Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 91
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2019-06-18 23:28 [p.29375]
That is unparliamentary, and I ask the hon. member for Malpeque to apologize for using an unparliamentary word.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1314--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on November 2, 2017, that “Never before in the history of Canada have we seen a redistribution of Canada's wealth to the middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it”: does the government consider this statement to be accurate and, if so, what specific information does the government have to back up this statement?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons were in reference to the government’s efforts to support Canada’s middle class and those working hard to join it and to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. Since coming to office, the government has helped middle-class Canadians by reducing the rate on the second personal income tax bracket from 22% to 20.5%, while asking the wealthiest Canadians to pay a bit more through the introduction of a new top income bracket of 33%. The government has also introduced the Canada child benefit, which is providing increased benefits to nine out of 10 families with children, and which is better targeted to those who need it most compared to the previous system of child benefits. In addition, the government is taking steps to address tax advantages that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
The government is also taking steps to expand opportunities for individuals seeking to join the middle class. Investments in areas such as early learning, child care, and affordable housing will provide a foundation for upward mobility to those who are currently struggling with these needs, while investments in skills training will provide greater opportunities for workers to upgrade their skills and attain better-paying jobs.
Moreover, the government is taking actions to strengthen the position of middle-class workers in the workplace. The government has introduced legislation to restore a fair and balanced approach to organized labour and is working on further legislative changes and other policy options to address emerging issues in the labour market, such as unpaid internships and a fair wages policy for businesses that have dealings with the federal government.
The government supports Canada’s middle class and is working to deliver a more balanced and fair economy where growth is shared by all Canadians and does not just benefit the wealthy.

Question No. 1320--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to the seven Books of Remembrance that lie in the Memorial Chamber in the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill: (a) what is the government going to do to ensure uninterrupted public access to the Books during renovations on the Centre Block; (b) when will these changes take place; and (c) until what date will the alternate arrangements be in place?
Response
Hon. Seamus O'Regan (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Books of Remembrance commemorate the lives of more than 118,000 Canadians who have made the ultimate sacrifice while serving Canada in uniform. During the renovation of the Centre Block, the Books of Remembrance will be located in phase one of the Visitor Welcome Centre in a suitably designed space where public viewing and the daily page-turning ceremony will continue.
It is currently unknown how long the Books of Remembrance will remain in phase one of the Visitor Welcome Centre as the Centre Block renovation is in the early stages of its execution and a schedule is still in development.

Question No. 1321--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to the Peace Tower Carillon on Parliament Hill: (a) what is going to be done to ensure the weekday noon-time concert will continue to play while renovations on the Centre Block take place; (b) when will any changes take effect; and (c) until what date will the alternate arrangements be in place?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Parliament Buildings belong to all Canadians. Part of our responsibility is to engage them on the projects taking place here on Parliament Hill.
The government is considering several ways to ensure a positive visitor experience on Parliament Hill during this time.
Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, is working with the House of Commons to ensure live performances by the Dominion Carillonneur continue for as long as possible during the renovation of the Peace Tower. The project is still in the early stages. PSPC is currently carrying out a detailed investigation that is critical to defining the scope, budget, and schedule of the renovations. At this point, no determination has been made about the timing of any potential impacts on the carillon or on alternative arrangements.

Question No. 1324--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With regard to the statement by the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons on October 30, 2017, that “We are not getting rid of the function of checking the check pilots of the airlines”: (a) on what evidence or documents is the Minister’s statement based; (b) what are the details of the evidence or documents in (a); (c) has the Minister read the document entitled “Risk Assessment--Oversight of the ACP/AQP Evaluator Programs (Ottawa, ON; 6-10 February 2017) Conventional Tool”; (d) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, when did the Minister read this document; (e) did the Minister approve the policy as described in the document in (c); (f) does the Minister intend to overturn the decision made by the Civil Aviation Directorate and National Operations at Transport Canada to delegate responsibility for the evaluation of company check pilots to the airlines as of April 1, 2018; (g) when was the Minister informed that Transport Canada had decided to delegate responsibility for the evaluation of company check pilots to the airlines; (h) did the Minister speak to the Director of National Operations at Transport Canada about this statement; (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, what are the details of this conversation; (j) what other member countries of the International Civil Aviation Organization have transferred responsibility for evaluating company check pilots to the airlines; (k) has Transport Canada assessed the internal need for aviation safety inspectors; (l) if the answer to (k) is affirmative, what is the result of the department’s assessment; and (m) what is the impact of this need in terms of inspectors on the new policy adopted by Transport Canada?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians is a top priority for the Government of Canada.
With respect to the statement by the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons on October 30, 2017, that, “We are not getting rid of the function of checking the check pilots of the airlines”, and with regard to parts (a) to (i), Transport Canada has a rigorous regulatory program in place and conducts oversight activities to verify industry compliance. Under the Canadian Aviation Regulations, it is industry’s responsibility to comply with all safety regulations and to operate safely.
On behalf of the minister, Transport Canada delegates the responsibility of conducting pilot proficiency checks of industry ?pilots by experienced and qualified pilots. For over 25 years, delegates have been monitoring industry pilots. Similar to our oversight regime, the department inspects based on a series of risk criteria. If a risk is identified with the company’s approved check pilots or with the company’s compliance with any regulations, the department will not hesitate to take action in the interest of aviation safety.
With regard to parts (j) to (m), the program is in compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, standards and aligns with other civil aviation authorities such as the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, whose delegates are known as “check airmen”. The department’s use of ministerial delegates is also well established for aircraft certification, pilot testing of various licences, and pilot written exams.
Transport Canada requires that professional pilots receive a pilot proficiency check, PPC, to confirm and test skills and proficiency in dealing with aircraft standard operations and emergency procedures. The requirements and standards for these check rides meet or exceed ICAO requirements.
A pilot proficiency check is conducted every six months, year, or two years depending on the type of operation, size, and complexity of aircraft.
The department is aware that the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority has extended similar privileges to its senior examiners.
Transport Canada continually analyzes its workforce, and focuses on recruitment and retention of staff to ensure it has the necessary number of oversight personnel with the required skills and competencies to plan and conduct oversight activities. As in any workplace, total workforce can fluctuate at any given time due to changing demographics, promotions, retirements, and other factors.
The new policy will not impact inspectors. The department is focusing surveillance on areas of greater risk based on data. When an area is deemed a low risk, resources are reallocated to areas identified as higher risk.

Question No. 1326--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the drafting of Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act: (a) did the government study the environmental impacts of the Canadian cannabis industry and consider this in the drafting of legislation; (b) if the answer in (a) is negative, why not; and (c) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, what are the details of any correspondence, reports, or documents related to the subject of the sustainability of the legislation contained in Bill C-45, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipients, (iv) title, (v) summary of contents?
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, prior to the introduction of Bill C-45, Health Canada carried out the mandatory assessment of environmental impacts, strategic environmental analysis, in the context of developing a federal legal framework to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict cannabis.
Under the proposed framework, licence-holders would be subject to federal and provincial/territorial statutes and regulations with respect to environmental protection. These laws and regulations establish clear rules to limit potential negative environmental impacts due to commercial cultivation and manufacturing, such as poor air quality, harmful effects of unauthorized pesticide use, water contamination, and improper use and disposal of harmful substances.
A key objective of the framework set out in Bill C-45 is to displace the illegal market. The current illicit cannabis market relies on unregulated cultivation and manufacturing practices, for example, potential mishandling of chemicals, including unauthorized pesticide use, or improper disposal and release of harmful substances, which may have detrimental effects on the environment. Reducing illegal cannabis production can be expected to lead to a decrease in negative environmental impacts due to these unregulated practices.
Consideration of environmental impacts will form a part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will be required prior to the publication of federal regulations, subject to parliamentary approval of Bill C-45 by Parliament.

Question No. 1328--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the so-called “Mandate Letter Tracker” on the Privy Council Office website: (a) is any third-party non-government analysis conducted to ensure that the claims made on the website are not Liberal Party propaganda; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of any such contracts, including (i) person who conducted the analysis, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) date and duration of contract, (v) file number; (c) what are the costs associated with setting up the website, broken down by individual item; and (d) what are the anticipated ongoing costs of maintaining the website, broken down by individual item?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the so-called “mandate letter tracker” on the Privy Council Office, PCO, website, the response from PCO is as follows:
In response to (a), no. The Mandate Letter Tracker was produced by the results and delivery unit, RDU, in PCO with support from all federal government departments.
In response to (b), this is not applicable.
In response to (c), the development of the website was completed with existing Government of Canada financial resources. Ongoing maintenance of the website will also rely on existing financial resources. The tracking of mandate letter commitments and priorities is one of many roles and responsibilities of the results and delivery unit in PCO. These roles also encompass efforts to monitor delivery, address implementation obstacles to key priorities, and report on progress to the Prime Minister. The unit also facilitates the work of the government by developing tools, guidance, and learning activities on implementing an outcome-focused approach.

Question No. 1330--
Mr. Mark Warawa :
With regard to the Fall Economic Statement tabled by the Finance Minister on October 24, 2017: for each investment horizon in chart 3.8 (10 years, 20 years, 30 years), how much total tax would be paid in a personal savings account, versus in a private corporation, for the entire life cycle of the investment, including taxes paid on the final distribution to the corporate owner of all funds?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as chart 3.8 of the 2017 fall economic statement illustrates, a high-income individual can realize significant tax advantages from holding passive investments in his or her corporation. By benefiting from a lower rate of tax on business income, the amount of after-tax income that can be invested passively in a private corporation is larger than what can be invested had the income been distributed as salary or dividends. As shown in the example, a corporate owner is able to earn after-tax interest income that is about 1.8 times more than he or she could realize at the personal level after 10 years, after distribution. After 30 years, the additional after-tax interest income from saving in a corporation is more than double what they could have obtained by saving at the personal level. This implies that investments made inside a private corporation are effectively subject to a lower implicit tax rate than investments made inside personal savings accounts.

Question No. 1333--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to Canada’s participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and testimony at the Standing Committee on Finance on November 7, 2017, by the Director, International Finance and Development Division, International Trade and Finance Branch, of the Department of Finance: (a) on how many of the AIIB’s 21 approved projects (Philippines: Metro Manila Flood Management Project, Asia: IFC Emerging Asia Fund, India: Transmission System Strengthening Project, Gujarat Rural Roads Project, India Infrastructure Fund and Andhra Pradesh 24x7--Power For All, Egypt: Round II Solar PV Feed-in Tariffs Program, Tajikistan: Nurek Hydropower Rehabilitation Project--Phase I and Dushanbe-Uzbekistan Border Road Improvement Project, Georgia: Batumi Bypass Road Project, Bangladesh: Natural Gas Infrastructure and Efficiency Improvement Project and Distribution System Upgrade and Expansion Project, Indonesia: Dam Operational Improvement and Safety Project Phase II, Regional Infrastructure Development Fund Project and National Slum Upgrading Project, Azerbaijan: Trans Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline Project to be co-financed with the World Bank, Oman: Duqm Port Commercial Terminal and Operational Zone Development Project and Railway System Preparation Project, Myanmar: Myingyan Power Plant Project, Pakistan: Tarbela 5 Hydropower Extension Project and National Motorway M-4 Project) as of November 9, 2017, did the government conduct its own environmental and human rights review as part of its project assessment; (b) on how many of the AIIB’s nine proposed projects (China: Beijing Air Quality Improvement and Coal Replacement Project, Oman: Broadband Infrastructure Project, Sri Lanka: Climate Resilience Improvement Project–Phase II, India: Bangalore Metro Rail Project–Line R6, National Investment and Infrastructure Fund, Madhya Pradesh Rural Connectivity Project, Amaravati Sustainable Capital City Development Project and Mumbai Metro Line 4 Project, Georgia: 280 MW Nenskra Hydropower Plant) as of November 9, 2017, did the government conduct its own environmental and human rights review as part of its project assessment; (c) broken down by individual project (i) what were the outcomes and findings of all the environmental and human rights reviews for all of the AIIB projects that the government conducted, (ii) when was each review completed; and (d) what was the criteria considered within the environmental and human rights reviews by the government when it conducted assessments of all of AIIB’s projects?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 2017, Department of Finance officials testified at the Standing Committee on Finance on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB. In the testimony, officials explained that the Government of Canada conducts assessments of projects being considered by multilateral development banks of which Canada is a member. As Canada is not yet a member of the AIIB, the government is not yet undertaking assessments of AIIB projects.

Question No. 1334--
Mr. Alupa A.Clarke:
With regard to the appointment process of the Commissioner of Official Languages in the most recent selection process with a cut-off date of September 12, 2017: (a) what was the total number of applicants; (b) what was the number of applicants who submitted applications after the initial cut-off date; (c) what was the number of candidates who passed the initial or preliminary round of screening; (d) what are the details of the steps in the selection process, including (i) number and types of exams given, (ii) number of interviews, (iii) other steps, including a description of each step; and (e) what was the intended date of announcement of the selected candidate for Commissioner of Official Languages?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the appointment process of the Commissioner of Official Languages in the most recent selection process with a cut-off date of September 12, 2017, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows:
In response to (a), 67 applications were submitted.
In response to (b), 24 applications were submitted after September 12, 2017.
In response to (c), the number of candidates who passed the initial or preliminary round of screening has been withheld to prevent direct or residual disclosure of identifiable data.
In response to (d), candidates are assessed through a variety of means at various points in a selection process, e.g., the screening of applications against the education and experience criteria set in the notice of appointment opportunity for the position. The selection committee interviewed a short list of qualified candidates and checked their references. As the position requires proficiency in both official languages as set out in the Language Skills Act, candidates were also asked to undergo a language skills evaluation. Shortlisted candidates also underwent psychometric assessments to assist in determining their personal suitability for the position
In response to (e), the government is committed to carrying out selection processes as quickly as possible. At the same time, the government is committed to identifying the most qualified candidates through open, transparent, and merit-based processes, and will take as long as is required to find the right person for such an important leadership position. The appointment of Raymond Théberge as the new Commissioner of Official Languages was announced on December 14, 2017.

Question No. 1337--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to claims for disability benefits processed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and to the entire process required to treat those claims, including, but not limited to, receipt of claims, assessment of claims, investigation of claims and gathering of evidence, denial of claims, appeals processes, court appearances, and dealing with complaints, broken down by year since 2012: (a) how much money has been spent by the Department processing claims that have been denied, including (i) staff hours, (ii) court time, (iii) costs for experts, (iv) administration fees, (v) all other relevant expenses; (b) what is the number of claims that were denied and the proportion of total claims it represents; and (c) what is the average length of time for applications to be processed before being denied?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Veterans Affairs is unable to provide a breakdown of expenditures related to the processing of claims by approved claims versus denied claims as its financial system does not track expenditures in this manner. However, the overall administrative cost of the adjudication process within Veterans Affairs since 2012 is broken down as follows: 2011-12: $17.7M (Salary $16.7M / Operating $1.0M); 2012-13: $19.2M (Salary $17.8M / Operating $1.5M); 2013-14: $19.1M (Salary $16.9M / Operating $2.2M); 2014-15: $19.6M (Salary $16.5M / Operating $3.2M); 2015-16: $23.3M (Salary $19.8M / Operating $3.6M); 2016-17: $25.3M (Salary $ $22.1M / Operating $3.2M)
Figures have been rounded.
These expenditures are for the centralized operations division, which is responsible for the adjudication of most of Veterans Affairs Canada’s programs and benefits, such as disability awards and pensions, critical injury benefit, earnings loss, retirement income security benefit, and career impact allowance. These expenditures capture the administrative cost, salary and non-salary, of preparing, processing, and adjudicating benefit applications. However, there are other areas of VAC that also contribute to the adjudication process, including but not limited to the following: health professionals, e.g., doctors and nurses; bureau of pensions advocates, e.g., lawyers; and program management and field operations, e.g., case managers and veteran service agents. Expenditures for these areas are not included above.
In response to (b), from January 1, 2012 to November 21, 2017, there were 178,667 conditions ruled on by Veterans Affairs Canada. Of those, 60,293, or 33.7%, were denied. This is not representative of the number of veterans who have been denied disability benefits, as a veteran may receive rulings for multiple conditions.
In response to (c), for those denied, the average turnaround time was 126 days.
Veterans Affairs Canada is working hard to provide veterans and their families with the care and support they need when and where they need it. It is looking at the entire disability application process from intake to decisions to expedite decisions and respond to veterans’ needs more quickly.
Veterans Affairs Canada receives a significant number of applications that often require additional information from veterans. This process takes time to complete to ensure the correct information is gathered to make an informed disability benefit decision. This has affected its service standards for applications.
Although Veterans Affairs Canada has hired additional resources, it recognizes that the adjudication process needs to be streamlined even further and additional adjudicators hired to make application decisions in a more effective and timely manner.
Veterans Affairs Canada is working to implement further measures to reduce the backlog and improve program success by continuing to hire more front-line staff, simplifying the decision-making process for some medical conditions, and working with partners to speed up access to service health records.
The number of disability benefits claims submitted to Veterans Affairs Canada has increased by 20% in 2015-16, as compared to the previous fiscal year.

Question No. 1351--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the November 24, 2017, claim of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons that Canadians expect a government to come out with legislation that is multi-jurisdictional: (a) does the Attorney General concur with the Parliamentary Secretary’s assertion; (b) is it the government’s position that the laws passed by the Parliament of Canada are not limited to the constitutional jurisdiction of Parliament; (c) has the present government proposed bills which would legislate beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of Parliament; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, which bills are they and what are their extra-jurisdictional provisions?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 2017, the parliamentary secretary made reference to Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act, in the House of Commons, and in so doing, referred to the multi-jurisdictional aspects of the bill. In this regard, Bill C-64 includes provisions to enable multi-jurisdictional collaboration, such as delegation of authority and information-sharing provisions, as a result of consultations with indigenous groups, provincial-territorial representatives, port authorities, and other stakeholders. Bill C-64 also includes interdepartmental coordination provisions between the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, with each having their respective areas of jurisdiction under the proposed bill. The proposed legislation enables collaboration and coordination while falling clearly under federal jurisdiction as it deals with matters pertaining to shipping and navigation.
The government introduced Bill C-64 following consultations with indigenous groups, provincial-territorial representatives, port authorities, and other stakeholders. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to help prevent future occurrences of abandoned and wrecked vessels and reduce the impact of those that do occur. By doing so, the proposed legislation would protect coastal and shoreline communities, the environment, and infrastructure. It also aims to reduce the burden on taxpayers. To date, governments have borne many of the costs to remove and dispose of problem vessels. This legislation is a core element of the national strategy on abandoned and wrecked vessels that was announced as part of the oceans protection plan in November 2016.

Question No. 1355--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the meeting between the Chief Administrative Officer of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District and the Policy Advisor and Special Assistant for Western Canada and the Territories to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, on June 1, 2017: what are the titles of all briefing notes provided by the government to the Policy Advisor and Special Assistant between May 1, 2017, and June 8, 2017?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, between May 1, 2017, and June 8, 2017, Infrastructure Canada did not provide briefing notes to the policy adviser and special assistant for western Canada and the territories to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities with regard to his meeting with the chief administrative officer of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District on June 1, 2017.

Question No. 1360--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act: (a) did the Minister of Finance sign the proposal to have Cabinet adopt this legislative proposal as its policy; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, on what date did he sign it; (c) on what date was the legislative proposal adopted as the policy of Cabinet; (d) on what date was it decided to propose that the amendments in clause 1 of the Bill would have effect for the 2016 tax year; (e) on what date was the drafting of Ways and Means Motion No. 1 completed; (f) on what date was the drafting of the Bill completed; (g) on what date did the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons hold the Bill review meeting; (h) was the Minister of Finance in attendance at the meeting referred to in (g); and (i) on what date was it decided to schedule the tabling of Ways and Means Motion No. 1 for December 7, 2015?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as publicly stated by the government House leader on November 4, 2015 as the reason to call back the House in December 2015, the Government of Canada took the first step to fulfill one of its key mandate commitments on December 7, 2015, which was to give middle-class Canadians a tax break.
On that date, the Minister of Finance tabled in the House of Commons a notice of ways and means motion to reduce the 22% personal income tax rate to 20.5%. To help pay for this middle-class tax cut, the government asked the wealthiest one per cent of Canadians to contribute a little more. Therefore, the motion also included provisions to create a new top personal income tax rate of 33% for individual taxable incomes in excess of $200,000 and provisions to return the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $5,500 from $10,000.
These measures were included in Bill C-2, which was tabled in the House of Commons on December 9, 2015, and received royal assent on December 15, 2016. By proposing that these tax changes take effect as of January 1, 2016, the government was able to offer immediate help to nearly nine million Canadians, while laying the groundwork for long-term economic growth.
The government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act in processing parliamentary returns. Information related to cabinet deliberations and decision-making has been withheld on those grounds.

Question No. 1361--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the climate change report prepared by Abacus Data and presented at the meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on Friday November 3, 2017, in Vancouver, British Columbia: (a) when was the tendering process for this study released; (b) how many firms replied to the tender; (c) who was questioned for the data that was used for the report; (d) what are the details of the contract with Abacus Data related to the report, including (i) contract amount, (ii) date, (iii) duration, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number; and (e) what are the details of all meetings between the Chairman of Abacus Data and Environment and Climate Change Canada or the Privy Council Office, including (i) date, (ii) ministers and exempt staff in attendance as well as any other attendees, (iii) agenda items, (iv) location?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Environment and Climate Change Canada has no contract recorded in relation to Question No. 1361.

Question No. 1362--
Mr. Louis Plamondon:
With regard to the Office of the Governor General, for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017: how many people did it employ, including (i) the list of all employees, by position, with job descriptions, including the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General (OSGG), (ii) the total of all salaries, including benefits, of the management positions for the OSGG?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Office of the Governor General, for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017, the response from the Office of the Governor General is as follows: The office of the secretary to the Governor General is headed by the secretary who serves as a senior adviser to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor of the Canadian Heraldic Authority.
As of March 31, 2015: Salaries: $11.62M Benefits: $1.89M As of March 31, 2016: Salaries: $11.94M Benefits: $1.87M As of March 31, 2017: Salaries: $11.71M Benefits: $1.80M.
With regard to policy, program and protocol, this branch plans and implements the Governor General’s program domestically and abroad, including over 500 events yearly; administers visitor and interpretation services--over 300,000 visitors last year--at both official residences, Rideau Hall and the Citadelle; provides editorial and public affairs services, and is responsible for providing overall support to the viceregal family.
The number of FTEs, which includes the secretary’s office, is as follows: As of March 31, 2015: 83 As of March 31, 2016: 92 As of March 31, 2017: 95.
The Chancellery of Honours With regard to the chancellery of honours, the chancellery branch administers all aspects of the Canadian honours system including the Order of Canada, the bravery decorations, the meritorious service decorations and the sovereign’s medal for volunteers; and the Canadian heraldic authority which creates and records armorial bearings.
The number of FTEs is as follows: As of March 31, 2015: 28 As of March 31, 2016: 36 (additional funds allocated following the honours review: https://www.budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/plan/ch4-2-eng.html). As of March 31, 2017: 39.
Corporate Services With regard to corporate services, the corporate services branch supports internal services and implements central agency policies and guidelines that apply across the organization. This branch is divided into two components. One component encompasses financial and materiel management, information technology, information resources, and mail management. The other component encompasses people management, i.e., human resources; workplace management, i.e., accommodations, security, and transportation services, as well as strategic planning and internal communications.
The number of FTEs is as follows: As of March 31, 2015: 49 As of March 31, 2016: 46 As of March 31, 2017: 39.

Question No. 1373--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to directives and instructions provided by the Privy Council Office (PCO) to any department or agency since November 4, 2015, and excluding any instructions provided by the Legislation and House Planning section of PCO: what are the details of all directives and instructions including (i) sender, (ii) recipients, (iii) date, (iv) directive or instruction provided?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office does not track all directives and instructions provided to other departments or agencies. Attempting to address this inquiry within the allotted time frame could lead to the disclosure of incomplete or misleading information.

Question No. 1377--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the statement by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons on November 30, 2017, that “No one outside the closed circle within the Department of Finance and those who needed to know within our government would have known about our actions in advance of that date”, in reference to the tabling of the Notice of Ways and Means Motion to amend the Income Tax Act: what are the titles of all individuals who knew about the actions prior to December 7, 2015, and when did they know?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance Canada’s responsibilities include the development and evaluation of federal taxation policies and legislation. Accordingly, the department supported the Minister of Finance in developing the notice of ways and means motion tabled in Parliament on December 7, 2015, as well as the implementing legislation, which was introduced in Parliament as Bill C-2 on December 9, 2015. The department also worked on preparing communications material to support the December 7, 2015, announcement, including a news release and a backgrounder.

Question No. 1382--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the statement by the Minister of National Revenue in the House of Commons on November 6, 2017, that “Over the past two years, we have invested nearly $1 billion to combat tax havens. This investment has helped our efforts to recover nearly $25 billion”: (a) how much of the nearly $25 billion has been recovered from tax havens; and (b) what is the breakdown of the $25 billion by country or continent where the tax haven is located?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): :
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, here is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. In terms of part (a), fiscal impact is the traditional measure used for the CRA’s departmental performance report to report on the audit assessment and examination results from compliance activities. More specifically, it consists of federal and provincial taxes assessed, tax refunds reduced, interest and penalties, and the present value of future federal tax assessable arising from compliance actions. It excludes amounts reversed on appeal and uncollectable amounts.
Over the past two fiscal years, the CRA identified $25 billion in fiscal impact from audit activities: $12.7 billion in 2015-16 and $12.5 billion in 2016-17. Some of the CRA’s audit functions focus on large business and aggressive tax planning by high net-worth individuals. Audits in these areas have yielded approximately two-thirds of this fiscal impact, $15.9 billion. A large part of these adjustments for large businesses, by value, are based on CRA reassessments of intra-company transfer prices on payments made to related companies in low-tax jurisdictions.
Taxpayers, especially those with complex tax structures, may have many transactions, both domestic and international, that lead to a specific account balance requiring payment. The complexity of the calculations for payments on taxes owed and the attribution of them to audits versus other sources of debt in a given year is very difficult to do accurately. Audit assessments, particularly those involving large amounts or related to aggressive tax planning, are frequently appealed and then litigated, and as a result, it can be several years before there is judicial confirmation of the amount owed. In addition, there can be issues securing payment from taxpayers and bankruptcies can also occur. As such, the CRA cannot provide a specific number in the manner requested.
However, the CRA can confirm that in fiscal year 2016-17, the CRA resolved $52.1 billion in outstanding tax debt from all revenue lines, most notably individual tax, corporate tax, GST/HST, and payroll deductions, which were payable for current and previous years.
In terms of part (b), as noted, the CRA does not track fiscal impact in the manner requested.

Question No. 1383--
Mr. Alain Rayes:
With regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017: what was the total remuneration paid by the Corporation, including all bonuses, the overtime buyout, the celebrity premium, the clothing allowance and all other premiums, for each (i) male host of a French-language television news program, (ii) female host of a French-language television news program?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. The requested information has been withheld on the grounds that it constitutes competitive as well as personal information.

Question No. 1384--
Ms. Lisa Raitt:
With regard to the Disability Tax Credit and individuals who self-identify with type 1 Diabetes: (a) what percentage of individuals with type 1 Diabetes were (i) approved, (ii) rejected, for the Disability Tax Credit during the 2015-16 fiscal year; and (b) what percentage of individuals with type 1 Diabetes were (i) approved, (ii) rejected, for the Disability Tax Credit between May 2, 2017, and December 5, 2017?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, here is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. In terms of parts (a) and (b), to be eligible for the disability tax credit, an individual must have a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions, as defined in the Income Tax Act and as certified by a medical practitioner. Eligibility is not based on a diagnosis, but rather on the effects of the impairment on their ability to perform the basic activities of daily living. Eligibility determinations are not made, or tracked, based on diagnosis. Therefore, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested as the data is not available.

Question No. 1385--
Ms. Lisa Raitt:
With regard to the Privy Council Office’s “Mandate Letter Tracker” and the 13 commitments listed as “underway with challenges”, as of December 5, 2017: (a) what specifically are the challenges, broken down by commitment; (b) what specific actions is the government planning in order to overcome the challenges, broken down by commitment; and (c) for each of the 13 commitments, does the government plan on keeping its commitment or not?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), transparency and accountability are central themes of the Government of Canada’s mandate, as illustrated by the November 2015 public release of ministerial mandate letters. The Canada.ca/results website creates a central, accessible space anyone can go to, to monitor the progress against the government’s commitments to Canadians as outlined in the ministerial mandate letters. The website includes not only an overall status of progress for all commitments, but also a paragraph with more information on the status of implementation. For those commitments that are “under way with challenges”, more information on the specific challenges can be found in that paragraph.
With regard to (b), an “underway with challenges” status means progress toward completing this commitment is going more slowly than expected or that the commitment is complex by its very nature. The government is working with departments to overcome the challenges identified. While the 13 commitments that are “under way with challenges” can be found across a variety of the government priorities, four are under the indigenous priority, and progress requires longer-term, transformative changes that are part of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Some of the other commitments are taking longer to implement than anticipated. More specific context is given in the text associated with the 13 commitments classified as “under way with challenges”, as well as a link to additional information as appropriate.
With regard to (c), as of December 5, 2017, the government is planning on keeping all the 13 commitments that are “under way with challenges”. Updates to the status of commitments will be reflected in future updates of the mandate letter tracker.

Question No. 1388--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the $576,500 paid to Vox Pop Labs Incorporated for Project Tessera: (a) what goods or services did the government receive as a result of the payment prior to project’s originally scheduled end date of September 30, 2017; (b) did Vox Pop Labs Incorporated fulfill the conditions of its applications; (c) how did Vox Pop Labs specifically fulfill “Justification 6” of its application where it stated “the project will be created and launched in a timely fashion, resulting in a significant impact during the celebratory period in 2017”; (d) how did Vox Pop Labs specifically fulfill “Justification 7” on its application, where it was projected that the project would reach in excess of 1,000,000 individuals; and (e) how many individuals have viewed Project Tessera, since January 1, 2017, broken down by month, or what is the best estimate, if exact figures are not available?
Response
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Vox Pop Labs Incorporated--Vox Pop--originally received a contribution from the Canada 150 Fund of $576,500 for Project Tessera, a Canada 150 signature project. Vox Pop subsequently received a supplement of $228,782, bringing the total contribution to $805,282.
The Government of Canada supported Project Tessera under the Canada 150 fund through a contribution and not a contract. Therefore, the Government of Canada is not procuring goods or services. Project Tessera is not a Government of Canada project; Project Tessera belongs to Vox Pop Labs Incorporated.
Vox Pop Labs Incorporated has changed the name of their project from Project Tessera to Echoes.
With regard to (b), Vox Pop is fulfilling its obligations as per the contribution agreement with the Canada 150 fund. The key activities for the project as outlined in the original contribution agreement are as follow: create a digital quiz that will survey users on themes such as culture, values, symbols, and belonging to Canada, and encourage participants to learn about their own national identities and cultures and explore the commonalities they have with other people across the country; generate a unique data set on public perceptions about Canada and what it means to be Canadian in 2017; and ensure the findings of the survey, including all relevant data, are placed in the public domain and freely accessible to Canadians by December 31, 2017. The survey results will serve as a legacy of Canada 150 for future generations.
The “digital quiz” now called Echoes was launched on Monday, December 4, 2017. Echoes will generate a unique dataset on public perceptions about Canada and what it means to be Canadians in 2017.
With regard to (c), the launch of the project was originally scheduled to coincide with the Canada Day celebrations; however, after completing the analysis of their panel studies, Vox Pop Labs determined that their design did not sufficiently capture a user’s sense of collective and individual belonging to the Canadian cultural mosaic as per the goals of the project specified in the contribution agreement. Vox Pop Labs chose to delay the launch so the survey could be improved.
With regard to (d) and (e), the Echoes survey was launched on Monday, December 4, 2017. It is too early to say how many individuals will participate.

Question No. 1389--
Mr. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the contract that was signed between Transport Canada and the City of Charlottetown and any of its agencies pertaining to the Charlottetown Port Authority: (a) what are the guidelines or conditions of use; and (b) do these include a provision for industrial use?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Transport Canada transferred the port of Charlottetown under the port divestiture program on April 21, 2005, to the Charlottetown Harbour Authority Inc.
The operating agreement between Transport Canada and the Charlottetown Harbour Authority Inc. dictated conditions of use for the first four years of operations. The agreement expired on April 21, 2009.
After this date, the Charlottetown Harbour Authority Inc. is free to use the facility as it wishes, provided it follows all applicable federal, provincial, and municipal laws.
With regard to (b), there are no specific provisions on the industrial use of lands in any of the agreements. As mentioned, any and all use of the property must follow all applicable federal, provincial, and municipal laws pertaining to that specific use.

Question No. 1393--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the November 21, 2017 news release titled “Government of Canada provides financial support to Ontario college students affected by labour dispute”: (a) what are the details of the financial support, excluding any support students would have normally received had a labour dispute not occurred, including (i) how many students received payments, (ii) what was the average amount received by a student, (iii) what percentage of the payments required repayment, such as loans; (b) broken down by type of financial assistance received, as referenced in (a), what criteria was used to determine if an applicant would receive financial assistance; (c) how many students applied for the financial support referred to in (a); and (d) how many of the students referred to in (c) were granted financial assistance?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s prosperity depends on young Canadians getting the education and the experience they need to prepare for the jobs of today and tomorrow.
With regard to (a), affected students will be eligible to receive additional financial assistance for the weeks added to their school terms.
With regard to (a)(i), nearly 140,000 Canada student loans and grants recipients were affected by the strike. Where extensions to school terms occur, the associated assessments for additional financial assistance will take place until the spring of 2018. As a result, final statistics on additional payments due to the strike will only be available approximately six months after the conclusion of the academic year.
With regard to (a)(ii), the amount each student receives will depend on their individual eligibility for Canada Student Loans and Grants, and on the time period by which their individual programs are extended.
With regard to (a)(iii), final statistics on additional payments due to the strike will only be available approximately six months after the conclusion of the academic year.
With regard to (b), criteria to determine a student’s eligibility for financial assistance due to the strike do not change from the regular assessment process. Affected students who received the Canada student grant for full-time students will receive an additional amount of grant based on their family income and extended weeks of study; Canada student loan recipients may be eligible for up to an extra $210 per week, depending on individual needs—that is, additional cost of living and available resources.
With regard to (c), nearly 140,000 students affected by the strike could qualify for additional financial support. Students from Ontario will not be required to reapply, as data on extended sessions will be available to assess their additional needs. Students from other provinces studying at Ontario colleges will need to reapply; however, data will only be available approximately six months after the conclusion of the academic year.
With regard to (d), final statistics on additional payments due to the strike will only be available approximately six months after the conclusion of the academic year.

Question No. 1394--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to homeowners whose property was burned as a result of the wildfires in British Columbia: are they required to declare timber salvaged from their property as a capital gain?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, 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.
“Woodlot” is used in a broad sense to mean land covered with trees. A woodlot includes treed land held primarily as a source of fuel, posts, logs or trees, whether the trees are grown with or without human intervention. The term also includes treed land that is part of a cottage property and a farmer’s wooded land.
Generally, where a woodlot is a non-commercial woodlot and money or other valuable consideration is received for the sale of timber or the right to cut timber, the sale proceeds are subject to tax on capital account, as a capital gain, generally as a disposition of personal-use property. Generally, a loss on the sale of personal-use property is not deductible.
A capital gain is generally calculated as the proceeds of disposition on the sale of property minus the adjusted cost of the property and related selling expenses. Depending on the situation, capital gains could result from the sale of salvageable lumber.
For more information on capital gains, members may refer to “T4037 Capital Gains 2016” on www.Canada.ca.
The CRA recognizes the difficulties faced by Canadians affected by wildfires in British Columbia and understands that natural disasters may cause hardship for taxpayers whose primary concerns during this time are their families, homes, and communities.
The Canada Revenue Agency, or 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 a taxpayer from meeting their tax obligations: extraordinary circumstances, actions of the CRA, inability to pay or financial hardship, or other circumstances. For more information about the circumstances that may warrant relief from penalties or interest, members may refer to “Cancel or waive penalties or interest” on www.Canada.ca.

Question No. 1401--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs Program for the Summer of 2017: (a) which organizations received funding; and (b) how much funding did each organization receive?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the list of organizations funded through the Canada summer jobs program for the summer of 2017, including the amount paid, will be made public on the program website. It will be available at www.canada.ca/canada-summers-jobs.

Question No. 1409--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to Ministers who are responsible for various regional development agencies: (a) between January 1, 2017 and December 8, 2017, how many days did the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency spend in (i) Nova Scotia, (ii) New Brunswick, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) Newfoundland and Labrador; (b) between January 1, 2017, and December 8, 2017 how many days did the Minister responsible for Western Economic Diversification spend in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba; (c) between January 1, 2017 and December 8, 2017, how many days did the Minister responsible for the Canada Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec spend in Quebec; (d) between January 1, 2017 and December 8, 2017, how many days did the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario spend in Northern Ontario; and (e) between January 1, 2017 and December 8, 2017, how many days did the Minister responsible for the the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario spend in Southern Ontario?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the information requested on travel by the minister responsible for the regional development agencies, please refer to the proactive disclosure on travel for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development at the following link: https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ic/trvlHsptltyDsclsr/pblc/indx.do?lang=eng.
In addition to travelling to various cities across Canada, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and his staff meet with stakeholders from all regions of the country to discuss regional and local issues on a regular and ongoing basis.

Question No. 1411--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985: (a) did the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons convene a bill review meeting prior to the Bill's introduction; and (b) did the Minister of Finance attend the bill review meeting?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the details of a bill review process, including individual ministers’ involvement in the process, are considered a cabinet confidence.

Question No. 1422--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to revenue which will be received by government as a result of the sale of marijuana after July 1, 2018: (a) what is the projected annual revenue generated from taxation on marijuana; and (b) what percentage of the revenue referred to in (a) will be given to (i) provinces, (ii) municipalities, (iii) First Nations, Inuit, and Metis organizations, (iv) other organizations, broken down by recipient?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on November 10, 2017, the Department of Finance Canada published for consultation a proposed excise duty framework for cannabis products. The proposed framework will support our twin goals of keeping cannabis out of the hands of youth, and profits from its sale out of the hands of criminals as we work to legalize and strictly regulate access to cannabis. The public consultation period closed on December 7, 2017.
Finance Canada is still assessing the potential size of the legal cannabis market, which will be a key factor in determining how much revenue will ultimately be collected under the proposed excise duty framework. In the short term, the size of the legal market will depend on a number of factors, including the supply of legal product, and the distribution and retail systems developed by provinces and territories, the details of which are still being assessed.
At the finance ministers’ meeting on December 11, 2017, ministers agreed that for an initial two-year period following the legalization of non-medical cannabis, taxation revenues will be shared on the basis of 75 per cent for provincial and territorial governments and 25 per cent for the federal government. Provinces and territories will work with municipalities according to shared responsibilities towards legalization. From 2018¬-19 to 2019-20, the federal portion of cannabis excise tax revenue will be capped at $100 million annually. Any federal revenue in excess of $100 million during this time will be provided to provinces and territories.
The department will report on its fiscal projections at a future date.

Question No. 1425--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to responses provided by the government to questions on the Order Paper, since November 4, 2015, where the government cited the principles of the Access to Information or Privacy Act as a justification for not providing the requested information: for each response that has such a citation, or any similar type of citation, what are the specific principles used to justify withholding the information, broken down by response and by question?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Parliament adopted the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act in 1983. Since then, successive governments have provided information in parliamentary returns in a manner that respects the principles governing the disclosure of government information contained in these acts.
Since parliamentary returns are not formally processed under these acts, specific sections are not quoted to justify non-disclosure. However, parliamentary returns officers consult officials responsible for access to information and privacy to ensure that the Privacy Act and the principles governing exclusions, exemptions, and prohibitions contained in the Access to Information Act are applied to proposed responses to parliamentary returns.
Abacus Data Inc.Access to Information ActAccess to information requestsAlbas, DanAlbrecht, HaroldAllison, DeanAsian Infrastructure Investment BankAubin, RobertAviation safety inspectorsBains, NavdeepBergen, Candice ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 1104--
Mr. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the application by the Canadian Transit Company to expand the Ambassador Bridge, entitled “The Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project”: (a) how long has the application been in the system; (b) why has there been a delay in the issuing of a permit under the International Bridges and Tunnels Act; (c) what is the target date for the permit to be issued; and (d) which official or officials considered the project?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to protecting the safety, security, and efficiency of Canada’s vital trade links.
With respect to (a), on February 27, 2014, the Canadian Transit Company submitted an application for a proposed project pursuant to the International Bridges and Tunnels Act.
With regard to (b), there is no legislated time frame under which International Bridges and Tunnels Act decisions must be made; as a result, there has not been a delay in issuing a permit. The length of the review process was caused by the complexity of the project and the requirement for extensive public, stakeholder, and international consultations in the review of the application. The results of these consultations are available on Transport Canada’s website at https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/page-653.html. Once the review of the application and of the comments received during the consultations is complete, the Minister of Transport makes a recommendation to the Governor in Council for the proposed project.
With regard to (c), there is no legislated time frame under which International Bridges and Tunnels Act decisions must be made.
With regard to (d), the Minister of Transport makes a recommendation to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council decides whether to approve the construction of the proposed project.

Question No. 1105--
Mr. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the investigation into the Clyde River Fish Kill in Clyde River and area on Prince Edward Island (PEI): (a) how many personnel from Environment and Climate Change Canada (EC) have been involved in the investigation; (b) with regard to interviews conducted between EC officials and individuals involved in the case, how many interviews have taken place, and over what period of time; (c) with regard to trips to PEI related to this investigation made by off-island EC offices, (i) how many trips were made, (ii) how many vehicle hours have been accumulated, (iii) what was the duration of each trip, (iv) what were the accommodation and travel status costs; (d) who requested this extended investigation at the federal level; (e) which individual, or individuals, from PEI requested the assistance of EC; (f) has EC produced a report on the extraordinary rain event that caused the flooding and, if so, what did the report conclude; and (g) what are the details of all correspondence, both written and electronic, related to this matter, between officials from the PEI Department of the Environment and EC personnel?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, takes threats to the environment very seriously.
ECCC has opened an investigation into alleged violations of subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act in relation to a fish kill in the Clyde River, Prince Edward Island, that occurred on July 25, 2016. Two ECCC personnel have been involved in this investigation so far, and a report regarding the rain event is being produced.
When ECCC enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe a violation has occurred, they can open an investigation in order to gather evidence related to the alleged incident. As ECCC is currently investigating this matter, it would be inappropriate to provide further details at this time.

Question No. 1106--
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to the regulatory impact analysis done for regulations respecting reduction in the release of Methane and Certain Volatile Organic Compounds: (a) what source data did the government use to conclude that “without immediate action, it is expected that fugitive and venting methane emissions from the oil and gas sector in Canada will continue to be released at high levels of about 45Mt CO2E per year between 2012 and 2035”; (b) what source data was used to calculate Figure 1: Baseline scenario and policy scenario methane emissions and compliance costs by year; (c) which distributors and how many were consulted to provide estimates on pneumatic controllers and pumps compliance costs; (d) what documentation does the government have showing the oil and gas industry was “satisfied with the modifications that the Department offered”; and (e) what environmental non-governmental organization's information was used as source data for any conclusions reached within the regulatory impact analysis?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the baseline methane emissions quoted in the analysis are based on projections from Canada’s second biennial report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
With regard to (b), Figure 1 summarizes the key impacts estimated in the cost-benefit analysis. The sources used to derive these estimates include publicly available sources, such as the National Energy Board’s Canada’s Energy Future projections and the U.S. EPA Natural Gas STAR, reports from independent contractors such as Clearstone Engineering and the Prasino Group, and data collected by western provinces under the Petrinex reporting system.
With regard to (c), the distributors were Laurentide Controls and Spartan Controls. The complete quotation from the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement is “The oil and gas industry was satisfied with the modifications that the Department offered, but continue to challenge federal regulations on the sector.” The statement is based on feedback given to Environment and Climate Change Canada during meetings held in the fall of 2016.
With regard to (d), reports included “Pneumatic Pump Alternatives for Cold Weather”, 2016, by GreenPath Energy, and “Zero Emission Technologies for Pneumatic Controllers in the USA”, 2016, by Carbon Limits. Canadian oil and gas service providers are GreenPath Energy and Cap-Op Energy.
With regard to (e), data was used from an ICF International report entitled “Economic Analysis of Methane Emission Reduction Opportunities in the Canadian Oil and Natural Gas Industries”, which was commissioned by two environmental non-governmental organizations, the Environmental Defense Fund, or EDF, and the Pembina Institute, to estimate emissions from compressors.

Question No. 1111--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Canada's committment to the UN Green Climate Fund: since November 4, 2015, what is the total amount that Canada has committed to the Fund, and, of this amount, what has been paid as of June 30, 2017?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has pledged $300 million to the Green Climate Fund to support its initial resource mobilization period, 2015-2018. As of June 30, 2017, Canada has paid $168 million of this amount. The remaining $132 million will be delivered in fiscal year 2018-19.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 1005--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the $545 million of Treasury Board Secretariat funding allocated to “paylist requirements” in Supplementary Estimates (C) 2016-17: (a) how was this amount calculated; and (b) what are the “paylist requirements”, broken down line by line, being accommodated by this funding?
Response
Ms. Joyce Murray (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the $545 million amount included in 2016-17 supplementary estimates (C) is made up of amounts set aside by departments for collective bargaining purposes, as well as an amount for the employer’s anticipated costs for collective agreements that were expected to be finalized in 2016-17. Roughly 75% of the funds are amounts that departments set aside in prior years.
As a result of the 2013 operating budget freeze, departments are required to absorb the cost of wage and salary increases that take effect in 2014-15 and 2015-16, and their ongoing impact. This also includes retroactive payments. To assist departments in managing these obligations, they were provided with the opportunity to reprofile--move forward to future years--funding from 2014-15 and 2015-16 to manage the costs for which they are responsible.
Wage and salary increases that take effect in 2016-17 and future years, along with their ongoing impact, are part of the employer’s anticipated costs and will be funded centrally.
At the time the 2016-17 supplementary estimates (C) were prepared, 12 tentative collective bargaining agreements had been reached, covering over three-quarters of represented public servants. However, not all of these agreements had been ratified by the bargaining agents and none had been signed by the employer. Funding was included in supplementary estimates (C) to provide sufficient capacity to address cash management pressures that might have materialized had the agreements been ratified and signed by March 31, 2017.
As collective agreements were not ratified and signed by the end of the fiscal year, funding was not allocated to departments and lapsed to the fiscal framework. As a result, funding for the same purpose has been included in the 2017-18 supplementary estimates (A).
With regard to (b), Treasury Board Secretariat vote 30, paylist requirements, is a central vote that is used by Treasury Board ministers to allocate funds to departments for costs related to parental and maternity allowances, severance pay; and adjustments to the terms and conditions of employment of the federal public service, including members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Forces, when these have not been provided from Treasury Board Secretariat vote 15 on compensation adjustments.
The entire amount requested for supplementary estimates (C) was for adjustments to the terms and conditions of employment of the federal public service to reflect new collective agreements, as described earlier.

Question No. 1014--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the $3.6 million allocated to the Department of Canadian Heritage for the celebration of the 375th anniversary of Montreal in Supplementary Estimates (C) 2016-17: what funds have been awarded thus far, broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) project description?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (i), the funds were awarded to the Society for the Celebrations of Montréal’s 375th Anniversary.
With regard to (ii), the amount delivered in 2016-17 is $3,620,895. The total funding for the project is $10,000,000, to be delivered over two fiscal years, 2016-17 and 2017-18.
With regard to (iii), the proposed activities will highlight the history of Montreal and its importance in the development of Canada. Programming planned by the society is taking place over 375 days, from December 21, 2016, to December 31, 2017, and includes shows, interpretive and commemorative activities, documentaries, multimedia experiences, and indigenous-themed activities. The proposed programming will permit a large audience to participate free of charge as they commemorate and celebrate the history of Montreal.

Question No. 1015--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the government forgiving student loans owed: (a) how many student loans have been forgiven since November 4, 2015; (b) what criteria is used to determine eligibility for debt forgiveness; (c) what reasons are laid out within the criteria as acceptable to forgive student debt; and (d) for each of the instances in (c), how many loans were forgiven under each reason since November 4, 2015?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are three types of loan forgiveness provided through the Canada student loans program, the CSLP. They are the severe permanent disability benefit, Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses, and forgiveness in cases of death.
In the case of the severe permanent disability benefit, a borrower may be eligible for the severe permanent disability benefit, the SPDB, if they have a physical or mental impairment that prevents them from ever being able to study at a post-secondary level and take part in the labour force; and the disability is expected to remain with them for life. The borrower must submit an application for SPDB, along with medical documents to support the application. From November 4, 2015, to March 31, 2017, 969 Canada student loan borrowers were approved for loan forgiveness through SPDB.
In the case of the Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses, family doctors, residents in family medicine, nurse practitioners, and nurses who practise in designated rural or remote communities may be eligible to have a portion of their Canada student loans forgiven.
To be eligible for Canada student loan forgiveness, borrowers must have started their current employment--full-time, part-time, or casual, including self-employment for family doctors with a private family practice--as an eligible medical professional in a designated rural or remote community on or after July 1, 2011; completed a full 12-month loan forgiveness period, during which time they worked in a in an under-served rural or remote community; and submitted a Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses application form.
Applicants must meet the necessary licensing requirements for that profession under an appropriate authority, such as the College of Family Physicians of Canada or provincial nursing associations, and must be practising in Canada in one of the following professions: family doctor; family medicine resident in training with an accredited medical school in Canada, who would be exempt from the licensing requirement; registered nurse; registered psychiatric nurse; registered practical nurse; licensed practical nurse; or nurse practitioner.
Family doctors and family medicine residents in training with an accredited medical school in Canada may receive up to $8,000 per period in Canada student loan forgiveness, to a maximum of $40,000.
Nurse practitioners and nurses may receive up to $4,000 per year in Canada student loan forgiveness, to a maximum of $20,000 over five years.
From November 4, 2015, to March 31, 2017, there were 4,922 recipients of doctors and nurses loan forgiveness.
In the case of loan forgiveness for reasons of death, in the event that a borrower dies, all repayment obligations are terminated regardless of the loan regime.
From November 4, 2015, to March 31, 2017, 2,014 Canada student loan borrowers had their loans forgiven due to death. The data includes figures related to a processing backlog and does not necessarily reflect the number of borrowers who died from November 4, 2015, to March 31, 2017.

Question No. 1020--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Tribute to Liberty’s Memorial to the Victims of Communism: (a) what are the current expected start and completion dates for construction of the Memorial; (b) what is the current status of the Memorial; (c) why was the location of the Memorial changed from in front of the Supreme Court building to the Garden of Provinces and Territories; (d) why was total funding and the government's contribution to the Memorial cut; and (e) why has construction on the Stanley Cup Monument and on the National Holocaust Monument, both six years between the proposal and project's projected completion, been prioritized and fast-tracked while the Memorial to the Victims of Communism has been delayed and is facing a longer timeline?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), monument construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2018. Major monument elements are scheduled to be completed in late 2018.
With regard to (b), with the winning concept proposed by Team Raff, as announced on May 18, 2017, the memorial is now entering into the design development phase.
With regard to (c), the results of a series of consultations led by the Department of Canadian Heritage in 2016 informed the decision to change the location of the memorial.
With regard to (d), due to the change of the site, the budget was revised. The allocated financial resources will permit the erection of a monument that reflects Canadian values for present and future generations.
With regard to (e), the creation of national monuments follows a process that has three major phases: design competition, design development, and implementation. Each monument project is realized under its own set of circumstances, such as the nature of the commemoration, the site or location, the budget, the involvement of partners, and varying schedules

Question No. 1022--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the announcement made by the Government House Leader (GHL) on the evening of April 30, 2017, concerning a government motion proposing to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons: (a) was the decision, which was the subject of the announcement, taken by the Cabinet or a committee of the Cabinet; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, by whom was the decision made, on behalf of the government; (c) in coming to the decision announced, was anyone consulted in this respect; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the relevant names, titles, dates and associated file numbers concerning those consultations; (e) what is the government’s current position concerning the contents of the GHL March 10, 2017, discussion paper; (f) was the GHL letter to the Opposition House Leaders shared with journalists prior to being sent to her colleagues; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, why was the letter shared; (h) with respect to the “specific commitments” in the 2015 Liberal Party platform, referred to by the GHL, what are the so-called specifics; and (i) why were no details concerning, or drafts of, the government’s intended motion provided by the GHL?
Response
Hon. Bardish Chagger (Minister of Small Business and Tourism and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the announcement made by the government House leader, the GHL, on the evening of April 30, 2017, concerning a government motion proposing to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the government will be moving forward with the commitment to modernize the rules of the House of Commons in order to make Parliament more relevant for Canadians and make it a better place to work by introducing a government motion in the House of Commons to implement these commitments. The motion will refer to the commitments made in the platform during the election in relation to the inappropriate use of prorogation and omnibus bills, the strengthening of committees, improving financial oversight, and increasing accountability in question period.
In the discussion paper released in March 2017, the government put forward ideas in good faith to foster a dialogue on additional ways that we could modernize the operations of the House of Commons. As indicated in the letter of April 30, 2017, the government does not intend to move forward on these items at the present time. Going forward, the government remains committed to dialogue among all parties on how to improve the tone in the House of Commons and to find new ways of making the House more effective at addressing government and private members’ business. Most importantly, we hope that we can make the House of Commons more accountable to Canadians.

Question No. 1023--
Mr. Alupa A. Clarke:
With regard to the approval of the purchase of Super Hornets without a tender, and to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Service and Procurement in the House on April 6, 2017, that “I will let the Department of National Defence provide him with details regarding this capability gap”: what are the details of any information that would have led to this statement, including those relating specifically to the existence of a “capability gap”?
Response
Mr. Jean R. Rioux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has obligations to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, to have a certain number of fighter jets mission-ready at all times, as well as obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The number of mission-ready planes the Royal Canadian Air Force, or RCAF, can put in the air today is fewer than Canada’s NORAD and NATO obligations combined. The RCAF is risk-managing this capability gap, and has been doing so for a number of years. However, the government is not willing to accept this level of risk anymore.
On November 22, 2016, the government announced that it will launch, within its current mandate, an open and transparent competition to replace the fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft. In addition, the government announced that Canada will immediately explore the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18s for an interim period until the permanent replacements arrive. While the government has entered into discussions with the U.S. government and Boeing about this potential acquisition, no decision has been made yet. Discussions must demonstrate that the interim fleet is appropriately capable and can be obtained at a cost, schedule, and economic value that are acceptable to Canadians. Furthermore, the government also announced that it would increase support for the current CF-18 fleet.
On June 7, 2017, the government unveiled its new defence policy: “strong, secure, engaged”. In order for Canada to counter today’s evolving threat environment and remain highly interoperable with its allies and key operational partners, this policy commits to replacing the CF-18 fleet with 88 advanced fighter aircraft.

Question No. 1028--
Mr. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the investigation into the Clyde River Fish Kill in Clyde River and area on Prince Edward Island (PEI): (a) how many personnel from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have been involved in the investigation; (b) with regard to interviews conducted between DFO officials and individuals involved in the case, how many interviews have taken place, and over what period of time; (c) with regard to trips to PEI related to this investigation made by off-island DFO offices, (i) how many trips were made, (ii) how many vehicle hours have been accumulated, (iii) what was the duration of each trip, (iv) what were the accommodation and travel status costs; (d) who requested this extended investigation at the federal level; (e) which individual, or individuals, from PEI requested the assistance of the DFO; (f) has the DFO been provided with a report from Environment Canada on the extraordinary rain event that caused the flooding, and if so, what did the report conclude; and (g) what are the details of all correspondence, both written and electronic, related to this matter, between officials from the PEI Department of the Environment and DFO personnel?
Response
Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary for Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there was no involvement by personnel of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO.
With regard to (b), no interviews were conducted by DFO.
With regard to (c), no trips to P.E.I. related to this investigation were made by off-island DFO offices.
Parts (d) and (e) are not applicable.
With regard to (f), no, DFO has not been provided with a report from Environment Canada.
With regard to (g), there has been no correspondence between officials from the P.E.I. Department of the Environment and DFO personnel.

Question No. 1032--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the decision made by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to charge $100 for a ten minute search for information and $30 for each additional minute, as described in The Hill Times on May 3, 2017: (a) what is the title of the individual who made the decision to charge for information; (b) when was the Minister’s Office made aware of the decision to charge for information; (c) has the Minister or his office issued a statement approving of the decision to charge for information; (d) has the President of the Treasury Board advised IRCC that charging for information is not in keeping with the Prime Minister’s directive to make government data “open by default” and, if so, when was this done; and (e) what was the response by IRCC?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), no decision to charge for this information was made. The requester was advised to contact the statistical unit in the department responsible for providing data on a cost-recovery basis. This is standard operating procedure when an access to information request has been received for which no records exist. In an attempt to assist the requester, the access to Information and privacy division suggested the requester turn to the cost-recovery unit. IRCC only charges the $5 request fee for access to information requests. The authority to charge for data related to immigration that has not been published by the department is contained in subsection 314(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The amounts that can be charged are also contained therein.
With regard to (b), no decision to charge for this information was made, as this is part of IRCC’s established practice to meet requesters’ information needs.
With regard to (c), as noted in (a), charging for reports produced under cost recovery is done under the authority of subsection 314(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and the fees set under paragraphs 314(1)(a) and 314(1)(b) of these regulations.
With regard to (d) and (e), as noted in (a), charging for customized reports is done under the authority of subsection 314(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. IRCC is implementing a rigorous open government plan by posting greater numbers of data tables with an increased frequency on the Government of Canada’s open data portal. IRCC data tables on the open data portal are among the most-accessed data sources.

Question No. 1034--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to individuals detained at airports by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), since January 1, 2016, broken down by airport and by month: (a) on how many days have CBSA holding cells at airports been (i) at half-capacity, (ii) at capacity, (iii) over-capacity, (iv) empty; and (b) what is the protocol when CBSA holding cells are over-capacity?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CBSA canvassed all regions across the country for the requested information. While the CBSA has holding cells in 21 airport locations, not all airports were able to provide the data requested. Manual records exist; however, given the scope and time frame of the request, as well as the large volume of information, the CBSA is unable to provide detailed information as requested.
With regard to (b), the CBSA has short-term holding cells in 21 airports across the country. These cells are for detentions of 48 hours or less. CBSA holding cells at airports are under capacity the majority of the time and are normally used for a short period of time while the individual is awaiting pickup from a local police agency or to be escorted to an outbound flight.
Should holding cells reach overcapacity, the CBSA will move individuals to other designated facilities as per the established agreements in place in each region. The nature and reason for detention may dictate the facility used in some circumstances.

Question No. 1037--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: (a) has the Minister receive communications from stakeholder groups expressing concerns regarding the National Inquiry; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which stakeholders expressed concern and how many communications were received; (c) has the Minister received communications from individual Canadians expressing concerns regarding the National Inquiry; and (d) if the answer in (c) is affirmative, how many communications were received?
Response
Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs received 456 pieces of correspondence in the form of letters and emails from stakeholder groups and from individuals across the country on the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls between November 4, 2015, and May 3, 2017. Records are based on a search of the department’s document tracking system. Some items may not have been captured if they fell outside the search criteria or were not tracked or entered correctly in the system. The correspondence reflected various views on the inquiry, including views on the mandate of the commission, opposition to the inquiry, concerns with inquiry timelines, and support for the inquiry.
Aboriginal peoplesAdministrative feesAlbas, DanAnniversaryBeech, TerryCanada Border Services AgencyCanadian ForcesCarrie, ColinCasey, SeanCF-18 aircraftChagger, Bardish ...Show all topics
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
View Mark Strahl Profile
2016-09-22 12:16 [p.4962]
Mr. Speaker, never let it be said that I cannot create a buzz in the room.
I was pleased to be the fisheries critic for the last year, during which I had the opportunity to interact with Atlantic Canadian fishers in different sectors. Just last week, the official opposition caucus took the opportunity to meet in Halifax to reconnect and re-engage with Atlantic Canadians, as the leader of the party has been doing. I believe she has made six visits to the region since she was elected as interim leader.
Having spoken with Atlantic Canadians, they definitely feel they are being taken for granted by the government. They feel they are being taken for granted by the very members of Parliament who they sent to Ottawa to speak up for them. An example is on the northern shrimp quota allocation, the LIFO system, which was rigged in favour of one province. All but one panel member was from Newfoundland and Labrador. All but one meeting was held in Newfoundland and Labrador and other regions that wanted a change to the northern quota system.
The minister accepted that recommendation and it cost the fishermen of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick tens of millions of dollars with the decision to take away their fishing quota. What did the member for South Shore—St. Margarets say to the fishermen who had lost millions of dollars because of that decision? She said nothing. She has been silent, even though she campaigned on keeping the last in, first out system. Since that time, she has said nothing.
I was also in P.E.I. and met with fishermen in Charlottetown, LaVie, Morell, and O'Leary. What did they say? They said that the government had changed the lobster carapace size, something that Gail Shea never let happen in her entire time as a member of Parliament. She stood up for the fishers in Prince Edward Island. Now she is gone.
There are four Liberal MPs in that region. What have they said to protect lobster fishermen in P.E.I.? They have said nothing. The new member for Egmont has said nothing. The Minister of Agriculture has said nothing. The member for Malpeque has said nothing. Fishermen are getting no representation from their members of Parliament because they are too afraid to speak out.
The Prime Minister speaks for the Liberal Party of Canada in Atlantic Canada, not the members who were sent here to represent those constituents. The lobster fishermen I met with in O'Leary said that it seemed the Minister of Agriculture, the member for Cardigan, has lost his voice. Members in the Conservative Party, be they from British Columbia, Ontario, or across the rest of the country, will speak up for Atlantic Canadians if no one on that side will.
Today the Minister of Justice danced around whether she would actually insist that the next appointment to the Supreme Court be an Atlantic Canadian. The Liberals have said that they are insisting they be on the short list. That is not what we are asking for today. That is not what Atlantic Canadians are demanding. They are demanding that they continue to have the representation they have had on the Supreme Court for the last 140 years.
I want to quote another article, this time from The Guardian in Charlottetown, P.E.I. Gerard Mitchell, former chief justice of the Supreme Court in Prince Edward Island, stated:
Dear Prime Minister: I am writing to you to ask that you please revise your new policy on appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. The revision should affirm the well-established convention of filling vacancies with judges from the same region of the country as their predecessor.
Merit and ensuring the maintenance of regional perspectives on the court should be the litmus test for appointment. Bilingualism is certainly an asset, but it never has been, and never should be, an absolute requirement for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. The highest court in the land needs well-qualified judges, whether bilingual or not, from all the regions of Canada to bring to bear their perspectives on the great legal issues of the day.
Regional representation on the judicial branch of our government is an important aspect of our Canadian democracy. The pan-Canadian composition of the Court adds to the legitimacy of it’s Decision-making authority. The new policy, if unaltered, could someday result in all nine judges coming from one or two parts of the country.
We need to stand up for the people of Atlantic Canada. We in the official opposition will do it, even if the Liberal members of Parliament have chosen not to.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1116--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) and the Canadian Criminal Real-Time Identification Services (CCRTIS): broken down annually since 2006, (a) what is the detailed budget for CPIC and CCRTIS; (b) how many Criminal Record checks have been submitted to CPIC and CCRTIS; (c) how many Criminal Record checks have been processed; (d) how many Criminal Record checks have been backlogged; (e) how many Vulnerable Sector checks have been submitted to CPIC and CCRTIS; (f) how many Vulnerable Sector checks have been backlogged; (g) what is the average processing time for Criminal Record checks; (h) what is the average processing time for Vulnerable Sector checks; and (i) how many staff have been employed to work on CPIC and CCRTIS?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1117--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to federal correctional facilities: (a) what is the prison population of each such facility; (b) what is the maximum inmate capacity of each such facility; (c) what was the number of correctional officers and personnel at each such facility in each of the last ten years; and (d) what was the prison population of each such facility in each of the last ten years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1118--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to proposals for the mid-sized-projects component of the Enabling Accessibility Fund submitted to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada for the period from October 2010 to January 13, 2011: (a) what is the name and the sponsoring organization for each of the 167 proposals that met the initial screening criteria; (b) what were the internal assessment scores of the Department for each proposal; (c) what was the Department's passing grade for the internal assessment of each proposal; and (d) what were the top 25 proposals selected for the external evaluation team?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 653--
Mr. John Carmichael:
With regard to questions on the Order Paper numbers Q-264 through Q-644, what is the estimated cost of the government's response for each question?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 947--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the RCMP’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams (INSET), by month and by year, since 2003: (a) how many employees were there in (i) each unit, (ii) each city, (iii) total; (b) of those employees in (a), how many were (i) permanent, (ii) transferred or temporary; (c) how much was spent on salaries; (d) of the amount in (c), how much was overtime; (e) how much funding was allocated to each office; (f) how much funding was lapsed; and (g) were any additional funds granted, and if so, how much?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 949--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to Finance Canada’s forecasting of corporate tax losses for each federal budget since 2007: (a) how was the forecast prepared; (b) what were the results of that forecast; (c) what was the difference between the forecast and the actual result; (d) what was the total amount of the corporate tax base to which the losses apply; and (e) for the calculation, what were the (i) parameters, (ii) assumptions, (iii) formulas?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 963--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Government Operations Centre: for each protest or demonstration reported to the Centre by government departments or agencies since June 5, 2014, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) description or nature, (iv) department or agency making the report?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 964--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada: (a) what is the current policy on the use of administrative segregation; (b) what changes to this policy are being considered; (c) who has been consulted with regards to any proposed changes, and when did these consultations take place; (d) has the Correctional Service of Canada received any analysis or advice on the constitutionality of the current administrative segregation policy and, if so, (i) when was it received, (ii) who provided the advice, (iii) what were the results or recommendations; (e) what is the proposed timeline for announcing any such proposed policy change; (f) what is the proposed timeline for implementing any such proposed policy change; (g) how many inmates will be affected by any such proposed policy change, broken down by (i) facility type, (ii) location; (h) what additional public costs are projected to be incurred as a result of any such proposed policy change; and (i) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any reports, memoranda, briefing notes, dockets, studies, or other records pertaining to any such proposed policy change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 971--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation since March 31, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 973--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 979--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canada Revenue Agency since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 980--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Justice Canada since April 1, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 981--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada since May 30, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 987--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Employment and Social Development Canada since May 30, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 988--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the National Capital Commission since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 990--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Privy Council Office since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-412-653 Questions on the Order Paper8555-412-947 Counter terrorism resources8555-412-949 Corporate tax losses8555-412-963 Government Operations Centre8555-412-964 Correctional Service Canada8555-412-971 Government contracts8555-412-973 Government contracts8555-412-979 Government contracts8555-412-980 Government contracts8555-412-981 Government contracts8555-412-987 Government contracts ...Show all topics
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 935--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to the operations of the Halifax Port Authority (HPA): (a) for each of the last five years, what amount of money was paid by the HPA in rebates to shipping lines or their agents, (i) in total, (ii) by shipping line or their agents, (iii) in each case, where these expenditures authorized by the HPA Board of directors; (b) for each of the last five years, (i) what amount of money was paid or received by the HPA in rebates to or from contractors or those holding leases with the HPA, (ii) in each case, were these expenditures authorized by the HPA Board of directors; (c) for each of the last ten years, what amount of money was paid by the HPA for legal services, (i) in total, (ii) by law firm; (d) during each of the last five years, has the chairman's law firm represented companies or individuals holding leases with the HPA or otherwise doing business with the HPA and, if so, which companies or individuals; (e) concerning the trip to the Far East by HPA representatives in November 2014, (i) which HPA representatives made this trip, (ii) what was the total cost for the trip for each HPA representative, (iii) how many days was each representative away on this trip, (iv) what was the purpose of this trip, (v) which cities did each representative visit on this trip, (vi) which company and government offices did each HPA representative visit on this trip, (vii) did any Nova Scotia companies or organizations travel with the HPA representatives and, if so, which ones; and (f) regarding the recent management takeover of the Provincial Port of Sheet Harbour by the HPA, (i) why are Posh Management Inc. and Sheet Harbour Management Group incorporated to do the management of the Port of Sheet Harbour, (ii) are the officers, directors and lawyers paid in addition to and separate from the HPA and, if so, how much in each case, (iii) who are the officers and directors of the Port of Sheet Harbour Management Group, (iv) how much in per diems and expenses are they paid in the case of each of the two companies?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Canada Port Authorities, such as the Halifax Port Authority, operate at arm’s length from the Federal Government and on a commercial basis, within the parameters set by the Canada Marine Act and associated regulations, and their individual Letters Patent.
Each Canada Port Authority has an independent Board of Directors that which is responsible for determining the Port Authority’s strategic direction and overseeing the Port Authority’s operations, including expenditures, leases, legal services, business development, and travel. The Letter Patent for each Canada port authority contains a code of conduct that provides the principles and rules by which Directors are expected to carry out their duties, with particular emphasis regarding potential conflict of interest.
As Transport Canada has no oversight over the day-to-day operations at Canada Port Authorities, questions regarding expenditures, leases, legal services, business development, and travel at the Halifax Port Authority should be directed to that the Port Authority.

Question No. 937--
Mr. Wayne Easter:
With regard to changes to the Large Business Audit Program, whereby audits may be performed by Canada Revenue Agency offices in cities other than the location of the business audited: what has been the effect of these changes for audits conducted after the change compared to those conducted before, particularly in terms of penalties, fines, and revenue collected per audit?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the national workload portability initiative, NWPI, was formally adopted in August 2014. It is a business transformation initiative at the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, that seeks to improve program operations.
The NWPI sets out a framework to guide inter-regional workload transfers, that is, portable files, for the CRA’s international and large business programs. The purpose of the framework is to enable the CRA to make the most effective use of its resources and its technical capacity on a national basis.
Under the NWPI, large business income tax audits will be assigned to regions according to the principles of integrity, capacity, taxpayer service, and practicality. An effective risk-based approach to workload selection and allocation is imperative to ensuring that audit resources are managed in the most efficient and effective manner.
As the NWPI was newly formalized, the CRA has not yet finalized audits that would allow it to produce the type of information requested. Therefore, the CRA is unable to provide a response at this time.

Question No. 943--
Mr. Pat Martin:
With respect to electronic records and messages including, in particular, text messages, short message service (SMS), and BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), broken-down by government departments, institutions and agencies: (a) what are the departmental policies for storage and retention of these records and messages, broken-down by record type; (b) if these records and messages are stored and retained, what are the storage and retention periods; (c) is there any policy in place to protect records or messages that are of business value; and (d) are there any planned changes to these policies, and if so, what will be proposed?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Policy on Information Management and the Directive on Recordkeeping outline the types of records to be maintained as well as the responsibilities for establishing mechanisms to maintain and make information available.
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat sets government-wide direction in targeted areas of management, including information management, IM; information technology, IT; and access to information and privacy and security. Mandatory direction regarding the management of information, including email and instant messages, can be found in the following instruments: Policy on Information Management, Directive on Roles and Responsibilities, and the Standard on Email Management. Guidance to departments is also available in the Information Management Protocol--Instant Messaging Using a Mobile Device, and the Guideline for Employees of the Government of Canada: Information Management (IM) Basics.
The Policy on Information Management, 2007, and the Directive on Recordkeeping, 2009, are the primary instruments for information and policy direction within the Government of Canada. The Information Management Protocol–Instant Messaging using a Mobile Device, issued in November 2014, adds precision to existing requirements that pertain specifically to instant messaging.
The Policy on Information Management, the Directive on Recordkeeping, and the Information Management Protocol--Instant Messaging using Mobile Device are available online at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12742 , http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=16552, and https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/im-gi/imp-pgi/mobile-eng.asp, respectively.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blaine Calkins Profile
2015-02-05 14:15 [p.11111]
Mr. Speaker, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. That is why Canada is not sitting on the sidelines, as the Liberals would have us do, and is instead joining our allies in supporting the international coalition in the fight against ISIL.
I was shocked to hear the Liberal member for Malpeque say, “We knew what kind of brutality was happening.” This was before he and his leader opposed the mission against ISIL. I guess it should be no surprise that the member thinks that only giving out blankets is the best way to fight terrorists.
When the member for Malpeque was the solicitor general, he obstructed Conservative efforts to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, saying, “CSIS in fact does not need to have people on a list in order to do its job.” We will always oppose this type of soft on terror approach. Only a Conservative government will stand up to support and protect Canadians.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 768--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to travel paid for by government departments and agencies for Members of Parliament and Senators other than the minister, Minister of State, or Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the department: since 2010-2011 inclusively, (a) what was the total cost for each trip; (b) what was the cost for each trip, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) gifts; (c) what was the reason for each trip; (d) what was the name of the Member of Parliament or Senator on each trip; (e) what was the itinerary for each trip; (f) was the Member accompanied by staff and, if so, what was the cost for the staff member or members, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) gifts; and (g) was a press release issued regarding the trip and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 769--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program announced on February 21, 2012: (a) how much funding has been disbursed; (b) which organizations have received funding; and (c) for each funding award, (i) how many participants have there been, (ii) how many participants are expected to take part over the course of the program, (iii) where is the program located, (iv) what is the estimated at-risk population in each city, town, or municipality concerned, (v) how much funding did the project receive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 770--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to the Treasury Board Secretariat: (a) does the Directive on Open Government, dated October 9, 2014, apply to tabular material prepared by departments, agencies, or crown corporations in response to written questions placed on the Order Paper by Members of the House of Commons or Senators; (b) if the response to (a) is negative, (i) why does the Directive not apply, (ii) who made this determination, (iii) when was this determination made; and (c) what are the titles and file numbers of any file, briefing note, dossier, or any other document, created or held by either the Treasury Board Secretariat or the Privy Council Office, relating to the application of the Directive on Open Government to government responses to written questions placed on the Order Paper by Members of the House of Commons or Senators?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 771--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to the rental or charter of private aircraft for the use of ministers and parliamentary secretaries since January 1, 2010: (a) what was the cost for each rental or charter; (b) what was the passenger manifest for each flight; (c) what was the purpose of the trip; (d) what was the itinerary for each trip; and (e) was a press release issued regarding the trip and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 772--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to Passport Canada: what was the total number of passport applications received in each year since 2006 inclusive, broken down by (i) in-person location, (ii) Service Canada receiving agent location, (iii) Canada Post receiving agent, and (iv) mail?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 774--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the statutes, regulations, policies and practices governing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans related to the issuing and administration of commercial fishing licences and fisheries resource allocation decisions: (a) what is the definition of (i) a commercial fishing licence, (ii) a commercial fishing permit; (b) what are the differences between a commercial fishing licence and a commercial fishing permit in terms of (i) the rights and responsibilities of the harvester holding either a licence or a permit respectively, (ii) the rights and responsibilities of the Minister in terms of resource allocation policy; (c) what is the definition of the “Last-in – First-out” (LIFO) policy; (d) how often has the LIFO policy been acted upon in determining allocations of annual quotas to either commercial fisheries licences or to permit holders that have experienced any year-over-year decline in the total allowable catch, broken down by (i) year, (ii) each such regulated harvesting category within any of the fisheries management areas of each fisheries stock area within the Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf, the Maritime and the Quebec regions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, further broken down in turn by (iii) species fished, (iv) individual fisheries management area within the species stock area within the past ten years, including the total quota levels for each such species and for each such fisheries management area within each stock area in each year; and (e) in each of the occurrences reported in answering (d), for each of the past ten years described, what was the total number of fish licence holders or permit holders who were directly affected by a reduction in quota on a year-over-year basis and were subject to the application and enactment of the LIFO policy, broken down by (i) species, (ii) individual fisheries management area within each fisheries stock area?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 778--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to the application of the Access to Information Act: (a) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all directives, orders, memoranda, reports, dossiers, or other documents that deal with the security concerns associated with the release of documents pursuant to Access to Information requests in digital formats or on digital media; and (b) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all directives, orders, memoranda, reports, dossiers, or other documents in which the Privy Council Office has set down or promulgated its policies concerning the provision or non-provision of documents released pursuant to Access to Information requests in digital formats or on digital media?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 779--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the ship Kathryn Spirit moored in Beauharnois, Quebec: (a) has Environment Canada or Transport Canada received a towing plan or an environmental certificate application from the ship’s owner and, if so, when was this plan received; (b) according to government information, is Reciclajes Ecologicos Maritimos the ship’s owner; (c) if the answer to (b) is no, who owns the ship, according to government information; (d) has the government conducted an analysis as to whether federal legislation allows the ship to be dismantled at its mooring location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (e) has the government conducted an analysis of the risk of pollution from dismantling the ship and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (f) according to government information, does the ship contain toxic materials and, if so, what are they; (g) is there a port equipped to dismantle such a ship in Canada and, if so, where is it; (h) has the government analyzed whether federal legislation allows it to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (i) does the government intend to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location; and (j) has the government conducted an analysis on dismantling the ship in the Port of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield or in another port elsewhere in the country and, if so, has it estimated the cost of such an operation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 780--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to government expenditures on sporting event tickets: since January 1, 2013, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) ticket cost, (iv) identity of persons using the tickets, (v) nature of the sporting event, for all sporting event tickets purchased by any department, agency or crown corporation, or any person acting on behalf of a department, agency, or crown corporation, whether the event was held in Canada or outside Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 782--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to government advertising since September 1, 2012: (a) how much has been spent on billboards, advertising and other information campaigns, broken down by (i) date released, (ii) cost, (iii) topic, (iv) whether any analysis of the effectiveness of the advertising campaign was carried out and, if so, the details of that analysis, (v) medium, including publication or media outlet and type of media used, (vi) purpose, (vii) duration of campaign (including those that are ongoing), (viii) targeted audience, (ix) estimated audience; and (b) what are the details of all records of related correspondence regarding the aforementioned billboards, advertising and other information campaigns broken down by (i) relevant file numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 783--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk and moose: (a) since 2006, what government funding has been allocated or provided to research this disease, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) year; (b) what documents have been produced by government departments or agencies with regard to existing or future economic, health or environmental impacts of CWD including, for each document, the (i) date, (ii) authoring department or agency; (c) what documents have been produced by government departments or agencies regarding CWD generally including, for each document, the (i) date, (ii) authoring department or agency; (d) for each year since 2006, what measures have been taken by the government to mitigate the spread of CWD in Canada, including (i) the department or agency responsible for each measure, (ii) the date each measure was initiated, (iii) the duration of each measure, (iv) the objective of each measure, (v) whether those objectives were met; (e) what strategies and programs are currently in place or are being developed to deal with the potential spread of CWD to animals not currently susceptible to the disease, and to humans; (f) since 2006, what meetings or consultations have been conducted with provincial or territorial governments regarding CWD and what documents or decisions were produced from those meetings or consultations, including (i) the initiating and responsible federal department or agency, (ii) the date of the document that was produced or of the decision that was taken; (g) since 2006, what consultations, meetings or outreach has any federal department or agency had with any First Nations, Inuit or Metis government, organization or representative, including the (i) date of the interaction, (ii) names of participants, (iii) topics discussed, (iv) outcomes, (v) documents produced as a result of the interaction; (h) since 2006, what measures has the government put in place to monitor the spread of CWD, including (i) the department or agency initiating each measure, (ii) the date each measure was initiated, (iii) the duration of each measure; and (i) what measures are currently being considered by government departments or agencies as a result of, or in relation to, CWD?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 784--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act: how much have payments increased on average for (i) the 2,717 veterans entitled to increased earnings loss benefits, (ii) the 590 veterans entitled to increased Permanent Incapacity Allowances, (iii) the 202 veterans entitled to Exceptional Incapacity Allowances?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 786--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to the benefit provided by the government for veterans' funeral and burial expenses: (a) what is the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program for funeral services; (b) how does the amount in (a) compare to the allowable maximum established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces; (c) in order to qualify for the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program, at what must a veteran's estate be valued; (d) how does the amount in (c) compare to the means test established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces; (e) how many requests for assistance with burial costs were made in each of the fiscal years from 2006 to 2013; (f) how many of the requests in (e) were approved; (g) for each request in (e), broken down by fiscal year, what were the reasons for rejecting the request; and (h) what is the total number of requests that were rejected for each particular reason mentioned in (g)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 787--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to the Income Tax Act: during each of the last five taxation years, (a) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been reviewed, broken down by income tax filers who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (iii) in a location other than a Northern or Intermediate Zone; (b) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been audited, broken down by income tax filers who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (iii) in a location other than a Northern or Intermediate Zone; (c) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been (i) reviewed, (ii) audited, broken down by income tax filers who have claimed any northern residents deduction and those who have not claimed any northern residents deduction; (d) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, after having been (i) reviewed, (ii) audited, have had their claim for the northern residents deduction rejected, broken down by those income tax filers who have claimed the northern residents deduction in a Prescribed Northern Zone and those who have claimed the northern residents deduction in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone; (e) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, in respect of the northern residents deduction, have been asked to document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city, broken down by those who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction; (f) of the tax filers enumerated in (e), what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, in respect of the northern residents deduction, informed the Canada Revenue Agency that they could not document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city; and (g) of the tax filers enumerated in (e), what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory whose claim of the northern residents deduction has been rejected because they could not document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 788--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to the administration of the Income Tax Act: (a) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the cost-effectiveness of reviewing or auditing income tax filers who claim the northern residents deduction; (b) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (a); (c) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the administrative burden faced by income tax filers who claim the northern residents deduction; (d) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (c); (e) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the administrative burden faced by the Canada Revenue Agency in administering the northern residents deduction; and (f) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 789--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to Public Private Partnerships involving Infrastructure Canada or PPP Canada: since January 1, 2006, for each such project, what are (a) the details of the project; (b) the time taken to design the bidding process; (c) the length of the bidding process from the initial expression of interest to the close; and (d) the cost to proponents of preparing a bid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 790--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs: how many clients were served each year from 2010 to 2014 inclusively at each Veterans Affairs office location, including the nine offices that have recently closed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 793--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to government spending in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing: what was the total amount spent, from fiscal year 2010-2011 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the funds were received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program through which the funding was allocated, (iv) the department responsible, (v) the designated recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 794--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to licenses and permits issued by government departments, related to any maritime activity for potential use anywhere within, or in the waters of, the Atlantic provinces: (a) for each license or permit issued since 2009, (i) on what date was each license or permit issued, (ii) who were the owners or operators, (iii) under what conditions concerning the use, retention, or renewal of the license or permit, was it issued; (b) for each vessel whose license was suspended, rejected, or for which a renewal was denied, (i) on what date was the license suspended, rejected, or the renewal denied, (ii) for what reasons, (iii) by whose authority; (c) what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and all entities, departments, companies, contractors, or individuals, relating to the suspension, rejection or denial of license renewal, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) date, (iv) purpose, (v) origin, (vi) intended destination, (vii) other officials copied or involved; (d) what are the specific rules for the retention or renewal of any such license or permits; (e) what are all rules, files, and correspondence related to observer and dockside monitoring of these license-holders and users, broken down by (i) all relevant file numbers, (ii) entities, companies, contractors, or individuals, (iii) minister or department, (iv) correspondence or file type, (v) date, (vi) purpose, (vii) origin, (viii) intended destination, (ix) other officials copied or involved, (x) military base, asset, or facility, (xi) type of activity or contract; (f) what differences exist in the conditions for licenses or permits among different regions, zones, or provinces; and (g) what are the rules governing the keeping, as opposed to the releasing, of fish caught on boats used for recreational or touristic purposes, broken down by (i) province, (ii) number of applicable licensees or permits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 796--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces Task Force Libeccio in Operation Mobile: what were the (a) full and incremental costs from March 2011 to October 2011, broken down by month; (b) full and incremental costs for the (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140; (c) total flying hours for the (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140; (d) full and incremental costs of all base support arrangements (e.g. accommodations, meals, amenities, infrastructure, utilities) including any in-kind support received; (e) full and incremental costs of all deployment, supply, and re-deployment flights, including Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and charter aircraft; (f) ordnance ammunition used and its full and incremental costs; (g) full and incremental costs related to fuel delivered by RCAF tankers; (h) full and incremental costs of repair and overhaul; (i) full and incremental costs of any special pay or allowances for deployed personnel; (j) full and incremental costs associated with Home Leave Travel Assistance; (k) full and incremental costs associated with Class C Reserves deployed on operations; and (l) full and incremental costs associated with Class B Reserves employed as backfill in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 797--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces Operation IMPACT: what are the estimated (for the entire six-month operation) and actual (to-date) (a) full and incremental costs for the mission, broken down by month; (b) full and incremental costs for the (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; (c) total flying hours for the (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; (d) full and incremental costs of all base support arrangements (e.g. accommodations, meals, amenities, infrastructure, utilities) including any in-kind support received; (e) full and incremental costs of all deployment, supply, and re-deployment flights, including Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and charter aircraft; (f) ordnance ammunition (i) used, (ii) to be used, and its full and incremental costs; (g) full and incremental costs related to fuel delivered by RCAF tankers; (h) full and incremental costs of repair and overhaul; (i) full and incremental costs of any special pay or allowances for deployed personnel; (j) full and incremental costs associated with Home Leave Travel Assistance; (k) full and incremental costs associated with Class C Reserves deployed on operations; and (l) full and incremental costs associated with Class B Reserves employed as backfill in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 798--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) for the data collected in the Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS), for all the Department’s various program components, what were the processing times for grant and contribution applications between the time the program received the application and the time the Department made a funding decision, broken down by program component and quarter, for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively; and (b) for the Department’s executive committee responsible for reviewing the data on processing times collected in the GCIMS, (i) who are the members of the executive committee, (ii) how often does it meet, (iii) what is its operating budget, (iv) what were its recommendations to the Minister’s office, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (v) what were its recommendations to the deputy ministers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (vi) what were its recommendations to the assistant deputy ministers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (vii) what were its recommendations to directors general, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (viii) what were its recommendations to program managers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 799--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the government’s Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Summit (the Summit) held in Toronto, May 28-30, 2014: (a) who within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development was responsible for the organization of the Summit; (b) what was the initial budget of the event, (i) did the Summit go over budget, (ii) if so, what were the cost overruns, (iii) were there unforeseen expenses; (c) what was the total cost of the Summit; (d) what was the total cost for the venue rental (Fairmont Royal York); (e) how many bedrooms in the Fairmont Royal York were paid for by the government and at what cost; (f) how many names were on the final guest list and what were the names; (g) how many government officials and employees attended the Summit and what are their names; (h) how many guests who are not employees of the government had their stay at the Fairmont Royal York paid for by the government and what are their names; (i) did the government pay for the travel expenses of international visitors; (j) how was the Fairmont Royal York chosen as a venue for the Summit, (i) on what date was the hotel first contacted with regard to the Summit, (ii) on what date was the contract with the hotel signed, (iii) did the Summit organizers contact venues other than the Fairmont Royal York and, if so, how many; (k) what was the total cost for security; (l) what was the total cost of meals and hospitality; and (m) was the Summit paid for by funds dedicated to the Muskoka Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 804--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Mount Polley mine spill: (a) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) or Environment Canada filed charges regarding the spill, (i) if so, what are the details of the charges, (ii) if not, why not; (b) what role are DFO and Environment Canada playing in the ongoing investigation being led by British Columbia conservation officers; (c) are DFO and Environment Canada reviewing the rehabilitation plan developed by Imperial Metals Corporation, (i) if so, what are the findings of any such review, (ii) if not, why not; (d) has the government obtained the approval of the Secwepemc people for the investigation process or the review of the rehabilitation plan; (e) has the government studied the impact of the waste that remains in the Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake Watershed; (f) during and following the rehabilitation process, how will DFO and Environment Canada ensure that there are no ongoing violations of the Fisheries Act; (g) how is the government monitoring and enforcing compliance with best practice standards by Imperial Metals Corporation at its other mine sites; (h) how will the government ensure that there are additional layers of control to prevent loopholes in regulatory oversight and enforcement by the province; (i) will the government be examining any proposals concerning (i) repairs to the tailings storage facility, (ii) the resumption of operations at the mine; (j) how will the government ensure that the interests of the affected First Nations are addressed prior to any resumption of operation; (k) what steps will the government take to ensure that First Nation rights are addressed; and (l) what are the internal tracking numbers of all documents, communications or briefing notes regarding the Mount Polley spill for senior departmental officials at the Regional Director General level and above, at both DFO and Environment Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 805--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation (ECBC): for each year from 2005 to 2014 inclusively, (a) how much did the ECBC spend on infrastructure; and (b) what were all the projects of the ECBC, including but not limited to details such as the project’s name, purpose, and cost?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 806--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to federal government employees in Nova Scotia: for each year from 2005 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by department, how many government employees worked in (i) Cape Breton Regional Municipality, (ii) Victoria County, (iii) Inverness County, (iv) Richmond County?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 807--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario), how much government funding has been approved and distributed to each of the 37 census divisions by year since 2009?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 808--
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé:
With respect to the Canada Job Grant: (a) how much is each province and territory receiving in federal transfers under the Canada Job Fund for the current fiscal year, and for each subsequent fiscal year until the Fund is fully phased-in; (b) how much did each province and territory receive in federal transfers under the Labour Market Agreements in 2013-2014; (c) how much is, or is projected to be, the federal portion of the Canada Job Grant, year-to-date and for each of the coming fiscal years until the program is fully phased-in; (d) is the federal contribution to the Canada Job Grant paid out of the 40 % funds earmarked for employer-driven training under the Canada Job Fund; (e) if the federal portion of the Canada Job Grant is not paid out of the Canada Job Fund, from which program envelope is the contribution drawn; (f) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has the government actually spent on the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (g) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has each province and territory contributed to the Canada Job Grant from the Canada Job Fund; (h) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has been the employer contribution to the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (i) how much is the employer contribution projected to be for the Canada Job Grant for each of the coming fiscal years, until the program is fully phased-in; (j) how many businesses are projected to be eligible to provide “in-kind contribution” as their share of the Canada Job Grant when the program is fully-phased in; (k) what are eligible contributions “in-kind” for an employer’s participation in the Canada Job Grant; (l) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how many Canadians have been trained with the help of the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (m) how many Canadians will be trained with help of the Canada Job Grant for each of the fiscal years until it is fully phased-in; and (n) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, for which occupations have Canadians been trained with the help of the Canada Job Grant (using the National Occupational Classification system)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 811--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to government records: what information, asset management systems, correspondence tracking systems, telecommunications logs, vehicle logs, and all other forms of records are (a) kept, broken down by (i) department, (ii) record type, (iii) duration of preservation, (iv) frequency of update, (v) date of oldest currently preserved record, (vi) method of disposal, (vii) file numbering or similar record access system, (viii) list of employees (by title), contractors or other individuals with access to the records, (ix) method of keeping track of access requests to the records; and (b) not kept, including the details pertaining to what was not kept and why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 812--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the changes announced in October 2014 to the Caregiver Program (the Program), formerly known as the Live-In Caregiver Program: (a) what individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments did the government consult as part of the process of developing the changes; (b) when did each consultation in (a) occur; (c) how did each consultation in (a) occur; (d) who in the government carried out each consultation in (a); (e) for past or current participants in the Program, (i) what opportunities existed to participate in consultations, (ii) how did the government make them aware of these opportunities, (iii) when did the government make them aware of these opportunities; (f) for other individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments, (i) how did the government make them aware of the opportunity to participate in consultations, (ii) when did the government make them aware of the opportunity; (g) what results of the consultations in (a) were presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (h) how were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (i) when were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (j) according to what criteria were the inputs that were received through consultations in (a) evaluated by the government; (k) what studies, reports, surveys, or other documents were consulted by the government; (l) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for Children Pathway; (m) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for People with High Medical Needs Pathway; (n) what was the number of principal applicants for permanent residence through the Program for each of the last ten years; (o) do the caps in (l) and (m) refer only to the number of new applications that the government will accept each year, or do they refer to the total number of applications that will be processed each year; (p) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents are currently in Canada as part of the Program; (q) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents have been in Canada as part of the Program for each of the last ten years; (r) how many temporary residents does the government expect to be in Canada as part of the Program for each of the next ten years; (s) what studies has the government carried out or consulted to determine whether the number of temporary residents in Canada as part of the Program is likely to change in the coming years; (t) what are the conclusions of the studies in (s); (u) for each of the last ten years, not including spouses and dependents, how many applications for permanent residence under the Program have been (i) submitted, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied; (v) if the number of principal applicants for permanent residence exceeds the cap of 2750 in either category in a given year, how will the government determine which applications to consider; (w) who will make the determination in (v); (x) based on what factors will the determination in (v) be made; (y) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program are currently being processed, not including spouses and dependents; (z) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program, not including spouses and dependents, does the government intend to process for each of the next five years; (aa) how will the government reduce the backlog of permanent residence applications under the program; (bb) by what date does the government intend to reduce the backlog in (aa); (cc) how many applications must be processed before the government will consider the backlog in (aa) to be reduced; (dd) when will the six-month limit on processing times for applications under the Program take effect; (ee) what impact will the six-month limit in (dd) have on applications underway at the time the limit takes effect; (ff) what measures will be implemented to ensure that applications for permanent residence will be processed within six months; (gg) what recourse will be available to applicants whose applications are not processed within six months; (hh) how will applications that remain in process after six months be dealt with by the government; (ii) will the six-month limit apply regardless of (i) the number of dependents, (ii) the country of origin of the principal applicants, their spouse, or their dependents; (jj) what measures are being introduced to give recourse to temporary residents in Canada under the Program who feel that they are being exploited or treated inappropriately by their employers, whether or not the caregiver lives with the employer; (kk) what changes have been made or will be made to the criteria used to evaluate applications for permanent residence under the Program; (ll) what directives have been or will be issued to visa officers; (mm) when do the directives in (ll) take effect; and (nn) how will applicants with applications currently underway be affected by the changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 813--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children of Canadian residents: (a) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of Canadian citizens; (b) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (a), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (c) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of non-citizen permanent residents of Canada, excluding the Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP); (d) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (c), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (e) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children under the LCP; (f) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (e), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (g) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a); (h) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (i) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (a) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (j) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c); (k) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (l) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (c) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (m) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e); (n) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (o) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (e) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (p) has the government set processing times it considers acceptable for applications by applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children (i) of Canadian citizens, (ii) of non-citizen permanent residents, (iii) under the live-in caregiver program; (q) how were the acceptable processing times in (p) determined; (r) who determined the acceptable processing times in (p); (s) what variance, if any, exists for acceptable processing times in (p) based on (i) source country, (ii) age of applicant, (iii) visa office, (iv) other factors; (t) what changes, if any, have been made to the acceptable processing times in (p) over the last ten years, and what accounts for these changes; (u) if no acceptable processing times have been set, why have they not been set; (v) what evaluations of processing times has the government undertaken; (w) what were the results of the evaluations in (v); (x) if no evaluations of processing times have been undertaken, why has this not been done; (y) broken down by year, for each of the last ten years, what operational bulletins, changes to operational manuals, or other directives, published or unpublished, formal or informal, written or oral, have been issued by CIC to visa officers regarding applications by individuals seeking permanent residence as dependents of residents of Canada; (z) for each of the directives in (y), (i) how was the directive issued, (ii) by whom was it issued, (iii) what was the objective of the directive, (iv) how were its effects evaluated, (v) is it still in force; and (aa) for each directive in (y) no longer in force, (i) why was it terminated, (ii) who made the decision to terminate it, (iii) how was the decision to terminate it communicated to visa officers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 814--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the government’s implementation of motion M-456, a Pan-Canadian Strategy for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: (a) what steps has the government taken or do they plan on taking to implement this strategy; (b) what are the needs identified by the government that this strategy could address; (c) what information or data has been provided or solicited from Statistics Canada or the Canadian Institute for Health of Information regarding patient needs for palliative and end-of-life care; (d) what standards and best practices have been identified for this strategy; (e) what stakeholders and medical experts have been identified as collaborators in developing this strategy, and which of them have been approached; (f) which provinces and territories have been approached to discuss the establishment of this strategy; (g) what steps has the government taken to implement this strategy for the jurisdictions where it has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners; and (h) what palliative and end-of-life care programs are currently in place where the government has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 816--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance through Enhanced Exchange of Information under the Convention Between the United States of America and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (the Agreement), the government’s Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament (the Policy), and the statement of Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader, in the House on Monday, April 28, 2014, that “in this case, the fact is that the government, the cabinet, actually did grant such an exemption to the tabling policy. As such, the very words of the policy, the requirements of the policy, have been followed. The processes for obtaining the exemption were obtained. As a result, the requirement that it be tabled in the House 21 days in advance of the legislation being introduced is not necessary and the policy is fully complied with” (the Statement): (a) was an exemption to the government’s Policy granted with respect to the Agreement; (b) what is the difference between an “exemption” and an “exception” in terms of the Policy; (c) if the word “exception” is substituted for “exemption” is the Statement accurate; (d) on what basis was the Statement made; (e) how was the Government House Leader informed of the exemption or exception being granted to the Policy; (f) what documents or memos were created regarding this exemption or exception and what are their access or control numbers; (g) who was involved in this decision to grant an exemption or exception and at what stage were they involved; (h) what was the process, step-by-step, by which this Agreement was granted an exemption or exception; (i) who reviewed the decision to grant an exemption or exception, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii) how; (j) does the Policy apply to the Agreement, and how; (k) between what departments does correspondence exist regarding the tabling of the Agreement under the Policy and what are the file numbers for these documents; (l) on what date was the Agreement concluded; (m) on what date was the Agreement tabled in Parliament; (n) on what date was the Agreement ratified; (o) when was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (p) how was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (q) when was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (r) how was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (s) when and by what means is the House usually informed that an exception has been granted to the Policy; (t) in the absence of the point of order prompting the Government House Leader's response, how and when would the House have been informed of the exemption; (u) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exceptions being granted to the Policy; (v) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exceptions have been granted; (w) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exemptions being granted to the Policy; (x) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exemptions have been granted; (y) what does “urgent” mean in the context of the Policy; (z) how was the ratification of the Agreement determined to be urgent; (aa) who made the determination in (z), (i) how, (ii) on the basis of what information, (iii) with what authority, (iv) under what criteria; (bb) how was the decision in (z) reviewed, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) when, (iv) by what criteria; (cc) who are or were the lead ministers with respect to the Agreement in terms of the Policy and how was this determined; (dd) when and how did the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the lead ministers seek approval from the Prime Minister for an exemption to the treaty tabling process; (ee) when was the approval in (dd) granted and how; (ff) what correspondence is available – with file and control number--to corroborate the information provided in response to (dd) and (ee); (gg) was a “joint-letter that clearly articulates the rationale to proceed with the ratification, without tabling in the House of Commons” created; (hh) with respect to the letter in (gg), (i) who created this letter, (ii) when is it dated, (iii) how can it be obtained, (iv) who has access to it, (v) to whom is it addressed; (ii) was the letter drafted in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the relevant Secretariat in the Privy Council Office; (jj) what documentation exists – with file or control number for each document--to corroborate the information provided in response to (ii); (kk) who is responsible for retention and access of such joint letters; (ll) with respect to the Agreement, were the responsible ministers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware early on of the need to request an exemption to the treaty process prior to obtaining Cabinet authority to sign a treaty; (mm) how is “early on” defined for purposes of the Policy; (nn) how is “aware” defined for purposes of this provision in the Policy; (oo) was a request made in a Memorandum to Cabinet, seeking policy approval for the Agreement; (pp) what Memorandums to Cabinet exist relative to this agreement, (i) what are their dates, (ii) are they subject to privilege, (iii) who made them, (iv) what are their record or control numbers; (qq) which document in (pp) can be said to “clearly articulate the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process”; (rr) what is the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process with respect to the Agreement; (ss) who determines the rationale per the Policy; (tt) what is an acceptable rationale per the Policy; (uu) how is rationale defined in terms of the Policy; (vv) is there a minimal level of sufficiency for a rationale per the Policy and if so what is it; (ww) when was the exception granted; (xx) did the Minister of Foreign Affairs “inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification” per the Policy; (yy) when did the actions in (xx) occur and how; (zz) in 2014, how many exemptions or exceptions were granted under the Policy before the Agreement; (aaa) in 2014, was the Agreement’s rationale for exception unique; (bbb) in 2014, was the Agreement the only item determined to be urgent in terms of the Policy; (ccc) is the Government House Leader always informed of exceptions and exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (ddd) is the House always informed of exceptions or exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (eee) how early could the Agreement have been tabled in Parliament; (fff) how was the date in (eee) determined; (ggg) if the Agreement could have been tabled earlier in Parliament than the date in (o), (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis; and (hhh) if the Statement could have been made sooner in the House than Monday, April 28, 2014, (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 817--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Statistics Canada: (a) have studies been done on how to use alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (b) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered prior to 2011 to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (c) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered from 2011 to the present to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (d) prior to 2011, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (e) from 2011 to the present, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (f) what studies, reports or assessments have been prepared by Statistics Canada regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (g) what briefing documents have been prepared for ministers and their staff regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (h) before 2011, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key; and (i) from 2011 to the present, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 818--
Ms. Peggy Nash:
With regard to government funding: for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present, (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Parkdale—High Park, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 820--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement of $5.8 billion in new infrastructure investments on November 24, 2014, in London, Ontario, and each of the commitments detailed in the accompanying backgrounder: (a) what department and program does each commitment fall under; (b) how much will be spent on each commitment in each of the next five fiscal years; (c) were these funds in the fiscal framework in Budget 2014; (d) do any of these commitments constitute an increase in planned spending and, if so, (i) which, (ii) by how much; (e) on each of these programs for capital and infrastructure investments in each fiscal year since 2004-2005, what was (i) allocated, (ii) spent, (iii) lapsed; and (f) was the expenditure of these funds already accounted for in the economic forecasts used by the Finance Department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 821--
Ms. Laurin Liu:
With regard to government funding for the aerospace industry since 2010: how much has been invested in the form of loans or research and development tax credits, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province and territory, (iii) federal program, (iv) funding type (tax credit, repayable loan, non-repayable loan), (v) individual company?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 826--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the Prime Minister's trips to Northern Canada in or about August 2006, August 2007, August 2008, August 2009, August 2010, August 2011, August 2012, and August 2013: what are the details concerning the costs of these trips, including those costs of federal personnel already on the ground in Northern Canada tasked with support, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) department or agency, (iv) purpose or nature of the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 827--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to Veterans Affairs delegations to Cyprus in March 2014, to Normandy in June 2014, and to Italy in November 2014: (a) for each delegation, what was the (i) total cost to each department which incurred expenditures related to the delegation, (ii) total cost for accommodation, (iii) total cost for travel, (iv) total cost for gifts, (v) total cost for meals and incidentals, (iv) complete list of delegation members, (vii) complete itinerary, (viii) reason for each delegation; (b) for each member of the delegation, what was the (i) total cost to each department which incurred expenditures related to the delegation, (ii) total cost for accommodation, (iii) total cost for travel, (iv) total cost for gifts, (v) total cost for meals and incidentals, (vi) reason for inclusion on the delegation; (c) for each contract for accommodations, was the contract competitively or non-competitively sourced and, if non-competitively, what was the rationale for non-competitive sourcing; and (d) for each delegation, (i) when was the itinerary tentatively established, (ii) when was the itinerary finalized, (iii) when was the Minister of Veterans Affairs own travel booked, (iv) if there were any changes to the booking referred to in (iii), what were those changes and when were they made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 828--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to Health Canada’s marketing campaign concerning marijuana and prescription drugs, launched on or about October 20, 2014: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted leading up to this decision; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (c) what are the dates, times, and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted; (d) how much funding has been allocated to the deployment of this proposal for fiscal year 2014-2015; (e) what are the next steps in this marketing campaign; (f) how is the effectiveness, reach, and impact of this campaign measured; and (g) what other methods is the Department or government considering to make Canadians more aware of the real dangers of drug abuse?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 830--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to government advertising: what was (a) the total amount spent on radio or television advertisements; and (b) the total number of placements in each medium, broken down by (i) subject matter of the advertisement and title of the advertising campaign, (ii) broadcast outlet on which the advertisements were placed, (iii) identification number, Media Authorization Number, or ADV number, (iv) name, (v) time-period when the advertisement was broadcast, namely, from September 5, 2014, to October 11, 2014, from October 12, 2014, to November 17, 2014, and on or after November 18, 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 831--
Ms. Laurin Liu :
With respect to the Canada Accelerator and Incubator Program launched in September 2013: (a) how much money was budgeted for the program, broken down by year; (b) how many applications have been received, broken down by province and territory; (c) how much money will be allocated, broken down by province and territory; (d) which groups have received funding; and (e) which groups have received a pledge of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 838--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the access to information system: broken down by government department, institution and agency, for each year from 2004 to 2014, (a) what is the budget for managing access to information requests; (b) how much was spent on the access to information system; (c) how much was spent on full-time equivalent employees; (d) how much was spent on non-full-time equivalent employees, such as consultants and temporary hiring services, to carry out access to information activities; (e) how much did these non-full-time equivalent employees cost per hour; (f) what were these non-full-time equivalent employees hired to do; and (g) what are the security clearances of these non-full time equivalent employees?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 840--
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:
With regard to the government’s announcement that it will transfer to the National Capital Commission up to 60 acres of land belonging to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for the construction of a hospital and teaching facilities: (a) was this decision preceded by public and private consultations; (b) what was the consultation process and what were the methods involved; (c) when was the consultation process launched; and (d) what organizations were consulted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 841--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to public revenue: for each government organization, including a department, agency, or Crown corporation, (a) when providing a good or service, does that organization charge a fuel surcharge or any other charge or fee related to the cost of fuel; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) what is the nature or description of the good or service provided for which a fuel surcharge or related fee is charged, (ii) in each case, when was the fuel surcharge or fee first instituted, (iii) how often is the fuel surcharge or fee adjusted, (iv) what were the dates of each occasion on which the fuel surcharge or fee was adjusted or set since January 1, 2011, (v) for each adjustment or setting of a fuel surcharge or fee referred to in (iv), what was the amount established on that date for the fuel surcharge or fee?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 842--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to the court cases on the changes to the Interim Federal Health Program: (a) what are the costs, including legal fees, incurred by the government to date; and (b) what are the estimated total costs, including legal fees, of the government’s appeal of the Federal Court’s ruling?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 843--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With respect the procurement of goods and services for use by the Department of National Defence: for each awarded contract over $25,000 for which a supplier cancelled or failed to meet a delivery date after March 31, 2011, what is (a) the name of the contract; (b) the type of contract or method of supply; (c) the reference number, solicitation number, and tracking number; (d) the names of all parties to the contract; (e) the date the contract was awarded; (f) the description of the good or service to be supplied; (g) the value of the contract; (h) the delivery date specified in the contract; (i) the value of monies paid by the government to the supplier in advance of delivery, if applicable; (j) the date that the good or service was delivered, for goods and services that were delivered late; (k) the planned future delivery date, for deliveries that remain outstanding; (l) the date the contract was cancelled, for cancelled contracts; (m) the reason for the cancellation of the contract, for cancelled contracts; (n) the value of advance payments returned to the government, for undelivered goods and services; (o) the values and conditions of the contractual penalties for late and failed delivery; and (p) the value of monies recuperated by the government pursuant to penalties for late or failed delivery?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 847--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to meteorological services: (a) what is the name, location and identifying number or code of each terrestrial Automated Weather Observing Station which has been in service in Canada at any time since January 1, 2006; (b) what is the name, location, identifying number or code, and model type of each Ocean Data Acquisition System buoy which has been in service in Canadian waters, or in international waters but operated by the Government of Canada, since January 1, 2006; (c) what is the name, location and identifying number or code of each weather radar station which has been in service in Canada at any time since January 1, 2006; (d) what is the name, location and identifying number or code of each lightning sensor which has been in service in Canada at any time since January 1, 2006; and (e) for each station, buoy or sensor referred to in (a) through (d), for each month since January 1, 2006, (i) on how many days has it been out of service, (ii) what was the reason for which it was not in service, (iii) was it returned to service, (iv) which department or agency is responsible for maintaining it?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 848--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to government public relations, for each contract for the provision of photography services to the office of the Prime Minister, a minister, a Minister of State, or a Parliamentary Secretary, since January 1, 2006: (a) what was the date, file number, and value of the contract; (b) what were the dates on which the photography was carried out; (c) what was the event or occasion, if any, to which the photography related; (d) were the photographs which were produced used in any government publications or on any government websites; (e) were the photographs used in any other way, specifying the way in which they were so used; (f) who has custody or care of the photographs which were produced; (g) if no longer required for the day-to-day operations of the office, have the photographs been transferred, or will they be transferred, to a library or historical division within the department, a national museum, or Library and Archives Canada; (h) does the department, agency, or other government organization for which the Minister, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary is responsible, have an office or position which has the capacity to carry out photography, identifying the office or position; and (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, why were the services of an outside photographer engaged?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 849--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to government procurement: what are the details of all contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to ministers since June 6, 2014 specifying (a) for each such contract (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work; and (b) in the case of a contract for speechwriting, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 850--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to government communications since September 18, 2014: (a) for each press release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by any government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject matter; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed on (i) the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) Marketwire, (iii) Canada Newswire, (iv) any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using the service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 851--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to Parks Canada, in respect of Beaubassin National Historic Site of Canada (“Beaubassin”): (a) what are the details of all expenditures, broken down by fiscal year since 2002-2003 inclusive, related to the (i) acquisition, (ii) maintenance, (iii) archeological research, (iv) archival research, (v) other expenditures, specifying the nature of those other expenditures; (b) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all reports or documents concerning the operation of Beaubassin; (c) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all reports or documents concerning archaeological or historical research related to Beaubassin; and (d) what are the bibliographic details of all published reports or articles relating to Beaubassin authored, co-authored, or contributed to by any archaeologist or researcher working for, on behalf of, or in association with the government or an employee or officer of the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 852--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Mint's television advertising activities since January 1, 2009: for any communication between the Mint and any agency, department, Crown corporation, or other organization of government other than the Mint, (a) what is the date; (b) who are the sender and recipient; and (c) what is the file or reference number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 853--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government communications, for each department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government body: (a) how far back in time does its website archive of press releases and backgrounders extend; (b) what is the rationale for the date range of press releases and backgrounders which are retained for on-line access; (c) are press releases and backgrounders which pre-date the date limit retained elsewhere; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, where are they retained, and are they accessible to the public; (e) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document, order, policy, directive, or other record in which the current policy pertaining to the retention of press releases and backgrounders on websites is set forth; (f) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document, order, policy, directive, or other record in which any former policy pertaining to the retention of press releases and backgrounders on websites was set forth; (g) is there a government-wide policy pertaining to the retention of press releases and backgrounders on websites; and (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document, order, policy, directive, or other record in which the current policy, or any former policy, is or was set forth?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 854--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to regional ministerial responsibilities, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusively: (a) which ministers have had regional representation responsibilities, and for which provinces, territories or other regions; (b) what were the start and end dates of those responsibilities; (c) what were the instructions given to each minister in respect of his or her regional ministerial responsibilities; (d) what were the operating expenditures for each minister in respect of his or her regional representation responsibilities, including the amount spent on wages, salaries, contracts for the provision of services, contracts for the provision of goods, office leases, and other expenditures, giving particulars of those expenditures; (e) where were these leased offices located; (f) how many employees are or were employed by each minister’s regional office; (g) where did each employee have his or her principal place of employment; and (h) what were the travel and hospitality expenses of each minister or minister’s employee in respect of their regional ministerial responsibilities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 855--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to a verification strategy for Métis identification systems: (a) what are the purposes of proposed or actual contracts with the Canadian Standards Association to develop a verification strategy for Métis identification systems; (b) what is the monetary value of the contract or contracts; (c) what are the effective dates of the contract or contracts; (d) what is the file number of the contract or contracts; (e) what is the scope of the work to be carried out under any such contract; (f) was any such contract awarded on a sole-source or competitive basis; (g) if any such contract was awarded on a competitive basis, how many bids were received; (h) are there provisions for Métis employment or procurement benefits under this contract; (i) has the government consulted with Métis representative organizations concerning Métis identification generally or as concerns this contract in particular and, if so, (i) with which Métis representative organizations has it consulted, (ii) what was the nature, duration, and extent of such consultations, (iii) what was the outcome of those consultations; (j) what definitions of “Métis” are to be used for this verification strategy; (k) what is the rationale behind the definition or definitions of “Métis” that are to be used; and (l) is the verification strategy consistent with Articles 9 and 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, if not, what is the nature and extent of the inconsistency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 856--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With respect to the report entitled "The Unified Family Court Summative Evaluation", released in March 2009 by the Department of Justice: (a) what progress has been made on each of the three recommendations outlined in section 8; (b) since fiscal year 2002-2003, what initiatives, as indicated on page 8 of the English version of the report, has the Department of Justice launched to enhance the level of services that provincial and territorial governments provide in the area of family law; and (c) how much federal funding was spent in each fiscal year since 2002-2003 on every initiative identified in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 857--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Canada Science and Technology Museum, what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all briefing notes, briefing materials, reports, engineering assessments, or other documents, produced, created, or modified since January 1, 2006, concerning either the condition of the building housing the Canada Science and Technology Museum on St. Laurent Boulevard in Ottawa, repairs which have been made to that building, or which are or have been contemplated to be made, or options for the replacement of the building, held by: (a) the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation; (b) the Department of Canadian Heritage; (c) Public Works and Government Services Canada; (d) the National Capital Commission, (e) the Treasury Board Secretariat; and (f) the Privy Council Office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 859--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With respect to Crown copyright: (a) what is the total revenue collected, in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive, by each department, agency, or other government organization, for the licensing of the use of works for which copyright is held by Canada or a department, agency, or other government organization; (b) what are the works which have been so licensed, specifying the title or nature of the work, and the date of publication or creation of the work; (c) what has been the total cost to each department or agency to administer the licensing of those works in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (d) how many infringements of Crown or federal government copyright have been the subject of litigation or other action in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (e) what have been the outcomes or resolutions of each such litigation or other action in (d); (f) how many applications to license the use of Crown copyright works have been declined or rejected since fiscal year 2005-2006, specifying the title or nature of the work, the date of publication or creation of the work and the reason for denying or rejecting the application; and (g) what steps, if any, has the government taken to mitigate the impact or costs to users of perpetual Crown copyright in unpublished works?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 860--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the public service, for each fiscal year since 2008-2009 inclusive: (a) how many days of sick leave were due to public service employees at the end of each fiscal year, or as of the most recent date in the current fiscal year, as the case may be; (b) how many public service employees retired; (c) how many public service employees left the public service for reasons other than retirement, distinguishing those who left because of (i) disability, (ii) resignation, (iii) termination, (iv) death, (v) other reasons; (d) of the total sick leave referred to in (a), how many sick days were not paid, broken down by the categories of termination enumerated in (b) and (c); and (e) what is the dollar value of the sick days referred to in each of (a), (d) and (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 861--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: what is the amount and percentage of all “lapsed spending,” broken down by year, from 2006 to 2013?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 863--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to Employment Insurance benefits: (a) what are the amounts paid out for Employment Insurance benefits in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (b) how many beneficiaries have there been in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (c) how many applications for Employment Insurance benefits have there been in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (d) how many Employment Insurance applications in Prince Edward Island have been rejected from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (e) what is the average waiting time for Employment Insurance applications in Prince Edward Island to be processed from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available, and what is the longest single waiting time on record; (f) what is the number of Employment Insurance appeals in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available, (iii) number of positive decisions on appeals, (iv) number of negative decisions on appeals; (g) what is the average wait time for decisions made on Employment Insurance appeals in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available, and what is the longest single waiting time on record; and (h) if any of the information requested is not available, what are the reasons, in detail, as to why that is the case?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 864--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the administration of the Access to Information Act: (a) what are the criteria and what is the process by which the government judges that a request made under the act is frivolous or vexatious in nature; (b) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of the documents in which the criteria and process are set forth; (c) for each government institution, how many requests has the institution processed since January 1, 2014; (d) of the number of requests in (c), how many were considered frivolous or vexatious according to the criteria and process set out in (a); and (e) for each government institution, what were the ten most recent requests processed which, in the opinion of government, are frivolous or vexatious, providing the file number of the request, the text of the request, and the category of requester, distinguishing the following categories, (i) academia, (ii) business (private sector), (iii) media, (iv) organization, (v) member of the public, (vi) decline to identify?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 865--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the government’s processing of immigration applications: (a) what is the total average cost to government and time required to complete a single application for (i) federal skilled worker, (ii) federal skilled trade, (iii) Canadian Experience Class, (iv) Quebec-selected skilled workers, (v) Provincial Nominee Program, (vi) start-up visa, (vii) self-employed people, (viii) spouse, common-law, or conjugal partner, or dependent children sponsorship, (ix) parent and grandparents sponsorship, (x) inland asylum claimant, (xi) government-sponsored refugee, (xii) privately sponsored refugee, (xiii) temporary resident visa, (xiv) parents and grandparents super visa, (xv) Express Entry system; and (b) in each fiscal year since 2009-2010 inclusive, how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) accepted, (iv) rejected, (v) otherwise treated, providing details of that treatment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 866--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to government communications: for each department, agency or crown corporation, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports, memoranda, orders, directives, guidelines, manuals, or any other records pertaining to the use of the phrase “Harper Government” in press releases or other communications material?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 867--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to legislative drafting: (a) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports, memoranda, or any other records since January 1, 2008, concerning practices and procedures related to the drafting of the titles, short titles, or alternative titles of government bills introduced in the Senate or the House of Commons; and (b) for each government bill introduced in the Senate or the House of Commons since January 1, 2008, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports, memoranda, or any other records, since January 1, 2008, concerning the titles, short titles, or alternative titles of that bill?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 868--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to materials prepared for past or current Parliamentary Secretaries or their staff from April 1, 2013, to the present: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 869--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund, since September 2011: (a) how many applications (i) were successful and received funding under this program, (ii) were rejected through calls for proposals; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) corresponding file and reference number; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far for each year since 2011; (d) how much funding is left; (e) how many major projects under this program will go to, or went to, expanding existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects applications that went to (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Mid-Sized Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications that went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (i) what is the reason most often given for rejecting an application; (j) what are the reasons given for rejecting an application and what is the frequency of each reason; (k) will the program be renovated next year and, if so, when will the next call for proposals be issued; and (l) with respect to rejected applications, what was the location and value of each proposal, broken down by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) corresponding file and reference number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 873--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) how many applications were received for Labour Market Opinions from 2012 to 2014 inclusively, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (b) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were approved from 2012 to 2014 inclusively, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (c) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were received for high skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (d) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were received for low skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (e) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were approved for high skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (f) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were approved for low skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (g) how many applications were received for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2014, broken down by (i) total number, (ii) month, (iii) province; (h) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved in 2014, broken down by (i) total number, (ii) month, (iii) province; (i) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (j) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for low wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (k) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (l) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for low wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (m) how many work permits were issued from 2012 to 2014 inclusively, broken down by (i) total number per year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (n) how many work permits were issued for high skill temporary foreign workers from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (o) how many work permits were issued for low skill temporary foreign workers from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (p) how many work permits were issued for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (q) how many work permits were issued for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (r) how many employers with fewer than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments since June 2014; and (s) how many employers with more than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments since June 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 874--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) when will Employment and Social Development Canada begin publicly reporting data on the number of temporary foreign workers approved and the names of employers receiving positive Labour Market Impact Assessments; (b) for which National Occupation Codes are employers no longer allowed to seek temporary foreign workers in regions with unemployment rates of more than 6%; (c) how many provinces and territories, and which ones, have negotiated new annex agreements regarding Labour Market Impact Assessment exemptions with the federal government; (d) how many information-sharing deals have been signed with provinces and territories regarding the temporary foreign worker program, and which provinces and territories are they; (e) how many information-sharing agreements between federal government departments have been revised since June 2014; (f) when will the new Statistics Canada surveys on Job Vacancies and National Wages be implemented; (g) when will the new Job Matching service be implemented, and how will it work; (h) what is the target date for offering the option of applying for jobs online directly through the Job Bank; (i) what specific safeguards will be in place to protect the privacy of applicants, if program officers are able to see the number of applicants and the relevance of their skills; (j) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the inclusion of this data in the operation of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (k) how many investigators are assigned to follow up on tips from the government’s confidential tip line and the online tip portal; (l) what is the budget for the confidential tip line and the online tip portal; (m) how many tips have been received on the confidential tip line since April, broken down by month; (n) how many tips have been received through the online tip portal since its creation, broken down by month; (o) how many investigations have been conducted as a result of tips received; (p) how many employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program have been subject to an inspection in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (q) how many inspections conducted in 2013-2014 have involved an on-site visit; (r) when is the new regulatory framework for penalties for non-compliance expected to be in place; (s) how many comments were received on the government’s Discussion Paper on the regulatory framework; (t) how many letters of complaint has the Department received about the increase in fees for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (u) when is the new privilege fee expected to be introduced; (v) when is the review of Labour Market Impact Assessment-exempt streams expected to be completed, and who will be consulted as part of that process; (w) how many errors on the government’s list of employers with temporary foreign workers were determined to have been the result of employers giving the government the wrong information, and how many employers will face sanctions as a result; and (x) what action will the Department take in cases where Canadians are laid off after temporary foreign workers are hired?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 875--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many ISS members assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability benefit cases have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, (ii) a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, (iii) a provincial or territorial licence in nursing, (iv) a provincial or territorial licence in occupational therapy, (v) a provincial or territorial licence in pharmacy, (vi) a provincial or territorial licence in physiotherapy, (vii) a provincial or territorial licence in psychology, (viii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (k) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) but currently assigned to the ISS have been assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability benefit cases, and of those members, how many have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, (ii) a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, (iii) a provincial or territorial licence in nursing, (iv) a provincial or territorial licence in occupational therapy, (v) a provincial or territorial licence in pharmacy, (vi) a provincial or territorial licence in physiotherapy, (vii) a provincial or territorial licence in psychology, (viii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (l) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (m) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (o) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (p) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (u) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (v) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS, in total and broken down by year; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed, in total and broken down by year; (x) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (y) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (dd) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (ee) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD, in total and broken down by year; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed, in total and broken down by year; (gg) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (hh) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (nn) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (oo) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness, broken down by (i) year, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (rr) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship, broken down by (i) year, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (ss) how many AD members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (tt) how many ISS members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (uu) how many EIS members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (vv) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ww) when is the consultants’ report on productivity due to be completed and will the report be made public; (xx) when did the Tribunal begin assigning cases to members in 2013, broken down by (i) ISS, (ii) EIS, (iii) AD; (yy) at what point in 2013 did all existing members have case files assigned to them, broken down by (i) ISS, (ii) EIS, (iii) AD; (zz) what was the rationale for not maintaining the old Boards of Referees, EI Umpires, Review Tribunals, and Pensions Appeal Board until their existing caseloads were completely finished; and (aaa) what was the rationale for imposing a cap on the number of Tribunal members at the time of the Tribunal’s creation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 876--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to Veterans’ Affairs Canada offices: how many clients have been served each year from 2006 to 2014 inclusively in each Veterans Affairs Canada office (excluding Service Canada locations, Operational Stress Injury clinics, and Integrated Personnel Support Centres), including the nine recently closed offices in Thunder Bay, Sydney, Charlottetown, Corner Brook, Windsor, Brandon, Saskatoon, Kelowna, and Prince George?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 877--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor): what are the total annual expenditures, for each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to the present, for (a) the Northern Ontario Development Program; (b) the Community Futures Program; (c) the Economic Development Initiative; (d) the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund; (e) general administration; and (f) any other temporary or permanent program or service delivered by the FedNor during this time period that is not listed above?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 878--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to the visit to Canada of the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission on September 26, 2014: (a) when was the invitation first sent by the government; (b) what was the planned agenda for the visit; (c) which department was responsible for the visit; (d) what was the budget for the visit, broken down by department; (e) when was the Toronto portion added to the visit; (f) which department added the Toronto portion; (g) who was on the guest list for the Toronto event, including the name, the company or organization, and which department or Minister’s office placed them on the list; (h) what was the cost of the Toronto event, broken down by (i) food, (ii) room rental, (iii) staging, (iv) other costs; (i) did the government do a value for money assessment for the Toronto event and, if so, (i) what is the tracking number, (ii) what are the conclusions; (j) how much did the flight for the Presidents to Europe cost; (k) did the government look at other options than the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) flight and, if so, (i) which options were reviewed, (ii) why were they rejected; (l) what was the passenger manifest for the trip; (m) did the flight make any stops on the way to or from Brussels; (n) if the answer in (m) is no, how did the Prime Minister travel from Toronto, including the cost of this trip if not included with the trip to Brussels; (o) has the government offered the use of RCAF planes for travel of other visiting dignitaries since 2006 and, if so, for which visitors; (p) was the venue for the Toronto event tendered, (i) if so, what was the Request for Proposal reference number, (ii) if not, which exception from the procurement directive was invoked and when did this receive approval from cabinet; (q) which government officials attended the Toronto event, including their travel method and cost; and (r) were there any passengers on the RCAF flight to Toronto from Ottawa who were not government employees and, if so, what are their names and their reason for being on the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 879--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to government’s loans and grants to businesses since 2006: (a) what are the names of the companies that received grants and loans, including (i) the program that the loan was granted under, (ii) the amount of the loan, (iii) the amount that has currently paid back, (iv) the amount that is currently outstanding, (v) the amount that was originally announced, (vi) the reason for any write down or write off, (vii) the number of jobs that were supposed to be created by the loan, (viii) the number of jobs that were actually created after the loan was issued, (ix) the number of jobs that were committed to be maintained because of the loan, (x) the number of jobs that were actually maintained; and (b) for companies that failed to meet their job numbers, what action has the government taken to address the missed target?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 880--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to government and agency contracts for communications since 2006: (a) how much has the government spent on contracts for communications products; (b) whom has the government contracted for writing, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the type of service provided, (iii) the event or announcement that was linked to the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered, (v) how much the contract was for, including whether the contract value changed, (vi) the date the product was release, (vii) the date of the announcement; (c) whom has the government contracted for media training, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the persons that the training was provided to, including their title, (iii) whether the contract was tendered, (iv) how much the contract was for, including whether the contract value changed, (v) the date of the contract; (d) whom has the government contracted for media monitoring, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the length of the contract, (iii) the cost of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered; (e) whom has the government contracted for distribution of press releases, including (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the length of the contract, (iii) the cost of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered; (f) whom has the government contracted for event staging, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the type of service provided, (iii) the event or announcement that was linked to the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered, (v) how much the contract was for, including whether the contract value changed, (vi) the date the product was release, (vii) the date of the announcement; and (g) whom has the government contracted for any other communications product, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the length of the contract, (iii) the cost of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered, (v) what the contract was for?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 881--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to the government’s sale of assets over $1,000 after 2007: (a) what were the assets sold, specifying (i) the asset sale price, (ii) the name of the purchaser, (iii) whether multiple bids were received, (iv) what amount the asset was purchased for by the government, (v) the reason for the sale; (b) was a third party used for the sale and, if so, (i) what is the name of the third party, (ii) was this contract tendered or not; (c) in the case where a third party was used, how much was the third party paid for their services; (d) for the government’s sale of stocks, (i) how much of the stock was sold, (ii) how much does the government still hold; (e) for sale of privately held companies in which the government held a position, (i) does the government still hold a position in the company, (ii) did the government have a market assessment done before the sale and, if so, by whom, (iii) what was the difference in the amount the government projected from the sale and the actual amount received; (f) how much income did the asset bring in in the year prior to its sale; and (g) how much was spent marketing the sale of each asset?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 882--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to Service Canada: for the past five fiscal years, (a) how many staff in the Integrity unit have been allocated in each year to (i) Employment Insurance (EI), (ii) the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), (iii) Old Age Security (OAS), (iv) Canada Pension Plan (CPP); (b) what is the average caseload for EI inspectors annually; (c) how many EI overpayments have been made annually by number and by amount; (d) how many EI overpayments have been collected annually by number and by amount; (e) how many EI overpayments have been written off annually by number and by amount; (f) what is the average caseload for CPP inspectors annually; (g) how many CPP overpayments have been made annually by number and by amount; (h) how many CPP overpayments have been collected annually by number and by amount; (i) how many CPP overpayments have been written off annually by number and by amount; (j) what is the average caseload for OAS inspectors annually; (k) how many OAS overpayments have been made annually by number and by amount; (l) how many OAS overpayments have been collected annually by number and by amount; (m) how many OAS overpayments have been written off annually by number and by amount; (n) what is the average caseload for TFWP inspectors; (o) what is the number of Service Canada employees on long-term disability leave every year, excluding those on parental leave, in total and broken down by (i) EI call centres, (ii) EI processing centres, (iii) CPP and OAS call centres, (iv) Labour Market Impact Assessment processing centres; (p) what is the definition for the performance indicator “future expenditure reduction” for the Integrity Section listed in the 2013-2014 Departmental Performance Report; and (q) what has been the Department’s performance on “future expenditure reduction” annually, broken down by (i) EI, (ii) CPP, (iii) OAS?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 884--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to the government's Global Markets Action Plan (GMAP): (a) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (b) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted during the creation of GMAP; (c) what is the total of all government expenditures related to the consultation process related to GMAP, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses, including transportation, accommodation, rental meeting spaces or equipment, food and other travel-related expenses, (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, broken down by all related details; (d) what are the titles and file names of all reports, emails and briefing notes prepared in relation to the development and consultation process involved in the creation of GMAP?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 887--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to the federal public service employed in Prince Edward Island and the City of Charlottetown, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive, for both the province and the city separately, public service wide and for each department: (a) how many persons were employed; (b) how many public service employees were hired; (c) how many public service employees retired; (d) how many public service employees left the public service for reasons other than retirement, distinguishing those who left because of (i) disability, (ii) resignation, (iii) termination, (iv) death, (v) other reasons; (e) how many of those employees, by both number and percentage, were (i) full-time, (ii) part-time, (iii) students, (iv) any other employment category in the public service; (f) what occupational tier level did the employees occupy by both number and percentage; (g) what was the mean, median, and modal salary for a full-time employee; and (h) what was the total paid to employees (i) in salary, (ii) in other benefits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 888--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to Health Canada: for the last ten years, (a) how many drug safety inspectors has Health Canada employed, broken down by year; (b) how many inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies has Health Canada conducted within Canada, broken down by year; (c) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected within Canada have received a warning letter or citation from Health Canada, broken down by year; (d) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected within Canada have had penalties imposed, broken down by year; (e) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected within Canada have been subject to a ban, broken down by year; (f) how many inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies has Health Canada conducted internationally, broken down by year; (g) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have received a warning letter or citation from Health Canada, broken down by year; (h) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have had penalties imposed, broken down by year; (i) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have been subject to a ban, broken down by year; (j) how many notices of violation concerning companies operating in Canada has Health Canada received from foreign regulators, broken down by year; (k) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies has Health Canada inspected because of a notification received from a foreign regulator, broken down by year; (l) how many clinical trials has Health Canada inspected, broken down by year; (m) how many clinical trials received a warning letter or citation from Health Canada following an inspection, broken down by year; (n) how many clinical trials have been shut down by Health Canada following an inspection, broken down by year; (o) how many investigations has Health Canada conducted regarding promotion of off-label prescription of drugs by pharmaceutical companies, broken down by year; (p) how many fines or penalties has Health Canada levied for off-label promotions, broken down by year; (q) how many reports of side effects relating to off-label prescriptions of pharmaceuticals has Health Canada received, broken down by year; and (r) when will Health Canada begin including side effects related to off-label prescriptions in its public database?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 890--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
—With regard to the case before the courts between Daniel Christopher Scott, Mark Douglas Campbell, Gavin Michael David Flett, Kevin Albert Matthew Berry, Bradley Darren Quast, and Aaron Michael Bedard, Respondents (Plaintiffs) and Attorney General of Canada Appellant (Defendant): (a) what has been the total cost to the government to pursue this matter in the courts, broken down by expense and (i) cost incurred before September 6, 2013, (ii) cost incurred since September 6, 2013; (b) who has been consulted by the government throughout the proceedings, broken down by (i) name, (ii) date; (c) what are the internal tracking numbers of all documents, communications or briefing notes regarding the aforementioned case; and (d) how much more has the government budgeted to spend on this file?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 892--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and subsequently the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development: during the period from 2004 to 2014, what is the total number of employees who were posted outside of Canada for ten or more consecutive years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 893--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to the interim Canadian Wheat Board (CWB): (a) what is the salary range afforded to the executive management of the interim CWB; (b) what information does the government possess as to the bonuses, benefits, fees, and other forms of compensation are the members of the executive management receiving; (c) what information does the government possess as to the bonuses, benefits, fees, and other forms of compensation will the members of the executive management receive upon the transfer of the interim CWB to new ownership; and (d) what commitments have been made regarding bonuses, benefits, fees, and other forms of compensation for the members of executive management after the transfer of the interim CWB to new ownership?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 894--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to changes to Canada’s food safety laws: (a) what is the status of regulations requiring better labelling of food safety risks caused by meat tenderization and related processing techniques; (b) what communications and consultations have taken place with industry in the last year regarding these new regulations; (c) what compliance rates have been measured in regard to the new regulations; (d) what is the status of new regulations developed in regards to ensuring better traceability for Canadian fresh produce and meat products; (e) what is the status of the implementation of regulations related to Bill S-11, the Safe Food For Canadians Act; (f) what has been the cost of developing new regulations related to Bill S-11; (g) what is the status of the implementation of all of the recommendations to improve food safety that were outlined in the Weatherill report; (h) what are the names and costs of food safety programs that will sunset in the years 2014 and 2015; and (i) who was consulted with regards to new regulations related to the implementation of Bill S-11?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 895--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to International Mobility Programs: (a) when will Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) begin proactively posting more data, what data will be posted, and how often; (b) when will the new compliance fee for employer-specific work permits be levied, and at what level will the fee be set; (c) when will the new privilege fee be in place for open work permit holders; (d) how many CIC staff are assigned to investigations of employers for compliance; (e) how many employers have been investigated in 2014, broken down by month; (f) what penalty regime is in place for employers who break the rules; (g) how many employers have been subjected to penalties or sanctions for breaking the rules; (h) how many investigations have included an on-site inspection; (i) how many information-sharing agreements have been signed with other federal government departments; (j) how many information-sharing agreements have been signed with provincial and territorial governments, and which provinces and territories are they; (k) which streams have seen changes to their guidelines or requirements since June 2014; (l) has the review of Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA)-exempt streams to determine if they should become part of the LMIA-required stream taken place yet and, if so, what are the outcomes of that review; (m) what measures have been taken to promote the International Experience Canada program to Canadians; and (n) what is the new wage floor for Intra-Company Transferees with specialized knowledge and when did it come into effect?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 896--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to International Mobility Programs, for the years 2006 to 2014: (a) for each year, how many work permits were issued under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in total and by source country; (b) for each year, how many Canadians worked in the United States and Mexico under the auspices of NAFTA; (c) which other Free Trade Agreements (FTA) include provisions on worker mobility, and for each FTA how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (d) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under the auspices of a FTA and which countries did they work in; (e) for each year, how many work permits were issued under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), in total and by source country; (f) for each year, how many Canadians worked abroad under the auspices of GATS and which countries did they work in; (g) which international agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment and, for each agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (h) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under these same international agreements and in which countries did they work; (i) which provincial agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (j) which reciprocal employment programs or agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (k) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under these same reciprocal programs or agreements and in which countries did they work; (l) which employment benefit programs or agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (m) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under employment benefit programs or agreements and in which countries did they work; (n) which research or studies-related programs or agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (o) which programs or agreements fall under “Other Canadian interests,” and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (p) which programs or agreements fall under “Other work permit holders without Labour Market Opinion,” and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; and (q) for each year, how many spouse/common law partners were issued work permits, in total and by source country?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 897--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to International Experience Canada, for the years 2013 and 2014: (a) with which countries did Canada have an agreement; (b) what were the reciprocal quotas; (c) how many Canadians travelled to each country under the auspices of the agreement; (d) how many youths from each country travelled to Canada under the auspices of the agreement; (e) what measures has the government taken to promote the program to Canadians; and (f) what measures has the government undertaken to reduce barriers to Canadian participants in some countries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 898--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to Express Entry: (a) with whom did the government consult in regard to the creation and design of the program, and on what dates; (b) with whom did the government consult in regard to the development of the point system, and on what dates; (c) what studies did the government conduct before the decision was made to introduce Express Entry; (d) what studies did the government conduct in designing the program; (e) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the design of the program; (f) what is the target date for matching prospective immigrants with potential employers; (g) what precautions will be taken to ensure that employers have tried to hire eligible Canadians before they are allowed to search for prospective immigrants; (h) how will the system identify potential candidates for employers; (i) how often will draws for names be conducted; (j) who will decide how many names will be drawn in each draw; (k) who will decide how names drawn will be divided among the three immigration streams included in Express Entry; (l) when will the first evaluation of Express Entry be conducted; and (m) what is the projected budget for the next three years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 899--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to the Live-In Caregiver Program: (a) how many applications did the government receive for permanent residence from live-in caregivers for each year from 2010 to 2014 inclusively; (b) for each year, how many of the applications came from caregivers who had cared for children and how many came from caregivers who had cared for seniors or persons living with a disability; (c) how many staff were assigned to process applications for permanent residence from live-in caregivers in each year; (d) whom did the government consult before making changes to the program and on which date did the consultations take place; (e) did the government conduct any studies regarding the impact of a cap on permanent resident applications from live-in caregivers; (f) will caregivers be allowed to study in Canada before achieving permanent residence, and if so, will they be allowed to pay domestic tuition; and (g) what are the current requirements for advertising for applicants for a Labour Market Impact Assessment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 900--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to refugee applications from 2010 to 2014: (a) what is the average processing time for refugee applications, broken down by (i) year, (ii) processing centre, (iii) government-assisted refugees, (iv) privately sponsored refugees; (b) for each year, where were application processing centres located; and (c) for each year and for each centre, how many staff worked on processing refugee applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 901--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to the government’s event entitled “Strong Girls, Strong World” scheduled to be held in Toronto on October 22, 2014: (a) who within the government was responsible for the organization of the event; (b) what was the entire budget of the event, (i) did the event go over budget, (ii) if so, what were the cost overruns, (iii) were there unforeseen expenses, (iv) if the event was cancelled, what was the amount of money the government was able to recover, (v) if the event was cancelled, what was the amount of money the government was unable to recover; (c) if the event was cancelled, will the event be rescheduled in 2015 and, if so, (i) what is the new date of the event, (ii) what is the estimated budget of the new event; (d) what was the total cost for the venue rental at the Central Technical School; (e) how many names were on the final guest list and what were the names; (f) did the government pay for the travel expenses of international visitors; (g) how was the Central Technical School chosen as a venue for the event, (i) on what date was the school first contacted with regard to the Summit, (ii) how many other venues did the event organizers contact other than the Central Technical School; (h) what was the total cost for security for the event; (i) what was the total cost for meals and hospitality for the event; and (j) was the event paid for from general consolidated revenue?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 902--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to government funding: for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present, (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral districts of Etobicoke North, Etobicoke Centre, and Etobicoke—Lakeshore, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 903--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s “Implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) and the Outcomes of the Twenty-Third Special Session of the General Assembly (2000) in the Context of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women and the Adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action: Canada’s National Review, June 2014”: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted during the creation of this review; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (c) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted during the creation of this plan; (d) what is the total of all government expenditures related to the consultation process related to the plan, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses, including transportation, accommodation, rental meeting spaces or equipment, food and other travel-related expenses, (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, broken down by all related details; (e) what are the titles and file names of all reports, emails and briefing notes prepared in relation to the development and consultation process involved in finalizing the creation of the Review; and (f) how much funding has been allocated to the deployment of this proposal for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 904--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s Action Plan to Address Family Violence and Violent Crimes Against Aboriginal Women and Girls (the Plan): (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted during the creation of the Plan; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (c) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted during the creation of the Plan; (d) what is the total of all government expenditures related to the consultation process related to the Plan, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses, including transportation, accommodation, rental meeting spaces or equipment, food and other travel-related expenses, (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, broken down by all related details; (e) what are the titles and file names of all reports, emails and briefing notes prepared in relation to the development and consultation process involved in finalizing the creation of the Plan; (f) what is the fiscal year breakdown and allocation of the $25 million pledged for the Plan; (g) what are the deadlines; (h) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with various provincial and territorial representations consulted during the creation of the Plan; (i) what are the projected deadlines for the government’s safety plans set out in the Plan; (j) during which fiscal years will Public Safety Canada begin allocating the $1.72 million to support Aboriginal communities to develop safety plans; (k) during which fiscal years will Justice Canada begin allocating the $500,000 to support Aboriginal communities to break intergenerational cycles of violence; (l) during which fiscal years will Status of Women Canada begin allocating the $5 million to work with First Nations, Inuit and Metis communities to denounce and prevent violence against Aboriginal women, and what is the breakdown per year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 905--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for deputy heads or their staff from September 19, 2014, to the present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 906--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for Assistant Deputy Ministers from September 19, 2014, to the present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 907--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for ministers or their staff from September 19, 2014, to the present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 908--
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé:
With regard to the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program: (a) how many staff are currently assigned to processing applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIA); (b) how many staff were assigned to processing applications for Labour Market Opinions (LMO) from 2011 to 2013; (c) what is the average time to process an application for an LMIA; (d) what was the average time to process an application for an LMO from 2011 to 2013; (e) how many applications have taken more than two months to process from 2011 to 2014; (f) what is the average time to process an application for a work permit; (g) what was the average time to process an application for a work permit from 2011 to 2014; (h) how many complaints has the government received about workers not arriving until after the harvest has begun; and (i) how many complaints has the government received about workers not arriving until after the harvest is over?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 909--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to Service Canada: (a) who is responsible for handling Employment Insurance (EI) callbacks; (b) what is the service standard for EI callbacks; (c) for the last five fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for EI call backs; (d) for the last two fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for EI callbacks broken down by month; (e) for the last five fiscal years, what was the average number of days for an EI callback; (f) who is responsible for handling Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) callbacks; (g) what is the service standard for CPP and OAS callbacks; (h) for the last five fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for CPP and OAS callbacks; (i) for the last two fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for CPP and OAS callbacks, broken down by month; (j) for the last five fiscal years, what was the average number of days for a CPP and OAS callback; (k) who made the decision to change the service standard for EI call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes; (l) who was consulted in making the decision to change the service standard for EI call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes; (m) who made the decision to change the service standard for CPP and OAS call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes; and (n) who was consulted in making the decision to change the service standard for CPP and OAS call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 910--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to Health Canada: for the last ten years, broken down by year, (a) how many complaints have been received regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers; (b) how many penalties or fines have been imposed for violations of the regulations regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers; (c) how many warning letters or citations have been issued for violations of the regulations regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers; and (d) which companies have been found to have violated the regulations regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 912--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the ineligibility for Employment Insurance (EI) Sickness Benefits for parents (claimants) who fell ill or became injured while receiving parental benefits because they were not considered to be otherwise available for work under the Employment Insurance Act: for fiscal years 2003-2004 to 2013-2014: (a) how many claimants (i) were denied their initial application for EI sickness benefits by the government because they were deemed to otherwise be not available for work, (ii) appealed their denial of sickness benefits to the Board of Referees, broken down by each fiscal year; (b) how many claimants on parental leave were denied sickness benefits after the Canadian Umpire Benefit (CUB) 77039 decision on March 24, 2013; (c) did Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) appeal CUB 77039, and if not, why not; (d) if HRSDC did not appeal the decision, did it accept the ruling, and if not, why not; (e) is a CUB ruling that is not successfully appealed final and binding on the government; (f) what were the policy implications for HRSDC in the interpretation of the Employment Insurance Act after the significant CUB decision; (g) what process was HRSDC supposed to have followed after the CUB decision (or appeal of said decision) to change implementation of relevant EI policy; (h) what was the specific impact of CUB 77039 on HRSDC policy concerning eligibility of claimants on parental leave accessing sickness benefits; (i) as a result of the CUB 77039 decision, what specific policy directives were made by HRSDC and, if none were made, why not; (j) did the government undertake any analysis or studies concerning the impact of CUB 77039 and, if so, what are the titles, files numbers, and results of any such analysis or studies; (k) did HRSDC deny sickness benefits to claimants post CUB 77039 up to March 24, 2013, and, if so, what is the justification; (l) how many Claimants had active appeals outstanding with the Board of Referees and EI Umpire regarding their denial by the government of sickness benefits while on parental leave as of March 24, 2013; (m) how many of the claimants in (l) did the government subsequently settle with, (i) what was the average settlement cost per claimant, (ii) what were the total legal fees associated with the settlement with the claimants, (iii) what was the total cost of the settlement; (n) what was the rationale for settling with claimants in (m); (o) when did the government decide to settle and when did it settle with claimants described in (m); (p) was the enhanced access to EI sickness benefits announced in Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, the direct result of the CUB 77039 decision; (q) was the CUB 77039 decision disclosed to parliamentarians in either the technical briefing provided by the government to parliamentarians on September 26, 2012, or during the legislative process for Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, if not, why; (r) when did the government realize that the 2002 legislative changes to EI stacking provisions by Bill C-49, Budget Implementation Act 2001, were intended to make sickness benefits available to women who become ill during receipt of parental benefits and what was done about it; (s) what is the total cost of legal services to date to defend against the McCrea v. Canada - Federal Court file number T-210-12; (t) what are the HRSDC reference details of all documents related to CUB 77039 prepared for the Minister or his staff, including, but not limited to, briefings, analysis, and reports, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) titles or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number; and (u) after both the CUB 77039 and CUB 79390A decisions determined that sickness benefits were to be paid to Natalya Rougas and Jane Kittmer, why did the government issue news releases concerning Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, dated September 20, 2012, October 2, 2012, November 20, 2012, December 12, 2012, and March 10, 2013, with the statement “currently, people receiving parental benefits under the EI program do not qualify for sickness benefits because they are not considered to be otherwise available for work”?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 913--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to international trade, respecting the Canada-European Union Summit in Ottawa and Toronto on September 25 and 26, 2014: what are the details of all contracts for goods or services relating to the summit, providing for each contract: (i) the name of the contractor, (ii) a description of the goods or services provided, (iii) the value of the contract, (iv) whether or not there was an open bidding process for the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 914--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to international trade, respecting the Canada-European Union Summit in Ottawa and Toronto on September 25 and 26, 2014: (a) what were the expenses incurred in relation to travel by government officials from the current Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to Ottawa, or to any European location, specifying the location, broken down by (i) department, (ii) individual incurring the expense, (iii) details of the expense; and (b) what were the expenses incurred in Ottawa and in Toronto in relation to all receptions, press conferences, signing ceremonies, official meetings, or bilateral meetings, for Canadian and European officials broken down by (i) department, (ii) individual incurring the expense, (iii) details of the expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 916--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to foreign affairs: (a) what are the dates, locations, and attendees of all meetings held from March 1, 2010, to December 4, 2014, attended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his staff, or officials from his Department, concerning the Global Market Action Plan; and (b) for all briefing materials or documents prepared for the Minister, his staff, or officials relative to such meetings, whether prepared before or after the meeting, what is (i) the date of the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the Department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 917--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to international trade: (a) what are the dates, locations, and attendees of all meetings held from March 1, 2010, to December 4, 2014, attended by the Minister of International Trade, his staff, or officials from his Department, concerning the 2014 Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy; and (b) for all briefing materials or documents prepared for the Minister, his staff, or officials relative to such meetings, whether prepared before or after the meeting, what is (i) the date of the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the Department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 918--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS): (a) does the strategy include (i) acquisition of three strategic air transport aircraft and stationing them at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Trenton, (ii) doubling the size of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), (iii) acquisition of three armed naval heavy icebreakers, and stationing them in the area of Iqaluit, (iv) building a new civilian-military deepwater docking facility to accommodate the three armed naval heavy icebreakers mentioned in (iii), (v) establishing a new underwater sensor system, (vi) building a new army training centre in the area of Cambridge Bay, (vii) stationing new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle squadrons at both CFB Goose Bay and CFB Comox, (viii) stationing new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft in Yellowknife, (ix) increasing the size of the Canadian Rangers by 500, (x) establishing a 650-member regular forces battalion at CFB Comox, CFB Goose Bay, CFB Trenton, and CFB Bagotville respectively, (xi) adding 1,000 regular force and 750 reserve force personnel to the army in Quebec, (xii) establishing a territorial defence unit in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint John, St. John's, Halifax and the Niagara-Windsor corridor respectively, (xiii) recruiting 1,000 regular force personnel for the purpose of improving and enlarging the Atlantic fleet, (xiv) increasing the number of personnel in CFB Gagetown, (xv) stationing new aircraft and personnel at CFB Greenwood, (xvi) increasing the numbers of Pacific navy regular force personnel by about 500, (xvii) deploying new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft at CFB Comox and CFB Winnipeg, (xviii) upgrading fighter aircraft at CFB Cold Lake; (b) what is the rationale for the inclusion or exclusion, from the CFDS, of each of the items mentioned in (a)(i) to (a)(xviii); and (c) for each item mentioned in (a)(i) to (a)(xviii) that is not a part of the strategy, (i) has the government taken any steps since January 1, 2012, to carry out or implement the item, (ii) if the government has not taken any such steps, does it intend to do so, (iii) if the government does intend to implement the item, when does it intend to do so, (iv) if the government does not intend to implement the item, when was this decision made, and what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document related to that decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 920--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to foreign affairs: for each foreign visit or delegation described under the heading “Travel Expenses for Canadian Representation at International Conferences and Meetings” in the Public Accounts for fiscal years 2006-2007 to 2013-2014 inclusive, for each traveller or delegate who falls under the rubric of “Others” or “Stakeholders”, but not including parliamentarians or spouses of parliamentarians, what is his or her full name and the reason for which he or she was selected to join the visit or delegation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 921--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Departmental Performance Review of actual spending for 2013-2014 on international development and humanitarian assistance to low-income countries: (a) what low-income countries received financial assistance; (b) how much was spent on each of those countries; (c) what countries that were previously in the low-income country category were moved to the categories “fragile states” and “crisis-affected countries”; (d) how much was spent on those newly identified fragile states and crisis-affected countries; and (e) will the $125.9 million in lapsed funding be allocated as end-of-year funding to other programs and, if so, (i) which other programs, (ii) in which specific locations, (iii) how much is allocated for each program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 922--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements: (a) has the 70% federal share of the $400-million federal-provincial fund to support fisheries industry enhancements, announced on October 29, 2013, by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, been accounted for in the fiscal framework; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) in which department, (ii) for which fiscal year, (iii) under which authority, (iv) under which program and sub-program has the funding been accounted for in the fiscal framework; (c) was there any involvement by the government in the announcement of October 29, 2013; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the nature of that involvement; (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, what were the reasons for the non-involvement; (f) why does the press release issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on December 6, 2013, titled “Minister Shea Highlights Benefits of Canada-European Union Trade Agreement to Newfoundland and Labrador”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (g) why does the press release issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on June 26, 2014, titled “Ministers Continue Collaboration to Protect Fisheries and Support Canadian Fishing and Aquaculture Industries”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (h) why does the press release issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on August 5, 2014, titled “Complete Canada-EU Text Reached”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (i) why does the backgrounder issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on September 26, 2014, titled “Canada-European Union Trade Agreement Summary of Benefits”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (j) what were the dates and locations of all meetings held between federal and provincial officials concerning the $400-million fund referred to in (a); and (k) what are the dates, titles and file numbers of all dockets, dossiers, reports, documents, briefing notes, briefing materials, or other records concerning the $400-million fund referred to in (a), held by (i) the Privy Council Office, (ii) the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, (iii) the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, (iv) the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, (v) the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 923--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to the administration of pay by the government: (a) what is the current and total number of government employees; (b) what is the complete listing of government institutions, with the number of employees, broken down by each institution identified; (c) what are the actual costs, including but not limited to, A-Base, B-Based, and sunset funding, for salaries and wages as well as operations and maintenance, and funding sources for the operations of administration of pay, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) organizations specified in (b) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (d) what is the complete list of all government institutions participating in the Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC) Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, with the number of employees, broken down by each institution identified; (e) what is the itemized list and the comprehensive range of all the pay services or activities that are processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi, New Brunswick; (f) what is the itemized list of all the pay services or activities that are not, in whole or in part, processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi, but that are reliant, in whole or in part, on compensation advisors outside of the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi or that are reliant on compensation advisors within institutions specified in (d); (g) what are the detailed rationales for each item in (f); (h) what is the complete list of all government institutions that are either excluded, in whole or in part, from having any other separate arrangement apart from the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, with the number of employees affected, broken down by each institution identified; (i) what are the detailed rationales and reasons for each item in (h); (j) what are the details of all framework documentation and Treasury Board Submissions (TB-Subs) related to the PWGSC Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative project life cycle, including, but not limited to, (i) business case, (ii) project charter, (iii) work plans, (iv) roadmap, (v) project complexity and risk assessment, (vi) projected schedule and timeline, (vii) projected budget tables, (viii) projected costing tables, (ix) inception/definition phase, (x) identification phase (initiation, feasibility, analysis, close out), (xi) delivery phase (planning, design, implementation, close out), (xii) preliminary project approval, (xiii) effective project approval (EPA); (k) what are the details of all documentation after EPA in (j), including, but not limited to, (i) on-going readiness assessment reports, (ii) internal PWGSC audits, reviews, and reporting, (iii) Treasury Board audits, reviews, and reporting, (iv) external audits, reviews, and reporting from professional services providers and consulting firms, (v) subsequent TB-Subs modifications, amendments, and changes; (l) what are the actual costs and funding sources for the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iv) institutions specified in (d) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (m) what are the actual budgetary and cost impacts from the perspective and standpoint of each affected institution specified in (d) related to the implementation of the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); and (n) what are the details of all PWGSC prequel documentation prior to, preceding, and leading to and from the earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), including, but not limited to, (i) all scenarios, reports, analysis with projected projects budgets, (ii) briefing notes to ministers and deputy heads, (iii) budget and costs, broken down by each fiscal year, from the earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), (iv) funding sources related specifically to the carrying out of the prequel phase exercise?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 924--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to the administration of pensions by the government: (a) what is the current and total number of pension members, active and retired; (b) what is the complete listing of government institutions, with the number of members, active and retired, broken down by each institution identified; (c) what are the actual costs, including but not limited to, A-Base, B-Based, and sunset funding, for salaries and wages as well as operations and maintenance, and funding sources for the operations of administration of pension, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) institutions specified in (b) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (d) what is the complete list of all government institutions participating in the Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC) Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, with the number of members involved, active and retired, broken down by each institution identified; (e) what is the itemized list and the comprehensive range of all the pension services or activities that are processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the Public Service Pension Centre (PSPC) in Shediac, New Brunswick; (f) what is the itemized list of all the pension services or activities that are not, in whole or in part, processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the PSPC, but that are reliant, in whole or in part, on compensation advisors outside of the PSPC in Shediac and that are reliant on compensation advisors within institutions specified in (d); (g) what are the detailed rationales for each item in (f); (h) what is the complete list of all government institutions that are either excluded, in whole or in part, from having any other separate arrangement apart from the Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, with the number of members affected, active and retired, broken down by each institution identified; (i) what are the detailed rationales for each item in (h); (j) what are the details of all framework documentation and Treasury Board Submissions (TB-Subs) related to the PWGSC Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative project life cycle, including, but not limited to, (i) business case, (ii) project charter, (iii) work plans, (iv) roadmap, (v) project complexity and risk assessment, (vi) projected schedule and timeline, (vii) projected budget tables, (viii) projected costing tables, (ix) inception/definition phase, (x) identification phase (initiation, feasibility, analysis, close out), (xi) delivery phase (planning, design, implementation, close out), (xii) preliminary project approval, (xiii) effective project approval (EPA); (k) what are the details of all documentation after EPA of question (j), including, but not limited to, (i) on-going readiness assessment reports, (ii) internal PWGSC audits, reviews, and reporting, (iii) Treasury Board audits, reviews, and reporting, (iv) external audits, reviews, and reporting from professional services providers and consulting firms, (v) subsequent TB-Subs modifications, amendments, and changes; (l) what are the actual costs and funding sources for the Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iv) institutions specified in (d) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (m) what are the actual budgetary and cost impacts from the perspective and standpoint of each affected institution specified in (d) related to the implementation of the Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (n) what are the details of all PWGSC prequel documentation prior to, preceding, and leading to and from the earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), including, but not limited to (i) all scenarios, reports, analysis with projected projects budgets, (ii) briefing notes to ministers and deputy heads, (iii) budget and costs broken down by each fiscal year between earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), (iv) funding sources related specifically to the carrying out of the prequel phase exercise?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 925--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With respect to workforce adjustments since 2012: (a) how many employees received (i) pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus period, (ii) a transition support measure, (iii) an education allowance, (iv) retention payment or other payment as a result of an alternative delivery initiative under a work force adjustment agreement, (v) a lump sum payment under the Directive on Career Transition for Executives; and (b) what was the total amount spent on (i) pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus periods, (ii) transition support measures, (iii) education allowances, (iv) retention payments or other payments as a result of an alternative delivery initiative under a work force adjustment agreement, (v) lump sum payments under the Directive on Career Transition for Executives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 926--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to payments in lieu of taxes regarding national historic sites as designated by Parks Canada: from 2009 to date, what amounts have been granted by the department of Public Works and Government Services to each taxing authority, broken down by (i) historic site, (ii) year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 927--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to “nudge” policies discussed in Policy Horizons Canada, March 2012, ISBN number: PH4-134/2012E-PDF, 978-1-100-21668-3: (a) has the government communicated about nudge policies with other countries that use such policies and, if so, which countries; (b) has the government produced any analysis of them and, if so, what is the (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) department, (iv) author, (v) record number of those documents; (c) has the government implemented or tested these policies and, if so, (i) how, (ii) where, (iii) by whom, (iv) what were the results; and (d) if the government has not implemented or tested these policies, what was the rationale for that decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 928--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to federal taxes, including tariffs, service charges and fees: since 2005, (a) in which instance was there an increase, a new imposition or the elimination of a credit or benefit, broken down by (i) the particular tax, tariff, charge, fee or credit, (ii) the rate or amount, (iii) the date it took effect, (iv) the revenue it has generated, (v) the department that made the change; and (b) what is the annual total of revenue generated by each of the changes in (a), broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 929--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the role of Canadian diplomatic personnel in respect to the operations of Canadian extractive companies outside Canada: (a) what is this role; (b) what policies, guidelines, and directives govern this role; (c) for each of the policies, guidelines, and directives in (b), (i) when was it enacted, (ii) by whom was it enacted, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) has its objective been met, (v) how does the government determine whether its objective has been met, (vi) how was it communicated to Canadian diplomatic personnel, (vii) what former policy, guideline, or directive did it replace or modify; (d) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel support the operations of Canadian extractive companies; (e) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel facilitate the establishment of new operations, projects, or facilities by Canadian extractive companies; (f) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel intervene in interactions between Canadian extractive companies and (i) local governments, (ii) local law enforcement, (iii) local civil society, (iv) local residents; (g) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to ensure compliance by Canadian extractive companies with (i) local laws and regulations, (ii) Canadian laws and regulations, (iii) international laws and regulations, (iv) local standards regarding human rights, (v) Canadian standards regarding human rights, (vi) international standards regarding human rights, (vii) local standards regarding environmental protection, (viii) Canadian standards regarding environmental protection, (ix) international standards regarding environmental protection; (h) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to reduce resistance to the operations of Canadian extractive companies on the part of (i) local governments, (ii) local civil society, (iii) local residents; (i) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel help Canadian extractive companies reduce resistance to their operations on the part of (i) local governments, (ii) local civil society, (iii) local residents; (j) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to facilitate the operations of Canadian extractive companies by advocating for changes to local laws or regulations; (k) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to facilitate the operations of Canadian extractive companies by advocating against changes to local laws or regulations; (l) based on what factors do Canadian diplomatic missions evaluate requests from extractive companies for assistance or services, including services offered as part of the Global Markets Action Plan; (m) for each of the last five years, broken down by country where the diplomatic mission is located, how many requests for assistance or services have Canadian diplomatic missions received from Canadian extractive companies; (n) for each request in (m), (i) what company made the request, (ii) what assistance or service was sought by the company, (iii) what assistance or service was provided to the company, (iv) who evaluated the request, (v) if the request was not granted, on what grounds was it not granted, (vi) who provided the assistance or service, (vii) what was the cost of providing the assistance or service, (viii) what was the objective of providing the assistance or service, (ix) in what way was that objective achieved; (o) in what circumstances do Canadian diplomatic missions provide assistance or services, including services offered as part of the Global Markets Action Plan, to an extractive company without a request from that company; (p) for each of the last five years, broken down by country where the diplomatic mission is located, (i) what companies have received assistance or services from a Canadian diplomatic mission without making a request, (ii) what was the nature of that assistance or service, (iii) who made the decision to provide the assistance or service, (iv) who provided the assistance or service, (v) what was the cost of providing the assistance or service, (vi) what was the objective of providing the assistance or service, (vii) in what way was that objective achieved; (q) for each of the last five years, broken down by country, in what legal proceedings outside Canada involving Canadian extractive companies has Canada intervened; (r) for each intervention in (q), (i) what was the nature of the intervention, (ii) what was the objective of the intervention, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to intervene, (v) who carried out the intervention, (vi) what outside counsel was retained, (vii) what is the breakdown of the cost of the intervention, (viii) what are the access or control numbers of any legal filings made by Canada; (s) based on what criteria do Canadian diplomatic personnel determine whether a Canadian extractive company is complying with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards, particularly those standards set out in November 2014 in Doing Business the Canadian Way: A Strategy to Advance CSR in Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad; (t) how frequently do Canadian diplomatic personnel evaluate the compliance of Canadian companies with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (u) what action do Canadian diplomatic personnel take when a company is found not to comply with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (v) for each of the last five years, broken down by country in which the diplomatic mission is located, what extractive companies have been deemed in non-compliance with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (w) for each company in (v), what action has been taken by Canadian diplomatic personnel to address the non-compliance; (x) what training do Canadian diplomatic personnel receive to ensure that they can advise and monitor Canadian extractive companies with respect to corporate social responsibility; (y) what assistance or services have Canadian diplomatic personnel provided to (i) Tahoe Resources in Guatemala, (ii) Nevsun Resources in Eritrea, (iii) Fortuna Silver in Mexico, (iv) Excellon Resources in Mexico, (v) IAMGOLD in Ecuador, (vi) Cornerstone Capital Resources in Ecuador, (vii) Kinross Gold Corporation in Ecuador, (viii) Lundin Mining in Ecuador, (ix) Barrick Gold in Chile, (x) Goldcorp in Chile, (xi) Yamana Gold in Argentina, (xii) Barrick Gold in Peru, (xiii) Candente Copper in Peru, (xiv) Bear Creek Mining in Peru, (xv) HudBay Minerals in Peru, (xvi) Eldorado Gold in Greece, (xvii) Esperanza Resources in Mexico, (xviii) TVI Pacific in the Philippines, (xix) Infinito Gold in Costa Rica, (xx) Blackfire Exploration in Mexico, (xxi) Skye Resources in Guatemala, (xxii) Glamis Gold in Guatemala; (z) for each instance in (y) of providing assistance or service, (i) what was the cost, (ii) what was the objective, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to provide the assistance or service, (v) who provided the assistance or service; (aa) what lobbying or advocacy activities have Canadian diplomatic personnel undertaken with respect to (i) laws relating to the extractive sector in Guatemala, including Decree 22-2014, (ii) laws relating to the extractive sector in Ecuador, including Ley Orgánica Reformatoria a la Ley de Minería, a la Ley Reformatoria para la Equidad Tributaria en el Ecuador y a la Ley Orgánica de Régimen Tributario Interno in Ecuador, (iii) laws relating to the extractive sector in Honduras, including amendments to the Honduran General Mining Law; and (bb) for each instance of lobbying or advocacy in (aa), (i) what was the cost, (ii) what was the objective, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to engage in lobbying or advocacy, (v) who carried out the lobbying or advocacy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 930--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to Employment Insurance: (a) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Employment Insurance Commission for each year from 2010 to the present; (b) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees for each year from 2010 to 2013 inclusively; (c) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by Employment Insurance Umpires for each year from 2010 to 2013 inclusively; (d) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Social Security Tribunal in 2013 and 2014; (e) how much money has the government spent on the class-action court case regarding women who were denied sickness benefits while on parental leave; (f) how many Justice Department lawyers have been working on the class-action court case; and (g) what was the average cost for an appeal to be considered by the Employment Insurance Commission, the Board of Referees, and an Employment Insurance Umpire?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 931--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada: (a) what specific action has the government taken since January 2013 to ensure the sufficiency of the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) to provide a reasonable quality of life for each recipient, specifically, (i) what updates to the GIS have accounted for the rising cost of food, (ii) what GIS alterations have been made to increase access to non-insured prescription and non-prescription medications for low-income seniors, (iii) what GIS alterations have been considered for low-income senior homeowners and renters to offset housing costs; (b) what are the details of the government’s promise to begin automatic enrollment for seniors in the GIS program, specifically, (i) the number of calls made to Service Canada about the program, (ii) the dates when these calls were made, (iii) the number of people auto-enrolled, (iv) the number of people still to be auto-enrolled, (v) the number of calls from citizens with questions regarding auto-enrollment at Service Canada, (vi) the most common complaint received by Service Canada, (vii) details on how the auto-enrollment program was rolled out across Canada; and (c) what are the details of the government’s proactive GIS enrollment program, specifically, (i) the number of calls made to Service Canada about the program, (ii) the dates when these calls were made, (iii) the number of people enrolled through the program, (iv) the number of people still to be auto-enrolled, (v) the number of calls from citizens with questions regarding auto-enrollment at Service Canada, (vi) the most common complaint received by Service Canada, (vii) details on how the proactive enrollment program was rolled out across Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 933--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada, since January 2013, in the campaign to combat elder abuse: (a) what is the total amount spent, further broken down by each category of spending; (b) in which ridings was the money spent; and (c) what has been the observable change in the number of elders being abused?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 934--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) in fiscal year 2013-2014: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each of the following components of the FTCS, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Aboriginals of Canada; and (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-412-768 Cost of travel by parliamen ...8555-412-769 Youth Gang Prevention Fund ...8555-412-770 Treasury Board Secretariat8555-412-771 Ministerial use of private ...8555-412-772 Passport Canada8555-412-774 Department of Fisheries and ...8555-412-778 Access to Information Act8555-412-779 Kathryn Spirit8555-412-780 Sporting event tickets8555-412-782 Government advertising8555-412-783 Chronic Wasting Disease ...Show all topics
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 684--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to question number Q-263 on the Order Paper, what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 685--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the approval of Project Ojibwa for stimulus funding for Port Burwell, Ontario: (a) (i) according to independent analysts, what is the economic development return on investment of Project Ojibwa, (ii) has the submarine museum ever won an economic development award that is supported by the federal government; (b) is there another submarine museum in Ontario; (c) when is the 100th anniversary of submarine use in Canada; (d) on what date (i) was stimulus funding applied to this project, (ii) was it approved and by what department, (iii) were applicants notified they had been successful in receiving funding; (e) what specific conditions, if any, were attached to the funding, and by what dates did conditions have to be met; (f) what meetings, and on what dates, did the applicants have with (i) economic development departments, (ii) the Department of National Defence; (g) what concerns did either department have with the project; (h) what challenges did the government foresee in transporting a submarine from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Port Burwell, Ontario, including, but not limited to, (i) dredging the Port Burwell Harbour, (ii) building a road in Port Burwell, (iii) transporting the submarine on a barge, accompanied by tug boats, (iv) re-fitting the submarine at Hamilton, Ontario, (v) designing and building cradles upon which the submarine would eventually sit at Port Burwell; (i) how were these challenges communicated to the project managers and when; (j) what real-world examples or precedents existed for the departments to provide conditions and timelines for transporting a submarine in a safe, suitable, and timely manner from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Port Burwell, Ontario; (k) which departments defined conditions and timelines, and how, and when, were these conditions and timelines communicated to the project managers; (l) what specific assessments were the applicants required to undertake, including, but not limited to, environmental assessments; (m) for each assessment required, what is the typical time taken for such an assessment, and its approval; (n) on what date were the applicants presented with a ceremonial cheque and for what amount; (o) what political representatives were in attendance; (p) did Port Burwell have a government “Economic Action Plan” sign showing the community the government’s contribution, and if so, when was the sign installed; (q) did the applicants ever apply for an extension of the timelines for funding, and if so, (i) on what date, (ii) what were the reasons given for an extension; (r) was there ever an extension of the timelines for funding, and if so, (i) by whom, (ii) what were the reasons given; (s) what exact amount of federal funding did the applicants receive; (t) were the applicants ever successful in (i) dredging the harbour at Port Burwell, (ii) building the required road in Port Burwell, (iii) transporting the submarine from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Port Burwell, Ontario, (iv) bringing the submarine ashore at Port Burwell, (v) installing it for viewing by the public, and if so, what are the dates for each; and (u) has HMCS Ojibwa been open to the public, and if so, (i) from what starting date, (ii) how many guests have visited the site?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 686--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of York West, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 687--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Markham—Unionville, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 688--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Kings—Hants, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 689--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Malpeque, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 690--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Westmount—Ville-Marie, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 691--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of St. Paul's, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 692--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Scarborough—Guildwood, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 693--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Charlottetown, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 694--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Vancouver Centre, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 695--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Guelph, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 696--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 697--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Kingston and the Islands, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 698--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Sydney—Victoria, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 699--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Cardigan, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 716--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Deficit Reduction Action Plan Track 24: Prioritization and Restructuring Habitat Management and Associated Ecosystems Management Activities: (a) what is the government’s objective with regard to this Track; (b) how many employees have been eliminated to date due to this objective and what are their positions and locations; (c) how many employees will be eliminated in total and what are their positions and locations; (d) has the government done an analysis on what effects this reduction in funding, combined with the government’s changes to the Fisheries Act and regulatory changes authorizing the deposit of deleterious substances will have on Canada’s marine environments and fish habitat and, if so, what are the findings of any such analysis; (e) what are the internal tracking numbers for any documents, briefing materials, or communications from provincial governments and key stakeholders regarding this Track provided to senior government officials at the level of Director General or above; (f) what is the total budget reduction of the Track in (i) 2014-2015, (ii) beyond; (g) has the government developed the regulations, policies, and tools needed to implement these changes and, if so, what are the details; (h) what is the government’s definition of a practical, common-sense approach to managing threats to Canada’s recreational, commercial, and Aboriginal fisheries and the fish habitat on which they depend; and (i) since this Track has begun to be implemented has the government had any instances of failure in its objective for no net loss to fish habitat and, if so, what are all associated details?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-412-684 Cost of question8555-412-685 Project Ojibwa8555-412-686 Government funding8555-412-687 Government funding8555-412-688 Government funding8555-412-689 Government funding8555-412-690 Government funding8555-412-691 Government funding8555-412-692 Government funding8555-412-693 Government funding8555-412-694 Government funding ...Show all topics
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
View Chris Warkentin Profile
2014-10-09 14:16 [p.8475]
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a pluralistic society that believes in women's rights, the rights of religious minorities and due process of law.
Foudil Selmoune, an imam from a Montreal area mosque, fundamentally rejects those principles. He has called for the stoning of women for adultery. He has called for the hands of thieves to be chopped off. Shockingly, the Liberal leader has gone to this man shopping for votes.
Someone who aspires to be a leader ought to have better judgment than to associate with these types of extremists. What is worse is that the member for Malpeque repeated the Liberal leader's assertion that he expected the government to tell him who he should or should not associate with. I would expect a former solicitor general to be able to do a Google search.
Associating with these types of people who have publicly called for Sharia law to be brought to Canada shows that the Liberals are absolutely in over their heads when it comes to Canada's national security.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 503--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to the use of azodicarbonamide in Canada: (a) in what year was Health Canada’s most recent assessment of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products completed; (b) what research and data was used in this assessment; (c) did Health Canada’s most recent assessment of azodicarbonamide include analysis of its chemical by-products semicarbazide and urethane and, if so, what were the results of this analysis; (d) when does Health Canada plan to undertake its next assessment of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products; (e) what has Health Canada established to be a safe, acceptable daily intake of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products; (f) what information does the government collect to ensure that Canadians are not exceeding the safe, acceptable daily intake of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products; (g) how many products containing azodicarbonamide have been approved for sale in Canada; and (h) what labelling requirements has the government established in regard to products containing azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada completed a thorough safety assessment of the use of azodicarbonamide in 2006.
The 2006 assessment took into consideration the available scientific data as well as the outcomes of scientific research conducted by Health Canada to investigate the safety of azodicarbonamide.
Health Canada’s assessment of azodicarbonamide did take into consideration exposure to one of its main breakdown products, semicarbazide. While Health Canada scientists were aware that small amounts of urethane, or ethyl carbamate, can form in some products associated with azodicarbonamide use, the levels were considered to be consistent with low urethane levels that can naturally form in a number of foods and alcoholic beverages during fermentation.
The results of Health Canada’s studies on semicarbazide demonstrated that manufacturers were using azodicarbonamide according to Canada’s food additive provisions and that the levels of semicarbazide formed did not represent a health risk to consumers.
Health Canada is not aware of any recent scientific evidence that would suggest the current use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive, or exposure to semicarbazide, represents a health concern to consumers. Therefore, there are no plans to undertake another assessment in the near future. Should any scientific evidence indicate that the use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive presents a risk to human health, Health Canada would take appropriate action that could include reassessing the substance and amending the provisions that permit its use.
No acceptable daily intake has been established for azodicarbonamide or its chemical by-products, as the results of Health Canada’s initial assessment and most recent reassessment have deemed such a level unnecessary.
In addition, following the 2006 evaluation, it was concluded that there was a very large margin of safety between doses associated with adverse effects in experimental animals and the maximum dietary exposure for Canadians. Therefore, an acceptable daily intake was also not established for semicarbazide.
Currently, azodicarbonamide can be used as a food additive in bread, flour or whole wheat flour at a maximum level of 45 parts per million, or ppm, in the flour. The regulatory provisions for the use of azodicarbonamide as an additive are “enabling” provisions, meaning that food manufacturers can choose to use azodicarbonamide, provided they do so in accordance with its legal conditions of use, however, they are not obligated to use it.
When used according to the stated conditions in the Food and Drug Regulations, exposure to either azodicarbonamide or its breakdown products, semicarbazide and urethane, do not represent a health risk to consumers. It is the responsibility of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to ensure that all food additives approved for use in Canada comply with their stated conditions of use.
When offered for sale, flour and whole wheat flour must carry a list declaring all ingredients, including any food additives contained within, such as azodicarbonamide.

Question No. 504--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to Parks Canada’s Parks Passport program: (a) for the time period of 2010 to 2013, broken down by month and year, (i) how many students registered for the program, (ii) of those who registered, how many attended, (iii) from what schools, (iv) in which region and city; and (b) broken down by region, province and year, which parks participated in the program?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, between 2010 and 2013, Parks Canada mailed 1,531,749 passes for entry into Parks Canada places to schools with grade 8 or secondary II students, or enough passes to distribute to every eligible student. Once the passes are distributed, no registration is required to validate them. Parks Canada calculated the required number of passes in collaboration with its program partners, based on information provided by school boards about the number of eligible students, including those in split classes, in their schools. The agency has endeavoured to be inclusive of home schooling, private schools, federally funded schools on reserves and charter schools, which are not included in the 347,694 grade 8 or secondary II students reported by Statistics Canada.
The yearly totals are as follows: in May 2010, 390,365 passes were distributed; in April 2011, 381,142 passes were distributed; in March 2012, 380,639 passes were distributed; and in March 2013, 379,603 passes were distributed.
Students are not required to register their pass for use at Parks Canada places. However, based on Parks Canada’s tracking systems, which include point of sale systems and manual procedures, an estimated 17,000 passes were used to enter Parks Canada places between 2010 and 2013.
To respect the privacy of minors, students entering Parks Canada places with a My Parks Pass are not required to provide their school’s details. Therefore, data identifying the schools is not available.
To respect the privacy of Canadians, particularly minors, Parks Canada does not collect personal information from individuals using the My Parks Pass to enter Parks Canada places. Therefore, data on region and city is not available.
All parks and sites administered by Parks Canada participate in the My Parks Pass program through online and in-class activities. All Parks Canada places that charge an entry fee also participate by accepting the pass for free entry and discount.

Question No. 506--
Ms. Peggy Nash:
With regard to gender-based analyses carried out by the Department of Finance: what are the titles, dates and authors of any reports or studies done by the department that provide a gender-based analysis of (i) income splitting, (ii) Tax-Free Savings Accounts, (iii) the Child Arts Tax Credit, (iv) the employee stock option deduction, (v) the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit, (vi) pension income splitting, (vii) partial deduction of meals and entertainment expenses, (viii) partial inclusion of capital gains, (ix) the moving expense deduction, (x) the flow-through share deduction, (xi) cuts to program spending?
Response
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance undertakes gender-based analysis, GBA, on all new policy proposals for ministerial consideration, including tax and spending measures, where appropriate and where data exists.
For each initiative specified in Q-506, the points that follow provide the information available under title, author, and date of publication of the GBA.
With regard to income splitting and pension income splitting, a measure to allow pension income splitting was announced in the tax fairness plan on October 31, 2006, and a GBA for the measure was completed by the Department of Finance. No other measure related to income splitting has been announced or implemented by the Government of Canada. As such, no additional information about a GBA in respect of this proposal is available.
With regard to tax-free savings accounts, this measure was introduced in the budget tabled on February 26, 2008. The GBA for the measure was completed by the Department of Finance in advance of the tabling of the budget.
With regard to the children’s arts tax credit, this measure was introduced in the budget tabled on March 22, 2011. The GBA for the measure was completed by the Department of Finance in advance of the tabling of the budget.
With regard to the employee stock option deduction, this measure was introduced in 1977. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to the children’s fitness tax credit, this measure was introduced in the budget tabled on May 2, 2006. The GBA for the measure was completed by the Department of Finance in advance of the tabling of the budget.
With regard to pension income Splitting--see (i).
With regard to partial deduction of meals and entertainment expenses, this measure was introduced in 1987. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to partial inclusion of capital gains, this measure was introduced in 1972. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to the moving expense deduction, this measure was introduced in 1971. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to the flow-through share deduction, the current flow-through share regime was introduced in 1986, but previous forms of the regime have been allowed by the Income Tax Act since the 1950s. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to cuts to program spending, sponsoring departments and the Treasury Board Secretariat undertook a GBA on savings proposals that informed recommendations to Treasury Board and budget 2012 planned reductions to departmental spending.

Question no 514 --
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada since the department’s creation, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC, was created on December 12, 2006, when the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, part 3 of the Federal Accountability Act, came into force.
The PPSC is an independent organization, reporting to Parliament through the Attorney General of Canada, and is responsible for prosecuting offences under more than 50 federal statutes and for providing prosecution-related legal advice to law enforcement agencies.
Correspondence between the PPSC and other government departments mainly comprises communications between crown counsel and various investigative agencies, and is protected by solicitor-client privilege and/or litigation privilege. As well, in order to identify all correspondence with other government departments, it would be necessary to conduct a manual search of the files and records of all PPSC employees and agents, which is not feasible given the operational and time demands required to do so.

Question No. 517--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to federal non-refundable tax credits for public transit, children’s fitness and children’s arts: how many Canadians who submitted income tax returns did not have a high enough income to be able to use each in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 tax years?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, individual tax filers with taxable income, as reported on line 260 of the general income tax and benefit return, under the basic personal amount do not pay federal income tax.
The figures provided below include all individual filers whose taxable income was less than the basic personal amount. The figures are not limited to those who applied for the above-mentioned credits, as it is expected that some individuals will choose not to claim the credits given that their taxable income is less than the basic personal amount, and claiming any of these credits would not result in additional tax savings. As such, the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, cannot determine how many of these individuals may have been able to benefit from one or more of the above-mentioned credits.
The number of individual tax filers with taxable income less than the basic personal amount for tax years 2011 and 2012 are as follows. As the CRA is currently processing 2013 tax year returns, data is not currently available for that taxation year.
For 2011, the number of filers was 6,636,600, with a basic personal amount of $10,527; and for 2012, it was 6,462,350, with a basic personal amount of $10,822. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10. They are from the CRA T1 Data Mart and include all initially assessed returns processed up to May 2, 2014, that is, the most recent available data.

Question No. 519--
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:
With regard to the Hiring Credit for Small Business, since 2011-2012: broken down by fiscal year up to and including the current fiscal year, (a) what is the total cost of the Hiring Credit for Small Business; (b) what is the total number of small businesses that successfully accessed the hiring credit; and (c) what was the average tax savings for small business owners who successfully accessed the hiring credit?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the 2011 federal budget originally introduced the hiring credit for small business, HCSB. The HCSB was extended in 2012 and expanded and extended again in 2013.
With regard to (a), the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, administers the HCSB as part of its daily operations. As HCSB administration costs are not tracked separately, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested.
With regard to (b), the HCSB was a credit intended to stimulate new employment and support small businesses. Since its introduction, a number of Canadian small businesses have successfully accessed the credit. As the CRA tracks the number of employers who have received the HCSB by taxation year, rather than by fiscal period, its response is limited to information for the following tax years: 2011, 551,940 employers; 2012, 550,609 employers; and 2013, 509,544 employers to date. For 2013, the numbers represent a year to date total. It is anticipated that additional filing and processing of employer returns will increase the total number of employers receiving the credit for 2013.
With regard to (c), the HCSB provides a credit to the taxpayer’s account at a minimum of $2 and a maximum credit of $1,000 based on the taxpayer’s eligibility for the program. The available data focuses on the credit paid to taxpayers and may not fully represent the average tax savings for taxpayers who have successfully accessed the HCSB. The average credit paid to taxpayers by tax year is as follows: 2011, $381.23; 2012, $396.47; and 2013, $422.74 to date. The 2013 HCSB threshold of the employers’ portion of the employment insurance premiums was expanded from $10,000 to $15,000, which potentially has increased the number of taxpayers eligible to receive the maximum credit.

Question No. 529--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, within the timeframe provided, it would not be possible to manually verify the value of each of the contracts under $10,000 granted by RCMP since January 1, 2013, given the volume of data. As a result, a complete and accurate response could not be produced.

Question No. 544--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to railway grain transportation reporting requirements: for each week in the current crop year, starting August 1, 2013, how much grain was moved, as reported by each of CN Rail and CP Rail from prairie delivery points, (a) to a port for export, indicating (i) the type of grain, (ii) the port in each case; (b) out of country by rail, indicating (i) the type of grain, (ii) the destination in each case; and (c) to final domestic users, indicating the (i) type of grain, (ii) final domestic user in each case?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the grain transportation data forwarded to Transport Canada by CN Rail and CP Rail is provided pursuant to the Canada Transportation Act. Section 51(1) of that act states that “information required to be provided to the Minister pursuant to this Act is, when it is received by the Minister, confidential and must not knowingly be disclosed or made available by any person without the authorization of the person who provided the information or documentation.” Consequently, this confidential information cannot be disclosed.

Question No. 548--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to government-wide advertising activities, broken down by department, agency, and institution, since April 1, 2011: (a) how many advertisements have (i) been created in total, broken down by type (cinema, internet, out-of-home, print dailies, print magazine, weekly/community newspapers, radio, television) and by year, (ii) been given an identification number, a name or a Media Authorization Number (ADV number); (b) what is the identification number, name or ADV number for each advertisement listed in (a)(ii); and (c) for the answers to each part of (a), what is (i) the length (seconds or minutes) of each radio advertisement, television advertisement, cinema advertisement, internet advertisement, (ii) the cost for the production or creation of each advertisement, (iii) the companies used to produce or create each advertisement, (iv) the number of times each advertisement has aired or been published, specifying the total number of times and the total length of time (seconds or minutes), broken down by year and by month for each advertisement, (v) the total cost to air or publish each advertisement, broken down by year and by month, (vi) the criteria used to select each of the advertisement placements, (vii) media outlets used to air or publish each advertisement, broken down by year and by month, (viii) the total amount spent per outlet, broken down by year and by month?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b) and (c) iii, (v), (vii), and (viii), information can be found at http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-eng.html.
With regard to (c)(i), (ii), (iv), and (vi), the Government of Canada does not disclose information about the specific amounts paid for individual ad placements or the amounts paid to specific media outlets with which it has negotiated rates. This information can be considered third-party business sensitive information, and may be protected under the Access to Information Act.

Question No. 549--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to foreign affairs, and specifically applications to export military goods or technology since January 1, 2000: (a) in respect of each such application, how many human rights experts were consulted (i) from within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, (ii) from within another department, specifying the department, (iii) from within an overseas diplomatic mission, specifying the mission; (b) for each such application, what methodology was employed to demonstrate that there is no reasonable risk that the goods or technology would be used against the civilian population; (c) in assessing that risk for each such application, were consultations undertaken with any of (i) Amnesty International, (ii) Human Rights Watch, (iii) the United Nations, (iv) any other external organization, specifying the organization; and (d) will the government revoke an export permit granted under such an application if there are new or mitigating circumstances or information that indicate the goods or technology may be used, or may have been used, against civilians or in other violations of human rights or international law or norms?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), and (c), applications for permits to export military goods or technology are assessed against a number of criteria, one of which is assessing the risk that the proposed export could result in human rights violations in the destination country. A number of DFATD divisions, including missions abroad, are involved in the review of permit applications. Consultations are also undertaken with the Department of National Defence and other agencies or departments as needed. Assessing risks of human rights violations is a key consideration during the review process. As part of their responsibilities, officers at our missions abroad and at geographic divisions at DFATD headquarters closely follow human rights issues, meeting regularly with human rights groups and organizations, and accessing information from these groups and organizations, from other non-governmental organizations, and civil society. This information is used to inform the consultation process and assess whether there is a significant risk that an export is likely to result in human rights violations in the destination country.
With regard to (d), officials closely monitor international developments that have the potential to negatively impact regional security, or that are resulting, or are likely to result, in violations of human rights. In cases where the situation changes in a destination country, export permits can be suspended or cancelled should it be determined that the export has become inconsistent with Canada's foreign and defence policies and interests, including on human rights grounds.

Question No. 559--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to government answers to written questions: (a) what is the rationale for the policy of the Privy Council Office not to release tabular or written material prepared in response to written questions in the native digital format in which it was prepared; (b) on what dates was this policy (i) established, (ii) revised; and (c) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of any orders, memoranda, directives, or other documents in which this policy has been set forth?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, except for those questions requiring an oral answer pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the government’s answers to questions on the order paper are contained in documents tabled in Parliament that bear a minister’s or parliamentary secretary’s signature. Any other version of a response is considered a draft and unofficial.

Question No. 568--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to the DSC/Fiscal Arbitrator tax scheme: (a) when did the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) initially execute an investigation; (b) when did the CRA post a warning to the public; (c) how many citizens owed funds to the CRA, broken down by (i) province, (ii) region; (d) what were the (i) original amounts owed, (ii) penalties owed, (iii) interest owed; (e) what was the range of penalties; (f) as of June 5, 2014, how much (i) is still owed, (ii) how much has been paid, (iii) how many have paid the full balance, (iv) how many have paid a partial balance, (v) how many have not paid towards the balance; (g) how many have filed for bankruptcy and, as a result of bankruptcy, how much has been lost to the CRA in interest and penalties; (h) in total, how many files (i) received refunds, (ii) declined a refund; and (i) what would be the total amount owing had all files received a refund?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Section 241 of the Income Tax Act precludes the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, from providing taxpayer-specific information or information that would identify specific taxpayers; therefore, the CRA will not comment on an investigation that it may or may not be undertaking.
With regard to (b), on an ongoing basis, the CRA provides information to Canadians on tax matters, including warnings to beware of groups or individuals who conspire, counsel, and promote tax avoidance schemes. The CRA continues to issue substantial public warnings about tax schemes and inform Canadians about how to protect themselves from fraud through tax alerts, news releases, and fact sheets–all of which can be found on the CRA website--as well as through outreach and partnerships with stakeholders.
Information on these schemes and how to identify and avoid them is readily available to anyone seeking it. Through these various media the CRA also informs Canadians about the consequences of participating in and promoting various schemes, how to report participation in a scheme they become aware of, and how to come forward using the voluntary disclosures program to correct past tax mistakes before criminal and financial consequences occur.
When a conviction related to an illegal tax avoidance scheme occurs, the CRA issues a regional conviction news release to inform the Canadian public in order to help others who may have unknowingly participated in similar schemes and to deter others from participating. More information on convictions that have occurred within the last year is available on the CRA website.
Under certain circumstances, including when it may provide a more timely warning of ongoing schemes, the CRA issues news releases when charges are laid. The CRA has also provided interviews to the media to inform the Canadian public about participating in tax schemes, including the risks and costs they could incur and how to identify them and avoid taking part.
Specifically to warn taxpayers of schemes and fraud, in 2006 the CRA created tax alerts—a warning issued to the media, posted to the CRA website, and issued through an e-mail list and RSS feed. Some tax alerts have made specific reference to schemes involving fictitious business losses, while others have been broader, encompassing a call to action to seek independent advice from a trusted tax professional before becoming involved in a scheme or arrangement. Many of these alerts have reminded Canadians that if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
The CRA also collaborates with the Competition Bureau and the RCMP in its yearly promotion of Fraud Prevention Month. The CRA issues a yearly fraud prevention news release that reminds Canadians to protect themselves and leads them to the CRA’s website, where a comprehensive web resource provides them with further details. Other products such as fact sheets and checklists on how Canadians can protect themselves have accompanied those releases.
In addition to the yearly Fraud Prevention Month promotion, the CRA has also issued several other warnings about fraud or schemes. These have been distributed using News Canada articles, news releases, and tax tips during income tax filing season, and through the CRA’s Twitter feed, which prominently features tweets on schemes, scams, and fraud. Regardless of the exact nature of the warning, web links to information on a variety of schemes and fraud are provided. Promoting those resources helps visitors learn about how to protect themselves on a variety of fronts.
With regard to parts (c) through (i), the CRA routinely audits questionable business losses. The CRA does not track information by specific tax scheme, such as DSC and Fiscal Arbitrators. Furthermore, section 241 of the Income Tax Act precludes the CRA from providing taxpayer-specific information or information that would identify specific taxpayers.

Question No. 571--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) have there been any reports written on seismic testing and the effects on fish stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence since 1996; and (b) have there been any reports written on seismic testing and the effects on fish stocks off Newfoundland and Labrador since 2006?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the potential impact of seismic testing on fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea turtles has been an area of study for many years. Researchers within Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as well as others within Canada and internationally, have conducted numerous studies, ranging from laboratory-scale experiments looking at effects on the physiology, behaviour, and survivorship of individual animals up to large-scale field studies looking at changes in fish stocks and fish catches before, during, and after seismic surveys. This includes research reports, summaries of broad syntheses, environmental impact statements, and the Canadian Statement of Practice, which guides the applications of seismic surveys. Most of these studies are applicable to all locations. In addition, there have been some reports produced on the specific areas mentioned:
With regard to (a), in the Gulf of St. Lawrence there have been reports produced on potential impacts of seismic testing as part of DFO’s review of proposed development projects.
With regard to (b), in the waters off Newfoundland and Labrador there have been reports produced as part of the review of developments proposals, and also some reports on research conducted on lobster, crabs, and fish in local waters.

Question No. 572--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Articles 39 and 40 of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Conservation and Enforcement Measures: what have been the outcomes of citations issued in Canadian waters to foreign fishing vessels over the past five years?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as the port citations were only just issued in May of this year, the Government of Canada has not yet been informed of the outcome by the vessels’ home countries.

Question No. 574--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: have there been any studies on the infrastructure at Cape Spear Lighthouse National Historic Site or Fort Amherst National Historic Site since 2000?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage has not conducted any studies on the infrastructure at Cape Spear Lighthouse National Historic Site or at Fort Amherst National Historic Site since 2000.

Question No. 588--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to corrections, since November 27, 2012: (a) has any department or agency conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter, pertaining to (i) the Baffin Correctional Centre in Iqaluit, Nunavut, (ii) correctional services in Nunavut in general; (b) what are the details, including dates and file numbers, of each such review or assessment; (c) has any department or agency conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter, pertaining to (i) Her Majesty’s Penitentiary in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) correctional services in Newfoundland and Labrador in general; and (d) what are the details, including dates and file numbers, of each such review or assessment?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), (a)(ii), and (b), the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, or PS, has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to the Baffin Correctional Centre or any other correctional services in Nunavut. This is a territorial institution, not a federal institution.
With regard to (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (d), PS has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to Her Majesty’s Penitentiary or any other correctional services in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a provincial institution, not a federal institution.
With regard to (a)(i), since November 27, 2012, Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, has not conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter pertaining to Baffin Correctional Centre in Iqaluit, Nunavut. This is a territorial institution, not a federal institution.
With regard to (a)(ii), the last review of the Exchange of Service Agreement, or ESA, between CSC and the Territory of Nunavut was completed in April 2012 and is in effect until March 2018; there have been no further reviews of the ESA since November 27, 2012.
With regard to (b), there have been no further reviews of the ESA since November 27, 2012. As a result, there are no dates and file reviews between CSC and the Government of Nunavut to report.
With regard to (c)(i), since November 27, 2012, CSC has not conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter pertaining to Her Majesty’s Penitentiary in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a provincial institution, not a federal institution.
With regard to (c)(ii), in January 2012, in accordance with the provision of the ESA between CSC and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a review of the ESA was completed to enable CSC to measure the results achieved against objectives set forth in the ESA.
With regard to (d), this review focused on the continued relevance of the ESA, whether the agreement is effective in meeting its objectives within budget and without unwanted outcomes, whether it is cost-effective, and whether it was implemented as designed.
While this review did not focus solely on provincial corrections, it was concluded that the ESA has, in all key areas, been implemented as intended. It is fair to say that the success of the program initiatives and many others is due to the high level of collaboration and co-operation between the two jurisdictions at all levels.
The details, including dates and file numbers, of each discussion between CSC and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are not readily available.
With regard to (a)(i), (a)(ii), and (b), since November 27, 2012, the RCMP has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to the Baffin Correctional Centre or any other correctional services in Nunavut. This is a territorial institution, not a federal institution.
(c)(i)(ii)(d) With regard to (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (d), since November 27, 2012, the RCMP has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to Her Majesty`s Penitentiary in St. John’s or correctional services in Newfoundland and Labrador in general.

Question No. 607--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to Marine Atlantic Incorporated and the recent decision to eliminate two vessels crossing per week between Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and Labrador and North Sydney, Nova Scotia: (a) what consultations took place between Marine Atlantic and stakeholder groups in Newfoundland and Labrador, including names of stakeholders and how the consultations took place; (b) what were the established thresholds that had to be met before crossings were cancelled; and (c) what is the projected financial benefit or loss to Marine Atlantic for cancelling these crossings?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), no formal consultations took place between Marine Atlantic and stakeholder groups in Newfoundland and Labrador; however, the corporation did have regular informal discussions with members of various stakeholder groups in advance of the schedule change. These discussions centred around decreasing traffic levels with the corporation and trying to better understand the amount of traffic that commercial operators planned on moving during the summer.
With regard to (b), the decision to change the schedule was not based on specified traffic thresholds. The corporation’s traffic has been declining, leading to revenues that were less than anticipated. Marine Atlantic recognized that it needed to change the schedule in order to better match traffic demand with available capacity and to ensure that the corporation could continue to meet its budgetary obligations.
With regard to (c), the projected savings from the 2014 summer schedule changes are approximately $4.13 million.

Question No. 608--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the evaluation of options to sustain a Canadian Forces Fighter Capability: (a) has an assessment been made of the capacity of Canada’s CF-18 fleet to contribute to operations beyond 2020; (b) what are the associated costs determined by this calculation, including necessary upgrades to maintain safe and effective operations of each plane, broken down by (i) type of upgrade, (ii) cost; (c) how many CF-18s out of Canada’s current fleet could be upgraded; and (d) what is the estimated new operational timeframe of all planes in part (c), broken down by individual aircraft in the fleet?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as part of the evaluation of options, the CF-18 fleet was assessed for its ability to contribute to operations beyond 2020. The assessment also outlines the rough order magnitude cost estimate to maintain safe and effective operations from an airworthiness, regulatory, and operational relevance perspective.
Ministers are reviewing a number of reports from the evaluation of options, including fighter capabilities, industrial benefits, costs, and other factors related to the decision to replace Canada's CF-18 fleet.

Question No. 609--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Transport on May 13, 2014, to strengthen world-class tanker safety systems: (a) what evidence, studies, research, discussions, advice or other methods were used to support the establishment of regional planning and resources to better respond to accidents in each of the following locations, (i) Southern British Columbia, (ii) Saint John and the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick, (iii) Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia, (iv) the Gulf of St. Lawrence; and (b) what evidence, studies, research, discussions, advice or other methods were used to not support the establishment of regional planning and resources to better respond to accidents in Placentia Bay and the South Coast of Newfoundland?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, area response planning was approved as an overarching approach and will be implemented through a phased approach, starting in four areas: the southern portion of B.C; Saint John and Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick; Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia; and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Quebec.
A pan-Canadian risk assessment entitled “Risk Assessment for Marine Spills in Canadian Waters” was conducted by GENIVAR. It was used to determine the areas where area response planning would initially be implemented. Other criteria used in identifying these areas include a high level of risk, geographic coverage, and the involvement of all four certified response organizations, those being Atlantic Emergency Response Team, Eastern Canada Response Corporation Ltd., Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, and Point Tupper Marine Services Ltd. Involving the response organizations will allow each to work within the new area response planning model, test new response standards and techniques, and determine the operational and financial impact of implementing area response planning nationally.

Question No. 615--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA): what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and CBSA from July 2013 to present, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, a preliminary search was done in ccmMercury, the file tracking system of the CBSA, to find the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and the CBSA from July 2013 to June 12, 2014. As a result of the volume and the processing required to provide the detail requested, the CBSA cannot produce a response by the specified deadline.

Question No. 616--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the inventory of protests or demonstrations maintained by the Government Operations Centre: (a) which government departments or agencies are involved in the surveillance of public demonstrations; (b) when did the surveillance measures begin; (c) what government resources are employed in the surveillance; (d) for each department or agency, how many staff members have participated in the surveillance reporting system in each fiscal year since surveillance began; (e) what have been all the costs of implementing the surveillance; (f) how long are these surveillance measures intended to last; (g) which government department or agency maintains the data on the protests; (h) how long is such data retained; (i) who are the partners with whom it is shared; and (j) under what authority is it shared?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) through (f), the Government Operations Centre does not conduct surveillance operations.
With regard to (g), the role of the Government Operations Centre, on behalf of the Government of Canada, is to support response coordination of events affecting the national interest. The Government Operations Centre seeks to maintain situational awareness of those demonstrations that may develop into events affecting the national interest. Situation reports are retained in accordance with the record-keeping accountability requirements of the Library and Archives of Canada Act.
With regard to (h), information obtained by the Government Operations Centre is retained for 10 years in accordance with the record-keeping accountability requirements of the Library and Archives of Canada Act.
With regard to (i), the Government Operations Centre works with all federal departments and agencies to ensure a whole-of-government response capability. It facilitates information-sharing for potential and ongoing events with other federal departments, with provinces and territories, and with its partners through regular analysis and reporting. Requests for information are part of the information-sharing process.
With regard to (j), information collected and situation reports prepared on events affecting the national interest are shared under the authority of the Emergency Management Act and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act.

Question No. 617--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the telephone survey of nearly 3,000 Canadians conducted by the Reid Group regarding prostitution and delivered to the Department of Justice on February 10, 2014: (a) why is the Department refusing to disclose the information it contains; (b) did the Minister of Justice take the findings of this survey into account in the drafting of the new bill; (c) why did the Minister of Justice not see fit to publish the survey results; and (d) what organizations inside or outside government have received a copy of the survey results?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (c), the department respects the Government of Canada policy with regard to the undertaking of public opinion research and has delivered the results of this work and the related data to Library and Archives Canada for public release in accordance with the policy. The material is publicly available on the public opinion research reports website.
With regard to (b), the Minister of Justice does not rely on just one source of information as a basis for informing his decisions. The information collected from the telephone survey on prostitution was a single tool completed to provide the minister with information for use at his discretion.
With regard to (d), no organizations inside or outside of government received an advance copy of the survey results.

Question No. 623--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): since June 27, 2011, has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or members of the RCMP Senior Executive Committee issued directives or suggestions in order to forbid or discourage RCMP offices or members of the RCMP from (a) providing letters of support to the CRTC on applications or processes that are or were before the CRTC; and (b) communicating with the Minister of Public Safety’s office with regard to applications or processes that are or were before the CRTC and, if so, what are the (i) names of the individuals or office that issued such a directive or suggestion, (ii) dates when the directives or suggestions were issued, (iii) individuals or departments to whom the directives or suggestions were issued, (iv) details as to the content of the directives or suggestions?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), a member of the RCMP senior executive committee instructed RCMP members and employees to refrain from providing letters of support to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, on applications or processes that are or were before the CRTC. The answer to (i) is Executive Director of Public Affairs Daniel Lavoie. The answer to (ii) is February 20, 2013. The answer to (iii) is the RCMP national communications services and communications group of “C” Division, Quebec. The answer to (iv) is that it was to remind those individuals, mentioned in response to (iii), that it would not be appropriate for an RCMP representative to endorse an application before the CRTC as the CRTC is a regulatory organization of the federal government.
With regard to (b), the RCMP did not issue directives or suggestions in order to forbid or discourage RCMP offices or members of the RCMP from communicating with the office of the Minister of Public Safety with regard to applications or processes that are or were before the CRTC.

Question No. 627--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to government funding in the province of Ontario, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province, specifying for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, namely the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding she would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 629--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to refugees: (a) as of June 11, 2014, how many of the 200 Syrian refugees the government committed to resettle were in Canada; (b) what was the average processing time in 2014 for applications for privately sponsored refugees; and (c) what was the average processing time in 2014 for applications for privately sponsored refugees from Syria?
Response
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is concerned, the Government of Canada is deeply concerned about the crisis in Syria and will continue to do what it can to best help the Syrian people. Canada has a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those truly in need. We have one of the most fair and generous immigration systems in the world. We welcome about one out of every 10 of all resettled refugees globally, more than almost any industrialized country in the world. Canada is one of the world’s largest providers of humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees. To date, Canada has committed more than $630 million in humanitarian, development and security assistance to the Syrian crisis.
In response to the June 2013 UNHCR appeal for assistance with extremely vulnerable cases, Canada committed to permanently resettling 1,300 Syrian refugees by the end of 2014, 200 refugees through the government-assisted refugees, or GAR, program and 1,100 through the private sponsorship of refugees, or PSR, program.
It was only in late 2013 and early 2014 that the UNHCR began to call for increased resettlement efforts as an expression of international solidarity and burden-sharing while providing much needed protection to the most. To meet Canada’s commitment the UNHCR began referring cases to Canada in late 2013.
In total, since the start of the Syrian conflict, Canada has received over 3,070 applications from Syrians seeking Canada’s protection through the asylum and resettlement programs and we have provided protection to more than 1,230 Syrians.
As of June 11, 93 Syrian refugees out of the 200 that the government committed to resettle had arrived in Canada. As of July 2, as the minister confirmed to The Globe and Mail, 177 Syrian refugees of the 200 the government had committed to resettle had arrived in Canada. That number continues to rise. CIC reports processing times on a 12-month rolling period, based on the calendar year, so 2014 processing time data is not yet available. CIC also does not report processing times based on a client’s country of origin but rather by processing centre. As such, this information is not available. That said, robust backlog, and wait time reduction strategies and resources have been implemented to reduce processing times generally.
Current processing times vary depending on the category. To see our processing times, please visit our website: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/times/perm-other.asp.
Processing times have begun to improve, and where working inventories have been established, cases are being put into process quickly. We continue to work toward processing times at all missions of 12 to 18 months for newly received PSR cases.
The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need. CIC continues to work as effectively as possible to resettle refugees given operational and security limitations.
Canada is working closely with the UNHCR and resettlement countries to determine how best to respond to the needs of Syrian refugees, given the overwhelming scale of the displacement. Canada is reviewing an additional request from the UNHCR for Syrian resettlement as part of our broader response to this crisis. The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need. CIC continues to work diligently and as effectively as it can to resettle as many refugees as possible.

Question No. 631--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With respect to an accidental release in March 2011 of industrial wastewater from a Suncor oil sands project into the Athabasca River: (a) when did the government of Alberta notify the federal government of the spill; (b) was the notification in (a) done pursuant to the Canada-Alberta Environmental Occurrences Notification Agreement; (c) what fines did the federal government impose for this violation of the Fisheries Act; (d) what non-monetary penalties did the federal government impose for this violation of the Fisheries Act; (e) if fines or non-monetary penalties were not imposed, for what reasons were they not imposed; and (f) with regard to the federal government’s investigation of the incident, (i) on what date was the investigation opened, (ii) on what date was the investigation closed and (iii) what was the reason for the closing of the investigation?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to part (a) is on Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 4:43 p.m.
In regard to part (b), yes, the Alberta CIC notification centre sent a summary email of the occurrence and a link to the full Suncor report to an Environment Canada environmental emergencies officer in the Edmonton office. The CIC notification reference number was 245344.
Regarding (c), the answer is none.
Regarding (d), the answer is none.
With regard to (e), information gathered during this investigation has determined that Suncor has been operating their wastewater system diligently and that the March 21, 2011, incident could not have been reasonably foreseen. Consequently, no charges were laid against Suncor. On November 8, 2011, the file was approved for closure, with no recommended enforcement action.
The answer to (f)(i) is on March 25, 2011; and (f)(ii) is November 8, 2011. Finally, (f)(iii), was answered in the response to (e).

Question No. 632--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With respect to the government’s response aimed at ensuring the safety of drug compounds to the under-dosing of chemotherapy drugs, discovered on March 20, 2013 at four Ontario hospitals: (a) what actions have been taken, with (i) drug compounders, (ii) each of the provinces and territories, in order to establish a federal regulatory framework for this sector; (b) what steps remain to be taken to successfully establish a comprehensive federal regulatory regime for drug compounders, similar to that which exists for drug manufacturers; (c) what new rules will be included with regard to purchasing protocols for compounding inputs; (d) will these protocols be equivalent to those for manufacturers; (e) how will compliance with the rules in (c) be monitored and enforced; (f) how does the government monitor and enforce manufacturing and purchasing protocols for drug manufacturers; and (g) how does the government ensure that monitoring and compliance are sufficient to ensure the safety of all Canadians who consume medications?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, since the under-dosing incident, Health Canada has undertaken these actions.
First, on April 19, 2013, Health Canada published the “Interim Regulatory Oversight of Admixing and Compounding” statement, allowing organizations involved in these activities to continue providing these services, if they meet certain conditions, while the department and the provinces and territories, or PTs, worked together to determine the long-term oversight of these activities.
Second, Health Canada convened the Ad Hoc Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Admixing and Compounding to collaboratively work toward two goals: to examine the scope and extent of hospital pharmacy outsourcing of drug compounding and admixing across Canada; and to determine the appropriate oversight of these activities. Health Canada also convened a sub-working group to bring clarity to the delineation between federal and PT oversight of these activities.
With regard to part (b), Health Canada has also been working collaboratively with key stakeholders such as the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities and the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists to determine how best to achieve regulatory clarity to enhance patient safety, and improve predictability and transparency going forward.
In regard to (c), (d), and (e), our government is determined that Canadians will have tough, effective regulations for drug safety. Health Canada has been actively working on a proposal for a federal approach to commercial compounding and initiated consultations in June 2014 to gain feedback from PTs and other key stakeholders on elements of the proposal and its implementation.
In regard to (c), details will be developed during the regulatory process in consultation with stakeholders.
In regard to (d), the proposed regulatory requirements would be proportional to the level of risk associated with the type of activity in question.
In regard to (e), proposed federal regulations would be an extension of existing regulatory frameworks governing the manufacturing of drugs, and Health Canada would develop an appropriate compliance and enforcement approach based on existing processes and procedures.
In regard to (f), Health Canada conducts routine inspections on a risk-based cycle to monitor compliance with the regulatory requirements, including the requirement to have and follow appropriate protocols related to the manufacturing of drugs. When non-compliance is identified, Health Canada verifies the corrective action taken by the manufacturer and takes appropriate enforcement action to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
In regard to (g), Health Canada administers an inspection program to regularly monitor the compliance of drug manufacturers with the regulatory requirements. Policies, guidelines and procedures related to the inspection program are regularly reviewed and audited to support continuous improvement so that Health Canada’s inspection program provides effective oversight to help protect the health and safety of Canadians. The department also participates in ongoing assessment activities with international partners to confirm the international equivalence of the Canadian inspection system.
Health Canada is also enhancing the integrity of the health product supply chain in Canada by educating stakeholders and improving the oversight of the ingredients found in health products in accordance with the new active pharmaceutical ingredients regulations. In addition to the existing measures in place to protect the health and safety of Canadians, our government is enhancing patient safety by C-17, Vanessa’s Law, which will require the reporting of adverse drug reactions by health institutions, mandatory recalls of unsafe drugs, and increased fines and penalties.

Question No. 633--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada: what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and the Correctional Service of Canada from July 2013 to present, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, CSC is unable to respond to the request within the given timeframe. There are variations in the manner with which ministerial briefings and departmental correspondence are tracked and CSC’s electronic document tracking database cannot be used to produce the requested information; therefore, an electronic search for the requested records is not possible. As a result, a manual search of files would be required in order to respond to this request. System limitations and the amount of resources that would be required for such a search prevent CSC from providing a full and consistent response to the request.

Question No. 634--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Nova Scotia, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding he would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 635--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding she would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 637--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of New Brunswick, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding he would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 639--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of British Columbia, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding he would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 641--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Quebec, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), 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. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding he would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.
AdvertisingAglukkaq, LeonaAgreements and contractsAlexander, ChrisAllegations of fraud and fraudAllen, MalcolmAmbrose, RonaAndrews, ScottAnswers to Written Questions on the Orde ...Arms controlAthabasca River