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. 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 Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2016-06-14 19:00 [p.4513]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
The budget debate will come to a close this evening. In summary, contrary to its promise to create a small deficit of only $10 billion, the government will saddle Canadians with a budget deficit that could reach $29.4 billion this year alone. Canadians did not vote for that.
Just six months after it was elected, the Liberal government seems to be suffering already from an incurable Liberal disease: acute spendicitis. That is what I will try to show in my speech this evening.
By analyzing the expenses incurred to set up offices for the ministers in this cabinet after they were appointed, we realize, fortunately, that not all the ministers have caught the disease.
Let us take a look at the race to set up the beautiful offices for ministers. In last place, we find the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, who spent only $500 on setting up her office. I would like to congratulate her. That is to her credit. For once, coming in last is quite honourable. The first shall be last and the last shall be first in this case.
There is stiff competition among the other ministers. Even the Minister of Finance, who spent $12,000 on a superluxurious flight to New York, spent only $1,400 to set up his office.
At the back of the pack, ministers spent between $1,000 and $7,000 to set up their offices. Then there are the ones who wanted to spend a little more money. Four ministers spent between $12,000 and $19,000 on their new offices. Then you have those at the head of the pack. Here are the ministers who spent the most money on setting up their offices.
In third place is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who spent $40,000 to refit his office. In second place is the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, who spent $57,000 on his office. In first place, the big winner is the Minister of Infrastructure, who spent $835,000 on his new office.
When I wrote my speech, the results were not yet official since the other ministers had lodged a protest, claiming that the minister was on spending steroids. They thought that he had cheated and padded the numbers. How is it possible to spend $835,000 on a single office?
Unfortunately, I have the official results here, which come from officials in the minister's department. A total of $835,000 was indeed spent to set up an office. According to what we learned today in question period, it might have been two, three, four, or even 32 offices.
We questioned the Minister of Infrastructure a number of times about how much was spent to set up his office. He said several times again this evening, with his hand on his heart, that the reason why he spent $835,000 was that there was no infrastructure minister in the previous government and therefore no office.
First of all, there was a minister responsible for infrastructure and that minister also had an office. The minister should also know that previously, there were at least eight additional ministers and so there were eight office spaces with furnishings for the staff of eight ministers' offices. That is a lot of ministers' offices that became available after the last election.
Why did the Minister of Infrastructure not take advantage of the eight completely furnished offices that were available and ready to receive staff? Was it because of vanity? Was it because those offices were not good enough for the minister? If there are at least 10 employees per minister's office, that means that in terms of office equipment alone, there were 80 desks, 80 computers and monitors, 80 chairs, and 80 telephones available to the new Minister of Infrastructure.
I do not understand the minister's decision given that his new department has not even announced a single construction site for this summer. There is nothing to stimulate the economy. There is nothing this summer for cities that are still waiting to find out when they can invest the money that was promised during the election campaign. The only thing that was announced was this big project to set up a new office for 32 people at a cost of $26,000 per employee.
Unfortunately, that is not all. When the associate deputy minister of Infrastructure Canada appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, she told us that setting up her offices and hiring staff for this “new” department would cost taxpayers an additional $10.2 million. How many employees for that $10 million? The deputy minister said 20. Twenty employees for an extra $10.2 million. Some quick math says that is $500,000 per employee.
The deputy minister did not want to leave us with that impression. She quickly added that the money would be used primarily for computer systems and other expenses. I asked for a breakdown of those expenses at committee, but I still have not received anything. We still do not know how much of that $10.2 million will be used to further refurbish the offices of the minister and deputy minister, at $835,000 a pop. We need to get these answers. That is why we oppose this part of the budget.
In closing, I have a suggestion as to how the minister can quickly and effectively treat this acute case of spendicitis: have a look at the Government of Canada's auction website, GCSurplus.ca. Here is some of the furniture I found that could be used to furnish the minister's office: 16 full work stations with 33 office chairs for $550; five filing cabinets for $20; 58 cabinets for $100; two bookshelves for $20; a shredder for $100; 28 conference tables for $100, since they are so fond of meetings and consultation; an executive desk with a cabinet for the minister for $50; an executive suite with desk for $100; 12 bookshelves for $115; six briefcases for $10; 80 telephones, in case they are busy, for just $750; 13 tables, two printers, and a photocopier for $95, after some quick math.
There were no computers, so I checked Kijiji and found 10 computers for $2,000. If they need three times more, that would be $6,000 for computers. It was a little harder to find 10 monitors. I had to check another site. I will not advertise for that site, but I found monitors for just $100. That adds up to just $33,000. To furnish the minister's office and meet all of his needs with respect to meetings and consultations in the coming years, that adds up to $10,960 for an office that can accommodate 32 people, not the $835,000 the minister put in for.
Rather than worry about the colour of the walls, the minister should hurry up and find a way to put Canadians to work by announcing projects for the summer as his party promised during the election campaign. That is why we will oppose the budgets allocated for the minister's new offices.
Results: 1 - 4 of 4