Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 7 of 7
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1258--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With regard to the next review of the Canadian Postal Service Charter: (a) when will the government begin work on the review of the Canadian Postal Service Charter; (b) what form will the review process take; (c) what criteria will be used to determine whether the Charter meets requirements or whether it must be revised; and (d) will there be an opportunity for public input during the review of the Canadian Postal Service Charter and, if so, how will this input be obtained?
Response
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (c) and (d), under the Canadian Postal Service Charter, the government is to review the charter every five years after its adoption to assess the need to adapt the charter to changing requirements. Since the charter was announced in September 2009, the first five-year review would not be until September 2014.

Question No. 1259--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to written questions Q-1226 to Q-1237, Q-1244 and Q-1245, what is the estimated cost to the government for each response to each question?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as these answers were tabled very recently, the government is currently compiling the cost information for producing these responses. Once all the cost information has been received, the government will provide a supplementary response.

Question No. 1261--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the recent sale of crown land owned by the Correctional Service of Canada, in the amount of 1,554.48 square metres, located on Frontenac Institution in Kingston, Ontario: (a) who was the purchaser; (b) what was the purchase price; (c) what was the closing date of the transaction; (d) what were all of the measures taken to respect the Commissioner’s Directive for Real Property for the Correctional Service of Canada, in particular the statement, under Principles, that, “acquisition and disposal of real property assets will be done in a fair and open manner, which shall include public consultation”; (e) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and the purchaser; (f) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and parties who expressed interest but ultimately did not purchase the land; and (g) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and parties other than those in (e) and (f)?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as of March 25, 2013, the sale of the Crown land owned by CSC located on Frontenac Institution in Kingston, Ontario, has yet to be finalized. Therefore, CSC is unable to respond to the question, pending the completion of the sale.

Question No. 1262--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation vessel that ran aground while traveling from its base to the Coal Harbour News conference: (a) on what date was the decision made to have a vessel travel from its base to the Coal Harbour News conference; (b) who approved the decision to have a vessel travel to the Coal Harbour News conference, (i) which Ministers and Departments were involved with the decision, (ii) who had signing authority to authorize a vessel to travel to the Coal Harbour News conference; (c) what correspondence exists regarding the decision to have a vessel available for the press conference; (d) what correspondence exists regarding the follow-up after the vessel scheduled for the press conference ran aground; (e) what was the cost of having a vessel travel to the Coal Harbour news conference for the Western Canada Response Corporation, broken down by (i) cost of personnel, (ii) cost of transport including fuel, (iii) cost of equipment; (f) what was the cost of having a vessel travel to the Coal Harbour news conference for the government, broken down by (i) cost of personnel, (ii) cost of transport including fuel, (iii) cost of equipment, (iv) cost of wear and tear; (g) what was the dollar value of the damages incurred when the vessel ran aground, and where will the funds to pay for these damages come from; (h) what are the costs of repairs to the vessel for damages incurred; (i) what are the operational impacts to the vessel and the projected days that the vessel is expected to be out of commission; and (j) how many days has the vessel been out of commission as a result of this grounding to date?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) to (j), the president of the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation was invited by Port Metro Vancouver, which was hosting the Government of Canada’s world-class tanker safety system press conference. After being invited to participate in the event, Western Canada Marine Response volunteered to send the vessel to demonstrate its capacity to the public.
The Western Canada Marine Response Corporation routinely informs the public about its activities and the organization participated in this event at no cost to taxpayers.
The vessel had a brief soft landing on an uncharted sandbar amid the silt in the mouth of the Fraser River, moved away within minutes, and continued on without any damage. As per regulations, this was reported to Canada vessel traffic and Transport Canada so that others would be aware of this uncharted sandbar.
For more information, the member may contact the Western Marine Response Corporation.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1168--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the 1400-plus page report commissioned prior to Budget 2012 by Public-Private Partnerships Canada from the consulting firm Deloitte and Touche concerning the relevance and applicability of private delivery of prison design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance to the federal correctional system, and given that the government stated in Budget 2012 that it had no intention of building new prisons: (a) does the government or any of its departments plan to privatize new or existing correctional facilities in any aspect of their design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance or services going forward and, if so, (i) which aspects have been considered for privatization, (ii) what, if any, agreements or contracts have they entered into or do they plan to enter into with the private sector, (iii) which corporations, non-profit sector agencies, and other service providers are involved; and (b) how many Exchange of Service Agreements has Correctional Service Canada entered into with other jurisdictions for (i) sentences of two years plus a day, (ii) two years minus a day, (iii) do these agreements involve the privatization of any aspect of correctional and accommodation services and, if so, what is the nature of the privatization and which jurisdictions and third-party suppliers are involved?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), CSC operates 57 federal correctional institutions across Canada ranging from minimum to maximum security, 16 community correctional centres and 84 parole offices. None of these facilities are operated by the private sector. Budget 2012 was clear: the government has not built a single new prison since 2006 and has no intention of building any new prisons.
The government is committed to the idea that the work of guarding inmates should be performed by employees of the Government of Canada. CSC currently uses some privatized services for the delivery of specialized, non-correctional programs and services, e.g., medical professionals and educational services, which are provided through contracts with the private sector. In addition, CSC does contract, or enter into agreements, with not-for-profit organizations and communities, which operate community residential facilities, also known as halfway houses, or healing lodges, or which provide a service to CSC.
With regard to (a)(i) and (a)(iii), CSC had previously engaged in discussions with Public-Private Partnerships Canada, or PPP Canada, but has no plans to pursue the use of PPP.
With regard to (a)(ii), no agreements or contracts have been entered into.
With regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), court-imposed sentences of two years or more are administered within the federal correctional system, while sentences of less than two years are administered through the provincial/territorial correctional systems. However, Section 16 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides for the Minister of Public Safety, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into an exchange of services agreement, ESA, with the government of a province for the confinement of federal offenders in provincial correctional facilities or hospitals and the confinement of provincial offenders in federal penitentiaries.
CSC currently has bilateral ESAs with all 13 provincial/territorial jurisdictions.
With regard to (b)(iii), these agreements do not involve the privatization of any aspect of correctional and accommodation services.

Question No. 1171--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the response that the Minister of Public Safety gave to Q-471 (40th Parliament, 3rd session), indicating that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) would be submitting a long-term accommodation strategy and investment plan to Cabinet for consideration in March 2011, and given that the government stated in Budget 2012 that it had no intention of building new prisons: (a) how many regional complexes did CSC recommend building as part of this project plan, and how many units and prisoners did CSC recommend each complex house; (b) where did CSC recommend building these regional complexes as part of this project plan and what were the criteria for the selection of the proposed locations; (c) what were the total capital costs associated with designing, constructing, financing, operating, and maintaining these complexes per annum and over their projected life-cycle; (d) what was the date recommended by CSC to begin implementation of this project plan and when did CSC anticipate that these facilities would come online if their proposed timelines were followed; (e) does the government plan to move forward with this project plan and, if not, what are the grounds for rejecting this project plan?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, maintaining appropriate infrastructure that fits the needs of a first-class, modern correctional system is key to public safety.
On April 19, 2012, the government announced it will close operations at two sites: Kingston Penitentiary and the Regional Treatment Centre in Kingston, Ontario, and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec. These are aging facilities with infrastructure that does not lend itself well to the challenges of managing the institutional routines of today's complex offender population. The decommissioning of this aging infrastructure will enable CSC to achieve cost savings while ensuring public safety.
Meanwhile, CSC has been working to add more than 2,700 beds to men's and women's facilities across Canada within existing institutions. These institutional expansions will provide a more effective, efficient and sustainable physical infrastructure.
Details on infrastructure renewal at the Correctional Service of Canada are available at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/about-us/006-0008-eng.shtml.
Budget 2012 was clear; the government has not built a single new prison since 2006 and has no intention of building any new prisons.

Question No. 1178--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement at 5:15 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2012, what was the total cost of putting on this announcement including the costs of the (i) backdrops purchased, (ii) press releases, (iii) translation services, (iv) cost of hosting a lockup for members of the media?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement at 5:15 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2012, the Privy Council Office, PCO, spent $683.65 for the rental of a podium and lighting and $250 for the rental of 20 flagpoles from PWGSC, for a total of $933.65.

Question No. 1182--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT): (a) who drafted the press release issued on September 22, 2012, under the title “Baird Receives Honourary 7th Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo”; (b) who approved or authorized the release of that press release by or on behalf of DFAIT; (c) what was the cost of distributing it via Marketwire; (d) was the press release transmitted or distributed by any other commercial means or services and, if so, (i) which means or services, (ii) at what costs; (e) who paid or will pay the costs of using Marketwire or any other means or service; (f) was the press release published to either the national or any regional DFAIT web sites and, if so, (i) which web sites, (ii) at what time was it published, (iii) was it later removed from the web sites, (iv) if it was removed, why was it removed and when was it removed; and (g) what was the total cost of translation?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has not issued any press releases entitled “Baird Receives Honourary 7th Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo.” On September 22, 2012, a photo release was issued as part of an official visit to Canada by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, South Korea, H.E. Kim Sung-hwan. Minister Kim’s bilateral visit, which coincided with the 50th anniversary of Canada-South Korean diplomatic relations, marked the first by a South Korean foreign minister in five years.
In their meetings, the ministers discussed a variety of issues of mutual concern, including food security, human rights and the nuclear program in North Korea; Burma and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; South Korea’s support for Canada’s entry to the East Asia Summit; the situation in the Middle East; economic cooperation; and negotiations toward a Free Trade Agreement between the two countries. They also signed the Joint Declaration on Enhancing the Strategic Dialogue and witnessed the signing of a memorandum of understanding to strengthen the two countries’ collaboration on international development.
Minister Kim’s highly successful bilateral visit paved the way for Canada to welcome Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik of South Korea in December 2012, during which time it was announced that 2013 has been designated as the Year of Korea in Canada.
The caption for the photo release was drafted by departmental communications strategists and approved by the minister’s office, as is standard practice for all communications products involving the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The photo release was not distributed via Marketwire, nor was it transmitted or distributed by any other commercial means. It was posted on the corporate DFAIT website as well as on the Flickr channel where, to date, it has received more than 6,660 views, the highest for any photo in 2012. The photo release was posted at 21:08, and has not been removed. No translation costs were incurred, as translation was undertaken by departmental officials.

Question No. 1184--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Community Development Fund and the Grand Bank Development Corporation (GBDC): (a) how much funding in total was allocated in 1991 to the GBDC under the Community Development Fund and was the funding received in a lump sum payment; (b) what organization administers the GBDC fund; (c) has the GBDC fund been exhausted and, if not, how much is left in this fund; (d) what is the annual operational cost of the GBDC; (e) what is the current status of the GBDC; (f) are there plans to change the GBDC status in the near future and, if so, (i) what are the details of any documentation stating the rationale for the change in status and, if not, (ii) will the GBDC be allowed to continue operating, in the interest of fulfilling its mandate, until such time as the initial funding on the Corporation’s balance sheet reaches zero; (g) should the GBDC cease to operate, what will happen to the unspent fund originally allocated under the Community Development Fund and the revenues being generated by money it has invested since the fund was established; (h) what is the status of the Community Development Fund allocated to (i) Trepassey, (ii) Gaultois, (iii) Botwood, (iv) South Side St. John’s; and (i) have any of those communities exhausted their funding and, if so, (i) were they permitted to continue their mandate until their funds were exhausted and, if not, (ii) was the unused portion of their funding given to another organization or agency to administer?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is concerned, with regard to the Community Development Fund, CDF, and the Grand Bank Development Corporation, GBDC, with regard to (a), during the 1990-91 fiscal year, the Government of Canada allocated $6 million in funding as a lump sum through Employment and Immigration Canada, to be administered by the Burin Peninsula Community Business Development Corporation, CBDC, to establish a community development fund for the Town of Grand Bank. As part of the funding agreement, the CBDC worked with a subcommittee, which later became incorporated as the Grand Bank Development Corporation, GBDC.
With regard to (b), there is no GBDC fund. Rather, the CBDC administers the CDF. The CBDC and the GBDC are parties to a memorandum of understanding that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each organization and assists the CBDC in fulfilling the terms and conditions of the funding agreement of the CDF.
With regard to (c), there is no GBDC fund. In 1995-96, the amounts disbursed for the CDF were exhausted; the agency is not disclosing the amount available from the return on investment, as such information could be exempted should it be requested under the Access to Information Act.
With regard to (d), the annual operational cost of the GBDC could also be exempted should it be requested under the Access to Information Act.
With regard to (e), the GBDC is currently a party to two contribution agreements with the agency, both of which are in good standing.
With regard to (f), there are no plans to change the GBDC’s status; with regard to (f)(ii), the agency has no information available.
With regard to (g), it is the responsibility of the CBDC to determine how it will fulfill the terms and conditions of the funding agreement related to the CDF.
With regard to (h), the agency has no information available. With regard to (i), the Agency has no information available.

Question No. 1191--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to amendments to the Canada Grains Act in Budget 2012: (a) what market impact studies were completed prior to making these amendments and what were the projected impacts; and (b) what were the projected impacts on farmers from these amendments?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the government undertook several initiatives over the past decade that assessed the impacts of amendments to the Canada Grains Act, CGA, including market impacts.
The CGA required that an independent and comprehensive review of the CGA and the Canadian Grain Commission, CGC, be undertaken in 2006 in response to concerns that the CGC had not kept up with grain industry needs and to deal with long-standing funding issues. Compas Inc., contracted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, completed this review and tabled its report in the House of Commons on September 18, 2006. Compas Inc. recommended that inward inspection become optional and that the CGC’s inspection services be contracted out to reduce costs to the industry. Compas Inc. also recommended exploring alternative producer payment protection models that provide optimal security at optimal prices and clarity to producers.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, SCAAF, studied the Compas Inc. report and, in December 2006, tabled its own report outlining unanimous all-party recommendations. SCAAF recommended moving to optional inward inspection to reduce unnecessary regulations and costs. SCAAF also recommended that an alternative model for producer payment security be explored to reduce costs.
The government attempted to act on these recommendations on two occasions prior to budget 2012. Unfortunately, members of Parliament from the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois colluded to prevent the passage of this legislation.
In 2010-12 the CGC consulted with producers and industry organizations regarding changes to its user fees, using consultation documents that included service descriptions and standards as well as proposed fees. Stakeholders responded that changes to the CGA were required before its user fees were updated.
In 2011 the working group on marketing freedom, established to advise the minister on the Canadian Wheat Board, CWB, recommended that an updated CGA would complement the proposed changes to the CWB. These reforms would serve to transform the Canadian grain sector to a more competitive, market-oriented environment.
In 2012 the CGC asked for additional stakeholder feedback on possible changes to the CGA. Specifically, input was requested on the governance and mandate of the CGC, producer payment security, licensing, inspection and weighing, enforcement, and any other matter pertaining to the CGA. It was estimated that the elimination of CGC-provided inward inspection and weighing and the changes to producer payment protection would result in about $20 million in savings in CGC costs per year. Stakeholders, including producers, continued to request that the CGA be modernized to reduce costs for the sector.
In 2012 the CGC conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed user fee regulations for the CGC’s updated services, based on changes to the CGA. This included an assessment of the costs and benefits of the elimination of CGC-provided inward inspection and weighing and registration and cancellation of elevator receipts. It was found that over a 15-year period, the net benefit of the changes to industry stakeholders, including producers, is a savings of $87.54 million for the elimination of CGC inward inspection and weighing and registration and cancellation of elevator receipts.
Officials from the CGC and AAFC appeared at SCAAF on November 6, 2012, to discuss these changes. Members of Parliament provided valuable feedback at that time. It should be noted that the committee and both Houses of Parliament agreed with the government’s approach and passed this legislation without amendment.
With regard to (b), the studies and consultations indicated that producers ultimately pay for any CGC services since the costs of these services are passed through grain companies on to farmers. Therefore, the impact of the projected net benefit of $87.54 million over a 15-year period for the elimination of CGC inward inspection and weighing and registration and cancellation of elevator receipts will ultimately benefit producers.

Question No. 1192--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
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 provide a clear timeline for the publication of the proposed regulatory changes in the Canada Gazette; (b) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food make the current draft of proposed regulatory changes available to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; and (c) will the Canadian Food Inspection Agency make submissions received during the initial public consultation period on this file, held in 2006, available to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CFIA continues to consider options for moving forward with these regulations and will need to conduct additional consultations prior to publishing regulations in Canada Gazette. Currently there are no draft regulations that are ready to be published.
With regard to (b), the issue of amending the Health of Animals Regulations to address humane transportation of animals is sensitive and complex. The CFIA must ensure that due diligence is exercised with respect to consulting Canadians on any regulatory proposal. These consultations are continuing, and only after they are completed will a regulatory proposal be prepared.
With regard to (c), the submissions made during the 2006 comment period may no longer be relevant to the current context for these regulations. If it is deemed that the submissions are relevant, they will be released at the appropriate time.

Question No. 1193--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With respect to domestic production, consumption, export, and import of oil: (a) has the government assessed the economic impact of increasing Canada's refining capacity on (i) the domestic added value, (ii) employment, (iii) international trade, (iv) internal trade, (v) consumer retail prices of gasoline and diesel fuel; (b) if yes, (i) what are the areas surveyed, (ii) which conclusion did they come to on this matter, (iii) what data was used to support this conclusion; (c) what external research, consultations, or reports were referenced to support these conclusions; (d) what internal research, consultations, or reports were referenced to support these conclusions; and (e) has the government conducted, or is it conducting specific studies, on the impact of a potential West-East pipeline on (i) job creation, (ii) domestic value-added, (iii) balance of trade, (iv) the number of jobs created in Canada, (v) what the effect of a rise of oil crude prices resulting from a West-East pipeline would be on the prices of retail gas paid by consumers in Western Canada, consumers in Central Canada and consumers in Eastern Canada?
Response
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (c) and (d), Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, has not done a formal study or report on the economic impact of increasing Canada's refining capacity. However, we keep developments in the refining sector under constant observation. In fact, NRCan has recently appeared before both parliamentary and Senate committees to provide insight on these matters. Canada has the second-highest refining capacity per capita among G8 countries; however, at 85% capacity utilization, it is currently experiencing significant overcapacity. This overcapacity is the result of a decline in North American demand for refined petroleum products.
In Canada we have a market-based approach that relies on market forces to signal when and where new refining capacity should be built.
With regard to (e), the Government of Canada supports the construction of a west-to-east pipeline and notes that the private sector has brought forward two possible projects. Given Canada’s market-based approach to energy policy, NRCan believes that the industry is best placed to determine how to move crude oil to markets, whether it be by rail, pipeline, ship or other mode of transport. All proposals for such pipelines are required to submit a detailed application to the National Energy Board, NEB, the independent federal regulator, which will then conduct a comprehensive regulatory review that could include public hearings and the submission of evidence on issues relating to but not limited to socio-economics, environment and public safety. Through this review process, concerns and questions regarding the economic impacts of a west-east pipeline would be addressed.
NRCan has extensive expertise and knowledge regarding the development of crude oil pipelines, oil markets, and the economics surrounding the development of oil and gas pipeline infrastructure in Canada. NRCan is able to support policy decisions concerning the development of energy infrastructure in Canada through the analysis and synthesis of information from many credible sources, including, but not limited to, internal reports and studies, publicly available reports and studies, academics, industry experts, non-governmental organizations and other governments.
NRCan continuously analyzes retail gasoline prices across Canada and publishes extensive information on gasoline prices and the factors that influence gasoline prices. This material is publicly available at www.fuelfocus.nrcan.gc.ca. The Fuel Focus report is published every two weeks, while gasoline price information is updated daily.

Question No. 1196--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to National Defence, how many Canadian Forces Reserve officers at the General, Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel ranks would, as of February 13, 2013, qualify for an appointment under section 165.22 of the National Defence Act, as amended by Bill C-15 in the current session of Parliament?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, clause 41 of Bill C-15, which is being debated before the current session of Parliament, would amend Section 165.22 of the National Defence Act so that it would read:
There is a Reserve Force Military Judges Panel to which the Governor in Council may name any officer of the reserve force who has been an officer for at least 10 years and who
(a) is a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years’ standing at the bar of a province;
(b) has been a military judge;
(c) has presided at a Standing Court Martial or a Special General Court Martial; or
(d) has been a judge advocate at a court martial.”
As of 27 February 2013, there were 15 Canadian Armed Forces Reserve legal officers at the General, Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel rank who met these requirements.

Question No. 1205--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to telecommunications, what is the location and owner of any cellular telephone tower which has been newly-approved, or which has been relocated from a previously-approved location to another, anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, since January 2, 2012?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this information is not available at the level of detail requested.

Question No. 1206--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to National Defence real property: (a) what are the financial terms of any agreement by which Nalcor, or contractors working on behalf of or under the auspices of Nalcor, will occupy residential quarters at 5 Wing Goose Bay; (b) what buildings at 5 Wing Goose Bay are subject to any such agreement; and (c) what are the file numbers of any such agreement or contract?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Nalcor is to pay $9,866 per day, to be paid every seven days. The authority for the lease or licence of federal real property is found under the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act, and the agreement follows the policy and procedures for provision of services by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to non-defence agencies found in the Provision of Services manual, as well as the Treasury Board policy on management of real property.
With regard to (b), the buildings subject to the agreement are Barrack Block buildings 476 and 479.
With regard to (c), the file number of the agreement is 1001-1 (W Comd) 13 February 2013.
Agreements and contractsAllen, MalcolmAnderson, DavidAnimal healthAnimal rights and welfareBaird, JohnBrison, ScottBudget 2012 (March 29, 2012)Building and construction industryCanadian Forces Base Goose BayCanadian Forces Reserves ...Show all topics
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1137--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian embassy in Ireland: (a) what guests visited the embassy and met with the Ambassador, between December 1, 2010, and December 1, 2012, including the (i) home address of each visitor, (ii) date of the visit, (iii) purpose of the visit; and (b) what entertainment or hospitality expenses were incurred for each visit?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the mandate of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada is to manage Canada’s diplomatic and consular relations and to encourage the country’s international trade. This includes ensuring that Canada’s foreign policy reflects Canadian values; advancing Canada’s national interests; strengthening rules-based trading arrangements and expanding free and fair market access at bilateral, regional and global levels; and working with a broad range of partners inside and outside government to increase economic opportunities and enhance security for Canadians and Canadian businesses.
The Embassy of Canada to Ireland, under the leadership of the ambassador, seeks to advance these priorities by representing Canada’s interests in Ireland. Indeed, as stated on the embassy’s website: “In recent years, shared values and interests have provided the basis for a further strengthening of the Canada-Ireland relationship, particularly in meeting the challenges of domestic and global governance. There is a growing dialogue and increased co-operation and sharing of ‘best practices’ on development assistance, education, parliamentary reform, health care, and in other social and economic policies.”
With regard to part (a), on any given day, the ambassador will meet both formally and informally with a number of individuals including, but not limited to, private or official Government of Canada business, academic or trade delegations, diplomatic counterparts, tourists, or Canadians seeking consular assistance. Thus, these visits are not formally tracked to the level of detail requested. It is also important to note that the names and home addresses of guests, and possibly the purpose of their visit to the embassy, are considered personal information and is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act.
With regard to (b), as part of regular reporting requirements, a list of travel and hospitality expenses for the Embassy of Canada in Ireland can be found on the department’s website: http://w03.international.gc.ca/dthe-dfva/Year-Annee.aspx?lang=eng&dept=FAAE&prof_id=457

Question No. 1144--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Correctional Services Canada: (a) how many inmates can currently be accommodated at the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC) in Kingston; (b) how many inmates are expected to be accommodated in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (c) how many inmates are expected to be accommodated in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (d) how many beds are currently at the RTC in Kingston and how are they broken down in terms of single occupancy units, double occupancy units, and multiple occupancy units; (e) how many beds are expected to be available in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution and how are they broken down in terms of single occupancy units, double occupancy units, and multiple occupancy units; (f) how many beds are expected to be available in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution and how are they broken down in terms of single occupancy units, double occupancy units, and multiple occupancy units; (g) how many locked pharmacies are currently established at the RTC in Kingston; (h) how many locked pharmacies are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (i) how many locked pharmacies are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (j) how many common rooms are currently at the RTC in Kingston; (k) how many common rooms are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (l) how many common rooms are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (m) how many private interview spaces are currently at the RTC in Kingston; (n) how many private interview spaces are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (o) how many private interview spaces are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (p) how many cubicles are currently at the RTC in Kingston; (q) how many cubicles are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (r) how many cubicles are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (s) given that corrections officers at RTC received instruction from clinical staff to ensure that they would be able to work safely and effectively with inmates with psychiatric illness, will the officers at Bath and Milhaven receive similar instruction; and (t) how many officers from RTC will be directly transferred to work exclusively at the new RTC at Bath or Millhaven?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the current Regional Treatment Centre, RTC, can accommodate 143 inmates, plus five more in observation cells if required. As of January 24, 2013, there were 121 inmates at the RTC.
With regard to (b), 96 inmates are expected to be accommodated in the new RTC at Bath Institution.
With regard to (c), 26 inmates are expected to be accommodated in the new RTC at Millhaven Institution.
With regard to (d), there are 143 beds at the current RTC; all are in single cells. As of January 24, 2013, there were 121 inmates at the RTC.
With regard to (e), there will be 96 beds at the new RTC at Bath Institution, all single cells.
With regard to (f), there will be 26 beds at the new RTC at Millhaven Institution, all single cells.
With regard to (g), there is one pharmacy and five locked medication dispensaries at the current RTC.
With regard to (h), there will be no pharmacy at the new RTC at Bath Institution; however, there will be a locked medication dispensary.
With regard to (i), there will be no pharmacy at the new RTC at Millhaven Institution; however, there will be a locked medication dispensary.
With regard to (j), there are eight common rooms at the current RTC.
With regard to (k), there will be four common rooms in the new RTC at Bath Institution to accommodate eight ranges of offenders.
With regard to (l), there will be no common rooms for the new RTC at Millhaven Institution; however there will be space available within the institution as required.
With regard to (m), it is difficult to specify the exact number at the current RTC, as offices are often used for the purpose of private interviews.
With regard to (n), there will be four multi-purpose rooms to be used for private interview rooms at the new RTC at Bath Institution as part of the new general purpose building specific to the treatment centre needs.
With regard to (o), there will be a sharing of current private interview space at Millhaven Institution that will be available for both Millhaven and RTC staff.
With regard to (p), there are currently no cubicles at the current RTC.
With regard to (q), there will be 16 cubicles for staff at the new RTC at Bath Institution.
With regard to (r), there will not be any specific cubicles for staff at the new RTC at Millhaven Institution.
With regard to (s), correctional officers at the new RTCs, at both Bath and Millhaven Institutions, will receive the exact same instruction on working with inmates with psychiatric illness.
With regard to (t), the correctional officer deployment standards for both sites have not yet been finalized.

Question No. 1152--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s answering of Order Paper questions: (a) how many times last year did the government estimate the cost of answering an Order Paper question, and as a result of the cost, did not provide an answer to the Order Paper question; (b) for each instance identified in (a), (i) what was the question, (ii) who did the analysis, (iii) how much time did it take to do the analysis, (iv) how was the estimate calculated; (c) for each instance identified in (a), (i) were consultants hired, (ii) if so, what was their hourly rate; (d) for each instance identified in (a), if consultants were not hired, was providing answers to Order Paper questions part of the regular job duties of the individual(s) involved in preparing the answer; (e) how many times last year did government Members ask for an estimate of the cost to answer an opposition Member’s Order Paper question; and (f) for each instance identified in (e), (i) what was the question, (ii) who did the analysis, (iii) how much time did it take to do the analysis, (iv) how was the estimate calculated?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC:
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), during this Parliament the Government of Canada has answered over 1,100 order paper questions, which, combined, contained several thousand subquestions, and it would require an extensive manual search to determine the number of times when the government could not fully answer a question.
Government organizations assigned to produce responses to order paper questions must first assess whether the information requested is available and can be obtained from information systems or other types of sources. Organizations also take into account the deadline for producing the response to a particular order paper question--i.e., in almost all cases, order paper questions call for a response within 45 calendar days as specified under Standing Order 39 of the House of Commons. If no relevant and reliable information is found, the government will respond that it cannot answer. Where the research would require significant organizational resources and an extensive manual search of paper files, an organization may respond that it cannot answer the question in the time available. In these cases, the government response usually provides a reason. The estimated cost of producing the response is not the determining factor, and there is no specified limit on the cost of producing a government response. The estimated cost of a response is calculated based primarily on the time spent researching and drafting the government response.
With regard to (c) and (d), government responses to order paper questions are usually researched and drafted by officials within the organization who have expertise in the subject matter of the question. The Privy Council Office does not track the use of consultants to produce government responses.
With regard to (e), to date during the 41st Parliament, the member for Fort McMurray--Athabasca has placed three questions on the order paper requesting the estimated cost for producing government responses to a range of order paper questions.
With regard to (f)(i), the three questions were as follows:
Q-385 — December 12, 2011—For questions Q-1 through Q-376 on the order paper, what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question? Q-512 — March 8, 2012—With regard to questions Q-386 through Q-509 on the order paper, (a) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question? Q-901 — September 24, 2012—With regard to questions Q-513 through Q-818 on the order paper: (a) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?
With regard to (f)(ii), each organization estimated the cost of producing its response to the order paper questions listed in Q-385, Q-512 and Q-901.
The Privy Council Office compiled the cost estimates provided by each organization to produce the government responses to Q-385, Q-512 and Q-901.
With regard to (f)(iii), it took the Privy Council Office approximately 37.5 hours to compile the cost estimates reported in the response to Q-512 and 94.5 hours to compile the cost estimates reported in the response to Q-901. This information was not compiled for the response to Q-385.
With regard to (f)(iv), organizations use the following guideline to estimate the costs of producing government responses: the total number of hours spent by officials, generally subject-matter experts, who researched, drafted, reviewed and approved a response and the related Statement of Completeness, not including coordination activities by departmental Parliamentary Affairs staff or review by ministers’ offices; and the cost of translating the response into the second official language for tabling in the House of Commons.
The estimated salary cost of producing a government response is based on 80% of an analyst position with a PM-06 mid-range annual salary, salary cost of $89,000, plus 20% of an executive’s time with an EX-01 mid-range annual salary, salary cost of $26,880, for a total estimated annual salary of $116,160, or $60.00 per hour. These salary costs include the 20% cost of employee pension and benefits.
The total cost of producing government responses to the 624 order paper questions listed in Q-385, Q-512 and Q-901 is $2,892,744.65.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 512--
Mr. Brian Jean:
With regard to questions Q-386 through Q-509 on the Order Paper: (a) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government is currently compiling the cost information for producing these responses, some of which were just tabled in the House of Commons on April 23, 2012, and will provide a supplementary response.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 466--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the government's plan to forgive a portion of Canada Student Loans for new family physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses, practicing in under-served rural or remote Canadian communities: (a) when will individuals begin to receive loan forgiveness; (b) how many individuals are projected to qualify for loan forgiveness in fiscal year 2012-2013; (c) what is the projected value of loans that will be forgiven; and (d) what will the process be for individuals to apply to have their loans forgiven?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (c) and (d), Canada Student Loan, CSL, forgiveness for family physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses is on track for implementation in 2012-13, subject to regulatory approval. Individuals will begin to receive CSL forgiveness starting in 2013.

Question No. 473--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to the trip by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to New Zealand and Thailand in July and August of 2011, who were all of the staff and guests who accompanied the Minister?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Chris Mahon, executive assistant to the minister, accompanied the minister throughout the trip. Kate O’Brien, immigration program manager, IPM--Canberra, participated in some of the Wellington events, then travelled by air with the minister and Chris Mahon from Wellington to Auckland. Micheline Aucoin, area director for Southeast Asia and IPM--Manila, participated in the Thailand program.

Question No. 474--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' (DFO) planned modernization of fisheries management: (a) how many jobs will be lost and/or relocated due to the move to an online web-based license renewal and payment system; (b) what offices will be affected and where are they located; (c) does the government have a plan in place to assure that every fisher in every fishing community, including those who live in predominantly rural areas of the country, many of whom do not have access to high-speed internet, will have equal service standards; (d) what is the government’s plan to provide equal service to those fishers who do not and will not have access to the internet; (e) how will services be affected for those who do not and will not have access to the internet; and (f) what is the government’s plan to allow fishers who do not and will not have access to the internet to make the kinds of last minute changes in their files that could previously be made by telephone?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), it is estimated that 42 positions will be eliminated as a result of the department’s modernization from paper-based to electronic-based systems.
With regard to (b), positions affected are located in Vancouver, Nanaimo and Prince Rupert, BC; Whitehorse, YT; Quebec City, Sept-Iles and Gaspé, QC; Charlottetown, PE; St. George, Moncton, Richibucto and Tracadie-Sheila, NB; Yarmouth, Dartmouth, Sydney and Antigonish, NS; and St. John’s, Mount Pearl, Grand Bank, Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Grand Falls-Windsor, NL.
With regard to (c), Fisheries and Oceans Canada is developing a web-based system that will have equal service standards and provide consistent services to harvesters across the country. It will be more efficient and effective and will be available on a 24/7 basis.
With regard to (d) and (e), alternate service delivery procedures are being developed for those who do not and will not have access to the Internet. For example, the web-based system will allow harvesters to delegate licensing responsibility to other persons who have access to the Internet. Where the Internet is not available locally, alternate service delivery procedures will be developed for these situations.
With regard to (f), there will be staff available at local fisheries offices to assist licence holders in exceptional circumstances when needed.

Question No. 477--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the one-time projected closing costs of the Maritime Rescue Sub Centre in St. John’s (MRSC St. John’s) and the consolidation of MRSC St. John’s to Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax (JRCC Halifax) and Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Trenton (JRCC Trenton), what is the total cost of: (a) consolidating MRSC St. John’s to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (b) new training at JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton, including language training and overtime hours for replacement employees while employees are being trained; (c) relocation to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (d) upgrades required to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (e) benefits paid to employees who choose to leave the public service as a result of the consolidation; (f) recruitment of candidates to replace services provided by MRSC St. John’s; (g) travel for personnel and project managers between JRCC Halifax, JRCC Trenton, MRSC St. John’s and Ottawa as a result of the consolidation; (h) project management, including the replacement and supplementing of the Regional Superintendent of Search and Rescue to assist with consolidation logistics; and (i) other work force adjustments obligations, including reasonable job offers to affected employees?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), a net annual and ongoing cost savings of $1,000,000 in salaries will be realized through a reduction of positions. Annual total overhead costs for telecommunications and informatics services and training, travelling and exercising will not change and will be transferred from the maritime rescue sub-centres, MRSCs, to the joint rescue coordination centres, JRCCs. The total ongoing cost of consolidated JRCCs is not yet finalized. One-time costs to implement the consolidation are dependent upon various factors, including the specific training and relocation requirements of each new hire and the scope of required upgrades to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton.
With regard to (c), as of March 12, 2012, no MRSC St. John's and Quebec employees have elected to relocate to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton.
With regard to (d), renovation/upgrade costs for the JRCCs are under review, as there were several pre-existing renewal/upgrade projects under way at both JRCCs before the government announcement of this consolidation, including phone system upgrades, software and hardware upgrades, and renovations).
With regard to (e), costs for any potential benefits paid to employees who choose to leave the public service are determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the union collective agreement. Should employees accept other employment within the public service, these costs will be avoided.
With regard to (f), the recruitment process is ongoing at all JRCCs. A final cost will not be available until recruitment is completed.
With regard to (g), final travel costs will only be available when consolidation is fully implemented.
With regard to (h), the project management duties have been carried out by existing Coast Guard employees within its salary envelope.
With regard to (i), the workforce adjustment process is still under way, and all affected employees will be subject to workforce adjustment processes based on their negotiated collective agreements and Government of Canada policies. Final costs for each affected employee will not be known until the completion of this process.

Question No. 484--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the three project profiles located on the Canadian International Development Agency’s (CIDA) webpage, one for each of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, entitled “Promoting Effective Corporate Social Responsibility”, for a total of twenty million dollars: (a) what are the executing agency and partners for each of the projects; (b) how much funding has been allocated for each project, (i) how much of the allocated funding has been spent, (ii) when was funding for each project first spent, (iii) what specific activities and expenses has the funding been spent on, (iv) in what specific area of each country has this funding been spent; (c) are there Canadian or other mining projects in these areas; and (d) do these three projects correspond to CIDA’s Andean Regional Initiative?
Response
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the response to this question is based on the profiles available on CIDA’s project browser for the following sub-elements of the project called “Promoting Effective Corporate Social Responsibility”, project A034537: A034537-001, Promoting Effective Corporate Social Responsibility--Bolivia; A034537-002, Promoting Effective Corporate Social Responsibility--Colombia; A034537-003, Promoting Effective Corporate Social Responsibility--Peru.
With regard to (a), at this time no executing agency or implementing partners have been selected to undertake activities related to this project. An executing agency will be selected through a request for proposal on the Government of Canada’s MERX system for two components of the project. This request for proposal is currently under preparation. In addition, local implementing partners will be selected through local calls for proposals in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru.
With regard to (b), for A034537-001, Bolivia, the amount was $6,591,667; for A034537-002, Colombia, it was $6,591,667; and for A034537-003, Peru, it was $6,591,667.
Funding for this project is currently allocated equally to each country, as demonstrated above and on CIDA’s project browser. However, an estimated amount of $5 million of total project funding is currently budgeted for two regional components that will build the capacity of local governments to implement sustainable development projects and promote knowledge-sharing on CSR. The remaining funding will be allocated equally to three local funds that will foster partnerships with the private sector for sustainable development projects in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru.
With regard to (b)(i), for A034537-001, Bolivia, the amount was $18,391; for A034537-002, Colombia, it was $0; and for A034537-003, Peru, it was $27,125.
With regard to (b)(ii), for A034537-001, Bolivia, it was 2011; for A034537-002, Colombia, not applicable; for A034537-003, Peru, it was 2011.
With regard to (b)(iii) and (b)(iv), for A034537-001, Bolivia, it was for a local CSR coordinator in La Paz, Bolivia; for A034537-002, Colombia, not applicable; for A034537-003, Peru, it was for a local CSR coordinator in Lima, Peru.
Expenses to date have covered local administrative costs related to project start-up. CIDA anticipates that initiatives funded through the local calls for proposals process will become operational starting in fiscal year 2012-13. This is particularly the case in Peru, where a local call was launched in summer 2011 and is in final stages of approval and contractual arrangements. Proposals received include initiatives on technical vocational education and training and socio-economic community development.
With regard to (c), expenses to date were for administrative purposes only and were related to the expenses of CSR coordinators in La Paz, Bolivia, and Lima, Peru. CIDA anticipates that initiatives supported through the local fund components of this project will be in regions where extractive activities are taking place. None of the proposals currently under consideration are in the direct operation zone of a mining project, Canadian or otherwise.
With regard to (d), yes, the three profiles on CIDA’s project browser correspond to and are the main elements of the Andean regional initiative for promoting effective corporate social responsibility, which was announced by the Minister for International Cooperation on September 29, 2011.

Question No. 489--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to the plan to modernize Canada’s Employment Insurance program and the 2011 decision to consolidate Employment Insurance processing centres: (a) what were the selection criteria for determining where the six processing centres in Quebec would be located as part of the call for tenders; (b) which criteria resulted in Thetford Mines being chosen over Rimouski for the location of a processing centre; (c) in terms of the selection criteria, what were the results for each location that submitted its candidacy; (d) what is the estimated or anticipated itemized cost of moving the processing centre from Rimouski to Thetford Mines; (e) what are the estimated or anticipated itemized cost savings, on an annual basis, of moving the processing centre from Rimouski to Thetford Mines; and (f) when was the final decision made to move the processing centre to Thetford Mines?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada is committed to delivering programs and services that are efficient and effective, aligned with the priorities of Canadians and financially sustainable over the long term.
These are challenging economic times, and the Government of Canada is working hard on behalf of Canadians towards eliminating the deficit, returning to balanced budgets and improving the services we deliver.
To achieve these savings, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, needs to change the way it currently does business. This includes moving forward with the consolidation of employment insurance, EI, processing and moving from smaller, more costly sites to larger regional centres made up of 22 sites.
National and regional perspectives were taken into consideration in the selection of the final EI growth sites. This is a national program, and many factors were considered, such as existing labour force, skill availability, bilingual capability, and real estate.
It is important to note that while the 22 sites have been selected, the physical buildings and lease arrangements are not finalized in all cases.
As in the past, Service Canada will work with Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC, to ensure real property regulations and guidelines are followed as the department moves forward with consolidation. This phase of the process includes soliciting bids through MERX if new lease arrangements are required.
With regard to (b), Thetford Mines was not chosen over Rimouski for the location of a processing centre. As indicated in response (a) above, both national and regional perspectives were taken into consideration.
With regard to (c), locations did not submit proposals.EI growth sites were chosen by a combination of criteria that identified ideal end-state locations and assessed risk factors related to negative impacts associated with reducing federal presence in communities.
With regard to (d), no dates have been set to formally close the existing EI processing centres. The overall transition, including the allocation of resources, will be business-driven, aligned with Service Canada’s automation agenda.
With regard to (e), the member may refer to response (c) above.
With regard to (f), the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, announced the EI modernization initiative on August 19, 2011. This included the decision on the future 22 EI processing growth sites.
As indicated above, this announcement was not in regard to moving processing centres from one location to another; rather, it was about which locations had been identified as future EI growth sites.
Modernizing our services will mean changes to the way we currently do business, but ultimately it will provide Canadians with greater access to an increased range of information and services no matter where they live.

Question No. 493--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Natural Resources and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador concerning the Muskrat Falls project, given that the government has already stated that, within eight weeks of its receipt of the data room and detailed representations of credit rating agencies for the entire project as defined by the Muskrat Falls Generating Station, the transmission lines, Island link and Maritime link, and a terms sheet for engagement of the capital markets will be completed, and given that the government has already stated that it is working with partners and that the Memorandum of Agreement remains in place; (a) has the government now received the relevant data room and detailed representations from credit rating agencies; and (b) has the term sheet for engagement with capital markets now been completed and, if so, have the capital markets been engaged in the process?
Response
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is fully committed to support the Lower Churchill River hydroelectric projects as set out in the August 2011 memorandum of agreement, MOA.
The Lower Churchill River hydroelectric projects consist of the Muskrat Falls generating station, the Labrador transmission assets, the Labrador-island link and the maritime link.
With regard to (a), the Government of Canada has received access to data rooms for the Muskrat Falls generating station, the Labrador transmission assets, the Labrador-island link and the maritime link. The Government of Canada has also received the analyses and representations by credit rating agencies for the Muskrat Falls generating station, the Labrador transmission assets and the Labrador-island link projects. Detailed analyses and representations for the maritime link are expected.
With regard to (b), the term sheet has not yet been completed.
The Government of Canada continues to work with its financial adviser, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Province of Nova Scotia, Nalcor Energy and Emera to meet the federal commitment as set out in the MOA.

Question No. 494--
Ms. Jean Crowder:
With respect to the Canadian Coast Guard Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) program and, more specifically, to the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary training in the Pacific region: (a) how many full-time and part-time volunteers worked in the Pacific region from 2008 to 2010, and what are the seasonal variations of full-time and part-time volunteers; (b) how many maritime SAR incidents, classifications M1 to M4, have occurred in Nanaimo—Cowichan from 2008 to 2010; (c) what is the amount spent by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on work with the Coast Guard Auxiliary in the Pacific region; (d) was there an analysis of the impact of cuts to the SAR in the Pacific region, and, if so, what is the result of the analysis; and (e) what was the SAR budget in 2008-2010, (i) what is the projected Coast Guard budget for the Pacific region for the next three years?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there are approximately 1070 volunteer members of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, Pacific region, who provide search and rescue services year round. There is no seasonal variation with respect to these volunteers.
With regard to (b), the Canadian Coast Guard does not track specific statistics for the Nanaimo--Cowichan area. The maritime SAR statistics from the broader SAR areas that include the Nanaimo--Cowichan geographical area, Victoria and part of the Juan de Fuca Strait indicate that annually there are an average of 11 M1, 29 M2, 115 M3 and 63 M4 maritime cases.
With regard to (c), Fisheries and Oceans Canada provided $1,003,000 in funding to the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, Pacific region, in fiscal year 2011-12 through a contribution agreement for reimbursement of SAR operations, training, membership costs, administration expenses and recruitment costs.
With regard to (d), there were no cuts to the SAR program’s Pacific region budget.
With regard to (e), the SAR program’s Pacific region budget was $6.29 million for 2008-09, $6.21 million for 2009-10, and $6.44 million for 2010-11. The projected budget is $6.69 million for 2012-13, $6.69 million for 2013-14, and $6.69 million for 2014-15.

Question No. 498 --
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to directives governing communications by Senators, Members of Parliament, and their respective staff, with officials of government (with the exception of communications that involve Ministers of the Crown or ministerial staff): (a) what instructions, protocols or other guidelines are in place regarding such communications for each government department, agency, Crown Corporation, board, and other government body; (b) what was the issuing authority for each such directive; (c) what was the date on which the directive that is currently in effect was issued; (d) are the directives on communications that were referenced in sub-question (a) applicable to all Senators, Members of Parliament and their respective staff regardless of political affiliation; (e) are there any directives on communications that apply specifically to Members of Parliament from the government party and that differ from those directives that apply to Senators, Members of Parliament and their respective staff from opposition parties, and, if so, what are those directives and how do they differ; and (f) has a government-wide directive on such communications been issued to government departments, agencies, Crown Corporations, boards, and other government bodies, and, if so, (i) what does that directive say, (ii) who issued the directive, (iii) when was it issued, (iv) to which bodies does it apply?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office responds that the provision of information to parliamentarians by public servants is done on behalf of ministers in support of ministerial accountability to Parliament and in a manner consistent with public service values and ethics.
Public servants recognize that elected officials are accountable to Parliament and that a non-partisan public sector is essential to our democratic system. Thus, public servants are expected to carry out their duties in a non-partisan and impartial manner and to support ministers in their accountability to Parliament and Canadians.
These principles are reflected in the government-wide guidance on provision of information to parliamentarians that is provided to public servants in the following documents: “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State”, 2011; “Accounting Officers: Guidance on Roles, Responsibilities and Appearances Before Parliamentary Committees”, 2007; “Guidance for Deputy Ministers”, 2003; and “Notes on the Responsibilities of Public Servants in Relation to Parliamentary Committees”, 1990. The first of these documents sets out the Prime Minister’s expectations and guidance for members of the ministry and, by extension, the public servants who support them. The remaining documents were prepared by the Privy Council Office as guidance to public servants.
The primary method by which public servants provide information to parliamentarians is through appearances before the open all-party forum of parliamentary committees. As the guidance documents describe, public servants appearing before committees do so on behalf of their ministers and must endeavour to maintain public service impartiality and non-partisanship. Specifically, the guidance indicates that the information provided by public servants should consist of non-partisan, factual explanations of government policies and programs; that confidential information should not be disclosed; that questions of a political nature or that engage policy debate or disagreement should be referred to the minister; and that appearances should be coordinated with the minister’s office.
As indicated in “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State" and "Guidance for Deputy Ministers”, deputy ministers and other departmental officials may, in addition to committee appearances, be asked by their minister to provide factual briefings to parliamentary caucuses on, for example, the technical details of legislation that the government intends to introduce. Such briefings may be initiated by the minister or come in response to a request from a parliamentary caucus. In either case, the guidance makes clear that briefings organized for one caucus are to be made available to other caucuses and that the leaders or House leaders of the parties should be kept informed. The conduct of such briefings is subject to the same general guidance described above with respect to appearances before parliamentary committees.
Departmental officials may also sometimes receive requests for information from individual parliamentarians of all political affiliations. As described in “Guidance for Deputy Ministers”, responses to such requests should be coordinated with ministers’ offices and respect the principles of ministerial responsibility and public service impartiality.
The guidance described above is consistent with the “Communications Policy of the Government of Canada”, which is issued by the Treasury Board and applies to all departments and agencies. The policy encourages departmental officials to communicate openly with the public about the policies, programs, services and initiatives they are responsible for, in a manner that is non-partisan and consistent with the principles of parliamentary democracy and ministerial responsibility. As noted in the policy, ministers are ultimately accountable for the presentation and explanation of government policies, priorities and decisions to the public and are the principal spokespersons for the Government of Canada and its institutions.
To the extent that individual departments, agencies or crown corporations adopt particular practices to coordinate the provision of information to parliamentarians, these are expected to conform to the guidance described above.

Question No. 501--
Ms. Laurin Liu:
With regard to the $291.5 million provided by the government to the International Financial Corporation (IFC) as part of its 2010-2011 commitment under the Copenhagen Accord: (a) for each disbursement of those funds to private sector entities, (i) when was the money disbursed, (ii) how much money was given, (iii) what is the name of the recipient of the funds and the purpose of the funding; (b) what are the conditions that were placed on the IFC by the government with regard to the 2010-2011 funding; (c) has IFC complied with each of the government’s conditions; (d) what is the total value of funding provided for adaptation activities and the total value of funding provided for mitigation activities; (e) what is the total value of funding that was provided in the form of grants; and (f) what is the total value of funding provided as loans?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Canada provided the International Finance Corporation, IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, with $285.7 million to be used as concessional financing for a broad portfolio of clean energy projects in developing countries as part of Canada’s commitment to support mitigation efforts.
In addition, $5.8 million in grant financing was provided to support IFC’s advisory services to help remove barriers to private clean energy investment and build technical expertise. For example, this grant financing will support advice to financial institutions to strengthen their capacity to identify, assess and structure loans to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
Canada’s investments will support greenhouse gas abatement opportunities and will be deployed to catalyze private sector financing for clean energy projects. Canada will work with the IFC to track the amount of private investment directly mobilized by Canada’s public finance contribution to the IFC, as well as the emissions reductions achieved. This type of innovative approach will be key to achieving long-term financing and mitigation goals.
Canada’s contributions are being managed by IFC’s financial mechanisms for sustainability group, which deploys donor funds on concessional terms alongside IFC investments, as well as providing grant financing for technical assistance and capacity-building.
To be eligible to receive concessional or grant financing from Canada’s contributions to IFC, a project must satisfy IFC’s standard criteria and due diligence. For more information, the investment and advisory services page on www.ifc.org should be consulted.

Question No. 509--
Mr. Gordon Brown:
With regard to the Bomber Command memorial being built in London, United Kingdom: (a) will the government contribute to the memorial; (b) are there plans to assist Canadian veterans of Bomber Command to attend the commemoration of the memorial; and (c) is there a Canadian delegation planned for that event?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Veterans Affairs Canada is contributing $100,000 to the Bomber Command Association in support of the construction of the memorial.
With regard to (b), Veterans Affairs Canada is working closely with the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the Air Force Association of Canada to assist veterans who wish to attend the June 28, 2012, unveiling of the Bomber Command Memorial in London, England.
With regard to (c), the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be leading an official delegation of Bomber Command veterans who will attend the dedication of the Bomber Command Memorial in London, England, on June 28, 2012.
8555-411-188 Muskrat Falls projectAnderson, DavidAndrews, ScottAshfield, KeithBlaney, StevenBrown, GordonByrne, GerryCanada Student Loans ProgramCanadian Coast GuardCanadian Coast Guard AuxiliaryCanadian International Development Agency ...Show all topics
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 198--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the National Arts Centre (NAC): (a) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2010-2011, how many complimentary tickets to NAC performances, including, but not limited to, NAC Orchestra, English theatre, French theatre, and dance performances have been given free of charge by the government to Members of Parliament, Senators, Ontario Members of Provincial Parliament, Quebec Members of the National Assembly, elected municipal officials, unelected officials, diplomats and public servants, broken down by category of recipient; and (b) what was the total value of these tickets in each of these fiscal years?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, for each of the more than 1,200 performances presented annually on its stages, the National Arts Centre, NAC, sets aside a small number of tickets for marketing, promotions and charitable giveaways. These tickets, which are called excess inventory, are often reserved for invited guests of the performing artists and guests of the show’s promoter, and for other marketing purpose, for example, radio contest giveaways, and for not-for-profit organizations to help them fundraise, as well as, on some occasions, to elected and unelected officials so they may attend NAC performances that showcase their regions or constituents.
In response to (a), the NAC does not have a system that tracks the number of, or who receives, excess inventory tickets, including giveaways, charitable fundraising, and guests of the artist, the promoter or the NAC.
In response to (b), as per standard industry practice, set by industry leaders such as Ticketmaster, excess inventory tickets provide no revenue, because they would not have been sold, and therefore have no monetary value.

Question No. 203--
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
With respect to the veterans health care services review undertaken by the government in 2005: (a) was the review cancelled and, if yes, why; (b) what were the total costs of the veterans health care services review; (c) was the health care services review completed; (d) if not, how close was the review to being completed; (e) what are the third party contractors who may have been contracted or sub-contracted to complete the veterans health care services review; (f) what are the draft recommendations from the health care services review; and (g) did Veterans Affairs Canada adopt any of these recommendations from the health care services review?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the veterans health care services review was not cancelled. It was completed in early 2008.
In response to (b), documentation regarding costs of the veterans health care services review was provided to the Minister of Veterans Affairs as advice.
In response to (c) and (d), the veterans health care services review was completed in early 2008.
In response to (e), Veterans Affairs Canada did not engage third party contractors. The department sought the advice and input of internal and external stakeholders and experts, such as the Gerontological Advisory Council and the Royal Canadian Legion.
In response to (f), recommendations, provided as advice to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, were developed as a result of the veterans health care services review.
In response to (g), yes, two significant changes were implemented to help veterans and their families as a result of the recommendations from the veterans health care services review.
Through budget 2008, the government expanded access to the housekeeping and grounds maintenance benefits under the veterans independence program to ensure that low-income or disabled survivors of the Second World War and the Korean War veterans, those who need these services the most, will have the help they need to remain independent in their homes.
In June 2009, the government introduced changes to the War Veterans Allowance Act to provide low-income allied veterans of the Second World War and the Korean War, and eligible survivors, with access to the war veterans allowance and associated assistance and health benefits. These changes were implemented in January 2010 and were a direct result of the veterans health care services review.

Question No. 205--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to the Canada Pension Plan: (a) how many claims have been made by individuals who have applied to designate a beneficiary of their survivor pensions from the Canada Pension Plan to someone who is not their spouse or common-law partner; and (b) how many of these claims have been turned down?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Canada pension plan does not have a provision for designating beneficiaries before a contributor dies. The legislation defines who is eligible to apply for a survivor benefit after the death of a contributor.
Consequently, the administration does not track and collect claims that we may receive from contributors seeking to designate as a beneficiary someone who is not their spouse or common-law partner.

Question No. 208--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With respect to the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements announced by the Prime Minister on September 26, 2010, for Hurricane Igor victims in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL): (a) what was the exact financial commitment made to NL; (b) to date, how much money has been transferred to NL; (c) when will the government transfer the remaining funds owed; and (d) what criteria were used in judging applications for assistance as a result of Hurricane Igor?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), under the disaster financial assistance arrangements, DFAA, federal cost sharing will be provided for provincial response and recovery expenditures resulting from hurricane Igor. The total amount of federal cost sharing is determined according to the terms and conditions of the DFAA, and is calculated once all provincial documentation in support of a final payment has been submitted and the required federal audit process is complete.
In response to (b), to date, an advance payment of $16 million was made to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in April 2011.
In response to (c), subsequent federal payments will be made after the province submits additional documentation of expenditures for review by a federal auditor. The timing of the request for subsequent payments is entirely up to the province.
In response to (d), eligibility of provincial expenditures for federal cost sharing is based on established DFAA criteria, which are applied consistently to natural disasters across Canada. All assistance to individuals, businesses and local governments is provided under the provincial assistance program criteria.

Question No. 209--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With respect to the Marine Atlantic Canadian Forces Appreciation Fare: (a) is there a maximum number of military personnel or veterans that can travel on a particular crossing for free on the Port aux Basques-North Sydney ferry route and the Argentia-North Sydney ferry route, broken down by (i) walk-on passengers, (ii) vehicles; (b) what is the maximum number of military personnel or veterans that can travel on a particular crossing for free on the Port aux Basques-North Sydney ferry route and the Argentia-North Sydney ferry route, broken down by (i) walk-on passengers, (ii) vehicles; (c) has there ever been a maximum number of military personnel or veterans that can travel on a particular crossing for free on the Port aux Basques-North Sydney ferry route and the Argentia-North Sydney ferry route, broken down by (i) walk-on passengers, (ii) vehicles; (d) what is the process for when there is a paying customer and a military personnel or veteran who arrive at the same time for the last vehicle place on a vessel; and (e) will the Marine Atlantic Canadian Forces Appreciation Fare be continued in 2012-2013?
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)(i) and (ii) respectively, there is no limit on the amount of walk-on passengers, and, yes, there is a 10 vehicle limit. In response to (b)(i) and (ii) respectively, there is no limit on the amount of walk-on passengers, and there is a 10 vehicle limit.
In response to (c)(i), the answer is no, since there is no maximum for walk-on passengers.
In response to (c)(ii), during the summer of 2011, 31 out of 880 departures fully utilized the 10 vehicle limit for the military appreciation fare. This represents less than 5% of available crossings.
In response to (d), the majority of the corporation’s customers, the personal related vehicle customers, book their passage in advance of their desired crossing either online or by phone. If there were only one space left on a vessel, the first person to book a reservation would receive that space. The chance of two customers showing up at two separate ticket booths to book a ticket for the same crossing, for which there happens be only one space left, is extraordinarily unlikely. It should be noted that during the 2011 summer season, customers could drive up to one of the corporation’s terminals and book a ticket on the next crossing 99 per cent of the time.
In response to (e), Marine Atlantic’s decision will be communicated to the public on the corporation’s website in due course.

Question No. 210--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre St. John’s (MRSC St. John’s), operated by the Canadian Coast Guard and Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre Québec (MRSC Québec) operated by the Canadian Coast Guard and the consolidated Joint Rescue Coordination Centres (JRCC) in Trenton, Ontario or Halifax, Nova Scotia: (a) what is the planned timeline for MRSC St. John’s closure, including dates for (i) termination of operations, (ii) period designated for training, (iii) full operation of JRCC Maritime service, (iv) relocation of MRSC St. John’s employees, (v) new hiring to replace MRSC St. John’s employees refusing relocation; (b) what is the planned timeline for MRSC Québec closure, including dates for (i) termination of operations, (ii) period designated for training, (iii) full operation of JRCC Maritime service, (iv) relocation of MRSC Québec employees, (v) new hiring to replace MRSC Québec employees refusing relocation; (c) how many people were employed by the MRSC St. John’s including part-time, full-time and contractual workers, on May 2, 2011; (d) how many of MRSC St. John’s employees have accepted relocation to other government postings to date; (e) how many of MRSC St. John’s employees are expected to relocate to the JRCC and of those employees who will relocate to the JRCC, how much relocation compensation will be offered per employee; (f) with respect to the employees of MRSC St. John’s, what were the mandatory qualifications required for hire; (g) with respect to the new hires to replace the services of MRSC St. John’s at JRCC, what will be the required qualifications; (h) how many people were employed by the MRSC Québec, including part-time, full-time and contractual workers, on May 2, 2011; (i) how many of MRSC Québec employees have accepted relocation to other government postings to date; (j) how many of MRSC Québec employees are expected to relocate to the JRCC, and, of those employees who will relocate to the JRCC, how much relocation compensation will be offered per employee; (k) with respect to the employees of MRSC Québec, what were the mandatory qualifications required for hire; (l) with respect to the new hires to replace the services of MRSC Québec at JRCC, what will be the required qualifications; (m) what research was executed in order to determine that no loss of service would occur with MRSC St. John’s consolidation to the JRCC, and on what date did the relevant research commence; (n) on what date was the initial plan to close MRSC St. John’s discussed within the relevant departments; (o) what research was executed in order to determine that no loss of service would occur with MRSC Québec consolidation to the JRCC, and on what date did the relevant research commence; (p) on what date was the initial plan to close MRSC Québec discussed within the relevant departments; and (q) what is the complete breakdown of the initial investment for the cost to close the MRSC St. John’s and the MRSC Québec, broken down by region, and how was this figure estimated in terms of (i) allocation for relocation for current employees, (ii) allocation for closure or appropriation of buildings, (iii) new hires, (iv) language training, (v) Maritime Search Planning Courses, (vi) Search and Rescue (SAR) Mission Co-ordinator Courses, (vii) SAR Mobile Facilities or On-Scene Co-ordinator Courses, (viii) other training, (ix) severance packages for current employees, (x) infrastructure renovation or expansion of JRCC Trenton, (xi) infrastructure renovation or expansion of JRCC Halifax, (xii) all other estimated costs associated with consolidation and closure, (xiii) estimated ongoing annual costs with operation of consolidated service?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) and (b), full implementation will occur when the Canadian Coast Guard is comfortable that the present level of safety and service can be maintained.
In response to (c), on May 2, 2011, there were eleven maritime search and rescue, SAR, coordinators and one regional supervisor maritime SAR employed on a full-time basis at the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre, MRSC, St. John’s. There were no part time or contract workers employed there at that time.
In response to (d) and (e), to date, none of the MRSC St. John’s employees have accepted other government postings.
In response to (f) and (g), the essential qualifications to be hired as a coast guard SAR mission coordinator were posted to the Public Service Commission job postings site in August and September 2011.
In response to (h), on May 2, 2011, there were five maritime SAR coordinators and one regional supervisor maritime search and rescue employed on a full-time basis at MRSC Quebec. There were 2 contract or term workers employed as maritime SAR coordinators at that time.
In response to (i) and (j), as of December 13, 2011, one MRSC Québec employee has accepted a government posting. None have agreed to relocate to the joint rescue coordination centres, JRCCs.
In response to (k) and (l), the essential qualifications to be hired as a coast guard SAR mission coordinator were posted to the Public Service Commission job postings site in August and September 2011.
In response to (m)(n)(o) and (p), the MRSC consolidation is a strategic review proposal. In accordance with the rules for the development of these proposals, any information relating to their development and implementation is considered cabinet confidential.
In response to (q), a net annual and ongoing cost savings of $1,000,000 in salaries will be realized through the net reduction of fifteen full-time positions. Annual total overhead costs for telecommunications and informatics services and training, travelling and exercising will not change, and will be transferred from the MRSCs to the JRCCs. The total ongoing cost of consolidated JRCCs is not yet finalized.
One-time costs to implement the consolidation are dependent upon various factors, including the specific training and relocation requirements of each new hire and the scope of required upgrades to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton. Renovation/upgrade costs for the JRCCs are under review, as there were several pre-existing renewal/upgrade projects under way at both JRCCs before the government announcement of this consolidation, that is, phone system upgrades, software/hardware upgrades and renovations.
Costs for any potential benefits paid to employees who choose to leave the public service are determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the union collective agreement. Should employees accept other employment within the public service, these costs will be avoided.

Question No. 212--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With respect to executive recruiting firm Odgers Berndtson and the recent selection process for a new Auditor General: (a) who was responsible for selecting the recruiting firm; (b) was there a competition for the contract awarded to the firm and, if yes, what was the nature of the competition; (c) if there was no competition, who suggested or recommended Odgers Berndtson; and (d) what was the total cost incurred by the government in employing Odgers Berndtson to manage the Auditor General selection process?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the selection processes for Governor in Council appointments, including agents of Parliament, comprise three main elements. The first is the establishment of selection criteria to reflect the key elements for a candidate to be considered qualified for the position sought.
The second is the development of a recruitment strategy, which outlines how candidates for the position will be sought. This can range from posting the position on the Governor-in-Council appointments website and publishing it in the Canada Gazette to a more elaborate strategy, which may include engaging an executive search firm, a national advertising strategy, a targeted outreach, for example, to professional groups and stakeholders.
The third is the assessment of candidates’ qualifications. Normally this would involve interviews with a short list of candidates and reference checks.
In the case of the selection process for the new Auditor General, the Office of the Auditor General, in consultation with the Privy Council, was responsible for identifying and selecting a search firm that would support the selection committee in its efforts.
The national master standing offer for executive search services established by Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC, through a competitive process was used to obtain the services of Odgers Berndston.
The costs incurred by the Office of the Auditor General are disclosed on the Office of the Auditor General’s public disclosure website.

Question No. 215--
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:
With regard to the 2011 official visit by the Right Honourable David Cameron, Prime Minister of Great Britain, which African ambassadors and high commissioners were invited to attend the joint session of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada to listen to the speech given by the aforementioned Prime Minister?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the heads of mission accredited to Canada from the following African countries were invited to attend the joint session of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada to listen to the speech given by the Right Honourable David Cameron:
Arab Republic of Egypt Republic of Burundi Republic of Namibia Benin Republic of Cameroon Republic of Senegal Burkina-Faso Republic of Cape VerdeRepublic of Seychelles Central African RepublicRepublic of Chad Republic of Sierra LeoneDemocratic Republic of Sao Tomé and Principe Republic of Côte d'Ivoire Republic of South Africa Democratic Republic of the Congo Republic of Cyprus Republic of the Congo Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Republic of Djibouti Republic of the Gambia Federal Republic of NigeriaRepublic of Equatorial Guinea Republic of the Niger Gabonese RepublicRepublic of GhanaRepublic of Tunisia Islamic Republic of Mauritania Republic of Guinea Republic of UgandaKingdom of LesothoRepublic of Guinea-Bissau Republic of Zambia Kingdom of Morocco Republic of Kenya ReunionKingdom of SwazilandRepublic of Liberia Rwandese Republic Libya Republic of Malawi State of EritreaPeople's Democratic Republic of Algeria Republic of Mali Togolese Republic Republic of Angola Republic of Mauritius United Republic of Tanzania Republic of Botswana Republic of Mozambique

Question No. 219--
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine:
With regard to fixed-wing observational aircraft owned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), since January 1, 2006: (a) how many aircraft are owned by the RCMP, broken down by the make, model, and age of the aircraft; (b) what are the dates of flights that these aircraft have taken; (c) what is the nature of the observational work these aircraft do; (d) what is the cost of this program, broken down by year; (e) what is the policy the RCMP applies with respect to the use of aircraft for the observation of civilian activity; (f) what is the RCMP policy on the use of aircraft for cellular surveillance; (g) what is the RCMP policy on the use of aircraft for the disruption of cellular signals; and (h) have these aircraft been lent to provinces to assist provincial police forces, and, if so, for each flight, what was or were (i) the flight date, (ii) the province using the aircraft, (iii) the cities in which the aircraft was used, (iv) the cost of each flight, (v) the nature of the flight and observation, (vi) all provincial agreements regarding this?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP owns 12 fixed-wing aircraft of various makes and models, ranging from 3 to 26 years of age, for surveillance. Aircraft are deployed for use across the country, as and when required. Requests from outside police forces may be considered based on operational availability.
For security reasons and to maintain the integrity of police operations, the RCMP cannot further identify these resources or release additional details as to their usage without jeopardizing ongoing police operations and investigational techniques, as well as the safety of RCMP personnel and the public.

Question No. 221--
Mr. Don Davies:
With respect to immigration cases conducted through the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP): (a) other than security and medical approval, does the federal government exercise control over any of the criteria applied in the selection of individuals for approval under the program, and, if it does, what are these criteria, what government department enforces these criteria, and where are officials responsible for enforcement located; (b) in the case of a disagreement between a province and a consulate, where does the ultimate authority lie with regard to approval; and (c) once approved by a province, can an application be denied by any federal government body, and, if yes, on what grounds?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), roles and responsibilities for the provincial nominee program, PNP, are defined through bilateral agreements between the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CIC, and provincial and territorial, PT, governments. All of the provinces and territories except Quebec and Nunavut have signed nominee agreements with the federal government. The legislation and agreements confirm provincial/territorial authority to assess and nominate candidates who will be of economic benefit to the province or territory and who have a strong likelihood of becoming economically established in Canada, and are not nominated on the basis of a passive investment scheme entered into for the primary purpose of facilitating immigration to Canada.
Each jurisdiction is responsible for the design and management of its respective program, including the development of its own nomination criteria. Consultation with CIC is stipulated in each agreement. PTs are responsible for due diligence in respect of their nomination decisions and for document verification.
In response to (b), the legislation requires that the federal visa officer determines whether the applicant nominated by the province or territory meets the requirements of the provincial nominee class, that is, the ability to economically establish, the intent to reside, and not to be engaged in passive investment. An application will be refused if it is determined that the nomination of the applicant by a province or territory was based on a passive investment scheme entered into for the primary purpose of facilitating immigration to Canada.
In addition, it is clearly stipulated that final authority for the selection of applicants and the issuance of visas rests with the federal government. If the visa officer is not satisfied that the nomination certificate is a sufficient indicator that a foreign national can economically establish themselves in Canada, an officer may substitute his or her evaluation of the likelihood of the foreign national becoming economically established in Canada for the nominating certificate. Such a substitution requires that the officer consult with the government that issued the certificate and also requires the concurrence of a second officer at the manager level.
In response to (c), CIC must consult with PTs if a nominee is likely to be refused on the basis of their inability to demonstrate they can economically establish. However, if the individual is likely to be refused because they do not meet the admissibility requirements under IRPA, that is, in regard to security, criminality, and health, et cetera, a refusal will be made without notifying the province before the final decision. Canada will forward a copy of the refusal letter to the province.
A permanent resident visa holder in the provincial nominee, PN, class seeking permanent resident status at a port of entry, POE, must establish that they still intend to reside in the province/territory that has nominated them. Individuals who indicate that they never intended, or no longer intend, to reside in the nominating province/territory may be denied permanent resident status at the POE because they have been deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with the criteria associated with being a member of the PN class, or for misrepresentation.
The refusal rate for the PNP is fairly low. Between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011 the approval rate for applications from provincial nominees was 97%. This is because provinces and territories do an initial assessment of PNs against their program criteria. The Government of Canada is committed to working with provinces and territories to make the provincial nominee program a success. We have ongoing discussions with provinces and territories on how to improve the program design, integrity, selection standards and management of the provincial nominee programs.

Question No. 232--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to the Federal Review Panel appointed by the Federal Minister of the Environment in 2009, in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to conduct a review of the environmental effects of Taseko Mines Limited’s proposed Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Regional District of British Columbia: (a) what was the total cost of the assessment of the original Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine project, the findings of which were published by the Federal Review Panel on July 2, 2010; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the assessment to be conducted on the new Prosperity Mine, which was announced by the Minister of the Environment on November 7, 2011?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the total cost incurred by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for the federal review panel process for the prosperity gold-copper mine project was $2.2 million.
Of that total, $1.6 million is cost recoverable from the proponent,Taseko Mines Ltd., as per the Environmental Assessment Review Panel service charges order. The remaining $0.6 million includes the costs of panel legal support and aboriginal consultations, which are not covered by the order.
The $2.2 million does not include costs incurred by the proponent, other federal departments and other participants in the review panel process.
In response to (b), key process decisions that will determine the cost of the panel review of the new prosperity proposal have not yet been made, including setting the environmental impact statement guidelines and the terms of reference for the panel. I have directed the agency to ensure that information obtained during the previous environmental assessment be used to the extent possible in order to ensure a timely decision. This should have the effect of reducing the costs for all parties.

Question No. 233--
Mr. Philip Toone:
With regard to the government's involvement in private, medically-supervised detoxification treatment for First Nations, Inuit and Métis for each of the last ten years: (a) how many patients were referred to private services, by province and year, for treatment related to (i) solvents and inhalants, (ii) illegal drugs, (iii) prescription drugs, (iv) alcohol, (v) other; (b) what was the total cost for these services by (i) year, (ii) province; (c) what government departments and agencies have funded these services, and what was the cost for each such department and agency by (i) year, (ii) province; and (d) what government departments and agencies have referred clients or patients to these services by (i) year, (ii) province?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada recognizes that alcohol, drug and solvent abuse remains a problem in some first nations and Inuit communities. Through the national native alcohol and drug abuse program, NNADAP, and the national youth solvent abuse program, NYSAP, Health Canada funds a national network of 58 addiction treatment centres in first nations communities. These services are available to both first nations and Inuit, and are distributed in communities across Canada in order to maximize accessibility. There are also over 550 community-based programs aimed at preventing alcohol and drug abuse problems from occurring, or recurring after someone has finished treatment.
As part of the national anti-drug strategy, Health Canada is investing $30.5 million over five years, 2008-13, with $9.1 million in ongoing funding, to improve access to quality addictions services for first nations and Inuit. A key investment under the national anti-drug strategy was a comprehensive needs-based review of on-reserve prevention and treatment services, carried out in partnership with first nations, which resulted in the development of a renewed framework for first nations addictions services.
The Government of Canada does not fund or track referrals to privately funded medical detoxification services for first nations, Inuit and Métis. Medically-based detoxification for addiction issues is the responsibility of provincial and territorial health services.

Question No. 236--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to injuries and fatalities attributed to firearms in British Columbia: (a) for each year from 2001 to 2010 (inclusive), what are the number of injuries and what are the number of fatalities attributed to firearms in British Columbia in each category of non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms and any firearm prescribed under the Criminal Code and associated regulations (including long guns); and (b) what number of the injuries and fatalities in (a) involved (i) suicides, (ii) accidents, (iii) incidents involving domestic violence, (iv) incidents involving women as victims, (v) incidents involving Aboriginal Canadians as victims?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP’s informatics systems, the Canadian firearms information system and the operational records management system, do not collect statistical data on injuries and fatalities related to firearms. They also do not have statistical information on injuries and fatalities where firearms were used in suicides, accidents, domestic violence situations or incidents where the victims were women or aboriginal Canadians.
The statistical data related to firearms that is collected is limited to the type of firearms offences committed.

Question No. 240--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to the issuance of visas for foreign students studying in Canada: (a) does the student’s country of origin affect what type of visa can be issued (that is, a single-entry or a multiple-entry visa); (b) what are the countries of origin of students who are eligible for single-entry visas but not multiple-entry visas; and (c) what are the countries of origin of students who are eligible for both types of visa?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, clients indicate on their application form if they are seeking a single-entry or multiple-entry visa. A client’s country of origin does not affect what type of visa he or she is eligible to apply for or receive.

Question No. 245--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the case of Sergei Magnitsky: (a) is the government preparing a list containing the names of any individual that it has reasonable grounds to believe (i) is responsible for the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (ii) has conspired to defraud the Russian Federation of taxes on corporate profits through fraudulent transactions and lawsuits against the foreign investment company known as Hermitage and to misappropriate property owned or controlled by Hermitage, (iii) has participated in efforts to conceal the legal responsibility of those individuals involved in the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky or the existence of the conspiracy referred to in point (ii); (b) if the government is preparing a list as per (a), does the list include the names of the 60 senior Russian officials included by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe on its list entitled “Individuals involved in the tax fraud against Hermitage and the torture and death of Sergei Magnitsky”; (c) does the government plan to declare as ineligible for visas any foreign national whose name appears on the list referred to in (a), as well as the members of the foreign national’s immediate family; and (d) does the government plan to revoke the permanent or temporary resident status of any foreign national whose name appears on the list referred to in (a)?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii) and (b), the promotion and the protection of human rights is an integral part of Canadian foreign policy, and the government will continue to take principled positions on important issues to ensure that freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, values that define this country, are enjoyed around the world. The Government of Canada follows the human rights situation in Russia closely, and the promotion of Canadian values features prominently in our ongoing dialogue with the Russian authorities.
On October 28, 2011, the member for Mount Royal introduced Bill C-339, the Condemnation of Russian Corruption Act, which would require the government to take the same actions outlined in Q-245. DFAIT is still in the process of carefully reviewing the legislation, as is standard when these items are brought forward for introduction and debate.
With regard to (c) and (d), matters pertaining to visas and permanent or temporary residencies fall outside the purview of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Question No. 246--
Mr. Brent Rathgeber:
With regard to the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) and its employment of Peter Mansbridge, George Strombolopolous, and Hubert T. Lacroix: (a) what do the CBC’s employment agreements with each of these individuals provide each individual in terms of (i) salary, (ii) vehicle allowance or provision of car and/or driver, (iii) expense account for food, drink, alcohol and hospitality, (iv) out-of-town accommodations for the individual; (b) in each of the years between 2000 and 2011, how much did each of these individuals expense to the CBC for (i) food, (ii) travel, (iii) hotels, (iv) hospitality, (v) drink, (vi) vehicle use; (c) what were the itemized amounts and descriptions of each individual’s individual expenses as identified in the answers to (b); and (d) if the CBC provides any of these individuals with a vehicle for his use, as identified in the answers to (a)(ii), broken down by individual, (i) what is the model and make of the car, (ii) how much does this benefit cost the CBC on an annual basis?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, individuals employed by CBC/Radio-Canada are not government employees. As specified in subsection 44(2) of the Broadcasting Act, officers and employees employed by CBC/Radio-Canada are employed “on such terms and conditions and at such rates of remuneration as the Board deems fit”.
With regard to (a), (b) and (c), the employment agreements between CBC/Radio-Canada and chief correspondent and program host Peter Mansbridge, CBC/Radio-Canada and program host George Stroumboulopoulos are both competitive and programming information. The majority of expenses of Peter Mansbridge and George Stroumboulopoulos are incurred as part of their programming activities on behalf of CBC/Radio-Canada and are not public. It is not possible to separate programming from administrative expenses in the time provided for responding to this question. Their salary information is also protected in accordance with the federal Privacy Act.
The president of CBC/Radio-Canada is paid by the corporation remuneration at the rate fixed by the Governor in Council in accordance with subsection 43(1) in part III of the Broadcasting Act. Hubert T. Lacroix earns a salary in the CEO 7 range, which for 2011 was $358,400 to $421,600, as specified by the government at these websites: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=secretariats&sub=spsp-psps&doc=sal/sal2011-eng.htm and http://www.appointments.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=CBC&type-typ=3&lang=eng .
The president was appointed by Order in Council P.C. 2007-1658 of October 31, 2007, which is available on the government’s website of http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/oic-ddc.asp?lang=eng&Page=secretariats&txtOICID=2007-1658&txtFromDate=&txtToDate=&txtPrecis=&txtDepartment=&txtAct=&txtChapterNo=&txtChapterYear=&txtBillNo=&rdoComingIntoForce=&DoSearch=Search+%2F+List&viewattach=17438&blnDisplayFlg=1
With regard to (d), CBC/Radio-Canada does not provide Peter Mansbridge or George Stroumboulopoulos with a vehicle.
The president and CEO is provided with a vehicle and driver. In 2010, the vehicle was a 2007 Ford Five Hundred. In 2010 the vehicle was replaced with a 2011 Ford Taurus. The cost of the vehicle is approximately $10,900 per year. The salary range for the transportation assistant is $34,000- $56,500.
The expenses of the president and CEO are approved by the chair of CBC/Radio-Canada. They are also reviewed on a quarterly basis by CBC/Radio-Canada’s internal auditors. These expenses, dating back to 2007 when the president joined the corporation, are published each quarter on CBC/Radio-Canada’s public disclosure website at http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/docs/expenses/expenses_choice2.shtml.
The annual totals for the President’s claimed expenses since his appointment are as follows: 2007,$3,114.93; 2008, $59,324.70; 2009, $41,194.28; 2010, $48,913.23; and 2011, $29,810.51.
The corporation does not itemize expenses in the manner requested. The president’s claimed expenses, including copies of receipts, which have already been released through the access to information office, are publicly available on CBC/Radio-Canada’s websites: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/docs/disclosure/pdf/A201100082.PDF, http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/PDF_files/expenses/2009/A200900221_2010-10-12_14-14-34.PDF, and http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/PDF_files/expenses/2008/A200800217_2010-10-19_10-15-01.PDF.

Question No. 247--
Mr. Brent Rathgeber:
With respect to contracts and costs associated with the development or acquisition of programming at or by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): (a) how much does CBC pay Rick Mercer or any company of which he is the proprietor; (b) did the CBC hold an open tender for a political satire show for the Mercer Report or was the contract untendered; (c) how much did the CBC spend on the rights for (i) Wheel of Fortune, (ii) Jeopardy, (iii) American movies; (d) what contracts has the CBC signed with Zaibe Shaikh or Governor Films in the last five years, if any, (i) for how much money (individually and in total), (ii) what was provided in return, (iii) which of these contracts were put out for open competition and which were not; and (e) how many untendered contracts has the CBC signed in the last five years, and, if it has signed any such contract, (i) with whom, (ii) for how much money (individually and in total), (iii) what did the CBC get for each of these contracts?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), contracts and costs associated with the development or acquisition of programming at or by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are programming information and of a competitive nature as referred to in part III, subsection 35(2) of the Broadcasting Act.
With regard to (b), broadcasters do not “tender” contracts for the development or acquisition of programming.
Over the past five years the corporation has concluded hundreds of contracts with independent producers for program pre-development, development, pilot production, and acquisition. CBC/Radio-Canada is always looking for smart, diverse, popular and relevant Canadian programming and provides two websites for independent producers to pitch programming ideas to the corporation: http://www.cbc.ca/independentproducers/ and http://projets.radio-canada.ca/.
Decisions to develop a specific program or not depend on a number of factors, including the corporation’s broadcast conditions of licence, the region where the program would be produced, the potential appeal of the program, the cost of the program, whether it is eligible for funding support from the Canada Media Fund, and how the proposed program would fit into the network’s planned program schedule for its designated season.
CBC/Radio-Canada is authorized to “make contracts with any person, within or outside Canada, in connection with the production or presentation of programs originated or secured by the Corporation” and “make contracts with any person, within or outside Canada, for performances in connection with the programs of the Corporation", as stated in paragraphs 46(1)(d) and 46(1)(e) of part III of the Broadcasting Act.

Question No. 248--
Mr. Brent Rathgeber:
With respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) bureaus, what is the itemized list of expenses for hospitality, food, drink, hotels and transportation for the CBC bureaus in (i) Paris, (ii) London, (iii) Washington, (iv) Rome?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, CBC/Radio-Canada operates 13 foreign news bureaus, including bureaus in Paris, London and Washington. The corporation does not have a bureau in Rome.
The bureaus are used as a base of operations for coverage of events in surrounding regions and countries as required and approved by the head of news and current affairs. Expenses incurred by these bureaus include travel to remote locations, hotels, accreditation and travel documentation. These expenses are part of the corporation’s journalistic programming activities and are not public. Expenses are not automatically separated into programming and non-programming categories; this would require a manual review of every expense. It is not possible to separate the programming from administrative expenses of these bureaus in the time provided for responding to this question. News budgets are approved by the vice-presidents of CBC and Radio-Canada.

Question No. 249--
Mr. Brent Rathgeber:
With respect to salaries at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), how many employees at the CBC earn more than $100,000.00, and what are their names and salaries?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, CBC/Radio-Canada currently has approximately 730 employees who earn more than $100,000 per year. Their names and precise salaries are protected as per the federal Privacy Act and Access to Information Act.

Question No. 251--
Ms. Élaine Michaud:
With regard to the wharf at Portneuf, Quebec, administered by Transport Canada: (a) does the department wish to maintain ownership of the wharf or does it intend to dispose of it; (b) in the event that Transport Canada wishes to keep the Portneuf wharf, (i) will the headblock be rebuilt, (ii) will environmental liability issues, particularly the water contamination from the structure, be corrected, (iii) is there a maintenance plan in place to maintain the wharf, (iv) what kind of operations does Transport Canada wish to conduct, (v) what is Transport Canada’s policy on working with the Municipality of Portneuf to develop its plans to operate the wharf; and (c) in the event that Transport Canada wishes to dispose of it, (i) does Transport Canada wish to transfer ownership to a private contractor, a provincial government, or a municipal or paramunicipal agency, (ii) what financial incentives will the government offer to the transferee, (iii) will the headblock be rebuilt, (iv) will environmental liability issues be corrected?
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, a) Transport Canada wishes to dispose of the Portneuf wharf.
b) Not applicable; see a).
c) Information on the port divestiture program is available on the following website: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-b06-m001e-1837.htm.

Question No. 253--
Mr. Tyrone Benskin:
With regard to contracts and costs associated with the Prime Minister’s office (PMO) and ministerial exempt staff: (a) how much is paid to Nigel Wright or any company of which he was a proprietor or partner; (b) did the PMO hold an open tender for Dimitri Soudas’ job or was the contract untendered; (c) how much did the PMO spend on (i) Canada’s Economic Action Plan, (ii) the G8 and G20 summits, (iii) Canadian television productions; (d) what contracts has the PMO signed with Ezra Levant or any registered lobbyist, government relations or public opinion firm in the last five years, if any, (i) for how much money (individually and in total), (ii) what was provided in return, (iii) which of these contracts were put out for open competition and which were not; and (e) how many untendered contracts have been signed in the last five years, and, if the PMO or Minister’s office has signed any such contract, (i) with whom, (ii) for how much money (individually and in total), (iii) what was obtained for each of these contracts?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, an individual’s exact salary constitutes the personal information of that individual and is withheld in accordance with the principles of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
With regard to (b), (d) and (e), as stated at 7.1 of the Treasury Board "Policies for Ministers’ Offices", “…ministerial offices are subject to the Financial Administration Act , its regulations, and Treasury Board policies.” Only procurement officers within the Privy Council Office hold contracting authority under subsection 32(1) of the Financial Administration Act. The Prime Minister’s Office, PMO, does not hold the authority to contract directly for goods and services.
With regard to (c), the Prime Minister’s Office, PMO, does not fund government programs. The PMO did not provide funds for the Canada economic action plan, the G8 and G20 summits, or Canadian television productions. However, some financial expenditures related to the Canada economic action plan and the G8 and G20 summits can be seen in proactive disclosure on the Privy Council Office website at the following link: www.pco-bcp.gc.ca.

Question No. 254--
Mr. Tyrone Benskin:
With respect to the Prime Minister’s Office, ministerial exempt staff and Ministers, what is the itemized list of expenses for hospitality, food, drink, hotels and transportation in (i) Paris, (ii) London, (iii) Washington, (iv) Rome, (v) Boston?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested is made available through proactive disclosure, which can be found on individual departmental websites and is updated quarterly.

Question No. 255--
Mr. Tyrone Benskin:
With respect to salaries at the Prime Minister’s Office and Ministers’ offices, how many employees earn more than $100,000.00, and what are their names and salaries?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, the names and exact salaries of personnel cannot be released.
Salary maximums for exempt staff are equivalent to those of certain positions in the public service. The salary ranges for ministers’ offices are outlined in section 3.3 of the "Policies for Ministers' Offices", which can be found at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/mg-ldm/2011/pgmo-pldcm03-eng.asp#toc3-3. The equivalent salary ranges for the public service can be found at http://publiservice.tbs-sct.gc.ca/gui/prtt-eng.asp and http://publiservice.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/rates-taux-eng.asp.
Ministers’ office expenditures are reported annually in the Public Accounts of Canada. For the latest ministers’ office expenditures, members may refer to the Public Accounts, volume III, section 10.28, at www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/txt/72-eng.html.

Question No. 258--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to radio masts, antennas, and towers (henceforth each referred to simply as the “tower”) licensed or otherwise permitted to operate by Industry Canada: (a) what is the total number of such towers across the country; (b) what is the municipal street address, as well as latitude and longitude for each tower, and, for each tower, (i) who owns and operates the tower and for what purpose, (ii) at what radio frequencies and at what wattage are the transmitters on each tower operating, (iii) at what height above ground level is the tower, (iv) at what height above sea level is the tower, (v) what is the year of construction of the tower, (vi) when was the last structural inspection of the tower, (vii) does the tower conform to Health Canada guidelines, (viii) have there been any incidents reported relating to the tower, (ix) have there been any complaints lodged relating to the tower and what was the outcome or status of any associated investigation; and (c) how many towers remain standing that are no longer in use or operation, and, for each such tower, (i) who owns the tower, (ii) what purpose did the tower serve before being retired, (iii) at what height above ground level is the tower, (iv) at what height above sea level is the tower, (v) what is the year of construction of the tower, (vi) when was the last structural inspection of the tower, (vii) why was the tower retired, (viii) have there been any incidents reported relating to the tower, (ix) have there been any complaints lodged relating to the tower and what was the outcome or status of any associated investigation, (x) what plans exist to remove or restore the tower?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b)(i), (b)(ii), (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v) and (c)(v), radio communication would not work without antennas, which, to function effectively, are often supported by towers or other tall structures such as buildings. The Canadian public, businesses, police, firefighters, ambulances, air navigation systems and national defence use antenna systems, including towers, to ensure reliable radio communication. Industry Canada’s interests relate primarily to managing the radio frequency spectrum, a limited resource. For this reason, no differentiation is made as to whether an antenna is, for example, located on a tower, on top of a building or is using some other structure such as a water tower. Accordingly, our database only records the location of radio stations in use.
Currently there are approximately 250,000 radio licences issued by Industry Canada. Available technical databases include current radio frequency assignments, including geographical coordinates; the name of the authorization holder, but not the use of the radiofrequency; radio frequency and wattage; the site elevation above sea level and the height of the antenna above ground level, but not the year of construction. These databases are available at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sd-sd.nsf/eng/Home for all non-broadcasting towers, including cellular, but they do not include public safety and national security agencies.
Broadcasting tower databases are available at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sp_dgse-ps_dggs.nsf/eng/gg00026.html.
With regard to (b)(vi), Industry Canada does not inspect towers for structural adequacy. This is the tower owner’s responsibility.
With regard to (b)(vii), (b)(viii) and (b)(ix), exposure levels emitted by towers vary. However, Industry Canada requires that, at all times, all towers must comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guideline for the protection of the general public from radio frequency exposure. Industry Canada requires the immediate submission of compliance information when it is concerned that a site may not be in compliance with Safety Code 6 for the purpose of protecting the general public. Alternatively, Industry Canada requires that the operator cease operation at the site in question pending Industry Canada’s receipt of information and departmental concurrence that Safety Code 6 is being respected. The vast majority of radio installations comply with the exposure limits by a very wide margin. Industry Canada has confirmed this by conducting directed radio frequency field measurements. Industry Canada does not keep a database of the number of complaints lodged relating to towers.
With regard to (c)(i), (c)(ii), (c)(iii), (c)(iv) and (c)(vi) through (c)(x), Industry Canada has no authority over towers that are no longer in use or operation for the purpose of radio communication. Such structures would fall under provincial and territorial authority.

Question No. 259--
Hon. John McKay:
With respect to the Treasury Board of Canada’s mandated cuts to each department, specifically the Department of National Defence: (a) what is the total number of dollars that the Department of National Defence will be cutting from its expenditures, by service (Navy, Air, Army), (i) how many staff will be cut and out of which group of employees (e.g., consultants, officers, reserves, etc.), and by service (Navy, Air, Army), (ii) how many military assets will be cut (e.g., armed forces vehicles), either in current operation or previously slated for procurement, as well as support equipment and personnel (e.g., for repairs and maintenance); (b) has the department conducted a study on how these cuts will affect the operational capacity of the armed forces, broken down by Navy, Air, Army, and its impact with respect to training capacity for all of the above services, and, if so, what were the conclusions; (c) what will the effect of the cuts be on the department’s provision of health services to military personnel; and (d) has the government adjusted its schedule for fulfillment of or financial commitment to the Canada First defence policy?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has undertaken a full review of its spending to ensure that all expenditures and programs were aligned to departmental and government priorities. This thorough review was followed by an analysis to ensure that programs and spending were effective and efficient, focused on core roles, and met the needs of Canadians. Programs were assessed with regard to their intended results, as defined in the program activity architecture, and in relation to their role within the delivery of the Canada First defence strategy. The results of this review continue to be assessed.

Question No. 265--
Hon. John McKay:
With respect to the opening of the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Counsellor: (a) how many requests for review have been submitted to the Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor; (b) of the requests for review that have been submitted as per (a), (i) how many have progressed to informal mediation, (ii) what is the overall cost for each individual review, (iii) what are each of the individual expenses associated with each review process, (iv) how many meetings were conducted related to each review process, who was present in each of the meetings, and who did each of those present at the meetings represent, (v) has the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor provided interim reports regarding each of her request for reviews, and, if not, why has no report been provided, (vi) when can an interim report be expected for each review, (vii) what was the outcome of each of the review processes engaged in by the Extractive Sector CSR counsellor, (viii) if any review was closed without progressing to formal mediation and without resolution, what were the reasons for closing the case; and (c) has the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor received any requests for review that she has declined to allow to progress to informal mediation, and, if yes, for what reasons was the request for review declined?
Response
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there have been two requests for review submitted to the Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor, "the Office". One review pertained to Excellon Resources Inc. in Mexico, while the other pertains to First Quantum Minerals Ltd. in Mauritania.
With regard to (b)(i), both reviews progressed to informal mediation.
With regard to (b)(ii), each review requires administrative expenditures, such as those on telephone, courier, and office supplies, and uses a portion of the Office’s fixed costs, such as salaries and benefits, but outside of these costs, the most significant expenditures by the Office in both instances have been on external services related to travel and translation. For the Mexico-related review, the overall external costs to the Office totalled $22,438.72. The overall external costs to the Office for the Mauritania case total $435.50 thus far.
With regard to (b)(iii), costs for the review of the Mexico case include travel, visa fees, accommodation, local transportation, per diems, and interpretation costs for two field visits to Mexico by the counsellor and the senior advisor. The first field visit to Mexico City in May 2011 cost a total of $4,463.83 and the second field visit to the La Platosa mine site and surrounding community in July 2011 cost $7,416.99 in total. Total charges for translation into French and Spanish of the two field visits reports and the October 2011 closing report were $10,557.90. There have been no travel costs associated with the review in Mauritania to date. Communications with the requester have resulted in translation charges of $435.50.
With regard to (b)(iv), with respect to the case in Mexico, well over 100 conversations and meetings were held between April and October 2011, both by teleconference and in person. The majority of meetings held were either with some or all of the requesters at various times during the process or with various representatives of Excellon Resources Inc., either in an individual or group context. Other meetings were held with Canadian Embassy officials in Mexico City; Canadian and Mexican legal representatives of Excellon Resources; Mexican national, regional, and local government officials; third party experts; community members at site; ejido leaders in the community; mine employees at site; mine management at site; and other stakeholders with expertise in the issues.
In the Mauritania review, meetings by teleconference have occurred on numerous occasions with the requester and the responding party.
With regard to (b)(v), the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor produced two interim reports and one final report on the review of the Mexico case. All three reports are available on the Office’s website at www.international.gc.ca/csr_counsellor-conseiller_rse. No reports have yet been produced for the case in Mauritania, as the Counsellor has determined that it is premature to do so at this time.
With regard to (b)(vi), the Order in Council that created the Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor, P.C. 2009-0422 of March 25, 2009, requires the Counsellor to produce a final report on each request for review as well as an annual report to Parliament. Interim reports are important and are produced in order to meet the Office’s public commitments to its key guiding principles, which are to be transparent, accessible, responsive, predictable, independent and effective. The Counsellor has produced an interim report at the conclusion of each field visit.
With regard to (b)(vii), the review process of the case in Mexico was closed in October 2011 following the decision by the responding party to withdraw from the process. The ongoing case in Mauritania is currently at step 4 of the Counsellor’s review process.
With regard to (b)(viii), the Office’s review process has five stages, including an optional avenue at the fifth and final stage for parties to engage in formal mediation outside of the Office’s process. The review of the case in Mexico closed at the fourth stage of the Office’s process following the decision by the responding party to withdraw.
With regard to (c), the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor has not received any requests for review that she has declined to allow to progress to informal mediation.

Question No. 273--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts (PRPP Act): (a) has the government secured the necessary provincial consent required to enact the appropriate companion legislation; (b) how will the government ensure that fees payable by plan members remain low, as required by the PRPP Act; and (c) how will the government define and control the fees charged in accordance with the PRPP Act?
Response
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), at the December 2010 finance ministers’ meeting, all finance ministers agreed on a framework for pooled registered pension plans, PRPPs. Bill C-25 provides a legal framework for the establishment and administration of PRPPs for those who fall within the legislative authority of the federal government, including interprovincial transportation, banking and telecommunication. Provinces will need to introduce their own enabling legislation to make PRPPs available throughout Canada. The federal legislation is intended to be a model that the provinces can use to implement PRPPs within their own jurisdictions. A high level of harmonization of pension regulations across jurisdictions will be instrumental in increasing the availability of PRPPs and, more importantly, achieving lower costs. The federal government encourages provinces to implement the framework in a timely manner to help Canadians reach their retirement objectives.
With regard to (b) and (c), PRPPs will facilitate low costs through their scale and design. These plans will result in large pooled funds that will enable plan members to benefit from the lower investment management costs associated with such funds. The design of these plans will be straightforward, and these plans are intended to be largely harmonized across jurisdictions, which will facilitate lower administrative costs. In addition, the PRPP act requires the administrator to offer the PRPP at a low cost to plan members. The criteria for determining whether a PRPP is low cost will be set out in the accompanying regulations and will be monitored by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Finally, plain-language disclosure of all costs and fees will ensure transparency and facilitate price competition among administrators.

Question No. 274--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts (PRPP Act), will the regulations allow for private-sector plan managers, other than banks and insurance companies, to manage PRPP assests?
Response
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 specifies that eligible administrators must be corporations that can assume a fiduciary duty, such as regulated financial institutions and public pension plans. In order to offer a PRPP, administrators would need to obtain a licence from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The criteria for this licence will be set out in the regulations, and will not require administrators to be a bank or insurance company.

Question No. 275--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts (PRPP Act), does the government plan to incorporate limited or specific situational exemptions in the locking-in rules to allow Canadians of modest means emergency access to the funds accumulated in their PRPP account?
Response
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 includes locking-in provisions that are intended to ensure that funds are available for retirement income purposes. Funds in the members’ accounts are generally not permitted to be withdrawn. Subject to the regulations accompanying the Bill, plan members may be permitted to withdraw funds from their accounts under certain circumstances, such as disability.

Question No. 282--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With respect to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’s power to exercise discretionary authority under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) to permit an individual, who would otherwise be inadmissible, to enter Canada: (a) how many times has the Minister exercised his discretionary authority in the last five years; and (b) in each such case, what reasons were provided to the Minister to explain why the individual had been deemed inadmissible?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), from 2005 to 2011, the minister exercised his authority to issue a temporary resident permit, TRP, a total of 2,167 times.
With regard to (b), given the number of cases involved, it would be extremely difficult and time-consuming for the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CIC, to provide the reasons for refusal for each case in which a TRP was issued. However, the most prevalent reasons for refusal are non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA. Non-compliance means an applicant directly or indirectly failed to satisfy the requirements of the act or the regulations.
Some examples are as follows: an individual was not examined when he or she entered Canada; an individual did not obtain a temporary resident visa (TRV) because a visa officer was not satisfied he or she was a genuine temporary resident to Canada who would leave at the end of an authorized stay; an individual’s visa expired before he or she entered Canada; an individual did not have a passport or it expired before he or she entered Canada;an individual overstayed his or her period of authorized stay; or an individual worked or studied without authorization, a permit.
The number of TRPs issued by the minister and delegated officials of both CIC and Canada Border Service Agency, CBSA, is included in the annual reports to Parliament on immigration, which can be found at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/annual-report-2011.pdf.

Question No. 284--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
How many foreign nationals does the government estimate are currently in Canada without permanent or temporary working visas or student visas?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, it is currently not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the number of foreign nationals in Canada without permanent or temporary working visas or student visas. A more accurate picture would only be possible with exit tracking. The integrated entry and exit system that will be introduced under the Canada-U.S. perimeter security and economic competitiveness action plan will contribute to this objective.
However, it is important to note that there are a number of ways a foreign national could be in Canada without a permanent or temporary visa or student visa. Examples include students in an educational program of less than three months; temporary foreign workers covered by international agreements, e.g., NAFTA); refugee claimants; and tourists from exempt visa countries.

Question No. 285--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With respect to individuals in Canada on temporary resident visas, does the government record the number of individuals who return to their home countries after their temporary resident visa has expired and, if so, how many foreign nationals do not return to their home countries once the temporary resident visa has expired?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the department tracks and has data on those who apply for temporary resident visas and their arrival into Canada. As Canada does not maintain exit controls or monitor temporary residents once in Canada, we are unable to provide statistics on overstays or returns.

Question No. 288--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the Gulf Fisheries Centre, located in Moncton, New Brunswick: (a) what are the terms and conditions of the shared ownership of the building between Public Works and Government Services Canada and SNC Lavalin; (b) what decision-making role does SNC Lavalin have in terms of requests for renovations and structural changes to the Gulf Fisheries Centre; (c) what decision-making role does SNC Lavalin have with regard to the potential sale of the Gulf Fisheries Centre; and (d) what are the terms and conditions of revenue sharing between Public Works and Government Services Canada and SNC Lavalin should the Gulf Fisheries Centre ever be sold?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the facility is a wholly crown-owned facility; therefore, there is no shared ownership of the Gulf Fisheries Centre.
With regard to (b), SNC Lavalin is required to identify, on an annual basis, repair and capital project work plans that are based on recommendations from building technical inspections or audits. Public Works and Government Services Canada then determines which of those projects will be approved and funded.
With regard to (c), SNC Lavalin has no decision-making role related to any potential sale of the Gulf Fisheries Centre.
With regard to (d), as per the aforementioned, the Gulf Fisheries Centre is a wholly crown-owned facility and SNC Lavalin is not a co-owner; therefore, there are no terms and conditions of revenue sharing between Public Works and Government Services Canada and SNC Lavalin.

Question No. 291--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to all expenditures under $10,000 by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency since January 1, 2006, what are the details of these expenditures, categorized by (i) the names of the people or organizations to whom the expenditures were made, (ii) the amounts of the expenditures per recipient, (iii) the dates the expenditures were issued, (iv) the description of the purpose of each expenditure?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, producing the information requested would involve translating and manually reviewing thousands of records and descriptions. In addition to being cost-prohibitive, producing and translating such a voluminous response is not feasible in the time period required for this reply.

Question No. 292--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' (DFO) budget cuts, including the loss of approximately 275 jobs over the next three years: (a) in what regions will these job losses occur; (b) in what DFO branches will the job losses occur; (c) how many jobs will be lost through (i) attrition, (ii) retirement, (iii) relocation; (d) what is the total payroll for employees that are expected to be cut; (e) what levels of public service seniority are expected to be most affected; (f) what is the projected impact on services to (i) fishers, (ii) the aquaculture industry; (g) how will DFO integrated management plans be affected; (h) how will the output of scientific data, studies, and reports be affected; (i) have any senior DFO officials been offered or given salary bonuses based on how much is cut from their specific budgets; and (j) what is the total DFO expenditure for these types of bonuses thus far in 2011?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), staffing adjustments are the result of a national initiative and will occur in all regions and branches.
With regard to (c), at this time the department has only issued “affected” letters. As of now, we do not have indications from the employees if they are opting for retirement or other options. The department’s annual attrition rate is 2%-6%, depending on the position.
With regard to (d), savings in staff salaries is estimated to be $25,562,700.00.
With regard to (e), strategic review decisions were not based on the seniority of individual employees.
With regard to (f)(i) and (f)(ii), the implementation of this proposal will result in more transparent service standards for all stakeholders. Modernizing the fisheries management program and DFO in general will enable fish harvesters and the aquaculture industry to operate in an environment where stability, predictability and transparency will allow them to make more informed business choices and decisions for the long term.
With regard to (g), the use of multi-year integrated fisheries management plans will be expanded.
Where this approach does not already exist, fisheries management plans will be put on a stable, multi-year planning cycle, which means that plans are put in place for several years. This eliminates the instability for the industry that results from annual approaches. The industry will be better able to plan for the long term and maximize the potential of the harvest.
Many fisheries do not show significant variation in stock status from year to year. These fisheries do not require detailed annual re-evaluations of their management plans.
With regard to (h), Fisheries and Oceans Canada believes science is an essential contributor to all resource management decision-making and that the management of science must continue to build upon the transformation already under way in order to complement efforts to modernize fisheries management and to strengthen its regulatory role. To achieve these objectives, DFO is accelerating the implementation of multi-year science to include many of the commercial stocks that the department manages but which show little year-to-year variation. This action will result in greater predictability of resource access for commercial fish harvesters. The continued transition to an ecosystem approach to science will put greater emphasis on scientists working in teams to address complex interrelated issues affecting fish, fish habitat and the integrity of aquatic environments. While the department will cease to conduct research on fish production issues in the aquaculture industry as this task is not aligned with the Department’s core mandate, it will focus its aquaculture science activities in support of its regulatory duties related to fish health and environmental interactions. Finally, consolidation of the administrative management and priority-setting process with the Canadian Hydrographic Service will ensure that resources are focused on the high-priority charting activities that are most needed.
With regard to (i) and (j), there have been no salary bonuses based on budget cuts.

Question No. 297--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to the funding of enterprises and projects by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): (a) which enterprises or which projects that received direct or indirect funding from CIDA for fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011 have declared bankruptcy; (b) of these enterprises, which ones have not paid their Canadian employees or subcontractors; and (c) is the department continuing to fund enterprises that have declared bankruptcy, knowing that they have not paid their employees or subcontractors following their bankruptcy?
Response
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the fiduciary risk of enterprises and partners is assessed by the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, as part of rigorous due diligence in advance of project investment and funding decisions. Agency corporate data systems do not retain information on enterprises or partners that received direct or indirect funding and have subsequently declared bankruptcy. A complete response would require additional time to compile the information requested, following a review of individual projects.
With regard to (b), the agency does not gather third party information related to enterprises’ agreements with their subcontractors, consultants or employees. The agency takes considerable care not to interfere in the commercial dealings between enterprises and their subcontractors, consultants or employees in order to mitigate risks as well as limit potential legal liability to the crown.
With regard to (c), the agency will not knowingly fund or make payments to a partner organization or enterprise that has declared bankruptcy. Furthermore, as a condition to release of holdbacks and final payment, contractual agreements signed with enterprises require prior certification that all financial obligations to employees, sub-contractors or suppliers have been fully discharged. When the agency has been made aware of false declarations on the part of enterprises, they will be pursued by the agency to the full extent of the law.
An important distinction should be made between enterprises that have declared bankruptcy and those that may have legally sought temporary protection from creditors through the courts in order to restructure operations to avoid bankruptcy. In such rare situations, the agency will work constructively with all stakeholders and will endeavour to ensure that enterprises in receipt of CIDA funding conduct their affairs in manner that abides with the laws of Canada, particularly with respect to Canadian subcontractors, employees and suppliers.

Question No. 299--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Department of National Defence, how much did the department spend to conduct the reconnaissance flight to find a suitable landing spot near the Burnt Rattle fishing camp on the Gander River to pick up the Minister of National Defence in July 2010?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, no dedicated reconnaissance flight was conducted for this mission. The reconnaissance was conducted by the standby crew on a normal training flight in Newfoundland. On their return to 9 Wing Gander, they overflew the area in question to conduct the reconnaissance. The added time to overfly the area was negligible and did not result in any additional costs.

Question No. 303--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the criteria governing the granting of single and multiple entry visas: (a) what are the criteria used to determine whether an applicant is approved or rejected for a single-entry visa; (b) what are the criteria used to determine whether an applicant is approved or rejected for a multiple-entry visa; and (c) what are the reasons that an applicant might be granted a single-entry visa but denied a multiple-entry visa?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the criteria governing the granting of single and multiple entry visas and with regard to (a), the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act gives visa officers outside Canada the authority to review temporary resident visa applications and make their decisions based on the criteria outlined in the act and the regulations.
Visa officers consider several factors before deciding if a person is admissible. The person must be a genuine visitor to Canada who will leave at the end of the visit. In addition, the visa officer must be satisfied that the applicant is not inadmissible to Canada according to the Act. The applicant may be considered inadmissible under grounds related to security, human or international rights violations, criminality, organized crime, health, or financial reasons. A visa will be issued if all regulatory requirements and eligibility criteria are satisfied.
With regard to (b),the criteria for multiple entry visas are the same as above.
With regard to (c), the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act gives visa officers outside Canada the authority to review temporary resident visa applications and make their decisions based on the criteria outlined in the act and the regulations. Applicants indicate on their application form if they wish a single-entry or multiple-entry visa and pay the requisite fee. In Canadian dollars, the processing fee for a single-entry visa is $75, while a multiple-entry is $150. An applicant who has requested a multiple-entry visa but who has only paid the processing fee for a single-entry visa would be issued a single-entry visa.
If the applicant has requested and paid the processing fee for a multiple-entry visa, a multiple-entry visa would normally be issued. The departmental procedure, as outlined in the operational manual, is that if officers have doubts about issuing a multiple entry visa, they should normally refuse the application rather than compromise and grant a single-entry visa. However, in some circumstances, an officer may decide to issue a single-entry visa based on the particulars of the case and must justify this in the case notes. An example of such circumstance would be when the purpose of the applicant’s travel is to attend a singular event and is being funded by a credible third party.

Question No. 307--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the Department of Natural Resources and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, as a follow-up to Q-85 and Q-92, given that the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) has a mandate to service all of Canada and the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office has a mandate to service only the Port Hope area, what are the reasons why the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office currently employs more than three times as many staff as the LLRWMO?
Response
Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the low-level radioactive waste management office, the LLRWMO, was established by the Government of Canada in 1982, as a distinct unit within Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The mandate of the LLRWMO when it was established was to clean up and dispose of historic wastes. Historic wastes are defined as those that have been managed in a manner that is no longer appropriate, for which the owner or producer cannot be identified or held reasonably responsible, and for which the Government of Canada has accepted responsibility.
The bulk of Canada’s historic wastes, more than 90%, are located in the Port Hope area of southeastern Ontario. In 2009, the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office, the PHAI MO, was established as a limited-term, dedicated management office with the overall responsibility to plan, manage and implement the cleanup of historic low-level radioactive wastes within the Port Hope area. Once the cleanup is completed, the PHAI MO will be disbanded.
The LLRWMO continues to provide ongoing monitoring, inspection and maintenance at numerous smaller scale historic waste sites across Canada. The LLRWMO’s staff reflects its current level of activities.

Question No. 308--
Mr. David McGuinty:
Does the Department of Natural Resources have any plans to abolish the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office or merge it with another office?
Response
Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, LLRWMO, was established by the Government of Canada in 1982, with a mandate to resolve federal and historic low-level radioactive waste responsibilities.
There are no plans to abolish the LLRWMO or to merge it with another office as there is an ongoing need to clean up and manage historic waste that is a federal responsibility.

Question No. 310--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, for all correspondence they have received between February 6, 2006, and December 1, 2011, and which was addressed to the Prime Minister, how many pieces of correspondence had personal contact information recorded and transferred to the Conservative Party of Canada?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office, PCO, has not recorded and transferred any personal contact information from correspondence to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Question No. 315--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, does the department have any plans to close Canadian embassies, consulates or missions abroad and, if so, which ones?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada is committed to supporting a robust diplomatic role for Canada that focuses on key foreign policy priorities and services to Canadians.
We are constantly reviewing our network of missions, modernizing our practices, reallocating resources internally and seeking new ways of delivering on the government’s foreign policy objectives in an ever-changing world. Innovation, efficiency and effectiveness are the principles that guide the department as it serves Canadians in Canada and abroad.
The government continuously monitors its representation abroad and periodically shifts resources to meet Canada’s needs. We do this to fulfill our commitment to being responsible with taxpayer dollars while also doing our part to eliminate the federal deficit, as announced during the 2011 election campaign.
To this end and as part of the deficit reduction action plan, all departments, including DFAIT, are exploring options to find savings and deliver value for money, and working to reduce wasteful and ineffective spending. Many programs are under review. No decisions have yet been finalized.

Question No. 316--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Northern Resident Deduction: (a) what is the current criteria for a community to qualify for the deduction; (b) what was the criteria for a community to qualify for the deduction before Tax Regulation 7303 was amended, as printed in the Canada Gazette Part II, Income Tax Regulations, amendment SOR/93-440; (c) what was the rationale for any change in criteria; and (d) what was the rationale for excluding all previously included remote areas in Newfoundland from the Northern Resident Deduction in both Zone A and Zone B after the change in policy?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the northern residents deduction assists Canada’s northern and isolated regions draw skilled labour to their communities by providing recognition for the additional costs faced by residents of these areas.
The current zonal system of tax benefits for northern residents was established following an extensive review of the former community-based system by the 1988 Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Under the former system, eligibility was as follows: all communities north of 60ºN latitude were eligible. Communities having a population of less than 10,000 located between 55ºN latitude and 60ºN were eligible if they were over 80 kilometres by all-weather road from the city or town hall of the nearest urban centre, or they had no all-weather road. Communities having a population of less than 10,000 located south of 55ºN latitude and scoring at least 50 points for factors relating to population, access, vegetation type and climate were eligible if: they had no all-weather road and were over 80 kilometres in a straight line from the city hall or the nearest urban centre with a population of 50,000 or more; or they had an all-weather road and were more than 160 kilometres from the town or city hall of the nearest urban centre with a population of 10,000 or more, and were over 320 kilometres from the city hall of the nearest urban centre with a population of 50,000 or more.
Starting in 1988, the task force held extensive consultations across the country and concluded that determining eligibility for the tax deductions for residents of northern and isolated areas was arbitrary and divisive. Residents of neighbouring communities were being treated differently for tax purposes, even though they often shared common workplaces, services, and cultural and recreational facilities.
In October 1989, the task force recommended a zonal approach, where only communities within a “northern zone” would qualify for tax benefits. The boundaries of the northern zone were delineated with a view to ensuring that communities in the zone had similar characteristics. The task force used objective criteria to compare communities on the basis of isolation, nordicity, community characteristics and environmental factors. The task force also attempted to minimize border delineation problems by having as much separation as possible between qualifying and non-qualifying communities.
The task force recommended a northern zone and, following further consultations, an intermediate zone was added to bridge the gap between the northern zone and the less isolated areas of the country. The approach used by the task force to design the northern zone was also applied in developing the intermediate zone. The same ranking system was used and efforts were made to minimize border problems.
It was recognized that the intermediate zone, in relation to the northern zone, covers regions in which the communities are characterized as being more populated, in greater proximity and less homogeneous, thereby making the task of setting borders more challenging. Given this reality, regardless of where the borders were set, there would inevitably be communities across the country that would be disappointed with their exclusion. It was determined at the time that the final border design incorporated fair trade-offs in difficult circumstances that were deemed workable in a broad-based, national tax system.
The new system of northern benefits took effect starting in 1991.
Since the implementation of the zonal boundaries, the underlying factors used to establish them have remained constant, even in regions where populations (the most variable indicator) have changed in the following years.

Question No. 318--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, how many Temporary Residency Permit applications were submitted to the department by the current Member for Brampton—Springdale before May 2, 2011?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the department does not track temporary residence permit, TRP, applications this way; therefore CIC cannot answer the member’s question.

Question No. 321--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With respect to Minister’s Regional Offices, what is the itemized list of expenses for hospitality, food, drink, hotels and transportation for each Minister’s Regional Office since 2006?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, ministers’ regional offices are subject to the “Policies for Ministers’ Offices--January 2011”. Information regarding hospitality, meals and incidentals, accommodation and transportation must be made available through proactive disclosure. This information can be found on individual departmental websites and is updated quarterly.

Question No. 322--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With respect to the fiscal framework in the year 2015-2016 and the $600 million surplus identified in the 2011 Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections, how will the budgetary balance be affected by government plans to (i) double the value of the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit and make it refundable, (ii) introduce an Adult Fitness Tax Credit, (iii) allow spouses to share up to $50,000 of their household income for federal income tax purposes, (iv) double the Tax Free Savings Account limit?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government’s tax-related campaign commitments, as clearly stated in the 2011 election platform “Here for Canada”, will be implemented when the federal budget is balanced and reflected at that time.

Question No. 323--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With regard to the 2006 Economic and Fiscal Update’s commitment to work towards the elimination of Canada’s total government net debt by 2021: (a) what progress has been made to date; and (b) what is the current target date to reduce Canada’s total government net debt to zero?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, net debt differs from the federal debt as it is defined as total liabilities less financial assets, while the federal debt is defined as total liabilities less total assets. Furthermore, the target that was established in 2006 is for total government net debt on a national accounts basis (excluding government employee unfunded pension liabilities to conform with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development measure of net debt), which includes not only the federal net debt, but also the net debt of provincial-territorial and local governments, as well as the assets of the Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan.
Balanced budgets and low levels of public debt are critical to Canada’s long-term growth and prosperity.
That is why, since taking office in 2006, the government aggressively reduced the federal debt by nearly $40 billion from 2005-06 to 2007-08. However, in response to the deepest and most synchronized global recession since the Great Depression, the government made a difficult, but necessary, decision to run temporary deficits in order to make investments to protect Canadians under Canada’s Economic Action Plan, leading to a short-term increase in federal debt.
The Government of Canada is committed to returning to balanced budgets in the medium term. Budget 2010 announced a three-point plan to support a return to balanced budgets (for more information, please visit http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/plan/chap4a-eng.html). Building on that plan, budget 2011 outlined further savings by delivering on the 2010 round of strategic reviews, as well as taking action to close tax loopholes (for more information, please visit http://www.budget.gc.ca/2011/plan/chap5-eng.html).
To maintain Canada’s solid fiscal position, in budget 2011, the government also announced its deficit reduction action plan, which will review direct program spending in order to achieve at least $4 billion in ongoing annual savings by 2014-15. This review will place particular emphasis on generating savings from operating expenses and improving productivity, while also examining the relevance and effectiveness of programs. Savings proposals are currently being assessed by a specially constituted committee of Treasury Board. The government will report on the results of this review in budget 2012. These savings will support a return to balanced budgets by 2015-16. The budgetary savings associated with the deficit reduction action plan will be reflected in the fiscal projections once these actions are determined and implemented in budget 2012.

Question No. 324--
Mr. Justin Trudeau :
With respect to Environment Canada’s water-monitoring stations in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut: (a) when did Environment Canada begin considering shutting down 21 stations in the Northwest Territories and 10 stations in Nunavut; (b) what studies were undertaken to estimate the impact of the closures; (c) what consultations, if any, were conducted with the territorial governments about the closures; (d) when were the territorial governments alerted that a decision had been made to shut the stations down; and (e) when was the decision to shut the stations down reversed?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada did not shut down water quality monitoring in the north. During July 2011, some data collection had been temporarily suspended while the department was undertaking the development of a risk-based assessment, RBA, framework for water quality monitoring. The new framework is part of EC’s commitment to improve its operations in response to a recommendation in the 2010 fall report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
However, as directed by the Minister of Environment in August, the department resumed all normal monitoring in the north while the risk-based assessment framework is being developed.
The RBA framework is a science-based tool that will help ensure scientific validity and value for Environment Canada’s water quality monitoring investments. Under the framework, sites that are rated as being a high risk to water quality will be monitored more frequently, while sites judged to be a low risk will be monitored less frequently. This approach will ensure that the department’s science and monitoring resources, including those devoted to our work in the north, are focused on monitoring the greatest risks to water quality in Canada’s lakes and rivers.
As the development of the RBA framework is nearing completion, Environment Canada is consulting with its stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments, to ensure we have their input and perspectives before any final decisions on the water monitoring program are made.

Question No. 325--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), how much has the department spent to install the portraits of Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Minister and all DFAIT Ministers at all of Canada’s Embassies, High Commissions, Consulates and Foreign Missions?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, virtually every other country in the world displays pictures of their head of state in their diplomatic missions. All Canadian missions abroad are expected to display pictures of Canada’s head of state, the Queen, along with pictures of the Governor General, the Prime Minister and relevant ministers.
In September 2011, Canadian missions were asked to update, download and/or print official portraits, at no cost, using the departmental catalogue. For the 20 missions that needed to update photos already at mission, digital photos were provided free of charge and printed in place. Missions were responsible for framing. The overall cost for that is estimated to be less than $1,000.

Question No. 326--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage and its plans to commemorate the War of 1812: (a) what is the complete list of planned events; (b) how much is the government spending on each event; and (c) where is each event located?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the complete list of activities and events is yet to be finalized.
We invite you to visit the War of 1812 website at http://1812.gc.ca/eng/1305744041669/1305744100939 on a regular basis for the latest information regarding the commemoration, including the release of the calendar of events and federal department and agency initiatives and events, including those of Canadian Heritage.

Question No. 330--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, more specifically, Small Craft Harbours (SCH), how many properties under the ownership of SCH have been diversified each year from 2006 to 2011 inclusively, (i) in what community and province were each of these properties located, (ii) what was the assessed value of each of these properties at the time of diversification, (iii) what financial transactions took place (i.e., amounts) as part of the diversification plan, (iv) who received financial compensation and who paid financial compensation for the diversified properties?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the small craft harbours program does not have a diversification strategy and does not manage its properties by diversifying them.

Question No. 341--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) under the Old Age Security program and changes in the government’s policies dealing with Registered Retirement Income Funds for the purposes of exercising a GIS, GIS Allowance and GIS Allowance for the Survivor option since May, 2010: (a) how many requests for an option were received between May 17 and December 31, 2010, and how many requests for an option were received in 2011; (b) how many requests were rejected in each quarter of the calendar year as a result of the revised policy circulated on May 17, 2010; (c) how many of those requests which had been rejected in each quarter were subsequently reviewed and overturned in the course of each calendar year; (d) how many requests for an option are currently being reviewed for consideration; and (e) what is the average processing time for each application?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), for the period May 17 to December 31, 2010, the department received approximately 68,800 requests for an option. In 2011, the department received approximately 126,800 option requests.
In response to (b), statistics are not compiled quarterly. However, of the 6,752 beneficiaries who withdrew additional amounts from a registered retirement income fund, RRIF, in 2008 and 2009, 171 were not granted an option as a result of the revised policy. Of the 1,221 beneficiaries who withdrew additional amounts from a RRIF in 2010, 7 were not granted an option.
In response to (c), all 178 of the accounts not granted an option were reviewed and subsequently granted an option. These clients received an adjusted payment based on the February 2004 policy.
In response to (d), currently, there are 36,484 requests for an option to be reviewed in the Service Canada work item inventory distribution system.
In response to (e), in 2010-11, the average processing time for option requests was 33 days. For the current year, the average processing time is 29 days.

Question No. 343--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the operations and management of Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI) and consultants’ reports presented to MAI or Transport Canada by Fleetway Incorporated and by Oceanic Consulting Corporation since January 1, 2005, what are the details of these reports with respect to the consultants’ reviews, analysis, findings and recommendations on MAI’s ferry replacement options?
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, the Marine Atlantic Inc., MAI, reports which summarize the extensive work done by the consultants can be found on the corporation’s website: http://www.marine-atlantic.ca/eng/publications.asp.

Question No. 344--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the closing of the search and rescue centres in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Québec City, Quebec: (a) what is the cost of relocating people from St. John’s and Québec City to either Trenton or Halifax; (b) what is the cost of linking, with a secure telephone line, the Halifax and Trenton coordination centres to emergency centres in the provinces of Québec and Newfoundland and Labrador; (c) what are the bilingual capabilities of the centres in Halifax and Trenton and what is their capacity to answer two different emergency calls simultaneously in French for both centres; (d) what is the cost of adapting each centre in Halifax and Trenton to deal with the increase in the number of calls that they will have to handle; and (e) how will the territory be split between the centres in Halifax and Trenton?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), no employees from the St. John’s and Quebec Marine Rescue Sub-Centres elected to relocate to the Halifax or Trenton Joint Coordination Centres. Therefore, there are no relocation costs at this time.
In response to (b), annual total overhead costs for telecommunications services will not change. The costs of transferring lines to emergency centres from St. John’s and Quebec to Halifax and Trenton are still under review.
In response to (c), language requirements at Halifax and Quebec are currently set at the BBB level by the Coast Guard and deemed satisfactory by previous reviews conducted by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Following consolidation, both the Trenton and Halifax Joint Rescue Coordination Centres will have the capacity to provide services in both official languages and bilingual capacity at the CBC level, an increase above the levels that are now in place at both Halifax and Trenton. The level of bilingual service is regularly reviewed by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
In response to (d), one-time implementation costs for relocations, training, meetings with partners and project management are estimated at $700,000.
In response to (e), currently, the Quebec Marine Rescue Sub-Centre is responsible for a portion of both the Search and Rescue Region of Halifax and Trenton Joint Rescue Coordination Centres. The St. John’s Marine Rescue Sub-Centre is responsible for a portion of the Halifax Joint Rescue Coordination Centre search and rescue region. Following consolidation, Halifax and Trenton Joint Rescue Coordination Centres will be responsible for coordinating all incident responses within their own defined search and rescue regions.

Question No. 350--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With respect to every First Nation in Canada for which the government carries a fiduciary responsibility: (a) what is the total number of members belonging to each First Nation; (b) how many of these members actually live on each First Nation; (c) how many and what type of residential dwellings are available to house those members living on each First Nation; (d) what is the number of persons per dwelling; and (e) what is the average number of persons per dwelling for all other Canadians not living on First Nations?
Response
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) and (b), please refer to “Registered Indian Population by Sex and Residence 2010,” found on the department’s website at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/ainc-inac/R31-3-2010-eng.pdf.
In response to (c), according to first nations’ reports, there were 106,373 houses on reserve as of 2010-11. Below is a list of the total number of homes on first nations broken down by region: Atlantic: 7,132--Quebec: 10,171--Ontario: 24,404--Manitoba: 16,046--Saskatchewan: 14,180--Alberta: 14,578--Yukon: 582--British Columbia: 19,280.
The provision and management of housing on reserve lands is the responsibility of first nations, and therefore chief and council are responsible for determining which types of dwellings should be constructed to meet the needs of band members. According to data from the 2006 census, 82.2% of households lived in single-family detached homes, 2.8% lived in apartments, 6.4% lived in other multiple dwellings, and 8.6% lived in movable dwellings.
In response to (d), according to 2006 census data, the average household size on reserve was 3.67 people. Below is a list of the average number of persons per dwelling broken down by region: Newfoundland and Labrador: 3.67; Prince Edward Island: 3.03; Nova Scotia: 3.03; New Brunswick: 2.84; Quebec: 3.89; Ontario: 3.24; Manitoba: 4.09; Saskatchewan: 4.14; Alberta: 4.09; British Columbia: 3.22; Yukon: 2.34; Northwest Territories: 3.53.
According to first nations’ reports, the average number of persons per dwelling on first nations across Canada was 3.57 as of 2010-11. Below is a list of average number of persons per dwelling broken down by region: Atlantic: 2.77; Quebec: 3.40; Ontario: 2.99; Manitoba: 5.03; Saskatchewan: 4.24; Alberta: 3.95; Yukon: 1.88; British Columbia: 2.76.
In response to (e), according to Census data, the average household size in Canada was 2.5 people in 2006.

Question No. 363--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage, what is the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) location, (iv) nature of all government business conducted by Saulie Zajdel since his employment started?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Saulie Zajdel is a regional adviser to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the minister’s regional office in Montreal, and an exempt staff member. The department does not manage the day-to-day activities of an exempt staff member in a minister’s office.

Question No. 364--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the Minister of Public Safety's Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee: (a) what is the complete membership list of this committee; (b) for every meeting held since January 1, 2008, what is the exact (i) time, (ii) date, (iii) place; and (c) how much has the committee spent on travel and hospitality since 2008?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the following is the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee membership list: 1. Ms. Linda Baggaley; 2. Mr. Steve Torino; 3. Mr. Tony Bernardo; 4. Mr. Alain Cossette; 5. Mr. Louis D’Amour; 6. Mr. Greg Farrant; 7. Mr. Gerry Gamble; 8. Mr. John Gayder; 9. Mr. Murray Grismer; 10. Mr. Kerry Higgins; 11. Professor Emeritus Gary Mauser; 12. Ms. Linda Thom.
In response to (b), the meetings held since January 1, 2008 are as follows: Meeting No. 1: i) 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.; ii) June 27, 2008; iii) Teleconference.
Meeting No. 2: i) Day 1, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Day 2, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; ii) April 29 and 30, 2009; iii) Hotel Indigo Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario.
Meeting No. 3: i) 7:15 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.; ii) June 16, 2010; iii) Teleconference.
Meeting No. 4: i) Day 1, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Day 2, 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; ii) November 30 and December 1, 2010; iii) Sheraton Ottawa Hotel, Ottawa, Ontario.
In response to (c), travel costs for meetings held since January 2008 total $19,863.13 and the associated hospitality costs total $4,238.36.

Question No. 378--
Mr. Kennedy Stewart:
With regard to consultations with Canadians by the Minister of Natural Resources on the subject of energy since May 18, 2011: (a) who did the Minister consult with and when did these consultations occur; (b) what events did the Minister attend that involved consultations, and where did these consultations occur; (c) which consultations involved discussion of a national energy strategy; (d) when will results of the aforementioned consultations be presented publicly; and (e) what is the government’s policy on developing a national energy strategy?
Response
Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has met with numerous stakeholders and Canadians regarding their energy priorities. These include industry, stakeholder, environmental and economist groups. The minister has also met frequently with his provincial counterparts.
In addition, the minister took part in the Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference, EMMC, in July 2011. The EMMC includes a formal opportunity for invited stakeholders to meet with ministers around a particular theme and focus. The primary focus of the 2011 EMMC held on July 18 and19, 2011, in Kananaskis, Alberta, was the development of a collaborative approach to energy to guide federal, provincial and territorial government energy policies. The development of a pan-Canadian approach to greater energy collaboration was discussed.
In July 2011, ministers at the EMMC approved a document, “Canada as a Global Energy Leader: Toward Greater Pan-Canadian Collaboration”, and a corresponding action plan. This information, along with the official EMMC communiqué, has been publicly posted on the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat’s website and can be accessed at the following website: www.scics.gc.ca/english/conferences.asp?x=1&a=view&id=2611&y=&m.
At the 2011 EMMC, a collaborative approach to energy was released, based on a set of common principles. These include a market-oriented approach to energy governed by effective regulatory systems, ensuring mutual respect for jurisdiction, recognizing the importance of sustainable energy development and use, and acknowledging the need for an adequate and reliable supply of energy.
The government will continue to work with provincial and territorial governments, industry stakeholders and all Canadians to further strengthen our approach and to ensure that our energy policies are coordinated and serve the best interests of Canadians.

Question No. 379--
Mr. Kennedy Stewart:
With regard to grants, contributions and contracts by Western Economic Diversification Canada since January 1, 2001: (a) what funding applications were approved by the Minister’s office, as identified by (i) project name, (ii) applicant name, (iii) number of times previously submitted, (iv) date approved, (v) amount requested, (vi) amount awarded, (vii) sector, (viii) federal electoral district determined by application address; (b) what funding applications were rejected by the Minister’s office, identified by (i) project name, (ii) applicant name, (iii) total amount of submitted applications, (iv) date rejected, (v) amount requested, (vi) sector, (vii) federal electoral district determined by application address; (c) for each federal electoral district, what is the total value of funding requests that were (i) approved, (ii) rejected; and (d) what untendered contracts were issued by or on behalf of the Minister?
Response
Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Western Economic Diversification Canada is unable to respond to this request in the time allotted due to the volume of information requested.

Question No. 380--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the recommendation made by Jeremy Wallace, Deputy Director of Climate Change at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), that funding provisionally approved on April 29, 2011, by the DFAIT Planning, Advocacy, and Innovation Office, for the purpose of supporting an art exhibition by Canadian artist Franke James in Eastern Europe, be cancelled based on a determination that, “concerns that the funding proposed would not be consistent with our interests (…) and would in fact run counter to Canada’s interests more broadly”: (a) what specific criteria and evidence did the government use to determine that Ms. James’ art exhibition would constitute a threat to the interests of Canada; (b) for each correspondence, including e-mails, that relate to this determination, including those between Ministers’ exempt staff and departmental staff at DFAIT, (i) what are its details, (ii) what are the names of the sender and recipients, (iii) on what date was it sent; (c) on what evidence did DFAIT rely in order to justify the redactions, under Sections 20(1)(c), 21(1)(b), and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act, to the correspondence released to Ms. James under her Access to Information Act request on this matter on August 16, 2011; and (d) with regard to the Right to Freedom of Speech enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on what legal grounds did DFAIT base its decision to withdraw support and revoke Ms. James’ allotted funding?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), missions submit advocacy project proposals to the Planning, Advocacy and Innovation Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which are then reviewed and assessed against Government of Canada priorities. It is common practice for the officials involved and our missions to have back and forth discussions regarding these proposals, before making final eligibility decisions. The recommendation from the Climate Change and Energy Division was based on current priority areas for climate change funding, including the provision of support to assist vulnerable countries in tangible ways to adapt to climate change, and to support their substantive participation in international climate change negotiations.
In response to (b)(i), on May 2, 2011, a request was forwarded by a public affairs counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Rome, enclosing exchanges with a cultural affairs officer at the Canadian embassy in Zagreb. The exchange provided further background and discussion on the proposal.
In response to (b)(ii), the above-mentioned email communication was from a public affairs counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Rome to the Climate Change and Energy Division, enclosing exchanges with a cultural affairs officer in the Canadian embassy in Zagreb.
In response to (b)(iii), May 2 and April 21, 2011.
In response to (c), in order to redact information requested under the Access to Information Act, DFAIT relies on recommendations from subject matter experts within the program areas who provided the records, recommendations from other involved program areas, as well as the review and discretion exercised by experienced officials within the Access to Information division. Information was redacted in certain instances where its release was determined to cause a specific, current and probably injury. Paragraph 20(1)(c) was invoked to exempt sensitive financial information belonging to a third party. Paragraph 21(1)(b) was invoked to protect the frank exchange of ideas between government officers. Subsection 15(1)--International was invoked in some instances to protect Canada’s position for the purpose of international negotiations, and in others to protect Canada’s relations with foreign governments.
In response to (d), Foreign Affairs and International Trade provides operational funds to Canadian missions to promote and defend Canada’s interests abroad in line with government priorities. While funding for the mission project proposal was identified and provisionally approved by DFAIT, upon further consultations, we did not provide funds to our mission in Zagreb. Thus funding to the artist was never given, nor was it withdrawn. Any implication of political interference involving DFAIT’s decision is false.

Question No. 382--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the current and projected impacts of anthropogenic climatic change and disruption including, but not limited to, increasing water scarcity, forest fire frequency and severity, degradation of permafrost-dependent infrastructure, frequency of extreme weather events including floods and heat waves, sea level rise, and the spread of vector-borne diseases such as Lyme Disease, for each department, what are the detailed current and projected economic costs associated with adapting to the aforementioned effects over the short, medium, and long term?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there is no relevant program area within Environment Canada that may be in a position to provide relevant information and/or documents concerning the economic costs associated with anthropogenic climate change impacts.

Question No. 386--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the airports in Canada for which the lands or infrastructure are owned by the government: (a) what studies has Transport Canada or any entity under contract with a department undertaken regarding a review of the National Airport Policy, including the privatization of these airports and what airports are being considered for privatization in any such study; (b) what are the revenues for the government anticipated in any such study regarding the privatization of airports, (i) as a whole, (ii) listed individually by airport; (c) what advice have consultants KPMG or any other entity under contract with the government given on the privatization of airports currently owned by the government; and (d) what is the current annual revenue paid to the government by airports for rent?
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), Transport Canada, TC, is committed to ensuring that its policy framework for airports allows the industry to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future. While a formal review of the national airports policy is not under way, internal work is ongoing including analysis, as well as stakeholder engagement. The issues being examined include those raised by stakeholders and commentators, and focus on the state of the air industry in Canada generally, and the competitiveness of the industry. TC has not contracted with external parties for any studies concerning the possible sale of the national airport system, NAS, airports. There are no plans at present to privatize and/or sell airports.
In response to (b), as noted above, there has been no work undertaken regarding the sale or potential valuation of any NAS airport.
In response to (c), Transport Canada has not contracted with any external consultants to provide advice regarding the privatization of airports.
In response to (d), the airport rent received by the federal government in 2010 was $243 million. The amounts can be found through the main estimates at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2010-2011/inst/mot/st-ts01-eng.asp.

Question No. 401--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
What is the estimated cost of the government's response to question 385 on the Order Paper?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as many responses to MPs’ written questions referred to in Question No. 385 from the member for Fort McMurray-Athabaska are scheduled for tabling in the House of Commons on January 30, 2012, the cost of producing these responses is still being compiled and will be provided in a supplementary response to Question No. 385. As a result, the government is not currently in a position to provide a costing for Question No. 385 at this time.

Question No. 406--
Hon. Jim Karygiannis:
With respect to the three programs supported by the Global Peace and Security Fund: (a) concerning the Global Peace and Security Program, (i) what projects have been approved in the last fiscal year and this year, (ii) what has the budget been for the last fiscal year and this year, (iii) what is the proposed budget for next year; (b) concerning the Global Peace Operation Program, (i) what projects have been approved in the last fiscal year and this year, (ii) what has the budget been for the last fiscal year and this year, (iii) what is the proposed budget for next year; and (c) concerning the Glyn Berry Program, (i) what projects have been approved in the last fiscal year and this year, (ii) what has the budget been for the last fiscal year and this year, (iii) what is the proposed budget for next year?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a)(i), a total of 85 projects were approved during fiscal year 2010-11, and a total of 23 projects approved for fiscal year 2011-12.
In response to (a)(ii), the budget for fiscal year 2010-11 was $107,256,520 and for fiscal year 2011-12 is $91,396,000.
In response to (a)(iii), the budget for fiscal year 2012-13 is $92,696,000.
In response to (b)(i), a total of 11 projects were approved during fiscal year 2010-11, and a total of 4 projects approved for fiscal year 2011-12.
In response to (b)(ii), the budget for fiscal year 2010-11 was $13,700,000 and for fiscal year 2011-12 is $13,700,000.
In response to (b)(iii), the budget for fiscal year 2012-13 is $8,000,000.
In response to (c) (i),a total of 29 projects were approved during fiscal year 2010-11, and a total of 5 projects approved for fiscal year 2011-12.
In response to (c)(ii), the budget for fiscal year 2010-11 was $5,000,000 and for fiscal year 2011-12 is $5,000,000.
In response to (c)(iii), the budget for fiscal year 2012-13 is $5,000,000.
A project is considered 'approved' if it has gone through all of the required levels of approvals and is either initiated, ongoing, or closed within a given fiscal year.
Fiscal year 2011-12 is not yet complete therefore data provided is a partial response.
For specific information on the projects approved by START with a value of more than$ 25,000, please refer to the proactive disclosure section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website: http://w03.international.gc.ca/dg-do/index_fa-ae.aspx?lang=eng&p=3&r=r.
Aboriginal peoplesAboriginal reservesAccommodation and hospitality servicesAddresses by distinguished visitorsAfricaAglukkaq, LeonaAircraftAirportsAmbrose, RonaAndrews, ScottAnniversary ...Show all topics
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2011-11-28 17:45 [p.3684]
Mr. Speaker, today Canadians are witnessing the anti-democratic, ideological agenda of the Conservative government.
Western Canadians are today witnessing a government take a position without listening to the very voices of the people they claim to represent. Today many Canadians will realize the way in which the federal government does not represent us and why it is time to talk about the need to have real representation about the real issues that matter to Canadians.
I want to begin by responding to the allegations made in the House these last few days that have involved my name. I am very disappointed by the allegations made by the member of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and the Chief Government Whip.
The government whip approached me last week after a disruption in the gallery and accused me of organizing it. I made it clear that this was not the case. In Parliament we are all hon. members and the acceptance of the word of a member of Parliament is fundamental to the functioning of the House.
Instead of accepting my word as a member of the House, the Chief Government Whip approached me in this very Chamber and indicated to me the phrase “you will get attacked”. He went on to repeat the fictional story that he and his colleagues shared in this House.
I want to make it clear that I provided gallery passes to a group of western farmers who support the Wheat Board. I provide passes, like so many members of Parliament, to people who visit their House of Commons. I had no knowledge there would be a disruption. For the record, that member of the public who protested in this gallery just hours later apologized to me and noted that I had no knowledge of his intentions and certainly had no part in organizing.
The government members, instead, were eager to make unfounded accusations and attempts to intimidate me. This attitude is not fitting for a government that was elected to represent Canadians. The House operates on the basis of honouring members, of honouring the word of members and of honouring the fact that we have been elected to represent Canadians.
I believe the whip should withdraw his statement and apologize to the House. This attitude is a reflection of the government's contempt for anyone who disagrees with them.
I want to make one thing clear. I will not be intimidated by members opposite. I know they have a difficulty with the fact that I represent a rural western Canadian riding. I have news for them. If they continue down this path of arrogance, ideology and contempt for the voices of western Canadians, they will see lot more New Democratic Party members of Parliament representing western Canada.
The lessons of the government's desire to pursue its extreme ideological agenda on Bill C-18 and dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board is a reflection of patterns we have seen in history before. Might I reference the Mulroney Conservatives who after taking western Canada for granted time and time again were rewarded by being re-elected with only two seats in the House of Commons, and none of them were from western Canada.
That process led to the beginning of the social movement and a political movement in western Canada known as the Reform Party. Many of those members of Parliament came out of that movement. Some have since retired, some are still, today, here. Those people came out of a movement that spoke about democracy, that talked about listening to the grassroots, that talked about respecting the democratic voice of people across western Canada. They talked about the west wanting in and people from western Canada wanting to be heard.
These very same people, these same members of Parliament, have today denied western Canadian farmers the right to vote. Along with that, they have denied western Canadians--the people who live across the prairie provinces and whose livelihoods depend on the work of the Canadian Wheat Board--the ability to speak to oppose them.
The Conservatives talked about having campaigned in the election to dismantle the Wheat Board. For many of our constituencies, that statement is completely and utterly false. They buried it in a platform, and we have heard from people across the Prairies that nowhere was it actually talked about in debates, in campaign events or in the pamphlets that they handed out during the election.
I can speak to the fact that in Churchill the Conservative candidate, who was based in the community that stands to lose the most directly from the loss of the Wheat Board, never once made public reference to the government's plan to dismantle an institution on which so many of the people I represent depend.
We even have the minister's quote in Minnedosa, Manitoba, when he talked about respecting farmers' right to vote. However, days later, after winning a majority government, the government became extremely arrogant and became dismissive of its own commitments during the election campaign. It became so dismissive of the very statements government members had made to western Canadians that we now have it pursuing the exact opposite approach. The government has put forward an agenda and a timeline in this debate that is unprecedented in the way in which it has been able to muzzle any kind of opposition across Canada.
For the last while, I have had a chance to talk a lot about the old politics, the politics of this government, the politics that Canadians are sick and tired of, the politics of hidden agendas. They are tired of hearing one thing during the election and then, upon electing a government, hearing something completely different. Once the Conservatives got a majority, they were willing to steamroll the rights of western Canadians and steamroll anyone in their way who might have a different point of view.
The Conservatives have brought in closure time and time again, and in a most shocking way when it comes to Bill C-18. This is a tool that signifies their complete lack of respect for Canadians' voices, Canadians who have something different to bring to the table, Canadians who simply want to be heard.
Instead of listening, they have managed to keep busy in a number of other ways. They have kept busy by making videos that insult aboriginal people in the statements they make and videos that demean western Canadian producers.
They have sought ways to bury debate. They use public relations stunts and government money for ads in order to take away the important role that Parliament has to debate these very issues. Instead of being up front, they obfuscate and hide the facts that we need to know as we move forward.
On the contingency fund, it is clear that the government is taking the money from farmers and putting it toward its own state-run agency, having lifted the ceiling, instead of giving that money back to farmers.
I want to acknowledge the work of people who were elected to represent western Canadian farmers: Stuart Wells, Bill Woods, Allen Oberg, Cam Goff, Kyle Korneychuk, Rod Flaman, John Sandborn and Bill Toews. The voices of young farmers such as Sid Stevenson and Matt Gell and the voices of the people of Churchill, of the Bay line, of Winnipeg, as well as voices across Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and even parts of British Columbia need to be heard in this House. These are the people the government is taking for granted.
The Conservatives should mark our words: as we stand here to bring voice to those very people, to western Canadians and to all Canadians, we are going to make sure that they know that the arrogance, the ideological agenda and the undemocratic approach of this government is unacceptable, and that next time around we will build a government that actually represents Canadians.
Results: 1 - 7 of 7

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data