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 Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2035--
Mr. Hunter Tootoo:
With regard to the financial reviews to which the Nunavut Planning Commission was subjected for the financial years ranging from 2012 to 2017: (a) what are the names and titles of the persons who determined that these reviews were necessary; (b) what was the rationale for determining that the audits were necessary; (c) how much did the KPMG review, which covered the years 2012-13 to 2014-15, cost; (d) how much did the Ernst and Young review, which covered the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, cost; and (e) what were the findings and observations of these reviews?
Response
Mr. Marc Miller (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC, and its special operating agency Indian Oil and Gas Canada, IOGC, are concerned, the response is as follows. With regard to part (a), it was Anne Scotton, chief audit and evaluation executive, CIRNAC.
With regard to part (b), the 2018 financial review by Ernst & Young was a follow-up on the previous review of the Nunavut Planning Commission, NPC, completed in August 2016 by KPMG. The purpose of both reviews was to provide an independent and objective opinion on whether CIRNAC funding had been expended in accordance with the terms and conditions of CIRNAC’s funding agreement with the NPC for the 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 fiscal years, for both core and supplemental funding. Both reviews were conducted to examine compliance with the approved funding agreement and did not examine value for money.
With regard to part (c), for 2015-16, the professional fees were $82,617.84, and the travel fees were $8,844.20. For 2016-17, the professional fees were $18,897.24, and the travel fees were $2,662.56.
With regard to part (d), for 2017-18, the professional fees were $48,055.26, and the travel fees were $12,555.09.
With regard to part (e), a summary of the 2016 financial review of the Nunavut Planning Commission by KPMG and of the 2018 financial review of the Nunavut Planning Commission by Ernst & Young can be found at the following links: for 2016, https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1473944259394/1473944507036; for 2018, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1536847791557/1536848025495.

Question No. 2037--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With respect to proposals being considered by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada with regard to Internet services in rural areas since November 4, 2015: (a) has the department considered a proposal that would take broadband spectrum used by rural wireless providers and auction it off for 5G wireless to be used mainly in large urban centres; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) is the department pursuing this proposal, (ii) how many Canadian households would be affected by this change, (iii) has the department undertaken an analysis to determine the impact of a decline in Internet services in rural communities, (iv) does the department have a plan to provide alternative spectrum to existing users, (v) has the department engaged in consultations with rural Canadians and other stakeholders about this proposal; (c) if the answer to (b)(iii) is affirmative, what did the analysis determine; (d) if the answer to (b)(iii) is negative, why was no analysis undertaken; (e) if the answer to (b)(v) is affirmative, (i) what were the dates and locations of each consultation, (ii) who was consulted, (iii) what feedback was provided; and (f) if the answer to (b)(v) is negative, why were no consultations undertaken?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, rural Internet is not at risk. The government is delivering on its commitment to connect more and more rural Canadian communities.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, is considering how best to prepare for 5G in a way that lets all Canadians, including those in rural and remote communities, benefit from the next generation of wireless technologies. 5G is expected to add $40 billion to annual GDP by 2026, creating more jobs for Canadians.
As the 3500 MHz band is expected to be one of the first used for 5G services, the government held a public consultation on proposals to facilitate the initial deployment of 5G in Canada. The proposal included options for repurposing some spectrum from existing licensees in both urban and rural areas. All comments received through this consultation process are available online at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11401.html.
This process is about maintaining and expanding rural broadband coverage, while establishing conditions where faster and cheaper Internet is more widely available through modern technologies.
Rural Internet is a priority for the government. This is demonstrated by investments totalling $500 million in connectivity for rural communities. The connect to innovate program is bringing new or improved high-speed access to more than 900 rural and remote communities, because all Canadians deserve equal opportunities in the digital economy, regardless of their postal code.

Question No. 2038--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to Member of Parliament inquiries to the Immigration and Refugee Board on behalf of constituents: (a) what is the average time it takes to respond in full to an inquiry, broken down by year from 2015 to 2018; and (b) how many staff are currently assigned to answer Member of Parliament inquiries?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, IRB, is concerned, with regard to (a), the IRB aims to respond to inquiries by members of Parliament, or MPs, and their constituency staff within two weeks of receipt. The IRB does not keep track of processing times for each inquiry by calendar year.
As of December 10, 2018, there are no inquiries that remain to be addressed, which is well within the working inventory of 20 requests at any given time.
With regard to (b), one half of a full-time equivalent employee, FTE, is assigned to MP inquiries.

Question No. 2039--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to Pakistani refugees in Thailand with currently pending private sponsorship applications before Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) how many cases are currently awaiting resettlement to Canada; (b) what is the current wait time for privately sponsored Pakistani refugees in Thailand to be resettled; and (c) when does the government anticipate reducing the wait time to 12 months, as was promised?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, is concerned, with regard to (a), as of November 26, 2018, in the inventory there are a total of 160 privately sponsored refugee applications, which excludes cancelled and prospective applications, representing 450 persons of Pakistani origin--principal applicant based on country of citizenship--residing in Thailand.
With regard to (b), processing of privately sponsored refugees is influenced by numerous factors, including the security situation of the area in which the refugee is located, exit clearance processing, and difficulty reaching refugees in remote areas. Wait times are further influenced by individual office capacity and intake management.
Processing times are posted by the migration or visa office and are not broken down by specific nationalities or populations. While IRCC cannot provide specific timing for processing of privately sponsored Pakistani refugees from Thailand, the current processing time for the majority of privately sponsored refugees applying from Thailand is 25 months. The processing time indicates how long it has taken to process most complete applications in the past 12 months.
IRCC is closely monitoring the situation in Thailand regarding the government restrictions on all irregular migrants. IRCC is actively making efforts to expedite the processing of recognized refugees in Canada’s resettlement process who are at imminent risk of refoulement.
With regard to (c), due to the generosity of Canadians, IRCC has seen an increase in demand for the private sponsorship of refugees. The continued high level of interest from private sponsors is a reflection of the success of the program. At the same time, IRCC must manage the intake of applications in order to be able to process them in a timely way based on the immigration levels plan.
IRCC is working to achieve our goal of reducing wait times to an average of 12 months. These changes will ensure the long-term success of the program, which is, and will remain, an integral part of Canada’s immigration program.
The government has more than tripled the number of spaces available in the privately sponsored refugee program over pre-2015 levels, to allow even more Canadians to sponsor refugees to Canada and to reduce wait times.
IRCC is continuing to discuss options for a way forward with sponsors and remains committed to reducing the privately sponsored refugee inventory in a way that is fair for sponsors and refugees alike.

Question No. 2040--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With respect to the Supplementary Estimates (A) 2018-2019 and the voted appropriations for the Funding for the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: what are the details of Vote 1a estimated at $10,698,215, broken down by (i) operating expenses for transport, (ii) operating expenses for furniture rental, (iii) operating expenses for equipment, (iv) operating expenses for photography, (v) operating expenses for broadcasting, (vi) operating expenses for communications?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada was proud to hold the G7 presidency from January 1 to December 31, 2018, and used this important opportunity to speak with a strong voice on the international stage on issues that matter to Canadians, as well as to engage G7 counterparts on global challenges. The themes chosen by Canada focused discussions on finding concrete solutions to the challenge we all face: how to create growth that benefits everyone, including the middle class and those working hard to join it. Canada’s presidency resulted in the G7 community making important progress on the goals of ensuring that all citizens benefit from our global economy, and that we leave a healthier and more secure world for our children.
The $10,698,215 in supplementary estimates (A) for 2018-19 was not requested for the specific line items as listed above.
The amount of $10,698,215 is a reprofiling request to transfer unused G7 summit funding from the 2017-18 fiscal year to 2018-19. As such, this amount was not a request for new funding.

Question No. 2041--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) what is the amount of tax collected and assessed by the CRA because of the deemed disposition of assets that is triggered pursuant to paragraph 128.1(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act as a result of an individual becoming a non-resident of Canada, broken down by taxation years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017; and (b) what is the amount of gains and losses reported to the CRA by individuals on prescribed forms T1161 and T1243, broken down by taxation years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the information provided on forms T1161 and T1243 by taxpayers is not captured on CRA databases for reporting purposes, and cannot be used to produce aggregate data in the manner requested.

Question No. 2044--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With respect to the Paradise Papers affair, the fight against offshore tax non-compliance and aggressive tax planning: (a) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files are currently open at the Canada Revenue Agency; (b) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files have been sent to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files are linked to the marijuana industry; (d) how many employees are assigned to Paradise Papers files; (e) how many audits have been performed since the release of the Paradise Papers; and (f) how much has the Canada Revenue Agency recovered in total?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the CRA has obtained and is actively reviewing all the information contained in the paradise papers that was released publicly by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, ICIJ, to determine whether an audit had already occurred or whether an audit should be undertaken.
The CRA has identified over 3,000 individuals or corporations with links to the paradise papers. Please note this figure includes those non-residents or taxpayers identified by the CRA prior to the release of information by the ICIJ, who may have been engaged in tax avoidance transactions.
With regard to part (b), to date, no Canadian taxpayer or company has been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for criminal prosecution as a result of information received from the paradise paper affair.
With regard to part (c), the CRA does not have this information.
With regard to part (d), more than 25 CRA employees have been assigned specific work relating to the paradise papers, including research, data analytics, risk assessments, audits and coordinating efforts with the agency’s international partners.
With regard to part (e), to date, approximately 100 taxpayers with links to the paradise papers have been identified for audit.
Through its international agreements, the CRA continues to obtain the required source documents from other tax administrations. Audits and criminal investigations such as those linked to the paradise papers are complex and, due to those complexities, can require months or years to complete.
With regard to part (f), as of the date of this question, the CRA has not made any reassessments for audits related to the paradise papers, including those audits that had begun prior to the receipt of the information from the release of information by the ICIJ.
The CRA has reported on collection related to offshore compliance projects in the past, several years after the projects were completed to allow time period for the objection rights of taxpayers. The CRA will do so for the paradise papers. The CRA will report on these figures publicly once they are compiled.
Also, the CRA decided to restrict access to the voluntary disclosure program, if the CRA has already received information on a taxpayer’s, or a related taxpayer’s, potential involvement in tax non compliance--for example, a leak of offshore financial information such as the paradise papers. This choice will extend the time to finalize the CRA’s work, but will deliver stronger consequences to those involved in offshore non-compliance schemes.

Question No. 2055--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the $477 million provided to the Canada Infrastructure Bank in the 2018-19 Supplementary Estimates (A): what is the itemized breakdown of how the $477 million is projected to be utilized?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, supplementary estimates (A) listed a transfer from the Department of Finance to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, CIB, in the amount of $477,284,533 for the 2018-19 fiscal year. This amount represents $450,000,000 for capital appropriations and $27,284,533 for operating appropriations for CIB’s 2018-19 approved budgets.
The CIB announced that the investment in the Réseau Express Métropolitain, REM, light rail project in Montréal will come from capital appropriations.
The operating appropriations are allocated to administration activities, such as human resources, premises and equipment, information technology and professional fees and services, including finance, legal, accounting, external audit and consultants and advisers for the REM investment.
As it is legislatively appropriated, the CIB’s appropriations are held in the consolidated revenue fund, and the CIB will request a drawdown from the Department of Finance up to the amount required, as required for its operating and capital needs and based on approved budgets in its corporate plan.

Question No. 2065--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to funding for legal assistance provided to government employees, broken down by department or agency, and by year since 2016: (a) how many employees received legal assistance funding; (b) how many employees requested or applied for legal assistance funding in relation to a matter arising from their actions as a government employee; (c) of the individuals in (b) how many were (i) approved for funding, (ii) denied funding; and (d) what was the (i) average amount spent per individual who received legal funding, (ii) total expenditure on legal assistance?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. A response to the question could disclose personal and solicitor privileged information.

Question No. 2070--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to construction delays for the new Champlain Bridge and the new negotiations between the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group and Infrastructure Canada: (a) how much is the fine for every day of delay; (b) what is the maximum fine amount; (c) what caused the delays that were beyond the control of the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group, broken down by type; (d) on what date will the fines come into effect; (e) will the financial penalty system outlined in the contract signed in 2015 be maintained; and (f) what is the estimated final financial cost incurred due to the construction delays?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to construction delays of the new Champlain Bridge and the new negotiations between the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group and Infrastructure Canada, and (a) in particular, the liquidated damages related to the bridge opening are of $100,000 per day for the first seven days of delays and of $400,000 per day, minus interest on the senior debt, afterward.
With regard to (b), the maximum amount of liquidated damages that can be charged for delays to the bridge opening is $150 million.
With regard to (c), the various causes of the delays and impacts of each cause are part of ongoing confidential commercial discussions. However, part of the delays is due to the crane operators strike.
With regard to (d), as per the contract, liquidated damages only start if the private partner is late in opening the bridge to traffic and subsequently late in delivering the whole corridor. The contractual dates are December 21, 2018, and October 31, 2019, but are subject to change if there are events out of the private partner's control, such as strikes.
With regard to (e), it is Canada’s intention to apply the contract.
With regard to (f), the costs, if any, and the responsibility for these costs are part of ongoing confidential commercial discussions.

Question No. 2071--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to the Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018–19, and Votes 1a and 5a for the Funding for the New Champlain Bridge Corridor Project: (a) what is the detailed justification for the difference between the payment to Signature on the Saint Lawrence provided by the settlement agreement dated April 13, 2018, of $235 million and the amount in Vote 5a of $257,522,708; (b) what will be the total amount paid to Signature on the Saint Lawrence under the settlement agreement between the government and Signature on the Saint Lawrence; and (c) what are the details of the funding requirement for Vote 1a of $34,234,247?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there were two items in the Supplementary Estimates (A) that were approved for the new Champlain Bridge corridor project, the NCBC project. The first was for $235 million, which is for approval to amend an existing contract authority and to fund acceleration measures and a negotiated settlement pertaining to the new Champlain Bridge corridor project, as per budget 2014. The second was for $22.5 million, which is part of the $56 million lapsed funding from fiscal year 2017-18 that was reprofiled into 2018-19 through Supplementary Estimates (A). Of this, $15.2 million will be used to settle expropriation claims for one property belonging to Nuntip and 31 properties from the City of Montreal. The remaining funding will be used to finance postponed work as it related to flagmen as part of the CN agreement, for $3 million, and various environmental compensation projects, for $4.3 million. The total is $257.5 million.
With regard to (b), a maximum of $235 million will be paid to Signature on the Saint-Lawrence under the settlement agreement.
With regard to (c), the amount of $33.2 million represents funding for future project operating requirements. Reprofiling this amount will ensure that funds remain available to address project needs. The remaining balance of $1 million will cover costs associated with the lease of properties from PWGSC to complete delayed environmental compensation projects. The total is $34.2 million.

Question No. 2072--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to the lawsuit filed with the Superior Court of Québec by Signature on the Saint Lawrence against Infrastructure Canada in March 2017: what were the government’s total legal expenses in (i) 2017, (ii) 2018?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the lawsuit filed with the Superior Court of Québec by Signature on the Saint Lawrence against Infrastructure Canada in March 2017, the government's total legal expenses incurred were $75,561.09 in 2017 and $1,419.54 in 2018, taking into consideration the fact that the parties consented to a stay of the legal proceedings in order to allow them to use the contractual dispute resolution mechanism.

Question No. 2075--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With respect to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s trip to China in November 2018: (a) who were all the participants on the trip, broken down by (i) the Minister’s staff, (ii) Members of Parliament (iii) Senators, (iv) departmental employees, (v) other invitees; (b) for each participant identified in (a), what was the cost of the trip, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodations, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what are the details for all events and hospitality organized during the trip, including (i) dates, (ii) city, (iii) number of participants, (iv) total cost; and (d) what agreements or arrangements were signed?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) through (c), this information will be made available on proactive disclosure through the website https:// open.canada.ca/en/ search/travel.
With regard to (d), the government is committed to expanding trade opportunities with China for our agriculture, agri-food and seafood sectors, which will help create good middle-class jobs and more opportunities for Canadians and help increase agricultural exports to $75 billion by 2025. While in China, Canada signed 18 agriculture and agri-food deals with Chinese companies worth over $353.3 million. They are described here. The Canadian organization Natural Burg Group signed an agreement with Chinese organization Shaanxi Investment Group / Huashan Venture Technology Development Co., Ltd. The Canadian firm Canada Grand Enterprises Inc. signed an agreement with Chinese organization Zhejiang International E-commerce Service Co., Ltd. The Canadian government and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese organization Shanghai Hema Network Technology Co. Ltd. The Canadian firm All Impact Foods Inc. signed an agreement with Chinese organization Wuhan Jinyu Free Trade Development Co., Ltd. The Canadian firm CAC Natural foods Inc. signed an agreement with Chinese organization China Certification & Inspection Group, or CCIC. The Canadian firm Sun Wah Foods Ltd. signed an agreement with Chinese organization China Certification & Inspection Group, or CCIC. The Canadian organization Avalon Dairy Limited signed an agreement with Chinese organization China Certification & Inspection Group, or CCIC. The Canadian organization Avalon Dairy Limited signed an agreement with Chinese organization Dandong Chengxie Trade Co.,Ltd. The Canadian organization Atlantic Canada Business Network signed a memorandum of understanding with Greenland Zhongxuan (Shanghai) International Trade Co. Ltd. The Canadian organization Red Rover signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese organization Greenland Zhongxuan (Shanghai) International Trade Co. Ltd. The Canadian organization Cavendish Farms signed an agreement with Chinese organization COFCO Premier. The Canadian firm Richardson International Limited signed a letter of intent with Chinese organization China SDIC International Trade Co., Ltd. The Canadian firm CAC Natural foods Inc. signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese organization Greenland Zhongxuan (Shanghai) International Trade Co. Ltd. The Canadian firm Natunola Health Inc. signed an agreement with Chinese organization Shanghai Liangyou Group Company Limited. The Canadian organization Canadian Beef International Institute signed an agreement with Chinese organization Shanghai HaiBo Investment Co., Ltd. / Million Group. The Canadian firm Maple Horizons Ltd. signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese organization Greenland Zhongxuan (Shanghai) International Trade Co. Ltd. The Canadian firm Maple Horizons Ltd. signed a letter of intent with Chinese organization Anhui Imported Foods Industrial Park.

Question No. 2076--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to government advertising during the 106th Grey Cup broadcast on November 25, 2018: (a) what is the total amount spent on advertising during the broadcast, including the pre-game and post-game shows; (b) of the amount in (a), how much was spent on (i) ads promoting the Trans Mountain Pipeline, (ii) other ads, broken down by campaign; and (c) what is the breakdown of the amounts in (a) and (b) by station?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, PSPC is responding on behalf of the Government of Canada specifically for those institutions under Schedules I, I.1 and II of th Financial Administration Act.
With regard to (a), the government spent $92,678 during the broadcast. No government advertisements aired during the pre-game or post-game shows. Members should please note that this amount is a planned expenditure; the actual amount is not yet available as final invoices have not been received.
With regard to (b), none of the amount spent on advertising by the government was spent on ads promoting the Trans Mountain pipeline. The government advertising campaigns featured were Health Canada ads on opioids and vaccination, and National Defence ads on the 100-plus careers campaign.
With regard to (c), in total, five advertisements ran on TSN and RDS. With regard to the breakdown of the amount spent per campaign and per station, the Government of Canada does not disclose information about the specific amounts paid for individual ad placements or the amounts paid to specific media outlets with which we have negotiated rates. This information is considered commercially sensitive third party information and is protected under the Access to Information Act.

Question No. 2083--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the CBC report in November 2018 showing that the privacy of at least 10,000 Canadians was compromised by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) employees “snooping” on their information and accessing taxpayers private financial data without authorization: (a) how many Canadians were affected by CRA employees accessing data without authorization since November 4, 2015; (b) of the Canadians in (a) whose data was compromised by CRA employees, as of today, how many have received notification from the government that their data was compromised; (c) for each instance in (a), but where Canadians were not notified that their data was compromised, for what reason were they not notified; (d) how many CRA employees accessed data without authorization since November 4, 2015; and (e) of the CRA employees in (d), how many were disciplined, broken down by type of disciplinary actions (reprimand, termination, etc.)?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, members should note that the CRA has over 40,000 employees working across Canada. Employee behaviour and expectations are guided by the CRA code of integrity and professional conduct, “the code”, and the values and ethics code for the public sector. The consequences of misconduct are set out in the CRA directive on discipline, “the directive”.
Please note that the code contains specific references to the privacy and confidentiality of taxpayer information and refers to CRA’s detection and prevention of unauthorized access or unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information.
With regard to the failure to protect information, the code notes that the legal obligation to safeguard the confidentiality and integrity of taxpayer information flows from the Income Tax Act; the Excise Tax Act; the Excise Act, 2001; the Privacy Act; and the Access to Information Act.
The code references the protection of CRA proprietary and taxpayer information. Employees are informed that they must never access any information that is not part of their officially assigned workload, including their own information; disclose any CRA information that has not been made public without official authorization; serve, or deal with the file of, friends, acquaintances, family members, business associates, current or former colleagues, or current or former superiors unless prior approval has been obtained from their manager; or use any CRA information that is not publicly available for any personal use or gain, or for the use or gain of any other person or entity. If the security of CRA or taxpayer information is compromised, the code requires that it must be reported immediately.
With regard to (a), between November 4, 2015, and November 27, 2018--that is, the date of the question--the CRA had 264 confirmed privacy breaches as a result of unauthorized access to taxpayer accounts by CRA employees. A total of 41,361 Canadians were affected by these incidents.
With regard to (b) and (c), in every case in which a CRA investigation determines that an employee has made unauthorized access to taxpayer accounts, the CRA uses Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada guidelines, found at http://www. tbs-sct.gc.ca /pol/doc-eng. aspx?id=26154) to assess the risk of injury to each affected individual and notifies them accordingly. Notification is done predominantly by letter, which includes information about the taxpayer’s right of complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
To date, the CRA has notified 1,640 of the affected individuals that unauthorized accesses have been made to their accounts. An additional 34 notifications are in progress and the notification letters to the affected individuals are currently being prepared.
For 37,502 individuals for whom the risk of injury was assessed as low, the individuals were not notified. Information was viewed as part of various ALPHA T searches, but accounts were not directly accessed. An ALPHA T search is used to search for an individual using various search criteria (name, address, postal code, etc.), when the SIN is not available.
For a number of other reasons, 2,185 individuals were not notified. These reasons included the individual being deceased with no authorized representative on file, there being no valid address on file, or the risk of injury to the individual being assessed as low.
With regard to (d), 264 CRA employees accessed data without authorization between November 4, 2015, and November 27, 2018--that is, the date of the question.
With regard to (e), the applicable steps and consequences of misconduct are covered under the code and the directive. Consequences of misconduct are based on the severity of the incident and its impact on trust both inside and outside the CRA. Misconduct may result in disciplinary measures, up to and including termination of employment. Of the 264 CRA employees who accessed data without authorization since November 4, 2015, 182 were disciplined; 46 left the CRA; and 36 are pending a decision.
The CRA is limited in its ability to respond in the manner requested. Pursuant to section 8 of the Privacy Act, disciplinary action is considered personal information and is protected from disclosure. Furthermore, when the number of employees is so small that an employee could be directly or indirectly identified, aggregate data cannot be released.

Question No. 2085--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the weather vane which was removed from atop the Confederation Building: (a) when will the weather vane be reinstalled; (b) who is the artist who created it; and (c) who is restoring it?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there is currently work being conducted on the exterior of the Confederation Building to preserve the building and ensure ongoing operations until the building undergoes a complete rehabilitation. To protect the integrity of the weather vane during this construction, it was removed and is being stored in a Crown-owned facility while the Confederation Building undergoes its restoration.
With regard to (b), a condition assessment of the weather vane conducted in March 2008 by John G. Cooke & Associates Ltd., indicates that the weather vane is believed to have been designed by Mr. Thomas Dunlop Rankin, the architect who supervised the original construction of the building.
With regard to (c), the weather vane was restored between 2011 and 2012 by Dominion Sculpture, Philip White, and his employee at the time, Ken Adams. Mr. White restored the copper work, while Mr. Adams restored the ironwork.

Question No. 2101--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the mystery illness which has struck diplomats and their families in Cuba: (a) what is the total number of (i) federal employees, (ii) family members of employees, who have suffered from the illness; (b) what are the ranges of symptoms of which the government is aware; (c) what are the details of any compensation or accommodation that the government provided to employees and their families who suffered from the illness; and (d) does the government consider the Cuban government to be responsible for the mystery illness and, if so, what punitive measures, if any, has it taken against the regime in retaliation?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canada’s diplomats and their families is a top priority for Global Affairs Canada.
The government remains deeply troubled by the health problems experienced by some Canadian diplomats and their families who were posted to Cuba. There are currently 13 confirmed cases of affected Canadians. The reported range and severity of symptoms among these Canadians vary.
All those affected by these health problems have our unwavering support. The Government of Canada will continue to do all we can to provide advice and support to them under these difficult circumstances.
The government is investigating any and all possible causes, and we will continue to take measures necessary to protect our diplomats and their families.
Canada has an evidence-based approach to addressing this situation, and our response is guided by the advice of medical experts and treating physicians.
At the current time, the cause of these health problems remains unknown. The investigation into these issues continues.

Question No. 2102--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to Phase 3 of the competitiveness analysis of the output-based pricing system: (a) what were the findings of the analysis; (b) what is the website location where the public can access the findings; and (c) on what date was the analysis completed?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal carbon pollution pricing system has two parts: a regulatory charge on fuel, or federal fuel charge, and a regulatory trading system for large industry--the output-based pricing system. The output-based pricing system is designed to ensure there is a price incentive for companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining competitiveness and protecting against carbon leakage. Instead of paying the charge on fuels that they purchase, facilities in the output-based pricing system will be subject to the carbon pollution price on a portion of their emissions. The portion of emissions will be determined based on a facility’s production and relevant output-based standards, expressed in emissions intensity—i.e., emissions per unit of output.
In July 2018, the government proposed that the starting point for all output-based standards be set at 80% of national sector average emissions intensity and that consideration be given to revising this level based on a three-phased approach to assessing competitiveness and carbon leakage risk to sectors from carbon pollution pricing.
Phase 1 and 2 analysis is quantitative analysis of the level of emission intensity and trade exposure of industrial sectors. The analysis is similar to that used in other jurisdictions to assess the risks posed by carbon pricing to competitiveness and carbon leakage for industrial sector.
Phase 3 analysis focuses on the ability to pass through costs from carbon pollution pricing; domestic or international market considerations that could heighten competitiveness risks due to carbon pollution pricing; consideration of indirect costs from transportation and electricity; and other specific considerations related to carbon pollution pricing that could affect the sector as a whole, a particular region within that sector, or individual facilities.
To support phase 3, stakeholders were invited to submit additional information and analyses relevant to competitiveness impacts of carbon pollution pricing. Environment and Climate change Canada officials engaged with stakeholders through in-person meetings and conference calls and reviewed submissions from stakeholders. Analysis was conducted based on publicly available data as well as stakeholder submissions that provided sector and facility-level data and information.
To date, the government has identified five sectors as being at higher competitiveness and carbon leakage risk due to carbon pollution pricing and output-based standards. They are: cement, iron and steel manufacturing, lime, petrochemicals and nitrogen fertilizers. Proposed output-based standards for these sectors are set at 90% of sector average emissions intensity for iron and steel manufacturing, petrochemicals and nitrogen fertilizers, and 95% for cement and lime. Draft regulations for the output-based pricing system, including output-based standards that will reflect the outcomes of the three-phase analysis, were released for public comment on December 20, 2018 and are available at https:// www.canada.ca/en/environment- climate-change/services /climate-change/pricing- pollution-how -it-will-work/output -based-pricing-system /proposal- regulations.html. Final regulations and final output-based standards are targeted for mid-2019.

Question No. 2105--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the skating rink installed on Parliament Hill as part of the Canada 150 events: (a) what was the final total of all costs associated with the rink, including any resulting repairs required to the lawn on Parliament Hill; and (b) what is the detailed breakdown of all related costs?
Response
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, wih regard to (a) and (b), the final costs of the skating rink on Parliament Hill, including costs associated with the repairs to the lawn, will be available upon receipt of financial reports from the Ottawa International Hockey Festival, the OIHF, in June 2019.

Question No. 2106--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to government involvement and funding for Digital Democracy Project at the Public Policy Forum: (a) on what date did the government provide funding for the project; (b) how much money did the government provide for the project; (c) what is the detailed description of this federally funded project; (d) what specific assurances did the government receive, if any, to ensure that this project is not biased towards the Liberal Party of Canada; and (e) will this project expose and examine “fake news”, propaganda, and non-answers given or perpetuated by the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers?
Response
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of December 3, 2018, the Department of Canadian Heritage has not provided funding for the digital democracy project at the public policy forum.

Question No. 2117--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the government’s policy to allow oil imports from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia: has a Gender-based Analysis been conducted on the importation of oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been committed to conducting GBA+ analysis on legislation, policies and programs since 1995. GBA+ plays an important role in the government’s domestic regulatory, program and policy development. Decisions on where to import crude oil from are private sector commercial decisions. As such, federal GBA+ analyses are not conducted on crude oil imports; however, many companies do conduct their own gender-based analyses.

Question No. 2144--
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the $177,718.18 spent by Environment and Climate Change Canada on Non-public servant travel – Key Stakeholders (object code 0262) during the 2017-18 fiscal year: (a) what are the names of the “key stakeholders” who received funds under this expenditure; (b) how much did each “key stakeholder” receive; and (c) what was the destination and purpose of each trip related to each expenditure?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Environment and Climate Change Canada does not have specific coding to track information related to Question Q-2144.
Audits and auditorsBacklogsBains, NavdeepBlaney, StevenBroadband Internet servicesCanada Infrastructure BankCanada Revenue AgencyCarbon pricingChamplain BridgeCharlevoixChina
...Show all topics
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1532--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to immigration to Canada, between December 7, 2016, and December 6, 2017: (a) how many economic class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (b) how many family class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (c) how many refugees have been admitted to Canada; (d) how many temporary student visas were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary student visa; (e) how many temporary worker permits were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary worker permit; (f) how many temporary visitor records were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary visitor record; (g) how many temporary resident permits were issued; (h) how many temporary resident permits were approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; (i) for (a) to (h), what is the breakdown by source country by each class of migrant; and (j) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in (i) section 34, (ii) section 35, (iii) section 36, (iv) section 37, (v) section 40?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1680--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to immigration to Canada between December 7, 2016, to December 6, 2017: (a) how many economic class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (b) how many family class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (c) how many refugees have been admitted to Canada; (d) how many temporary student visas were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary student visa; (e) how many temporary worker permits were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary worker permit; (f) how many temporary visitor records were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary visitor record; (g) how many temporary resident permits were issued; (h) how many temporary resident permits were approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; (i) for (a) to (h), what is the breakdown by source country by each class of migrant; (j) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (k) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (l) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (m) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and (n) for application for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, divided by each subsection of section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1882--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the New Veterans Charter and the Pension for Life, what is: (a) the number of veterans who applied for and were granted the incapacity allowance under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (b) the number of veterans who applied for the incapacity allowance but were denied under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (c) the number of veterans who applied for and were granted the additional monthly supplement of the incapacity allowance under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (d) the number of veterans who applied for the additional monthly supplement of the incapacity allowance but were denied under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (e) the number of veterans who applied for and were granted the disability award lump sum under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (f) the number of veterans who applied for the disability award lump sum but were denied under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; (g) the number of veterans who applied for and were granted the disability award monthly pay-out option under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender; and (h) the number of veterans who applied for the disability award monthly pay-out option but were denied under the New Veterans Charter and Pension for Life, from 2008 to 2018, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) year, (iii) gender?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1883--
Mr. Alexander Nuttall:
With regard to contracts and expenditures with Green Leaf Distribution, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: what are the details of each contracts and expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) file numbers, (v) original contract value, (vi) final contract value, if different than the original value?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1884--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Operation HONOUR, since July 23, 2015: what is the number of sexual assaults involving rape reported and, of those cases, what is (i) the number of times the suspect was removed from the unit while the complaint was under investigation, (ii) the number of times the suspect was removed from the unit once charged, (iii) the number of times the complainants were removed from the unit, (iv) the number of times the complainants were reassigned duties, (v) in cases where charges were filed, the length of time per case from reporting the incident to the time the accused was charged, for each case, (vi) the number of times padres, officiate or chaplain reported cases of rapes confided in them by complainants to the chain of command, (vii) the number of times rape complainants, who called the Op HONOUR line, were asked for their names, (viii) the number of times complainants were told once they sign on to the military the member has ‘unlimited liability’ to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), (ix) the number of people charged, (x) the number of people who admitted guilt to the sexual assault involving raping another member of the CAF, (xi) the number of charges that have been prosecuted, (xii) the length of time between the date of charge and the date of the hearing, trial or court martial, for each case, (xiii) the number of convictions rendered, (xiv) the total length of time between a report of incident to sentencing, for each case, (xv) the number of times convicted members were discharged from the military?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1888--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare (Advisory Council): (a) who will be the members of the Advisory Council, broken down by (i) nomination date, (ii) complete name, (iii) total remuneration, (iv) length of mandate; (b) on what date exactly does the government anticipate appointing the last of the initial members of the Advisory Council; (c) what are the timelines and important dates for the Advisory Council’s consultations; (d) will the Advisory Council’s consultations be held in public; (e) who will be consulted by the Advisory Council, broken down by (i) organizations or individuals already consulted, (ii) organizations or individuals to be consulted, (iii) dates of all previous and planned consultations, (iv) length of consultation period; (f) on what date exactly is the Advisory Council planning to table its interim and final reports; and (g) how will financial and human resources be allocated with respect to the Advisory Council, broken down by (i) types of expenses, (ii) allocated sums?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1890--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to the impending purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline by the government, can the Minister of Natural Resources confirm in relation to the Pipeline Safety Act and National Energy Board Act: (a) whether the government considers itself a company as authorized under these acts to operate a pipeline; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, how this pertains to the National Energy Board’s mandate under these acts to order a company to reimburse the costs incurred by any government institution due to the unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from a pipeline?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1891--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to consultations undertaken by Kinder Morgan with Indigenous groups impacted by the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and given the impending purchase of the pipeline by the government, will the Minister of Natural Resources: (a) table all mutual benefit agreements previously reached between Kinder Morgan and First Nation band councils given that they will soon constitute agreements reached with the Crown; and (b) guarantee that all such agreements established the free, prior and informed consent to the pipeline from each band?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1892--
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau:
With regard to federal spending in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, for each fiscal year since 2014, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1893--
Ms. Linda Duncan:
With regard to Health Canada’s notice of a recall for a list of Valsartan products supplied by Chinese corporation Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals: (a) on what date did Health Canada become aware of the contamination of these drugs with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA); (b) was the recall issued at the request of Canadian authorities; (c) what is deemed a long-term exposure to this carcinogen; (d) if there was a delay in issuing the recall after Health Canada was informed of the contamination, what were the reasons for the delay in the public notice; (e) how was Health Canada made aware of the contamination of the valsartan medicines; (f) did Health Canada directly conduct any laboratory tests on these drugs to determine their safety before approving their use in Canada; (g) has Health Canada or any federal authority undertaken any investigations of the laboratory and manufacturing facilities of Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals; (h) why did Health Canada advise patients to continue taking the Valsartan products despite the knowledge it was contaminated with a carcinogen and who made that decision; (i) are any other products manufactured by Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals currently being distributed, sold or prescribed in Canada; (j) what actions has Health Canada taken to test alternative blood pressure medicines being prescribed in Canada to determine their safety; and (k) what information has been provided to Health Canada on adverse effects reported by Canadians taking Valsartan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1894--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive, which reimburses federal employees when relocating for work, for the calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018: (a) how many employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government made claims for relocation funding each year, broken down by government department or agency; (b) how many employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government were provided with reimbursement for relocation each year, broken down by government department or agency; (c) in the instances where relocation funding was provided, how many instances arose from employer-requested relocation in each year; (d) in the instances where relocation funding was provided, how many instances arose from employee-requested relocation in each year; (e) what was the annual aggregate amount in Canadian dollars spent by each government agency or department in remitting relocation funding, broken down by the benefit categories outlined in appendix B of the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive; (f) which employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government received relocation funding in each year, itemized to include their agency or department, their job title, the amount of relocation funding remitted, broken down by the benefit categories outlined in appendix B of the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive, and where the individual was relocated from and to; (g) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to real estate commission and realtor fees; (h) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to home equity loss; and (i) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to mortgages, mortgage default insurance, and mortgage paydown penalties?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1895--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to “repayable contributions” given out by the government between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2018: (a) what are the details of each contribution, including (i) recipient, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) purpose of contribution; and (b) for each “repayable contribution” in (a), how much has been repaid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1896--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the Court Challenges Program: (a) what is the total amount provided under the program since its announced reinstatement on February 7, 2017; and (b) what are the details of each funding recipient since February 7, 2017, including (i) name, (ii) amount pledged by government, (iii) amount received by recipient, (iv) relevant court case, (v) date funding decision was made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1897--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the criteria listed on pm.gc.ca that states that the government may remove any social media comments that “do not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”: (a) broken down by month, and by platform, since December 2015, how many comments have been removed for not meeting that specific criteria; and (b) does the government consider disagreeing with the values test added by the current government in order to access Canada Summer Jobs funding to be a justification for such comments to be removed from government social media accounts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1898--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to federal regulations, broken down by year since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total cost, broken down by the private sector and the federal government; (b) what is the cost per capita, broken down by province; (c) how many regulations have been repealed; (d) of the regulations in (c), how many repealed regulations were significant; (e) what is the total cost savings to the private sector as a result of the repealed regulations; and (f) how many regulations have been repealed, broken down by department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1899--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to Governor in Council regulations, and broken down by year and by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) how many regulations were finalized since November 4, 2015; (b) how many regulations were deemed significant; (c) of the regulations in (b), how many were deemed (i) low impact, (ii) medium impact, (iii) high impact; (d) of the regulations in (b), how many were (i) quantified only, (ii) monetized only, (iii) quantified and monetized; (e) which regulations had a cost-benefit analysis which found that costs exceeded benefits; and (f) of the regulations in (e), which five regulations were the costliest, and for each of the five, what was the finding of the cost-benefit analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1900--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to Governor in Council regulations, and broken down by year and by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) how many regulations were finalized since November 4, 2015; (b) how many regulations were deemed significant; (c) of the regulations in (b), how many were deemed (i) low impact, (ii) medium impact, (iii) high impact; (d) of the regulations in (b), how many were (i) quantified only, (ii) monetized only, (iii) quantified and monetized; (e) which regulations had a cost-benefit analysis which found that costs exceeded benefits; and (f) of the regulations in (e), which five regulations were the costliest, and for each of the five, what was the finding of the cost-benefit analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1901--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the August 27, 2018 story in The Hill Times which stated that the Minister of Employment would be reaching out to faith leaders across the country in the coming weeks in relation to the Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) what is the complete list of faith leaders to which the Minister reached out, between August 27, 2018 and September 17, 2018; (b) what are the details of each such communication from the Minister, including (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) type of communication (email, in person meeting, phone call, etc); and (c) what criteria did the Minister use to decide to which faith leaders to reach out?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1902--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to expenditures related to “culinary ambassadors” whose expenses were paid for by the government in connection with trips taken by the Prime Minister or other Ministers, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) dates of trip, (ii) origin and destination of trip, (iii) name of “culinary ambassador”, (iv) dates of meals prepared on trip; (b) what are the details of all expenses paid for by the government, broken down by “culinary ambassador” and by trip, including amount spent on (i) airfare, (ii) accommodation, (iii) per diems, (iv) other expenses, (v) total amount; and (c) for each meal prepared by a “culinary ambassador” on a trip, what are the details, including (i) number of guests, (ii) location of meal, (iii) date, (iv) purpose or description of event or meal, (v) total expenditures on meal, including breakdown by type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1903--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the “social media team” from Environment and Climate Change Canada which travelled to COP 23 in November 2017: (a) how many members of the “social media team” travelled to COP23; (b) what was the total amount spent on travel to COP23 for the “social media team”; (c) what is the breakdown of the costs in (b) by (i) airfare, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and per diems, (iv) other transportation, (v) other expenses; (d) what is the total value of all items stolen from the “social media team” during the trip; (e) what is the breakdown of the stolen items, including value of each item; (f) have any of the stolen items been recovered and, if so, which ones; and (g) did any of the stolen items contain any classified information and, if so, which items, and what was the highest level of classification of such information?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1905--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the tweet by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on July 30, 2018, where he stated that “Immigrants are better at creating new businesses and new jobs than Canadian-born people”: (a) does the Prime Minister agree with the statement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs; and (b) has the Prime Minister taken any disciplinary action against the Minister for the statement, and, if so, what are the details of any such action?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1906--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the Canada Boarder Services Agency (CBSA) officers’ ability to carry firearms at airports: (a) does Transport Canada recognize the right of CBSA officers to carry firearms at airports; (b) what is the government’s official position; and (c) has the official position been communicated to Transport Canada and, if so, what are the details of such communication, including (i) date, (ii) method of communication, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1907--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to expenditures on electric vehicle charging stations, since January 1, 2018: (a) what are the total expenditures this year, to date, broken down by location; (b) what are the specific locations of all such stations; and (c) how many stations have been constructed since January 1, 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1909--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the purchase or rental of telepresence robots or other similar robotic type devices which connect to tablets by Policy Horizons Canada, since November, 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) amount, (ii) date, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) whether it was rental or purchase, (vi) purpose of purchase, (vii) contract file number; and (b) has any other department, agency, or government entity purchased or rented such a device and, if so, what are the details of each purchase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1910--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to expenditures on royalties since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) date, (iii) name or description of material for which royalties were paid, (iv) summary of advertising campaign or other use for which materials where used, (v) vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1911--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to expenditures related to the Global Case Management System (GCMS) interfaces at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the total expenditures on maintenance for the GCMS; (b) what are the total expenditures on consultants related to the GCMS; and (c) what are the details of all contracts related to (a) and (b), including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of contract, (iv) duration, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1912--
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money has been allocated to Transport Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Transport Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (c) how much money has been allocated to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the Department and Fisheries and Oceans, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (e) how much money has been allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (f) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Environment and Climate Change Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (g) how much money has been spent under the OPP on efforts to mitigate the potential impacts of oil spills, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (h) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative, since 2016, broken down by year; (i) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; and (j) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that the funding allocated under the OPP is spent on its stated goals in a timely manner?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1915--
Mr. Rob Nicholson:
With regard to military procurement: (a) does the Prime Minister agree with the position put forward by officials at Public Service and Procurement Canada that “Canada may, but will have no obligation, to require that the top-ranked bidder demonstrate any features, functionality and capabilities described in this bid solicitation or in its bid”; (b) of bidders who were awarded contracts since November 4, 2015, how many were unable to demonstrate or fulfill any features, functionality or capabilities described in their bid; and (c) what are the details of all incidents referred to in (b), including (i) bidder, (ii) contract amount, (iii) description of goods or services rendered, (iv) list of specific bid claims which bidder was unable to fulfill, (v) date bid was awarded, (vi) amount recovered by government, as a result of failure to fulfill, (vii) has the bidder been banned from future bidding as a result of making false claims on future bids?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1916--
Mr. Rob Nicholson:
With regard to reports of a data breach at Public Services and Procurement Canada in August 2018, after a device containing personal information was stolen: (a) on what date did the theft occur; (b) on what date was the theft reported to the law enforcement agencies, and to which agencies was the theft reported; (c) on what date was the Office of the Privacy Commissioner notified; (d) how many employees were affected by the data breach, broken down by department or agency; (e) on what date were the affected employees notified; (f) why was there a delay between the breach and the notification date for employees; (g) how are affected employees being compensated for the breach; (h) what type of information was contained on the stolen device; (i) has the government recovered the device; (j) how many data breaches have occurred since January 1, 2016, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity; and (k) for each data breach in (j), what are the details, including (i) how many people were affected, (ii) date of breach, (iii) date those affected were notified, (iv) summary of incident?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1918--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to usage of artificial intelligence (AI) by the government: (a) which departments, agencies, Crown corporations, or other government entities currently use AI; (b) what specific tasks is AI used for; (c) what are the details of all expenditures on commercial AI technology and related products since November 4, 2015, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of products or services, including quantity, if applicable, (iv) date of purchase, (v) file number; and (d) what is the government’s policy regarding the use of AI?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1920--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to government expenditures related to guarding and relocating the killdeer nest which was found near the Canadian War Museum in June 2018 : (a) what was the total cost; (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided; (c) how many government employees contributed to the relocation; and (d) what is the total number of hours dedicated by government employees to the relocation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1922--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to expenditures by the government on subscriptions and data access services by the government in the 2017-18 fiscal year, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) titles of publications or data for each subscription, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1923--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to payments made by the government to news media organizations in the 2017-18 fiscal year, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, and excluding expenditures on advertising services: (a) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) rationale for expenditure, (vi) file number; and (b) what are the details of each grant and contribution including, (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) rationale for expenditure, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1924--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to consultations undertaken by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Minister of Seniors with a view to providing greater security for workplace pension plans: (a) did the government establish a committee on the issue; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) how long has the committee been in place, (ii) how often has it met, (iii) how many government officials have worked on the project, (iv) which stakeholders have been consulted, (v) what means (including legislation) have been considered to provide greater security for workplace pension plans, including in the event of bankruptcy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1926--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to communications between Google, Netflix or Facebook and the government, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all emails, letters or other communication, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number, (vii) form (email, letter, telephone call, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1927--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Privy Council Office, since December 1, 2017: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the products or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-1532 Immigration to Canada8555-421-1532-01 Immigration to Canada8555-421-1680 Immigration to Canada8555-421-1680-01 Immigration to Canada8555-421-1882 New Veterans Charter and P ...8555-421-1883 Contracts and expenditures ...8555-421-1884 Operation HONOUR8555-421-1888 Advisory Council on the Im ...8555-421-1890 Trans Mountain pipeline8555-421-1891 Trans Mountain pipeline8555-421-1892 Federal spending in the ri ...
...Show all topics
Results: 1 - 2 of 2