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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 1153--
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the appointment of Rana Sarkar as Consul General in San Francisco: (a) who made the decision to pay Mr. Sarkar at a rate significantly higher than other Consul Generals; (b) was there an open competition for the position; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what are the details of the competition including (i) where was the competition posted, (ii) number of applicants, (iii) selection criteria; (d) is the government taking any steps to ensure that Mr. Sarkar’s salary does not impact salary negotiations between the government and other diplomats; (e) was the government warned that paying an appointee at higher than the normal rate would have an impact on the salary negotiations with other diplomats; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what are the details of the warning, including (i) who issued the warning, (ii) date, (iii) recipient, (iv) reason warning did not impact salary decision?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib)::
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sarkar’s compensation is comparable to that of the San Francisco consul general appointed by the previous government.
With regards to key postings, it is common, both in the public service and the private sector, for compensation to reflect the qualifications and expertise of the appointee. This has been true for many recent appointees, including former cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon, Michael Wilson, and Loyola Hearn, Gary Doer, Patrick Binns, Alex Himelfarb, David Alward, Vivian Bercovici, Kevin Vickers, Guy Saint-Jacques, Dennis Savoie, I. David Marshall, Paul Maddison, Gordon Campbell, Gérard Latulippe, Jean-Carol Pelletier, and Catherine Doyle.
With regards to key postings, it is common, both in the public service and the private sector, for compensation to reflect the qualifications and expertise of the appointee. This has been true for many recent appointees, including former cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon, Michael Wilson, and Loyola Hearn, Gary Doer, Patrick Binns, Alex Himelfarb, David Alward, Vivian Bercovici, Kevin Vickers, Guy Saint-Jacques, Dennis Savoie, I. David Marshall, Paul Maddison, Gordon Campbell, Gérard Latulippe, Jean-Carol Pelletier, and Catherine Doyle.
Mr. Sarkar brings specialized expertise, including most recently as national director for high-growth markets at globally recognized KPMG. Throughout his career as an adviser and entrepreneur, he built a considerable skill in providing strategy and transaction-focused services to firms, investors and start-ups, enabling cross-border trade, investment, and innovation.
His background will serve Canada’s interests in San Francisco and Silicon Valley specifically. He is specifically responsible for working to attract investment and help Canadian business succeed in the fastest-growing industries on the continent, and work to expand our reach across the Pacific Rim while we grow our presence in the world’s fastest emerging markets in Asia.
This was one of a number of diplomatic appointments to strengthen our outreach to the United States, highlighting the importance and mutually beneficial partnership of our two countries, which continues to support millions of middle-class jobs on both sides of the border.

Question No. 1157--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the government’s decision to award certain funding only to areas which are considered “superclusters”: (a) which areas applied to be superclusters; (b) which areas were selected by the government to be “superclusters”; (c) how was each area in (b) selected; (d) for each area which applied, but was not selected to be a “supercluster”, why was each area not selected, broken down by individual area; (e) what specific guarantees are in place to ensure that areas outside of “superclusters” receive their fair share of funding, broken down by funding program; and (f) for each guarantee referred to in (e), what is the website location where the text is located?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s decision to award certain funding only to areas that are considered “superclusters”, please see the response from Innovation, Science and Economic Development below.
With regard to part (a), the innovation superclusters initiative received more than 50 applications representing all regions of Canada, including British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, and the north. Several of the applications involved interprovincial participation. The applications are from highly innovative industries such as clean technology, advanced manufacturing, digital technology, health/biosciences, clean resources, and agrifood, as well as infrastructure and transportation.
With regard to part (b), the application process for the innovation superclusters initiative is ongoing and a final decision has not been made.
With regard to part (c), the selection of applications involves a two-phase application process. In the first phase, business-led consortia, including companies of all sizes, post-secondary institutions, and other innovation partners, were invited to submit letters of intent to outline their ambitious plans to build world-leading superclusters at scale. The first phase closed on 24/07/2017.
In the second phase, selected applicants will be invited to submit a full application. After the selection process concludes, contribution agreements will be negotiated and results will be announced.
Descriptions of the assessment criteria and process, reflecting key elements contributing to program outcomes, are published in the program guide, which can be found at https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/093.nsf/eng/00003.html.
They are used to assess the potential of proposals to generate real economic impact and industrial benefits for Canada, as well as other key elements, such as the importance, relevance, and feasibility of the applicant's proposed plans.
With regard to part (d), the application process is ongoing and a final decision has not been made.
With regard to part (e), the purpose of the innovation superclusters initiative is to accelerate the growth and development of a small number of business-led innovation superclusters in Canada with strong innovation ecosystems that have the potential to be global leaders. The program provides funding to selected applicants with whom a contribution agreement will be signed.
It is expected that the benefits of funded activities will extend beyond the borders of a supercluster, drawing on partners across Canada to achieve a national network effect. Regardless of their location in Canada, organizations outside the supercluster region will be eligible to participate in funded activities.
With regard to part (f), program information can be found on the innovation superclusters initiative website at www.canada.ca/superclusters.

Question No. 1159--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to salaries in the Prime Minister’s Office, as of September 18, 2017: (a) how many employees had a salary higher than the salary of a minister ($255,300); and (b) how many employees had a salary higher than the salary of the Prime Minister ($345,400)?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the Privy Council Office, PCO, is unable to respond because in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and this information has been withheld on these grounds. PCO is able to confirm that no employees had a salary higher than the salary of the Prime Minister: $345,400.

Question No. 1160--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to meetings or communication between the Prime Minister and the current Premier of British Columbia: (a) what are the details of any meeting or communication where the Trans Mountain Pipeline was discussed, including for each the (i) date, (ii) type of communication (i.e. meeting, phone call, email, etc.), (iii) location, (iv) purpose or summary of communication; (b) what is the official government position with regard to the Trans Mountain Pipleline; and (c) when was the official position communicated to the current Premier of British Columbia?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2017, the Prime Minister, in an introductory meeting with British Columbia Premier John Horgan in Ottawa, briefly discussed the Trans Mountain expansion project. Premier Horgan noted the need to protect British Columbia’s interests, and indicated that further discussions with Alberta were planned on the issue.
The Prime Minister announced the Government of Canada’s approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion project on November 30, 2016. The Government of Canada requires that Kinder Morgan meet or exceed all of the 157 binding conditions set out by the National Energy Board. The Government of Canada has also established the oceans protection plan to ensure any risk coming from increased vessel traffic in Burrard Inlet is properly mitigated.
There has been no known direct communication of the official position of the Government of Canada to Premier Horgan. The Government of Canada’s approval of the project has been noted in the media many times since November 2016.

Question No. 1162--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the January 1, 2017, policy clarification to the interpretation of eligibility criteria for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) Involuntary Separation Provision, not including any changes to the Allowance and not including changes made to involuntary separation of couples who are eligible to receive the Allowance: (a) what was the interpretation error that required the change or clarification to interpretation; (b) how was the new interpretation communicated to relevant individuals (i) at Service Canada, (ii) at government departments, broken down by each department within which the new interpretation was circulated, (iii) to seniors who would be affected by the change, (iv) to Senators and Members of Parliament; (c) what are the details of any directives, memorandums, or communiqué circulated to advise the individuals in (b) of the new interpretation, including for each the (i) date, (ii) recipients, (iii) sender, (iv) title, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number, (vii) text, (viii) website address of text, if applicable; (d) were any responses received to any directives, memorandums, or communiques referred to in (c) and, if so, what are the details, including for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipients, (iii) sender, (iv) title, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number, (vii) text; (e) how many groups or stakeholders in total were consulted in order to inform the decision to alter the interpretation of eligibility criteria and to understand the effects it will have on Canadian seniors; (f) what is the complete list of organizations, individuals or stakeholders referenced in (e); (g) how many senior couples currently take advantage of the involuntary separation provision for GIS, broken down by province; (h) how many seniors are currently receiving the involuntary separation provision for GIS based off of the old interpretation of the eligibility criteria, and would have been considered ineligible if their eligibility was under the policy clarification enacted on January 1, 2017, broken down by sex; and (i) considering Canada’s aging population, what is the government’s plan to help the increasing number of seniors who will face this vulnerable situation?
Response
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, old age security, OAS, benefits are intended to provide partial income security for seniors in recognition of the contributions that they have made to Canadian society and the economy. Low-income pensioners are entitled to additional assistance through the guaranteed income supplement, GIS. The GIS is calculated based on income to ensure that these benefits are provided to seniors most in need.
The GIS is paid at a different rate based on whether seniors are single or part of a couple. This reflects the different economic realities of single seniors and senior couples.
Since 1971, the Old Age Security Act has contained a provision that allows low-income couples in receipt of the GIS and who are forced to live apart for reasons beyond their control to receive their benefits at the higher single rate based on their individual incomes. The intent of this provision was to recognize the increase in cost of living where one member of a couple remained in the matrimonial home while the other was required to go into a chronic care facility, nursing home, or home for the aged. These couples are often described as being “involuntarily separated”. In budget 2016, the OAS Act was amended to extend this provision to involuntarily separated couples where one member receives the GIS and the other receives the allowance. These amendments came into force on January 1, 2017.
In January 2017, the department issued an administrative policy direction to front-line Service Canada staff in order to reflect the expanded scope of the provisions for GIS/allowance couples. The department also took the opportunity to clarify the intent of the legislation with respect to eligibility for the involuntary separation provisions.
Specifically, the policy guidance was amended to state that couples must first qualify for the GIS on the basis of their joint income before the involuntary separation provisions could be applied. In order to address any possible situations where individuals had been paid under these provisions while their combined income was above the allowable threshold, a “grandfathering” clause was included to ensure that no current beneficiaries would see a reduction in their benefits.
Shortly thereafter, the department received an enquiry from Mrs. Vecchio’s office with respect to this policy direction. Departmental officials met with Mrs. Vecchio on June 21, 2017, in order to hear her concerns in person. At that meeting, she expressed her concerns about couples whose combined income is sufficient to render them ineligible for the GIS, but who may have a large disparity of income between the spouses. She noted in particular that in these situations, if the higher income spouse requires long-term care, the higher costs for that care could result in a significant reduction in the pooled income available to the lower income spouse.
As a result, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development asked his officials to undertake a further analysis on the impact of the January 2017 policy directive. It became apparent that the implementation of this policy guidance was disadvantaging modest income couples. The minister has therefore tasked the department to correct this issue, by assessing the eligibility of couples involuntarily separated based solely on their individual incomes.
The department has already begun identifying senior couples who were affected by the January 2017 policy direction, a process that will be completed by the end of October. Departmental officials will subsequently reassess the benefit entitlement of any couples who were impacted by the January 2017 directive. The number of couples impacted by the directive is expected to be low.

Question No. 1171--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to government expenditures on foreign aid since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all expenditures, including for each the (i) recipient, (ii) country, (iii) amount, (iv) date of contribution, (v) purpose of expenditure or project description?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to transparency and open government and as such regularly publishes data on Canada’s international assistance projects.
In accordance with the International Aid Transparency Initiative, IATI, the D-Portal contains a wealth of project information including government expenditures on international assistance since January 1, 2016. Details with regard to recipient, country, amount, date of contribution, and purpose of expenditure or project description can be found at: www.d-portal.org/ctrack.html?search&publisher=CA-3&year_min=2016&year=2016&year_max=2019&year=2019#view=main.
Additionally, Global Affairs Canada maintains the Project Browser, a website that publishes detailed project information and is updated daily. This interactive tool allows the user to search the department’s international projects and download information as open data files. The information published also follows the IATI standard and includes details with regard to recipient, country, amount, date of contribution, and purpose of expenditure or project description. It can be found at: http://w05.international.gc.ca/projectbrowser-banqueprojets/filter-filtre.

Question No. 1172--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to the proposed tax increases on small businesses announced by the Minister of Finance on July 18, 2017: (a) on what date was the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food made aware of the proposed tax hikes; (b) was the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food consulted prior to the announcement; (c) what impact studies have been conducted by the government related to how the tax increases will impact farm families; and (d) what are the details and findings of any such impact studies?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government assesses issues arising under the tax system on an ongoing basis. It relies on a range of approaches and information sources to develop an in-depth understanding of potential issues, including the statistical analysis of tax return data, the monitoring of the tax literature, and consultations with the Canada Revenue Agency, academics, tax professionals, and other stakeholders.
When the analysis identifies a need for action, options are developed and assessed against a range of criteria such as their impact on the fairness of the tax system, economic efficiency, and the ease of administration of the tax system.
This process was followed in the development of the proposals contained in the consultation document released on July 18, 2017. Tax data and other information were used to assess the scope of the issues and the impact of different options. In particular, the number of businesses that could be affected by the various options to estimate the fiscal impact of the proposals was assessed, within constraints imposed by available data.
Draft legislation was also released for two of the three proposals contained in the consultation document. Stakeholders, including farmers, were invited to comment on the proposals and the draft legislation. Stakeholders were also specifically invited to provide their views and ideas on whether and if so, how, it would be possible to better accommodate genuine intergenerational business transfers in the Income Tax Act while still protecting the fairness of the tax system.
The government will not be moving forward with measures relating to the conversion of income into capital gains. During the consultation period, the government heard from business owners, including many farmers and fishers, that the measures could result in several unintended consequences, such as with respect to taxation upon death and potential challenges with intergenerational transfers of businesses. The government will work with family businesses, including farming and fishing businesses, to make it more efficient, or less difficult, to hand down their businesses to the next generation.
In the coming year, the government will continue its outreach to farmers, fishers, and other business owners to develop proposals to better accommodate intergenerational transfers of businesses while protecting the fairness of the tax system.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 954--
Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford):
With regard to page 11 of the Guide for Parliamentary Secretaries published by the Privy Council Office in December 2015, where it states that Parliamentary Secretaries are “prohibited from accepting sponsored travel”: (a) does the government consider the trips taken by Parliamentary Secretary Khera and Parliamentary Secretary Virani, which are listed in the 2016 sponsored travel report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, to be a violation of the guide; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what corrective measures were taken to reconcile the violation; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why does the government not consider these trips to be a violation?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to trips taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism), their sponsored travel was pre-approved by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Furthermore, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism) made the proper and appropriate public declarations to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner upon their return, in accordance with the rules that govern the practice of sponsored travel.
Sponsored travel is not unusual for ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
For example, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, travelled to Taiwan, a trip that was sponsored by the Chinese International Economic Cooperation Association.

Question No. 958--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and energy efficiency programs, for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017: (a) what programs are in place; (b) what are the eligibility criteria for each of these programs; (c) what tools do the government and the CMHC use to promote these programs to the public (i) at the national level, (ii) at the provincial level; (d) how many people use these programs (i) at the national level, (ii) by province, (iii) in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot; and (e) how much has been spent to advertise these programs (i) at the national level, (ii) in each province?
Response
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, considers energy efficiency an important issue. Many of the housing programs available to Canadians include a consideration or component for energy efficiency.
In regard to stand-alone programs, in response to part (a), CMHC green home program was introduced in 2004 and is intended to encourage consumers to purchase energy-efficient housing or make energy-saving renovations which can generate significant reductions in energy costs for homeowners and have a positive environmental impact. CMHC green home offers a premium refund to CMHC mortgage loan insurance borrowers who either buy, build, or renovate for energy efficiency using CMHC-insured financing.
For the years 2014, 2015, and up to June 22, 2016, borrowers could benefit from a 10% refund on their mortgage insurance premium, and a refund of sales tax where applicable, when using CMHC-insured financing to purchase a new or existing energy-efficient home or to undertake energy efficient renovations to an existing home.
Enhancements to the program were made in June 2016. Effective June 22, 2016, the base premium refund increased from 10% to 15% of the total premium paid and a two-level premium refund structure exists, allowing for as much as 25% of the total premium paid to be refunded, depending on the level of energy efficiency achieved.
In response to part (b), under the CMHC green home program, most new homes built under a CMHC eligible energy-efficient building standard automatically qualify for a premium refund. For all other homes, eligibility is assessed using Natural Resources Canada’s EnerGuide rating system.
Information on how to apply for a partial premium refund and eligibility requirements is available on CMHC’s website www.cmhc.ca/greenhome.
In response to part (c), CMHC's modernized green home program was launched in 2016 and was actively promoted through various channels including mortgage professionals, industry associations, media outlets, and CMHC's redesigned web content. CMHC's green home program continues to be promoted through various social media outlets including LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter.
In response to part (d), the number of refunds issued under CMHC green home, at a national level, during the requested years is as follows: 752 in 2014, 476 in 2015, 443 in 2016, and 153 in 2017. These numbers are not available by province or territory nor specifically for the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
In response to part (e), CMHC did not spend any specific advertising funds prior to 2016. In 2016, CMHC spent $20,940 to advertise the CMHC green home program at a national level.

Question No. 959--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the call for proposals for government funding under the Natural Resources Canada’s Energy Innovation Program allocated for Clean Energy Innovation that closed October 31, 2016: (a) what criteria were used to select approved projects; (b) what projects received funding, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) type of project, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received; (c) what projects have been selected to receive funding in the future, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) type of project, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received; and (d) for each project identified in (b) and (c), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to paragraph (a), the criteria used to select approved projects are outlined in section 6 of the “Energy Innovation Program, Clean Energy Innovation Component: Request for Project Proposals, Applicants’ Guide”, which is made available to all applicants.
With respect to paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), as of April 4, 2017, NRCan had not yet formally announced any of the selected projects for the clean energy innovation program. However, 100% of the $25.1 million in funding available for this program has been allocated to projects selected through the call for proposals process. The current number of projects expected to be supported by the clean energy innovation program is approximately 27, although this figure could change slightly in the future. All applicants have been notified, and NRCan has started conducting post-selection due diligence and negotiating contribution agreements with applicants. It is expected that the majority of the 27 contribution agreements will be signed by June 30, 2017. Once contribution agreements are signed, NRCan will announce the projects. NRCan will also disclose the contribution amounts through the formal, quarterly proactive disclosure process. This information will be available on NRCan’s website.

Question No. 960--
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the announced 372.5 million dollars in repayable loans provided by the government to Bombardier: (a) was the government told during its negotiations with Bombardier that the financial assistance provided by the government would be used for bonuses to executives; (b) did the terms of the financial assistance include any guarantees that the loans would not go towards executive bonuses; and (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what are the details of such guarantees?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the Government of Canada is committed to the long-term viability and success of the Canadian aerospace sector. The repayable contribution by the government to Bombardier is focused on research and development. This contribution will support creation of high-quality jobs and development of leading-edge technology in Canada. It will ensure the long-term competitiveness of Bombardier as a key aerospace firm for Canada.
In response to part (b), the strategic aerospace and defence initiative and C Series are claims-based programs where recipients make claims against eligible costs associated with research and development required in the performance of the project by the recipient. As negotiated in each individual contribution agreement, the costs must be reasonably and properly incurred and/or allocated to the project with eligible costs mainly supporting labour, materials, overhead, equipment, and contractors. Costs not related to the completion of the project are ineligible.
In response to part (c), specific terms of the contribution agreements are deemed third party commercially confidential information and protected under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act.

Question No. 966--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to page 24 of the Liberal election platform where it said “We will ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices”: (a) does the government plan on keeping this election promise; and (b) in what year does the government plan on introducing legislation which would make such changes?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our government continues to raise the bar on openness and transparency because government information ultimately belongs to the people we serve, and it should be open by default.
Major reforms to the Access to Information Act have not been done in more than three decades since it was enacted and we are taking on this challenge in a two-phase approach.
Changes to the act have to be carefully crafted to balance our fundamental values of openness with other principles, including independence of the judiciary, the effectiveness and neutrality of the public service, the protection of Canadians’ personal information, and national security.
We are working on fixing an Access to Information Act that is stale-dated after decades of neglect and, furthermore, we will legislate a requirement that the act be reviewed every five years so it never again becomes stale.
Through the ministerial directive issued last spring by the President of the Treasury Board, we moved to enshrine the principle of “open by default”, eliminated all fees apart from the $5 application fee, and directed departments to release information in user-friendly formats whenever possible.
Furthermore, we will undertake the first full and now-mandatory review of the Act beginning no later than 2018.

Question No. 967--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the possible extradition of individuals between the Government of Canada and the Government of China: (a) what are the details of any communication between the governments on the subject including (i) the date, (ii) the form (in person, telephone, email, etc.), (iii) the titles of individuals involved in the communication, (iv)the location, (v) any relevant file numbers; and (b) what are the details of any briefing notes on the subject including the (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number?
Response
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of China, please read the following joint communiqué found online at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/09/13/1st-canada-china-high-level-national-security-and-rule-law-dialogue

Question No. 968--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to interaction between the government and the Bradford Exchange: (a) when was the government made aware that the company was planning on producing a talking doll bearing the image of the Prime Minister; (b) did the government authorize the company to produce the doll; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, who provided the authorization; (d) did the government provide any input regarding the phrases which the doll says; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what are the details including (i) who provided the input, (ii) when was the input provided; and (f) what are the details of any briefing notes or memos related to the production of the talking dolls including the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) title and subject matter, (v) file number?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government had no interaction with The Bradford Exchange and did not authorize the production of the doll.

Question No. 969--
Mr. Gordon Brown:
With regard to the “Sober Second Thinking: How the Senate Deliberates and Decides” discussion paper, circulated by the Government Representative in the Senate, and dated March 31, 2017: (a) does this paper represent the policy of the Government of Canada; (b) was its preparation, writing, editing and publication coordinated with the Government House Leader’s March 10, 2017, discussion paper entitled “Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons”; (c) was its preparation, writing, editing and publication coordinated in any other manner with the Government House Leader; (d) did the Privy Council Office, or any other department, assist in the preparation, writing, editing and publishing of it; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, with respect to the employees involved, what are their (i) titles, (ii) occupational groups, (iii) levels; (f) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, (i) were any parliamentarians or political parties consulted in the course of their work, (ii) were any staff of the Senate consulted in the course of their work, (iii) were any academics, experts, or any other outside advisors consulted in the course of their work; (g) if the answer to any of (f)(i), (ii) or (iii) is affirmative, what are the names of the persons or organizations consulted, and when were they consulted; (h) were any contractors, paid by the Government of Canada, involved in the preparation, writing, editing and publishing of the paper; and (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, with respect to the contractors involved, (i) what are their titles, (ii) what services were contracted, (iii) what is the value of the services contracted, (iv) what amount were they paid for their services, (v) what are the related file numbers?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to discussion paper entitled “Sober Second Thinking: How the Senate Deliberates and Decides”, the paper was prepared exclusively by the Office of the Government Representative in the Senate and published on the Senate website.
Our government believes that a more independent and less partisan Senate will rebuild Canadians' trust in this parliamentary institution.
It is up to the Senate itself to determine how to best adapt its internal rules and practices to function effectively.
Our government will continue to work productively with the Senate to move forward on our legislative agenda.

Question No. 970--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the services related to issuing debt and selling of government bonds, since April 1, 2016: (a) what amount has the Government spent on services related to issuing debt and/or selling government bonds; (b) for each service in (a), what is the (i) name of the person or firm, (ii) service period, (iii) amount of the contract, (iv) reason that person or firm was chosen to provide the service?
Response
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed by the Bank of Canada, as the government’s fiscal agent through competitive auctions to government securities distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. No commissions or fees are paid to government securities distributors.
The Bank of Canada, as the government’s fiscal agent, is also responsible for overseeing and administering the retail debt program, which includes the issuance of Canada savings bonds and Canada premium bonds. Fees are paid to financial institutions in proportion to the amount of bonds outstanding that they have distributed. Any Canadian financial institution can distribute retail debt products, subject to signing the sales agent agreements. Financial institutions are engaged to distribute Canada savings bonds and Canada premium bonds as they are seen as an effective distribution channel for retail savings products. In 2015-16, the government paid an aggregate amount of $3.9 million in fees to a number of financial institutions on an outstanding retail debt stock of about $5.5 billion. The government announced in budget 2017 that it is winding down the retail debt program, so these fees will stop. The Bank of Canada directly pays these fees to financial institutions and is refunded by the Department of Finance. Accordingly, the department does not have the list of financial institutions nor the breakdown of fees paid per financial institution.
The Government of Canada holds foreign currency reserve assets to provide foreign currency liquidity to the government and to promote orderly conditions for the Canadian dollar in the foreign exchange markets, if required. Foreign currency debt is issued to fund foreign reserve assets in a manner that mitigates the impacts of movements in interest rates and foreign exchange rates. The government pays fees to financial institutions selling Canada bills, i.e., short term debt issued in U.S. dollars. Financial institutions are selected based on their ability to efficiently distribute a debt offering to a diverse investor base located around the world and play an active role in secondary market making. The Canada bills program contracts have no service periods. In the 2016 calendar year, the Department of Finance paid an aggregate amount of $2.2 million U.S. in fees to RBC, CIBC, and Goldman Sachs in proportion to the amount of Canada bills they distributed, with a total issuance of $18.6 billion U.S. Disaggregated information per financial institutions is confidential.
These fees, for retail debt and foreign currency debt, are included in the $10.6 million under “Servicing costs and costs of issuing new borrowings” in the Public Accounts of Canada, volume III, section 7.6. Unfortunately, this information is not yet available for the period starting April 1, 2016.

Question No. 971--
Mr.Kelly McCauley:
With regard to funding for the implementation and administration of various measures to crack down on tax evasion, combat tax avoidance and enhance tax collections in Budget 2016 for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and referenced in Supplementary Estimates (B) 2016-2017: (a) how many full time equivalents (FTEs) were created from this additional funding; (b) what percentage of all FTEs within CRA are dedicated to tax evasion and what was the percentage before the additional funding for tax evasion; (c) of these FTEs, how many employees are targeted toward offshore tax cheats; (d) of the new hires at CRA responsible for going after tax evasion, what is the breakdown by area of focus; and (e) how many new FTEs have been dedicated to address the back-log of low-complexity, medium complexity and high complexity assessment objections?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, here is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. Regarding part (a), on the basis of the funding received in budget 2016, the CRA created a total of 654 FTEs across its collections, verification, and compliance programs in 2016-17 to implement, administer, and support the various measures to crack down on tax evasion, combat tax avoidance, and enhance tax collection. Of this amount, 171 new FTEs were specifically provisioned for our compliance programs to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance. When fully implemented in 2020-21, this will represent an additional 375 permanent FTEs.
Regarding part (b), the additional provision of 171 FTEs in 2016-17 raised the percentage of FTEs dedicated to addressing tax evasion and tax avoidance to approximately 6% or 2,255 FTEs of the total CRA base of 37,878 FTEs. Prior to the additional funding, 5.5% or 2,084 FTEs of the total CRA base was dedicated to these measures.
Regarding part (c), of the 2,255 FTEs dedicated to addressing tax evasion and tax avoidance, 383 are dedicated to offshore non-compliance. The CRA also has 447 FTEs dedicated to conduct international compliance interventions, including transfer pricing. In addition, these positions are indirectly supported by other compliance and enforcement staff who make referrals and leads to the offshore compliance auditors in the course of conducting their domestic activities.
Regarding part (d), the areas of focus for the various measures to crack down on tax evasion and combat tax avoidance include high net-worth individuals, aggressive GST-HST planning and refund integrity, tax scheme promoters, aggressive tax planning specialists, legal support for criminal investigations, large business audits, offshore non-compliance, and international auditors that focus primarily on transfer pricing verification to ensure appropriate attribution of profits between Canada and other jurisdictions.
Regarding part (e), the CRA is focused on service and improving the objection process by providing people and businesses with greater certainty about their tax obligations earlier in the process.
In response to the Auditor General 2016 fall report on income tax objections, the CRA committed to an action plan that addresses each of the Auditor General’s eight recommendations. For example, the agency updated its website in November 2016 to provide taxpayers with more information about the objection process, definition of complexity level, and current time frames for assigning low and medium complexity objections. In addition, the CRA is currently piloting a new triage process for objections, so that taxpayers are contacted earlier in the process and files are complete when assigned to an officer.
Moreover, a separate budget 2016 initiative under the section entitled “Improving Client services at the Canada Revenue Agency” increased capacity to resolve existing taxpayer objections and ensure that taxpayers are provided with certainty of their tax obligations as soon as possible. For this specific client service measure, the CRA did receive funding for an additional 71 FTEs, all of whom were hired in 2016-17.
Funding received in budget 2016 for the implementation and administration of various tax measures to crack down on tax evasion, combat tax avoidance, and enhance tax collections included provisions to ensure that taxpayers who choose to avail themselves of their recourse rights receive timely responses. Funding to address potential impacts to the objections workload will be made available in subsequent years, after the reassessments have been issued.

Question No. 973--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to videos which appear on the Environment and Climate Change Minister’s Twitter Account between March 23, 2017, and April 6, 2017: (a) what is the total cost associated with the production and distribution of the videos, broken down by individual video; (b) what is the itemized detailed breakdown of the costs; and (c) what are the details of any contracts related to the videos including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of good or service, (iv) file number, (v) date and duration of contract?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Environment and Climate Change Canada has one video from World Meteorological Day 2017, which appeared on the Environment and Climate Change minister’s Twitter account between March 23, 2017, and April 6, 2017.
The video was produced with internal resources and Getty Images at a total cost of $68.20. Since March 6, 2017, Getty Images has a one-year contract for 2,500 videos or 5,000 photos.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has no expenditure recorded between March 23, 2017, and April 6, 2017, in relation to (a), (b) and (c) of Question No. 973.
In addition, Parks Canada has no expenditure recorded between March 23, 2017, and April 6, 2017, in relation to (a), (b) and (c).

Question No. 974--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs): how many GHGs does the current Prime Minister's motorcade emit every (i) minute, (ii) hour, for which it is running?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP’s information management system does not capture the requested information.

Question No. 975--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the government’s claim that the February 7, 2017 Bombardier bail-out will result in 1300 new jobs: (a) what were the calculations used to come to that conclusion; (b) what evidence was given to come to that conclusion; (c) what branch within Bombardier will these jobs be in; (d) how many of these jobs are full-time; and (e) how many of these jobs are part-time?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada is committed to the long-term viability and success of the Canadian aerospace sector. On February 7, 2017, the Government of Canada announced a $372.5-million repayable contribution to Bombardier for research and development for the new Global 7000 business jet and ongoing activities related to the development of the company’s C Series aircraft. Bombardier has indicated that employment related to the production of the Global 7000 business jet will go from approximately 1,700 jobs to approximately 3,000 jobs as a result of the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, SADI, contribution.
With regard to parts (b), (c), (d), and (e), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada conducted the required due diligence for projects under SADI. Specific information related to the due diligence and analysis is considered commercially confidential and protected under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to information Act.

Question No. 976--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Phoenix Pay System and Public Services and Procurement Canada since June, 2016: (a) how much has been spent on researching other payment delivery systems; (b) how many meetings have been held on other payment delivery systems; and (c) for the meetings in (b), what are (i) the names and titles of the staff members that have been present at those meetings, (ii) the dates of the meetings?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the ongoing public service pay problems are completely unacceptable. Resolving these problems remains our priority. Our government is committed to ensuring that all employees are paid what they have earned.
Prior to awarding a contract for a new pay system, research was conducted by PSPC and with the industry throughout 2008-2009 to seek feedback and test market capability. This included two requests for information and a series of one-on-one meetings with the industry. No further research of other pay systems has taken place since June 2016.
Following an open, fair, and transparent bidding process, PSPC awarded a contract to IBM Canada Limited in June 2011 to design and implement the new pay solution for the Government of Canada.
Since the implementation of Phoenix, PSPC’s priority has been and still is to help each and every employee experiencing a problem with his or her pay and to ensure they receive what they have earned.
In this regard, PSPC is making progress toward achieving steady state and continues to look at options to increase pay processing efficiencies by implementing technical enhancements, increasing capacity, and improving work processes and procedures.

Question No. 980--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the protest at the offices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in St. John’s on April 7, 2016: (a) what was the amount of damage to government property caused by the protesters; (b) what are the titles of the government officials who met with the protestors; (c) did the government sign an agreement with the protesters; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the contents of the agreement; (e) did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans approve (i) the meeting, (ii) the agreement; and (f) were there any Ministerial Exempt Staff in attendance at the meeting and, if so, what are their titles?
Response
Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary for Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate to comment on this incident, as it is currently under investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is co-operating fully with this investigation.

Question No. 982--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the statement by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in the House of Commons on April 10, 2017, that “Every dollar that comes from putting a price on carbon pollution to the federal government goes directly back to the provinces”: (a) does the government consider this statement to be accurate; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, then how is the government disposing of the extra Goods and Services Tax collected as a result of collecting GST on the price of carbon; (c) when did the program to send the extra revenue collected from the GST back to the provinces begin; and (d) how much has been paid out to the provinces, broken down by province, as a result of such a program?
Response
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pricing carbon pollution is a central component of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change that was announced by Canada’s first ministers in December 2016. The pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution will expand the application of carbon pricing, which is already in place in Canada’s four largest provinces, to the rest of Canada by 2018. Recognizing that each province and territory has unique circumstances, the pan-Canadian approach allows provinces and territories flexibility to choose between a direct price on carbon pollution and a cap and trade system. As part of the pan Canadian framework, the Government of Canada will introduce a backstop carbon pollution pricing system that will apply in provinces and territories that do not have a carbon pricing system in place that meets the federal carbon pricing benchmark by 2018.
The pan-Canadian framework includes the commitment that revenues from pricing carbon pollution will remain with the province or territory of origin, each of which will decide how best to use the revenue. These revenues do not include those in respect of the GST charged on products or services that may have embedded carbon pricing costs in them. Revenues generated by the federal backstop will be returned to the jurisdiction in which the backstop revenues originated.
The Government is making investments to address climate change and support a healthy environment, through the Pan-Canadian Framework and other measures. Budget 2016 provided almost $2.9 billion over five years to address climate change and air pollution. This included $2 billion to establish the Low Carbon Economy Fund to support provincial and territorial actions that materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Budget 2017 proposes a number of new and renewed actions to reduce emissions, help Canada adapt and build resilience to climate change and support clean technologies. To further advance Canada’s efforts to build a clean economy, Budget 2017 lays out the Government’s plan to invest $21.9 billion in green infrastructure. This includes programs and projects that will meet the goals outlined in the Pan-Canadian Framework.

Question No. 985--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to Access to Information requests submitted to the Privy Council Office: (a) between April 1, 2016, and April 1, 2017, excluding instances where no records exist, how many Access to Information requests were completed and; (b) of the completed requests, how many resulted in documents being (i) completely redacted or not disclosed, (ii) partially redacted, (iii) completed disclosed without redaction?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), 827 access to information requests were completed during this period.
With regard to (b)(i), of the completed requests, of those that were completely redacted or not disclosed, 53 documents were exempted and 16 were excluded. With regard to (b)(ii), 495 were partially redacted. With regard to (b)(iii), 30 were disclosed without redaction.
The final numbers will be posted in the PCO’s annual report. It will be released in June 2017.
Access to informationAccess to information requestsAgreements and contractsBains, NavdeepBeech, TerryBlogs and microblogsBombardier Inc.Bradford ExchangeBrown, GordonBudget 2016 (March 22, 2016)Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
...Show all topics
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 193--
Hon. Gerry Ritz:
With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development start drafting an Explanatory Memorandum for tabling with the treaty; (b) what deadline was given to the department in order to draft an Explanatory Memorandum; (c) will the Minister table a copy of the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and Explanatory Memorandum, and, if so, when; (d) is the Minister considering a request for an exemption from the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament; and (e) has the Minister instructed her Department to start drafting implementing legislation for the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and, if so, (i) what deadline was given to the Department for completion of drafting, (ii) what other departments has the Department consulted with in regard to the legislation, (iii) when does the Minister anticipate introducing the implementing legislation?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), Global Affairs Canada, GAC, has not been tasked with drafting an explanatory memorandum for the tabling of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA.
With regard to parts (c) and (d), the Minister of International Trade intends to table the final text of CETA in the House of Commons this fall to facilitate parliamentary debate of the agreement.
For part (e), work related to implementation of the agreement is ongoing. With regard to (i), implementing legislation will need to be completed in advance of entry into force of CETA. The minister has indicated that she is targeting entry into force of CETA in 2017. With regard to (ii), all departments and agencies that need to make legislative changes will be involved in the drafting process. With regard to (iii), implementing legislation will be introduced following the signature of CETA. CETA is currently is expected to be signed in the fall of 2016.

Question No. 194--
Hon. Gerry Ritz:
With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development start drafting an Explanatory Memorandum for tabling with the treaty; (b) what deadline was given to the Department in order to draft an Explanatory Memorandum; (c) will the Minister table a copy of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and Explanatory Memorandum, and, if so, when; (d) is the Minister considering a request for an exemption from the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament; and (e) has the Minister instructed the Department to start drafting implementing legislation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and, if so, (i) what deadline was given to the Department for completion of drafting, (ii) what other departments has the Department consulted with in regard to the legislation, (iii) when does the Minister anticipate introducing the implementing legislation?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is consulting Canadians on the outcomes of the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, the TPP. No decision has been made with respect to the ratification of the TPP, and no direction has been provided to the department with respect to tabling the treaty or drafting legislation.

Question No. 199--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to each Senate appointment made by the Prime Minister: (a) did the government verify that each individual being appointed to the Senate met their constitutional residency requirement; (b) how did the government verify each requirement in (a); and (c) what are the details of the verification in (a)?
Response
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows. The government verified that each individual being appointed to the Senate met their constitutional residency requirement prior to their appointment. The government requested copies of valid photo identification indicating the individual’s address, as well as copies of bills, statements, or other documentation in the individual’s name, indicating their place of residence. In the case of appointment recommendations for the province of Quebec, the government used the information provided to verify whether the individual resided in one of the vacant senatorial divisions.

Question No. 201--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With respect to admission fees to National Parks, Marine Conservation Areas and national historic sites: (a) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that admission fees are collected; (b) what procedures does the government have in place to ensure that these policies are followed with large groups and with groups arriving in National Parks by train or on tour buses; (c) in its planning of revenue, does the government account for an estimate of uncollected admission fees in National Parks, Marine Conservation areas, and national historic sites; (d) if so, how much was this estimate for each of the past ten years; (e) what is the anticipated loss of revenue for National Parks, Marine Conservation Areas and national historic sites resulting from offering free admission to all visitors in 2017, and to some visitors beginning in 2018; (f) what plans does the government have in place to address the revenue gap left by providing free admission for all visitors in 2017, and for some visitors beginning in 2018; and (g) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential risks to wildlife and ecological integrity related to anticipated increases in visitors due to free admission to National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Parks Canada entry fees are fixed pursuant to the Parks Canada Agency Act in compliance with the Canada National Parks Act and are collected as per the Parks Canada user fees and revenue management policy.
With regard to (b), the Parks Canada user fees and revenue management policy applies to the collection of all fees from individuals, families, groups, and commercial groups. The Parks Canada directive on revenue comptrollership for user fees establishes a standard method for the collection and recording of user fee revenues for all types of services, including entry for large groups and for groups arriving in national parks by train or on tour buses.
With regard to (c), Parks Canada does not account for revenues that are not collected.
Part (d) is therefore not applicable.
With regard to part (e), the federal budget of 2016 announced up to $83.3 million over five years to provide free admission for all visitors to national parks, national marine conservation areas, and national historic sites operated by Parks Canada in 2017, the 150th anniversary of Confederation, and to provide free admission for all children under the age of 18 beginning in 2018.
With regard to (f), the response is included in the response to part (e).
With regard to (g), national parks are designed as an interface between visitors and Canada’s natural heritage. Projected attendance for national parks in 2017 is not expected to exceed peak attendance figures recorded in 2002. Ecological integrity monitoring is in place in all national parks to assure that valued aspects of the ecosystem are conserved. This data is reviewed and analyzed on a systematic basis for departmental performance reporting and planning purposes. For the national parks that are accessible by road, approximately 20% of the agency’s ecological integrity indicators—or roughly three ecological integrity indicators per park—are potentially sensitive to increased visitation and will be observed and analyzed in 2017. Parks Canada will have sufficient information to protect its park ecosystems.

Question No. 202--
Mr. Alain Rayes:
With regard to Budget 2016: what is the total number of hours paid by the government to employees and contractors for preparing the budget, and what is the cost associated with those hours of work?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the preparation of the budget is at the core of the Department of Finance’s mandate and is a year-long process. As such, the department does not track the hours of work nor the cost associated with this work.
The total costs of contracted services (but not itemized by hours of work) relating to the printing and editing/translation of Budget 2016, not itemized by hours of work, were $490,334.63 and $111,244.52, respectively.

Question No. 220--
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
With regard to the planned full-time staffing complement of Kistilano Coast Guard Station: (a) how many full-time staff will have Rigid Hull Inflatable Operator Training certification; (b) how many full-time staff will have a Master Mariner certificate; (c) how many full-time staff will be 60 ton or higher certified; (d) how many full-time staff will be 150 ton certified; (e) how many full-time staff will have a Watchkeeper certificate; and (f) will the station be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, members will please note the base became operational May 1, 2016. With regard to the planned full-time staffing complement at the Kitsilano Coast Guard base, with planning currently under way:
and with regard to (a), one deck crew member shall have certification for rigid hull inflatable operator’s training, RHIOT, on each crew.
With regard to (b), a Master Mariner certificate will not be required for command of a vessel at Kitsilano, although there may be times when an individual’s certificate of competency exceeds requirements.
With regard to (c), a Master, Limited for a vessel of 60 tons or more will not be required for command of a vessel at Kitsilano, although there may be times when an individual’s certificate of competency exceeds requirements. A Master, Limited for a vessel of less than 60 tons is planned as a minimum requirement for command of the pollution response vessel at Kitsilano. There are two full-time staff proposed.
With regard to (d), a Master, 150 tons, is proposed for two full-time staff as a minimum requirement for command of the SAR vessel to be procured.
With regard to (e), a Watchkeeping Mate certificate is not proposed as required, although there may be times when an individual’s certificate of competency exceeds requirements.
With regard to (f), the Kitsilano Coast Guard base is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year.

Question No. 221--
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the construction of the Site C hydroelectric dam in northeastern British Columbia: (a) how many DFO staff members are responsible for monitoring the project’s compliance with fish habitat protections; (b) how many independent environmental monitors are responsible for the project’s compliance with fish habitat protections; (c) how many onsite DFO inspections have taken place since construction began and when did they take place; (d) how many onsite inspections have independent environmental monitors conducted since construction began and when did they take place; and (f) has the Ministry consulted with local First Nations to measure the impact of the project on their fishing rights?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), four staff members from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, have been involved in monitoring the project’s compliance with the fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. This includes three staff from DFO’s fisheries protection program and one from DFO’s conservation and protection program. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the BC Environmental Assessment Office are also conducting periodic monitoring for compliance with binding conditions from the federal and provincial environmental assessments.
With regard to (b), DFO does not utilize independent environmental monitors to monitor project compliance with the fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. An independent environmental monitor is a requirement of the environmental assessment certificate issued by the province of B.C. for the project. As a result, the number of independent monitors is determined by the BC Environmental Assessment Office.
With regard to (c), four on-site inspections have taken place since DFO issued the Fisheries Act authorization for site preparation works for the project on September 30, 2015. These site visits were conducted by fisheries protection program staff on November 26, 2016, November 27, 2016, and March 30, 2016, and an inspection by DFO’s conservation and protection program staff was undertaken on October 28, 2015.
With regard to (d), the requirement for an independent environmental monitor is a condition of the provincial environmental assessment certificate for the project and the frequency of inspections is determined by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office.
With regard to (f), yes, the department has consulted and continues to consult with local First Nations in relation to the potential impacts of the project. Consultations occurred during the environmental assessment process for the project and more recently during consideration of regulatory approvals for the project. Consultation efforts remain ongoing with respect to the application for a Fisheries Act authorization that has been made to the department for the construction of the main civil works and operations of the facility.

Question No. 241--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and each First Nation reserve community: (a) how many fires have there been in all First Nations reserve communities since 2006, broken down by year; (b) which communities have their own fire departments; (c) for each community mentioned in (b), which ones have functional firefighting equipment; and (d) which communities have agreements with nearby municipalities to provide firefighting services?
Response
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and its special operating agency, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, are concerned: INAC provides core capital funding to each First Nation community on an annual basis through the capital facilities and maintenance program.
First Nations prioritize spending to meet their requirements for community services, including fire protection. First Nations communities are not required to provide detailed reports on their funding decisions with their core funding, including those relating to fire protective services.
With regard to (a), the annual breakdown of reported fires is as follows: in 2006, 1025; in 2007, 1572; in 2008, 1472; in 2009, 1252; in 2010, 954.
In 2010, a decision was taken to stop collecting data of fire incidents on reserve in order to reduce the reporting burden on First Nations.
INAC will work with partner organizations, including the Aboriginal Firefighters Association of Canada, on new options to address the fire data gaps on reserve.
With regard to (b), (c), and (d), First Nations manage fire protection services on reserve and are responsible for making specific decisions regarding fire protection services under the annual core capital funding they receive from INAC. First Nations may establish their own fire departments, or contract fire protection services from nearby communities through a municipal transfer service agreement.

Question No. 243--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the Department of Employment and Social Development, since the inception of the Housing First program: (a) how many units of affordable housing, broken down by province, have been created for (i) seniors, (ii) families; (b) what impact has the Housing First program had on reducing homelessness, broken down by province; (c) how many total new housing spaces have been created that are identified as affordable, broken down by province; and (d) how many new affordable housing spaces have been created in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, and Ottawa?
Response
Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government’s homelessness partnering strategy, HPS, aims to prevent and reduce homelessness in Canada. The strategy provides direct financial support to 61 urban communities as well as aboriginal and rural and remote communities across Canada. This direct financial support gives communities flexibility to invest in proven approaches that reduce homelessness at the local level. To strengthen the work of communities in their efforts to help homeless Canadians find stable housing, budget 2016 announced an additional $111.8 million in funding for the strategy over two years. This substantial new investment builds on the program’s existing investment of nearly $600 million over five years in 2014-2019 with a focus on the Housing First approach.
The HPS does not fund affordable housing spaces. It focuses on coordinating and providing services to help homeless individuals to access stable housing, as well as wraparound support services to help individuals maintain their housing following placement.
Given that the renewed strategy was recently launched, in 2014, and that the Housing First approach was gradually phased in among communities, the impact that the approach has had on reducing homelessness is not yet available nationally or provincially.

Question No. 254--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to prawn-by-trap licenses issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Coast Guard: (a) how many First Nations fishermen owned prawn-by-trap licenses before the limited prawn-by-trap entry was imposed in November 1989; (b) how many First Nations prawn-by-trap licenses were grandfathered as a result of the November 1989 limitation; and (c) how many First Nations prawn-by-trap licenses exist as of this date?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the department does not track what licence holders are aboriginal or affiliated with aboriginal organizations. The issuance of commercial licences for the prawn-by-trap fishery does not require individuals to self-identify as aboriginal persons or require entities to identify affiliations with aboriginal organizations. Communal commercial licences are identified by the First Nation organization or community.
With regard to (b), as explained, the department does not track this information.
With regard to (c), 57 communal commercial prawn-by-trap licences have been issued to First Nations communities since 1993, the start of the allocation transfer program. The department does not track how many other regular commercial prawn-by-trap licences are held by aboriginal individuals or aboriginal organizations.

Question No. 255--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Statistics Canada 2016 census questionnaire: (a) what is the number of individuals who have refused to respond to the census questions by the mandated May 31, 2016, deadline; (b) what is the number of individuals referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for further action for refusing to respond to the census questions; and (c) what is the number of prosecutions currently being undertaken by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada against individuals who refused to respond to the census questions?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), May 31, 2016, is not a mandated deadline by which individuals must respond to the census questions. If an individual has initially refused to complete a census questionnaire, the Chief Statistician will send a registered letter that requests that the questionnaire be completed properly, certified as accurate, and returned by a specific date. This step will occur in August 2016.
With regard to parts (b) and 9c), Statistics Canada has not yet reached this stage in the collection process.

Question No. 262--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and contracts: (a) what contracts have been issued by the PMO from November 4, 2015, to present; and (b) for each of the contracts identified in (a), which were awarded without a competitive bidding process?
Response
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister’s Office did not issue any contracts from November 4, 2015 to present.

Question No. 263--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington from March 9 to 11, 2016: (a) how many guests who are not employees of the government were invited to events during the visit; and (b) how much money was spent to support the attendance of these guests?
Response
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the Privy Council Office has no information on the number of guests invited to events during the visit who are not employees of the Canadian government. Invitations to events would have been issued by the host government and/or organization.
With regard to part (b) of the question, the cost of attendance for non-government employees at the events organized by the Government of the United States and/or any third party was covered by the host government and/or organization.

Question No. 267--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the 2016 Census: (a) has all personal data collected from Canadians thus far been handled in a safe and secure manner; (b) how many additional resources have been dedicated to follow up on those who have not completed the Census yet; (c) have any census workers raised concerns with regard to their safety or the safety of the data they have collected from the public; (d) has the government moved forward with prosecuting any individuals for failing to respond to the 2016 request; and (e) what is the final date for those who have not completed the 2016 Census to do so before facing prosecution?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), there have been six incidents where completed questionnaires have not yet been accounted for within the process for the return of questionnaires or provided to another household in error rather than providing a blank questionnaire. It is possible that the completed questionnaires that have not yet been accounted for within the return process will be located during reconciliation at the processing centre. Instances have been small in number relative to the millions of questionnaires collected and have not elicited any major concerns about the collection processes. As part of field collection procedures, reports are filed for all incidents related to potential information and privacy breaches. Incidents involving breach or potential breach of confidentiality for census data are escalated to the director of Statistics Canada’s information management division. Each case is reviewed individually and appropriate actions are taken to correct the situation and to reduce the probability of any future occurrences.
With regard to part (b), Statistics Canada has hired 27,896 staff to conduct follow-up activities on non-responding households.
With regard to part (c), Statistics Canada takes the health and safety of its employees very seriously and has procedures to report any safety incidents or accidents. In locations deemed as potentially higher risk for safety issues, proactive precautionary measures are taken to ensure the safety of all census workers, such as pairing enumerators during follow-up. Some census enumerators have reported concerns regarding health and safety over the course of collection activities. Statistics Canada responds promptly to each concern on a case-by-case basis. There have been no concerns raised by the staff with respect to the safety of the data they have collected.
With regard to part (d), Statistics Canada has not yet reached this stage in the collection process.
With regard to part (e), if an individual has initially refused to complete a census questionnaire, the Chief Statistician will send a registered letter that requests that the questionnaire be completed properly, certified as accurate, and returned by a specific date. This step will occur in August 2016.

Question No. 269--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to federal transfers for palliative care and home care, how much has been designated by the government for palliative care and home care, broken down by province and territory?
Response
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is working toward the development of a new health accord, including a $3-billion investment in home care. The government looks forward to announcing details once an agreement has been finalized.

Question No. 276--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to tax revenue from marijuana dispensaries, how much total tax revenue has the Canada Revenue Agency collected from marijuana dispensaries since November 4, 2015?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for the period November 4, 2015 to June 10, 2016, the CRA is unable to provide a response to the question as the administrative reporting system utilized does not currently include a specific category for marijuana dispensaries.
With regard to goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax, GST/HST, administration and income tax administration, the current reporting requirements that define the primary business activities of a given corporation are based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Canada 2012 industry classification standard. These NAICS standards are jointly developed and maintained by Statistics Canada and its counterparts in the United States and Mexico, and do not yet include a unique category for marijuana dispensaries. Further information on the NAICS is available at www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/naics/2012/index.
Nevertheless, GST/HST applies on all taxable supplies made by GST/HST registrants. A taxpayer is generally required to register if the value of their supplies or services exceeds $30,000 per year. From a GST/HST perspective, marijuana is considered a taxable supply and would be subject to tax if made by a GST/HST registrant. All dispensaries/shops that are registered for GST/HST are required to collect and remit the GST/HST on the supply of marijuana. Additionally, from an income tax perspective, income earned from a marijuana dispensary or shop is taxable, and should be reported as business income. According to the Income Tax Act and to the Excise Tax Act, all income, from either legal or illegal activities, is taxable and is to be reported. Taxpayers and GST/HST registrants suspected of deriving income from illegal activities are risk assessed and appropriate compliance actions are taken by the CRA, working closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provincial and local police, and other law enforcement agencies.

Question No. 277--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: (a) what were the total costs incurred as a result of changing the department’s name; (b) what related costs were incurred to reflect the department’s new name, and specifically what was spent on (i) signage, (ii) stationary, (iii) business cards, (iv) promotional materials?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the amount is $9,326.26.
With regard to part (b), the amounts are as follows: signage, $8,361.70 stationery, $716.42; business cards, $248.14; and promotional materials, nil.

Question No. 284--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to Temporary Foreign Worker inspections: how many have been conducted since November 4, 2015?
Response
Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, between November 4, 2015 and June 14, 2016 the department has completed 2,440 inspections on employers who have used the temporary foreign worker program. These include regular employer compliance reviews, random and risk-based inspections, and reviews under ministerial instruction.

Question No. 286--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to mortgages backed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: (a) how many such mortgages exist; and (b) what is the total dollar value of those mortgages?
Response
Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), as of March 31, 2016, as per Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s “Quarterly Financial Report”, available on its website at www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca, the number of CMHC mortgage loans in force was 2,625,329. In response to (b), the dollar value was $520 billion.

Question No. 288--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the new interview and selection process for Senate appointments: (a) how many applicants were interviewed (i) by phone, (ii) in person; (b) of the applications in (a), who performed the interviews; (c) of the applications in (a), what process was put in place in order to determine which applicants were interviewed; (d) of the applications in (a), who decided which applicants would be interviewed; (e) what costs were involved in the interview process; (f) how many recommended nominees were sent to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) for final decision; (g) were written recommendations made for the nominees, and, if so, what are the details of these written recommendations; (h) what was the travel cost for each interview done; and (i) were any memos sent to the PMO regarding the nominees, and, if so, what are the details of these memos?
Response
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows. During the transitional phase of the new Senate appointments process, the independent advisory board for Senate appointments reviewed all 284 candidacies received. A merit-based review was completed to assess the suitability of each of the recommended candidates, in accordance with the terms of reference, and members identified a list of priority candidates they deemed best met the criteria. Members used the nominations, reference letters, resumés or biographies, and personal statements as the basis for their assessment.
Each provincial advisory board of federal and ad hoc members from that province then met to discuss their short lists and to deliberate on the recommendations to the Prime Minister. In discussing their individual assessments, members noted an interesting level of consistency in assessments and in highly rated candidates. No interviews were conducted as part of the transitional process, therefore no costs were incurred.
The advisory board established a list of five qualified candidates for each of five vacancies, for a total of 25 recommended candidates, and provided their advice to the Prime Minister, in accordance with the terms of reference. Recommended candidates were not prioritized; the proposed candidates were listed in alphabetical order. The advice included a short synopsis detailing the merits of each recommended candidate, as well as more detailed information from their candidacy submission.
Information regarding the specific details of the advisory board’s recommendations constitutes advice to the Prime Minister and therefore has been protected under the guiding principles of the Access to Information Act which the government applies, along with the Privacy Act, when processing parliamentary returns.

Question No. 298--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the government’s intention to expand the Canada Pension Plan (CPP): (a) what has the government done to consult employers and stakeholders representing the business community about the possibility of a change in the CPP; (b) what has the government done to consult small businesses about the possibility of a change in the CPP; (c) what feedback has been provided to the Finance Minister and the Department of Finance by businesses and stakeholders with respect to the possibility of expanding CPP; and (d) what feedback has been provided to the Finance Minister and the Department of Finance by Provincial Governments with respect to the possibility of expanding CPP?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government regularly consults with stakeholders on important policy issues. For example, during 2016 pre-budget consultations, tens of thousands of Canadians shared their thoughts through meetings, events, and through online channels, resulting in the highest-ever turnout for pre-budget consultations on record. As part of pre-budget consultations, a number of Canadians and stakeholders shared their views on Canada pension plan, CPP, enhancement, with many voicing their support.
A number of stakeholders representing the business community, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, have provided their views publicly on enhancing the CPP. The impact of CPP enhancement on businesses was an important consideration of federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers in their deliberations on CPP enhancement.
The government was elected, in part, on a commitment to work with provinces and territories, workers, employers, and retiree organizations to enhance the CPP. In December 2015, the government began discussions on enhancing the CPP with provinces and territories.
Since December, the government has worked with provinces and territories extensively and collaboratively to enhance the CPP. This work has culminated in the agreement in principle reached by Canada’s finance ministers on June 20, 2016, which reflects the views of provinces and territories, stakeholders, and Canadians at large.
To address concerns about the impact of a CPP enhancement on businesses and the economy, the increases to CPP contribution rates outlined in the agreement in principle are being gradually phased in over a seven-year period starting in 2019.
This will allow businesses and workers time to adjust to the additional contributions associated with the enhanced program. More information can be obtained from a background document on the agreement in principle found on the Department of Finance Canada website at www.fin.gc.ca/n16/data/16-081_1-eng.asp.

Question No. 299--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the Department of Finance's economic modelling: what effect would raising Canada Pension Plan contribution rates or the cap on pensionable earnings have on (i) number of jobs, (ii) economic output, (iii) disposable income, (iv) private savings, (v) business investment?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on June 20, 2016, Canada’s ministers of finance reached an agreement in principle to enhance the Canada pension plan, CPP. The agreement will strengthen the CPP for future generations of Canadians, increasing income replacement from one-quarter of their eligible earnings to one-third, with an increase to the earnings limit. These changes will be phased in slowly over seven years, from 2019 to 2025, so that the economic impacts are small and gradual.
Once fully in place, the CPP enhancement will increase the maximum CPP retirement benefit by about 50%. The current maximum benefit is $13,110. In today’s dollar terms, the enhanced CPP represents an increase of nearly $7,000, to a maximum benefit of nearly $20,000. Over time, the enhancement is expected to materially increase the incomes of retirees, leading to increased consumption. In addition, the CPP provides a secure, predictable benefit that is fully indexed to inflation and payable for life, which means that Canadians will be able to worry less about outliving their savings in retirement.
The Department of Finance has conducted analyses to estimate the impacts of the CPP enhancement using economic modelling tools. The assumptions used in these models reflect those that are standard throughout the economic literature and best efforts have been made to neither understate the costs nor overstate the benefits of the proposed CPP enhancement. In general, the economic impacts of the CPP enhancement are expected to be net positive over the long term. The short-term impacts posed by increased contribution rates will be very modest and further mitigated by the phase-in of contributions
In response to part (i) regarding the number of jobs, over the long term, employment levels are projected to be permanently higher by between 0.03% and 0.06% relative to the baseline. In the short term, enhancing the CPP will lead to a temporary effect on employment growth. At its maximum impact, this will result in employment being between 0.04% and 0.07% lower relative to its baseline level in the absence of the CPP enhancement. By way of comparison, over the past five years, overall employment growth averaged roughly 1.1% per year. In this context, the impact on the overall labour market from the enhancement will be very limited. While the short-term impacts would be very modest, middle-class families and the whole of the economy would benefit long term.
In response to part (ii) regarding economic output, in the long term, real GDP is estimated to be between 0.05% and 0.09% higher than under the status quo as a result of the CPP enhancement. Compared to the status quo growth track of GDP, the level of output is projected to be a maximum of between 0.03% and 0.05% lower over the phase-in period. In this context, GDP would continue to grow in the short term, albeit at a slightly slower rate. By way of comparison, the measures contained in budget 2016 are projected to increase the level of GDP by 0.5% in 2016-17 and 1% in 2017-18.
In response to part (iii) regarding disposable income, over the long term, as CPP benefits increase and the positive impacts on output kick in, disposable income is projected to be higher by 0.2% to 0.4% relative to the status quo. In the short term, disposable income over the phase-in period is projected to be 0.03% to 0.06% lower than under status quo. Again, this short-term impact would be more than offset by the long-term economic benefits.
In response to part (iv) regarding private savings, the CPP enhancement would increase overall retirement savings. There will be a modest reduction in private savings as Canadians rebalance their savings decisions to account for enhanced CPP benefits. In the short term, private savings are expected to decline by between 0.5% and 1.3% per year. Over the long term, it is expected that the cumulative amount of private savings will be about 7% lower than under the status quo, reflecting the reduced need for Canadians to rely on their own savings to maintain their standard of living in retirement.
In response to part (v) regarding business investment, over the long term, the level of investment is projected to be 0.03% higher as higher aggregate savings through the CPP will increase the amount of financing available for investment. In the short term, business investment is projected to be 0.03% to 0.06% lower relative to the status quo over the phase-in period.

Question No. 300--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the Department of Finance's analysis of the economic impact of Budget 2016: (a) what econometric model and data sources were used to generate the job and GDP estimates; (b) what is the basis for the multipliers used; (c) was consideration given to the effect of higher levels of consumer debt; (d) does the economic model in Budget 2016 account for the regional breakdown of planned government spending and differences in the output gap across regions; (e) does the economic model in Budget 2016 account for the effects of currency appreciation; (f) what is the assumed lag time before infrastructure, housing, and program spending affects the real economy; (g) was the economic model in Budget 2016 reviewed by economists outside the Department; (h) if the answer to (g) is in the affirmative, why; (i) if the answer to (g) is in the negative, why not?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), to generate the economic impact of the measures presented in budget 2016, the Department of Finance used its Canadian economic and fiscal model, CEFM, along with social and economic data from Statistics Canada and aggregate tax collection and refunds data from Canada Revenue Agency.
In response to part (b), shocks were performed on the macroeconomic variables within CEFM corresponding to various fiscal measures, e.g., non-residential investment, housing investment and taxes. The response of GDP to these simulations forms the basis for the multipliers.
In response to part (c), yes. The consumption equation in CEFM takes into account net financial assets, which is affected by household indebtedness.
In response to part (d), CEFM is a national model and as such does not consider any regional dimension surrounding government spending or economic output.
In response to part (e), the exchange rate is an endogenous variable in CEFM, i.e., the model takes the exchange rate into account. Using a standard Hicksian IS-LM framework, in an open economy, a floating exchange rate responds to fiscal stimulus, i.e., appreciates, via changes in the interest rate. However, in the context of budget 2016, it is highly unlikely that interest rates, and thus the exchange rate, would move: with very weak projected economic growth and interest rates close to their lower bound, the LM curve is likely to be flat and thus rates unlikely to respond to changes in government spending or taxation; this assumes that the Bank of Canada would take a hands-off approach to rising domestic interest rates in the face of a weak economic situation; and, other factors affecting the currency in an uncertain global environment—‘risk on/risk-off’ capital flows, oil and other commodity price changes, etc.— would likely dominate any impact that measures contained in budget 2016 might have on domestic interest rates.
In response to part (f), based on the assumed spending profile, the impact of infrastructure and housing measures is expected to begin positively impacting the economy in 2016 quarter three with the peak impact occurring in 2017 quarter four.
In response to part (g), CEFM, the model used to provide the economic and fiscal forecasts in all budgets and updates, is not reviewed by economists outside the department as such. However, the department has, in the past, published working papers detailing the structure and dynamic properties of the model on the department website. The department also regularly discusses aspects of the model and its characteristics with organizations such as the PBO.
Part (h) is not applicable.
In response to part (i), beyond the model generally, and with respect to the multiplier estimates specifically, in the 2009 budget the Department of Finance contracted the Conference Board of Canada and the University of Toronto’s Policy and Economic Analysis Program to estimate fiscal multipliers from their own models and compare them to those used to evaluate the impact of budget 2009 economic action plan stimulus measures. The multipliers estimated by these two organizations were similar to, or higher than, those used by the department in budget 2009. At that time, this suggested that the department’s estimates were reasonable. Since 2009, neither the model used for the department’s analysis, CEFM, nor the resulting multipliers have changed meaningfully. The department again contacted these two organizations to repeat the exercise for budget 2016. However, given the department’s results were not materially different from the 2009 exercise, and in light of the cost involved in re-contracting the two firms, the department deemed that repeating the exercise would not provide value for money and thus not be in the public interest.

Question No. 307--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion: (a) what is the overall budget for the new office; (b) what are the specific projects that the office has funded; and (c) what is the complete list all official statements released by the office since its creation?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a),the new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, OHRFI, which replaces the former ORF, is comprised of three divisions with 36 full-time employees: Human Rights and Indigenous Affairs; Inclusion and Religious Freedom; and Democracy. The overall operations and salary budget for the three divisions within the OHRFI totals $3.04 million. The programming budget dedicated to the promotion of human rights, including religious freedom, will be as much as $15 million, three times the amount originally committed to the former ORF. Programming will aim to promote peaceful pluralism, inclusion, respect for diversity and human rights, including freedom of religion or belief.
In response to (b), since its establishment on May 17, 2016, the new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms ad Inclusion, OHRFI, is working to identify programming opportunities. As a first step, the OHRFI has actively engaged with a multitude of different existing and new stakeholders, including those who have previously received funding through the former office of religious freedom, ORF. As part of this ongoing outreach, stakeholders and potential partners have been encouraged to submit concept papers on a variety of human rights issues, including freedom of religion or belief, peaceful pluralism, inclusion, diversity, and democracy.
In response to (c), the Prime Minister is actively championing all human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, through various platforms, including news releases, media events and social media. In addition, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have empowered Canadian heads of mission—ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general—to speak from the field and promote human rights, freedoms and inclusion online, within conversations with counterparts and publicly with the media. Human rights promotion, including freedom of religion or belief, is now entrenched in our heads of missions’ core objectives and priorities and will be included in their annual performance commitments. Further to statements made domestically and through social media channels, Canada has released a total of 10 stand-alone public statements and nine group statements at the 32nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, June 13, 2016 to July 1, 2016.
These Canadian statements focused on the 10th anniversary of the council; thematic issues including on women and migrants; and specific situations, including Burundi, Syria and Ukraine. Canada also delivered two statements during high-level meetings of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, on April 25 and June 29, 2016.

Question No. 308--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the proposed replacement for the Office of Religious Freedoms: (a) what are the detailed cost estimates of changes to the department and operations of the new office; (b) to reflect the department’s new name, what costs will be incurred on (i) signage, (ii) promotional materials; and (c) what is the overall budget for the new office?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the operations and salary budget for the former office of religious freedom, ORF, comprised of five full-time employees, FTEs, was $720,386 with an annual programming budget of $4.25 million of which $3.75 million was disbursed in fiscal year 2015-16. By comparison, the new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, OHRFI, is comprised of three divisions—Human Rights and Indigenous Affairs; Inclusion and Religious Freedom; and Democracy—with a total of 36 FTEs. The overall operations and salary budget for the three divisions within the OHRFI totals $3.04 million. The programming budget dedicated to the promotion of peaceful pluralism, inclusion, respect for diversity and human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, will be as much as $15 million, three times the amount originally committed to the former ORF.
In response to (b), like the former ORF, the OHRFI does not have dedicated signage or promotional materials. As such, there have been no costs incurred to reflect the new name. In the first few weeks following the establishment of the OHRFI, significant outreach activities were undertaken with domestic stakeholders across Canada to maintain and expand the network previously established by the ORF, share information on the future operations of the office, and consult stakeholders to inform future advocacy and promotion activities. The OHRFI will continue to engage with domestic stakeholders on a regular basis, and continue to work closely with Canadian and international members of civil society, religious groups, academics and NGOs, to best leverage Canada’s pluralist experience as a multicultural and multi-faith country.
In response to (c), as noted in (a) above, the operations and salary budget for the new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion totals $3.04 million. The programming budget dedicated to the promotion of peaceful pluralism, respect for diversity and human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, will be as much as $15 million, three times the amount originally committed to the former ORF.

Question No. 309--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project Ministerial Panel: (a) what is the planned budget for the panel; (b) how many meetings will take place with stakeholders; (c) how many of its meetings will be open to the public, and for each, what advertising was undertaken to make the public aware of the meeting; (d) for each of its meetings, what are the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) number of people attending, (iv) organizations represented by attendees and contributors, (v) costs associated with the attendance of a Minister or ministerial staff member, (vi) travel-related costs associated with the attendance of departmental staff, (vii) aggregated costs dispersed to organizations or individuals in order to support their attendance at or contribution to the meeting, (viii) total cost associated with the meeting not already listed, including for room rentals, catering, translation, provision of documentation, and other related costs; and (e) what is total spending to date on the panel?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), up to $500,000.00 Canadian has been budgeted to support the work of the panel.
In response to (b), all meetings will take place with stakeholders.
In response to (c), on June 30, 2016, the panel announced a series of roundtable and town hall meetings along the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline and marine corridors in Alberta and British Columbia. Further information on meeting times and exact location was released as it became available. All of the panel’s publicly announced meetings were open to the public. Information on these meetings is available on the panel’s web pages and was communicated to the public through traditional and social media.
In response to (d)(i) and (ii), the panel held 44 public meetings in Alberta and British Columbia communities as follows: July 7, 2016, in Calgary, Alberta; July 8, 2016, in Edmonton, Alberta; July 9, 2016, in Jasper, Alberta; July 19 and 20, 2016, in Kamloops, British Columbia; July 21, 2016, in Chilliwack, British Columbia; July 26, 2016, in Abbotsford, British Columbia; July 27 and 28, 2016, in Langley, British Columbia; August 9 to11, 2011, in Burnaby, British Columbia; August 16 to 18, 2016, in Vancouver, British Columbia; August 19, 2016, in North Vancouver, British Columbia; and August 22 and 23, 2016, Victoria, British Columbia
In response to (d)(iii), all of the panel’s publicly announced meetings were open to both invited speakers as well as members of the public. Over 2,400 Canadians attended these public meetings, and more than 650 made presentations to the panel.
In response to (d)(iv), over 200 stakeholder groups were invited to meet with the panel, regardless of their previous status before the National Energy Board. Input will also be accepted via email or an online questionnaire until September 30, 2016.
In response to (d)(v) (vi) (vii) (viii), up to $500,000.00 Canadian has been budgeted to support the work of the panel. This amount includes costs outlined in subquestions (v) to (viii).
In response to (e), as of September 7, 2016, total spending on the panel was approximately $245,000.

Question No. 312--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Canada's Defence Policy Review: (a) what is the planned budget for the panel; (b) how many of its meetings will take place with stakeholders; (c) how many of its meetings will be open to the public, and for each one, what advertising was undertaken to make the public aware of the meeting; (d) for each meeting in (c) in total, and broken down by meeting, what are the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) number of people attending, (iv) organizations represented by attendees and contributors, (v) costs associated with the attendance of a Minister or Ministerial staff member, if applicable, (vi) travel-related costs associated with the attendance of Departmental staff, (vii) aggregated costs dispersed to organizations or individuals in order to support their attendance at or contribution to the meeting, (viii) total cost associated with the meeting not already listed, including room rentals, catering, translation, provision of documentation, and other related costs; and (e) what is the total spending to date on the panel?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), all costs associated with the defence policy review, including the activities of the ministerial advisory panel, will be paid for from the department's existing budget. All costs will be captured throughout the process and reported on at the conclusion of the review through normal channels.
The estimated total cost for the panel is forecasted to be $309,000.00 based on current requirements and scope of work. This estimate is subject to change and will be routinely updated.
In response to part (b), the role of the ministerial advisory panel is to provide direct advice to the Minister of National Defence on the defence policy review process and to test ideas and challenge approaches, leveraging the unique insight and accomplished perspectives of the panel members. To support this mandate, the ministerial advisory panel meets monthly and these meetings do not involve participation from stakeholders.
In response to part (c), as the meetings of the ministerial advisory panel are held between the panel, ministerial and departmental staff, and meant to provide the Minister of National Defence with advice on the defence policy review, they are not open to the public. However, at least one member of the panel has participated in all of the meetings in the cross-Canada series of roundtables convened separately as well as other fora organized by outside public organizations.
In response to part (d), as there are no meetings listed in the answer to part (c), there are no costs associated either.
In response to part (e), total spending related to the ministerial advisory panel and its activities is $192,499.57 to August 16, 2016. These expenses include both funds committed and expended and may be adjusted as travel and stipend claims are processed.

Question No. 313--
Hon. Tony Clement:
With regard to the ongoing dialogue between Canada and the Russian Federation since November 4, 2015: (a) has the Prime Minister of Canada spoken directly to the President of the Russian Federation; (b) has the Prime Minister of Canada spoken directly with the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation; (c) has the Minister of Global Affairs spoken directly with the President of the Russian Federation; (d) has the Minister of Global Affairs spoken directly with the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Russian Federation; (e) what topics were discussed for each of the meetings listed in (a), (b), (c), and (d); (f) what other dialogue has been held between officials of the Russian Federation and officials representing Canada; (g) what topics were discussed in the dialogue mentioned in (f); (h) has the case of Sergei Magnitsky been discussed in the dialogue mentioned in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f); (i) has the Russian Federation, through its President, Foreign Minister, or officials, requested that Canada refrain from adopting legislation concerning Russian officials involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, and, if so, what was Canada’s response; (j) has the Russian Federation requested through its President, Foreign Minister, or officials, that Canada refrain from criticizing Russia on the subject of Ukraine or Crimea, and, if so, what was Canada’s response; and (k) has the subject of human rights been discussed between any representative of Canada and any representative of the Russian Federation, and, if so, what was the response from the Russian Federation?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has been explicit in its condemnation of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine but also understands the value of engagement, that dialogue can lead to improvements for Canada, for Ukraine and for global security.
In November 2015, the Prime Minister had a brief conversation with President Putin on the margins of the G20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey. The Prime Minister communicated that although Canada has indicated its intentions to broaden its engagement, Canada remains deeply concerned over Russian interference in Ukraine. The Prime Minister also reiterated Canada’s strong and unequivocal support for Ukraine and called on Russia to fully engage and implement the Minsk agreements, in order to end the violence and bring about a peaceful and durable solution in eastern Ukraine.
Since this initial exchange, the Government of Canada has indicated that dialogue and diplomacy are important in the conduct of international affairs, including with countries with which Canada has a profound disagreement. This government’s engagement strategy allows us to continue to hold Russia to account, including in regard to its actions in eastern Europe.
Canada has been re-establishing channels of direct dialogue with Russia, with eyes wide open, in order to advance Canadian interests and express Canadian values, on issues such as the Arctic, global security and human rights.
Canada’s engagement is taking place gradually and incrementally, and is being conducted in accordance with the interests at stake. Issues of Canadian national interest have been discussed in both the bilateral format and in the multilateral context, including, for example, at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and in the United Nations Human Rights Council. Canada’s engagement with Russia will continue to include clear messages regarding Russia’s unacceptable actions in Ukraine and the maintenance of sanctions until Russia implements the Minsk agreements in full. Canada has announced the deployment of troops to Latvia for a mission of deterrence against Russian aggression.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs utilized his full bilateral meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on the margins of the ASEAN regional forum in July to speak clearly and frankly to Russia about the unacceptability of Russia’s action against Ukraine, and to make plain to Russia Canada’s expectation that Russia deliver on its Minsk commitments and demonstrate respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He also engaged in firm discussions on Syria and NATO, and used the meeting to advance Canada’s interest, including with regard to the Arctic and counterterrorism.

Question No. 314--
Hon. Tony Clement:
With regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ stated intention to reengage with Iran following the cutting of diplomatic ties in 2012: (a) can the government confirm that officials from Global Affairs Canada have been in contact with officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to reengaging in diplomatic relations between Canada and Iran; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, at what levels are the talks between Canada and Iran being held; (c) is the evaluation or analysis of reopening a Canadian mission in Tehran complete; (d) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, what are the details of the evaluation; (e) if the answer to (c) is in the negative, what is the status of the evaluation; (f) has a security audit been conducted on the safety of Canadian personnel in a future mission in Tehran; (g) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, what are the expenses so far for the evaluation or analysis mentioned in (c); and (h) if (f) is in the affirmative, what are the expenses so far for the security audit mentioned in (f) and have stakeholders such as Iranian-Canadians been consulted in relation to the reopening of a mission in Tehran?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), officials from Global Affairs Canada, GAC, have had preliminary discussions with officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran, as publicly stated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This government is committing to re-engaging with Iran in a responsible and step-by-step manner. This is a harder path than the one chosen by the previous government, but it is the best way to make real progress in promoting human rights and protecting Canada’s friends and allies.
With respect to (b) and (e), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information has been withheld on the grounds that the disclosure of certain information could be injurious to the conduct of international affairs.
In response to (c), no. Discussions on re-engagement are at their preliminary stages. There is no precise timeline for the potential re-establishment of a Canadian diplomatic presence in Iran.
Part (d) is not applicable as the answer to (c) is not in the affirmative.
In response to (f), the safety and security of Canadian personnel is of paramount importance and will be a key consideration in any decision to re-establish a Canadian diplomatic presence in Iran. There is no precise timeline for the potential re-establishment of such a presence in Iran.
Part (g) is not applicable as the answer to (c) is not in the affirmative.
Part (h) is not applicable as the answer to (f) is not in the affirmative on the question of a security audit. GAC has not organized consultations on the reopening of a Canadian mission in Tehran.

Question No. 319--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the additional $331.5 million in humanitarian funding announced by the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie on May 24, 2016: (a) what agencies are receiving this new funding; (b) what process was used to determine which agencies would receive this funding; (c) what process was used to determine how much funding was allocated to each agency; (d) was this funding targeted to specific regions or countries; and (e) if the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, what process was used to determine targeting of the funding?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the agencies receiving this new funding include United Nations agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
United Nations agencies receiving funding include: World Food Programme, WFP; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR; United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF; International Organization for Migration, IOM,; Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA; and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO.
Non-governmental organizations receiving funding include: Action Contre la Faim, ACF; ACTED; Adventist Development and Relief Agency, ADRA, Canada; CARE Canada; Canadian Lutheran World Relief, CLWR; Concern Worldwide; Development and Peace; Hope International Development Agency; L’Oeuvre Léger; Médecins du Monde Canada, MdM; Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF; Norwegian Refugee Council, NRC; Oxfam Canada; Oxfam-Québec; Save the Children Canada; World Relief Canada; and World Vision Canada.
In response to (b), the process whereby agencies are selected for funding involves an assessment of multiple factors.
First, an agency’s project proposal or funding appeal is assessed to determine whether their proposed response addresses prioritized humanitarian needs and is appropriate given the context, as well as their level of access to vulnerable populations.
Second, agencies are assessed based on their level of in-country experience, track record for delivering results, technical and logistical capacity, and support for coordination efforts and leadership in key sectors of the response.
Additional considerations include the degree to which an agency’s proposed response is aligned with their organizational strengths, their integration of gender and environmental concerns, and their overall value-added relative to other agencies.
Third, the capacity and performance of the agency at the global level, particularly its history of delivering results with previous Global Affairs Canada funding, is reviewed to inform the country-level assessment. These multiple assessments are then combined to determine the degree to which an agency is best placed to respond to identified humanitarian needs relative to other actors.
Global Affairs Canada gathers and analyzes information on an ongoing basis from various sources to ensure that recommendations are evidence-based and represent an appropriate use of Canadian public funds. Consultations are also undertaken with relevant divisions within the department and with field missions, drawing on the depth of their country knowledge and situational awareness.
The decision to allocate funding across United Nations agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and non-governmental organizations allows Global Affairs Canada to take advantage of their respective comparative advantages. Moreover, funding diverse actors in a humanitarian response helps Global Affairs Canada manage risk by ensuring that if any one project experiences challenges in being fully implemented, overall humanitarian activities are able to continue.
In response to (c), the process for determining funding levels varies according to the type of agency. Larger United Nations organizations, such as the World Food Programme as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross, have a greater capacity to quickly absorb funding to scale up operations. They therefore issue larger funding appeals that cover their countrywide or regional responses and can be on the order hundreds of millions of dollars. Global Affairs Canada’s contribution to these appeals is based on Canada’s traditional burden share of the international donor response, which typically ranges from two to three per cent. The level of this contribution will also depend on the relative capacity of an agency in a given context, the degree to which their response is aligned with priority needs, and their ability to access affected populations. In contrast, non-governmental organizations issue specific project proposals to Global Affairs Canada that have a more narrow geographic focus and range of activities. These proposals seek relatively smaller amounts of funding from Global Affairs Canada, which typically serves as the primary and often only government donor to a project.
In response to (d) and (e), Canada’s humanitarian assistance is provided according to need. Global Affairs Canada allocates funding in a way that is proportional to the levels of need across crises and does not target any specific region or country on any other basis.
The total allocation to a given country is based on the size of the financial requirement outlined in the United Nations humanitarian appeal, an analysis of the scale of needs relative to other crises, the operational capacity of agencies on the ground, as well as their ability to reach affected populations. Canada’s needs-based approach is consistent with its commitment to the principles and best practices of good humanitarian donorship.

Question No. 321--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the instructions laid out in the mandate letter of the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie to consult regarding the creation of a new policy and funding framework to guide Canada’s aid decisions: (a) what international aid organizations have been consulted; (b) how many Canadians participated in these consultations as individuals; (c) what is the governments’ definition of “sustainable growth in the developing world”; and (d) what process will be undertaken to determine how funding will be allocated to projects that will encourage sustainable growth in the developing world?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since the launch of the public consultation phase of the international assistance review on May 18, 2016, we have consulted a broad spectrum of partners and individuals both in Canada and abroad, such as civil society organizations, United Nations agencies, other international bodies and other governments. The thousands of people consulted were Canadian and non-Canadian, and included civil society organizations, universities and academia, private sector entities, think tanks, foundations, donor and partner governments, aboriginal groups, youth, consultants in the field of international assistance, experts and practitioners, local beneficiaries, as well as international, multilateral, regional and global organizations. While the public consultation period closed on July 31, 2016, our work continues. We are analyzing the many recommendations that we have received in order to shape our future policy, programming, and funding framework. A report on what and from whom we heard will be published in the coming months.
Below are the details on public participation per consultation type: nine high-level events in Canada attended by 575 individuals, including representatives from 177 institutions; 1,213 written submissions through the web portal from Canadians and non-Canadians, including those writing as individuals and on behalf of organizations; 8,043 petition emails received from three different campaigns; and Canadian missions in over 40 countries hosted 220 consultation events; and over 35 working level meetings with civil society organizations, experts, and other government departments organized by Global Affairs in Canada.
With regard to (b), the consultation period closed on July 31, 2016, and numbers are still being tallied. As of July 29, 2016, estimates indicate that over 15,000 people, including Canadians and international stakeholders, have participated in public consultation activities both in Canada and abroad.
With regard to (c), economic growth refers to the increase in a country’s economic output as measured by its gross domestic product, GDP. Broad-based, sustainable growth means taking targeted steps to deepen the reach of economic growth to include the poor, marginalized groups, women and youth. Distribution of growth is important. High and rising inequality can reduce the potential for growth and limit its effect on poverty reduction, an important consideration for government interventions. Environmental sustainability is an essential part of sustainable growth because environmental degradation affects the health and incomes of the world's poorest people.
With regard to (d), to support Canada’s international assistance review, the government reached out to partners, both in Canada and abroad, to discuss how the government can respond better to the challenges and opportunities presented by the new global context, including the prioritization of sustainable economic growth in developing countries. The government will draw from the outcomes of the international assistance review when considering the future allocation of resources. As new priorities emerge, the government will continue to apply a robust lens to all programming decisions to ensure that Canada’s contributions have a real and sustainable impact.

Question No. 322--
Hon. Peter Kent:
With regard to the Global Affairs Canada's international development program and in light of statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in March, 2016: (a) has the Department reached a decision regarding the resumption of humanitarian aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), and if so, what is the sum UNRWA should expect to receive; and (b) will the Department have a protocol in place to follow up with the relevant UNRWA representatives to ensure the funds are not mismanaged?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the department has made a recommendation regarding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, UNRWA. No decisions have yet been finalized.
With regard to (b), if Canada were to provide funding to UNRWA, then Global Affairs Canada would apply the same enhanced due diligence measures that are in place for other organizations that implement Canada’s assistance in the West Bank and Gaza. These measures are outlined below.
Global Affairs Canada’s approach to enhanced due diligence for assistance to West Bank and Gaza includes the following. Enhanced due diligence is an essential element in programming and risk management for Global Affairs Canada’s West Bank and Gaza development program. Responsibility for oversight of projects that receive Canadian funding is shared between Global Affairs Canada and the implementing organizations, through up-front due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and audits, evaluations and other reporting.
Most of the due diligence occurs at an early stage in the decision-making process by making strategic choices to engage experienced multilateral, international, and Canadian partner organizations, with an on-the-ground presence, and with strong anti-fraud, anti-corruption, monitoring, and audit and evaluation practices. They are neutral actors with non-political mandates and they adhere to humanitarian principles. As part of Global Affairs Canada’s approach to risk management, a fiduciary risk assessment of the partner is conducted before recommending approval of a project. Potential operational and development risks are also assessed. All proposed programming is thoroughly examined to be consistent with Canadian values and to meet the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
For all assistance projects in the West Bank and Gaza, Global Affairs Canada follows enhanced due diligence procedures to ensure compliance with Canada’s anti-terrorism policy and legislation. This includes the following measures: systematic screening of organizations and their key decision-makers against Government of Canada terrorist lists; clear anti-terrorism requirements and clauses within all funding instruments; clear definitions of the partner’s obligations, roles, and accountabilities for selecting and screening sub-partner organizations; the identification, within each funding instrument, of all of the organizations involved in a project; and ensuring that Global Affairs Canada must approve any proposed changes to the partner organizations involved.
Once a project is operational, monitoring is conducted both by Global Affairs Canada officials in the West Bank and by implementing partners in the field. Global Affairs Canada officials based in Ramallah closely monitor project activities and results through regular site visits, including sites managed by sub-partner organizations; maintain dialogue with implementing partners; and engage with representatives of like-minded donor governments that support similar initiatives or work with the same organizations. Global Affairs Canada also contracts third-party professionals to provide monitoring services to departmental officials. Partner organizations are accountable to Global Affairs Canada for: monitoring their sub-contractors and local counterparts; validating end-use of materials; following authorized procurement procedures; providing regular reporting; and undertaking audits and evaluations.
Monitoring and oversight is conducted by Global Affairs Canada officials and implementing partners. Information collected through regular monitoring ensures that any necessary adjustments can be made immediately, that risks can be managed on an ongoing basis, and that results are being achieved for intended beneficiaries.
Each funding instrument requires partner organizations to provide regular reporting on work plans and activities, financial records, and results achieved. As mentioned above, Global Affairs Canada officials closely monitor projects and partners, and reserve the right to request additional information or clarification from partners as needed, to ensure compliance with the terms of funding instruments, to manage risks, to assess results or to obtain further financial details.

Question No. 323--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to Public Services and Procurement Canada: (a) what were the total costs incurred as a result of changing the Department’s name; and (b) what related costs were incurred to reflect the Department’s new name, and specifically, what was spent on (i) signage, (ii) stationary, (iii) business cards, (iv) promotional materials?
Response
Hon. Judy Foote (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the answer is $545. With regard to (b)(i), it is $545;
With regard to (ii) zero;
With regard to (iii) zero; and
With regard to (iv) zero.

Question No. 326--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the government’s projection presented on page 235 of Budget 2016 showing a 21% increase in Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenues from 2015-2016 to 2020-2021: (a) upon what basis is the government’s projection based; and (b) how much of this forecasted increase will result from an increase in the GST rate?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the government’s projection of goods and services tax, GST, revenues published in Budget 2016 is based on projected growth in taxable consumption, projected growth in the GST/harmonized sales tax credit, and year-to-date results. Overall, GST revenues are projected to grow broadly in line with the outlook for nominal growth of the gross domestic product, GDP.
With regard to (b), the federal GST rate of 5% is maintained over the projection period; therefore, none of the increase in GST revenues is due to a change in the federal GST rate.

Question No. 328--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and specifically, the section which called for the review of the previous government's changes to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Protection Acts, upon what harms or assertions of harm attributed to the previous government’s changes to these two Acts has the government drawn its motivation for mandating a review?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during the legislative process leading up to and since the Fisheries Act was changed in 2012, indigenous groups, stakeholders, and the public have expressed concern with the changes and how they were implemented. Indigenous and environmental groups in particular have argued that the changes weakened fish habitat protections. In particular, many Canadians have raised concerns about the process for legislative change and the lack of consultations.
To address these concerns, the Government of Canada has committed to review the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act and to hold an open discussion on how to protect the aquatic environment and ensure the sustainability of Canada’s fisheries. Consultation will be at the core of this review. The government believes that rebuilding trust begins with a coordinated, open, and transparent process that incorporates scientific evidence, engages parliamentarians, and takes into account input from indigenous people, provinces and territories, and a range of stakeholders, including the public, industry, and environmental groups.

Question No. 329--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the advice issued by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner which called for the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to refrain from participating in any discussions or decision-making processes and any communication with government officials regarding J.D. Irving Ltd., what current matters under the purview of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard will this prevent the Minister from overseeing on Canada’s (i) eastern coast, (ii) western coast, (iii) and northern coasts?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the request of the minister, the minister’s office and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including the Canadian Coast Guard, working in conjunction with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, have identified areas of possible intersection between departmental policy and operations and the application of the minister’s conflict of interest screen pertaining to matters related to his friend James D. Irving and J.D. Irving Limited.
The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s findings and the agreed upon compliance measures are posted on the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s website at www.ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca.

Question No. 334--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to the ongoing Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus outbreak and scientific studies carried out by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: (a) what are the details of the study which explicitly outlined the emergency regulatory protocols and measures with respect to washing hog transport trailers; and (b) what factors contributed to the statements by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on June 2, 2016, that emergency regulatory protocols and measures with respect to washing hog transport trailers were no longer needed in Manitoba?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, it is a legislative requirement under the Health of Animals Regulations that certain swine trucks be cleaned and disinfected prior to entering Canada from the U.S. This science and risk-based requirement has been in place since the 1990s.
After an outbreak of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, or PEDv, in 2014, several industry stakeholders in Manitoba raised concerns about the quality of truck-washing facilities in the U.S. In March 2014, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, implemented a temporary exemption from the regulations at two specific border crossings in Manitoba. The exemption, or the "emergency regulatory protocols and measures" referred to in part (a), was not based on a study, but was implemented in order to allow time to evaluate industry’s concerns.
This exemption allowed the limited number of swine trucks entering Canada from the U.S. at these two crossings to be cleaned and disinfected post-entry. At all other border crossings into Canada, empty swine trucks returning from the U.S. still had to be cleaned and disinfected before entering Canada, as per the Health of Animals Regulations.
Regarding part (b), in June 2015, the CFIA performed a scientific review of documents provided by the swine industry. The evidence that was presented in these documents and in the published scientific literature was not sufficient to conclude that U.S. truck-wash facilities are inferior to Canadian facilities in reducing the probability of introduction of foreign animal diseases into Canadian swine farms.
As a result, the CFIA made a decision to discontinue the temporary exemption and require all trucks entering Canada to meet the cleaning and disinfection requirements in the regulations.

Question No. 336--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Business Risk Management Programs located within the electoral district of Perth—Wellington for each program year of Growing Forward 2: (a) what categories of participant information are tracked and retained in databases or other electronic methods of information storage by the government; (b) how many farms in Perth—Wellington participated in the AgriInvest program broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; (c) what was the total value of all deposits into the AgriInvest program by all participants; (d) how many farms participated in the AgriStability in Perth—Wellington program broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; (e) what is the median reference margin of AgriStability participants in Perth—Wellington broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; (f) how many farms in Perth—Wellington received payments from the AgriStability program broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; (g) what was the total value of payments from the AgriStability program; (h) how many farms in Perth—Wellington received payments from the AgriRecovery program broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; and i) what was the total value of payments from the AgriRecovery program?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, is unable to provide the detailed information requested as program delivery and financial systems do not record transactions by electoral district. Also, the agri-stability and agri-recovery programs are delivered by the provincial government in many jurisdictions, including Ontario. As such, AAFC does not have detailed program participant information related to those programs for the province. Where AAFC delivers business risk management programs, program delivery systems track and retain a participant’s identification and contact information, their production and financial records as required for the program, along with the benefit calculations for the years they participate.

Question No. 340--
Mr. Bob Zimmer):
With regard to judicial appointments: (a) how many candidates have been recommended for appointment by the independent advisory committees between November 4, 2015, and June 15, 2016; and (b) has the Minister of Justice given any formal direction to pause the process of considering potential candidates by advisory committees?
Response
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), 74 candidates were recommended by the independent advisory committees between November 4, 2015, and June 15, 2016.
Regarding part (b), the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, which administers the federal judicial appointments process, has received no direction from the Minister of Justice to pause the process of considering potential candidates by advisory committees.

Question No. 342--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs on May 10, 2016, that the government intends to adopt and implement the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: (a) did the Minister undertake consultations prior to reaching this decision; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, (i) which stakeholder groups were consulted, (ii) which individuals from these groups participated, (iii) where did the consultations occur, (iv) what travel costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder, (v) what per diem costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder, (vi) what accommodation costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder; (c) did the Minister receive any unsolicited views from stakeholder groups, and if so, from which stakeholders; and (d) has the Minister received communications from individual Canadians related to this decision?
Response
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, is concerned, the response is as follows. The Government of Canada’s decision to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples represents the fulfillment of a campaign promise, which was based on extensive engagement with indigenous peoples and other stakeholders from coast to coast both prior to and during the last election. Further, numerous indigenous organizations, communities, and people; industry leaders; and Canadians have publicly called upon the Government of Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Moreover, after eight years of extensive engagement with indigenous and non-indigenous organizations and people in Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued their final report and calls to action in 2015. On December 15, 2015, the Prime Minister accepted the final report and affirmed the government’s commitment to implement all 94 calls to action, including the full adoption, without reservation, of the declaration.
The Government of Canada will work in full partnership with first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, as well as with provinces and territories on an action plan to implement the declaration in accordance with Canada's Constitution.

Question No. 343--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the statement by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs on June 7, 2016 regarding audited statements of First Nations governments: (a) what is the process followed by Departmental staff once a request for audited statements has been received from a member of a First Nation; and (b) in what ways have First Nation band members been made aware of this process?
Response
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, is concerned, with regard to the statement made by the minister on June 7, 2016, the response is as follows: for part (a) of the question. Prior to the implementation of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, FNFTA, if a first nation member did not know how to access their first nation’s financial information, or if they were unable to obtain such information from their first nation directly, they would contact the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs to request a copy of the first nation’s audited consolidated financial statements. Where the individual confirmed that access to the audited financial statements was requested and denied, and provided proof of their membership, the departmental official would provide the audited financial statements directly to the member of the first nation. After the introduction of the FNFTA, if a member of a first nation submitted a request to the department for the audited consolidated financial statements of their first nation, INAC would refer them to the departmental website, where all audited consolidated financial statements are posted when they are received by the department, as per the requirements of the FNFTA.
Regarding part (b) of the question, the funding agreement outlined both the requirement for first nations to make the audited consolidated financial statements and other financial schedules required by INAC available to its membership, and the provision for Canada to make the documents available to members where the first nation did not meet its disclosure requirements. The funding agreement model was published on the departmental website, and first nations were also obliged to share the funding agreement with their members. Over the last two years that the act has been in place, INAC has communicated with first nations and first nation members on the act’s various requirements and processes. In addition, this information has been posted on INAC’s website at www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1399312715586/1399312880474.

Question No. 347--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regards to full-time, part-time, contract, and casual employees of Foreign Affairs Canada working abroad, including local and third-country cooperants and advisors, as of June 15, 2016: how many employees did not have a valid security clearance broken down by the country in which they are working?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of June 15, 2016, all Global Affairs Canada full-time, part-time contract, and casual employees working abroad, including local and third-country co-operants and advisers, had a valid security clearance.
Contractors are not employees of the Government of Canada.
Aboriginal reservesAboriginal self-governmentAboultaif, ZiadAgreements and contractsAllison, DeanAnimal rights and welfareApplication processArnold, MelAssociations, institutions and organizationsAudits and auditorsBains, Navdeep
...Show all topics
Results: 1 - 5 of 5