Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 15
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1156--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the proposed changes to the Health of Animals Regulations Part XII – Transportation of Animals: when will the updated Transportation Regulations be released?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, updates regarding the anticipated timing for the regulatory proposal to amend Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations can be found by consulting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Forward Regulatory Plan. http://inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/acts-and-regulations/forward-regulatory-plan/eng/1361986810905/1361986866978.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 700--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to confined field trials of crops with novel traits, as conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada scientists at the Central Experimental Farm, and the possibility of these being prohibited by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in the summer of 2013: (a) what was the decision made and why; and (b) have there been any field trials of crops with novel traits at the Central Experimental Farm since 2013?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in 2013, confined field research trials were not prohibited at the Central Experimental Farm, CEF. While Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, received authorization from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, to conduct field trials at the CEF, AAFC withdrew the approved application as it was determined that the project did not require field trials. Thus AAFC did not proceed with any trials during this period.
With regard to (b), in 2014, AAFC did not have any projects requiring field trials at the CEF, and thus no applications were made to CFIA to conduct confined field research trials during 2014. Therefore, there were no field trials of crops with novel traits conducted at the CEF in 2013 or 2014.

Question No. 701--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Articles 39 and 40 of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Conservation and Enforcement Measures: what penalties, fines, and court actions have been imposed by the home countries of foreign trawlers that have been cited for illegal fishing in the NAFO regulatory zone off Canada's East Coast over the past ten years?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, there have been 13 home countries of foreign trawlers that have been cited for illegal fishing in the NAFO regulatory zone off Canada’s east coast. In total, there have been two verbal rebriefs, eight warnings, two vessels ordered to leave the NAFO regulatory area, one vessel suspended, € 696,980.48 in fines, 12,000 Estonian kroon in fines, 100 Latvian lats in fines, and $285 USD in fines.

Question No. 703--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the so-called “last-in, first-out policy” (LIFO) that governs the northern shrimp fishery: what studies has the government carried out on the impact of LIFO on rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the department has undertaken economic analyses on the impacts of reductions in total allowable catch to the offshore and inshore fleets in 2010, 2011 and 2014. No studies have been undertaken to look at the impact of LIFO on rural communities directly.

Question No. 704--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the closure of the Corner Brook Veterans Affairs office: (a) has the Department hired personnel specifically to provide the services of the closed Corner Brook office; (b) if so, what offices in Newfoundland and Labrador do the personnel work from; and (c) are their positions full-time permanent, if not, how are they classified?
Response
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), no, Veterans Affairs Canada did not hire personnel specifically to provide the services of the closed Corner Brook office. When the Corner Brook office closed, the employment end date for one existing employees of that office was extended. This employee is located at the Service Canada office in Corner Brook.
With regard to (b), no additional personnel were hired. There is one Veterans Affairs Canada employee working at the Service Canada office at 1 Regent Square, Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador. All remaining Veterans Affairs Canada staff work out of the Veterans Affairs Canada office in St. John's or at the integrated personnel support centre at Canadian Forces Station St. John's.
With regard to (c), the Veterans Affairs Canada employee working at Service Canada in Corner Brook is a full-time employee and will continue to be employed there as long as the services are required.

Question No. 706--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) what are the full costs to date for army, navy and air force contributions to Operation Reassurance, broken down by each service; and (b) what are the estimated future costs of Operation Reassurance, as well as the costs for any other initiatives by the Canadian military to promote stability in Eastern Europe?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), full costs to date are unavailable, as the costs of a mission are not available until publication of the annual departmental performance report or 90 days following the end of the mission.
With regard to (b), cost estimates are dynamic and evolve with the refinement of planning and operational assumptions. These estimates are updated regularly to support planning efforts and decision-making, and would therefore be inaccurate.

Question No. 712--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the distribution of funds from the Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnerships Program from June 2013 to present: (a) for each contribution what is the (i) dollar amount, (ii) the name of the recipient organization, (iii) the electoral district by the 2003 representation order, (iv) the electoral district by the 2013 representation order; (b) what is the total amount contributed by calendar year in (i) each electoral district by the 2003 representation order, (ii) each electoral district by the 2013 representation order; (c) what is the total amount contributed by calendar year to each organization; (d) what is the number of applications made in each province by calendar year; and (e) what is the number of applications made by calendar year in (i) each electoral district by the 2003 representation order, (ii) each electoral district by the 2013 representation order?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not track the information on funding levels under the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program by electoral district and calendar year.

Question No. 715--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Deficit Reduction Action Plan Track 16: Reduction in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Activities: (a) what is the government’s objective with regard to this reduction; (b) how many employees have been eliminated to date due to this objective and what are their positions and locations; (c) how many employees will be eliminated in total and what are their positions and locations; (d) has the government done an analysis on what effects this reduction of NAFO air hours from 1000 to 600 and sea days from 785 to 600 may have on foreign overfishing off Canada’s coasts and, if so, what are the findings of any such analysis; (e) what are the internal tracking numbers for any documents or briefing materials on this Track provided to senior government officials at the level of Director General or above; (f) what is the total budget reduction of the Track in (i) 2014-2015, (ii) beyond; and (g) what methods used to monitor fishing activity on the high seas, including aerial surveillance, at-sea and port inspections, international observers, satellite (RADARSAT II) and vessel monitoring systems will be effected by this reduction and what are the details of how these methods will be effected?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the objective of this exercise was to rebalance the mix of surveillance and enforcement tools at disposal in the NAFO regulatory area, or NRA, in order to better reflect improvements in compliance, improvements in electronic monitoring, and a reduction in the days fished in the NRA by foreign fleets. These changes allowed us to optimize the distribution of our compliance and enforcement assets without compromising our overall enforcement effectiveness.
With regard to (b) and (c), 23 positions have been eliminated as a result of this objective. No employees will be eliminated as a result of the reduction of three fishery officer positions in the NAFO/Offshore Surveillance Unit and 20 seagoing Canadian Coast Guard positions in Newfoundland and Labrador. Position reduction will be managed through attrition and existing vacancies.
With regard to (d), NAFO enforcement will not be affected as part of this measure. The current enforcement program will continue to focus on detection and deterrence of non-compliance by foreign vessels.
With regard to (e), the tracking numbers are 2012-006-02401.
With regard to (f), the total budget reduction of the track in 2014-15 and beyond is $4.2 million per year.
With regard to (g), no methods used to monitor fishing activity will be affected. Dedicated, armed, boarding-ready patrol ships will continue to remain available for patrolling Canada’s 200-mile limit and for carrying out inspections in the NRA.

Question No. 721--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Correctional Service Canada's (CSC) terminated Prison Farm Program: (a) has CSC studied the possibility of re-opening a prison farm program; (b) what studies, reports or assessments have been prepared by CSC regarding the re-opening of a prison farm program, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (c) what briefing documents have been prepared for ministers and their staff regarding the re-opening of a prison farm program, broken down by (i) date of request for briefing note, (ii) title of requested briefing note, (iii) internal tracking number of briefing note; (d) what is the anticipated cost, broken down annually for the next ten years, of re-opening a prison farm program; (e) how much money has currently been budgeted to re-open a prison farm program; (f) how much money has currently been budgeted to study the re-opening of a prison farm program; (g) has the government’s policy changed regarding a prison farm program since 2010; and (h) what records exist regarding meetings at which CSC was asked to re-open a prison farm, broken down by (i) date of meeting, (ii) attendees, (iii) any internal tracking numbers assigned to the meeting’s documentation?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will not revisit the decision to close the prison farms. There is no desire to reinstate this ineffective program. The Government of Canada invests in programs that are efficient and effective. CSC is focusing on programs that provide relevant and practical employment skills as part of their rehabilitation.

Question No. 722--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Service Canada, specifically to the 2008 document, “Moving Forward, Growing Service Canada in the Ontario Region”: (a) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of any file, memorandum, instruction, directive or any other record which document (i) the decision which resulted in removing Kingston from the list of physical processing areas of hubs for the Employment Insurance business line of Service Canada since the issuance of the 2008 document, (ii) the rationale which resulted in removing Kingston from the list of physical processing areas of hubs for the Employment Insurance business line of Service Canada since the issuance of the 2008 document; and (b) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of any file, memorandum, instruction, directive or any other record which documents (i) the decision which resulted in adding North Bay to the list of physical processing areas of hubs for the Employment Insurance business line of Service Canada since the issuance of the 2008 document, (ii) the rationale which resulted in adding North Bay to the list of physical processing areas of hubs for the Employment Insurance business line of Service Canada since the issuance of the 2008 document?
Response
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in 2010, ESDC undertook a comprehensive review of program and service delivery. These reviews are done on an ongoing basis to ensure programs and services are focused, modern, and efficient, that they continue to respond to the priorities of Canadians, and that they are in line with core federal responsibilities. Modernizing the employment insurance processing system was part of the review.
In August 2011, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development announced a plan to consolidate smaller and more costly employment insurance processing sites into larger regional hubs. This new service delivery model was a national strategy, informed by but not exclusively based on the 2008 regional document “Moving Forward, Growing Service Canada in the Ontario Region”. The model, to be implemented gradually over three years, focused on moving from 120 sites across the country to 22 sites.

Question No. 727--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to questions Q-1 to Q-644 submitted to the Order Paper during the Second Session of the 41st Parliament: (a) what are the details of all information, provided by responding departments to the Privy Council Office (PCO), that was omitted in the final responses to the questions; (b) what are the details of any correspondence, memos, notes, emails, or other communications, sent within the relevant departments, within the PCO, or transmitted between the departments and the PCO, regarding the omission of such information, broken down by (i) relevant file numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved; (c) what are the reasons for the omission of information in the responses to these questions; and (d) what are the details of all objections to such omissions?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, except for those questions requiring an oral answer pursuant to the Standing Orders, the government’s answers to questions on the order paper are contained in documents tabled in Parliament that bear a minister’s or parliamentary secretary’s signature. Any other version of a response is considered draft and unofficial.
In processing Parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and any draft responses would be considered advice to a minister.
Agricultural researchAllen, MalcolmAnswers to Written Questions on the Orde ...Armstrong, ScottBlaney, StevenBudget cutsCanadian ForcesCentral Experimental FarmCleary, RyanClosure of government operations and fac ...Conservative Caucus ...Show all topics
View Rona Ambrose Profile
CPC (AB)
moved that Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 197--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to spending under the Scientific Research and Experimental Development program for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) how much funding was granted in each province and territory; (b) how much funding in each province and territory went to small businesses; (c) how much funding in each province and territory went to big businesses; (d) how much funding in each province and territory went to an individual; (e) how much funding in each province and territory was for basic scientific research; (f) how much funding in each province and territory was for applied research; and (g) how much funding in each province and territory was awarded for other research?
Response
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the scientific research and experimental development program, or SR and ED, is a federal tax incentive. It is not a funding opportunity through a grant or contribution.
The tax incentive has two components. The first is an income tax deduction, which allows immediate expensing of eligible expenditures. Eligible expenditures in 2014 include most of the costs that are directly related to SR and ED, including salary and wages, materials, and overhead.
The second is an investment tax credit in respect of eligible expenses. The general rate is 15% in 2014. An enhanced rate of 35 % is provided to small and medium-size Canadian-controlled private corporations, or CCPCs, on their first $3 million of eligible expenditures. Unused credits earned in a year are generally fully refundable for small and medium-size CCPCs on their first $3 million of current expenditures. Unused credits can be carried back three years and forward twenty years.
Information on the tax expenditures related to the SR and ED program can be found in “Tax Expenditures and Evaluations 2013”, available at http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2013/taxexp13-eng.asp.

Question No. 214--
Mr. Raymond Côté:
With regard to contaminated water from the Port of Québec flowing into the St. Lawrence River in July 2013: (a) what action was taken by the government in response to this incident; (b) were there any complaints filed by the public regarding this incident; (c) what were the findings of any investigations into such complaints; and (d) what action, if any, was taken to ensure that such an incident would not reoccur or to serve as a deterrent?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in July 2013 Environment Canada enforcement officers conducted a follow-up inspection at the Port of Quebec. Environment Canada issued an inspector’s direction in 2011 requiring that those responsible for the deposits take all measures consistent with safety and with the conservation of fish and fish habitat. The Port of Quebec is currently complying with the requirements of the inspector’s direction.
With regard to (b), there was one complaint regarding this incident.
With regard to (c), scientific analysis of the samples of water from the sedimentation basin of the Port of Quebec did not demonstrate any effective deleterious substances in the effluent discharge into the St. Lawrence River.
With regard to (d), as per the directive mentioned above, Environment Canada informed the responsible parties, in writing, of their obligations under the Fisheries Act.

Question No. 218--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which Alberta employers have been issued a positive Labour Market Opinion, broken down by region and National Occupation Classifications: (a) for Alberta's minimum wage in the following years, (i) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.00, (ii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.00, (iii) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.40, (iv) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $8.80, (v) September 1, 2011--present: $9.40; and (b) for the following wage rate ranges for the following years, (i) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.01-$7.50, (ii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.01-8.50, (iii) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.41-$8.90, (iv) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $8.81-$9.30, (v) September 1, 2011--August 31, 2012: $9.41-$9.90, (vi) September 1, 2012--August 31, 2013: $9.76-$10.25, (vii) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.51-$8.00, (viii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.51: $9.00, (ix) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.91- $9.40, (x) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $9.31-$9.80, (xi) September 1, 2011--August 31, 2012: $9.91-$10.40, (xii) September 1, 2012--August 31, 2013: $10.26-$10.75?
Response
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the nature of this request would require a prohibitively long and extensive manipulation of data generated by the system. Therefore, ESDC is unable to answer this question in the time allotted.

Question No. 250--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to the Wolseley Barracks: (a) what was the reason for the 2013 demolition of the three buildings at the Barracks; (b) why has said work been called to a halt; (c) how much is the demolition predicted to cost; (d) how much money was spent on repairs to the three buildings between 2008 and 2013; (e) how much is the demolition supposed to save in the long run; and (f) how will those receiving training at Wolseley Barracks be housed once all the designated buildings are gone?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence, DND, and the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, conduct frequent infrastructure reviews to ensure that infrastructure meets our needs and entitlements.
With regard to (a), following a review of the infrastructure at Wolseley Barracks in London, Ontario, three buildings were slated for demolition in the summer of 2013 as they are no longer required by DND/CAF.
With regard to (b), asbestos was discovered between the walls in some of the buildings and therefore, to be prudent, demolitions were suspended on October 3, 2013. Investigations continue on the best way to proceed, but the overall demolition plan has not changed in scope.
With regard to (c), the contract for demolition was awarded for a total cost of $249,000. This amount will be amended by the additional work requirements caused by the discovery of asbestos, although the exact value of the amendments has not been finalized.
With regard to (d), approximately $145,000 was spent on repairs to the three buildings between 2008 and 2013.
With regard to (e), those three buildings are estimated to cost approximately $140,000 annually for operations and maintenance, O&M, and payment in lieu of taxes, PILT. Therefore, it is estimated that the demolition will result in an annual cost avoidance of approximately $140,000.
With regard to (f), there are sufficient classrooms in the remaining buildings to continue to run courses at Wolseley Barracks. Courses can also be held in local training or range areas, such as Cedar Springs and 4 Canadian Division Training Centre in Meaford.

Question No. 251--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the importance of regularly updating and enforcing the Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: (a) when will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food commit to providing sustained funding for the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC); (b) how does the Minister anticipate enforcement of these Codes will be funded and executed; and (c) will the Minister commit to independent, third-party verification of the NFACC Codes of Practice to ensure that producers are compliant with these industry Codes?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) the Government of Canada’s approach to addressing animal care and welfare at the farm level includes working closely with a network of industry stakeholders and responsible organizations. The Government of Canada has been supporting the National Farm Animal Care Council, or NFACC, in developing and updating the “Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals”, establishing a framework for on-farm assessments, and providing critical leadership for Canada’s efforts. Since the establishment of NFACC in 2005, the Government of Canada has invested over $4 million in support of its activities and approaches in dealing with animal care and welfare issues.
Future funding for NFACC may be provided under the Growing Forward 2 agri-marketing assurance system. It is up to individual organizations to apply for this funding. The Government of Canada continues to provide technical support to NFACC and the codes initiative and is committed to working collaboratively with all stakeholders in addressing issues related to animal welfare.
With regard to (b), requirements in the codes of practice are enforced under provincial legislation and regulations. However, it is important to note that responsibility for implementation and enforcement does not rest with just one group. Implementation of the codes occurs in multiple ways: through voluntary producer uptake, on-farm assessment programs, quality assurance programs required by markets, and provincial regulation. The first responsibility for implementation of the codes rests with the producers and others who handle animals. Canadian farmers take their responsibility seriously, which is why, in addition to the code requirements that all are expected to follow, each code also contains recommended practices, an important tool for encouraging continuous improvement in the industry. Meanwhile, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments share legislative and enforcement responsibility for animal welfare, with provincial governments having the primary legislative authority for the on-farm handling of animals. At the federal level, regulations regarding the humane transport and humane slaughter of animals in federally inspected facilities are enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Collaboration among all the various stakeholders is a key aspect of Canada’s approach to ensuring that good practices are followed.
With regard to (c), animal care assessment programs are key to demonstrating that the codes of practice are being followed. One key goal under the NFACC animal care assessment framework is to ensure that the programs developed are both transparent and credible. Livestock and poultry producers recognize the need for developing effective assessment programs in order to demonstrate that animals are properly treated and cared for on-farm. Several commodities have already begun implementing on-farm assessments or are developing their programs, and more are expected to do so as codes are updated. Third-party assessments may play a role in the programs as they are developed over time, especially as market requirements develop.

Question No. 271--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW), how much funding does the FFAW receive annually for the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures Program?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union received the following annual amounts of funding from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures program: for fiscal year 2011-12, $2,656,640; for fiscal year 2012-13, $4,492,374.04; and for fiscal year 2013-14 to date, $392,602.87.

Question No. 277--
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet:
With regard to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) agency; and (b) what agency was responsible for allocating this funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) municipality?
Response
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the nature of this request would require a prohibitively long and extensive manipulation of data generated by the system. Therefore, ESDC is unable to answer this question in the time allotted.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 172--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what criteria were used to determine which regional Veterans Affairs offices would be closed by February 2014, as announced in the 2012-2013 budget?
Response
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the closure of some regional offices reflects the changing demographics of Veterans across Canada. The well-being of Veterans and their families is Veterans Affairs Canada’s top priority. The department is committed to providing them with the exemplary benefits and programs that they deserve, no matter where they live, as part of Veterans Affairs Canada’s ongoing work to improve service and adjust to the changing needs and demographics of Veterans. Case managers will continue to make home visits to Veterans who need them.
Veterans Affairs Canada has increased the number of case managers in areas of high demand and has opened and maintained 17 operational stress injury clinics and 24 integrated personnel support centres near Canadian Armed Forces bases and major cities across Canada.
Veterans Affairs Canada has also partnered with Service Canada to provide even more options to access the Department’s programs and services, especially for those living in rural or remote areas. Canadian Armed Forces personnel, veterans and their families can now obtain general information and apply for certain benefits at any one of the approximately 600 Service Canada centres nationwide, where they also have one-stop access to a wide range of other federal programs and services.
This will mean greater convenience and less travel for Veterans, because they are no longer limited to one location for in-person service. And, to provide even more support in regions where underused area offices will be winding down, a Veterans Affairs Canada client service agent will be posted in Service Canada Centre locations--specifically Kelowna, B.C.; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Brandon, Manitoba; Thunder Bay, Ontario; Windsor, Ontario; Sydney, Nova Scotia; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; and Corner Brook, Newfoundland--to help Veterans with their benefits applications and answer any questions they may have.
Veterans across Canada can continue to expect the same high level of service and, as always, individuals can receive assistance directly from the department by calling its toll-free number, 1-866-522-2122, or by visiting its website, www.veterans.gc.ca.

Question No. 176--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), what applications have been received from the riding of Avalon for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, including (i) the specific projects that were approved or rejected in each fiscal year, (ii) the name and physical address of proponent(s), (iii) the project title, (iv) the proposed scope of work, (v) the total cost of the projects, (vi) the amount of funding approved by ACOA, (vii) the funding program(s) within ACOA that the funding approved?
Response
Hon. Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, is concerned, with regard to applications received from the riding of Avalon for fiscal years 2009-2010 through 2012-2013, ACOA does not track projects by federal ridings. Information on projects approved by ACOA in Newfoundland and Labrador can be found on the agency’s website.

Question No. 178--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Prime Minster’s Office, as of February 1, 2013: (a) how many individuals make an annual salary of $150,000 a year or more; (b) how many individuals make an annual salary of $200,000 or more; (c) how many individuals make an annual salary of $250,000 a year or more; (d) how many individuals make an annual salary of $300,000 or more; (e) of those who make an annual salary of $200,000 or more, how many received a performance award, otherwise known as a bonus; and (f) of those who received a performance award, what was the amount of each?
Response
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and the information requested has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes personal information.

Question No. 180--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for each year from 2003 to 2013, what was the CPI for each household income quintile given the goods and services typically purchased by each quintile according to the average household spending patterns?
Response
Hon. Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the consumer price index, CPI, is an indicator of changes in consumer prices experienced by Canadian residents. It is obtained by comparing, over time, the costs of a fixed basket of goods and services purchased by consumers. Data by quintile are not and have never been compiled for the CPI on an ongoing basis, as the CPI is meant to represent a measure of overall consumer inflation.

Question No. 182--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Canada Student Loan forgiveness for eligible family doctors, residents in family medicine, registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses, registered practical nurses, licensed practical nurses, or nurse practitioners who work in rural or remote communities: (a) how many medical professionals have applied for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013, broken down by (i) eligible medical profession, (ii) the designated community in which the applicant is working; (b) how many medical professionals who have applied for loan forgiveness have been accepted for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013, broken down by (i) eligible medical profession, (ii) the designated community in which the applicant is working; (c) what is the anticipated total value of loan forgiveness payments that will be paid to qualified medical professionals under this program by April 2014, broken down by (i) loan forgiveness period, (ii) eligible medical profession, (iii) the designated community in which the applicant is working?
Response
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, budget 2011 announced that the government would forgive a portion of the federal share of Canada student loans for new family doctors, nurse practitioners, and nurses who practice in underserved rural and remote communities. Since 2012-13, those eligible family doctors have received loan forgiveness of up to $8,000 per year, to a maximum of $40,000. Nurse practitioners and nurses who are eligible have been able to receive up to $4,000 per year, to a maximum of $20,000.
The Minister of State for Social Development announced in January 2014 that in the first 10 months, almost 1,200 family doctors and nurses had received loan forgiveness.
With regard to (a)(i), the numbers of eligible medical professional who have applied for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013 include the following: 53 family doctors, 99 residents in family medicine, 1,039 registered nurses, 40 registered psychiatric nurses, 132 registered practical nurses, 275 licensed practical nurses, and 14 nurse practitioners.
With regard to (a)(ii), due to privacy concerns, ESDC cannot provide the information requested.
With regard to (b)(i), the following numbers do not include applications that have yet not been finalized: 37 family doctors , 58 residents in family medicine, 845 registered nurses, 34 registered psychiatric nurses, 97 registered practical nurses, 206 licensed practical nurses, and 10 nurse practitioners.
With regard to (b)(ii), due to privacy concerns, ESDC cannot provide the information requested.
With regard to (c)(i), the loan forgiveness approvals for the periods ending between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014, total $8,480,000.
With regard to (c)(ii), the loan forgiveness approvals by eligible medical profession include the following: family doctors, $400,000; residents in family medicine, $800,000; registered nurses, $5,200,000; registered psychiatric nurses, $200,000; registered practical nurses, $600,000; licensed practical nurses, $1,200,000; nurse practitioners, $80,000.
With regard to (c)(iii), due to privacy concerns, ESDC cannot provide the information requested.

Question No. 184--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the position of Ambassador of Fisheries Conservation: (a) does the government plan to fill this position; (b) if so, when; and (c) if not, why not?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to fill the position of Ambassador of Fisheries Conservation at this time given that most of the current work being done internationally with respect to fisheries is on the implementation of existing commitments rather than the negotiation and creation of new ones. Canada’s current level of representation is adequate to address the requirements of such implementation work.

Question No. 191--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the equipment provided to regular and reserve members of the Canadian Armed Forces, what is the total number of newly enlisted members who have not yet been issued boots since January 1, 2013, broken down by (i) regular or reserve status, (ii) branch of the Canadian Armed Forces, (iii) rank of member, (iv) unit, (v) month of enlistment?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, allotments of clothing and equipment, including boots, are tracked in individual files in the defence resource management information system. To determine whether an individual has received the appropriate pair, or pairs, of boots, it would be necessary to task each unit to review each individual file for all types of boots. Furthermore, the individual files in the defence resource management information system do not contain information on the enrolment date. Reviewing all of these files was not possible within the time allotted to respond to this question.

Question No. 194--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, Quebec: (a) how much is this replacement bridge estimated to cost; and (b) what is the estimated toll charge for this replacement bridge?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), final project costs will be determined by the end of the competitive procurement process for the public private partnership, PPP, after the project agreement has been signed. Very preliminary estimates suggest the cost of the project could be between $3 billion to $5 billion. This would include design and construction costs for the whole project, which, in addition to the replacement of the Champlain Bridge, includes the alignment with A-10; highway works on île des Sœurs; the replacement of the île des Sœurs bridge; as well as the widening and reconstruction of the federal portion of A-15.
With regard to part (b), it is too early to say what the toll rate will be. Additional studies will be completed and discussions will be held prior to the establishment of the toll rate. Several toll scenarios are being examined that are consistent with tolls in effect in the Montreal region and will be made public at a later date.

Question No. 206--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to software used by the government on all digital platforms: (a) what software is permitted for use, broken down by (i) servers, (ii) workstations and desktops, (iii) laptops and portable computers, (iv) personal digital assistants, cell phones and other personal electronics, (v) rationale; (b) for each subsection of (a), what software is banned from use; (c) for each subsection of (a) and (b), where is this software developed; and (d) for each subsection of (a) and (b), if the software is not released as an “open source” (as defined by the Open Source Initiative) or “free software” (as defined by the Free Software Foundation), are viable open source or free software alternatives available, (i) have they been explored, (ii) what was the rationale for their rejection?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in order to produce such information to the level of detail requested, organizations would need to manually verify each and every hardware item maintained by the organization. The collection and compilation of such data would take several months. Therefore, it is not possible to produce the information requested within the prescribed timeline.

Question No. 217--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regards to the indoor fish farming facility in Thames Centre, Middlesex County: (a) how much funding was issued; (b) was the funding a result of the promise of job creation; and (c) what verifications were made to ensure funding was spent appropriately?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the total funding issued to the project by Fisheries and Oceans Canada under the aquaculture innovation and market access program, or AIMAP, was $415,000. Other contributions included a $1,000,000 repayable loan from Agriculture Canada's Sand Plains Community Development Fund, administered by the Ontario Association of Community Futures Development Corporations, along with $1,082,882 in cash and $2,800,000 of in-kind funding from 1767065 Ontario Inc., Sand Plains.
With regard to (b), the funding allocation provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada was not directly intended for job creation, but rather for the purchase of equipment to catalyze aquaculture industry investment from other sectors. At a broader level, AIMAP’s objectives were to spur investment in innovation and to increase industry competitiveness, resulting in industry expansion and increased job creation within the aquaculture sector. The project was reviewed first by a regional review committee and later by a national review committee against program criteria, scope of impact, plan and performance management, and budgetary considerations.
With regard to (c), Fisheries and Oceans Canada ensured the appropriate allocation of funding through site visits by Fisheries and Oceans Canada staff, collection of appropriate invoices to support expense claims, and validation through a third party audit of the project’s financial records by a chartered accountant.

Question No. 221--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to employment with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, how many involuntary job reductions have been implemented in the department each year from 2006 to 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program activity, (iii) sub-program activity, (iv) specific job description, (v) the reason for the involuntary reduction?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (i), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, had 895 involuntary job reductions in the years 2006 to 2013.
With regard to (ii), there have been 895 involuntary job reductions in 11 program activities.
With regard to (iii), there have been 895 involuntary job reductions in 29 sub-program activities.
With regard to (iv), the 895 involuntary job reductions affected 413 job titles.
With regard to (v), there were five reasons for the 895 involuntary job reductions.

Question No. 226--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the government's announcement on May 28, 2012, that it will allocate $17.5 billion over five years to combat the invasion of Asian Carp in the Great Lakes Watershed through prevention, early warning, rapid response and management and control, what is: (a) the progress on these initiatives; and (b) the total amount of monies distributed in each focus area to date?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, members will please note that the government’s announcement was for $17.5 million over five years.
Progress to date under each of the program’s initiatives includes the following.
In terms of prevention, collaborative work is under way with partner groups, such as the Invasive Species Centre, to conduct public outreach and education on the threat posed by Asian carp and how the public can help. We have also begun, with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a binational risk assessment for one of the Asian carp species, grass carp. This risk assessment will form valuable science advice for both Canada and the United States in terms of prevention, mitigation, and management of this species. Research into movement of fishes in canals towards potential development of early warning systems is well under way, as well as research into potential control or response mechanisms such as physical barriers, pressure barriers, and sound and bubble barriers.
In terms of early warning, 22 early detection sites have been set up in the highest-priority lakes, Lake Erie and Lake Huron, for early warning in 2013. These sites were extensively monitored for Asian carp detection, as well as determining best means for detecting Asian carp species early. These sites are now established and will be visited each year for long-term monitoring as well as to establish a pre-invasion baseline of the fish community. Plans are under way for the development of similar early detection sites in Lake Ontario and Lake Superior. Genetic tools for use in early warning are also being researched and will be used in key areas.
In terms of response, protocols and plans have been developed in partnership with the Province of Ontario and the United States for responding to Asian carp. There were also two captures of grass carp this past summer in Canadian waters. These individuals were later found to be sterile, but response activities were immediately initiated by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in partnership with the Province of Ontario.
In terms of management, continued collaboration with the Province of Ontario occurs to manage the live trade pathway for Asian carp. Drafting of a national aquatic invasive species regulation that would allow for prohibition of import, possession, and transport of listed aquatic invasive species, such as Asian carp, is under way, with a goal of having the draft prepublished in the Canada Gazette for public comments in 2014.
Funds spent to date on the program initiatives include the following: prevention, $3,365,700; early warning, $2,072,950; response, $72,000; and management and control, $120,000.

Question No. 241--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to Shared Services Canada’s recent registration of telephone services, completed on January 20, 2014: (a) how many (i) traditional telephones including Voice over Internet Protocol, (ii) cellular telephones, (iii) BlackBerry devices, (iv) pagers, (v) other smartphones, were registered by Shared Service Canada employees and each of its partner organizations; and (b) how many suspensions of telephone service did this registration exercise lead to?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the current state of the telecommunications inventory as of January 28, 2014, is as follows: 194,418 traditional telephones, including voice over Internet protocol; 16,883 cellular telephones; 49,269 BlackBerry devices; 859 pagers; and 2,423 other smart phones.
The registration of telephone services and devices has been extended until February 28, 2014; as such, detailed analysis of service data will commence when the data collection phase of this activity has been completed.
With regard to (b), there have not been any suspensions of telephone lines as a result of this exercise to date. Any discontinuation of services will only occur following detailed analysis of the data collected and confirmation of the status of individual services with the SSC partner organizations.

Question No. 242--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to briefing documents prepared since July 17, 2013 for the Minister of Transport or her staff regarding Canada Post, for each document, what is: (i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the Department’s internal tracking number?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada does not collect the requested information in both official languages, but rather by the language of the author. Given the large number of documents, it is not feasible for Transport Canada to translate the requested documents in the time period required.

Question No. 253--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the publication of draft updates to the sections of the Health of Animals Regulations concerning the transportation of farm animals within Canada: (a) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food take immediate steps to publish draft proposed regulatory changes in the Canada Gazette; (b) will the Minister increase funding to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to fund increased numbers of inspectors to enforce existing and future regulations; and (c) will the Minister invite the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to examine the current crisis affecting animals in transport and to report back on the situation as it stands?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CFIA has legislative authority for humane transportation of animals anywhere in Canada and for humane slaughter in federally registered establishments. The agency has the authority to investigate animal welfare concerns and alleged non-compliances within its jurisdiction and can respond to findings with a full suite of enforcement tools, including prosecution.
The CFIA remains committed to the humane treatment of animals and is pursuing the modernization of the humane transport regulations through review and stakeholder consultations to ensure that they are up to date and effective and that they reflect the latest science.
The CFIA is also updating the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures to reflect best practices and current scientific knowledge regarding humane treatment in the slaughter of food animals in federal establishments.
The updating of these regulatory authorities will allow the CFIA to better deal with the minority of individuals who mistreat animals.
With regard to (b), since 2008 the Government of Canada has made investments of $517 million to fund inspector hiring, an improved inspection approach, better training, and more modern tools for front-line inspectors and increased scientific capacity.
The CFIA continues to direct resources to priority areas based on risk, compliance, and demand in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
With regard to (c), the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food cannot direct what studies the committee should undertake. However, the committee is free to initiate any studies relevant to its mandate and report its findings on a particular topic back to the House of Commons.
Ambassador for Fisheries ConservationAndrews, ScottAnimal healthAquacultureArmstrong, ScottAsian carpAtlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyAvalonBaird, JohnBriefing materialsByrne, Gerry ...Show all topics
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 65--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to government policies on colours used for its websites: (a) when were the most recent policies tabled; (b) were the policies approved by any ministers; (c) what research was used to develop recommended policies; (d) what were the results of this research; (e) was this research contracted out by the government and, if so, to whom; (f) what were the costs for this research and these policies; (g) what was the estimated number of person-hours required to implement the changes in colour; and (h) what were the costs required to implement colour changes?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Standard on Web Usability came into effect on September 28, 2011, and was updated on March 31, 2013.
With regard to (b), the Standard on Web Usability is issued under the authority of section 7 of the Financial Administration Act by the Secretary of the Treasury Board, pursuant to subsection 6(4) of the Financial Administration Act and section 3.5 of the Policy on Management of Information Technology.
With regard to (c), the Standard on Web Usability was developed through an extensive review of existing studies and reports, including usability studies that had been conducted by various consulting firms on Government of Canada websites from 2002-2010; studies and reports from Wichita State University, Nielsen Norman Group, Usability.gov, A List Apart, Stanford University, and University of Washington; and a review of other jurisdictions’ websites.
With regard to (d), the results of the studies with regard to colour revealed that approximately 75% of them use blue or green as their primary colour.
With regard to (e), research conducted for the development of the Standard on Web Usability was not contracted out.
With regard to (f), the research was conducted using internal resources within existing budgets. The Standard on Web Usability was developed using internal resources within existing budgets.
With regard to (g) and (h), departments are required to implement the changes within existing resources. Departments are encouraged to implement changes at the same time as other updates.

Question No. 67--
Ms. Laurin Liu:
With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) in Quebec, for the fiscal years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, what is the proportion of regular claimants who exhausted their weeks of benefits, broken down by EI economic region?
Response
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, employment insurance claims are considered exhausted if claimants use all the regular weeks to which they are entitled. The proportion of regular claimants who exhaust their regular weeks of benefits is referred to as the entitlement exhaustion rate, and is reported in the annual EI Monitoring and Assessment Report, MAR. The MAR can be accessed at www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/ei/reports/index.shtml.

Question No. 71--
Ms. Laurin Liu:
With regard to the budget cuts made in 2013 at the National Research Council of Canada’s Herzberg Institute for Astrophysics: (a) what are the reasons that led to these cuts; (b) what impact and efficiency studies is this decision based on; (c) what groups and individuals were consulted prior to this decision; and (d) which projects will be affected?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Department of Industry is taking steps to ensure the National Research Council, the NRC, remains a world-class organization that supports business-led initiatives.
With regard to (b), in order to stay within the defined budget envelope while ensuring a continued focus on priorities, an in-depth review of NRC Herzberg operations and programs was undertaken by NRC Herzberg senior program managers.
With regard to (c), the Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics, LRP2010, is a document that balances both regional and disciplinary priorities in the Canadian astronomical community, and is the result of over a year’s worth of consultations between the NRC and relevant parties.
NRC meets on a regular basis with the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy, ACURA, to ensure its activities are aligned with the astronomy community priorities.
With regard to (d), specific reductions were made to two completed projects.
In the first project, the Atacama large millimeter array, ALMA, telescope became operational in 2013. This 10-year project, led by NRC, was successfully completed in 2012. The positions related to the production, delivery, and integration of the relatively large number of deliverable units for this specific project were no longer required for ongoing astronomy technology development activities. The activities of the ALMA telescope will not be affected by this decision.
In the second project, the development work in support of the James Clerk Maxwell telescope, the JCMT, archive was completed in 2012, and the domain expertise of the incumbent position in this area was no longer required. The activities of JCMT will not be affected by this decision.
The visitors facility at NRC Herzberg in Victoria, known as the Center of the Universe, suspended its outreach activities at the end of August 2013. The National Research Council, NRC, has been meeting with the community and exploring options for the future management of the centre. The NRC is working with local stakeholders to find ways to resume some of the activities at the centre in the short term and is continuing to investigate options that would safeguard the long-term sustainability of the Centre of the Universe.

Question No. 72--
Mr. Louis Plamondon:
With regard to the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court, did the government verify whether the Justice: (a) resided in Ontario and, if so, for how long; (b) resided in Quebec and, if so, for how long; and (c) is registered with or was already a member of the Barreau du Québec?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the information requested contains personal information and cannot be disclosed. However, Justice Nadon was born and raised in Quebec and was a member of the Barreau du Québec for almost 20 years prior to his appointment to the Federal Court and later the Federal Court of Appeal. By virtue of the Federal Courts Act, Justice Nadon was required to reside within 40 kilometres of the National Capital Commission.
With regard to (c), Justice Nadon was a member in good standing of the Barreau du Québec for a period of about 20 years, from 1974 to 1993. By virtue of the Loi sur le Barreau, he ceased to be a member of the Barreau when he was first appointed as a judge of the Federal Court in June 1993, as one of the judges on the Federal Court who were required to have been members of the Barreau du Québec, as set out in section 5.4 of the Federal Courts Act.

Question No. 81--
Hon. John McKay:
With respect to the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COARGLBE): (a) what is the current status of approvals with respect to each proposed Annex within each department or agency that is a partner to the Canadian Federal Great Lakes Program (CFGLP); (b) which department or agency is the responsible authority for consulting First Nations on the COARGLBE; (c) what was or is the budget of each department or agency that is a partner to the CFGLP for consulting with First Nations on the COARGLBE; (d) which department is the responsible authority for considering and developing the proposed First Nations Annex (FNA); (e) which departments or agencies have discussed the proposed FNA with First Nations; (f) what is the status of deliberations or discussions with respect to the proposed FNA; (g) which departments or agencies have committed verbally or in writing to creating an FNA; (h) what is the expected timeline for approving the FNA; and (i) what is the expected timeline of approving the COARGLBE?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), a new Canada-Ontario agreement respecting the Great Lakes is currently subject to negotiations between the Governments of Canada and Ontario. Environment Canada is the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating the negotiations on behalf of the Government of Canada. Negotiations on the draft agreement are not yet complete. Once a draft agreement has been negotiated, all participating departments and agencies will be asked to review and approve prior to posting the draft agreement. A notice will be posted on the Canada Gazette, and the draft agreement will be available on the Canadian Environment Protection Act Registry for a 60-day public comment period.
With regard to (b), as the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating the negotiations on behalf of the Government of Canada, Environment Canada is leading the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders and aboriginal groups, including first nations.
With regard to (c), no specific budget has been allocated. Engagement activities are supported through existing budgets for the delivery of federal efforts to protect the Great Lakes.
With regard to (d), Environment Canada is the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating the negotiations on behalf of the Government of Canada. All proposed federal signatories to the Agreement--Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Parks Canada, and Infrastructure Canada--are involved in considering and developing appropriate content for a new Canada-Ontario agreement, including content of interest to first nations. All stakeholder and aboriginal input, including input from first nations, is being considered in the development of a new Canada-Ontario agreement.
With regard to (e), Environment Canada has met with first nations to ensure their appropriate engagement in a new Canada-Ontario agreement.
With regard to (f) and (g), negotiations for a new Canada-Ontario agreement are ongoing between the Governments of Canada and Ontario. Once a draft Canada-Ontario agreement has been negotiated and all federal approvals to post are in place, a notice will be posted on the Canada Gazette and the draft agreement will be available on the Canadian Environment Protection Act Registry for a 60-day public comment period. After public input has been reviewed, the Governments of Canada and Ontario will negotiate final revisions to the agreement and seek appropriate approvals prior to ministerial signatures.
With regard to (h) and (i), Canada and Ontario are working to negotiate a draft agreement as expeditiously as possible. Once a draft Canada-Ontario agreement has been negotiated and all federal approvals to post are in place, a notice will be posted on the Canada Gazette and the draft agreement will be available on the Canadian Environment Protection Act Registry for a 60-day public comment period. After public input has been reviewed, the Governments of Canada and Ontario will negotiate final revisions to the agreement and seek appropriate approvals prior to ministerial signatures.

Question No. 85--
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
With regard to coast guard search and rescue operations in the Vancouver region: (a) how many calls has the Sea Island coast guard received between the dates of March 1, 2013 and October 1, 2013; (b) where were the calls made to; and (c) of the calls responded to how many were answered by (i) coast guard hovercraft, (ii) coast guard vessels excluding hovercraft, (iii) Vancouver Police Department, (iv) Vancouver Fire Department, (v) North Shore Search and Rescue?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Canadian Coast Guard base at Sea Island responded to 225 search and rescue incidents between March 1 and October 1, 2013.
With regard to (b), the general area of search and rescue responsibility of the Sea Island base during this period was north to Departure Bay, south to Boundary Bay, east to New Westminster, and west to Crofton on Vancouver Island.
With regard to (c) of the 225 search and rescue incidents received by Sea Island, with regard to (b)(i), 197 incidents were responded to using an air-cushioned vehicle. With regard to (b)(ii), 28 incidents were responded to using fast rescue craft. With regard to (b)(iii) through (b)(v), the Canadian Coast Guard does not track all of the search and rescue responses of non-federal response agencies, such as the Vancouver police and fire departments and North Shore search and rescue.

Question No. 95--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the proposed divestiture of the Agroforestry Development Centre at Indian Head, Saskatchewan: (a) have any studies been conducted, either internally or by external consultants or advisors, to identify the costs or benefits, including any possible continuation of any science or research activity at the existing site or elsewhere; (b) who prepared the studies; (c) when were those studies completed; and (d) what were the detailed results of any such study?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the answer is yes.
With regard to (b), the study was prepared by SEPW Architecture Inc. through a specific service agreement with Public Works and Government Services Canada on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
With regard to (c), the study was completed December 21, 2012.
With regard to (d), the report presents four options for possible continuation of agroforestry science or research activities. They are to lease back all of the land and facilities at the Agroforestry Development Centre, to lease back a core portion of the Agroforestry Development Centre, to relocate activities to existing Indian Head Research Farm facilities, or to relocate to new facilities on the Indian Head Research Farm.
View Linda Duncan Profile
NDP (AB)
View Linda Duncan Profile
2012-10-18 16:08 [p.11197]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in support of the motion tabled by my colleague, our official opposition critic on agriculture. I fully support the call for the removal of the minister and the reassignment of the food safety portfolio, which I will speak to a bit more; the reversing of the cuts and the deregulation of the food safety regime; and the independent assessment by the Auditor General of whether or not we are proceeding in a way that will ensure food safety for Canadians.
I would like to start with a quote from a former Progressive Conservative Minister of the Environment,Tom McMillan, when he tabled the first version of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in this place.
He also made a historic decision to table an enforcement and compliance policy, and in making that decision he transformed the way of doing business for governments across this country: federal, provincial and territorial. When he tabled this enforcement and compliance policy, he said:
A good law, however, is not enough. It must be enforced—ruthlessly if need be.
In no place is that more significant than in the case of food safety.
Those in the House may not be aware, but back in 1997 the decision was made by a Liberal government to transfer responsibility for food safety from the health department to agriculture, so that the then-created Canadian Food Inspection Agency was designated to report to the Minister of Agriculture.
Very clearly, if we look at the legislation, the Minister of Agriculture is the highest authority in all decisions on food safety. The Minister of Health, though, did retain responsibility to assess the effectiveness of the CFIA in food safety. I think it would be fair to suggest that there was some controversy at the time in that transfer.
It is because of this issue, which a number of people have raised in the House previously, that regrettably the Minister of Agriculture retains a conflicting portfolio where he is to promote the food industry of Canada, including its export, and that includes the beef industry. At the same time, he has this other hat that he is supposed to put on from time to time or at exactly the same time to protect food safety for Canadians.
Interestingly, the government made the decision to remove the regulation of pesticides, the oversight of the use of pesticides by farmers, from agriculture at the same time as it put food safety into agriculture.
That may have been the beginning of the problem and that is why we are sincerely raising the motion today. We are calling on the government to look at this again to see if it is meeting the needs of Canadians in terms of the safety of their food as well as protecting the interests of food producers so that their industry is not put at risk.
Has this crisis in XL triggered a review? So far it appears not. There is a lot of denial of any kind of problem whatsoever. Previously the government, in the listeriosis crisis, called in health expert Sheila Weatherill to review problems and she made a number of recommendations.
Interestingly, when we look at Dr. Weatherill's report, she said that coincidental to the events that led to the 2008 outbreak of listeriosis, a new federal meat inspection system, the compliance verification system, was introduced. The compliance verification system, which we have talked a lot about in this place, was brought about, as I understand, because of this crisis that occurred previously in the food safety industry. Dr. Weatherill added:
—we were told of gaps in [the compliance verification system's] design and implementation as well as in the on-going management and delivery of the CVS. These deficiencies are noteworthy because inspection requirements can only be as strong as the regulatory policies and standards against which compliance is verified.
She then goes on to raise a number of concerns, including a number of sources that said that the lack of staff was a major constraint, as was the pressure of time. I think those are certainly two factors that we have seen raised repeatedly during the time of this crisis with food safety in XL Foods.
The Minister of Agriculture has a duty to identify potential conflicts in his portfolio, as does the Prime Minister. It is the prerogative of the Prime Minister from time to time to reconsider the portfolios within his cabinet and where they are assigned. The minister has been clear in his mandate to promote Canada's beef industry. There is no doubt about that. However, in failing in his parallel mandate to ensure food safety, surely he has put that very beef industry at risk.
Why is there a need for an independent review? The government saw the need to bring in Dr. Weatherill, as has been mentioned, on listeriosis. Why then is there not this need now, when this is the largest food recall in the history of this country? Why does it not appear logical to the government?
One would have thought the government would just stand up and say, “My goodness, there is an even greater problem this time. Perhaps we should take a second look at our system and take another look at the Weatherill report to see if we acted appropriately. Let us talk to the food industry, to the public, to the union and the workers.”
It is important to remind this place of the name of the agency. It is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Why do I point that out? It is because the government has chosen to replace its enforcement and compliance regime, which is common in all the other agencies at the federal level and across the provinces and territories of this country and frankly, from my experience, across nations of the world.
It has replaced the enforcement and compliance policy, which would normally direct the role of the government agency, with what is called a compliance verification system. Generally speaking, a compliance verification system is a system that is applied by the industry being regulated. In other words, industry's role is to comply with the law, therefore it put in place a compliance verification system.
Let us be clear, the government's job is to establish the food safety rules and to enforce them and the government's job is also to ensure that it protects the public. The industry's job is to comply with the law, including training all its workers to ensure the capacity to comply and taking timely action to prevent harm.
As I mentioned, beginning in the mid-1980s, previous federal governments moved to improve the way that they actually enforced the law. They put into place enforcement and compliance policies and from time to time improved them.
I am pleased to say that back in the late-1980s, I actually developed the enforcement and compliance policy for the Department of Agriculture. I further developed enforcement and compliance policies for the federal Department of Environment, for the Yukon and around the world.
I fully credit those governments for having taken that measure. It is very important to have a concise, credible system to show the public that one is sincere about enforcement.
What is the role of an enforcement and compliance policy? It is very clear and simple. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities for inspections, investigations, analysts. It clearly delineates the criteria for response to violations or non-compliance. It identifies the priorities for targeted inspections. It also identifies the needed enforcement staff, resources and training plans so that the government, at the moment that the law comes into effect, is ready to properly enforce that law. These are very important measures.
As the previous Minister of Environment said, the law enacted is hollow, unless there is a sincere, effective enforcement and compliance plan.
The CVS, as we said, is not an enforcement and compliance policy. What does it say? It says that inspectors shall divide their time between assessing establishments' safety assurance programs and conducting on-site inspections. It also says that compliance is normally achieved through co-operation with the plant operator.
Already we are getting an idea of the direction the government is going in. No longer does it believe that the role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is to inspect and enforce the law.
The enforcement and compliance policy actually had criteria set out for what enforcement action to bring. It was based on harm, the history of that operation and the intent. If we look at the situation here, and we look at the past record of that operation, surely that warranted some kind of strict enforcement action.
To date, we do not have any knowledge of any enforcement action taken whatsoever. They did finally, eventually, withdraw the licence but we are waiting to hear what kind of enforcement action will be taken. Will it be a monetary penalty, the maximum of which is $15,000, for a serious significant violation or will they be referred for prosecution?
Again, I wish to reiterate that it is just as important. The government is saying that it solved all the problems. It is tabling a new improved law in this place. We have waited a long time for that law to come. I would encourage the government to table an enforcement compliance policy in the House for review by this place and the public.
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
NDP (QC)
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
2012-10-02 14:20 [p.10711]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not seem to have the slightest concept of ministerial responsibility. The minister responsible for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is the official responsible for food safety, period.
They cannot pass the buck to civil servants; they cannot keep their feet to the fire. What they can do is take responsibility and be accountable. That is the basis of our parliamentary system. However, the Conservatives say the minister is not responsible. The minister did not tell the truth, but the Conservatives say he is not responsible.
If the Minister of Agriculture will not be held responsible for the tainted meat scandal, then what is the point of having a minister?
View Hedy Fry Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Hedy Fry Profile
2012-10-02 14:40 [p.10714]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food grossly mismanaged this incident. He failed to act immediately after the U.S. warning and allowed the contaminated meat into the public food chain. It is sheer good luck that there were no fatalities. Children, seniors and the immunocompromised still face deadly risk. His assertion that no one died is smug and irresponsible.
I ask the Minister of Health—
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 664--
Mr. Pierre Jacob:
With respect to ice wine: (a) when does the Canadian Food Inspection Agency intend to decide on the criteria for use of the name “ice wine” as part of amendments related to wine labelling; and (b) what were the reasons for reviewing the regulations concerning use of the name “ice wine”?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, anticipates that the criteria for use of the name “icewine” will be determined in the near future in order to meet the deadline for ratification of the World Wine Trade Group Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labelling, WWTG Agreement.
Once the criteria for the icewine standard have been determined, the CFIA will follow the normal process for regulatory amendments. This will include publishing in Canada Gazette, which would allow Canada to ratify the WWTG Agreement.
In response to (b), Canada is a member of the World Wine Trade Group, WWTG, and a signatory to the WWTG Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labelling. This agreement contains a definition of icewine. In order to place Canada in a position to ratify this agreement, an icewine standard must be regulated and certain wine labelling requirements in Canadian regulations need to be amended.

Question No. 670--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the 2011-2012 budget for the regional development organization for Northern Ontario (FedNor): (a) what is the total amount of its budget; (b) what is the amount actually spent, broken down by FedNor program; (c) what is the amount of the budget that was not spent, and in which programs; (d) were any financial or non-financial incentives offered to managers and executives at FedNor, that were associated with, or dependent on, allocated money not being spent in the fiscal year in question; and (e) were any incentives as outlined in (d) actually awarded, and, if so, (i) to which managers and executives, (ii) what was the sum total of each incentive that was awarded?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 2011-12 budget for the regional development organization for northern Ontario, FedNor, and in response to (a), the total amount of the budget is $59.28 million, with G&C of $49.25 million and O&M of $10.03 million.
In response to (b) and (c), FedNor’s program expenditures for 2011-12 are just now being finalized with the close of the fiscal year and will be released through the public accounts as is normal.
In response to (d), the answer is no.
In response to (e), it is not applicable.

Question No. 672--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the government’s ongoing plan to reduce the size of the federal public service and specifically the job cuts in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: for each government department and agency, how many jobs have been eliminated or are planned to be eliminated from the beginning of fiscal year 2012-13 to the end of fiscal year 2014-15 including, (i) the title of the position, (ii) the town/city in which the position is located, (iii) the current wage/salary range for the position?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the exact number of job reductions in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot be calculated until all affected organizations have completed their internal union and employee notification processes.
As indicated in budget 2012, federal employment is expected to be reduced by about 19,200 positions, or 4.8%, over a three-year period. Approximately 7,200 of these positions will be reduced through attrition, largely retirement or other voluntary departures.
The government is managing the impact of these spending reductions responsibly, and it will make every effort to manage the employment reductions resulting from the reduction in departmental spending in a manner that treats federal employees fairly and minimizes disruptions to Canadians.

Question No. 673--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to travel by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs between May 2, 2011 and May 2, 2012, for each of the Minister’s trips made in connection with his duties, what were the (i) dates, (ii) destinations and (iii) total expenses?
Response
Hon. Peter Penashue (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office responds that, information regarding travel by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is made available, in accordance with proactive disclosure guidelines, on the following website: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/di/department_list.asp?id=54&cat=1&lang=eng.

Question No. 674--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the ongoing discussions and negotiations concerning the Canada-EU Trade Agreement and the issue of tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood products: (a) what is the specific proposal put forward by the government concerning any changes to these specific tariffs; and (b) how is the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador represented with the federal government at negotiations concerning the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, including (i) how many representatives are involved from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) in what capacity do they function during the negotiation process?
Response
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, with the EU is a key part of our pro-trade plan that is committed to deepening and broadening our trading relationships. This is critical as trade accounts for over 60% of our annual GDP, and one in five Canadian jobs is directly or indirectly dependent on trade.
The benefits of a Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, are expected to be enormous. According to the EU-Canada joint study, a free trade agreement with the EU is expected to boost Canada’s economy by $12 billion and increase two-way trade by 20%. This is the equivalent of creating almost 80,000 new jobs for hard-working Canadians, or increasing the average Canadian family’s income by almost $1,000. It would also give preferential market access for Canadian workers and businesses to the world’s largest single common market, foreign investor and trader.
A CETA with the EU would deliver commercial benefits across many goods sectors, including aerospace, chemicals, plastics, wood products, aluminum, fish and seafood, light vehicles and automotive parts, and agriculture products such as wheat, beef and pork.
Canada is seeking an outcome in the Canada-EU CETA negotiations that includes the elimination of all tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood. Duty-free access to the EU, the world’s largest importer of fish and seafood products, would offer significant opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador’s fish and seafood industry.
Provinces and territories are unanimous in their support of a CETA with the EU as demonstrated in a February 28, 2012 joint federal-provincial-territorial statement. All Canadian provinces and territories, including Newfoundland and Labrador, are closely involved in the CETA negotiations. This involvement includes frequent meetings with the federal government on planning and strategy, as well as attending negotiating sessions with the EU in areas that fall in whole or in part under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Provincial and territorial officials involved in the CETA negotiations form part of the Canadian delegation. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has several representatives engaged in the negotiations. This includes not only the representatives who attend negotiating sessions with the EU, but also other government officials in various Newfoundland and Labrador government departments who are consulted on different aspects of the negotiations.

Question No. 676--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to the government's funding for the Community Access Program (CAP) that ended on March 31, 2012: (a) how many access sites will be affected; (b) what communities will be affected; (c) how many Canadians will lose access to the program; (d) what is the demographic makeup of the clients who used the sites; (e) what is the demographic makeup of the population that otherwise has limited access to the internet and will be most affected by the termination of the program; (f) how many Canadians will lose their employment as a result of the termination of the program; and (g) what is the total dollar amount that the government intends to save by terminating the program?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government's funding for the community access program, CAP, that ended on March 31, 2012, and in response to (a) and (b), the community access program was launched in 1995 with the objective to encourage participation in the knowledge-based economy by maximizing the accessibility of computers and the Internet at public access points all across Canada. In 1995, only 40% of Canadian households had a computer and only about 10% of these had Internet access. In contrast, in 2010 about 79% of Canadians had access to the Internet at home. Today with the advent of smart phones, many Canadians have such access to the Internet in their hands.
The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of a nationally accessible digital infrastructure and views it as a crucial part of future efforts to ensure that Canada benefits from the global digital economy. In support of that, we have brought broadband access to nearly 218,000 households across Canada through the Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians program. Furthermore, federal funding will continue to support youth internships at community Internet sites. This will provide young Canadians with vital skills and work experience needed to make a successful transition to the workplace. Former CAP-supported sites will continue to be eligible to benefit from this funding.
During fiscal 2011-12, there were 3,830 CAP sites in communities across Canada. As most CAP sites are not dependent exclusively on federal funding, the number of access sites and communities affected remains to be determined. Individual sites will determine the best way forward.
In response to (c), (d) and (e), this information is not available as Industry Canada does not capture usage data of this nature.
In response to (f), very few employees will be affected and Industry Canada is working with them to identify other suitable employment opportunities.
In response to (g), federal funding for the community access program, CAP, ended on March 31, 2012. The total federal funding available for CAP for 2011-12 was $15 million: grants and contributions of $14.1 million and operations and maintenance of $900,000.
Industry Canada will continue to receive $10.1 million in 2012-13 through the federal government’s youth employment strategy in order to continue to fund youth internships. Former CAP-supported sites will continue to be eligible for this funding.

Question No. 677--
Mr. Philip Toone:
With regard to proposed changes to the Fisheries Act outlined in Bill C-38: (a) what plans does the government have for consultation with First Nations on changes to the Fisheries Act, and what are the timelines for the proposed consultations; (b) how will the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) involve First Nations in consultations on any regulations or policies that will emerge from the proposed changes; (c) what resources will be made available to First Nations to enable them to participate in the consultation process; (d) what programs will be made available to facilitate the implementation of the amended Fisheries Act, and will any of these programs be specific to First Nations or other Aboriginal peoples; (e) will changes to the Fisheries Act be retroactively applied to projects currently under environmental assessment, or currently undergoing DFO authorization processes; (f) will there be a transitional phase following the establishment of new legislation, regulations, or policies; (g) what new regulations are planned by the DFO under the framework of the proposed Fisheries Act amendments; (h) how does the DFO intend to define “third-party stakeholders” in section 4.1(1) of the proposed amended Fisheries Act; (i) how does the DFO intend to define “Aboriginal fisheries”; (j) how does the DFO intend to define “serious harm” in section 35(1); (k) how does the DFO intend to determine conditions with respect to the “quantity or concentration” of deleterious substances in s. 36; (l) how does the DFO intend to define the situations under which a Minister may require plans and specifications for activities that are likely to result in serious harm to fish; (m) how does the DFO intend to define ecologically significant areas; (n) does the DFO intend to define “food,” “social,” and “ceremonial” fisheries; (o) how will the DFO engage with the Assembly of First Nations in order to jointly communicate, interpret, and define the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act; and (p) how will the DFO engage with the Assembly of First Nations to facilitate joint dialogues with First Nations communities?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to questions (a) through (d), (g), (o) and (p), on June 29, Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, received royal assent. Amendments to the Fisheries Act were included in Bill C-38. When Bill C-38 was initially tabled in April 2012, Fisheries and Oceans Canada provided information sessions on the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act to provinces, non-governmental organizations, and aboriginal groups. During summer and fall 2012, officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada will engage with these key partners and stakeholders to develop the regulatory and policy framework to support the new and focused direction set out by the changes to the Fisheries Act.
With respect to questions (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l) (m) and (n), while some terms, such as “serious harm to fish” in section 2(2), and “Aboriginal” fisheries, in section 2(1), are already defined in the amended Fisheries Act, others, such as “ecologically significant areas”, will be defined by regulations or clarified through policies. As various sections of Bill C-38 will come into force at a later date to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, as indicated in section 156, there will be a transitional phase that will provide an opportunity for further work and engagement with key partners and stakeholders.
With respect to question (k), no changes are planned in the way quantity or concentrations are determined.

Question No. 679--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to Canada Economic Development investments in the constituency of Pontiac: (a) how much funding was allocated to the constituency of Pontiac for fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012; (b) what projects were funded; (c) how many businesses from the constituency benefited from this funding; and (d) what were the amounts granted to each project?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) and (c), the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec does not gather data by electoral district for most of its programs. The agency’s financial systems do, however, generate data by city, by municipality or by regional county municipalities, RCMs.
A total of $10,371,273 has been allocated to disclosed projects in the cities or municipalities of every RCM included, in total or in part, within the limits of the electoral district of Pontiac for the period of April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012. Note that the amounts are generally allocated to projects that go on for more than a year.
A total of 337 businesses benefited from this funding. This total includes businesses that benefited indirectly from this funding through the services provided by the project’s recipients.
In response to (b) and (d), information on the projects financed by the agency can be found on its website at http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/disclosure/grant-contribution-awards/quarters.html.

Question No. 680--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to the upcoming cuts to the public service: (a) how many public servants live in the constituency of Pontiac; (b) of this number, how many are affected by the cuts and are at risk of losing their jobs; and (c) for which departments and agencies do they work?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board Secretariat cannot produce the requested statistics by riding.

Question No. 682--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard the government’s decision to freeze assets of Ben Ali family members living in Canada: (a) on what date were assets of over $2.5 million frozen; (b) under what names were these assets listed; and (c) since March 2012, have any additional assets been frozen, and, if so, (i) what is the nature and value of the additional assets, (ii) on what date were the additional assets frozen?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has taken strong action against the former Ben Ali regime, in particular through the passage of the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act. Bill C-61, introduced on March 3, 2011, gives the government new and more robust tools in our fight against corruption and the misappropriation of state funds by repressive foreign leaders. Under the leadership of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and with the support of all opposition parties, Bill C-61 received royal assent on March 23, 2011.
In response to (a), all the assets located in Canada and belonging to the persons listed in the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials (Tunisia and Egypt) Regulations became subject to freezing on the date the regulations came into force. To this end, 49 names were listed initially on March 23, 2011 and 74 additional names were added on December 16, 2011.
In response to (b), while the government cannot disclose the ownership information for each frozen asset in Canada as these are matters under investigation, the names of the 123 persons whose assets are subject to freezing under the regulations are public and available in schedule 1 of the regulations: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2011-78/page-2.html#h-6.
In response to (c), while the government cannot disclose the details of each case when it freezes assets lest it affect the integrity of investigations, it can confirm that it has disclosed the value and nature of all property frozen to date as previously stated in response to order paper question Q-409, 41st Parliament, First Session, tabled on March 12, 2012. While no additional properties have been frozen since March 2012, the legislative regime ensures that there is an ongoing process whereby assets can be identified, frozen and further investigated. In particular, the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, FACFOA, provides that financial entities as well as Canadians in Canada and outside Canada shall determine and disclose to the RCMP the existence of property in their control and possession that they have reason to believe is the property of a politically exposed foreign person who is the subject of an order or regulation under FACFOA. As such, the legal regime is not static. Assets may be identified and frozen for as long as persons are designated under the regulations.
Items (i) and (ii) are not applicable.

Question No. 683--
Mrs. Maria Mourani:
With regard to the former military base in Saint-Hubert, including the airport: (a) did National Defence and the Canadian Forces use asbestos as insulation or for any other purpose on the former base; (b) has the asbestos been fully removed from these buildings; and (c) if not, which buildings still have asbestos?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), based on building standards of the time, the age of the buildings indicates that asbestos was used in the building construction, particularly in the plumbing for the steam heating systems. Following the relocation of personnel from Canadian Forces Base St. Hubert to Montreal in the 1990s, the Department of National Defence, DND, and the Canadian Forces, CF, disposed of several of the buildings. DND possesses the plans of the buildings still under its responsibility but these do not indicate the remaining areas where asbestos still exists. The policy at the Department of National Defence is to manage asbestos in place. Only when asbestos is disturbed by renovation, demolition or new construction does the department mitigate or remove the material. DND/CF carry out tests before work begins and, if special protection measures are required, they are applied to the letter. This procedure is designed to protect both the contractors and DND/CF employees.
In response to (b), a study is currently under way to identify the locations where contaminants exist, including asbestos, for all buildings at Montreal and St. Hubert garrisons. This study will not be completed for a few years. Pending its findings, the Department of National Defence makes it clear on tendering documents for the contractors and on its employees’ work orders that certain areas may be contaminated. If an assigned task directly concerns an area that is likely to be contaminated, the Department of National Defence requires testing to be done before work can begin.
In response to (c), we are currently awaiting the findings of the study to determine where contaminants, including asbestos, exist.

Question No. 686--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Auditor General’s Spring 2011 report pertaining to the Canadian Forces Reserve Force’s pension plan and, in particular, the time required to process pension buyback requests: (a) when will the government act on the Auditor General’s recommendations to (i) hire personnel, (ii) train personnel, to process the backlog of requests; (b) when will the government put administrative procedures in place to reduce processing time to six months or less; (c) how will the government improve communication with reservists regarding its policies on pension buyback requests; and (d) what measures are in place to ensure a straightforward and transparent policy?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a)(i) and (ii), since the audit, the Department of National Defence, DND, has obtained additional office space to allow for the hiring and training of staff who will be assigned to process these files. With this additional space, DND has doubled the number of staff processing the backlog of requests to a current staff of 73.
In response to (b), it takes approximately 100 hours to process a file if there are no delays from outside sources.
This response is based on the assumption that the question refers to the current processing time of approximately eight months after retirement for a Canadian Forces member to receive his or her first pension cheque, DND anticipates that the processing time will be reduced to six months or less by the end of fiscal year 2014-15.
It should be noted that the reduction in processingtime does not relate to putting in place administrative procedures designed to streamline the process, but rather is a function of the amount of non-automated years a member wishes to buy back. It is anticipated that by the end of fiscal year 2014-15, all the buy-back files that have service buy-back requests from the 1970s will be completed. Service buy-back requests from the 1960s have already been completed. DND is currently moving ahead to process service buy-back requests from the 1980s and onward. These files can be processed on an average of 80 hours per file instead of the current 100 hours per file for files that go back to the 1970s. As a result, there will be a corresponding reduction in the buy-back backlog that will reduce the average wait time from eight months after retirement to a projected six months, with the eventual goal of two months after retirement once the backlog is eliminated.
In response to (c), DND is moving toward a web-based system of communications. This will allow the department to provide information to its client base in a more streamlined, logical manner that directly meets the needs of the client. It will also ensure that information is both current and relevant.
In addition to the web-based system, a call centre will continue to exist. The call centre is staffed by 10 people who are currently taking upward of 36,000 calls per year.
Moreover, there are many annual stakeholder meetings across the country for the reserves that provide updates on reserve force pension policy and administrative issues, including the buy-back process.
In response to (d), the purchase of prior service is defined by the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and its accompanying regulations. The necessary process information and forms to purchase such service is available on the department's Internet and Intranet sites. As referenced above, the department is moving toward a more streamlined, logical manner of web-based communications that provides current and relevant information to its clients.
DND recognizes the implementation and administration issues included in the Auditor General's spring report and has made progress toward addressing these issues, given the plan's complexity and higher than expected take-up rate within the reserve force. The department is committed to improving and modernizing the delivery of pension benefits to reserve members and has taken a number of steps to improve the current system, including hiring more staff and keeping CF members informed of the status of their files.
Furthermore, the department is proactively informing members of the challenge in processing retirement benefit requests, and that although there might be a delay in receiving benefits, all efforts are being made to accelerate the process.

Question No. 690--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to the “Enabling Accessibility Fund – Mid-Sized Project Component”: (a) what external construction firm handled the application of the Centre Jean Bosco in Maniwaki; (b) what were the names of the experts who handled the Centre’s application; (c) what specific criteria and objectives did the Centre Jean Bosco not meet compared with others whose applications were selected; and (d) did the Centre Jean Bosco successfully pass all stages, including (i) the external construction expert stage, (ii) the internal review committee stage, (iii) the stage of acknowledgement and final decision by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Hanscomb Limited was the external subject matter expert firm that handled the Centre Jean Bosco’s application.
In response to (b), Paul Weatherby from Hanscomb Limited was the external evaluator for the Centre Jean Bosco’s application.
In response to (c), the Centre Jean Bosco met all program criteria and objectives.
In response to (d), the Centre Jean Bosco’s application underwent the following assessment process:
The application was screened for basic program eligibility requirements and for completeness. The Centre Jean Bosco’s application was complete and met the basic program eligibility, and therefore, moved on to the assessment stage of the process.
The application was assessed by program officials against program objectives and other requirements. The Centre Jean Bosco’s application met the minimum score and was sent to an external subject matter expert who specialized in construction to identify whether the costs and scope of the proposal were reasonable.
Following the results from the external evaluator’s assessment, the proposal was further reviewed by an internal review committee to verify the appropriateness of the scoring and outcomes of the overall assessment. As a result of the combination of both the internal and external assessment, the Centre Jean Bosco’s application was not one of the top ranked projects and was therefore not recommended for funding.
In response to (i), the external assessment was part of the overall assessment process for applications that met the minimum internal score; it was not a stage in itself. Applications that were assessed by the external expert firm, including Centre Jean Bosco’s application, did not pass or fail this particular aspect of the process. The outcome, rating, of the external assessment was counted as part of the final score of the project proposal.
In response to (ii), the internal review committee reviewed the scoring and outcomes of the overall assessment. As a result of the combination of both the internal and external assessment, the Centre Jean Bosco’s application was not one of the top ranked projects. Applications did not pass or fail this stage of the assessment process. They were ranked based on the result of the assessment process, and funding recommendations were made based on the project score and availability of funding.
In response to (iii), only the top ranked projects could be considered for funding based on availability of program funds. As the Centre Jean Bosco’s application was not one of the top ranked projects, it was not recommended for funding to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Question No. 694--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to government communications: (a) what was the cost of (i) producing, (ii) printing, (iii) distributing an insert concerning Old Age Security (OAS) policies, distributed with OAS cheques or stubs in the spring of 2012; (b) what was the purpose of the insert; and (c) was the distribution complete to all OAS recipients, and, if not, what was the geographical or other distribution, and how was that distribution determined?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, extraordinary efforts were made to communicate with Canadians regarding the old age security, OAS, age change given its importance. Communicating with Canadians is a fundamental responsibility of the Government of Canada.
Following the release of budget 2012, inserts to existing mail-outs and letters were sent to seniors and near seniors who will not be affected by the change to the OAS age of eligibility. The change to the age of eligibility represents a significant change to our retirement income system and needs to be well understood by all Canadians, whether they will be directly affected or not. By proactively communicating through these notices, the government wished to avoid creating needless apprehension among current OAS and Canada pension plan, CPP, recipients, as well as minimize the number of enquiries to Service Canada.
In response to (a), two main products to communicate the OAS changes were sent to seniors and near seniors following the budget 2012 announcement.
A cheque insert was sent to ensure awareness among OAS/CPP beneficiaries who receive their payment by mail that they would not be affected by the OAS age change. Inserts were printed and issued in May and June 2012, at a cost of approximately $29,900. The inserts were a low cost distribution mechanism since they were included in existing mail-outs and therefore did not result in any additional distribution costs.
In addition to the insert in the question, in order to ensure that all OAS and CPP recipients were aware of the OAS age change, a letter from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, HRSD, was sent immediately after the budget 2012 announcement to inform all OAS and CPP recipients of the increase to the age of eligibility and to reassure them that they would not be affected. Production and mailing of these letters cost $4,384,750 and was sent to over 6.3 million Canadians. Only one letter was sent to people who receive both CPP and OAS.
In response to (b), the cheque insert and the letter were produced to proactively inform OAS and CPP recipients of the increase to the OAS age of eligibility from 65 to 67, including what it could mean for them. The products also pointed them toward the www.servicecanada.gc.ca/retirement site for more information on the proposed changes.
By proactively communicating with Canadians, the government wished to avoid creating unnecessary anxiety among those not affected and minimize the number of enquiries to Service Canada.
In response to (c), the cheque insert was distributed to approximately one million OAS/CPP recipients who have opted to receive their payments by mail. The insert was sent to these individuals in both May and June with a total distribution of two million. This was sent as part of an already scheduled regular mail-out to approximately nine per cent of all OAS recipients and twelve per cent of CPP recipients.
The letter from the Minister of HRSD was sent to all OAS and CPP recipients, which is approximately 6.3 million individuals, to ensure almost 100% coverage of all current OAS and CPP recipients.
By using these two main distribution methods, the government ensured close to 100% coverage in informing seniors about the change.

Question No. 695--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC): (a) what is the nature of LAC's participation, if any, in the 2012 Canadian Library Association's conference of May 30 to June 2, 2012, in Ottawa, Ontario; (b) how many LAC (i) librarians, (ii) other staff members attended the conference; and (c) if no LAC librarians or staff attended the conference, why was this the case?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), with regard to the 2012 Canadian Library Association’s, CLA, recent annual conference in Ottawa, Library and Archives Canada, LAC, was involved as the main Government of Canada partner for the event. More specifically, the Deputy Head and Librarian and Archivist of Canada, Dr. Daniel J. Caron, was the keynote speaker at the conference’s opening session. Other LAC subject matter experts took part in the event’s broader technical program. LAC also was present at the conference trade show with its corporate kiosk. LAC also organized guided tours for CLA conference delegates who were given an opportunity to visit the Gatineau preservation centre in Gatineau, Quebec, and the nitrate film preservation facility at Shirley’s Bay, Ottawa, Ontario. In response to (b), a total of 20 LAC staff members attended the conference.
In response to (b)(i), 11 were librarians or persons employed in library science related functions by LAC.
In response to (b)(ii), nine were LAC employees whose duties are broader within the library and archival aspects of the institution’s mandate. Part (c) is not applicable.

Question No. 696--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), how many requests has LAC received from Senators, Members of Parliament, or their offices or staff representatives, since January 1, 2006, for: (a) research materials; (b) access to published library materials; and (c) access to archival materials?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the legislative provisions covering the collection and use of personal information, Library and Archives Canada does not compile data relating to the occupation of its clients. It is, therefore, impossible to respond to this question.

Question No. 698--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With respect to the negotiation of a tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement with Liechtenstein: (a) on what date did Canada enter into negotiations with Liechtenstein for this agreement; (b) what departments are responsible for negotiation and implementation of the agreement; (c) on what date will the negotiations be completed; (d) on what date will the agreement be implemented; and (e) prior to these negotiations, had the government ever approached Liechtenstein about negotiating a tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), negotiations for a tax information exchange agreement (TIEA) with Liechtenstein commenced in July 2010.
In response to (b), the Department of Finance has the lead responsibility for the negotiation of Canada’s TIEAs, in collaboration with the Canada Revenue Agency. The Department of Finance has the lead responsibility for the implementation of Canada’s TIEAs, in collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Justice.
In response to (c), negotiations are ongoing. For an update on negotiations, please visit www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/tieraaerf-eng.asp.
In response to (d), in Canada, once a TIEA is signed, it must follow the government’s policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament. Under this process, a TIEA is required to be tabled in the House of Commons for a 21 sitting day period. Since no other legislative or regulatory steps are required for Canada to meet its obligations under a TIEA, once that period is completed, Canada is in a position to notify the other state of the completion of its internal procedures for the entry into force of the TIEA. A TIEA usually enters into force when both states have sent such a notification.
In response to (e), Canada had notified Liechtenstein regarding its interest to negotiate a TIEA in 2009.

Question No. 699--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With respect to answers to written questions pertaining to possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein and Switzerland, why did provisions of the “Canada-France Income Tax Convention” preclude the government from answering written questions on the Order Paper regarding possible tax evasion in Switzerland, but the “Agreement Between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany for the Avoidance of Double taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and Certain Other Taxes, the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion and the Assistance in Tax Matters” did not prevent the government from answering identical written questions on the Order Paper regarding possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada received information from the Government of France pertaining to accounts in Switzerland through an international treaty.
The information received regarding Canadians with offshore accounts in Liechtenstein was not received through such an exchange with the Federal Republic of Germany but through an avenue outside Canada’s tax treaties and agreements.
Information is often provided to the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, from various sources on the basis that it cannot be further disclosed by the CRA. Where the CRA is at liberty to provide information, it will endeavour to do so. In other instances, it will be limited in this ability. The CRA has an obligation to follow confidentiality and privacy legislation closely.
In order to both respect confidentiality requirements and maintain harmonious international relations, the CRA must adhere to the requirements that international tax treaties and agreements impose on the disclosure of information received from Canada’s treaty partners; to do otherwise could result in negative consequences to the effective exchange of information.

Question No. 702--
Ms. Charmaine Borg:
With regard to the 700 MHz Spectrum Auction: (a) has the Minister of Industry announced his intent to set aside a portion of the auction proceeds to deliver high-speed Internet access to rural and remote regions; and (b) does the Minister have a plan to introduce measures that would provide for the health of Canadian telecommunications companies in the face of new regulations allowing foreign telecommunications companies with less than 10% of the market to enter the Canadian market for the first time?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, With regard to the 700 megahertz spectrum auction and in response to (a), proceeds from wireless spectrum auctions go to the government’s consolidated revenue fund.
The government is applying specific measures, rollout requirements, in the 700 megahertz spectrum auction to see that Canadians in rural areas have access to the same advanced wireless services as everyone else in a timely manner.
The government relies primarily on market forces to extend broadband Internet access to Canadians. The private sector continues to invest to expand and increase the speeds of broadband networks, with $8.4 billion in capital expenditures in 2010. In areas where there has not been a business case for the private sector to deliver broadband Internet services on its own, the approach has been to use targeted initiatives to extend broadband to unserved areas. For instance, the broadband Canada program, BCP, contributed significant investments to projects to expand broadband service to nearly 220,000 unserved and underserved households. BCP projects are expected to be completed in the summer of 2012.
In response to (b), the government is reforming foreign investment restrictions in the telecommunications sector in order to provide greater access to capital and expertise for the companies that need it the most. This is especially the case for new wireless companies that are providing more choices to Canadian families and businesses. This reform is one component of the government’s actions to sustain competition and strong investment in this sector, and the availability of the latest telecommunications technologies for all Canadians.
The three largest telecommunications firms that control more than 90% of the telecommunications sector will still be required to be Canadian controlled.

Question No. 704--
Ms. Mylène Freeman:
With regard to the Maurice Lamontagne Institute: (a) how many jobs will be eliminated as a result of the recent budget cuts; (b) how much severance will the affected employees receive; (c) which departments did these employees work for; (d) how many employees will be transferred to another part of the country as a result of the recent budget cuts; (e) where will those employees be transferred to; (f) how much will the transferred employees receive in moving and other allowances; (g) what departments were these employees part of; (h) when was the Institute’s work last evaluated or reviewed; and (i) what was the outcome of the evaluation or review?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, until departmental managers have had a chance to complete their review of the budget 2012 measures and consider the results on their programs, it is undetermined how many employees will receive surplus and opting letters. The department’s goal is to address reductions to the greatest extent possible through attrition, deployment, planned retirement and other staffing mechanisms.
In response to (b), Fisheries and Oceans Canada will ensure that workforce adjustment provisions and relevant collective agreements are respected. .
In response to (c) and (g), these employees at Maurice Lamontagne Institute work for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
In response to (d), until managers have had a chance to complete their review of the measures and consider the results on their programs, it is unclear how many employees will receive surplus and opting letters. Further, it is not known whether employees from the Maurice Lamontagne Institute will need to be relocated.
In response to (e), as described above in the response to (d), decisions about relocating employees have not been made.
In response to (f), Fisheries and Oceans Canada will ensure that the Treasury Board Secretariat travel policies and National Joint Council Relocation Directive are respected.
In response to (h) and (i), the Office of the Auditor General and the department’s evaluation directorate conduct evaluations of departmental programs. However, the institute’s work is not evaluated on its own, as it supports various departmental programs.
The Office of the Auditor General of Canada produces a variety of reports and publications on behalf of the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. For more information, please see the Office of the Auditor General website http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/rp_fs_e_44.html. Similarly, the department publishes audit and evaluation reports on the department’s website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/evaluations-eng.htm.

Question No. 707--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to the Department of National Defence's preparation for the Auditor General of Canada's 2012 Spring Report: (a) how many meetings were held on the issue of the F-35s; and (b) who attended these meetings and what are their (i) titles, (ii) responsibilities?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces searched calendar records of the deputy minister, associate deputy minister, and group principals responsible for aspects of the F-35 file and included information in this response based on those records. Records were searched from the time that the contents of the Auditor General’s chapter 2 on the CF-18 replacement was provided to the department for comment to the date that the Auditor General’s spring 2012 report was tabled on April 3, 2012. Records for approximately 67 meetings held on the F-35 were found.
In response to (b), no attendance was taken at these meetings.

Question No. 710--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ consolidation of six financial support offices to Fredericton, New Brunswick: (a) in what specific communities or cities are the six offices presently located; (b) when was the final decision to move the six offices made; (c) what was the specific rationale for each individual office’s consolidation to Fredericton; (d) for each individual office, how much will it cost to consolidate to Fredericton; (e) for each individual office, what is the nature of the projected costs as identified in (d); (f) what specific costs versus savings led to the determination that $2 million would be saved; (g) what type of assessment was done when deciding on the closures; (h) what consultations were held with the communities or offices affected; (i) what analysis was done of the impact this consolidation would have on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; (j) what is the impact on the regions affected; (k) how many jobs will be lost as a result of the consolidation; (l) what are the jobs that will be lost as a result of the consolidation; (m) what is the specific location of each job loss; (n) what are the jobs that will be moved out of each specific office; (o) how many current employees are expected to move to Fredericton; (p) how was Fredericton chosen to be the location of the consolidation; and (q) what are the file numbers and titles of any files associated with the consolidation?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the department currently provides internal financial services from the national headquarters, based in Ottawa, and six regions including Newfoundland and Labrador, Maritimes, Gulf, Quebec, Central and Arctic, and Pacific Region. These regions have financial services employees in the following cities: St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; Moncton, New Brunswick; Mont-Joli, Quebec; Québec, Quebec; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Burlington, Ontario; Parry Sound, Ontario; Prescott, Ontario; Ottawa, Ontario; Sarnia, Ontario; Vancouver, British Columbia; Victoria, British Columbia; and Kamloops, British Columbia.
In response to (b), the decision was part of Budget 2012.
In response to (c), as part of the government’s commitment to reducing spending, the consolidation of internal financial services will be streamlining back-office services into one location.
In response to (d), (e), (f), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o), until departmental managers have had a chance to complete their review of the measures and consider the results on their programs, the department is unable to provide this information. The department’s goal is to address reductions to the greatest extent possible through attrition, deployment, planned retirement, and other staffing mechanisms.
In response to (g), (h), and (i), assessments were performed to streamline back-office services to ensure efficiency and consistency of business processes. Consultations were held with the management team of the department which includes representation of the department in offices affected.
In response to (p), the location was selected with the following considerations: proximity to provincial government which could serve as a potential pool of qualified candidates; and a sufficient pool of bilingual workers.
In response to (q), this initiative is referred to as the Consolidation of Internal Financial and Administrative Services

Question No. 711--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) what programs and services are operated by the department, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to present; (b) for each program and service identified in (a), what is the total budget allotted; (c) for each program identified in (a), what is (i) the number of applications received, (ii) the number of applications rejected, (iii) the number of applications accepted, (iv) the rationale for the decision to accept or reject each application; (d) for all applications identified in (c)(iii), what is the amount of funding granted and which services were offered to the applicant; (e) for each program and service identified in (a), what is the province or region affected; and (f) what is the current status of each of the programs identified in (a)?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this is a complex request and the time needed to respond would entail research and analysis in the department’s grants and contributions information management system, as well as in its financial system. The report produced would contain approximately 2,300 pages, and certain pages would require translation. We estimate that this request would require the services of four resource persons from both financial services and informatics services, for a total of eight weeks of full-time work, 300 hours, or $11,940 in salary.
Information on grants and contributions greater than $25,000, awarded from January 1, 2006 onwards, is posted on the departmental website at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/dp-pd/sc-gc/index-eng.cfm Information on Canadian Heritage programs and services can be found on the department’s website at http://www.pch.gc.ca

Question No. 712--
Hon. John McCallum:
With respect to the government’s Strategic and Operating Review what, including detailed citations or references, is every rule, regulation, law, standing order or provision of a collective bargaining agreement that prevents the disclosure of the details of the Review?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government will use existing reporting mechanisms to report on both planned and actual savings at a whole-of-government and departmental level.
At the whole-of-government level, this includes information released through the budget, the estimates, and financial results released in the monthly Fiscal Monitor and the Public Accounts of Canada.
At the departmental level, the suite of reports includes planning information contained in the reports on plans and priorities, and actual expenditure information contained in the departmental performance reports and the quarterly financial reports.

Question No. 715--
Mr. Alex Atamanenko:
With regard to the government's review and analysis of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa: (a) what studies has the government undertaken or reviewed pertaining to the potential economic impact of the introduction of GE alfalfa in Canada; (b) what actions has the government taken as a result of these findings; and (c) is the government assessing whether to carry out a comprehensive study of the potential economic impacts of GE alfalfa on Canada's various agricultural and food sectors?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Canada has one of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory systems in the world, in which safety is the number one priority. This extends to crops or foods that are modified or contain genetic modification—all of which must undergo a comprehensive, science-based approval process involving both Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA. Canada’s regulatory system for products of agricultural biotechnology is designed so that every possible precaution is taken. The safety of new products is carefully and cautiously assessed before these products can be cultivated by a grower, used in livestock feed, or made available to the consumer.
Genetically engineered, GE, Roundup Ready®, RR, alfalfa received food, feed, and environmental safety authorizations in 2005. However, other regulatory steps would be required before RR alfalfa could be fully commercialized in Canada. For example, all new varieties of alfalfa are subject to variety registration. To date, no variety of RR alfalfa has been registered in Canada.
Socio-economic factors, such as the potential market impacts of the introduction of these technologies, are not taken into account during the regulatory decision-making process. Once a GE crop has been approved for environmental release and other appropriate regulatory approvals are in place, it is considered to be like any other commodity crop.
In response to (b), as noted above, socio-economic factors, such as the potential market impacts of the introduction of these technologies, are not taken into account during the regulatory decision-making process. The government is committed to maintaining our rigorous, science-based assessment process to protect human and animal health and the environment while benefiting from the advances brought by these technologies.
In response to (c), the government is aware of and responsive to concerns expressed by various industry groups about market impacts should RR alfalfa be commercialized in Canada, and has provided support to the industry to help assess potential market impacts. For instance, in 2011, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provided funding through its Canadian agricultural adaptation program for a study entitled “Assessing the Potential Impact of Roundup Ready Alfalfa on Canada’s Forage Industry”. The study, commissioned by the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association, CFGA, in partnership with the Saskatchewan Forage Council, undertook an unbiased, fact-based assessment of the emerging issue of RR alfalfa. The intent of the report is to encourage dialogue concerning GE technologies in forages. The final report on this study was published on June 13, 2012, and is available on the CFGA website at http://www.canadianfga.ca/research-projects/completed-projects/.
The government is also dedicated to developing markets, and recognizes that co-operation throughout the value chain is a critical aspect of protecting markets. Commodity groups such as those representing canola and soybean have enjoyed tremendous success by working collaboratively, from product developer, to grower, to seed supplier, to grain handler, toward ensuring that segregation strategies are in place or importing markets are secured before seeking approvals for any new technology.
Further, the government provides support to a series of industry-led, value chain round tables, VCRTs, to enhance Canadian competitiveness and profitability. The VCRTs are sector-specific and bring together industry representatives from across the value chain—from input suppliers, producers, and processors to retailers and traders—with federal and provincial government decision makers. The VCRTs focus on the individual needs of each value chain and are an important mechanism to share information, identify sector strengths and weaknesses, identify current and future requirements for the sector, and co-operate on long-term strategies.
The Government of Canada believes that industry is best positioned to understand and respond to market demands and opportunities. Members of various value chains, including those representing organics, seeds, and grains, are encouraged to engage in active dialogue to establish the best path forward for the commercialization of RR alfalfa.

Question No. 716--
Mr. Alex Atamanenko:
With regard to the government's approval and analysis of the safety of genetically engineered corn for human consumption: (a) how does the government’s policy address the need to restrict the use of genetically engineered (GE) traits to non-sweetcorn varieties and/or request a new data package submission in order to evaluate the safety of GE traits in sweetcorn, given the fact that GE traits were initially approved for use in corn before GE sweetcorn varieties were commercialized, and based on assumptions of consumption patterns dominated by processed corn products and animal feed, versus consumption of sweetcorn as a fresh vegetable; (b) what studies or analysis has the government undertaken or reviewed pertaining to the question of human health effects from eating GE sweetcorn; and (c) will the government carry out a re-evaluation of GE traits for use in sweetcorn?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. To this end, Canada has one of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory systems in the world. Under the Food and Drugs Act, Health Canada is responsible for provisions related to public health, food safety, and nutrition. This includes the establishment of science-based policies and standards to ensure that all foods, including genetically modified, GM, or genetically engineered, foods are safe and nutritious. The Novel Foods Regulations require that notification be made to Health Canada by the company wanting to sell a novel food product, including food that is genetically modified or genetically engineered, prior to its marketing or advertising. This pre-market notification ensures that the safety of each novel food is assessed and verified before it can enter the Canadian marketplace.
GM foods are only approved after Health Canada’s scientists are satisfied that the data provided by the applicant addresses all health and safety concerns and meets regulatory requirements. The safety assessment includes exposure estimates based on consumption of all food products derived from the GM variety. In the case of GM corn, this includes normal routes of exposure such as direct consumption of kernels. Should evaluators determine that the data is not sufficient, additional information and/or testing would be requested from the applicant in order to fully demonstrate the safety of the product. Only when all the scientists evaluating the GM food product agree that there are no safety concerns would the food be permitted in the Canadian marketplace. To date, all GM foods that have been approved in Canada, including all of the approved GM corn varieties, were found to be as safe and as nutritious as their non-modified counterparts.
The specific criteria for the safety assessment of such foods are outlined in the Health Canada publication Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. These guidelines are based upon scientific principles developed through expert international consultation with agencies such as the World Health Organization, WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , OECD. This approach is also consistent with other regulatory agencies around the world including those of members of the European Union, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, and the United States.
It should be noted that sweet corn is from the same species as field corn, i.e., Zea mays. It only differs from field corn in that it has been bred to contain higher sugar content. Field corn, which usually undergoes processing prior to consumption, e.g., manufacturing of cornstarch, constitutes the majority of GM corn varieties approved in Canada. However, once a GM corn line has been approved in Canada, plant breeders may use the GM line in their breeding programs. Therefore, it is not unusual to transfer traits from field corn to sweet corn, given that they are the same species. However, if a “new” novel trait is introduced when an approved GM corn is bred with other corn varieties, including sweet corn, the developer is required to contact Health Canada; in other words, when the crossbreeding results in changes to characteristics that fall well outside the agronomic, nutritional, and compositional range expected for that variety. The onus is on the developer to ensure that no novel traits have been introduced into the plant, and to notify Health Canada in the event that a novel trait is produced as a result of their breeding programs. If such a trait were found, the new variety would need to undergo the pre-market assessment process as described above. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency ensures compliance with the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations including that only those foods, in this case, derived from GM crops, that satisfy the requirements of Division 28 of the Food and Drug Regulations, i.e., approved by Health Canada, are available for sale in Canada.
Health Canada takes any new information related to regulated products very seriously. Scientists in the department are continually reviewing published studies to ensure the continued safety of the Canadian public. The decisions that the government has taken to date have stood the test of time. Since these products were introduced on the Canadian market, over 18 years ago, there has been no evidence which has necessitated a change. Please be assured that should Health Canada review any study or become aware of any information that demonstrates a health or safety concern with these products, we would take immediate action to ensure the safety of the Canadian food supply, including revocation of Health Canada’s approval should the scientific evidence support such a decision.

Question No. 718--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the government’s policy on seeking clemency for Canadians sentenced to death abroad: (a) under what circumstances will the government seek clemency; (b) when was the current policy adopted; (c) who proposed the current policy; and (d) how was it adopted?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), a Canadian citizen facing the prospect of the death penalty (or an authorized representative acting on his/her behalf) may apply to the Government of Canada for clemency intervention. Requests for clemency are assessed on a case-by-case basis using criteria based on Canadian values and international standards. A non-exhaustive list of criteria that may be taken into consideration is posted on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website: http://www.voyage.gc.ca/documents/clemency_clemence-eng.asp.
In response to (b), (c), and (d), as has been previously reported, the Government of Canada adopted the current clemency policy and it was applied as of July 2009.

Question No. 721--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the closing of Kingston Penitentiary, the Regional Treatment Centre and the Leclerc Institution, for each of these three facilities: (a) what is the estimated total savings in annual costs that occur as a result of the closure; (b) what methodology was used to arrive at the figure in (a); (c) what input data was used to arrive at the figure in (a); (d) how was this data collected; (e) what are the estimated costs for transferring the inmates to other facilities; (f) what are the estimated costs for transferring employees from the above institutions to new institutions, including but not limited to annualised capital costs of construction, staffing costs and operation and maintenance costs; (g) for those employees who will not be transferred, what if any retirement initiatives will be offered and what is the total estimated costs of these initiatives; (h) what are all the total estimated costs of incarcerating the inmates at other facilities who would have been held at each of the three facilities slated for closure; and (i) what are the true net savings to the government once the total costs of holding the inmates at other facilities are taken into account?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the closures of Kingston Penitentiary, including the Regional Treatment Centre, in Kingston, Ontario and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec will result in an overall cost savings of approximately $120 million per year.
In response to (b), (c), and (d), the closures of two federal prisons, Kingston Penitentiary, including the Regional Treatment Centre, in Kingston, Ontario and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec will result in an overall cost savings of approximately $120 million. More precisely, Correctional Service of Canada’s, CSC, budget will be $120 million less at the end of implementation. This reflects the savings from salaries, operating, and maintenance, as well as savings realized from the addition of new cells.
In response to (e) and (h), CSC has a comprehensive plan to safely move offenders impacted by these closures to other institutions. Many institutions in the Ontario Region are undergoing infrastructure expansions to better manage the complex and diverse offender population.
Maximum-security inmates will remain maximum-security inmates and be placed in appropriate facilities at this level. The same will apply for medium-security inmates. The Ontario Region’s Assessment Unit will be moved out of Millhaven Institution, thereby increasing the maximum-security capacity of this institution. Maximum-security inmates will be transferred either to Millhaven Institution or to a new maximum-security unit at Collins Bay Institution. Medium-security inmates currently incarcerated at the Regional Treatment Centre will be transferred to Bath Institution, a medium-security institution located on the same penitentiary property as Millhaven Institution. A new medium security unit is being built within the perimeter of Bath Institution (capacity 96 cells).
Where appropriate, CSC may consider voluntary transfers of offenders to other regions.
For security reasons, CSC cannot divulge details relating to a specific offender’s movement. The transfer of these offenders will be done with the utmost consideration for the safety and security of the community. CSC is unable to comment on any associated costs during the transition leading to the closures of the institutions.
In response to (f), these initiatives will result in approximately 1,000 full-time employees being affected within Ontario and Quebec. However, the majority of affected staff will be redeployed to other facilities. Employees whose jobs are affected will be treated with fairness and respect, and in accordance with workforce adjustment agreements that have been negotiated with public sector unions. Pursuant to obligations under the Work Force Adjustment Directive, CSC is committed to maximizing employment opportunities for indeterminate employees affected by workforce adjustment situations.
CSC has a comprehensive plan to accommodate staff impacted by these closures to other institutions. However, during the transition leading to the closures of the institutions, CSC is unable to comment on the related estimated costs.
In response to (g), in July 2012, affected CX staff were met by CSC management and a union representative in order to select a location to be deployed to from the national vacancy list. Affected CX employees who intend to retire on or before October 31, 2013, and provide written confirmation of same will not be required to select a position from the vacancy list.
There will not be any incentives/options for retirement. CSC is dealing with each union individually.
In response to (i), CSC’s budget will be net $120 million less at the end of the implementation of this reduction.

Question No. 723--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the Department of National Defence, how many reports were sent to the Minister and Associate Minister regarding the cost of the F-35 fighter jet and what are the names of those reports?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there have been two reports sent to the Minister of National Defence and/or the Associate Minister of National Defence regarding the cost of the F-35.
The titles of these documents are as follows: 2012 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

Question No. 725--
Hon. Gerry Byrne :
With regard to the Minister of National Defence, not including any activity that would be considered a cabinet confidence, since January 1, 2012: (a) what is the date, time, location and nature of all government business conducted by the Minister; (b) what means of transportation did the Minister use the attend each event; and (c) who accompanied the Minister to each event?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed a Federal Court decision concluding that a minister, unlike a public servant or Canadian Forces member, is not an officer of a government institution for the purposes of paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act. See Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2011 SCC 25, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 306. As a result, information about the Minister of National Defence that appears on his agenda is considered personal information and is protected by section 19 of the Access to Information Act.
However, much information regarding government business conducted by the Minister of National Defence is made publicly available on the departmental website. News releases, media advisories, and statements can be found at the following web link: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp.
Information falling under the proactive disclosure policy relating to travel and hospitality expenses of the Minister of National Defence and those travelling with him, including the Associate Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, ministerial exempt staff, and senior-level employees at the deputy minister, chief of the defence staff, assistant deputy minister, and equivalent levels, is also in the public domain and can be accessed at the following link: www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/pd-dp/index-eng.asp.

Question No. 727--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the Minister of National Defence, how many Blackberrys have been issued to him since August 14, 2007?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has not issued any BlackBerrys to the Minister of National Defence since August 14, 2007.

Question No. 728--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to weapons-grade uranium (WGU), since February 6, 2006, to what countries has the government authorized the export of WGU and what quantities have been exported to each country?
Response
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, highly enriched uranium, HEU, is uranium enriched beyond 20% in the isotope uranium-235. HEU is only considered weapons-grade uranium when it has been enriched to 90% or above in the isotope U 235.
Canada does not produce HEU. Rather, it is imported for specialized civilian nuclear use and may be returned to its country of origin or exported in very small quantities. In keeping with Canadian nuclear non proliferation policy, these exports are solely for peaceful, non-explosive purposes. Canadian imports and exports of HEU have been for civilian use and have not been associated with a weapons program.
Since February 6, 2006, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has authorized the export of 50.4 kilograms of HEU. Only two countries were the recipients of this material: the United States of America and Austria, the location of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, headquarters. The exact cumulative quantities sent to each country between February 6, 2006, and May 31, 2012, are as follows:
A total of 50.34 kilograms was sent to the U.S.A.: 4.33 kilograms contained within a spent fuel assembly from the McMaster University Research Reactor and the decommissioning of the Dalhousie University SLOWPOKE reactor were being returned for storage and surveillance;46.0 kilograms of U.S.A. origin HEU were being repatriated as part of the global threat reduction initiative, originally imported to Canada for use in research reactor fuel assemblies; and 0.013 kilograms contained within fission chambers were sent for repair to the U.S.A.
A total of 0.064 kilograms was sent to Austria, IAEA: 0.0023 kilograms HEU contained within a fission chamber was being returned to Vienna following its use by IAEA inspectors in their safeguards program for Candu reactors; and 0.062 kilograms were sent as small samples selected by IAEA inspectors for verification and analysis following inspections of Canadian nuclear reactor facilities.

Question No. 733--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what is the current expenditure for wild Atlantic salmon in the categories of (i) management, (ii) research/assessment, (iii) enhancement/habitat, (iv) enforcement; (b) what is the detailed and complete breakdown of the $12 million noted in the Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Policy; and (c) what are the current expenditures for Atlantic salmon aquaculture, broken down for the east coast, Ottawa headquarters, and the west coast?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a)(i), fisheries management, $931, 500 per year. This does not include figures for Quebec.
In response to (ii), the following numbers are estimates for fiscal year 2011-12, given that the department’s funding is often based on broader, horizontal programs rather than individual species, such as Atlantic salmon: $4,547,000 for research and assessment; $1,167,000 for species at risk.
In response to (iii), the habitat program is not managed on a species-by-species basis. Consequently, it is impossible for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to provide the current expenditures specific to wild Atlantic salmon (a)(iii) enhancement/habitat. The program does operate in all four Atlantic provinces and Quebec, where wild Atlantic salmon are found, and does carry on work to protect and conserve this species, along with other species of importance.
In response to (iv), $5.7 million.
In response to (b), note that these figures were provided as working estimates during development of the policy and should not be considered complete or accurate. For fiscal year 2004-05, these are estimates of spending by DFO and do not include any provincial spending: management, $200,200; international, $198,100; research/assessment, including habitat science, $6,216,200; enhancement/habitat, $804,700; enforcement, $3,177,700; aboriginal fisheries, $684,000; species at risk office, $7,400; real property, $1,186,000. The total is $12,474,300.
In response to (c), the department's financial tracking does not allow for species specific recording of aquaculture funding.

Question No. 736--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the snowmobile protests that took place in Terra Nova National Park between January 2010 and December 2011 and all events and circumstances related to these protests, what are the details of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, or other written material pertaining to these events?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, a breakdown of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, and other written material pertaining to the snowmobile protests that took place in Terra Nova National Park between January 2010 and December 2011 is as follows: 10 briefing notes, 218 emails, 20 internal action plans, 2 internal recommendations, 22 ministerial correspondence, 1 letter, and 12 other written material.

Question No. 743--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to Status of Women Canada: (a) in the recent federal budget, were there cuts to Status of Women Canada and, if so, did those cuts affect the Women’s Program in terms of personnel or funding for projects; (b) are the PDF files of the reports of completed Women’s Program projects still available on Status of Women Canada website and, if so, where are they, (i) if they are not available, why not; and (c) are the summaries of the results of the current and past Women’s Program competitions still available on the Status of Women Canada website and, if not, why, (i) if yes, where are they?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), no cuts were made to Status of Women Canada as a result of the recent federal budget.
In response to (b), PDF files of final reports of completed women’s program projects have never been posted on the Status of Women Canada website.
In response to (c), results of women’s program calls for proposals are posted on the Status of Women Canada website as they become available either through news releases or through proactive disclosure of grant and contribution awards.

Question No. 744--
Mr. Philip Toone:
With regard to the closure of and budget cuts at Fisheries and Oceans laboratories in Sidney, British Columbia; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Burlington, Ontario; Mont-Joli, Québec; Moncton, New Brunswick; and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: (a) how many full-time, part-time and contract jobs were lost as a result of these closures and cuts, broken down by laboratory; (b) how much is being saved as a result of these closures and cuts, broken down by laboratory; (c) will the jobs referred to in (a) be transferred elsewhere in Canada; (d) what research will stop as a result of these closures and cuts; (e) will the laboratories’ chemical pollution monitoring and research activities be carried out elsewhere in Canada, (i) if so, by which organizations and how much funding will those organizations receive, (ii) if not, what is the rationale for ending those activities; and (f) will research in ecotoxicology and environmental chemistry be carried out elsewhere in Canada following these closures and cuts, (i) if so, by which organizations and how much funding will those organizations receive, (ii) if not, what is the rationale for ending those activities?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), managers are continuing to analyze the results of the measures on their programs, including the human resource impacts. As a result, it is not yet clear exactly how many employees will receive surplus and opting letters. It remains the Department’s goal to address reductions to the greatest extent possible through attrition, deployment, planned retirement and other staffing mechanisms.
With regard to (b), the forecasted savings for Fisheries and Oceans Canada as a result of the strategic and operating review are approximately $79.3 million by 2014-15.
With regard to (c), in lieu of in-house research on the biological effects of contaminants, the department will establish an advisory group to ensure departmental priorities are met. The five-member advisory group will be located regionally, with three advisors in Winnipeg, Manitoba, one advisor on the east coast, and one advisor on the west coast.
With regard to (d), in lieu of in-house research on the biological effects of contaminants, the department will establish an advisory group.
With regard to (e) and (f)(i), the newly established advisory group will manage a research fund of close to $1.4 million to obtain scientific information from academia and independent facilities on the biological effects of contaminants.
The advisory group will begin undertaking its functions over the course of this fiscal year. In the months ahead, advisory group members will begin engaging experts from the academic community and other independent facilities.

Question No. 747--
Ms. Annick Papillon:
With regard to the anticipated one-time costs of closing the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in Quebec City (MRSC Quebec), and the merger of MRSC Quebec with the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax (JRCC Halifax) and the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Trenton (JRCC Trenton), what is the total cost of: (a) merging MRSC Quebec with JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (b) the new training that will be given at JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton, including language training and the overtime required to replace employees taking training; (c) moving to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (d) the necessary upgrades to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (e) payments to employees who decide to leave the public service because of the merger; (f) hiring employees to offer the services once provided by MRSC Quebec; (g) moving employees and project managers between JRCC Halifax, JRCC Trenton, MRSC Quebec and Ottawa as a result of the merger; (h) managing projects, including the replacement of the Regional Superintendant, Search and Rescue, to oversee the logistics of the merger; and (i) other requirements related to work force adjustment, such as making reasonable job offers to affected employees?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the consolidation and closure of both marine rescue sub-centres, MRSCs, in St. John’s and Quebec is being administered as one project. MRSC St. John's was safely and successfully consolidated and closed on April 25, 2012. An approximate one-time cost of $735,000 was expended in fiscal year 2011-12 in support of the consolidation of MRSCs St. John's and Quebec into joint rescue coordination centres, JRCCs, Halifax and Trenton. The Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, is working closely with the Canadian Forces, CF, on the consolidation of MRSC Quebec into JRCCs Halifax and Trenton. The total cost for MRSC Quebec is not available at this time, as the consolidation process is still under way.
In response to (b), to date, most of the technical training at JRCC Halifax has been completed. The amount and type of training required at JRCC Trenton is being finalized. Total costs are not available at this time.
In response to (c) and (g), there has been one employee relocation associated with the MRSCs’ consolidation. The approximate cost for this move from CCG search and rescue, SAR, station Tobermory, Ontario, to JRCC Halifax is $12,000, with additional estimated expenses of $15,000. There have been no moving costs to date associated with JRCC Trenton. Approximately $21,000 in travel costs have been expended in support of the MRSC Quebec component of this consolidation.
In response to (d), the renovation of JRCC Halifax was planned and funded prior to the announcement on the consolidation of MRSCs St. John’s and Quebec. The only incremental upgrade cost was $151,000 for the installation of telecommunications equipment. No further upgrade costs are planned for JRCC Halifax at this time, as the facility meets all requirements to assume the workload of MRSC Quebec. CCG continues to work with the CF to identify and finalize upgrade costs associated with JRCC Trenton. Total costs are not available at this time.
In response to (e), no employee has opted to depart the public service as a result of this consolidation.
In response to (f), new JRCC Halifax employees currently provide services to the former area of responsibility of MRSC St. John's and, later in the year, to the area of responsibility of the eastern portion of MRSC Quebec, Gulf of St Lawrence, as consolidation progresses. In further support of the MRSC Quebec consolidation, additional employees will be hired at JRCC Trenton. The total cost of this hiring is not available at this time.
In response to (h), most project management has and continues to be done in-house using existing personnel. Correspondingly, project management costs to-date have been minimal. In FY 2011-12 approximately $250,000 of the total project cost of $735,000, which includes travel, meeting and administrative expenses, and salary expenses for project management work, is linked to project management.
In response to (i), work force adjustment costs are not available at this time. The CCG is working with affected employees at MRSC Quebec to determine a career plan for each employee.

Question No. 750--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Police Officers Recruitment Fund’s purpose to recruit 2,500 officers across the country: (a) how many police officers were hired in each province and territory as a result of the fund; (b) how many of those officers are still in active service on the streets, and where; (c) how much money remains in the fund; and (d) when will the government renew the fund?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, budget 2008 set aside a one-time allocation of $400 million, allocated on a per capita basis and over five years, for the creation of the police officer recruitment fund to assist provinces and territories to recruit additional front-line police officers. All provinces and territories participated in the initiative.
The funds were structured in such a way as to give provinces and territories flexibility to use the funding to address their unique public safety priorities and policing needs, while at the same time respecting provincial jurisdiction for policing. Provinces and territories are responsible for accessing and allocating their portions of the funding to meet their public safety priorities. It is important to note that $400 million represents a significant contribution to policing costs incurred by the provinces and territories for an area of jurisdiction in which they have responsibility.
Thus far, the police officer recruitment fund has contributed to increasing the number of police officers across Canada by more than 2,000 since just 2009.

Question No. 758--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the decision to terminate the Office of the Inspector General of Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in Bill C-38: (a) when was the decision made; (b) who was consulted on the decision; (c) what provision has the government made to ensure that the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) will be able to replace all the functions of CSIS; (d) what provisions have been made to give SIRC the same investigatory powers that the Inspector General formerly had; (e) what plans has the government made to ensure that SIRC is able carry out these functions, in addition to its other responsibilities, despite a budget cut of $800,000?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Parliament voted to pass Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, on June 29, 2012. Upon royal assent, the Office of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s, IG-CSIS, core oversight responsibilities were transferred to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC.
With regard to (b), the House of Commons debated Bill C-38 at length, and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance held 13 meetings on the budget bill. The Senate also debated Bill C-38 at length, and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance held 20 meetings, including a pre-study, on the budget bill.
With regard to (c), the government has expanded SIRC’s legislative mandate to include producing an annual certificate to the Minister of Public Safety on the CSIS director’s annual classified report to the Minister of Public Safety, which was formerly the key function of the IG-CSIS. This legislative change ensures that SIRC will have the authority to examine the CSIS director’s report. Like the IG formerly, in its certificate SIRC will state the extent to which it is satisfied with the director’s report, as well as whether in its opinion any activities described in the report may not have been authorized under the CSIS Act, contravened ministerial direction, or were unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, per subsection 38(2) of the amended CSIS Act.
SIRC already effectively has the IG-CSIS’ other functions, namely monitoring CSIS’ compliance with its operational policies and reviewing its operational activities, per sections 38 and 40 of the CSIS Act.
With regard to (d), SIRC has the same investigatory powers as the IG-CSIS had. Both have the power to access any information in CSIS’ control, with the sole exception of cabinet confidences, per sections 31 and 39 of the CSIS Act. Bill C-38 does not alter SIRC’s investigatory powers in any respect.
Like the IG-CSIS has done, SIRC uses these investigatory powers to review the compliance of CSIS activities with the CSIS Act and with regulations and directions issued by the Minister of Public Safety.
With regard to (e), SIRC will receive additional resources to ensure it has the capacity to fulfill its new responsibilities. The decision, as approved by Parliament, will result in a net savings of approximately $785,000.

Question No. 762--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the National Capital Commission (NCC): (a) what was the original timeline or schedule for its Interprovincial Transit Strategy; (b) was each proposed milestone in that timeline or schedule met; (c) if not, what was the reason for the delay; (d) what is the currently anticipated release date for the final report; and (e) what steps will the NCC take to follow up on the conclusions or recommendations of that report?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the interprovincial transit strategy is a collaborative effort led by its study partners, the National Capital Commission, NCC; the Société de transport de l’Outaouais, STO; and the City of Ottawa as funders, with the participation of the Ville de Gatineau. The study will propose a vision to achieve sustainable, seamless and interconnected transit serving the Ottawa and Gatineau downtowns, supported by specific steps for how the partners could work collaboratively with wise investments in the near and long terms.
In response to (a), the study consists of a number of stages and milestones that included the following: study initiation, analysis of needs and opportunities, development of strategic pillars, selecting modeling method, and identification of scenarios. These milestones were interspersed with several stakeholder and public consultations and focus group sessions.
The joint study was initiated in spring 2009. The original timelines were these: phase I, April/May 2009, the benefits and challenges of interprovincial transit; phase II, June/August 2009, the process for selection of a solution; phase III, February 2010, confirmation and prioritization; and phase IV, June/July 2010, progressing the strategy
In response to (b) and (c), the screening and evaluation of scenarios required more time and attention than anticipated, in response to requests by stakeholders for a broader spectrum of scenarios for medaling and detail consideration. This has required prolonged review and meticulous consideration by the study partners.
In response to (d), a final draft of the strategy report is currently being reviewed by the study partners, and is anticipated to be released in fall 2012.
In response to (e), the partners acknowledge the importance of the study as a blueprint for ongoing dialogue, collaboration and cooperation on interprovincial transit planning and service delivery that aims to increase ridership, reduce downtown congestion and cut emissions. Some of the study recommendations will require joint action over the coming years while others will need to be taken forward by each authority over different times.

Question No. 764--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what is the rationale for the closure or anticipated closure of the Marine Communications and Traffic Centres in (i) St. Anthony, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, (iii) Saint John, New Brunswick, (iv) Rivière-au-Renard, Quebec, (v) Montreal, Quebec, (vi) Thunder Bay, Ontario, (vii) Vancouver, British Columbia, (viii) Tofino, British Columbia, (ix) Comox, British Columbia, (x) Inuvik, Northwest Territories; (b) what is the rationale for the closure or anticipated closure of the Marine Rescue Centres in (i) St. John’s, Newfoundland, (ii) Quebec City, Quebec; (c) what is the rationale for the closure or anticipated closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard base; (d) what evaluations, studies, or assessments were made or conducted, and used to inform the decision with respect to the closure of each of those named facilities; and (e) what are the dates and file numbers of those evaluations, studies or assessments?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, consolidated 43 marine communications and traffic services, MCTS, centres into 22 centres between 1994 and 1999, and continued to provide the same high level of safety and traffic services. Building on its past consolidation success, CCG is consolidating 22 existing centres into 12 centres across the country. The consolidated centres will be equipped with state-of-the-art technology to maximize the efficiency of operations.
With regard to (b), the marine rescue sub-centres, MRSCs, are being consolidated into the JRCCs in Halifax and Trenton with no impact on service standards or public safety. The decision to consolidate the MRSCs located in St. John’s and Quebec City with the joint rescue coordination centres, JRCCs, located in Halifax and Trenton will facilitate incident response coordination by co-locating both air and maritime personnel in a single rescue centre. Co-location will provide for closer communication between CCG and Canadian Forces personnel. As of April 25, 2012, maritime search and rescue coordination responsibilities of MRSC St. John’s were successfully assumed by JRCC Halifax, and Canadians continue to receive the same level of service.
With regard to (c), the CCG has determined the most effective and efficient mix of federally funded resources for the Vancouver area to maintain current the level of service. These resources will include a new inshore rescue boat, which will be strategically positioned within Vancouver harbour and be operational during the busy summer period; the Sea Island hovercraft; a strengthened partnership with the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, as well as other emergency responders; and, as always, vessels of opportunity.
With regard to (d), the CCG continually strives to provide outstanding maritime services to Canadians and to improve our service delivery whenever possible. To this end, CCG continually evaluates program planning and delivery to ensure the most effective and efficient use of available resources.
With regard to (e), the files include Marine Communications and Traffic Services Levels of Service, May 2010; and Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centres Workload Analysis Recommendations Concerning Optimum Staffing, October 20, 2011.

Question No. 767--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Department of National Defence: (a) have the Canadian Forces or the Department of National Defence investigated the forest fire which broke out at CFB Goose Bay on or around May 25, 2012; and (b) if so, what was the outcome of the investigation, and what are the reference numbers or titles of any related files?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with reference to (a), the Canadian Forces conducted an investigation into the forest fire that broke out at 5 Wing Goose Bay on or around May 25, 2012.
With regard to (b), the investigation concluded that the fire was accidentally started by two members of the Canadian Forces who were conducting annual pyrotechnic refresher training when a flare ricocheted and landed in the nearby brush.
The reference numbers for the related files are as follows: 11300-1, wing explosives safety officer, Ammunition and Explosives Accident--Detailed Report, June 19, 2012; 5090-1, command post, Significant Incident Report--Forest Fire, May 25, 2012; 11300-1, wing operations, Ammunition and Explosives Accident--Preliminary Report, May 31, 2012; 2012-3576, 5 Wing, Bush/Grass Fire Report, signed by wing commander, June 27, 2012; CF 98, 5 Wing Fire Department log, May 25, 2012; 11300-1, A4 maintenance armament, commander of 1 Canadian Air Division response to Ammunition and Explosives Accident Report--5 Wing Goose Bay, 25 May 2012, July 2012; and 11300-1, A4 maintenance armament, briefing note for commander for Ammunition and Explosives Accident Report--5 Wing Goose Bay--25 May 2012, July 2, 2012).

Question No. 769--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to the closing of Kingston Penitentiary, the Regional Treatment Centre and the Leclerc Institution, for each of these three facilities: (a) what is the estimated total savings in annual costs that occur as a result of the closure; (b) what methodology was used to arrive at the figure in (a); (c) what input data was used to arrive at the figure in (a); (d) how was this data collected; (e) what are the estimated costs for transferring the inmates to other facilities; (f) what are the estimated costs for transferring employees from the above institutions to new institutions, including but not limited to annualised capital costs of construction, staffing costs and operation and maintenance costs; (g) for those employees who will not be transferred, what if any retirement initiatives will be offered and what is the total estimated costs of these initiatives; (h) what are all the total estimated costs of incarcerating the inmates at other facilities who would have been held at each of the three facilities slated for closure; and (i) what are the true net savings to the government once the total costs of holding the inmates at other facilities are taken into account?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the closures of Kingston Penitentiary, including the Regional Treatment Centre, and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec, will result in an overall cost savings of approximately $120 million per year.
With regard to (b), (c) and (d), the closures of two federal prisons--Kingston Penitentiary, including the Regional Treatment Centre, in Kingston, Ontario, and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec--will result in an overall cost savings of approximately $120 million.
More precisely, CSC’s budget will be $120 million less at the end of implementation. This reflects the savings from salaries, operating and maintenance, as well as savings realized from the addition of new cells.
With regard to (e) and (h), CSC has a comprehensive plan to safely move offenders impacted by these closures to other institutions. Many institutions in the Ontario Region are undergoing infrastructure expansions to better manage the complex and diverse offender population.
Maximum security inmates will remain maximum security inmates and be placed in appropriate facilities at this level. The same will apply for medium security inmates. The Ontario Region’s assessment unit will be moved out of Millhaven Institution, thereby increasing the maximum security capacity of this institution. Maximum security inmates will be transferred either to Millhaven Institution or to a new maximum security unit at Collins Bay Institution. Medium security inmates currently incarcerated at the Regional Treatment Centre will be transferred to Bath Institution, a medium security institution located on the same penitentiary property as Millhaven Institution. A new medium security unit is being built within the perimeter of Bath Institution with a capacity of 96 cells.
Where appropriate, CSC may consider voluntary transfers of offenders to other regions
For security reasons, CSC cannot divulge details relating to a specific offender’s movement. The transfer of these offenders will be done with the utmost consideration for the safety and security of the community. CSC is unable to comment on any associated costs during the transition leading to the closures of the institutions.
With regard to (f), these initiatives will result in approximately 1,000 full-time employees being affected within Ontario and Quebec. However, the majority of affected staff will be redeployed to other facilities. Employees whose jobs are affected will be treated with fairness and respect, and in accordance with workforce adjustment agreements that have been negotiated with public sector unions. Pursuant to obligations under the Work Force Adjustment Directive, CSC is committed to maximizing employment opportunities for indeterminate employees affected by workforce adjustment situations.
CSC has a comprehensive plan to accommodate staff impacted by these closures to other institutions. However, during the transition leading to the closures of the institutions, CSC is unable to comment on the related estimated costs.
With regard to (g), in July 2012 affected CX staff were met by CSC management and a union representative in order to select a location to be deployed to off the national vacancy list. Affected CX employees who intend to retire on or before October 31, 2013, and provide written confirmation of same will not be required to select a position from the vacancy list.
There will not be any incentives or options for retirement. CSC is dealing with each union individually
With regard to (i), CSC’s budget will be net $120 million less at the end of the implementation of this reduction.

Question No. 773--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to National Historic Sites: (a) in calendar year 2011, for each National Historic Site, what were the (i) season opening and closing dates, (ii) hours of operation; and (b) in calendar year 2012, for each National Historic Site what are or will be the (i) season opening and closing dates, (ii) hours of operation?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in 2011 national historic sites under the administration of Parks Canada were generally open from the Victoria Day weekend to the Thanksgiving weekend. In 2012 Parks Canada is aligning and reducing the duration of operating seasons and hours in national historic sites to match peak visitation periods and to minimize off-season requirements. The majority of national historic sites have maintained similar opening and closing dates for 2012; however, some sites opened on June 1 and will close on the Labour Day weekend.

Question No. 778--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Accord concluded in August 2011 and the technical assistance provided by the Canadian government to the Honduran government for the purposes of drafting a new mining law in Honduras: (a) what is or will be the nature of technical assistance provided, facilitated or funded by the government to the Honduran government; (b) which Canadian government department developed the agreement with Honduran authorities to provide technical assistance; (c) which Canadian government department is the source of funding for this technical assistance; (d) who has been contracted to provide the technical assistance; (e) what are the terms of reference for this contract; (f) what objectives does such technical assistance seek to meet; (g) what is the time frame for the full execution of this technical assistance project; (h)what is the expected final product or outcomes of this project; and (i) how will these outcomes be made available to the public in Honduras and Canada during or following completion of this initiative?
Response
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the nature of the technical assistance to be provided to the Government of Honduras is as follows: first, as part of a needs assessment, to undertake a review of Honduras' proposed mining legislation to identify any and all sections of the draft legislation that would require revision to bring them into compliance with international norms and standards of best practice in the extractive sector. Advice of Canadian experts will be limited to identifying areas of compliance and non-compliance with international norms and will not propose specific text.
Second, to assess the priority needs of the Government of Honduras in order to bring its governance and regulatory capacity up to international norms and standards of best practice in the extractive sector. This would include assessing the current situation in the sector; the current and envisaged regulatory framework, including institutions and their roles; private sector and other stakeholders; key issues and challenges in the sector; and priority needs for capacity-building.
Third, to develop a work plan, which will include the results of the review of the proposed legislation and capacity needs assessment components above, and map out for the Government of Honduras the priority investments that Honduras should make to equip itself to govern and regulate the extractive sector in Honduras according to international norms. The work plan shall include a brief description of each proposed activity, recipient partners in Honduras, estimated level of effort and budget and expected timeframe for the activity's implementation.
Fourth, to deliver technical assistance to Honduras to implement the work plan upon approval of the work plan and identification of appropriate resources to deliver the technical assistance.
With regard to (b) and (c), no formal agreement was developed between the Government of Honduras and the Government of Canada to address the request by the Government of Honduras. However, CIDA consulted with the Government of Honduras in advance of providing assistance. CIDA is providing the funding for the technical assistance to the Government of Honduras via the Deployment for Democratic Development, DDD, project, which is implemented by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, IPAC.
The DDD is a recruitment and deployment mechanism for Canadian expert resources in democratic governance. Deployments respond to requests from CIDA's country partners and contribute to the expected results of CIDA’s country programs. The DDD has supported 82 initiatives to date, deploying 200 experts, of whom 63 were women and 137 men.
Examples of results include developing a human resources manual with Ghana's Public Service Commission, training Peru's Office of the Ombudsman in results-based management, establishing the Guyana Media Proprietors Association through which private media organizations can advocate for greater media freedom, providing an expert to the Honduras Truth and Reconciliation Commission and advising Mongolia's Civil Service Council to help design amendments to the Law on Civil Service.
With regard to (d), IPAC is contracted by CIDA for the management of the DDD and uses a competitive process under this project to select Canadian expert resources who are providing the needed expertise to undertake the needs assessment and develop a work plan.
With regard to (e) and (f), the terms of reference and objectives for the needs assessment component via IPAC are outlined in (a) above. Terms of reference, including objectives, for the next component of technical assistance, which is implementing the work plan, will be determined after the work plan is approved by CIDA.
With regard to (g), the exact timing is dependent on the content of the final work plan, but it is generally expected to be completed by the end of June 2013.
With regard to (h), the final expected product from the needs assessment is a work plan, with an annex that will report the findings of the review of the proposed mining legislation. The final expected outcomes resulting from implementation of the work plan depend on the final work plan content, currently being developed under the needs assessment component.
With regard to (i), IPAC maintains a website, http://democraticdevelopment.ca. IPAC reports to CIDA on progress against expected outcomes. CIDA publishes DDD project results annually online at http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/cpo.nsf/vLUWebProjEn/796ED78AE5A03EA48525763A00372312?OpenDocument.

Question No. 779--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With regard to government Web sites: (a) when did the Supreme Court of Canada change from a “.ca” to a “.gc.ca” Web domain suffix; (b) what was the reason for the change; and (c) who initiated the change?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has used the “gc.ca” subdomain since it launched its website in 1988.
On the other hand, to facilitate the public’s access to its website, the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada has registered additional addresses that will redirect to its official website of www.scc-csc.gc.ca, as follows: coursupreme.ca; coursupremeducanada.ca; coursupremeducanada.com; coursupremeducanada.net; coursupremeducanada.org; supremecourtofcanada.ca; supremecourtofcanada.com; supremecourtofcanada.net; supremecourtofcanada.org; cour supreme du canada.ca; cour supreme du canada.com; cour supreme du canada.net; cour supreme du canada.org; supreme court of canada.ca; supreme court of canada.com; supreme court of canada.net; supreme court of canada.org; lacoursupremeducanada.ca; lacoursupremeducanada.com; lacoursupremeducanada.net; lacoursupremeducanada.org; thesupremecourtofcanada.ca; thesupremecourtofcanada.com; thesupremecourtofcanada.net; thesupremecourtofcanada.org; scc csc.ca; scc csc.com; scc csc.net; scc csc.org; and scc csc.gc.ca.

Question No. 781--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: (a) for which specific countries do Canadian embassies provide human rights reports to the government; (b) in which specific countries do these reports include a report on religious freedom; and (c) for any report on religious freedom since January 1, 2006, what was the date of the report and the country to which it pertained?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), over the last 13 years, Canada has prepared human rights reports on the 134 countries listed hereafter. It should be noted that not every country has been covered every year.
The countries include the following: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, West Bank and Gaza, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, South Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
With regard to (b), this year’s human rights reporting guidelines instructed Canadian missions abroad to include a section focused specifically on religious freedom. Prior to this, it was at the missions’ discretion to include a section on freedom of religion in their reports. Human rights reports for this year that have been received to date and that include a specific section on freedom of religion are listed below. Not all reports have been finalized. Assessments provided in these sections can be positive and/or negative.
These human rights reports are on the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Burma, Burundi, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, , Kazakhstan, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malawi, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Togo, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.
With regard to (c), since 2006 no formal stand-alone reports on religious freedom have been solicited by the department’s human rights division, which manages the annual human rights reporting process. Missions may, however, choose to report on religious freedom where and when warranted. Examples of such reports received over the last six months include a report on a conference on religious freedom in China, a report on negotiations between Greek Catholics and the Orthodox Church in Romania, a report on the promotion of pluralism in Pakistan, a report on the U.S.-led Istanbul process to combat intolerance based on religion or belief and periodic situational reports on Egypt.

Question No. 782--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With respect to Overseas Development Assistance: (a) what amount of money has been earmarked for fiscal year 2012-2013 for (i) democracy promotion projects, (ii) good governance projects; and (b) which Canadian organizations have been granted funding for democracy promotion and good governance projects in (i) Egypt, (ii) Tunisia, (iii) Libya?
Response
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), international assistance funding administered through the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, is not typically earmarked by sector or theme, such as democracy promotion or good governance. The agency’s budget is allocated first by delivery channel--bilateral, multilateral, partnership--and then by program. Once CIDA’s budget has been allocated, project-level disbursements can be filtered through a system of codes developed by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, to code donor activities so that donor governments can report on and compare how much they are spending to achieve their development results.
Over the last five years from 2007-08 to 2011-12, CIDA spending on good governance has averaged $465 million per year. This figure was calculated based on the following DAC codes: public sector policy and administrative; public finance management; decentralization and support to sub-national government; anti-corruption organizations and institutions; legal and judicial development; democratic participation and civil society; elections; legislatures and political parties; media and free flow of information; human rights; and statistical capacity-building. Of this amount, spending for democracy promotion has averaged $220 million per year. This figure was calculated based on the following DAC codes: legal and judicial development; democratic participation and civil society; elections; legislatures and political parties; media and free flow of information; and human rights.
In fiscal year 2012-13, CIDA has disbursed to date, as of August 31, 2012, $85.15 million for good governance, of which $32.25 million has been for democracy promotion.
With regard to (b), to date the following Canadian organizations have received funding in fiscal year 2012-13 for projects that include democracy promotion and good governance activities: for Egypt, Foundation for International Training, Aga Khan Foundation Canada, Agriteam Canada and YMCA Canada; for Tunisia, none; for Libya, none.
In addition to projects in democracy promotion and good governance, the Government of Canada is providing additional support in the region. On March 2, 2011, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would deliver up to $5 million in humanitarian aid to help address urgent medical requirements, basic humanitarian needs and the repatriation of people displaced into Tunisia and Egypt. As well, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced on March 16, 2011, that Government of Canada would contribute $11 million over five years toward the creation of economic opportunities for young Egyptians and for the development of democratic institutions in Egypt and the broader Middle East and North Africa region.

Question No. 789--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what are the details (including the name of each organization represented, and of each individual present) of all meetings held from June 1, 2011, to June 1, 2012, with any and all external stakeholders, by (i) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (ii) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (iv) the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; and (b) what are the details of all travel and associated expenses incurred from June 1, 2011, to June 1, 2012 by (i) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (ii) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, including the reason for the travel, the organizations met with, and detailed accounts of all expenses incurred?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii) and (a)(iv), it should be noted that the department does not maintain a list of external stakeholder meetings for Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the chief of staff to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the deputy minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Additional information on deputy minister and ministerial meetings with stakeholders can be found on the website of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada at https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/h_00000.html.
With regard to (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), the details of all travel and associated expenses incurred by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the chief of staff to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the deputy minister of Fisheries and Oceans are available on the Fisheries and Oceans proactive disclosure for travel and hospitality website at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/dthe-dfva/index-eng.asp.

Question No. 790--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to Service Canada, and more specifically the Canada Pension Plan Post-Retirement Benefit (PRB): (a) what is the projected revenue from employees and employers contributing to the PRB in calendar year 2012; and (b) what are the amounts projected to be paid out to PRB recipients in calendar year 2013, broken down by province and territory?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the projections used in this response were provided by the Office of the Chief Actuary, OCA, which is responsible for providing projections for the Canada Pension Plan, CPP.
With regard to (a), using the assumptions from the 25th Actuarial Report on the Canada Pension Plan, the OCA has projected that $576 million will be paid in contributions toward CPP post-retirement benefits, PRBs, in 2012. Contributions to the plan by working retirement pension recipients are mandatory for working beneficiaries between the ages of 60 and 64 and their employers, and voluntary after age 65, until age 70. The estimated contributions to CPP PRBs are based on the assumption that 50% of working beneficiaries aged 65 to 69 will choose to continue making contributions.
With regard to (b), projections are only available for the CPP as a whole because the OCA does not make projections by province and territory. Using the assumptions from the 25th Actuarial Report on the CPP, the OCA has estimated that $42 million will be paid in PRBs in 2013.
The amount of a single year’s PRB will be less than what the individual contributed the previous year; however, each PRB is payable until death and is fully indexed to the cost of living. The PRB represents a net gain for the vast majority of individuals and is intended to offer additional security in retirement as a stable and fully indexed benefit. In addition, the PRB amounts are not subject to the normal rules for maximum benefits, allowing individuals to continue to build their retirement income, even if they are already receiving the maximum CPP retirement or combined benefit amount.

Question No. 791--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Department of National Defence, what is the cost of all press releases issued by the department between January 1, 2012, and May 1, 2012 inclusively?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence searched through its contracts with Marketwire and found that the cost of the 100 press releases that it issued between January 1, 2012, and May 1, 2012, is $9,074.55. This includes information for the Communications Security Establishment Canada, Military Police Complaints Commission, Canadian Forces Grievance Board, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, National Search and Rescue Secretariat and the Department of National Defence Canadian Forces Ombudsman.

Question No. 792--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Department of National Defence, in preparation for the Auditor General's (AG) 2012 Spring Report, how many draft responses were sent between the department and the AG's office concerning F-35 aircraft?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence Canadian Forces provided five written and official responses to the Office of the Auditor General concerning the draft audit reports entitled “Replacing Canada’s Fighter Jets”.

Question No. 795--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With respect to studies Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) has undertaken or commissioned on workforce mobility: (a) under which HRSDC official's direction did HRSDC commission Sage Research Corp to study what type of migration incentives could encourage EI clients to accept a job that requires a residential move; (b) what was the rationale to undertake this study; (c) what are the details of the study; (d) what was the cost of the study; (e) what is HRSDC's response to the study; (f) what are the details and costs of other similar studies conducted or commissioned by HRSDC in the last six years; and (g) is HRSDC planning further studies on incentives for workforce mobility through the EI system?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the official was Stephen Johnson, director general of the evaluation directorate, strategic policy and research branch.
With regard to (b), this study was undertaken to support the employment insurance, EI, monitoring and assessment report tabled to Parliament. Specifically, section 3 of the Employment Insurance Act assigns the Canada Employment Insurance Commission with the following mandate: “The Commission shall monitor and assess the impact and effectiveness, for individuals, communities and the economy, of the benefits and other assistance provided under this Act, including (a) how the benefits and assistance are utilized by employees and employers, and (b) the effect of the benefits and assistance on the obligation of claimants to be available for and to seek employment and on the efforts of employers to maintain a stable workforce.”
With regard to (c), the report describes the findings from eight focus groups conducted with frequent EI clients in four cities: Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec; Corner Brook, Newfoundland; Miramichi, New Brunswick; and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. In each city, there was one focus group with younger participants, younger than 45 years of age, and one focus group with older participants, 45 to 60 years of age. There were eight to 10 participants in each focus group, and a total of 75 participants overall.
The following questions were to be addressed with this study: What factors influence geographic labour mobility, that is, the decision to accept a job that requires a residential move, temporary or permanent, within the country? To what extent does EI eligibility and generosity affect geographic labour mobility? What type of migration incentives, such as relocation grants or travel grants, might encourage EI clients to accept a job that requires a residential move? Does migration lead to an improvement in the economic and social situation of migrants and their families?
With regard to (d), the amount paid for this contract was $52,000.
With regard to (e), since this study was not a formal evaluation report, no recommendations were made and no response was prepared by the department. The study adds to a body of evidence summarized in the 2011 EI monitoring and assessment report in the following way on page 158: “A number of studies in the past decade have looked at the determinants of labour mobility and whether EI plays a role in the decision to migrate for employment. Results of these studies indicate that factors such as personal and labour market characteristics, as well as moving costs, play a key role in mobility decisions, while EI generosity does not seem to affect mobility decisions. Another recent study has suggested that EI does not discourage workers from being mobile. EI recipients were found to be more likely than non-EI recipients to commute 30 kilometres or more to go to work and more likely to work outside their census subdivision of residence. Also, following a job loss, EI recipients were more likely than non-EI recipients to move more than 100 kilometres away. Furthermore, a study estimated that eliminating regional EI extended benefits and regional EI differences in the Variable Entrance Requirement (VER) would increase the volume of migration by less than 1%. In general, the available evidence suggests that EI is generally not a barrier to mobility.”
With regard to (f), other similar studies conducted or commissioned by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, in the last six years include the following:
Employment Insurance and Labour Mobility: A Critical Review of the Literature. The study was completed in June 2007 by Dr. David Gray, University of Ottawa, and Dr. James Ted McDonald, University of New Brunswick. The cost was $16,500. The costs to HRSDC, including translation and publishing, were approximately $20,000.
The Impact of EI Regional Boundary Revisions on Mobility in New Brunswick: Evidence from the LAD. The study was an econometric analysis using the Statistics Canada longitudinal administrative databank, LAD, linked with EI administrative data. The cost consisted of HRSDC salary expenditures and $7,500 for analysis from the LAD.
Commuting and Mobility Patterns of Employment Insurance (EI) Recipients and Non-Recipients. The methodology used the 2006 census to study the relationship between EI receipt in 2005 and commuting patterns, meaning job location versus residential location, in 2006. The 2004-2009 Canadian Out of Employment Panel Surveys were used to examine the relationship between EI receipt and mobility decision after a job loss and to examine time trends in mobility choices of job separators. The cost consisted of HRSDC salary expenditures.
With regard to (g), in support of the 2012 monitoring and assessment report, the Canadian Out of Employment Panel Survey and EI administrative data will be further analyzed in Impact of EI on Regional Labour Mobility. The cost will consist of HRSDC salary expenditures.

Question No. 797--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government funding for the Canadian Museum of Civilization’s archaeological work on Baffin Island and in northern Labrador dealing with the interactions between the Norse of Greenland and the indigenous peoples of Baffin Island, Labrador, and Québec in the 11th and 12th centuries: (a) what is the current status of funding for the Museum of Civilization, for the current year and coming years; (b) what is the current status of this archaeological project and what field and laboratory work is planned for the next 3 years; (c) when will a report on this project be released; (d) are the local indigenous people involved, consulted, and informed on the work of this project, specifically the people of Nunavut, Nunavik, Québec, and Nunatsiak, Newfoundland and Labrador; (e) has the government or the Museum of Civilization considered raising public awareness of projects like this; (f) has the government or the Museum of Civilization considered an exhibit, including the possibility of a travelling exhibit; (g) has the government considered cooperation with the government of Denmark on this projects in view of the shared interest; and (h) are there any publications on this project or other archaeological projects of the Museum of Civilization that could be useful to brief Members of Parliament on the Museum’s activities?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), archaeological research is one of the activities that is normally funded through annual appropriations.
With regard to (b), this project is currently under review as part of a broader review of museum research priorities.
With regard to (c), at this time there is no plan to release a report on this project.
With regard to (d), the local indigenous people were involved, consulted and informed of the work of this project as required.
With regard to (e), the Museum of Civilization regularly raises public awareness of projects like this through different means, including academic journals, books, lectures, exhibits, websites and public programs.
With regard to (f), the museum has exhibited material from this project in the past, and there are no plans at this time to create a travelling exhibition.
With regard to (g), the Canadian Museum of Civilization, as a crown corporation, will often work with other museums on projects of common interest. The museum is not aware if the Government of Canada has considered co-operation with the Government of Denmark on this project.
With regard to (h), extensive information concerning this particular project can be found on the museum’s website, annual reports and corporate plan summaries.

Question No. 801--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
What costs were incurred by the government with respect to the “Sandbox Project” event held on Sparks Street in Ottawa in June 2012, and which departments or agencies incurred those costs?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government congratulates The Sandbox Project, the member for Simcoe-Grey and all other parliamentarians who participated in the event held in Ottawa last June aimed to foster collaboration and knowledge to ensure Canada becomes the healthiest place in the world in which to raise children.
As this event was privately funded, the government did not incur any expenses.

Question No. 806--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to government employment levels, for each of the federal electoral districts of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Nipissing—Timiskaming, Labrador, Yukon, Richmond—Arthabaska and Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière: (a) what is the current total number of federal employees in the riding; and (b) what is the total number of anticipated job reduction in the riding for fiscal years (i) 2012-2013, (ii) 2013-2014, (iii) 2014-2015?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board Secretariat cannot produce the requested statistics by riding.

Question No. 808--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to cultural heritage: (a) what measures has the government taken to protect the petroglyphs at Qajartalik, Nunavik, Quebec; and (b) what are the details (dates and file numbers) of any reports, studies, or other records in the government’s possession concerning (i) the petroglyphs themselves, (ii) vandalism or other threats to the petroglyphs, (iii) measures taken or proposed to be taken for their protection?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), cultural heritage protection falls within the responsibility of the provinces and territories under their respective heritage legislation.
With regard to (b), the relevant report is “Screening report: Qajartalik Petroglyphs”, file number 991, dated February 18, 2009.
With regard to (b)(i), in December 2008 Parks Canada received a nomination to recognize the Qajartalik petroglyphs as a national historic site. The nomination, file number 991, was recommended for the consideration of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, HSMBC. Parks Canada is currently producing a submission report for the consideration of the HSMBC at its earliest convenience.
With regard to (b)(ii), no reports, studies or other records concerning vandalism or other threats to the petroglyphs exist in Parks Canada’s possession.
With regard to (b)(iii), no reports, studies or other records concerning measures taken or proposed to be taken for the protection of the petroglyphs exist in Parks Canada’s possession.

Question No. 813--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s Office of Religious Freedoms: (a) what meetings has the government taken in 2011-2012 regarding the development of this office; (b) what are the details of the briefing notes, reports, or other documents that were prepared for these meetings, specifically the titles or files or reference numbers of those documents; (c) what are the specific responsibilities of this office; (d) in what document are those responsibilities set down; (e) what is the proposed number of employees to work in this office; and (f) what is the proposed job title, job description, qualifications, and salary range for each position?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the promotion and protection of human rights is a key component of Canada’s foreign policy, and the Government of Canada strongly believes in the ability of all people to be free to practise their religion of choice. Canadians enjoy the rights and privileges that come with living in a free and democratic society in which human rights are respected. The government is also keenly aware of the struggles that religious minorities face around the world. That is why, during the most recent Speech from the Throne on June 3, 2011, and again at the United Nations General Assembly, the government committed to creating an office of religious freedom. Since being appointed in May 2011 as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have met both domestically and internationally with a wide variety of individuals, organizations, like-minded countries, religious leaders and academics to discuss the protection of religious minorities. This includes, but is not limited to, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Llarge for International Religious Freedom, the Aga Khan, the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch, the Secretary General of the Baha’i International Community, Ahmadiyya religious leaders, ambassadors and many others.
With regard to (b), the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, DFAIT, has prepared briefing material on this issue for the minister, but in accordance with section 19 of the Access to Information Act, DFAIT cannot disclose details of the documents. For the October 2011 stakeholder consultation meeting, a one-page briefing note providing an overview of the office of religious freedom was provided. The brief outlines the genesis and rationale for making religious freedom a foreign policy priority, the state of play on the creation of the office and the broad objectives of the mandate. In addition, remarks were prepared for the meeting chair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for use at the meeting, primarily to thank participants, introduce panellists and broadly frame the discussion.
With regard to (c) and (d), it is expected that the office will focus on areas such as advocacy, analysis, policy development and programming related to protecting and advocating on behalf of religious minorities under threat; opposing religious hatred; and promoting Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad. These areas of focus are set down in a memorandum to cabinet and a Treasury Board submission.
With regard to (e) and (f), no formal announcement has been made on the office, and work is ongoing. Other than confirming that the head of the office will be an ambassadorial appointment from outside the public service, it would be premature to confirm the full staffing structure of the office, including the titles, work descriptions, qualifications and salary ranges. The government will have more to say on this important initiative shortly.

Question No. 816--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to Public Works and Government Services Canada, what were the legal costs incurred by the government with respect to the case Halifax Regional Municipality v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, – and – City of Toronto, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Association of Canadian Port Authorities and City of Québec, decided as Supreme Court of Canada docket 33876, distinguishing costs incurred: (a) pre-trial; (b) related to proceedings at the Federal Court of Canada; (c) related to proceedings at the Federal Court of Appeal; (d) related to proceedings at the Supreme Court of Canada; and (e) other costs, specifying the nature of those costs?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal crown asserts that privilege and, in this case, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total amount of money spent, which is approximately $565,634.13.

Question No. 817--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to audio-video monitoring and recording by the Canadian Border Services Agency: (a) how much has the federal government spent on the equipment and installation of that equipment to date; (b) under what legal authority has the audio monitoring equipment been installed; and (c) what provisions have been made to handle the information gathered from airport surveillance?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CBSA cannot give an accurate estimate, as some equipment has been included in overall project costs and cannot be isolated.
With regard to (b) and (c), the CBSA has heard concerns from Canadians regarding the privacy impact of this practice. As the Minister of Public Safety has stated, the CBSA welcomes the Privacy Commissioner's study of this policy. The Minister of Public Safety has directed the CBSA to halt audio monitoring, with the exception of recorded interviews, until a privacy impact assessment can be submitted and recommendations from the Privacy Commissioner can be reviewed by the government. Neither the CBSA nor the Government of Canada provided specific direction to enable the monitoring or recording of audio. It is important for agencies tasked with protecting Canadians to have the right tools to catch smugglers and keep criminals and other unwelcome individuals out of Canada. It is equally important that these tools do not infringe on individuals' privacy in a way that is unjustified or unnecessary to ensure security.

Question No. 818--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With respect to the repair and divestiture of the seawall at Advocate Harbour, Nova Scotia, as referred to in the February 24, 2011, Department of Fisheries and Oceans press release and previous releases about this property: (a) has the government deemed this property surplus and, if it has, (i) when did it do so, (ii) what was the rationale behind this decision, (iii) does a property deemed surplus require automatic divestiture and, if so, what are the related regulations or policy, (iv) what is the full divestiture process for this property, (iii) at what stage of the divestiture process is the property now, (v) what is the relevant government department's strategy to ensure the property is fully divested, (vi) has any government departments been offered the property and, if so, what was their response, (vii) has the province of Nova Scotia been offered the property and, if so, what was its response, (viii) has the local municipality been offered the property and, if so, what was its response, (ix) has any community groups or private individual or entity been offered the property and, if so, what was their response; (b) what is the justification for funding repairs to this property if it is deemed surplus and/or to be divested and is this normal practice; (c) from which specific program do the repair funds come; (d) what is the criteria for the program from which the repair funds were accessed; (e) how much money did the government spend on plans and repairs of the Advocate Harbour Seawall from January 2006 to date and what future costs are anticipated, broken down by (i) cost item, (ii) date incurred or to be incurred, (iii) from which funding program the funds were, or planned to be, received; (f) has a fair market value been determined and, if so, what are the details of the assessment; (g) was the investment in the repair to the Advocate Harbour seawall solely to protect local infrastructure, agricultural land and private property, (h) what was the rationale for the government funding the 2012 assessment, as referenced by the May 21, 2010, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency press release; (i) did any funds for the repairs to the Advocate Harbour seawall come from a mechanism known as “invest to divest" which the government can use to facilitate the Treasury Board’s directive on the divestiture of surplus property and, if so (i) how much and (ii) by what rationale; (j) what are the specific guidelines for the government to use the mechanism known as “invest to divest”; and (k) in what instances in the last six years did the “invest to divest” mechanism been used but the property not been divested?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the property in West Advocate has not been declared surplus, but it is intended that it shall be declared surplus once the investment in the property is completed. Questions (a)(i) to (a)(x) are only answerable after the property is declared surplus, with the exception of (a)(iii): deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that the real property surplus to program requirements is not retained. Disposal by sale or transfer is completed in conformance with the Treasury Board directive on the sale or transfer of surplus real property.
With regard to (b), the justification for funding repairs to this property is to facilitate the divestiture of this property. It is normal practice when divesting of surplus property to invest in the property.
With regard to (c), the funding program is entitled “Equipment and other moveable assets centre of expertise, vote 5, Fisheries and Oceans capital expenditures”.
With regard to (d), the program criteria that funded this project, deemed a major capital project, requires the project to be valued at over $1 million and to be included in the capital plan.
With regard to (e), money spent on plans and repairs includes $146,000 in 2010 for which the Cumberland Regional Economic Development Association developed the project plans; $360,000 in 2011-012 for which the Canadian Coast Guard tendered and completed the phase 1 repairs. There is a $600,000 budget in 2012-13 for the phase 2 repairs, which complete the project with no future costs anticipated. Funding was received from the program entitled “Equipment and other moveable assets centre of expertise, vote 5, Fisheries and Oceans capital expenditures.”
With regard to (f), the property’s fair market value, in its current condition, has not been determined.
With regard to (g), the investment was not made solely for this reason. While a justification for funding repairs to this property was to facilitate the divestiture of this property, as stated by Minister Shea in a press release February 24, 2011, the improvements will also “serve to protect local infrastructure, agricultural land and private property”.
With regard to (h), the rationale was to undertake an engineering assessment of the adequacy of the area’s sea barrier and underlying soil conditions prior to developing solutions to facilitate the divestiture of this property.
With regard to (i), the invest to divest program did not fund or form any part of this project.
With regard to (j), the invest to divest allocation model forms the specific guidelines used by Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s real property, safety and security directorate to administer the invest to divest program.
With regard to (k), since fiscal year 2006-07, invest to divest project funding has been allocated to the following surplus properties that have yet to be divested: Annandale lighthouse, Prince Edward Island; Baccalieu Island lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Baccaro Point lighthouse, Nova Scotia; Belyea’s Point lighthouse, New Brunswick; Cap des Rosiers lighthouse, Quebec; Cap Bon Désir lighthouse, Quebec; Cap Chat lighthouse, Quebec; Cap de la Madeleine lighthouse, Quebec; Cap D’Espoir lighthouse, Quebec; Cap de la Tête au Chien lighthouse, Quebec; Cape Bonavista lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Cape St. Mary’s lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Chantry Island lighthouse, Ontario; Cheewat Field Camp, British Columbia; Dartmouth Coast Guard base, Nova Scotia; Cape Jourimain lighthouse, New Brunswick; Long Eddy Point lighthouse, New Brunswick; Low Point lighthouse, Nova Scotia; North Cape lighthouse, Prince Edward Island; Partridge Island lighthouse, New Brunswick; Pilier de Pierre lighthouse, Quebec; Point Amour lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Pointe Beaudette, former range site, Quebec; Port Daniel lighthouse, Quebec; Îles du Pot a l’eau-de-vie lighthouse, Quebec; Prim Point lighthouse, Prince Edward Island; Red Bay lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Selkirk Coast Guard base, Manitoba; Sherbrooke Lake, former aid site, Nova Scotia; Sheringham Point lighthouse, British Columbia; and Sainte-Marthe-de-Gaspé lighthouse, Quebec.
Aboriginal peoplesAccess for disabled peopleAccess to informationAdvocate HarbourAéroport Montréal Saint-Hubert LongueuilAglukkaq, LeonaAgreements and contractsAirportsAlfalfaAmbrose, RonaAnderson, David ...Show all topics
View Denise Savoie Profile
NDP (BC)
View Denise Savoie Profile
2012-04-26 10:11

Question No. 522--
Mr. Dennis Bevington:
With regard to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation: (a) broken down by department, what programs have been put in place since government funding ended to ensure the continuation of services to victims of residential schools; (b) for each program identified in (a), what is the number of clients served broken down by (i) province/territory, (ii) recipient organization for each of the fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012; (c) for each program identified in (a), how much funding was provided; and (d) if programs have not been developed for former Aboriginal Healing Foundation clients, why not and when will they be developed and implemented?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, since 1998, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, AHF, has received $515 million to provide community-based healing initiatives to address the experiences of former students of Indian residential schools and their families and communities.This investment includes the provision of $125 million in 2007 as part of the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, the IRSSA. In 2010-11, $46.8 million was allocated for the Indian residential schools resolution health supports program, the IRS-RHSP.
In addition, in budget 2010 the Government of Canada announced an investment of $199 million over two years in new funding to Health Canada, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Service Canada to meet the increased costs associated with implementing the IRSSA. Going further, economic action plan 2012 commits to continue work with aboriginal communities and organizations, provinces and territories to improve the mental health and well-being of aboriginal peoples in Canada.
In 2011-12, Health Canada provided approximately $245 million for a range of on-reserve mental health and addiction services, from mental health promotion to addictions to suicide prevention to counselling and other crisis response services, treatment services and after-care services.
Health Canada works with its regional and national partners to ensure that all former Indian residential school students and their families are aware of the services available to them via the Indian residential schools resolution health support program. Health Canada has reached out to all former Aboriginal Healing Foundation projects to assist them in referring their clients to Health Canada’s existing services. Information has also been distributed through direct mailings to community health centres, nursing stations and treatment centres, and has been sent to former students participating in an adjudication hearing, participating in a truth and reconciliation event, or receiving a common experience payment.
In order to ensure access to services for eligible former students and their families who had been previously served by Aboriginal Healing Foundation projects, Health Canada has entered into 26 new agreements with aboriginal service provider organizations and has enhanced funding to 22 existing service providers. Of the 26 new contribution agreements entered into by Health Canada to deliver resolution health support program services, 20 are with aboriginal organizations that were previously funded by the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. If services are not available in an individual’s home community, Health Canada will arrange for transportation to a professional counsellor or cultural support provider, or for a resolution health support worker to visit the community.
Health Canada does not have data available on the number of clients served. Rather, data is collected on the number of funded service interactions and counseling sessions and is available at the national level only.
In 2010-2011, the most current year with complete data, IRS-RHSP delivered approximately 170,000 emotional and cultural support service interactions to former IRS students and their families and approximately 31,000 professional mental health counselling sessions.
In 2009-2010, the IRS-RHSP delivered approximately 80,000 emotional and cultural support service interactions to former IRS students and their families and approximately 27,000 professional mental health counselling sessions.

Question No. 524--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to the Crop Logistics Working Group formed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on November 7, 2011, what progress has been made with regard to: (a) a template service agreement; (b) movement of product in producer cars; and (c) key public sector performance measurements?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), regarding a template service agreement, the crop logistics working group allows agriculture stakeholders, including shippers moving product in bulk and intermodal and carload shippers, to identify common interests and exchange views about issues, including service level agreements, in support of the Transport Canada facilitation process following from the rail freight service review. A crop logistics working group subcommittee continues to work to support agriculture sector stakeholders who are involved in the Transport Canada facilitation process.
With regard to (b), the crop logistics working group provides a forum to discuss and exchange views and to examine in detail operational issues, such as the movement of product in producer cars, arising from the transition to marketing freedom for wheat and barley. A crop logistics working group subcommittee considered issues related to moving product in producer cars and has submitted recommendations to the co-chairs of the working group.
With regard to (c), the crop logistics working group fosters discussion among agricultural stakeholders on key public sector performance measurements to reflect the present and future needs of an evolving crop logistics sector. A crop logistics working group subcommittee is documenting the range of grain industry performance measurement initiatives being undertaken by public and private entities, including the performance measurement protocols and methodologies involved in this performance measurement work. The subcommittee is also identifying the gaps in grain industry supply chain performance measurement and is working to develop a grain logistics performance measurement framework.

Question No. 525--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to the Crop Logistics Working Group, formed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on November 7, 2011, when will a report be available on the progress made by this working group?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the crop logistics working group’s terms of reference include a briefing for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The working group is not preparing a formal report.
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 408--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to the July 2009 “Report of the Independent Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak” (Weatherhill Report), what progress has the Canadian Food Inspection Agency made as concerns each of the report’s 57 recommendations?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2008, an outbreak of food-borne illness caused by the presence of listeria in ready-to-eat meat resulted in 191 recalls, 57 reported cases of listeriosis and the deaths of 23 Canadians. The Government of Canada immediately put in place preventative measures and launched reviews to find ways to reduce the risk of similar outbreaks in the future. The government also appointed an independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, to examine the factors that contributed to the 2008 outbreak. In July 2009, the independent investigator submitted a report, the Weatherill report, which identified gaps in the food safety system and put forward 57 recommendations to minimize the risk of a similar outbreak in the future.
In September 2009, the government announced that it would act on all of the recommendations in the Weatherill report and committed $75M over three years to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA; Health Canada, HC; and the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, to improve the government’s ability to prevent, detect and respond to food-borne illness outbreaks.
To date, considerable action has been taken, as outlined in the government’s reports, “Progress on Food Safety,” of March 2010, October 2010, and June 2011; and the “Final Report to Canadians”, December 2011.
Budget 2011 allocated $100 million over five years to the CFIA to improve inspection capacity. This initiative will also enable the CFIA to complete the outstanding recommendations that pertain to equipping inspectors with modern technology, training of inspectors, and the development of an integrated laboratory network proposal. These investments build on the government’s 2009 investment of $75 million to implement the Weatherill recommendations and the 2008 commitment of $489.5 million over five years in the food and consumer safety action plan.
For more detailed information, please refer to the report entitled “Action on Weatherill Recommendations to Strengthen the Food Safety System: Final Report to Canadians”. This report was posted on the government’s food safety portal, www.foodsafety.gc.ca, on December 19, 2011.
View Ted Menzies Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ted Menzies Profile
2011-11-28 12:04 [p.3630]
moved that Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts, be read the third time and passed.
View Frank Valeriote Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Frank Valeriote Profile
2011-11-28 13:08 [p.3640]
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment on the parliamentary secretary's statement about spending by the board. The board has a fiduciary duty to protect the board and the interests of wheat farmers. That is why that money was spent.
I am pleased to rise today in the debate at third reading on the Conservative government's bill that would effectively kill the Canadian Wheat Board. It is an honour because I truly believe that when putting forward legislation such as this, legislation that would not only touch the lives and livelihoods of farmers across the western provinces but would profoundly change the face of agriculture in this country, there should be fulsome debate. Sadly, the Conservative government decided in May that it would not listen to any voices but its own for the next four years. Not only do Canadian farmers who voted to keep the Canadian Wheat Board deserve better, so do Canadians across this country who understand that their bread does not come from the bakery or the grocery store but from the hard work and dedication of Canadian farmers.
Having walked away from the election with only 39% of the vote, meaning that 61% of Canadians do not support the government's measures, the Conservatives have treated their majority as an excuse to walk all over farmers who do not share their ideological beliefs. I remind the House that according to the existing Canadian Wheat Board Act, an affirmative vote of wheat farmers is required under section 47.1 before a change as significant as this is made.
Regardless of pre-election promises by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in Minnedosa in March of this year to have a farmer vote and not act arbitrarily, the government shut out the voices of farmers by refusing to hold a farmers vote and smearing anyone who dared stand up to its ideological steamroller. In August the Canadian Wheat Board held its own farmers vote, wherein a majority of western Canadian grain producers voted to maintain the single desk under the Canadian Wheat Board. What did the government do? It is no surprise. It smeared the results. How can a government maintain that Canadian farmers know best on the one hand while refusing to actually listen to a single one?
The Conservatives limited debate, giving the House only three shortened days to speak to a bill that would fundamentally alter the face of farming and would change rural life in the prairie provinces forever. Then the government referred the bill to a special legislative committee, not the regular agriculture committee, limiting its review to only the technical elements of the bill, not to the impact on small farms and the effect that attacking the family farm will have on small town rural economies.
The legislative committee did not even travel out west to hear from farmers, despite my seeking consent in the House to do so. To add insult to injury, the committee was restricted to only two evenings of hearing witnesses, only two nights for people to testify to the detrimental impact this bill will have before the committee was restricted to one short night of clause-by-clause examination of the bill, refusing all amendments designed to put control of even the new Canadian Wheat Board into the hands of farmers. Fearing the truth, Conservatives held farmers back and silenced tens of thousands of farmers' voices, pretending to Canadians that no opposition to this bill ever existed, an all too familiar deception that characterizes the government.
What the Conservative government does not want to hear is that farmers are profoundly concerned about the clout and strength they will lose once they are no longer able to negotiate, sell or market their wheat, durum and barley through the single desk. Where is the Prime Minister who said only hours after winning his majority that he would govern for all Canadians? I do not recall him explaining that there is an exception for western grain farmers who tried to speak through their Conservative MPs but could not even get a return call or email response on the issue. They were completely ignored. What of the farmers in Ottawa right now who cannot get a meeting with Conservative senators? It is shameful.
Post-election democracy no longer exists with the government. This is more severe than the back and forth of debate in the House. It is much more than every question that the minister or his parliamentary secretary have deflected. These are farmers who have worked their whole lives on their farms, who support the Canadian Wheat Board, who are being ignored because the government does not want to hear what they have to say.
With the removal of the single desk, a great piece of armour is being removed from the farmers' arsenal. Vital infrastructure that links the marketing, sales and transportation needs of western Canadian farmers is being destroyed. In the absence of any meaningful action on the rail service review for nine months now, farmers are concerned that they will no longer have the hammer that they need to deal with the overwhelming strength and appetite for profit of big grain companies and the railway.
Western grain farmers have shared their tragic stories of the abuse they suffer at the hands of the railways. The railway companies have such a callous disregard for farmers that they will often send railway cars with holes in them without any consideration for what grain will be lost along the way. Farmers individually are up against a behemoth where their collective clout enables them recourse in the face of such poor treatment. That clout will now be gone.
Many farmers have approached me because our Competition Act is not nearly effective enough in dealing with anti-competitive behaviour. In this infrastructural vacuum, farmers will be left to struggle and die. Not only will farmers be left to fend for themselves, but even the farmers who stay with an interim wheat board will lose their voice in the organization.
This bill does not allow for any elected directors upon the coming into effect of the new law, and leaves five government-appointed directors. These directors, unaccountable to grain producers, are no more than puppets of the minister with the new sweeping powers set in place by the bill that require the board to be operated by whom? The Prime Minister's office.
My colleague on the government side, the member for Westlock—St. Paul, once wrote the following to his constituents:
Canada is a democracy and one of the underlying tenets of a democracy is that fact that citizens vote to elect their representatives, be it an MP, a mayor or a Director of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am saddened that my friend has abandoned his commitment to democratic institutions. There is a very important truth in that statement. Members on both sides of this House have argued that farmers know what is in their own best interests. Therefore, when the western Canadian farmers elect their directors to the Wheat Board and 80% of the directors elected consistently support the single desk, one can only assume that the democratic process has been respected and the wishes of the electorate have been satisfied.
Many of the same farmers who may have helped to elect my friend the member for Westlock—St. Paul or any number of members opposite from the government party also voted to elect representatives to their Wheat Board and support the single desk.
A number of members opposite have questioned my position on behalf of prairie wheat and barley farmers in the past because I am from Ontario. Well, I will say to those members that people from Ontario and everywhere else in this country know that their food comes from farmers and not the grocery store. The Conservatives have make the false link between the single desk and western Canadian provinces and the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board. I will clear up some of the errors in their argument before they rise during the period for questions and comments.
We are entirely committed to giving western Canadian farmers the same choice as Ontario farmers. In the late 1990s, the Ontario farmer-elected board of the single desk began a transition, supported by producers, to move to an open market. Farmer-elected directors supported by Ontario farmers made this choice, not a government talking down to producers, the majority of whom voted to sustain the single desk.
There is no question that Canada produces the best grain in the world. However, there are different grades of grain, and the members opposite need to keep that in mind when they are considering this bill. Ontario production is one-tenth that of the western provinces, and produces a soft wheat, one used primarily for pastry, cookies and doughnuts. The western provinces' hard red spring wheat is used in making bread, and their durum for making pasta. Ontario mills rely on prairie wheat for flour.
Most of Ontario's wheat is sold within Canada or the northern United States, while the majority of western wheat is shipped around the world. The transportation costs for western wheat and its markets are not at all comparable, nor is the clout required to sustain the western wheat industry.
What is the bottom line? If the members opposite would like to continue making the comparison between Ontario and the western provinces, they should first allow western farmers a vote to determine their own future.
Any way we look at it, the will of western Canadian wheat, durum and barley farmers is being ignored by the government. A majority of farmers elected the farmer directors. A majority of farmers supported maintaining the single desk and a majority of farmers are furious that their Conservative MPs are muzzled by the Prime Minister's office, will not listen to their wishes or their needs and are now endangering their livelihoods.
When asked about why there will be no farmer-elected directors on the interim Canada wheat board, members at committee were informed that it was necessary for such oversight given the expenditure of taxpayer money. This, of course, raises a new concern. How much taxpayer money will be spent killing the Canadian Wheat Board? With the single desk, the Canadian Wheat Board is an organization with annual revenue of $5 billion to $8 billion, which generates hundreds of millions of dollars a year for all farmers.
Presently, there is no cost to the Canadian taxpayers and yet the government has not released a single estimate of how much this is anticipated to cost, nor has it released a business plan for a new Canadian wheat board. What business starts without a business plan? I thought perhaps the government was considering funding its failed enterprise on the back of farmers.
A week and a half ago, it was discovered that the government had raised the cap on the Canadian Wheat Board's contingency fund, originally developed to allow the Canadian Wheat Board to pursue more innovative marketing, as well as to gradually build a buffer to protect farmers. The reserve was capped at $60 million for the last 13 years. Everything above that went to farmers through the wheat pool of funds. At the 11th hour, just in the past week or so, the Conservative government suddenly raised the cap to $200 million. I could only imagine that even the farmers who support the government's position are furious to learn that their hard-earned money now provides for a Conservative government's slush fund, a fund designed to pay for the minister's new farming folly and the further liabilities of dismantling the Wheat Board.
Farmers could use this money. With the fragile state of the world economy, the Canada Wheat Board is more important than ever to grain exporting prairie provinces. This money is the financial backstop for their clout. These farmers have heard the prognostications of big grain companies like Viterra, Cargill, Richardson and even Bunge, most of whom have seen share prices spike with the news that the Conservatives would be killing the Wheat Board. Even today, Cargill announced that it will create their own wheat pool for farmers. What chance does an interim Canada wheat board have to survive? Almost nil.
Just weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal welcomed the demise of the Wheat Board, noting that under the present single desk system, “More money goes back to farmers than under an open market system”. It went on to say, “Grain handlers such as Cargill Inc., Viterra Inc., and Bunge Limited, could see their roles and returns in Canadian grain markets grow”.
Where will this growth come from? It will come from profit that would have been in the pockets of western farmers and small town economies, thanks to the Canadian Wheat Board. Do we need more proof? Alliance Grain Traders are just now opening a pasta processing plant in Regina, one that would not have been feasible before, unless it knew it could get the lowest possible price for farmers' wheat and durum, noting that the best way now to combat their market erosion is, “by negotiating lower prices from growers”.
Once the protection of the single desk is gone, these businesses will begin to divide and conquer farmers, negotiating them down to the lowest possible price, making farmers price takers instead of price setters, until inevitably, as was the case in Australia, there is only one large agribusiness left.
Western Canadian farmers on both sides of this debate should take a much closer look at the Australian model. Its example leaves so many questions unanswered but has demonstrated that deregulation has led to major agribusiness controlling the logistic chain, leaving farmers out in the cold.
Jock Munro, a grain farmer from New South Wales, Australia, in an article in Grain Matters, lamented:
We estimate we have lost $4 billion as growers since the wheat industry was deregulated three years ago.
The math just does not add up, unless the government is deliberately ensuring that Canadian farmers are the losers at the end of this deal.
Not contained in the bill is any contingency for 10 to 15 years down the road. We know that small farms and small town economies will now be in danger of failure, even The Economist magazine agrees. In an editorial at the outset of this debate it wrote:
Smaller producers, faced with mounting marketing costs, will inevitably have to sell their farms to bigger rivals or agribusiness companies...devastating small prairie towns, whose economies depend on individual farmers with disposable income.
We already know that the government will not intervene unless it is to pull the strings of the board of directors, so farmers are left at the mercy of the grain and rail companies. We know that any extra money that might have been returned to farmers this year is being held hostage by the minister and his government.
What of food sovereignty? I am concerned, as are farmers across the western provinces, and Canadians across this country, that once small farms start failing on the Conservative government watch they will be bought up by large agribusiness or even foreign countries that are more concerned with their own profits and internal interests than our food sovereignty.
Recently, the government has made a number of moves that are less than encouraging for Canadian agricultural industries. Having bowed to most of the United States' protectionist measures, the government has now placed supply management of eggs, milk and poultry on the table to negotiate away. First it was the Wheat Board and now it is supply management.
The precedent set by killing the Canadian Wheat Board is causing a great deal of concern among supply managed farmers. Farmers remember the Prime Minister telling the members of the trans-Pacific partnership that supply management was on the table, just as clearly as they remember him telling our European partners that it was on the table, just as clearly as they remember this quote from the same man, their esteemed Prime Minister, who said, “Take for example, ‘supply management’, our government-sponsored price-fixing cartels”. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have always been clear that they favour the free market regardless of the cost to our Canadian farmers, Canada's food sovereignty and food security.
The bill is not about fairness or freedom. We have said from the very start to let farmers decide. The Conservative government, from the very start, has cut off any expression that opposes its ideological obsession with killing the single desk.
With that, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:
This House declines to give third reading to Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain acts, because members of the committee were unable to hear testimony from the primary producers affected by and concerned with the future commercialization of the Canadian Wheat Board.
View Alain Giguère Profile
NDP (QC)
View Alain Giguère Profile
2011-11-28 16:01 [p.3669]
Mr. Speaker, who is the minister working for? Clearly he is not working for Canadians. He is working for his own personal future. If he respects farmers so much then why will he not let them have a referendum? This is so typical. He says that he represents and defends farmers, but when they ask him to poll their opinion, he is not there for them. He is not the Minister of Agriculture, nor the minister of farmers. He is his own farmer and he is negotiating his future job, nothing more. He is not a Canadian member of Parliament. He is a man who defends anti-Canadian interests.
Results: 1 - 15 of 15

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data