada provide a response?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s response to Q-575, the Office for the Coordination of Parliamentary Returns at the Privy Council Office assigns questions and parts of questions to the department or departments most likely to hold the relevant information that is requested. In the case of Q-575, given that Environment and Climate Change Canada is leading the government’s efforts and analysis with regard to climate change and pricing carbon pollution, it was determined that Environment and Climate Change Canada was best positioned to respond to the question.

Question No. 813--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to the report prepared by Delivery Associates Limited, or its principals, and commissioned by the government, which provided letter grades for various Ministers in January 2017: (a) what letter grade did each Minister receive, broken down by individual Minister; and (b) what was the rationale for each letter grade given, broken down by Minister?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no report has been produced by Delivery Associates Limited that provides letter grades or otherwise provides an assessment of the performance of ministers.

Question No. 819--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the trip to India, led by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities in January 2017: (a) who were the members of the delegation, excluding security and media; (b) what were the titles of the delegation members; (c) what was the total cost to taxpayers of the trip; (d) if final costs are not available, what is the estimated cost to taxpayers for the trip; (e) what is the itemized breakdown of each expense related to the trip, broken down by individual expense; and (f) what were the contents of the itineraries of the Minister on the trip?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the trip to India led by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities in January 2017, with regard to (a), the members of the delegation, excluding security and media, included Amarjeet Sohi and Michael Burton.
With regard to (b), the titles of the delegation members are as follows: Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, and Michael Burton, Director of Parliamentary Affairs.
With regard to (c), the total cost to taxpayers of the trip is $11,774.70.
With regard to (d), (d) is not applicable.
With regard to (e), the itemized breakdown of each expense related to the trip, broken down by individual expense, is as follows: air fare, $7,163.62; commercial accommodation, $2,911.48; allowance for meals and incidentals, $851.10; taxi, $245.33; travel documents, $24.85; health services, $94.65; currency exchange, $7.32; and miscellaneous transportation charges, $476.35.
With regard to (f), Minister Sohi travelled to India to represent the Government of Canada at the Vibrant Gujarat Global Summit 2017. In addition to attending the summit, where he delivered a keynote speech and participated in roundtables, he also met with a number of leaders and organizations, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief Minister Vijay Rupani, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, and Hon. Venkaiah Naidu, Minister of Urban Development, Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. He toured the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Bombardier Transportation. He met with the Commissioner and Additional Chief Secretary, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, the India Infrastructure Finance Company, the World Bank’s country director for India, and the president of the Federal of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
On March 31, the details of each expenditure will be proactively disclosed at the following link: http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/pd-dp/dthe-dfva/minister-ministre-eng.html.

Question No. 823--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action: (a) what is the itemized list of each of the 45 calls to action which the government believes fall under federal jurisdiction; (b) what is the itemized list of all actions the government has taken to implement each call to action under federal jurisdiction; (c) what is the itemized list of explanations for delays by the government in implementing each call to action under federal jurisdiction; (d) what is the itemized list of projected timelines for the government to fully implement each call to action; and (e) what concerns does the government have with respect to the full implementation of the calls to action within federal jurisdiction, broken down by call to action?
Response
Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) through (e), the Government of Canada is committed to advancing long-term reconciliation with first nations, Métis, and Inuit.
In December 2015, the Prime Minister accepted the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report and confirmed our government’s commitment to implement the commission’s 94 calls to action. The government is creating permanent bilateral mechanisms with indigenous organizations to develop policy on shared priorities and to monitor our progress going forward. The permanent mechanisms are being created with the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the four Inuit Nunangat regions as of February 9, 2017, and the Métis National Council and its governing members.
This builds on progress the government has made since November 2015. Work is under way on the 41 calls to action outlined in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that fall under federal or shared purview.
INAC will be launching a website that will keep all Canadians, including parliamentarians, apprised of the government’s progress on the calls to action.
he government is also establishing an interim board of directors to make recommendations on the creation of a national council for reconciliation consistent with call to action no. 53. The interim board will begin an engagement process to develop recommendations on the scope and mandate of the national council. The council will play an important role in advancing progress on the calls to action.
Timing for implementation will be determined through discussions with those impacted by each particular call to action.
More remains to be done, but the government is making real progress towards renewing our relationship with indigenous peoples.

Question No. 824--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to Canada’s Innovation Agenda as published by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and “innovation leaders” titled “Innovation for a Better Canada: What We Heard”: (a) what was the total cost incurred by the government for the production of this document; (b) what are the details of the compensation for each of the ten innovation leaders; and (c) what are the costs of the consultation process with the innovation leaders broken down by (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) lodging, (v) per diems, (vi) rental space for stake holder consultations?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada believes that Canada needs a bold, coordinated strategy on innovation that delivers results for all Canadians. As such, an engagement process that reflects the commitment to mobilize all Canadians to action and to foster innovation as a Canadian value was launched.
The government invited all Canadians to share their ideas on cultivating a confident nation of innovators, one that is globally competitive in promoting research, accelerating business growth, and propelling entrepreneurs from the commercialization and start-up stages to international success.
The government also brought together 10 innovation leaders from all walks of life. These are experienced and distinguished individuals who are acknowledged as innovators in their own right. They represented the private sector, universities and colleges, the not-for-profit sector, and included social entrepreneurs and businesses owned and operated by indigenous people.
Over the summer, these innovation leaders hosted 28 round tables across Canada with key stakeholders, as well as in Boston, United States, and Cambridge, United Kingdom, on the six action areas. These round tables brought stakeholders from a range of backgrounds, including academia, industry associations, not-for-profits, indigenous groups, youth organizations, and other levels of government.
With regard to Canada’s innovation agenda as published by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and innovation leaders entitled, “Innovation for a Better Canada: What We Heard”, please see the response below.
With regard to part (a), the document was developed internally by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The total cost of $1,990.21 incurred by the government was for its translation.
With regard to part (b), the 10 innovation leaders were not compensated for this work. However, they were reimbursed for certain expenses.
With regard to part (c)(i), the travel cost for the 10 innovation leaders for 26 round tables across Canada and the one round table in the United States was $10,613.99. There was one round table in the United Kingdom, but no cost was incurred. With regard to (c)(ii), the hospitality cost for 28 round tables was $10,391.64. With regard to (c)(iii), the meals and transportation cost for the 10 innovation leaders for 28 round tables was $306.22. With regard to (c)(iv), the lodging cost for the 10 innovation leaders for 28 round tables was $2,933.72. With regard to (c)(v), no additional per diems were provided to the 10 innovation leaders.With regard to (c)(vi), the total cost for rental spaces for 28 round tables was $6,185.35.

Question No. 825--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the Prime Minister and his conflict of interest screens: (a) what are the names of the businesses and organizations which are managed or run by friends or relatives of the Prime Minister, as described in Section 4 of the Conflict of Interest Act; (b) what are the names of businesses and organizations for which a screen involving the Prime Minister recusing himself from any related decisions have been established; (c) broken down by business or organization, when was any such screen established; and (d) who in the Prime Minister’s Office or the Privy Council Office is responsible for enforcing or implementing any such screens?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Prime Minister and his conflict of interest screens, the Prime Minister has demonstrated an unprecedented level of disclosure since becoming the leader of the Liberal Party and has filed all necessary disclosures with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and will always follow the commissioner’s guidance.

Question No. 826--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to the management fees for blind trusts set up for Public Office Holders, during the 2016 calendar year and broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures on such management fees; (b) how many Public Office Holders have set up blind trusts; and (c) how many Public Office Holders had their management fees paid for, or were reimbursed for such payments, by the government?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the Privy Council Office has no information on the total amount of expenditures on management fees for blind trusts set up for public office holders.
The Conflict of Interest Act, COIA, provides that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner may order reimbursement of the following administrative costs incurred by a public office holder in relation to a divestment of assets: (i) reasonable legal, accounting, and transfer costs to establish and terminate a trust determined to be necessary by the commissioner; (ii) annual, actual and reasonable costs to maintain and administer the trust, in accordance with rates set from time to time by the commissioner; (iii) commissions for transferring, converting, or selling assets where determined necessary by the commissioner; (iv) costs of other financial, legal, or accounting services required because of the complexity of the arrangements for the assets, and (v) commissions for transferring, converting, or selling assets if there are no provisions for a tax deduction under the Income Tax Act.
In addition, the commissioner may also order reimbursement of the costs of removing a public office holder’s name from federal or provincial registries of corporations, where a public office holder is required to withdraw from corporate activities to comply with the act.
The commissioner has issued a guideline entitled, “Reimbursement of Costs Associated with Divestment of Assets and Withdrawal from Activities”, which is available on the commissioner’s website. Inter alia, this guideline establishes the maximum amounts that the commissioner will order be reimbursed for particular expenses, as well as procedures for public office holders to submit invoices. Once the commissioner has determined the eligible amounts, she will issue an order for reimbursement to the public office holder’s department or organization.
In her annual reports to Parliament, the commissioner provides information on divestment arrangements and other compliance measures entered into by public office holders under the act, as well as on the reimbursement of expenses. These reports are available on the commissioner’s website. The commissioner’s annual report for fiscal year 2015-16 states:
The costs associated with the reimbursement of fees related to the establishment, administration or dismantlement of blind trusts in 2015-2016 totaled $513,119 compared to $427,913 in 2014-2015. Administrative costs reimbursed in one fiscal year may also include amounts for fees incurred in a previous fiscal year.
The report also indicates that 37 public office holders divested by way of sale, and 25 divested through one or more blind trusts. At the end of that fiscal year, 63 public office holders’ maintained blind trusts, compared to 61 in the previous fiscal year.

Question No. 828--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) payments to provinces: (a) as of February 1, 2017, which provinces owe money to the federal government as a result of HST overpayments; and (b) what is the amount owed, broken down by province?
Response
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and respects the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. In responding to questions relating to the harmonized sales tax, HST, it also respects its commitments under the comprehensive integrated tax coordination agreements, CITCAs, with HST provinces.
With regard to the harmonized sales tax, it is a value-added sales tax imposed under federal legislation and administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, and the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA. The tax has a federal portion that is equivalent to the goods and services tax, GST, with a rate of 5 percent, and a provincial portion, with a rate that varies by province. Currently, the combined federal-provincial rates are 13 percent in Ontario and 15 percent in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. The tax base of the HST, i.e., what is subject to the tax, is essentially that of the GST. The operation of the HST is governed by CITCAs between Canada and each HST province. Under the CITCAs, provinces are provided with certain flexibilities. Specifically, provinces are allowed to increase or decrease the rate of the provincial portion of the HST; provide provincial rebates to consumers at the point of sale, subject to an overall limit of 5 percent of the estimated GST base in a province and certain other conditions; set the rates applicable to the provincial component of the HST for rebates provided to public service bodies; and set the rate and thresholds of provincial new housing rebates, based on the general structure of the federal rebate.
Under the HST, businesses deal with only one tax administration and remit HST using the same return that they use for the GST. When filing their returns, businesses are not required to track the HST by the province in which transactions occur or to differentiate the provincial portion from the federal portion of the tax. All GST and HST is remitted as a single amount. In lieu of collecting such detailed information from businesses, the revenues attributable to the provincial portion of the HST are paid to provinces using a revenue-estimation formula known as the revenue allocation framework, RAF. That framework is set out in annex A of the CITCAs.
With regard to the revenue allocation framework, the RAF makes use of economic data from Statistics Canada and administrative data from the CRA and the CBSA to determine taxable consumption in Canada and the share of that consumption attributable to each participant in the RAF, i.e., the HST provinces and the federal government. More specifically, taxable consumption is estimated through five bases: consumer expenditure, approximately 63%; public sector bodies, approximately 12%; housing, approximately 17%; business, approximately 2%; and financial institutions, approximately 6%.
There are two fundamental components in the determination of the amount of sales tax revenue that each HST province will receive: the size of the GST/HST revenue pool and the provincial shares. The GST/HST revenue pool is the sum of all GST/HST assessed by the CRA and the CBSA nationally, net of input tax credits and applicable rebates. The provincial shares are determined by measuring the revenue potential of the total of the five bases in each jurisdiction, relative to the total revenue potential of the GST/HST.
The GST/HST revenue pool is currently on the order of $71 billion per year.
With regard to the revenue estimation process, annual provincial revenue entitlements are the product of the assessed GST/HST, meaning the revenue pool, and each province’s share of the common tax base. Payments for a given entitlement year are first estimated in December prior to the start of the entitlement year. They are recalculated each December for five years, i.e., those five years are open. In the June that follows the fifth year, i.e., five and half years after the end of the calendar year in question, provincial payments are finalized and cannot be re-estimated. For example, in December 2016, the first estimate for 2017 was provided; in June of 2023, the final estimate for 2017 will be calculated and the year will close. Because revenue entitlements are estimated and since data comes in over several years, the amount of revenue to which an HST province is entitled for a particular year can change. As a result, a province may receive more revenue or may be required to repay revenue that it has already received, as revenue entitlements for open years are recalculated each December. In the event that a total repayment associated with prior years is greater than 7% of the estimated current entitlement, e.g., the 2017 entitlement year currently, provinces have the option of repaying the entire amount over three years.

Question No. 829--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the current bovine tuberculosis (TB) situation: (a) was the original United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) test on the Alberta cow that tested positive for bovine TB in the United States a cultured test; (b) was the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) testing of the Canadian cows a cultured test; (c) will CFIA share the results of the USDA cultured test completed in the United States with the Canadian public and, if so, when and how will the public be able to access the results; and (d) will the CFIA release the results of the cultured tests which the agency has completed with the public and, if so, when and how will the public be able to access the results?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), yes, testing on the index of the Canadian cow slaughtered in the United States did include histology, polymerase chain reaction, PCR, and culture of the mycobacteria, M. bovis. Full genome sequencing of the bacteria was also performed by the United States Department of Agriculture.
With regard to (b), testing of the samples from the five additional cattle positive for bovine tuberculosis, TB, has been completed, including culture testing and strain identification. All six positive animals were affected by the same strain that is related to a strain of bovine TB identified in Mexico in 1997.
With regard to (c), the CFIA released these results publicly in the fall of 2016 on its website and in public messaging, indicating that the culture test result was positive for bovine tuberculosis, and the information on the strain.
With regard to (d), as mentioned in the response to question (b), culture and subsequent genotyping on the samples from the five additional cattle found to be positive for bovine tuberculosis has been completed. The CFIA has already communicated publicly on its website and through statements that these animals are positive for bovine TB.
With respect to other reactors and animals with lesions, tissue samples are being cultured and genotyped, and the testing will be completed this year. Culture results are released to the owner of the sampled animals as soon as available. Cases of all reportable diseases, of which TB is one, are posted on the CFIA website on a monthly basis.

Question No. 830--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the projected impact of lower taxes in the United States on the Canadian economy: (a) what are the details of any impact analyses which have been conducted by the Department of Finance, or any outside organization on behalf of the Department, on the current or proposed taxation policies of President Trump; and (b) for each analysis in (a) which has been completed, (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) what areas of impact were considered, (iv) what were the findings, (v) what taxation scenarios were used for the analysis, (vi) what was the internal tracking number of the final report, (vii) what was the vendor name, (viii) what was the amount of the contract, (ix) what was the date of the contract?
Response
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the U.S. is an important economic partner for Canada. The Government of Canada has been monitoring the new U.S. administration’s tax policy plans as they emerge and analyzing the potential implications for Canada. Analysts in the tax policy branch at the Department of Finance have examined the tax proposals put forward during the 2016 presidential election campaign and by the House Republicans in a June 2016 tax plan, which relate to both business and personal income taxation.
In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. As such, related information has been withheld on the following grounds: (a) possible confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, (b) advice, recommendations, deliberations (c) economic interests, and (d) conduct of international affairs and potential negotiations
With regard to part (b), the department has analyzed proposals relating to both personal and corporate income tax.
The tracking numbers of the final reports are 2016FIN446662 and 2017FIN448338. These reports have been partially released under access to information requests.
Additional analysis is ongoing.
Results: 1 - 3 of 3