Question No. 545--
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours:
With regard to the trade in illicit tobacco products: (a) when will the Minister of Revenue publish the technical rules relating to the stamping regime which was created in Budget 2010 to combat contraband tobacco; (b) when did the Canada Revenue Agency first develop the stamp as a solution to contraband tobacco; (c) when were licensed tobacco manufacturers first consulted on the requirement to affix these stamps to their packages; (d) by how much will each stamp increase the cost of a single package of tobacco products; and (e) what impact does the government expect the stamping regime will have on the manufacturing and sale of contraband tobacco and why?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of National Revenue, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker,
the response from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to the above-noted question follows.
In response to (a), technical rules for the stamping regime will be elaborated through public announcements, excise duty notices and the publication of proposed regulatory amendments in the Canada Gazette, entitled Regulations Amending the Stamping and Marking of Tobacco Products Regulations. In 2010, duty notices were released on the CRA website in July and September, and a consultation draft of the regulations was released to industry, provinces and other stakeholders in November 2010. CRA officials continue to work with officials at both the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board Secretariat to publish the proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette by January of 2011.
In response to (b), as early as 2003, CRA officials were reviewing various initiatives that might respond to the growing issue of the proliferation of contraband tobacco; one option that specifically responded to the challenge of counterfeit and other illicitly produced tobacco products was the concept of enhancing Canada’s excise tobacco stamping regime with a new tobacco excise stamp.
One element of the tobacco compliance strategy was a new enhanced stamping regime based on the development of a new state-of-the-art tobacco excise stamp. This was delineated in the federal budget of 2005.
In response to (c), in February 2005 the CRA began approaching several tobacco manufacturers individually to attain a better understanding of their production facilities and packaging lines for purposes of the adoption of a new excise duty tobacco stamp to be affixed to tobacco product packages. In July 2005, the CRA publicly released a discussion paper entitled “Tobacco Stamping Regime -- Review and Recommendations” to seek representations from various stakeholders. Consultations have been ongoing since the 2005 federal budget announcement. In January 2008 the CRA invited all tobacco licensees to an information session.
In response to (d), following the federal budget of 2005, the CRA conducted a competitive procurement process that resulted in the award of a contract to design, produce and distribute a tobacco stamp incorporating overt and covert security features. The contract was awarded on January 3, 2008, and specifies a firm unit price of $0.00592 per stamp which could, if added on, result in an increase of just over one-half cent to the cost of a stamped tobacco product.
In response to (e),
the new stamp contains state-of-the-art overt and covert security features that will enable all levels of the supply and distribution chain, from producer to consumer, to identify legitimate duty-paid tobacco products from contraband. The government expects that the new stamping regime will contribute to reducing the amount of counterfeit and other illicitly produced tobacco products entering the Canadian market. This will result in the enhanced integrity of the tobacco tax system, which supports the Government’s health objectives.
Question No. 547--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to Statistics Canada and the census: (a) is Statistics Canada currently spending money to assess the value of the data it will collect from the new, voluntary National Household Survey (NHS) as compared to the value of the data previously collected from the mandatory long-form census; and (b) is Statistics Canada transferring any questions from the NHS to the 2011 Census of Population questionnaire which would render the questionnaire different from that published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on August 21, 2010?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Statistics Canada and the census, in response to (a),
Statistics Canada is currently focusing its efforts on developing, assessing and adapting its statistical and operational procedures to minimize non-response bias and to achieve the best quality possible from the national household survey. Only when data collection is complete will we begin to assess the actual data quality using a number of measures, including comparison to data from 2006 long-form census and use of the 2011 census short-form results. Until then, the quality-related costs of the 2011 Census of Population and the national household survey cannot be segregated.
Statistics Canada is confident that the national household survey will produce usable and useful data that can meet the needs of many users.
In response to (b), the 2011 census questionnaire will contain the same questions as published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on August 21, 2010.
Question No. 550--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to Statistics Canada and the census: (a) how much money did Statistics Canada project would be required to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data of the now defunct 2011 mandatory long-form census; (b) how much money does Statistics Canada expect will be required to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data of the new National Household Survey, which is to replace the mandatory long-form census; and (c) if the amount in (a) differs from the corresponding amount in (b), what explains this difference?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker,
with regard to Statistics Canada and the census, in response to part (a),
Statistics Canada received a budget of $630 million for the 2011 census program. Every component of the census and national household survey, NHS, planning and implementation of operations, such as systems development and testing, interviewer hiring and trainingand collection and follow-up design contributes to ensuring data quality. Due to the integrated nature of the quality assurance measures in place for the census program, quality-related costs cannot be segregated.
In response to (b), Statistics Canada is projecting expenditures of $630 million for the 2011 census and NHS. Statistics Canada is adapting its procedures to conduct the 2011 census and NHS within the existing budget initially planned for a mandatory short- and long-form census.
In response to (c), Statistics Canada will conduct the 2011 Census and the new NHS with the resources provided.
Question No. 553--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to the government's decision to terminate the development of an HIV vaccine manufacturing facility: (a) on what date was the Public Health Agency of Canada first informed that the Gates Foundation had commissioned a report to analyze the current vaccine manufacturing capacity in North America and Europe; (b) on what date was the Public Health Agency of Canada first informed of the results of the report commissioned by the Gates Foundation to analyze current vaccine manufacturing capacity in North America and Europe; (c) what were the dates of each meeting, including in person meetings and meetings conducted via teleconference, between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Gates Foundation regarding the report commissioned by the Gates Foundation and the changes to the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative; and (d) on what date was the Minister or the Minister's office first informed of the report and requested changes made by the Gates Foundation concerning the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the response to (a) is that the initial cornerstone of the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative (CHVI) announced in February 2007 was the establishment in Canada of a pilot-scale HIV vaccine manufacturing facility to produce clinical trial lots. The facility was intended to address the global shortage in pilot-scale manufacturing initially identified by the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, an alliance of independent organizations around the world dedicated to accelerating the development of preventive HIV vaccines.
Consultations were held in late 2007 by CHVI participating departments/agencies, including the Canadian International Development Agency, Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada and Industry Canada and the Gates Foundation, to seek expert input on how to move forward with establishing a facility in Canada. Based on this consultation, a process was launched in April 2008 to select a not-for-profit corporation to build, operate and manage the facility.
As part of the participating departments/agencies’ and Gates Foundation’s review processes, both the participating departments/agencies and the Gates Foundation received input from external experts and undertook internal analyses related to value for money and other factors. On March 17, 2009, the Public Health Agency of Canada was informed that an analysis of the current vaccine manufacturing capacity in North America and Europe would be part of the Gates Foundation’s internal review process.
The response to (b) is that in late June 2009, the Gates Foundation informally shared preliminary results of the report with the Public Health Agency of Canada. The study results were presented to officials from participating CHVI departments/agencies on July 16, 2009.
The response to (c) is that further to regular informal discussions, two teleconferences between participating CHVI departments/agencies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were held on July 16th and July 31st to discuss the report. In addition, face-to-face meetings and/or teleconferences were held on September 28, 2009; December 21, 2009; March 2, 25 and 26, 2010; April 15, 22 and 29, 2010; May 6, 13, 20 and 27, 2010; and, June 3, 17 and 24, 2010 to discuss the renewal of the CHVI. In July 2010, at the XVIII International AIDS Conference in Vienna, Austria, the Government of Canada and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation renewed their commitment of up to $139 million to implement the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative.
The response to (d) is that the minister’s office was informed of the report following the July 2009 teleconference between participating CHVI departments/ agencies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Given the importance of the CHVI and continuing commitment amongst partners to making progress on overall objectives, all options were examined to yield the best results.
This was an important decision that the Government of Canada and the Gates Foundation could not take lightly nor make quickly. The decision was based on a number of factors. A thorough, evidence-based review of all applications was completed. This included an internal review and external review by an international expert panel. None of the applicants were found to be successful in meeting the pre-established criteria.
Additionally, as part of the due diligence process, the Gates Foundation commissioned a study on vaccine manufacturing capacity. This study demonstrated that there was sufficient vaccine manufacturing capacity in North America and Europe to meet research needs.
After weighing all of the evidence, the Government of Canada and the Gates Foundation decided not to proceed with the vaccine manufacturing facility.
Question No. 558--
Ms. Meili Faille:
Regarding the Competition Bureau’s investigation, initiated in 2005, and the charges in 2009 against information technology (IT) services companies against which Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) has levelled allegations of anti-competitive bid-rigging: (a) what are the names of the people from PWGSC, the Competition Bureau and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) who engaged in discussion or correspondence regarding the investigation and, if applicable, for each communication, (i) when did the communication take place, (ii) at what stage was the investigation, (iii) what matters were discussed, (iv) was there consensus on the action to take, (v) what is the description of the consensus; (b) during the period from June 1, 2008 to July 31, 2008, what are the names and titles of the people who made inquiries to the Competition Bureau about the stage of the investigation from (i) PWGSC, (ii) the Competition Bureau, (iii) the PPSC, (iv) Canada Border Services Agency, (v) Transport Canada, (vi) the Prime Minister’s Office; (c) were inquiries made to the PPSC or the Competition Bureau by people other than those identified in (b) and, if so, what is the name of each person and the date of the inquiry; (d) did the PWGSC Deputy Minister discuss the inquiry with the PPSC and the Competition Bureau and, if so, (i) when did these discussions take place, (ii) what was the content of these discussions, (iii) was the lawsuit brought by one of the companies named in the charges discussed and, if so, what is the name of the company; (e) can Competition Bureau lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (f) can PPSC lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (g) for the period from June 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, (i) what recommendations were made to PWGSC by the lawyers identified in (e) and (f), (ii) what are the names of these lawyers, (iii) were these lawyers informed of a lawsuit against PWGSC brought by one of the companies named in the Competition Bureau charges; (h) were Mr. Denis Pilon and Mr. V. Chénard, lawyers named by the government in a criminal case, denounced by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; (i) regarding the PPSC’s hiring of Mr. Denis Pilon, (i) what was the date of hire, (ii) what are the names of the people who made recommendations or suggestions or commented on the hiring of Mr. Pilon, (iii) who made the decision to ask Mr. Pilon to handle the file on the IT companies named in the Competition Bureau charges, (iv) were Mr. Pilon’s political activities for the Conservative Party declared and, if so, who informed the PPSC of these activities; (j) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the quality of work performed by the companies involved in the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) what was the assessment of the various departments of each company, (ii) what was the title of the document containing the studies or audits, (iii) on what date were these studies or audits done; (k) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the market impact of the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) on what date were these studies or audits done, (ii) what was the title of the document containing this information, (iii) what were the key findings and recommendations; (l) regarding PWGSC’s plan in December 2008 and January 2009 to debar the companies that allegedly rigged bids for IT services, (i) who, within PWGSC, the Competition Bureau or the PPSC, proposed this idea, (ii) was the basic principle of Canadian law that a person is innocent until proven guilty discussed, (iii) did the person responsible for the debarment decide to disregard the principle set out in (ii), (iv) did PWGSC subsequently assure one or more of the companies in question that they would not be debarred and, if applicable, what companies and why, (v) did PWGSC warn one or more departments that these companies might be debarred, (vi) after withdrawing its threat of immediate debarment, did PWGSC inform one or more departments to act as if nothing had happened with these companies, while awaiting the court’s decision, (vii) did PWGSC urge one or more departments to do whatever was necessary to prevent these companies from accessing business opportunities or contracts, (viii) for each circumstance in (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii), on what date did the communication take place; (m) did PWGSC senior officials provide instructions to avoid sending written information on certain lawsuits that risked being the subject of a possible access to information or privacy request and, if so, who gave this instruction and for what reason; (n) can the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the departments involved confirm that they still have all the evidence in their possession; (o) were the companies named in the Competition Bureau’s charges subject to greater scrutiny regarding their commercial activities with the government and, if so, (i) what are the names of the PWGSC employees given this task and (ii) which departments were contacted; and (p) is PWGSC involved in evaluating the proposals or in the contract adjudication process and, if so, (i) to what extent are PWGSC public servants involved, (ii) what is the objective, (iii) what follow-up and communication procedures are in place between PWGSC and the departments regarding these cases, (iv) is there a document describing these procedures, and (v) have these procedures largely been followed?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC, is an independent prosecution service whose mandate is to provide prosecutorial advice to law enforcement agencies and to prosecute offences under federal jurisdiction. The PPSC performs these functions in a manner that is free of any improper influence and that respects the public interest.
The questions above seek information in respect of matters that are currently the subject of a criminal prosecution and civil litigation before the courts. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to respond to these questions at this time.
Question No. 562--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regard to the current renewed peace talks in the Middle East: (a) in what meetings has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) participated regarding the renewed peace talks; (b) what briefing notes has DFAIT received or produced regarding the renewed peace talks; (c) what scenarios has DFAIT prepared for a Canadian role in the renewed peace talks; and (d) what scenarios has DFAIT prepared for a renewed Canadian role with the Refugee Working Group?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to
(a), Canada has not participated in meetings surrounding the renewed peace talks. These meetings have been largely restricted to the parties and the U.S., with some regional and Quartet participation.
In response to (b), DFAIT closely monitors developments on the peace process and a briefing note on the Middle East peace process is updated as appropriate.
In response to (c) and (d), as stated publicly on many occasions, including a statement in support of the continuation of peace talks on October 9, Canada is ready to assist the parties in any way they find helpful.
Question No. 563--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regard to the flooding in Pakistan in late July 2010: (a) how much money has the government matched in donations from Canadian citizens; (b) to which organizations has the money from the matching program gone; (c) how much additional money has the government spent on the prevention of disease in Pakistan; (d) how much additional money has the government spent on the reconstruction of Pakistan; and (e) has the government looked into any other programs besides direct economic aid to help the people of Pakistan?
Response
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a),
individual Canadians have demonstrated their generosity and concern for the people of Pakistan by donating more than $46.8 million to registered Canadian charities for flood relief. The Government of Canada will place an equivalent amount to the eligible donations in the Pakistan flood relief fund.
In response to (b), as of November 16, 2010, the following organizations have received financial support from the Pakistan flood relief fund:
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, $6 million;
United Nations World Food Programme, $4.5 million;
Canadian Red Cross Society, $2 million;
Save the Children Canada, $3.5 million;
Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, $2 million;
CANADEM, $590,000;
GlobalMedic, $410,000;
The total as November 16, 2010 is $19 million.
In response to (c), within the context of the 2010 monsoon floods, the Government of Canada has provided $16.42 million--$410,000 to GlobalMedic under the Pakistan flood relief fund,plus an additional $16.01 million outside of the Pakistan flood relief fund to United Nations organizations, Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and Canadian NGOs--toward the prevention of disease in Pakistan through initiatives aimed at providing emergency health care, clean water and sanitation, and hygiene promotion to the flood-affected population.
In response to (d), as of November 16, 2010, the Government of Canada has not supported any reconstruction activities in Pakistan within the context of the 2010 monsoon floods. The Government of Canada was recently presented with the Government of Pakistan’s federal and provincial reconstruction strategies at a multinational Pakistan Development Forum in Islamabad. The Government of Canada is currently reviewing these strategies. To date, the Canadian International Development Agency’s response to floods in Pakistan totals $44 million, including $19 million from the Pakistan flood relief fund.
In response to (e), the Government of Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency, will continue to focus development assistance programs on education and women’s economic empowerment. When it is available, the Government of Canada will review the Government of Pakistan’s reconstruction plan. The Government of Canada will also continue to monitor the humanitarian situation in Pakistan.
Question No. 565--
Hon. Shawn Murphy:
With respect to persons who have accompanied the Prime Minister on foreign and domestic trips, for the period January 1, 2006 to October 11, 2010: (a) in what capacity does image consultant Michelle Muntean travel on transportation provided by the government; (b) does Ms. Muntean receive any remuneration from the government; (c) on what trips did Ms. Muntean travel with the Prime Minister; (d) what was the total cost associated with Ms. Muntean’s travel, broken down by the amount spent on (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (e) which government department or agency paid for expenses incurred as a result of Ms. Muntean’s travel; (f) have any outside individuals, groups or organizations paid for any of Ms. Muntean’s travel expenses; (g) what bills have been sent to individuals, groups or organizations for Ms. Muntean’s travel expenses; (h) what are the names of the individuals, other than Ms. Muntean, not employed by the government, excluding the Prime Minister’s spouse and children, who have accompanied the Prime Minister on domestic or foreign travel; (i) in what capacity did the individuals in (h) travel on transportation provided by the government; (j) on what trips have the individuals in (h) traveled with the Prime Minister; (k) for the individuals in (h), what was the total cost associated with their travel, broken down by the amount spent on (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (l) which government department or agency paid for the expenses in (k); (m) have any outside individuals, groups or organizations paid for any of the travel expenses in (k); and (n) what bills have been sent to the individuals, groups or organizations in (m)?
Response
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office has no records or information on travel expenses for non-government individuals between January 1, 2006 and October 11, 2010.
Question No. 574--
Mr. Dennis Bevington:
With regard to federal regulation of the lands in the Northwest Territories, in detail: (a) what was the rationale for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's recommendation that the subsurface interim land withdrawal for Edehzhie Candidate National Wildlife Area not be renewed; (b) prior to making the recommendation, did the department consult with the Dehcho First Nations and, if so, (i) when were the consultations conducted, (ii) how were they conducted, (iii) where were they conducted, (iv) what was their outcome; and (c) if no consultations were conducted with the Dehcho First Nations, what were the reasons?
Response
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), a national wildlife area designation does not preclude development. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is of the view that well-managed resource development can co-exist with protected areas. For this reason, the minister felt that the process to establish the Edéhzhie Candidate National Wildlife Area did not require an interim land withdrawal removing from disposition the subsurface rights.
The response to (b), is no.
In response to (c), consultations were not deemed to be required.
Question No. 575--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the May 2010 changes to the Functional Guidance and Procedures for Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) withdrawals and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) adjustments: (a) what was the rationale behind changing the guidelines, such that seniors who voluntarily withdraw funds from their RRIFs may no longer be eligible for GIS, Allowance, or Allowance for survivors benefits; (b) why is there a distinction such that seniors who withdraw funds from a RRIF are penalized, while it is possible to withdraw the same amount from a savings account without impacting GIS eligibility and payment amounts; (c) who was responsible for the decision to make these changes; and (d) in light of the recommendation from The Honourable Justice E.A. Bowie and The Honourable Justice J.E. Hershfield of the Tax Court of Canada that this policy should be reviewed, what has the government done to examine the effects of these procedures and ensure that they are in the best interest of Canadian citizens?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker,
the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, is intended for old age security. OAS, pensioners who have little or no income other than their basic OAS pension. Accordingly, the determination of the entitlement to the GIS benefit is based on income and marital status. The GIS is targeted towards low-income seniors. It is income-tested to ensure that the highest benefits are provided to the lowest-income seniors.
In response to (a), the administrative policy changes introduced in May 2010 were small and technical in nature. In general, an individual’s GIS benefit is re-calculated every year in July, based on their previous year’s income. Under the Old Age Security Act, there exists an “option” provision that allows pensioners to have their GIS benefit based on an estimate of their current income, in very limited circumstances when there is a drop in income as a result of: a cessation of employment income; or a reduction or termination of pension income, for example, , liquidation of a RRIF, or the insolvency of a pension fund. Its purpose is not to exclude income from the calculation of the GIS benefit. The change that the May 2010 policy introduced was intended to better clarify under which circumstances the "option" provision could be used in relation to RRIF.
In response to (b), since its inception in 1967, GIS benefits have been calculated on the basis of income as defined under the Income Tax Act, ITA. This includes, among others, Canada pension plan, CPP, benefits, employer and private pensions, as well as registered retirement savings plan, RRSP, and RRIF withdrawals. Amounts from a savings account are not considered as income under the ITA. Therefore, given that the GIS is an income-tested program, withdrawals from a RRIF are considered as an income in the calculation of GIS benefits while withdrawals from personal savings accounts are not.
In response to (c), the decision was made by officials at the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada without the knowledge of the minister or minister’s office staff.
In response to (d), departmental officials regularly review all policies and programs to ensure that they are in the best interest of Canadian citizens.
In this particular instance, the minister cancelled the change once it was discovered that the change had been made and that it could have unintended consequences.
Question No. 580--
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes:
With regard to the $1.5 billion dedicated to the Canada ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change in Budget 2007, for each of the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted; (b) what were the major environmental projects funded; (c) who were the beneficiaries of the funding allotted; (d) in which provinces or territories were the beneficiaries of funding located; (e) how many jobs were maintained as a result of the funding allotted; and (f) how many jobs were created as a result of the funding?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker,
in response to (a), in February 2007, the $1.5 billion clean air and climate change trust fund was established to support those provinces and territories that identify major projects that will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants.
In response to (b), while the Government of Canada transferred the funding to provincial and territorial governments through the trust, it is provincial and territorial responsibility to report directly to their residents, to their legislative assemblies, and their auditors on how they spend public funds, including reporting on how they used funding through the clean air and climate change trust fund.
Two types of approaches are apparent. First, some provinces and territories are using trust fund resources to directly finance specific projects.
For example, Nova Scotia used its funds to establish ecoNova Scotia to support projects to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution. Through 69 funded projects and programs in 2009, the initiative is projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 172 kilotonnes, Kt, a year.
Alberta directed approximately $80 million of the fund towards 10 projects focusing on, among other goals, technology advancement and leveraging further investments. These projects are projected to provide three megatonnes, Mt, of reductions by 2015.
Yukon directed its funds towards the installation of a third hydro turbine at the Aishihik hydro electric plant in south western Yukon. The Aishihik third turbine will be operational by the end of 2010 and will produce 3.8 Kt of emission reductions annually.
New Brunswick dedicated resources towards landfill gas recovery projects, with three of these projects using the captured methane gas for power generation. This will result in 165 Kt of GHG emission reductions.
Second, other provinces have used the trust fund to help finance their overall climate change strategies. For example, Trust Fund resources have been used
in Ontario to help finance a broad range of initiatives under its climate change action plan, including improving access to energy efficient technologies, increasing use of renewable energy sources, deploying new technologies to abate emissions, and public transit. Ontario has also committed to eliminate coal-fired generation by the end of 2014.
In Quebec the trust fund has been used to provide additional funding for its suite of climate change measures under its 2006-2012 action plan on climate change. These resources have been added to Quebec's green fund, to supplement funds collected through the green fund duty.
In Saskatchewan the trust fund has been used to support a wide variety of provincial investments being pursued towards the reduction of GHG emissions. These investments include the establishment of the go green fund, which provides financial support for the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, energy efficiency initiatives, renewable energy and wind power projects, and carbon capture and storage projects.
The Government of Canada has made a number of joint announcements with provinces and territories regarding the planned expenditures under this Trust, and in many cases provinces have publicly acknowledged the use of Trust Fund resources in their budget and project announcements. Details on planned expenditures for each province and territory are listed on the following Web site: http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/trust-fiducie-eng.cfm.
In response to (c), the beneficiaries of the clean air and climate change trust fund are each of the provinces and territories, and through them, their residents and municipalities. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to draw the funds over three years according to their respective schedule and priorities.
The trust fund is allocated on a per capita basis and provides a minimum of $15 million per province and $5 million per territory to support efforts to develop technology, improve energy efficiency, and undertake other projects that will result in significant environmental benefits.
In response to (d), see the response to (c). Each province and territory was allocated funding.
(
In response to (e) and (f), while the Government of Canada provided funding to provincial and territorial governments through the trust, it is provincial and territorial governments themselves that are responsible for allocating the funds to specific programs. Provinces and territories are responsible for reporting directly to their residents, to their legislative assemblies, and their auditors on how they spend public funds, including reporting on how they used funding through the clean air and climate change trust fund. Provincial and territorial governments are not required to report to the federal government.
Question No. 582--
Mr. Anthony Rota:
With respect to the inspections of gas pumps and other measuring devices mandated in Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, of the present session of the 40th Parliament: (a) what is the expected cost to the owner of an average establishment in a rural community in each of the trade sectors identified in the Bill, for each aspect of a trip taken by a non-government inspector specifically for the mandatory inspection of each of the measuring devices utilized in the conduct of their trade; (b) what studies, if any, have been conducted which examine, centrally or peripherally, the cost of the examinations cited in the Bill; and (c) what are the results of the studies referred to in (b)?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a),
the fees charged by non-government inspectors to conduct mandatory inspections would be determined by market forces rather than the government. The current fees for inspections performed by non-government inspectors are expected to decline with the introduction of mandatory inspection requirements due to efficiencies gained through the economies of scale resulting from increased demand for inspection services and competition for business among non-government inspectors.
Measurement Canada has surveyed current non-government inspection fees. These fees are typically between $50 and $200 per device inspection. This represents a minor incremental increase over service contracts that responsible device owners typically have in place for maintenance of their devices.
Many non-government inspectors are currently located in non-urban communities such as Prince George, Saguenay, Thunder Bay, Timmins and Sudbury, and it is expected that services to rural communities will increase once Bill C-14 becomes law.
For the following sample costs, based on current non-government inspection fees, the assumption is that a
non-government inspector would need to travel three hours to perform the inspection. It is unlikely that travel costs such as these would be applied in this manner, as many non-government inspectors are located in non-urban centres and would schedule multiple inspection activities in a geographic region for reasons of efficiency. If the
non-government inspector performs examination activities at the same time as service work, no additional travel costs would be incurred by the device owner.
Examples of costs are as follows: for a device owner in the retail petroleum sector with four gas pumps that need to be certified, the cost would be approximately $90 per pump every two years.
For the owner of four small platform scales, e.g. scales capable of measuring up to 50 kg, employed in any trade sector, the cost of the inspection and certification would be approximately $125 per device every two years.
For the owner of four computing scales, e.g. scales found at a grocery store checkout, used in the retail food trade sector, the cost would be approximately $125 per device every five years.
If
Measurement Canada conducted these inspections and uncovered non-compliance issues, the device owner would be required to call in a service organization to repair and recalibrate the devices. This legislative proposal will allow issues to be corrected immediately upon detection by non-government inspectors, an efficiency that will reduce device owners’ costs as well as enhance consumer protection.
Inspection costs are minimal considering the value of goods purchased and sold annually, and the possible negative implications for both device owners and consumers. For example, a typical gas pump measures approximately $500,000 worth of product over a two-year period.
In response to (b) and (c), the Birch report, a case study conducted in 2003 by the Organisation Internationale de la Métrologie Légale, used Canadian device compliance rates to estimate the "dollars at risk" for each type of device. When these figures were related to the cost of certification activities performed by government agencies, it was found that, for each dollar spent, $11 of inaccurate measurement was corrected. It was also found that, on average, total trade measurement inequity comprised 65% short measure, i.e., in favour of the device owner, and 35% over measure,
i.e., in favour of the consumer.
In the same report it was stated that when the value of goods measured across trade measurement devices was determined and combined with the performance of these devices, the estimated benefit-cost ratio of the inspection system was found to be 11.4 for periodic inspection and 28.7 for targeted inspection. Periodic inspections would be equivalent to the mandatory frequencies that could be established as a result of Bill C-14 and targeted inspections are inspections of known problem areas.
Question No. 585--
Mr. Anthony Rota:
With respect to the 2010 strategic review of the Canada Student Loan Program within Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been reviewed as a part of the comprehensive strategic review process; (b) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been identified as low-priority through strategic review; (c) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been identified as low-performing through strategic review; (d) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been identified as suitable options for funding reallocation through strategic review; (e) what is the total value of all program funding identified as suitable for reallocation through strategic review; (f) what program priorities will the funding reallocation be allotted to through strategic review; and (g) has the Canada Student Loan Program identified options for potential savings beyond the five percent required under the strategic review guidelines?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as announced by the President of the Treasury Board on May 3, 2010, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is going through the strategic review process this year. As part of this process, departments and agencies review 100% of their programs, including operation costs of statutory programs such as the Canada student loans program, with a view to better focus programs and services, streamline internal operations and transform the way they do business and achieve better results for Canadians. In this way, federal organizations are better able to increase
efficiencies and effectiveness,
focus on core roles, and
meet the priorities of Canadians.
The strategic review process is an effective tool to help control the growth of spending. It is a mechanism that allows the government to reallocate funding from low-priority, low-performing programs to higher priorities for Canadians, based on a comprehensive review of all programs.
Strategic reviews are designed to ensure that government programs are efficient and effective and achieve results Canadians expect.
The results of the 2010 strategic reviews will be released in budget 2011.
Question No. 590--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With respect to the government's negotiations to purchase F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft from the United States, has the government negotiated or obtained any concessions concerning Trade in Arms Regulations?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, given the multinational character of the JSF program and the global nature of the supply chain, the JSF partnership has been highly proactive in the development of a unique export control regime to accommodate the United States’ International Traffic in Arms Regulations, ITAR, which control the export of defence-related articles and services identified on the United States Munitions List.
First, the JSF partners have negotiated the establishment of a working group, the international matters working group, dedicated to identifying and addressing any export control issues that detract from the successful execution of the program.
Second, the partnership is making every effort to expedite export licensing with the United States government, even dedicating people to address JSF-related export licensing. This has greatly improved export licensing times, with the average JSF licence being executed in less than 30 days rather than the typical 45 to 120 days.
Finally, the partnership is also addressing export control issues related to the sustainment of the F-35, with an innovative process being developed to ensure the rapid transfer of technological items from one partner to another, including industry in partner nations. Under the current process, every transfer between industries or between industries and governments requires a separate re-transfer authorization. Given the thousands of weekly transfers anticipated in the sustainment phase of the JSF program, such an arrangement is unworkable. The JSF partnership is, therefore, working towards a revolutionary regime whereby re-transfer authorizations are eliminated for all companies and governments identified and cleared by the regime.
Question No. 592--
Hon. John McKay:
With respect to the government’s stated policy of returning the budget to balance: (a) what are the summaries, item by item, of all of the government programs, services, operating costs and all other cost categories that have increased (above the rate of inflation) for the fiscal years from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011; (b) what are all budgetary items that the government will freeze or cut in order to achieve a balanced budget and in which fiscal year(s) will these freezes or cuts take place; (c) how will these savings balance against the Bank of Canada’s projected annual revenues of the government; (d) does the government plan to raise taxes to eliminate the deficit and, if so, which taxes; and (e) does the government plan to sell any of its assets in order to eliminate the deficit and, if so, which assets?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, In response to (a), details on the spending of the federal government can be found in the Public Accounts of Canada. The Public Accounts of Canada are archived in the Library and Archives Canada's electronic collection at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/electroniccollection/index-e.html. For information on planned expenses for 2010-11, please consult the main and supplementary estimates at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/index-eng.asp. The main and supplementary estimates provide a breakdown of planned spending by standard object of expenditure that can be compared to previous years Public Accounts.
In response to (b), budget 2010, see pages 156 to 168, implemented a number of targeted measures to bring the budget back to balance by reducing the rate of spending growth over the medium term. For more information, please visit http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/home-accueil-eng.html.
In response to (c), the Bank of Canada does not publish revenue or expenditure projections for the federal government.
In response to (d), budget 2010, see page 12, was clear: “The Government will not raise taxes and will not cut major transfers to persons and other levels of government.”
In response to (e), budget 2009 announced a review of corporate assets. No decisions have been taken to date and no savings booked. A systematic review of corporate assets is a normal part of good governance and contributes to the ongoing reallocation of financial resources from low to high priorities in order to maximize economic benefits to taxpayers.
Question No. 594--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to the government's new excise duty tobacco tax stamp, which was designed and produced by the Canadian Bank Note Company and SICPA Product Security SA and implementation of which was mandated to the government in early 2010: (a) when will tobacco manufacturers be required to implement the new tobacco tax stamp on their products; (b) how much money has the government spent, since 2005 to present, to develop and implement the new tax stamping system; and (c) what are the reasons for the delay in implementing this initiative, which was first identified as a priority by the Canada Revenue Agency in 2005?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of National Revenue, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a),
on July 12, 2010, Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economics Growth Act, received royal assent. This act contained the legislative amendments required to the Excise Act 2001 to implement a new stamping regime for tobacco products. Legislative amendments included a transitional period between the implementation date and March 31, 2011, during which time tobacco products may be stamped in compliance with the current stamping regime or with the new excise stamp in compliance with the new stamping regime for tobacco products.
As of September 1, 2010, the new excise stamp can be applied to tobacco products destined for the Canadian duty-paid market.
Effective April 1, 2011, all domestically manufactured tobacco products entered into the Canadian duty paid market or imported tobacco products released under the Customs Act for entry into the duty paid market must be stamped with the new excise stamp.
In response to (b), from 2005 to November 30, 2010, $1,283,099 was spent on developing and implementing the Tobacco Stamping Regime.
In response to (c), since 2005, in order to facilitate the implementation of the tobacco stamping regime and reduce the costs to industry, the CRA has carried out extensive consultations with various stakeholders including tobacco product manufacturers, Health Canada, provincial and territorial governments, enforcement bodies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency and other interested parties.
In July 2007, the CRA conducted a competitive procurement process that resulted in the award of a contract to design, produce and distribute a tobacco stamp incorporating overt and covert security features. The contract was awarded in January 2008. Once prototype stamps were available from the stamp producer, a new round of consultations were commenced to assist industry with the acquisition of stamp application equipment and testing.
Subsequently, the CRA continued to work closely with the Department of Finance to develop the required legislative and regulatory amendments that would implement the new stamping regime. In September 2009, the Minister of National Revenue released proposals to amend the Stamping and Marking of Tobacco Products Regulations to support the proposed legislative amendments. These amendments were part of Bill C-9 that was tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010. Bill C-9 received royal assent on July 12, 2010.
The implementation date of the new stamping regime, as set out in the legislative amendments, was September 1, 2010.
Question No. 601--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With respect to the government's commitment on June 10, 2009, to help fishers in the Atlantic lobster industry: (a) how much funding was spent in 2009; (b) how much has been spent to date; and (c) what are the government's plans for the remainder of the $65 million?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in 2009 $65 million of funding was earmarked for two programs: the short term transitional measures, STTM, lobster program, as well as the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures, ALSM, program.
Some $15 million was earmarked for the STTM lobster program which began September 22, 2009. By the end of 2009, approximately $7.1 million was spent.
Some $50 million was earmarked for the ALSM. No ALSM funds were spent in 2009.
In response to (b), the STTM program concluded March 31, 2010.
Of this, $1 million was spent on operation and management costs of the program, $8.6 million was spent on grants, and $5.4 million of unspent funding was reported at year end as lapsed funding.
Unspent funding was a result of fewer than expected lobster licence holders qualifying under the STTM due to higher revenues from lobster fishing than anticipated.
Some $6 million in funding proposals have been approved to date under ALSM and released in 2010. Additional funding proposals are under review.
In response to (c), it is the $50 million ALSM program which is in effect until March 31, 2014.
Question No. 609--
Hon. Gurbax Malhi:
With respect to Employment Insurance claims made by residents in the constituency of Bramalea—Gore—Malton (named Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale from 2000 to 2004): (a) how many claims have been made since October 1993, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month; (b) what is the percentage of claims that have been approved since January 2008, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month; and (c) what has been the average period of time taken to process the claims made since January 2008, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker,
detailed employment insurance, EI, information specifically related to the constituency of Bramalea—Gore--Malton is unavailable as data of the type requested is not maintained at the constituency level.
Question No. 618--
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:
With regard to government health promotion programs: (a) what departments, agencies and commissions are responsible for administration programs promoting a healthy style of living; (b) what are the names of the programs that promote a healthy style of living; (c) how much funding was spent by departments and agencies on programs promoting a healthy style of living from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (d) how much funding was allocated to each province for the administration of programs promoting a healthy style of living; and (e) were programs promoting a healthy style of living audited during the past three fiscal years and, if any, what were the recommendations?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Health Canada is responsible for or contributes to the administration of a number of programs promoting a healthy style of living.
In response to (b), the names of the programs are:
Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative;
Maternal and Child Health Program;
Canada Pre-Natal Nutrition Program;
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Program;
Aboriginal Head Start On Reserve Program;
Brighter Futures & Building Healthy Communities;
National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program;
National Youth Solvent Abuse Program;
National Aboriginal Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy;
National Tuberculosis Program;
Immunization Program;
HIV/AIDS-Blood-Borne and Sexually Transmitted Infection (HIV/AIDS-BBSTI) Program;
Children’s Oral Health Initiative Program;
First Nations Environmental Contaminants Program;
Northern Contaminants Program;
Chemical Safety of Traditional Food Program;
First Nations Food, Nutrition and Environment Study;
Environmental Health Guide Program;
Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide;
Nutrition Labelling Education;
School Health;
Knowledge Transfer;
Drug Strategy Community Initiatives Fund;
Drug Treatment Funding Program;
Contribution program in support of the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy.
In response to (c), Health Canada provided $1,516,900,000 in funding from fiscal year 2006-07 to date.
In response to (d), no funding is allocated to provinces or territories for the administration of programs.
In response to (e), an internal review of the national native alcohol and drug abuse program was conducted in 2008.
The recommendations from this audit were as follows:
1. Ensure that formal risk assessments of the program continue.
2. Ensure that roles and responsibilities of the partners are clear.
3. Develop a formal performance measurement process.
4. Revisit the National Native Addictions Information Management System, NNAIMS, project and consider revalidating business requirements.
5. Consolidate documentation tracking key activities, and strengthen the quality of activity reporting from funds recipients.
All Audit Accountability Bureau internal audits are posted on the Health Canada website at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/performance/audit-verif/index-eng.php
No audits have been completed on other programs during the past three fiscal years.
In response to (a), the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, is responsible for the administration of programs promoting a healthy style of living.
In response to (b), PHAC has two programs that promote a healthy style of living.
The healthy living fund is a program that makes strategic investments to address the conditions that lead to unhealthy eating, physical activity and unhealthy weights.
The innovation strategy, IS, focuses on innovation in population health interventions to reduce health inequalities.
In response to (c), PHAC provided $36,091,502 in funding from fiscal year 2006-07 to date.
In response to (d), no funding is allocated to provinces and territories for the administration of programs.
In response to (e), there was an audit conducted on the Health Promotion Programs, HPP, including the Healthy Living Fund and Innovation Strategy between December 2008 and July 2009.
The audit found that many areas of the health promotion programs are adequately managed. These include the existence of results-based management accountability frameworks, program guidelines and standard operating procedures for the management of grants and contributions projects. Training provided to PHAC officers was also found to be appropriate.
The audit concluded that some areas of the health promotion programs require management attention. In September 2009, a comprehensive management response was implemented to address the processes for: setting program and funding priorities, renewing and amending ongoing projects, adequately overseeing and monitoring projects to minimize financial and non-financial risk to the agency, and measuring and reporting the results of the projects and programs that PHAC supports through its contributions. Good progress has been made on the implementation plan with the majority of deliverables completed or on track.
For more information, see the following link http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/about_apropos/audit/hpp-pps-eng.php.
Question No. 619--
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:
With regard to expenses for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation from January 1, 2006 to October 1, 2010: (a) what was the total global amount spent on hospitality expenses on an annual basis from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis, how much was spent on (i) leasing expenses, (ii) catering services, (iii) restaurants, (iv) coffee and beverages, (v) bottled water, (vi) petty cash; (c) how much was paid to third parties to provide hospitality services since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis; (d) what companies received sole source contracts to provide hospitality services since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis; and (e) since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis, how much was spent on (i) limousine services, (ii) private air service, (iii) executive class commercial air service, (iv) economy class commercial air service, (v) car rentals?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development provides a nil response to this question.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada does not have access to information necessary to respond to the above noted question. However, information associated with the question may be found in the CMSF annual report. Additional information including financial records for the CMSF may be found at Library and Archives Canada.
Question No. 625--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) what is the estimated amount of income tax Canada was unable to recover during fiscal years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 because of aggressive tax planning, use of offshore accounts or tax evasion by both Canadian individuals and corporations; (b) what proportion of the tax gaps in the aforementioned years is attributable to individuals and what proportion is attributable to corporations; (c) does CRA collect information and data tracking the international tax gap on an ongoing basis; and (d) how much tax revenue has the CRA recovered since 2007 as a result of revelations concerning the activities of Canadians using offshore accounts and services offered by the Swiss bank UBS, which helps Canadians avoid taxes?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of National Revenue, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker,
in response to (a), the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, cannot provide the information in the manner requested. The CRA does not maintain estimates either of tax gap per se or the amount of revenue that perhaps has not been declared by individuals.
In response to (b), the CRA does not maintain estimates either of tax gap or the amount of revenue that perhaps has not been declared by individuals. Therefore, the CRA cannot provide information in the manner requested.
In response to (c), the CRA does not collect information and data tracking the international tax gap.
In response to (d), since 2007, the CRA has recovered $8.54 million in tax revenue as a result of information received, regarding the accounts and services in question.
Question No. 629--
Hon. Larry Bagnell:
What are all oil spills that have been reported to the federal government from federal agencies, provincial, territorial or municipal governments in the last four years and what did the federal or territorial governments do in response to each notification?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the number of oil spills that have been reported to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, by federal agencies and provincial, territorial or municipal governments in the last four years in Canada is 969.
In 584 cases, an assessment was conducted by Canadian Coast Guard personnel and it was determined that no cleanup was required.
In 385 cases, Canadian Coast Guard determined that an operational cleanup was required as follows:
Cleanup operations were conducted by the polluter in 227 incidents (in these cases, the polluter assumed management of the response to the incident and the Canadian Coast Guard monitored their response operations);
Cleanup operations were conducted by the Canadian Coast Guard in 132 incidents (in these cases, the polluter was either unwilling, unable or was unknown and, as such, the Canadian Coast Guard managed the response), and;
The Canadian Coast Guard provided assistance as a resource agency in 26 incidents, CCG provided personnel and/or equipment to another lead agency for incidents that did not originate from a ship or were mystery-source.
Please note that an operational cleanup could include minor operations, such as placing sorbent pads and boom onto the water to recover sheens of oil, to more significant operations including the deployment of skimmers, containment boom and other pollution response equipment to recover more significant amounts of oil.
Question No. 630--
Hon. Larry Bagnell:
With regard to the centralization of government pensions and the information services of the pensions provided by the territorial governments: (a) what are all consultations and the outcomes for these consultations with each of the territorial governments and their unions; (b) are there any backlogs in client services as a result of this centralization and, if so, (i) what is the length of the backlogs, (ii) what is the number of people affected by the backlogs, (iii) what are the plans to resolve the backlogs; and (c) how will the efficient, quick level of service previously provided by the local territorial government be replicated for the territorial employees?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the centralization of federal government pensions and the information services of the pensions provided by the territorial governments. With regard to (a), the communications strategy for this initiative was initially designed to advise stakeholders of the change in service delivery as each service was centralized to the pension centre. Consultations occurred with departments, crowns and territorial governments, and concept-of-operations sessions were provided for each service; focus group meetings detailing and updating work procedures and the new pension tools; on-site visits to each of the territorial governments by the director, pension services directorate and the director general, compensation services; and the dissemination of information at quarterly Stakeholder steering committee meetings. Feedback and consultations were integral to ensuring an outcome in which stakeholders are well informed and will have a successful transition to the new pension services delivery model.
With regarde to (b), the backlogs in client services are not as a result of centralization. The pension centre in Shediac, New Brunswick did not experience backlogs in areas which had centralized services. Backlogs in other services occurred because experienced staff had been deployed to the pension modernization project and in part from issues that arose with the new work load management tool, and as a result of an increased work effort due to working with old and new processes simultaneously.
With regard to (c), the implementation of a new service model and systems over the long term will ensure that all members receive timely, consistent service, and advice directly from the pension experts located in the public service pension centre.
Question No. 633--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to the government’s planned announcement of a new North American security perimeter, for every meeting between Ministers, their staff or senior bureaucrats related to the announcement: (a) what was the date of the meeting; (b) who participated (i) from the Canadian side, (ii) from the American side; and (c) what was the location of the meeting?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, while our officials have regular and ongoing meetings with colleagues from other North American countries, at this time there is no plan to announce a security perimeter for North America.
Question No. 636--
Ms. Ruby Dhalla:
With respect to meetings requested with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration since January 2008: (a) what are the names of the organizations, lobbyists and individuals who made such requests; and (b) which meetings were attended by the Minister, including the date, time, and locations, and if the Minister did not attend the meeting, which government representatives, ministerial or department staff attended the meeting on the Minister's behalf?
Response
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC):
Mr. Speaker,
insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, is concerned, in response to (a),
in preparing this response, CIC is only considering requests for meetings made from outside the federal government.
Similarly, requests to meet the minister by applicants who write to CIC about their cases have not been included in this number as the department does not track these requests and identifying them is not feasible in the timeframe provided for this response.
Requests to meet with the Minister are received through a number of sources, including but not limited to: departmental correspondence, the minister’s official departmental email, and the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website, www.cic.gc.ca. Citizenship and Immigration Canada keeps records of meeting requests if they are received directly via mail or through the minister’s official departmental email. Meetings requests received via other channels are sometimes noted in other departmental records. CIC was able to identify a total of 182 outside requests to meet the minister from January 1, 2008, to December 10, 2010, based on the departmental records listed above.
CIC is unable to provide the requested information about these meetings as it is not possible within the timeframe provided for the response for the department to exercise the due diligence that is required to divulge this information in view of a number of considerations, including complying with the Privacy Act.
In response to (b), information about meetings the minister, government representatives or ministerial staff may have attended as a result of the requests identified in section (a) is not under the control of the department.
Information about meetings that may have been attended by departmental officials as a result of the requests identified in section (a) cannot be identified in the timeframe provided for this response.
It should be noted that lobbyists must file a monthly communication report with the Registry of Lobbyists for each oral and arranged communication they have with a designated public office holder, such as a minister. For more information, please consult the Web site of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada: http://www.ocl-cal.gc.ca.
Question No. 641--
Mr. Todd Russell:
With respect to Employment Insurance Account Projections from the Fall Economic Update of 2010: (a) what are the projected revenues and expenses of the Employment Insurance Account for the period of January 1 to December 31 in the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014; (b) do projected Employment Insurance Account expenses in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 include funding for Employment Insurance Pilot Projects; and (c) which Employment Insurance Pilot Projects are included in the projection of Employment Insurance Account expenses in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), projected employment insurance, EI, revenues and expenses, presented on a fiscal year basis, April 1 to March 31, from 2010-11 to 2015-16 were included in the 2010 Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections, pages 35 and 37. For more information, please visit http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2010/pdf/efp-pef-eng.pdf.
In response to (b), the aforementioned projection included funding for pilot projects.
In response to (c), all pilot projects announced on or before October 12, 2010 were included.
Question No. 646--
Mr. Bruce Hyer:
With regard to payments issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada in fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) how much was issued for payment on behalf of Infrastructure Canada for signage, in each fiscal year; and (b) what cheques were issued for payments on behalf of Infrastructure Canada for signage, in each fiscal year, including the date each cheque was issued?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Public Works and Government Services Canada has records of payments issued on behalf of Infrastructure Canada in fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to date, but these records do not separately track items such as signage. Public Works and Government Services Canada is therefore unable to provide the information requested.
Question No. 647--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to the government’s compensation for the victims of Agent Orange testing in 1966, will the government be delivering all of the promised $96 million to the victims of Agent Orange or their families, in cases where the victims are deceased?
Response
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr, Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to spending the allocated funds. On December 22, 2010, the Government of Canada announced an extension of the agent orange ex gratia payment, changing some of the criteria and deadlines to ensure people affected by agent orange can qualify for the ex gratia payment.
Question No. 648--
Mrs. Carole Lavallée:
With regard to 438 Helicopter Squadron, based in Saint-Hubert: (a) does the government intend to close the Squadron’s facilities in Saint-Hubert and, if so, (i) why does the government intend to close these facilities, (ii) for what date is the closure scheduled; (b) does the government intend to eliminate the Squadron and, if so, (i) why does the government intend to eliminate the Squadron, (ii) for what date is the elimination scheduled; (c) does the government intend to move the Squadron and, if so, (i) where does the government intend to move the Squadron, (ii) for what date is the move scheduled; (d) how many jobs for commissioned or other members of the Forces, reservists and civilians will be directly affected by the closure or move; and (e) for each of the categories of employment mentioned in (d), (i) how many positions will be abolished, (ii) how many positions will be moved?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, 438 tactical helicopter squadron is an air reserve squadron located at Saint-Hubert, Quebec, and is equipped with CH-146 Griffon helicopters. The squadron is tasked with supporting the various militia elements in the region.
The Canadian Forces are currently undergoing a defence force structure review, as well as developing plans for the introduction of the new CH-147F Chinook medium-heavy lift helicopter. While it is not yet known if this will result in any adjustments to the overall distribution of existing tactical helicopters and personnel, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have no current plans to close 438 tactical helicopter squadron.
Question No. 649--
Mrs. Carole Lavallée:
With regard to the process for obtaining a pilot’s license: (a) what documents must students submit to Transport Canada authorities to obtain a license; (b) is it essential for students to provide the originals of their pilot training record and pilot logbook to obtain a license; (c) is it possible for students to obtain their license without providing the originals of these two documents; (d) is it possible for students to have obtained a license without possessing the originals of these two documents; and (e) if students are found to have attempted to mislead the Department, can it withdraw the license in question?
Response
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am informed by Transport Canada that with regard to (a), the Canadian Aviation Regulations, CAR, outline the general requirements for students wishing to obtain a Canadian aviation pilot permit or license. The requirements include providing proof of citizenship, age, aviation language proficiency and a passport style self photograph.
Applicants must include proof of having met the medical fitness, knowledge, experience and skill requirements when applying for a specific pilot permit or license.
Proof of experience includes the submission of the pilot training record, PTR, and the pilot’s personal logbook. The pilot training record must outline all of the training exercises completed. The logbook is reviewed by Transport Canada to verify the completion of the minimum experience required for the issue of the specific permit or license applied for.
With regard to (b), it is essential that the original pilot training record and pilot’s personal logbook be submitted with the application. Transport Canada retains the pilot training record, which remains on the applicant’s personnel licensing file.
The applicant’s pilot logbook is reviewed by Transport Canada to verify that the experience requirements have been met. Once the experience requirements have been verified, the logbook is returned to the applicant.
With regard to (c), the pilot training record and pilot’s personal logbook are required to be submitted with the application in order to obtain a pilot permit or license. There are provisions in the Canadian Aviation Regulations for the loss of a pilot logbook due to extenuating circumstances.
With regard to (d), original documents are required to be submitted with the application in order to obtain a pilot permit or license. There are provisions in the Canadian Aviation Regulations for the loss of a pilot logbook due to extenuating circumstances.
With regard to (e), if all of the requirements for a permit or license have not been met the document will not be issued. If a permit or license has been issued in error Transport Canada can recall the document.
Question No. 651--
Hon. Navdeep Bains:
With regard to the government's ownership positions in independent companies that are not considered Crown Corporations: (a) in which publicly traded companies did the government own stock as of December 14, 2010; (b) what was the level of ownership, both in number of stocks and the percentage of ownership; (c) when were these ownership positions taken; (d) does the government appoint any directors of these companies and, if so, who are they; (e) when were these positions taken; (f) in which private companies does the government own stakes; (g) what percentages of these companies does the government own; (h) who are the other owners of these companies; (i) does the government appoint members to these companies' boards of directors and, if so, who are they; (j) when were these positions taken; and (k) when were these positions for both public and private companies last reviewed?
Response
Hon. Stockwell Day (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board Secretariat, TBS, could not provide all of the information requested within the timeframe allotted to respond to this question. Where possible, TBS has provided the information that it could reasonably retrieve and provide.
With regard to (a), TBS produces an annual report to parliament, ARTP, on crown corporations and other corporate interests of Canada. Most of the Government of Canada’s corporate interests in commercial and not-for-profit corporations are held through crown corporations, not directly by the Government of Canada.
The president’s “Annual Report to Parliament on Crown Corporations and Other Corporate Interests of Canada 2010” is available online at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/cc-se/2010/cc-se06-eng.asp. The most recent ARTP was tabled in Parliament on December 8, 2010, and is current as at July 31, 2010. Given the scope and complexity of the government’s corporate interests, it would likely take several months to update this report comprehensively up to December 14, 2010.
A detailed listing of crown corporations’ corporate holdings and their share ownerships are listed in section 2.4 of the ARTP, found at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/cc-se/2010/cc-se06-eng.asp. Additional information on corporate holdings may be available on individual crown corporation websites.
TBS reports on the percentage of Government of Canada ownership within a range; that is, government ownership of 100%, 50% to 99% and less than 50%). It does not compile information or report on the number of shares owned.
The information in the ARTP concerning subsidiaries/associates may not contain all of the indirectly held corporate holdings or all those held at less than 100%. For certain corporations, details on their specific holdings and investments may be considered commercially sensitive information, which cannot be made public. Consequently, TBS does not compile or report on this information. For example, among those organizations in which the Government of Canada has an interest, the Canada pension plan investment board and the public sector pension investment board are the primary holders of shares in private companies and do not disclose what they own due to commercial sensitivities.
With regard to (b), please refer to the response for part (a).
With regard to (c), the ARTP does not indicate when ownership positions were taken, unless the position was new or changed within the reporting year.
Additional information on corporate holdings may be available on individual Crown corporation websites, including recently approved annual reports and corporate plan summaries.
With regard to (d), crown corporations can have a role in appointing directors to companies in which they have an interest. TBS does not have information on which crown corporations have exercised such a role and with which independent companies this role was exercised. This may be available through individual crown corporation websites.
With regard to (e), please refer to the response for part (d).
With regard to (f), please refer to the response for part (a).
With regard to (g), please refer to the response for part (a).
With regard to (h) (i) and (j), TBS does not have information about the other owners of these companies. Additional information on corporate holdings may be available on individual crown corporation websites, including recently approved annual reports and corporate plan summaries.
With regard to (k), crown corporations can have a role in appointing directors to companies in which they have an interest. TBS does not have information on which crown corporations have exercised such a role and with which independent companies this role was exercised.
Question No. 654--
Mrs. Michelle Simson:
With regard to the firearms training program for Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers: (a) what is the increase in pay or benefits as a result of an officer being certified to carry a firearm; and (b) how much has been spent to date on (i) transportation of trainees to training facilities, (ii) accommodation for trainees and trainers, (iii) employee benefits plans?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canada Boarder Services Agency that with regard to (a), there have been no increases in pay or benefits as a result of arming.
With regard to (b), to date, $143M has been spent during the first four years of implementing the arming program: (i) On average, the travel related cost and meals per learner attending a duty firearm course is approximately $4,000;
(ii) The CBSA cannot isolate specific costs related to accommodations;
(iii) There have been no changes to employee benefits or allowances as a result of arming.
Question No. 656--
Mrs. Michelle Simson:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT): (a) how important is the use of specific language in letters, speeches and interventions at multilateral meetings and in documents produced by DFAIT in determining Canada’s foreign policy; (b) is there a difference between the terms (i) “Child Soldiers” and “children in armed conflicts”, (ii) “International Humanitarian Law” and “International Law”, (iii) “gender equality” and “equality between men and women”, (iv) “impunity for sexual violence” and “prevents sexual violence”; (c) has the Minister of Foreign Affairs or his office been requesting regular changes to wording in foreign policy documents; (d) what was discussed by DFAIT officials at a meeting regarding this issue held on May 21, 2009 in USS’ boardroom A8-211 from 11:00 to 12:00; (e) was a coordinated departmental plan arranged at this meeting or future meetings about language at DFAIT; and (f) were any further meetings arranged to discuss language changes and, if so, how many meetings, who attended these meetings and what was decided at these meetings?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, since DFAIT is one department, the responses for the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are the same.
With regard to (a), where language used in letters, speeches and interventions is reflective of Canada's international legal obligations, efforts are made to ensure that such language is consistent with terms of art used in relevant instruments, or that are meaningful for and understood by Canada's international partners. Official statements, interventions or other public foreign policy documents should, as much as possible, be drafted in such a manner as to allow Canadians and international partners to fully understand the government's policies and priorities.
With regard to (b)(i), “Child soldier” is an undefined term in international law. The optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, a treaty that Canada has ratified, does not use the term. While the protocol does not prevent states parties from recruiting persons under the age of 18 years into their armed forces, it does provide that states parties must ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities. It also prohibits armed groups, as distinct from armed forces of a state, from recruiting or using in hostilities persons under the age of 18. The term “children in armed conflict”, which is used in the protocol, offers a clearer reference to international law than “child soldier”. Canada’s use of the term “children in armed conflict” reflects the fact that the UN and the international community often use this term to capture a number of grave violations against children in situations of conflict, including the recruitment and use of children as soldiers, grave sexual violence against children, abduction of children and the denial of humanitarian access for children. Moreover, the “Principles and Guidelines on Children associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups”, which Canada has endorsed, do not use the term “child soldier”; (ii) International law is, very generally speaking, the law that governs the conduct between states and certain other actors. International humanitarian law, also known as the “law of war” or the “law of armed conflict”, is part of international law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare; (iii) In multilateral forum like the United Nations, the term “gender equality” is used interchangeably with “equality between men and women”. For example, the Beijing Declaration, from the fourth World Conference on Women, Action for Equality, Development and Peace in 1995, uses the language of “gender equality” and the Beijing Platform for Action refers to “equality between men and women”. In the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, equality of or between men and women, or equality of the rights of men and women, is used throughout the text; (iv) The phrase "prevents sexual violence" addresses the general need to prevent future acts. The phrase “impunity for sexual violence” addresses the need to ensure that perpetrators of sexual violence are held accountable for their actions, thereby helping to deter others from perpetrating similar acts in the future. When calling for effective measures to address sexual violence, Canada uses language that includes both general prevention and, more specifically, the need to bring perpetrators to justice as one element of prevention;
With regard to (c), it is common practice for any government, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs or his office, to provide input into official statements, interventions or other foreign policy documents drafted by officials to ensure that public positions reflect the Government's policies and priorities.
With regard to (d), in the normal course of government business, any number of meetings are held which ensure that the terminology used by the government in public statements, letters, speeches and other similar documents remains consistent with the government's international obligations and policy objectives.
With regard to (e), no.
With regard to (f), please see response to question (d).
Question No. 658--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Act creating the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency came into force on October 3, 2005 in accordance with the Order in Council number PC 2005-1716. The Agency however is not operational.
Question No. 675--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to The Heritage Canada Foundation, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description?
Response
Hon. Stockwell Day (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Canada Foundation is a national, non-governmental, not-for-profit charity. The Heritage Canada Foundation is an independent body. The government cannot provide a response to this question. The Heritage Canada Foundation should be contacted directly for more information.
Question No. 684--
Mrs. Bonnie Crombie:
With regard to Canada Revenue Agency, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of National Revenue, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. Unless otherwise indicated, please note that the CRA’s answer includes information from January 1, 2009 to December 14, 2010 that is, the date of the question.
The CRA’s charities partnership and outreach program is designed to provide funding to registered charities and non-profit organizations serving the charitable sector in Canada to develop and deliver innovative compliance-related education and training to other registered charities. The CRA also administers two statutory payment programs, which are reported as statutory grants: the children’s special allowances and the energy cost benefit.
With regard to the charities partnership and outreach program, CPOP,
the CRA’s CPOP is designed to provide funding to registered charities and non-profit organizations serving the charitable sector in Canada to develop and deliver innovative compliance-related education and training to other registered charities
From January 1, 2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, to December 14, 2010, i.e., the date of the question, the CRA has awarded one contribution agreement for $19,156 directly under the auspices of the CPOP to the Public Legal Education Association of Saskatchewan , PLEA.
With regard to the children’s special allowances, CSA,
CSA payments are governed by the Children’s Special Allowances Act which provides that this allowance be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. Subsection 10(1) of the Children’s Special Allowances Act would prevent the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA from disclosing the monetary value of individual payments. In some cases, the CRA can respond with aggregate data. However, in situations where the sample size of the aggregate is too small such that a recipient could be directly or indirectly identified, in keeping with subsection 10(1), aggregate data is not released.
From January 1, 2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, to December 31, 2010, the CRA did not issue any payments under $25,000.
With regard to the energy cost benefit, ECB,
the Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act provides that ECB payments be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to families who were eligible for the national child benefit supplement in January 2006. Subsection 241(1) of the Income Tax Act prevents the CRA from disclosing the monetary value of individual payments. In some cases, the CRA can respond with aggregate data. However, in situations where the sample size of the aggregate is too small such that a recipient could be directly or indirectly identified, in keeping with the subsection 241(1) of the Income Tax Act, aggregate data is not released.
As the data can only be provided in aggregate, and for the aforementioned reasons, the CRA is unable to confirm whether specific payments under $25,000 have been made.
Unlike the CSA, the ECB was a one time tax exempt payment announced in October 2005. The ECB payment to recipients began in January 2006.
Question No. 685--
Mrs. Bonnie Crombie:
With regard to the National Energy Board, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, from January 1, 2009 to the present, the National Energy Board did not award any grants or contributions under $25,000
Question No. 686--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the act creating the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency came into force on October 3, 2005 in accordance with the order in council number PC 2005-1716. The agency however is not operational.
Question No. 687--
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:
With regard to the Canadian Development Investment Corporation, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker the Canada Development Investment Corporation has not awarded any grants and contributions under $25,000 from January 1, 2009 to present.
Question No. 688--
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:
With regard to Export Development Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Minister of International Trade, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, EDC did not award any grants or contributions under $25,000 from January 1, 2009 to present.
Question No. 689--
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:
With regard to Statistics Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada did not award any grants and contributions under $25,000 from January 1, 2009, to the present.
Question No. 690--
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:
With regard to the Canadian Tourism Commission, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Tourism Commission does not award grants and contributions.
Question No. 691--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the Privy Council Office, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office awarded no grants or contributions under $25,000 from January 1, 2009 to the present.
Question No. 694--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority does not award grants and contributions.
Question No. 695--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the CBSA does not have grants and contributions programs.
Question No. 697--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Copyright Board of Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Copyright Board Canada is an administrative tribunal that establishes copyright royalties. The Board did not award any grants or contributions under $25,000 from January 1, 2009, to the present.
Question No. 700--
Mr. Paul Szabo:
With regard to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, From January 1, 2009 to the present, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission awarded the following grants and contributions under $25,000:
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Laurentian Chapter of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
McMaster University
Canadian Nuclear Law Organization
Canadian Nuclear Society
Canadian Radiation Protection Association
International Commission on Radiation Units
Women in Nuclear Canada
International Commission on Radiation Units
Canadian Radiation Protection Association
American Statistical Association
Canadian Nuclear Society
University Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering
Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists
Question No. 701--
Mr. Paul Szabo:
With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, From January 1, 2009 to December 14, 2010, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) awarded two contributions under $25,000. Each contribution, awarded to the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the University of Montreal under the Federal Assistant Program , was for $15,000.
1 The Federal Assistance Program (FAP) is the CFIA’s contribution program, the terms and conditions for which were approved by the Treasury Board in June 2006. The objective of the FAP is to provide financial support to projects that are consistent with the Agency’s mandate in terms of food safety, animal health and plant protection. In addition to the FAP’s terms and conditions, the management of the contribution agreements must abide by the Government’s Transfer Payment Policy.
Question No. 702--
Mr. Paul Szabo:
With regard to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, from January 1, 2009 to the present, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited awarded the following grants and contributions under $25,000:
Inter-Collegiate Business Competition
McMaster University
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
McMaster University
Deep River Science Academy
Xi'an Jiaotong University
Deep River Science Academy
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
University of Guelph
Manitoba Science Academy
Manitoba Science Academy
New Brunswick Community College
Tsinghua University--Beijing
Canadian Standards Association
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
McMaster University
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Energy Council of Canada
McMaster University
Question No. 703--
Mr. Paul Szabo:
With regard to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?
Response
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there were no grants or contributions awarded by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Question No. 705--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to the number of telecommunication cell towers in Canada: (a) how many towers are below 15 metres in height and, of those, how many towers are situated in the riding of Vancouver East; and (b) how many towers are above 15 metres in height and of those, how many towers are situated in the riding of Vancouver East?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Industry Canada’s interests relate primarily to managing the radio frequency spectrum, a limited resource. For this reason, no differentiation is made as to whether an antenna is, for example, located on a tower, on top of a building or is using an existing structure such as a water tower or hydro pole. Accordingly, our database does not record the number of towers as distinct from antennas. On November 22, 2010, the Minister of Industry announced that there will be a review of the tower-sharing policy as part of Canada’s digital economy strategy. As part of this review, Industry Canada expects to be able to approximate the number of cellphone towers throughout Canada by late spring.
Question No. 706--
Ms. Libby Davies:
What are the court cases concerning telecommunication cell towers, either ongoing or concluded, of which the government is aware and what follow-up has been undertaken by the government as a result of these court cases?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there have been only two recent cases where the Minister of Industry was or has been made a party to a court case involving telecommunications towers. Canada (Minister of Industry) v. Thomson, [2004] F.C. 265; Levine v. Canada (Minister of Industry), [2009] F.C. 1297. In both cases, the courts have affirmed decisions made by the Minister of Industry on antenna and antenna tower siting in accordance with his mandate under the Radiocommunication Act. For example, see Telus Communications Inc. v. Toronto (City) (2007), 84 O.R. (3d) 656.
There are a few recent cases that involve the siting of antennas where the minister is not a party but has been served with a notice of questions involving constitutional jurisdiction. Some of these cases are ongoing, but the ones that have been decided have affirmed that antenna tower siting and the exercise of other functions under the Radiocommunication Act are properly matters of federal jurisdiction.
Therefore, Industry Canada has not been required to take follow-up action as a result of any court cases. However, Industry Canada commissioned an extensive study and review of its antenna siting policy and procedures and revised them three years ago in order to respond to comments and concerns from the public, local-land use authorities and radiocommunication operators.
Question No. 708--
Mr. Alan Tonks:
With regard to the Minister of State (Democratic Reform), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform and the exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Privy Council Office website at the following link: www.pco-bcp.gc.ca.
Question No. 709--
Mr. Alan Tonks:
With regard to the Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister of State and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009 are located on the proactive disclosure page of Western Diversification’s website http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/113.asp.
Question No. 710--
Mr. Alan Tonks:
With regard to the Minister of State (Transport), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Transport and the exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details for their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Transport Canada website at the following link: http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Corp-Serv-Gen/2/DTH-DVA/disclosure/emp_list.asp.
Question No. 711--
Mr. Alan Tonks:
With regard to the Minister of Health, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and minister's exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Health Canada’s website at the following link: www.hc-sc.gc.ca.
Question No. 712--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With regard to the Minister of Labour, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Labour, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour and the exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details for
their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the departmental website at the
following link: www.labour.gc.ca.
Question No. 715--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister of State and all exempt staff of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec are made public through proactive disclosure on the agency’s website, www.dec-ced.gc.ca.
Question No. 716--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas) and his exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade website at the following link: http://www.international.gc.ca.
Question No. 717--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and the exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Indian Affairs and Northern Development website at the following link: www.ainc-inac.gc.ca.
Question No. 718--
Mr. Gerard Kennedy:
With regard to the Minister of State (Seniors), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Seniors and her exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development website at the
following link: www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca.
Question No. 719--
Mr. Gerard Kennedy:
With regard to the Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Minister of State and Chief Government Whip and the exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Privy Council Office website at the following link: www.pco-bcp.gc.ca.
Question No. 720--
Mr. Gerard Kennedy:
With regard to the Minister of State (Sport), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Sport and the exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Canadian Heritage website at the following link: http://www.pch.gc.ca.
Question No. 721--
Mr. Gerard Kennedy:
With regard to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and all exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Fisheries and Oceans’ website at the following link: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca.
Question No. 722--
Mr. Robert Oliphant:
With regard to the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism and the exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Industry Canada’s website at the following link: www.ic.gc.ca.
Question No. 723--
Mr. Robert Oliphant:
With regard to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and theexempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Canadian Heritage website at the following link: http://www.pch.gc.ca.
Question No. 724--
Hon. Joseph Volpe:
With regard to the Minister of International Cooperation, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation and her exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Canadian International Development Agency’s website at the following link: www.acdi-cida.gc.ca.
Question No. 726--
Hon. Joseph Volpe:
With regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and his exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade website at the following link: http://www.international.gc.ca.
Question No. 727--
Hon. Joseph Volpe:
With regard to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources and Skills development and her exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Human Resources and Skills Development website at the following link: www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca.
Question No. 728--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to the Minister of Natural Resources, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, and all exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on NRCan’s website at the following link: http://www2.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/dthe-cfva/index-eng.cfm.
Question No. 729--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC):
Mr. Speaker,
insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada,CIC,is concerned, this information is not maintained within CIC’s financial system. It was extracted from information disclosed in the proactive disclosure for travel and hospitality expenses, which is manually compiled from individual travel and hospitality claims at the end of each reporting quarter. Information about these travel and hospitality expenses can be found on our proactive disclosure website:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/disclosure/expenses/menu-minister.asp.
Question No. 730--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board and all exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s website at the following link: http://www.agr.gc.ca.
Question No. 731--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to the Minister of International Trade, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Minister of International Trade, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of International Trade and his exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the website at the following link: http://www.international.gc.ca.
Question No. 732--
Mr. Derek Lee:
With regard to the Minister of Finance, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance and the exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Department of Finance’s website at the following link: www.fin.gc.ca.
Question No. 733--
Mr. Derek Lee:
With regard to the Minister of Industry, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Industry and the exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Industry Canada’s website at the following link: www.ic.gc.ca.
Question No. 734--
Mr. Derek Lee:
With regard to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister for La Francophonie, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the
Office of the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie and the exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Privy Council Office website at the following link: www.pco-bcp.gc.ca.
Question No. 735--
Mr. Bernard Patry:
With regard to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice and the exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Department of Justice website at the following link: www.justice.gc.ca.
Question No. 736--
Mr. Bernard Patry:
With regard to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Veterans Affairs Canada website at the following link: www.vac-acc.gc.ca.
Question No. 737--
Mr. Bernard Patry:
With regard to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Privy Council Office website at the following link: www.pco-bcp.gc.ca.
Question No. 738--
Mr. Bernard Patry:
With regard to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and their exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details for their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Transport Canada website at the following link: http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Corp-Serv-Gen/2/DTH-DVA/disclosure/emp_list.asp.
Question No. 739--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Prime Minister, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Prime Minister and the exempt staff are subject to proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Privy Council Office website at the following link: www.pco-bcp.gc.ca.
Question No. 742--
Ms. Olivia Chow:
With respect to the G20 Summit ex gratia payments: (a) how many applicants for compensation have there been; (b) what was the total amount claimed; (c) what was the average amount of each claim; (d) how much has been paid to claimants; and (e) what was the total amount budgeted to pay out these claims?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), there have been 371 applicants for compensation.
In response to (b), the total amount claimed is $10,656,869.54.
In response to (c), fiven the numerous differences between the categories of claims and characteristics of each, it would be imprudent to calculate an average based solely on the number of claims and their total value. The impact of the extraordinary security measures varies widely based on the typical revenue of the claimants, the location of the business and the length of time they were affected.
In response to (d), the auditors are in the process of identifying ineligible claims. As of January 5, 2011, 44 claims have been deemed inadmissible.
In response to (e), because it was impossible to forecast the degree to which the extraordinary financial measures put in place for the G20 would cause adverse financial consequences, the Summits Management Office maintained a sufficient budgetary margin to compensate eligible claimants.
Question No. 745--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the government’s involvement in the issue of the electricity transmission system to Prince Edward Island: (a) from January 31, 2006, to December 1, 2010, on what dates were there communications between the Government of Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island concerning an upgrade to or the replacement of the electricity transmission system between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick; (b) has the Government of Canada made a commitment to the Government of Prince Edward Island concerning funding related to the electricity transmission system and, if so, what is the specific amount of funding committed and on what date was that commitment communicated to the Government of Prince Edward Island; and (c) has the Government of Canada entered into any discussions with the Government of Prince Edward Island, the Government of New Brunswick or Maritime Electric on the issue of the electricity transmission system to Prince Edward Island and, if so, (i) on what dates did those communications take place, (ii) what were the agenda items for each of those communications, (iii) what were the results of those discussions?
Response
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Infrastructure
Canada has ongoing and regular discussions with regard to a large number of potential priorities for funding under federal infrastructure funds with all provinces and territories, including the Government of Prince Edward Island. As such, it is not possible to provide with any degree of accuracy information pertaining to the dates on which communication took place between the Government of Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island on a given issue within the 45-day period in which this response would be due.
In response to (b), as
of December 14, 2010, Infrastructure Canada has made no commitment to the Government of Prince Edward Island concerning funding related to the electricity transmission system to date.
In response to (c), Infrastructure
Canada has ongoing and regular discussions with regard to a large number of potential priorities for funding under federal infrastructure funds with all provinces and territories, including the Government of Prince Edward Island and the Government of New Brunswick. Consistent with section 14 of the Access to Information Act, Infrastructure Canada does not disclose any records that contain information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct by the Government of Canada of federal-provincial affairs, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information on federal-provincial consultations or deliberations or on strategy or tactics adopted or to be adopted by the Government of Canada relating to the conduct of federal-provincial affairs.
Question No. 748--
Mr. Yvon Godin:
With respect to the firing range in Tracadie-Sheila, New Brunswick: (a) does the Minister of National Defence intend to respect section 10 of the federal-provincial land transfer agreement regarding the former range signed in March 1997 and, where applicable, when will he enforce it, in light of the discovery of unexploded explosive ordinance (UXO) in 2006 and 2008 at a depth of 20 cm in the north section of ammunition-related area (ARA) 7 and UXO in 2006 at a depth of 5 cm in ARA 8, which violates section 7 of the agreement stipulating that ARAs 7 and 8 must be cleared of all UXO to a depth of 45 cm; (b) when will the Department of National Defence undertake additional clearance work in the section of ARA 4 where UXO and pieces of ammunition were discovered in 2007 in order to comply with section 5 of the agreement stipulating that ARA 4 can be safely used without restriction with respect to the possible presence of UXO; (c) when will the Department of National Defence carry out the necessary clearance work to a depth of 45 cm in ARA 1 in order to make this area safe and comply with the terms of the agreement on page C-1 stipulating that no UXO should be present following surface clearance work, in light of UXO discovered in ARA 1 in 2006 and 2007; (d) when will the Department of National Defence carry out clearance work of ARA 10 where munitions debris has been buried and where UXO has been discovered so as to protect the environment and prevent possible groundwater contamination in this area; and (e) what is the status of the initiative confirmed by the Department of National Defence to carry out additional clearance work of UXO between 2011 and 2015?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the
Minister of National Defence intends to respect the federal-provincial memorandum of agreement on land transfer. A residual risk audit of the former Tracadie range has been conducted, and site characterization survey work is ongoing. The requirement for additional risk mitigation measures in some areas of the Tracadie range and to address unexploded explosive ordnance, UXO, management at the former Tracadie range is under way.
The Department of National Defence, DND, and the Province of New Brunswick are consulting to define an appropriate action plan. Meetings for this purpose between DND and the Province of New Brunswick have taken place and efforts for collaboration on UXO management are ongoing.
In response to (b), as
stated in the memorandum of agreement,MoA), a DND-contracted survey has been conducted of the Tracadie range by qualified professionals. ARA 4 borders other ARAs where the potential for UXO was high. Consequently, the discovery of UXO in ARA 4 is most likely from UXO associated with other ranges that border this area. The requirement for further UXO investigation along border areas has been identified, and additional clearance work may be undertaken as a result.
In response to (c), section
7 of the MoA states that UXO clearance in ARA 1 is to be surface-level only. However, DND remains open to consultation with the Province of New Brunswick in order to explore whether further clearance work in ARA 1 is required, based on the terms of agreement of the MoA.
In response to (d), section
7 of the MoA states that UXO clearance in ARA is to be surface-level only. Schedule C stipulates that buried UXO will remain in ARA 10. Consequently and based upon the terms of agreement of the MoA, there is no requirement to carry out clearance work in ARA 10. In addition, environmental characterization results within the Tracadie range obtained by the Defence Research Establishment--Valcartier demonstrated that there was no risk associated with the presence of energetic materials residues, neither in the soils nor in the biomass present on the range.
In response to (e), the
initiative to carry out additional clearance work and risk mitigation measures in specific areas of the former Tracadie range is ongoing. Consultation between DND and the Province of New Brunswick is taking place in order to enable the development of project requirements and options analysis for further UXO clearance at the Tracadie range.
Question No. 770--
Hon. Ken Dryden:
With respect to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) and the recommendation made by the Special Needs Advisory Group (SNAG) in 2006 that VAC employ veterans: (a) what action has VAC taken to implement the recommendation; (b) what response, if any, has been provided to SNAG on the recommendation; and (c) what analysis has been completed by VAC on the feasibility of this recommendation and what were the conclusions or findings?
Response
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to (a), in response to the Special Needs Advisory Group’s 2006 recommendation to employ veterans, Veterans Affairs Canada developed a recruitment plan which included a recommendation that Veterans Affairs Canada follow the lead of the Department of National Defence and open up internal competitions to Canadian Forces members. As a result of the new veterans charter, the Public Service Employment Act, PSEA, was amended to permit serving Canadian Forces members to apply on internal advertised processes, where they are identified as eligible in the area of selection. Additionally, Veterans Affairs Canada’s area of selection policy specifically addresses the inclusion of Canadian Forces members.
The Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada work in partnership to assist Canadian Forces members to transition to civilian employment by making them more aware of, and ensuring that they have access to, public service employment opportunities. Through outreach in veteran publications and veteran-related websites, Veterans Affairs Canada provides information on career services and programs, including priority job placement. Medically released veterans are also informed of their priority access eligibility during their Veterans Affairs Canada transition interview at the time of their release from the Canadian Forces. Veterans Affairs Canada’s new veterans charter provides two programs that support veterans in reintegrating into the civilian workplace. The rehabilitation program provides vocational rehabilitation to medically releasing veterans, while the career transition program provides career transition services to those who are voluntarily releasing.
Veterans Affairs Canada’s integrated business and human resources plan includes a priority that recruitment efforts will target Canadian Forces members and that Veterans Affairs Canada will “continue outreach to modern-day veterans for employment opportunities”.
Medically released Canadian Forces members have been eligible for priority job appointments within the public service since December 31, 2005. The Public Service Commission has analyzed the number of referrals of medically released Canadian Forces members to individual departments, along with the number of subsequent appointments by these departments. The Public Service Commission advises that Veterans Affairs Canada rated highest of all government departments in terms of appointment in ratio to the number of referrals ,13.2% of those referred being appointed to positions. Since December 31, 2005, Veterans Affairs Canada has hired 19 medically released Canadian Forces members who were eligible for priority job appointments within the public service.
In response to (b), Veterans Affairs Canada provided a response to the Special Needs Advisory Group on this recommendation at the Special Needs Advisory Group’s meeting on June 14-15, 2006, that recruitment would be reviewed and that Veterans Affairs Canada would follow the lead of the Department of National Defence in opening areas of selection to Canadian Forces members.
In response to (c), as stated above, work has been undertaken regarding the recommendations. As recently as November 2010, the human resources division at Veterans Affairs Canada launched a voluntary survey of staff in order to gather information on the number of staff who are active or former members of the Canadian Forces. As of December 31, 2010, 100 Veterans Affairs Canada employees have self-identified. This number may include medical-release priority appointments noted above.
Additionally, the human resources division conducted a second part to the survey whereby Veterans Affairs Canada employees were asked to self-identify, on a voluntary basis, if they have family members with Canadian Forces experience. As of December 31, 2010, this survey has had 86 positive responses.
Question No. 771--
Hon. Ken Dryden:
With regard to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Stockwell Day (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway and the exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the Treasury Board Secretariat website at the following link: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca.
Question No. 772--
Hon. Ken Dryden:
With regard to the Minister of Public Safety, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and his exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on Public Safety’s website at the following link: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/abt/trv_hsp/index-eng.aspx.
Question No. 773--
Hon. Michael Ignatieff:
With respect to meetings of Cabinet, on which dates has Cabinet met since January 1, 2010?
Response
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office responds that the dates of cabinet or cabinet committee meetings are considered cabinet confidences under section 69 of the Access to Information Act, unless they have been made public. Two meetings of the cabinet committee on priorities and planning during 2010 meet this criterion: February 3, 2010, and August 3, 2010.
Question No. 777--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With respect to the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) what was the nature and extent of the public opinion research conducted by any part of the government, or by any other entity and made available to the government either directly or indirectly on this specific takeover or, more broadly, on the application of the Canada Investment Act; (b) what was the total cost; (c) what company, companies or government departments were contracted or engaged in association with this research; and (d) what were the results of this research?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Industry Canada did not conduct any public opinion research with respect to the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan.
Question No. 778--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With respect to media reports surrounding the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) has the government launched or completed an investigation into the leak to former Postmedia columnist Don Martin which led to a column published in the National Post on November 1, 2010 entitled “Investment Canada gives Potash takeover tentative nod” that cited multiple government sources and, if so, (i) what was the nature of the documents or information obtained by Mr. Martin, (ii) did the government find a breach of Cabinet confidence occurred, (iii) who was responsible, (iv) which government departments were involved; and (b) regardless of whether the government conducted an appropriate investigation, what remedial action has been taken to protect against leaks of this nature in the future?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to media reports surrounding the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, under the Investment Canada Act, the minister responsible has the sole authority to determine the likely net benefit of a reviewable investment. Except for the investor, only the minister can make a net benefit determination public.
Under the act, the minister may appoint a director of investments to advise and assist him in exercising his powers and performing his duties.
Section 19 of the act outlines the responsibilities of the director of investments in assisting the minister in determining the likely net benefit of a reviewable investment:
19. The Director shall refer to the Minister […] any of the following material received by the Director in the course of the review of an investment […]:
(a) the information contained in the application filed under section 17 and any other information submitted by the applicant;
(b) any information submitted to the Director by the person or entity from whom or which control of the Canadian business is being or has been acquired;
(c) any written undertakings to Her Majesty in right of Canada given by the applicant; and
(d) any representations submitted to the Director by a province that is likely to be significantly affected by the investment.
Question No. 779--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With respect to media reports surrounding the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) has the government launched or conducted a review of its procedures and practices with respect to the distribution of sensitive information affecting decisions under the Investment Canada Act following the multiple leaks emanating from within the government and, if so, (i) what was the nature of the documents or information that prematurely made their way into the public sphere, (ii) did the government find a breach of Cabinet confidence occurred, (iii) who was responsible, (iv) which government departments were involved; and (b) regardless of whether the government conducted an appropriate investigation, what remedial action has been taken to protect against leaks of this nature in the future?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to media reports surrounding the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: Under the Investment Canada Act, the minister responsible has the sole authority to determine the likely net benefit of a reviewable investment. Except for the investor, only the minister can make a net benefit determination public.
Under the act, the minister may appoint a director of investments to advise and assist him in exercising his powers and performing his duties.
Section 19 of the act outlines the responsibilities of the director of investments in assisting the minister in determining the likely net benefit of a reviewable investment:
19. The Director shall refer to the Minister […] any of the following material received by the Director in the course of the review of an investment […]:
(a) the information contained in the application filed under section 17 and any other information submitted by the applicant;
(b) any information submitted to the Director by the person or entity from whom or which control of the Canadian business is being or has been acquired;
(c) any written undertakings to Her Majesty in right of Canada given by the applicant; and
(d) any representations submitted to the Director by a province that is likely to be significantly affected by the investment.
Question No. 780--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With respect to the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) what was the nature of the exchange of information, including documentation, between the government and (i) the province of Saskatchewan, (ii) the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, (iii) BHP Billiton and its subsidiaries, (iv) any other corporation, entity or individual, (v) other governments, (vi) Parliament, (vii) the public; and (b) what were the government’s communications plan or plans and contingency communications plan or plans with respect to the approval or rejection of the takeover under the Investment Canada Act; and (c) what was the government’s definition of “net benefit” in this particular case and how is it different from the tests applied to previous bids by (i) Vale Inco, (ii) US Steel, (iii) Nortel?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, in response to:
(a)(i) under the Investment Canada Act, ICA, the minister may consult with any province that is significantly affected by a proposed investment. However, the information exchanged during the consultation process is confidential under section 36 of the ICA.
In response to (a)(ii), the relationship under the ICA is established between the investor and the minister. Information provided during the review process is obtained from the investor and is confidential under section 36 of the ICA.
In response to (a)(iii), the information obtained from the investor during the review process is confidential under section 36 of the ICA unless it is made public by the investor or the investor consents to its publication.
In response to (a)(iv), where third-party representations are received that could have an adverse bearing on the determination of net benefit, investors are advised of the substance of those representations and given an opportunity to respond to them.
The representations made by a third party are confidential under section 36 of the ICA.
In response to (a)(v), under the ICA, the Minister may consult with any province that is significantly affected by a proposed investment. However, the information exchanged during the consultation process is confidential under section 36 of the ICA.
In response to (a)(vi), on November 29, 2010, there was a late show motion number 121 in the House of Commons. Also, on November 4, 2010, there was an opposition day motion by the NDP regarding BHP’s proposed acquisition of Potash Corp. The Hansard text for these debates can be seen at: www.parl.gc.ca.
In response to (a)(vii), on November 3, 2010, the Minister of Industry issued a statement indicating that, at that time, he was not satisfied that the proposed transaction was likely to be of net benefit to Canada. On November 14, 2010, the minister issued a statement confirming that BHP Billiton had withdrawn its application for review, thereby terminating the review process.
In response to (b), as mentioned above, the Minister of Industry issued statements on November 3 and 14, 2010, regarding the proposed investment. BHP withdrew its application for review, thereby terminating the review process under the ICA. No decision was therefore made by theminister.
In response to (c), section 20 of the Investment Canada Act lists the factors that the minister must consider in a net benefit determination. They are as follows: (a) the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the effect on employment, on resource processing, on the utilization of parts, components and services produced in Canada and on exports from Canada; (b) the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the Canadian business or new Canadian business forms or would form a part;
(c) the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada;
(d) the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada;
(e) the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the investment; and
(f) the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets.
In reaching a decision on net benefit, the minister considers the investor’s plans and undertakings, other representations from affected provinces, and the results of the consultations held with other federal government departments.
The minister’s net benefit determination is made on a case-by-case basis, based on the merits of each investment proposal.
Question No. 782--
Mrs. Lise Zarac:
With regard to the Minister of National Defence, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and his exempt staff are subject to the proactive disclosure. The details of their travel and hospitality expenses can be seen on the National Defence website at the following link: www.forces.gc.ca.
Question No. 783--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the Department of Natural Resources: (a) for how many nuclear licenses is the department responsible; (b) since 2006, have any nuclear licenses expired and, if so, where are the sites that are no longer licensed?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a),the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for four nuclear substance licenses under the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
In response to (b), since 2006, the Department of Natural Resources has had no nuclear licence expire without renewal.
Question No. 784--
Hon. Scott Brison:
Why did the government not spend the total amount of $200 million allocated to the Green Infrastructure Fund and what were the remaining funds used for?
Response
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, unlike most other economic action pPlan measures, the green infrastructure fund, GIF, was announced in budget 2009 as a five-year $1 billion fund supporting infrastructure projects that promote cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and cleaner water. As of December 14, 2010, 18 green infrastructure projects had been announced for a total of $627 million in federal funding.
While $200 million was provided for fiscal year 2009-10 through the 2009 Budget Implementation Act, as reported in the sixth Report to Canadians, not all of this funding was expended. It is important to remember that the GIF is a five year program that funds largerscale strategic projects of national or regional significance. Such projects typically require longer lead time for the planning, engineering and development stages which results in a smaller amount of expenditures in the early years and larger expenditures during the construction phase in the later years.
Moreover, as is the case for all programs managed by Infrastructure Canada, the federal government is a funding partner and does not manage or control the construction of infrastructure projects. Federal funding for approved projects flows as construction proceeds and costs are incurred. Once the federal government has approved the project, the pace at which a project gets built and funds flow depends on claims submitted by the proponent and is not within the federal government's control. Once receipts are submitted, the federal government pays all eligible costs within 30 days.
It is important to note that any unspent funding under the GIF was not lost, but reprofiled to future years to meet the cash flow requirement of our partners.
Question No. 786--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Northside Civic Centre Project in North Sydney, Nova Scotia, the Pictou County Wellness Centre in Pictou County, Nova Scotia, the Central Nova Scotia Civic Centre in Truro, Nova Scotia, the Sydney Harbour Dredging Project in Sydney, Nova Scotia and the Halifax Harbour Dredging Project south of Point Pleasant Park in Halifax, Nova Scotia: (a) what are the federal funding sources for each project; (b) what is the amount of funding for each project; and (c) what are the programs for each project?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of National Revenue, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, is concerned, with regard to each of the projects listed, in response to (a),
federal funding for the Northside Civic Centre in North Sydney, Nova Scotia
comes from Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, ECBC, and ACOA.
In response to (b) the funding amounts are $3 million from ECBC and $1 million from ACOA.
In response to (c), the funding programs are ECBC’s Cape Breton growth fund and ACOA’s innovative communities fund.
Pictou County Wellness Centre in Pictou County, Nova Scotia has not received ACOA funding.
The Central Nova Scotia Civic Centre in Truro, Nova Scotia has not received ACOA funding.
With respect to the Sydney Harbour Dredging Project in Sydney, Nova Scotia, in response to
(a), federal funding for this project comes from Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, ECBC.
In response to (b), the federal funding amount is $19 million.
In response to (c), the funding program is ECBC’s commercial development program.
The Halifax harbour dredging project south of Point Pleasant Parkin Halifax, Nova Scotia has not received ACOA funding.
Question No. 787--
Mr. Brian Murphy:
With regards to the government's outlined plans for coal regulations, tail-pipe emissions and carbon capture storage technology as a way to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), what other initiatives does the government plan to implement in order to reach its own target of reducing GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels and bring Canada closer to the internationally agreed-upon target of 6% below 1990 levels?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government supports an approach to climate change that achieves real environmental and economic benefits for all Canadians. Given the level of integration of the North American economy, it makes absolutely no sense to proceed without aligning a range of principles, policies, regulations and standards.
Some of the steps we have taken as we continue to pursue work towards our target on a sector by sector basis have been noted.
We are moving forward with common North American standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for about approximately one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
Environment Canada published the final Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations in the Canada Gazette part II on October 13, 2010. These will establish progressively tighter GHG emission standards for new cars and light trucks over the 2011 to 2016 model years in alignment with U.S. national standards. We are also working on common North American standards for the post-2016 period.
We are also developing regulations to reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles; a consultation document outlining the proposed elements of the future regulations was released on October 25, 2010. Regulations will be developed in 2011 for the 2014 and later model years.
The government is also working through its renewable fuels strategy to promote expanded production and use of cleaner, renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. As part of this strategy, the government has finalized regulations requiring an average renewable fuel content 5% in gasoline which came into effect on December 15, 2010. We have also announced that we will implement a requirement for 2% renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil, subject to successful demonstration of technical feasibility.
The Government is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electricity generation through the application of a stringent performance standard. The gradual phase-out of old and dirty coal-units is expected to have a significant impact on reducing emissions from the electricity generation sector and improve air quality for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Going forward, we will continue to develop and implement climate change polices that make sense for Canada and that are aligned, as appropriate, with those of our largest trading partner, the United States.
Budget 2010 includes new measures totaling $190 million to support a cleaner, more sustainable environment and to help meet Canada's climate change objectives. It includes new measures to promote energy investments and help develop and deploy clean energy technologies such as the $100 million Investments in forest industry transformation initiative which supports the development, commercialization and implementation of advanced clean energy technologies in the forestry sector. This builds on the important investments made under Canada’s economic action plan, which includes $795 million over five years for the clean energy fund in support of clean energy research and $1 billion over five years for the green infrastructure fund for priorities such as green energy generation and transmission, carbon transmissions and storage infrastructure. To further ambitious national goals, the government has also invested $4.2 billion in the eco-energy initiatives to encourage the production of cleaner energy and cleaner fuels and increase energy efficiency.
Furthermore, we are taking important steps through the Canada-U.S. clean energy dialogue, CED. The CED has led to enhanced collaboration on the development of clean energy science and technology to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change. In addition, as announced at the North American leaders’ summit in August 2009, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are collaborating in a wide range of areas to advance real action on climate change and clean energy, in North America and internationally.
Question No. 789--
Mr. Brian Murphy:
With regard to the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program, how much has the Department of Natural Resources spent in each fiscal year since 2006?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, please see Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s annual financial reports available at www.eacl-aecl.ca, for this information.
Question No. 790--
Mr. Brian Murphy:
With respect to the Department of National Defence, for every project over 5 million dollars which received money from the department in the last 5 years and which involved incurred or currently foreseen cost overruns of 15% or more relative to the initial predictions: (a) what is the name of that project and details on its nature; (b) what is the history of cost predictions for that project, including (i) dates of predictions reviews and amounts of the predictions, (ii) itemized predictions on the costs of different subparts of that project; (c) what are the reasons for the cost overruns; (d) what are the dates at which Ministers or their close staff were informed of the cost predictions described in part (b), what was the name of the Minister or staffer that received the information and what is a description of the actions taken, if any, by the Minister in reaction to that information; and (e) what is, in percentage (compared with the initial prediction), and in dollars, the final incurred value or the currently expected value of the cost overrun?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Department of National Defence,DND, has conducted a search of the capability initiative database and has identified 1,260 projects over the last five years valued at over $5 million that would have to be analyzed to determine if they meet the criteria of having involved, incurred or currently foreseen cost overruns of 15% or more relative to the initial predictions. Due to the volume of projects and the complexities outlined below, a response cannot be provided in the time available. It is estimated that to provide a full response to all parts of this question would require 40 hours per project--1,260 projects x 40 hours = 50,400 hours--given that much of the information resides with individuals involved in these projects and not in a central database.
In response to (b), costs for projects are formally identified at three phases: identification, preliminary project approval and effective project approval. As such, estimates for initial costs may vary depending on the stage of the projects. This creates difficulty in establishing an initial prediction of the cost of a project depending on what stage of the project is considered. The assumption is that the initial cost prediction would be based on the identification stage of the project as identified in a synopsis sheet. However, some strictly financial submissions do not have a synopsis sheet and the initial cost prediction would have to be determined in some other fashion. As initial predictions of project costs are not always identified at the same stage of the process, it would be difficult to establish a common procedure to identify a baseline initial prediction from which to judge whether or not a project has costs overruns of 15% or more.
Itemized predictions of cost overruns are not stored in the capability initiative database and would require a search by the project director and management of each affected project as well as by financial and corporate services staff. This process would require an intensive manual search for each of the 1,260 projects over $5 million.
In response to (c), in many instances cost changes cannot be attributed to a single factor and may be a result of a complex combination of numerous factors including changes to economic models for inflation, contingency plans, changes to the scope of the project, currency exchange rates, the introduction of the HST and so on. Extensive research for each of the 1,260 projects would be required to produce an analysis pointing to the reasons for cost overruns for each project.
In response to (d), this type of information is not stored in any type of central database and would reside in numerous types of documentation including, but not limited to, briefing notes, correspondence, email records and/or verbal conversations. An extremely detailed and time-consuming analysis would be required for each project to produce this information. As such, it is not likely that this information could be produced for all 1,260 projects.
In response to (e), this information could be provided only after the preceding analyses have been conducted.
Question No. 791--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to lapsed funds from Environment Canada under Grants and Contributions 2009-2010 and the $31 million in grants and contributions left over from 2009-2010, why has the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences request for funding renewal been refused?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Spekaer, the Government of Canada greatly appreciates the work that has been undertaken by the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, CFCAS. CFCAS was established in 2000 and has received $110 million from the Government of Canada to support university-based climate and atmospheric research. CFCAS research projects and networks are currently scheduled to be completed in the coming months. In addition, the government granted CFCAS an extension to its mandate, which will allow its operations to continue through to March 2012.
The Government of Canada also invests in climate and atmospheric science through a number of other organizations and programs including the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs Program and the Networks of Centres of Excellence Program. The Government of Canada recognizes that sound science leads to sound policy making and remains committed to supporting climate and atmospheric science in Canada. Within the context of the current fiscal environment, the role of these types of organizations in contributing to Canada’s overall scientific capacity will be fully considered.
Question No. 806--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Department of Transport and, more specifically, the 2007 risk assessment study conducted for the South Coast, including Placentia Bay: (a) how much funding was spent on the study, follow-up and the implementation of the recommendations; and (b) what are the terms of an agreement with Mr. Stan Tobin to conduct a review in Placentia Bay, including cost, scope of work and time frames?
Response
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Department of Transport and, more specifically, the 2007 risk assessment study conducted for the south coast, including Placentia Bay, in response to (a), this project was initiated by the Canadian Coast Guard and thereafter transferred to Transport Canada, along with the Environmental Response Group, in 2003. Transport Canada managed the risk assessment in full partnership with Canadian Coast Guard. The following is a breakdown of funds spent by Transport Canada over the course of the study:
Annual Spending in Dollars
2005-06--146,247
2006-07--94,170
2007-08--92,921
2008-09--85,295
2009-10--7,135
Total 425,768
The only funding spent by Transport Canada on follow-up and implementation of the recommendations is that allotted to the contract with Mr. Stan Tobin to provide Placentia Bay with an emergency contact plan. See the response to (b) which follows. As of January 2, 2011, a total of $9,270 has been released for this contract.
In response to (b), in light of the recent oil spill risk assessment for the south coast of Newfoundland, Mr. Tobin has been contracted by Transport Canada to review all existing emergency and environmental response plans developed by government and industry for the Placentia Bay area, and to produce a summary report that contains all pertinent contact information.
A sole-source contract was issued to the environmental consultant based on his extensive experience and unique and extensive knowledge of the Placentia Bay area and of Canada's marine oil spill preparedness and response regime. The sole-source method was chosen because it will allow the department to deliver an emergency contact plan to the Placentia Bay community without delay. Further, this will help keep costs to a minimum, as the time required to familiarize another consultant with the history and background of the regime and Placentia Bay area would be significant.
With respect to the cost, as this was a sole-source contract, it was awarded at the financial limitation of $22,100, plus HST, and approved under the financial authority of the Director, Operations and Environmental Programs, Transport Canada Marine Safety.
With respect to the scope of work, Mr. Tobin is required to prepare a summary document of all of the applicable government and industry preparedness, response and contingency plans in place for the Placentia Bay area, with contact information for public use. Further, the document must identify the responsibility of governments that would be involved in an oil spill in the Placentia Bay area, as well as that of industry groups that would be directly involved, i.e., response organization or oil handling facility.
With respect to the time frame, the contract was awarded to Mr. Tobin on October 19, 2010, and will be completed by January 31, 2011.