Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 25
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2030--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline purchased by the government on August 31, 2018: (a) did the Minister of Natural Resources seek a cost-benefit analysis of acquiring the existing pipeline and of building an expansion; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) when was the analysis sought, (ii) when was the finalized analysis received, (iii) in what format was the finalized analysis received, for instance as a briefing note, a memo, a report, etc.; and (c) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of the analysis, including (i) name and credentials of the author or authors, (ii) date of publication, (iii) the WTI/WCS differential used in the calculations, (iv) the range in years from which data on Canada’s oil industry was captured and analyzed for the study, (v) the impact of an expanded pipeline on jobs in the Parkland refinery, (vi) the estimated number of construction jobs and of permanent jobs created by the expansion project, (vii) the projected construction costs of the pipeline expansion project, (viii) an assessment of the impacts of a tanker spill or pipeline leak on British Columbia’s tourism and fisheries industries, (ix) the government’s liability in the event of a spill or leak, broken down by recovery costs for marine, alluvial, and land-based ecologies (including but not limited to remediation, rehabilitation and restoration of sites and species, especially endangered species) and financial compensation for loss of livelihood and involuntary resettlement of human populations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2031--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to infrastructure projects which were approved for funding by Infrastructure Canada since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all such projects, including (i) location, (ii) project title and description, (iii) amount of federal funding commitment, (iv) amount of federal funding delivered to date, (v) amount of provincial funding commitment, (vi) amount of local funding commitment, including name of municipality or local government, (vii) status of project, (viii) start date, (ix) completion date, or expected completion date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2032--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to cyberattacks on government departments and agencies since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many attempted cyberattacks on government websites or servers were successfully blocked; (b) how many cyberattacks on government websites or servers were not successfully blocked; and (c) for each cyberattack in (b), what are the details, including (i) date, (ii) departments or agencies targeted, (iii) summary of incident, (iv) whether or not police were informed or charges were laid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2033--
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to the Elementary and Secondary Education Program offered by Indigenous Services Canada, broken down by province and territory: (a) how much funding was budgeted for the program for each fiscal year since 2014-15 to date; and (b) how much has been spent on the program for each fiscal year since 2014-15 to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2034--
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to communication between the Office of the Prime Minister or the Office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and persons employed by or on the board of directors of Waterfront Toronto: what are all instances of communication from November 5, 2015, to date, broken down by (i) date, (ii) person in the Office of the Prime Minister or of the Minister, (iii) subject matter, (iv) persons with whom communication occurred and their titles, (v) method of communication?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2036--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the Canada Child Benefit: (a) how many recipients of the benefit (i) are permanent residents of Canada, (ii) are temporary residents of Canada, (iii) have received refugee status, (iv) have made asylum claims that have not yet been adjudicated; (b) what is the total amount of money that has been paid out to the recipients in (a)(iii); and (c) what is the total amount of money that has been paid out to the recipients in (a)(iv)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2042--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With respect to border crossings occurring at unofficial Canadian ports of entry between January 1, 2017, and October 30, 2018: (a) how many border crossers have had family members later present themselves at an official point of entry to claim asylum using the exemption in the Safe Third Country Agreement for family members; and (b) how many of the cases described in (a) are currently at the Immigration and Refugee Board?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2043--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to applications for cannabis licences approved by Health Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency under the Cannabis Act and the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations: (a) how many licensed producers are structured within family trusts; (b) how many licensed producers have a criminal history; (c) what measures were taken to ensure there was no criminal history; (d) were the criminal histories of the parent companies of licensed producers analyzed; (e) how many licensed producers are associated with individuals with a criminal history; (f) how many parent companies of licensed producers are directly or indirectly associated with individuals and businesses with a criminal history; (g) how many licensed producers were reported by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (h) are the parent companies of licensed producers required to obtain a security clearance, and if so, how many parent companies of licensed producers are there; (i) what are the sources of financing of licensed producers, broken down by jurisdiction; (j) what is the detailed ownership structure of each licensed producer; and (k) what specific measures did Health Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency take to identify the true beneficiaries of licensed producers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2045--
Mr. François Choquette:
With respect to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: (a) to which branch of the government does the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages belong, according to the Official Languages Act; (b) before the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages, had the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ever covered the expenses of the appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, why did the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages agree to pay the expenses for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (d) who precisely approached the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to have it sign and pay for a contract with Boyden for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (e) has Parliament ever authorized the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to pay for expenses incurred by the government; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what are the authorizations in question; (g) did Parliament have access to the services from Boyden for which the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages paid in relation to the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (h) if the answer to (g) is negative, why; (i) how, in detail, did the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ensure that the money that it spent for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages was used for the appropriate purposes; (j) does the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages have all the details of how the money that it paid for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages was spent; (k) has the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ever authorized Boyden to subcontract services; and (l) what was the total amount that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages was prepared to pay to cover expenses related to the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2046--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada's Prison Needle Exchange Program: (a) what consultations were done with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers prior to the pilot program launching; (b) on what dates did the consultations in (a) take place; (c) who was in attendance for the consultations in (a); (d) how many inmates are registered for the program; (e) how many needles have been given to inmates in the program; (f) what are the index offences of inmates registered for the program; (g) what plans, if any, exist to begin the program at other penitentiaries; (h) is an inmate's participation in the program noted in their correctional plan; (i) is an inmate's participation in the program disclosed to the Parole Board of Canada; (j) what safety measures, if any, have been put in place to protect correctional officers from needles that are now in circulation; (k) how many cases have been found of inmates not in the program being in possession of needles sourced to the program; (l) how many needles have been returned to administrators of the program; (m) how many needles have gone missing as a result of inmates losing or not returning them; (n) where does the government suspect that the remaining or missing needles are located; (o) how many inmates have been subject to disciplinary measures for either failing to return a prison exchange needle or being in violation of the program's regulations; and (p) what is the rate of inmate assaults on correctional officers since the program began?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2047--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to infrastructure projects approved for funding by Infrastructure Canada since November 4, 2015, in the Waterloo region (defined as the ridings of Kitchener—Conestoga, Kitchener South—Hespeler, Kitchener Center, Waterloo, and Cambridge): what are the details of all such projects, including (i) location, (ii) project title and description, (iii) amount of federal funding commitment, (iv) amount of federal funding delivered to date, (v) amount of provincial funding commitment, (vi) amount of local funding commitment, including name of municipality or local government, (vii) status of project, (viii) start date, (ix) completion date or expected completion date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2048--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to funding allocated in the Main Estimates 2018-19 under the Department of Employment and Social Development: (a) what are the details of funding for programs targeted at seniors, including (i) amount of funding allocated per program, (ii) name of program, (iii) summary of program; and (b) what are the details of all organizations which received funding to date through the allocations referenced in (a), including (i) name of organization, (ii) start and end date of funding, (iii) amount, (iv) description of programs or services for which funding is intended, (v) location (i.e. riding name)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2049--
Ms. Tracey Ramsey:
With regard to federal spending in the riding of Essex, for each fiscal year since 2015-16, inclusively: what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose of the funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2050--
Ms. Tracey Ramsey:
With respect to the federal agency Invest in Canada and its board of directors: (a) what is, to date, the total amount of expenses of the Chair of the board and the members of the board, broken down by type of expenditure; (b) what are the details of implementing a national strategy to attract foreign direct investment to Canada; (c) how many new partnerships have been created, to date, with the departments or agencies of any government in Canada, the private sector in Canada, or other Canadian stakeholders interested in foreign direct investment; (d) how many activities, events, conferences and programs to promote Canada as a destination for investors have so far been created; (e) how much information has so far been collected, prepared and disseminated to assist foreign investors in supporting their foreign direct investment decisions in Canada; (f) how many services have been provided to foreign investors, to date, in respect of their current or potential investments in Canada; (g) who are the foreign investors that the agency has met, to date; (h) what are the suppliers outside of the federal public administration which the agency has used to date; (i) what, to date, are the providers of legal services outside the federal public administration on which the agency has relied; and (j) what are the filters and anti-conflict-of-interest requirements to which the members of the board are subject?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2051--
Ms. Tracey Ramsey:
With respect to the appointment process of the Chair and the members of the board of directors of the federal agency Invest in Canada: (a) did the President and any other member of the board disclose to the Deputy Minister any advice that, if adopted and executed by Invest in Canada, would provide them with a personal or professional financial gain, or bring one to a member of their immediate families or to any organization to which they are affiliated; (b) are the Chair or any other member of the board authorized to disclose to the members of other boards of directors (i) documentation, (ii) deliberations, (iii) records, (iv) advice obtained, (v) updates, (vi) commission data; (c) did the President or any other member of the board report an apparent conflict of interest; (d) did the Chair and any other member of the board object to a discussion or formulation of a recommendation that would conflict with their other interests; and (e) to what regulations, laws or policies relating to conflicts of interest and ethics are the President and any other member of the board subject?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2052--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to problematic issues related to the Phoenix pay system and the implementation of mixed pay teams in the 13 departments in June 2018: (a) what is the evolution of the cumulative backlog, broken down by department; (b) how many people were underpaid by the Phoenix pay system, in total and broken down by department; (c) how many employees experienced a total pay disruption, broken down by department; (d) of those employees in (c), broken down by department and sex, (i) how many did not receive any pay, (ii) how many had other errors related to pay; (e) what is the average error processing time, broken down by individual complaint; and (f) how many hours of overtime were required to address these issues, broken down by hours of work and costs incurred per pay period?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2053--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With respect to applications for the disability tax credit (DTC) by persons with type one diabetes which were rejected after the changes in wording to the letter to physicians in 2017 and were reviewed after the same changes in wording were reversed: (a) how many applications were reviewed; (b) how many of the applications in (a) were approved upon review; (c) how many of the applications in (a) were rejected again upon review; (d) how many of the applicants in (b) were notified of the approval; (e) how many of the applicants in (c) were notified of the rejection; (f) how many of the applicants in (c) were not notified of the rejection; (g) how many of the applicants in (c) appealed the rejection; (h) how many of the applicants in (f) were eligible to appeal the rejection; (i) how many of the applicants in (h) passed the due date for appeals without knowing about the rejection of their applications; and (j) had all applicants in (b) successfully appealed the rejection of their applications, how much would the aggregate disability tax credit claims cost on an annual basis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2054--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to Canadian National Railway’s (CN) potential discontinuance of a portion of the Foothills Subdivision and Mountain Spur in Alberta: (a) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of this discontinuance; (b) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts; (c) what is the government’s position with regard to accepting the line at a cost not higher than the net salvage value of the rail line; (d) what is the government’s estimate of the current net salvage value of this rail line; (e) is the government aware of any other plans by CN to discontinue any other portions of the rail line, and if so, what are these plans; and (f) does the government plan to include funding for the Foothills Subdivision and Mountain Spur and other similar cases in Budget 2019?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2056--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal contracts with SNC-Lavalin: (a) are there any contingency plans in place for the 148 existing contracts in the event that SNC-Lavalin becomes ineligible to receive government contracts; (b) has the government sent tenders, letters of intent, or requests for quotation to SNC-Lavalin since April 27, 2013; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, on what occasions was this done and what were the projects in question; (d) for all contracts awarded to SNC-Lavalin since 2013, what were the successful bid amounts; (e) for all completed contracts awarded to SNC-Lavalin since 2013, what amount of money was actually disbursed for each contract; (f) for any contracts that were amended after being awarded since 2013, (i) what contracts were amended, (ii) for what reason were they amended; (g) in general, what is the process for approving amendments to contracts; (h) which buildings owned by the federal government does SNC-Lavalin currently maintain or manage; and (i) what incidents, broken down by category (e.g. critical, health and safety, security) and date, have occurred in government facilities maintained or operated by SNC-Lavalin, or in SNC-Lavalin facilities occupied by government departments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2057--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regards to the Statutes of Canada, 2018, Chapter 16 (Cannabis Act), where Part 6, Section 93(2) of the Regulations state that "...cannabis may contain residues of a pest control product, its components or derivatives, if they do not exceed any maximum residue limit, in relation to cannabis, specified for the pest control product, its components or derivatives under section 9 or 10 of the Pest Control Products Act...": (a) has Health Canada defined a maximum residue limit for residual chemicals in recreational cannabis as a commodity; (b) if the answer to (a) is positive (i) what is the maximum residue limit, (ii) have the public databases on maximum residue limits been updated to reflect the maximum residue limit for recreational cannabis; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, does Health Canada intend to define a maximum residue limit for residual chemicals in recreational cannabis; (d) if the answer to (c) is positive, when does Health Canada intend to publish the maximum residue limit for residual chemicals in recreational cannabis; and (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, will Part 6, Section 93(2) of the Regulations apply to recreational cannabis as a commodity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2058--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regards to applications for visitor visas since January 1, 2016, broken down by calendar year: (a) what number of people from Pakistan have applied for a visitor visa; (b) for each applicant in (a), what number were identified as Christian on their passports; (c) for each applicant in (b), what number were granted visitor visas; (d) for each applicant in (c), what number of adult applicants had annual incomes of 252,000 Pakistani rupees (PKR), or 3,000 Canadian dollars, or less; (e) for each applicant in (d), what number of people claimed asylum in Canada; (f) for each applicant in (e), what number were granted asylum; and (g) for each response provided in (a) through (f), what is the breakdown by gender?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2059--
Mr. Bernard Généreux:
With regard to expenditures related to the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: (a) what is the total cost of all expenditures to date; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) quantity, (iv) amount, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2060--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the “capability gap” in relation to military aircraft and fighter jets: what are the details of all briefing documents related to the matter since November 4, 2015, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2061--
Mr. Alexander Nuttall:
With regard to Statistics Canada’s plan to harvest data from Canadians’ bank accounts: for each of the next five years, what is the projected revenue that the agency will receive as a result of selling information or statistics obtained as a result of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2062--
Mr. Scott Duvall:
With regard to public consultations planned in Budget 2018 concerning retirement income security following the "Sears" case, between February 2018 and November 2, 2018, broken down by month: (a) did the Minister of Seniors conduct public consultations; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which individuals and organizations did the Minister of Seniors consult; (c) what are the recommendations or conclusions of the persons and organizations consulted, broken down by person and organization consulted; (d) in which municipalities did these meetings take place; (e) in which electoral districts did these meetings take place; and (f) were the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies referred to in (e) invited to these meetings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2063--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's May 14, 2018, decision to suspend the processing of permanent resident visas for adoptive children from Japan: (a) who made the decision; (b) what was the rationale for the decision; (c) what evidence was provided to support the decision; (d) have officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada communicated with the State Department of the United States with respect to the decision; (e) have officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada communicated with the British Columbia Director of Adoption with respect to the decision; (f) why did Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada approve visas for the Japan-born adoptive children of five families from British Columbia in June 2018 despite the suspension on adoptions from Japan; (g) what are the specific questions on which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is seeking clarification from the government of Japan; (h) what were the responses, if any, that the government received from Japan; (i) what concerns, if any, does the government have with the Japan adoption program; and (j) has there been a change in policy with regard to adoption from non-Hague countries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2064--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS), broken down by fiscal year 2016-17 and 2017-18: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each component of the FTCS, specifically, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control and, if so, how much was reallocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2066--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the federal agency Invest in Canada: (a) what is the remuneration range for its Board of Directors; (b) what are the details of all travel expenses incurred by Invest in Canada since its inception, including for each expenditure the (i) traveller, (ii) purpose, (iii) dates, (iv) air fare, (v) other transportation, (vi) accommodation, (vii) meals and incidentals, (viii) other, (ix) total; (c) what are the details of all hospitality expenses incurred by Invest in Canada, including for each expenditure the (i) individual, (ii) location and vendor, (iii) total, (iv) description, (v) date, (vi) number of attendees, including government employees and guests; (d) will the agency’s travel and hospitality expenditures be subject to proactive disclosure and, if not, why; and (e) since Invest in Canada’s inception, what are the details of the contracts awarded, including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2067--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s YouTube channel since November 4, 2015: (a) how many full-time equivalents manage the channel; (b) what are the titles and corresponding pay scales of the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (c) how much has been spent on overtime pay for the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (d) how much has been spent on developing content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2018-19 fiscal year; (e) how much has been spent on promoting content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2018-19 fiscal year; (f) is there a cross-platform promotion plan to share content from the channel to other digital media platforms; (g) are the costs associated with the plan described in (f) included in the YouTube budget, or do they fall within the budget of the other platforms; (h) what are the digital media platforms used to promote or share the Minister’s YouTube content; (i) what is the monthly expenditure on the channel, broken down by month; (j) what is the cost associated with each video on the channel; and (k) what is the annual expenditure on the channel, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2068--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Government of Canada electric vehicles: (a) how many electric vehicles does the government have in the greater Ottawa area; (b) of the vehicles in (a) what are the makes, models, and years for each of those vehicles; (c) when were these vehicles purchased, broken down by amount purchased per month; (d) how many charging stations does the government have in the Ottawa area; (e) of the charging stations in (d), when were they installed; (f) to date, what is the cost of the installation of charging stations; and (g) what is the kw/h used at the charging stations by month since they have been installed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2069--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the government's Mandate Letter Tracker tool: (a) what is the methodology in determining the current status of a commitment; (b) what metrics are used to differentiate between a commitment which has “made progress” and those that have “made progress toward ongoing goal”; (c) what metrics are used to determine if a commitment is “facing challenges”; (d) which department is responsible for the mandate letter tracker; (e) how many full-time equivalents monitor and maintain the mandate letter tracker; and (f) of the FTE’s in (e) what are their employment classifications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2073--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the business activities of the Royal Canadian Mint (the Mint) for the fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017: (a) what was the total revenue received from the Mint's numismatic business activities for each year; (b) what was the total revenue received from the Mint's bullion products and services function for each year; (c) what were the total profits earned from the Mint's numismatic business activities for each year; (d) what were the total profits earned from the Mint's bullion products and services function for each year; (e) what countries did the Mint provide numismatic products to in each year, broken down by the percentage of business activity in each country; (f) what countries did the Mint provide bullion products to in each year, broken down by percentage of business activity in each country; (g) what was the total value of bullion products sold by the Mint to Canadian customers for each year; (h) what are the names of the Canadian distributors and customers that the Mint sold bullion products to in each year, broken down by the value of bullion products sold to them; (i) what was the total value of numismatic products sold to Canadian distributors and customers for each year; (j) what are the names of the Canadian distributors and customers that the Mint sold numismatic products to in each year, broken down by the value of numismatic products sold to them; (k) what was the total value of bullion products sold by the Mint to American distributors and customers for each year; (l) what are the names of the American distributors and customers that the Mint sold bullion products to in each year, broken down by the value of bullions product sold to them; (m) what was the total value of numismatic products sold to American distributors and customers for each year; (n) what are the names of the American distributors and customers that the Mint sold numismatic products to in each year, broken down by the value of numismatic products sold to them; and (o) what is the alphabetical list of all approved bullion and numismatic distributors and customers that the Mint sells to for each year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2074--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, since its creation: (a) what is the number of meetings held with Canadian and foreign investors, broken down by (i) month, (ii) country, (iii) investor class; (b) what is the complete list of investors met with; and (c) what are the details of the contracts awarded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2077--
Mr. Alupa A. Clarke:
With regard to all Government of Canada communications (meetings, emails, letters, telephone calls, teleconferences, etc.) regarding (i) the emission of red dust in Limoilou and Québec, (ii) all other possible emissions from the Port of Québec’s industrial and port activities, including various dusts and noxious odours in Limoilou and Québec, (iii) public health, (iv) all forms of emissions under the responsibility of the Ministère des Transports du Québec, in particular from nearby highways, (v) all forms of emissions from the Québec incinerator, (vi) all other forms of dust and emissions that may come from other areas, broken down by subject: what are the details of each communication, including (i) the date, (ii) the sender, (iii) the recipient, (iv) the title and subject, (v) the type of communication, (vi) the file number, (vii) the content surrounding each subject since November 4, 2015, between the government and (a) Port of Québec authorities; (b) the office of the Mayor of Québec; (c) the Government of Quebec; (d) the MNA for Jean-Lesage; (e) the MNA for Taschereau; (f) Quebec Stevedoring Company Ltd. (QSL), formerly Arrimage du Saint-Laurent; (g) companies operating on Port of Québec lands?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2078--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to government spending and charges laid pertaining to matters of national security: (a) how much has been spent annually since 2015 by each department investigating and prosecuting Vice Admiral Mark Norman, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Services, (iii) the Privy Council Office (PCO), (iv) the Department of National Defence (DND), (v) the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), (vi) any other department or agency; (b) how much has been spent by each department investigating the 1,366 incidences of actionable financial intelligence on money laundering identified by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) in 2017, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Service, (iii) PCO, (iv) any other department; (c) how much has been spent by each department investigating and prosecuting the 462 terrorism financing and threats to the security of Canada identified by FINTRAC in 2016 and 2017, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Services, (iii) PCO, (iv) DND, (v) the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), (vi) any other department or agency; (d) how much has been spent by each department investigating and prosecuting the 187 actionable financial transactions related to money laundering, terrorism, terrorism financing and threats to the security of Canada identified by FINTRAC in 2016 and 2017, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Services, (iii) PCO, (iv) DND, (v) CSIS, (vi) any other department or agency; (e) how many charges related to specific incidences of terrorism financing reported by FINTRAC were laid in (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018; and (f) how many of the cases in (e) have resulted in successful prosecutions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2079--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Liechtenstein leaks, the Panama Papers and the Bahamas Leaks: (a) how many Canadian taxpayers were identified in the documents obtained, broken down by information leak and type of taxpayer, that is (i) an individual, (ii) a corporation, (iii) a partnership or trust; (b) how many audits did the CRA launch following the identification of taxpayers in (a), broken down by information leak; (c) of the audits in (b), how many were referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program, broken down by information leak; (d) how many of the investigations in (c) were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, broken down by information leak; (e) how many of the investigations in (d) resulted in a conviction, broken down by information leak; and (f) what was the sentence imposed for each conviction in (e), broken down by information leak?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2080--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to real estate and office space leased by the government from private sector businesses since November 4, 2015, broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all the contracts, including (i) vendor; (ii) amount; (iii) start and end date of the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2081--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to Transport Canada’s Community Participation Funding Program: (a) what are the details of all recipients of funding under the program since November 4, 2015, including the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) start date of the related activity or event, (iv) description and title of the activity or event, (v) purpose of funding; and (b) what are the details of all applicants who were denied funding under the program, including the (i) name, (ii) date of application, (iii) summary or description of the event related to the proposal, (iv) reason why the funding request was denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2082--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the $6 million budget for the Leader’s Debates Commission: what is the breakdown of how the $6 million is projected to be spent by standard object and line item?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2084--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to government contracts with Cossette Communication Inc., especially the decision to pay $499,800 to come up with a brand, logo, name and website for FinDev Canada: (a) on what date was the FinDev Canada contract signed; (b) on what date was the Minister of International Development or the Minister’s office informed that the contract in (a) existed; (c) who authorized the amount of the contract in (a) to be increased from the original value to $499,800; (d) what was the rationale or justification for increasing the original value of the contract in (a); (e) what are the details of all other contracts any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity has entered into with Cossette Communication Inc. since November 4, 2015, including the (i) date and duration (ii) amount, (iii) final contract value, (iv) original contract value, if different than the final, (v) justification for increasing the original contract value, if applicable, (vi) detailed description of goods or services provided, (vii) name of advertising or other campaign relevant to the contract; and (f) what is the total value of contracts entered into with Cossette Communication Inc. since November 4, 2015?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2086--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) in Canada for the three most recent tax years available: (a) what is the total number of TFSAs, broken down by age groups (i) 15 to 24, (ii) 25 to 34, (iii) 35 to 54, (iv) 55 to 64, (v) 65 and above; (b) what is the total value of TFSAs, broken down by amounts (i) under $100,000, (ii) $100,000 to $250,000, (iii) $250,000 to $500,000, (iv) $500,000 to $1,000,000, (v) over $1,000,000; (c) how many individuals have a TFSA; and (d) how many individuals have multiple TFSAs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2087--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the leaking of information from Cabinet meetings or Cabinet committee meetings, since November 4, 2015: (a) of how many instances of leaked information is the government aware; (b) how many individuals have been, or are, under investigation for leaking such information; (c) have any ministers been investigated for leaking such information and, if so, which ones; and (d) have any former ministers been investigated for leaking such information and, if so, which ones?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2088--
Ms. Lisa Raitt:
With regard to communication sent or received by Statistics Canada since January 1, 2017: (a) what are the details of all communication between Statistics Canada and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the Office of the Minister or the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) format (email, letter, teleconference, etc.); (b) what are the details of all communication between Statistics Canada and banks or other financial institutions, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) format (email, letter, teleconference, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all communication between Statistics Canada and the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) format (email, letter, teleconference, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2089--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to the government’s “price on pollution” or carbon tax: what was the “price on pollution” or carbon tax revenue that the federal government received as a result of the 2018 dump of 162 million litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River in or around Longueuil, Quebec?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2090--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to expenditures related to the Fall Economic Statement in November 2018: (a) what is the total of all expenditures related to the statement; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) detailed description of goods or services, (v) location of vendor, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2091--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the government’s policies and protocols in relation to spider sightings and sending government employees home: (a) how many employees from Shared Services Canada were sent home as a result of the alleged spider sightings at the building located at 2300 St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, in 2018; (b) on what dates were employees sent home; (c) what is the breakdown of how many employees were sent home on each date in (b); (d) were any dangerous spiders discovered as a result of the sightings and, if so, which ones; (e) how much did the government spend on fumigation, investigations or other activities resulting from the sightings and what is the detailed breakdown of such expenditures; and (f) what are the government’s policies and protocols for when spiders are allegedly sighted on government property and when to send employees home?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2092--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regards to the three proposed tax provisions in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement to accelerate business investment and their impact on provincial revenue: (a) has the Department of Finance calculated the forgone revenue estimates for provinces and, if not, why; (b) what are the calculated forgone revenue estimates, broken down for each fiscal year until 2023-24, (i) for each province, (ii) by provision; (c) how many times has this topic been discussed with the government and has the question been raised with the Minister or Deputy Minister and, if so, has the Minister provided a response and, if so, what was it; (d) has there been any briefing with detailed information on the matter and for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department's internal tracking number; (e) were provincial officials notified of the government's intent to change these provisions and their fiscal implication and, if not, why; (f) which provincial officials were contacted; (g) which provinces shared concerns about revenues loss stemming from these provisions; and (h) what was the nature of these concerns?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2093--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the August 2018 letter sent by the Minister of Health to the then Quebec Health Minister warning that the government would cut health care transfer payments to the province if it continued to allow patients to pay out of pocket for medical exams: (a) which other provinces or territories have received similar warning letters from the Minister since November 4, 2015; and (b) what are the details of each letter, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) nature and summary of the warning?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2094--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard Statistics Canada’s plan to harvest financial transaction data and the claim by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development that he found out about the plan through the media: (a) on what date did Statistics Canada begin developing the plan; (b) on what date did Statistics Canada notify banks or financial institutions about the plan; (c) on what date did Statistics Canada notify the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development about the plan; and (d) on what date did Statistics Canada notify the Privacy Commissioner about the plan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2095--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to expenditures on cellular services by the Privy Council Office (PCO) and the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO): (a) what is the total of all such expenditures since December 1, 2015, broken down by month; (b) what is the total number of devices in use, broken down by month and type of device; (c) what is the average expenditure for cellular services per device, per month; (d) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by (i) PCO, excluding exempt staff, (ii) exempt staff in the PMO, (iii) exempt staff in other ministers offices under the PCO (Government House Leader, Minister of Democratic Institutions and Minister of lntergovernmental Affairs); and (e) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by vendor or service provider?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2096--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to France in November 2018: (a) who took part in the trip, broken down by (i) exempt staff of the Office of the Prime Minister, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) Senators, (iv) employees of the Privy Council Office, (v) other guests; (b) for each of the participants identified in (a), what were the costs of the trip, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what were the details for all of the hospitality activities and events during the trip, including (i) the dates, (ii) the cities, (iii) the number of attendees, (iv) the total costs; and (d) what agreements or arrangements were signed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2097--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Minister of Finance’s trip to China in November 2018: (a) who went on the trip, broken down by (i) Minister’s staff, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) Senators, (iv) departmental employees, (v) other guests; (b) for each person identified in (a), what were the travel costs, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what are the details of all events and representation activities during the trip, including (i) dates, (ii) cities, (iii) number of participants, (iv) total costs; and (d) what agreements were signed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2098--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the speech made by the Minister of Finance to the Canada China Business Council in November 2018: (a) did the Minister know that journalists had been denied access before making his speech; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, why did the Minister agree to make his speech if journalists were excluded; (c) what are the government’s guidelines regarding journalists’ access to events involving ministers; (d) did the Minister follow the guidelines in (c); and (e) what is the government’s position on the prohibition on journalists during the Minister’s speech?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2099--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to land owned by the Department of National Defence on the slopes of Mont-Saint-Bruno: (a) what are the department’s plans for this 441-hectare wooded area adjacent to the national park; (b) will it respond favourably to the request by the executive committee of the Communauté métropolitiane de Montréal, Mouvement Ceinture Verte, Fondation du Mont-Saint-Bruno and the Municipality of Saint-Bruno-de-Mantarville to incorporate the area in its entirety into Mont-Saint-Bruno provincial park; and (c) when will the Department of National Defence make a decision on the sale, transfer or retention of the area?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2100--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the consultations and roundtables with stakeholders launched in October 2018 by the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction in relation to firearms: (a) what are the details of each consultation or roundtable discussion, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) stakeholders in attendance, (iv) Ministers or Members of Parliament in attendance; (b) who decided which stakeholders would be invited to the discussions, and what criteria was used; and (c) what is the complete list of stakeholders who were (i) invited, (ii) attended the consultations or roundtables?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2103--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regards to Budget 2016 Growing the Middle Class and the median wage income: (a) what are the details of all documents, including spreadsheets, used to create Chart 1 Real median wage income of Canadians, 1975-2015, in the Budget, broken down by (i) median wage income of women, (ii) median wage income of men, (iii) median wage income; (b) is the data regarding the median wage income of Canadians available for the most recent years after 2015 and, if so, which years; and (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what are the details of all documents, including spreadsheets, regarding the median wage income of Canadians for each of the most recent years available after 2015, broken down annually by (i) median wage income of women, (ii) median wage income of men, (iii) median wage income?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2104--
Mr. David Tilson:
With regard to the process for renewing expiring permanent residency cards: (a) what is the average processing time for a card renewal; (b) what is the average time between when an application for renewal is received by the government and when the replacement card is ready; (c) what is the specific process the government undertakes for card renewals; (d) what specific options are available to residents who wish to travel abroad and have submitted their expiring card to the government as part of the renewal application, but who are still waiting for the government to provide them with a replacement card; and (e) what specific changes will the government make in order to make it easier for permanent residents to travel aboard during the renewal period?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2107--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s tweet on December 2, 2018, pledging $50 million to Education Cannot Wait: was this funding approved by the Treasury Board before or after the Prime Minister posted the tweet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2108--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to government policies and procedures: what are the government's policies and procedures when a sitting Cabinet minister is being investigated by the RCMP?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2109--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the Safe Third Country Agreement: how many individuals have been exempted from the Safe Third Country Agreement due to the presence of a relative in Canada who crossed the border “irregularly” since January 1, 2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2110--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to the government's prompt payment consultation process, since consultations started: (a) how many meetings have taken place and where did they take place; (b) how many individuals or companies have participated; (c) how many responses have been received; (d) what are the total costs to undertake the consultations; (e) when are the consultations ending; and (f) when will the consultations and information collected be provided to the Minister's office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2111--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the government’s Connect to Innovate Program first announced in the 2016 Budget: (a) what is the total of all expenditures to date under the program; and (b) what are the details of all projects funded to date under the program, including (i) recipient of funding, (ii) name of the project, (iii) location, (iv) project start date, (v) amount of funding pledged, (vi) amount of funding actually provided to date, (vii) description of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2112--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s recent comment that “There are impacts when you bring construction workers into a rural area”: to what specific impacts was the Prime Minister referring?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2113--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to expenditures on furniture rentals by the government since January 1, 2016, broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the total of all expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) delivery date of the furniture, (v) duration of the rental, (vi) itemized description, including the quantity of rentals, (vii) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2114--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to projects funded since May 1, 2018, under the Atlantic Fisheries Fund: what are the details of all such projects, including (i) project name, (ii) description, (iii) location, (iv) recipient, (v) amount of federal contribution, (vi) date of announcement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2116--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to flights taken on chartered or government aircraft by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all flights, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers; and (b) what are the details of any contract related to the flights in (a), including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date and duration of contract, (iv) description of goods or services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2118--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake and the revelation at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on December 3, 2018, that certain programs at the base were either being moved to Ottawa or are under consideration to be moved to Ottawa: (a) what is the complete list of programs which are either being moved or are under consideration for being moved out of Cold Lake, and to where are each of those programs possibly being moved; and (b) what are the government’s projections regarding the number of individuals subject to transfer away from Cold Lake as a result of each move in (a), broken down by program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2119--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to the Minister of International Trade’s trip to China in November 2018: (a) who went on the trip, broken down by (i) Minister’s staff, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) Senators, (iv) departmental employees, (v) other guests; (b) for each person identified in (a), what were the travel costs, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what are the details of all events and representation activities during the trip, including (i) dates, (ii) cities, (iii) number of participants, (iv) total costs; and (d) what agreements were signed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2120--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to ministerial permits: (a) how many Temporary Resident Visas issued under ministerial permit have been granted, broken down by month between November 2015 and December 2018; and (b) how many Temporary Resident Permits issued under ministerial permit have been granted, broken down by month between November 2015 and December 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2121--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to requests from Members of Parliament for Temporary Resident Visas: (a) what is the number of requests received from Members since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; (b) what is the number of requests received, broken down by individual Member; and (c) what is the number of requests granted, broken down by individual Member?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2122--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to requests from Members of Parliament for Temporary Resident Permits: (a) what is the number of requests received from Members since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; (b) what is the number of requests received, broken down by individual Member; and (c) what is the number of requests granted, broken down by individual Member?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2123--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the Canadian delegation to the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24) in Katowice, Poland: (a) what is the total number of members of the delegation, including any accompanying staff, broken down by organization; (b) what is the title of each member of the delegation, broken down by organization; (c) what is the total allocated budget for the delegation; and (d) what is projected or estimated travel and hospitality expenses for the delegation, broken down by type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2124--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to the lack of enforcement actions by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA): (a) what is the budget of the CTA for the calendar years (i) 2013, (ii) 2014, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2016, (v) 2017, (vi) 2018; (b) what is the number of complaints received by the CTA between 2013 and 2018, broken down by year; (c) what is the number of cases where the CTA representatives turned away any complaints by passengers between 2013 and 2018, broken down by year; (d) what is the number of enforcement actions taken between 2013 and 2018, broken down by year; (e) why has the number of complaints received by the CTA quadrupled between 2013 and 2017, while enforcement actions have seen a near four-fold decrease during the same period; (f) for what reason has the CTA taken no enforcement action against Air Canada for defying Decision No. 12-C-A-2018; (g) why did the Minister of Transport not investigate the allegations of fabrication and fraud levelled against CTA staff who turned away valid complaints by passengers; and (h) what steps has the Minister of Transport taken against the airlines and crew involved in defrauding consumers and authorities in what was referred to as the "Mexican Game", where airlines misled aviation authorities and its passengers about unscheduled stops on flights from Mexico?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2125--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to government expenditures on Canada Goose products since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of the product, including the volume, (iv) rationale for the purchase, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2126--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to expenditures on hospitality by Environment and Climate Change Canada from December 2, 2018, through December 6, 2018: what are the details of each such expenditure, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) vendor name, (v) number of individuals in attendance, (vi) description of the event, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2127--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to applications for grants and contributions to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Canada Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, the Northern Ontario Economic Development Initiative and Western Economic Diversification Canada, since November 2015: (a) what applications were first approved by officials within the agencies and organizations listed above, but then rejected by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by agency and organization; and (b) what applications were first refused by officials within the agencies and organizations listed above, but then approved by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by agency and organization?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2128--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the pensions of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of federal agencies or other federal organizations, since November 2015: (a) how many CEOs are deemed not to be part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act; (b) how many times did a minister or any other public office holder order that a CEO be deemed to be part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, broken down by (i) name of CEO, (ii) federal organization, (iii) minister or public office holder responsible for the order, (vi) the rationale behind the order; and (c) what is the estimated total pension income, broken down for each case where a CEO has been deemed part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act further to an order?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2129--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to Health Canada’s re-evaluation decisions, including RVD2017-01, Glyphosate, and the “Monsanto Papers”: (a) how many and which studies are currently being re-evaluated by Health Canada; (b) for each of the studies in (a), when did Health Canada make the decision to re-evaluate it; (c) has Health Canada verified the independence of the studies in (a); (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the detailed process for verifying the independence of the studies; and (e) does Health Canada have information that approved independent studies were written by Monsanto and, if so, since what date, broken down by study?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2130--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the taxation of businesses, since November 2015: (a) how many Canadian businesses have not paid tax for each of the following fiscal years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018; and (b) how much tax was deferred by the businesses in (a) in fiscal years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2131--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to reports of a $355,950 sole-sourced contract to pay Torstar Corporation, which was cancelled following a complaint to the Procurement Ombudsman: (a) what was the original purpose of the contract; (b) which minister initially approved the contract; (c) does the government have enough employees to monitor parliamentary committees without hiring the Toronto Star; and (d) what is the total number of government employees whose job involved, in whole or in part, monitoring parliamentary committees?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2132--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to classified and protected documents, since January 1, 2017, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many instances have occurred where it was discovered that classified or protected documents were left or stored in a manner which did not meet the requirements of the security level of the documents; (b) how many of the infractions in (a) occurred in the offices of ministerial exempt staff, including the staff of the Prime Minister, broken down by ministerial office; and (c) how many employees have lost their security clearance as a result of such infractions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2133--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to funding on infrastructure and the Prime Minister’s comment that “there are impacts when you bring construction workers into a rural area”: (a) does the Prime Minister’s comment represent the position of the government; (b) how many cities, towns, villages and rural municipalities have declined funding for infrastructure projects because such projects would involve bringing in construction workers; and (c) have any mayors or elected officials of rural towns or cities requested that the government not provide infrastructure funding for projects which would lead to more construction workers and, if so, which ones and what towns or cities do they represent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2134--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the MV Polar Prince and the Canada C3 expedition: (a) since the ship was certified to carry an aggregate of 60 individuals, including passengers, crew and special expedition personnel, why was the vessel over capacity for 6 of the 15 legs of the journey; (b) since the ship was certified to carry 12 passengers, why were more passengers onboard for all 15 legs of the journey; (c) was the Minister of Transport aware that the ship was carrying more individuals, and passengers in particular, than that for which it was certified; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, when was the Minister made aware; and (e) did the Minister approve the vessel to be over capacity and, if so, why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2135--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs: what are the details of all lawsuits settled by the Department between January 2016 and December 2018, including (i) title of case, (ii) reason for lawsuit, (iii) litigants, (iv) legal fees, (v) fiscal total of the settlement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2136--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the government’s response to Q-1982 regarding the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada office located at 365 Hargrave Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba: (a) why was the government’s rationale for no longer allowing access to the general public without an appointment not provided in the response to Q-1982; (b) what is the government’s rationale for not allowing access to the general public without an appointment; (c) how many clients were served at this location between January 2015 and September 2018, broken down by month; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by purpose of visit (Employment Insurance, obtaining a status card, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2137--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the government’s response to Q-2006 that the Global Affairs Summit Management Office did not incur any expenses for yoga teachers for the Prime Minister during the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: (a) did any other departments or agencies incur yoga-related expenses during the G7 Summit in Charlevoix and, if so, what are the details of such expenses, including amounts; and (b) who paid for the Prime Minister’s yoga instructor in Charlevoix during the time of the G7 Summit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2138--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to government and Canadian Armed Forces policies for the Vimy Officers’ Mess in Kingston, Ontario: (a) on what date was the booking accepted by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces for the December 19, 2018, Liberal Party fundraising event with the Prime Minister, which was subsequently cancelled; (b) what is the title of the individual who initially accepted the booking; (c) did the Privy Council Office advise the Office of the Prime Minister that attending a partisan event on Canadian Armed Forces property violated government policy and, if so, when was such advice given; and (d) why did the Prime Minister initially agree to attend an event which was in violation of government policy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2139--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to Hillside Cottage (1915), the oldest structure in Banff National Park: (a) what measures are being undertaken to preserve and restore the structure; (b) what measures are in place to prevent the decay, vandalism or incidental destruction of the structure; and (c) what is being done to promote and recognize the history and significance of the structure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2140--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the proposed Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor project for a pipeline between Fort McMurray, Alberta, and Grassy Point, British Columbia: (a) has the government conducted an analysis of the impact of Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, on the proposed project and, if so, what are the details of such an analysis, including the findings; and (b) will the government exempt vessels transporting oil in relation to the project from the moratorium proposed in Bill C-48?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2141--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the number of RCMP officers: (a) what is the total number of active RCMP officers as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2017, (iii) January 1, 2018, (iv) December 1, 2018; (b) what are the names and locations of each RCMP detachment; and (c) what is the breakdown of the number of RCMP officers assigned to each detachment as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2017, (iii) January 1, 2018, (iv) December 1, 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2142--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to government resources used to handle the situation involving illegal or irregular border crossers and asylum seekers, since January 1, 2016: what is the number of RCMP and CBSA personnel whose duties were, in whole or in part, assigned to handle the illegal or irregular border crossers, broken down by (i) province, (ii) month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2143--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the Minister of Youth, the Prime Minister’s Youth Council, the Youth Secretariat and the Youth Policy for Canada: (a) what is the decision-making flow chart for the Prime Minister’s Youth Council; (b) what is the total amount spent and the total budget for the Youth Council since it was established, broken down by year; (c) what amounts in the Youth Council budget are allocated for salaries, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) per diem or any other reimbursement or expense (telecommunications, transportation, office supplies, furniture, etc.) offered or attributed to each of the positions mentioned in (c)(ii); (d) what are the dates, locations and number of participants for each of the meetings held by the Youth Council since June 2017, broken down by (i) in-person meetings, (ii) virtual meetings; (e) how much did the government spend to hold each of the Youth Council meetings mentioned in (d), broken down by (i) costs associated with renting a room, (ii) costs associated with food and drinks, (iii) costs associated with security, (iv) costs associated with transportation and the nature of this transportation, (v) costs associated with telecommunications; (f) what is the decision-making flow chart for the Privy Council’s Youth Secretariat, including each of the positions associated with the Youth Secretariat; (g) what is the total amount spent and the total budget of the Youth Secretariat since it was established, broken down by year; (h) what amounts in the Youth Secretariat budget are allocated for salaries, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) per diem or any other reimbursement or expense (telecommunications, transportation, office supplies, furniture, etc.) offered or attributed to each of the positions mentioned in (h)(ii); (i) what is the official mandate of the Youth Secretariat; (j) what is the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Youth Council and the Youth Secretariat (organizational ties, financial ties, logistical support, etc.); (k) is the Youth Secretariat responsible for youth bursaries, services or programs; (l) if the answer to (k) is affirmative, what amounts were allocated to these bursaries, services or programs since they were established, broken down by (i) the nature of the bursary, service or program funded, (ii) the location of the program, (iii) the start and end date of the bursary, service or program; (m) who are all the people who are working or have worked on the Youth Policy for Canada as part of the Office of the Prime Minister or the Office of the Minister of Youth, broken down by role and by start and end date; (n) what consultations were carried out in connection with the youth policy, and what are the dates, locations and number of participants for each consultation held, as well as a description of the topics discussed, broken down by (i) in-person meetings, (ii) virtual meetings; and (o) how much did the government spend to hold each of the consultations mentioned in (n), broken down by (i) costs associated with renting a room, (ii) costs associated with food and drinks, (iii) costs associated with security, (iv) costs associated with transportation and the nature of this transportation, (v) costs associated with telecommunications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2145--
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the $19,682,232.17 spent by Environment and Climate Change Canada on payments to other international organizations (object code 2319) during the 2017-2018 fiscal year: what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) recipient, (ii) location of the recipient, (iii) purpose, (iv) date of the expenditure, (v) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2146--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the pipelines passing through the region of Vaudreuil-Soulanges: (a) since 2008, how many hydrostatic tests and any other safety tests (integrity, corrosion, etc.) have been conducted on all the pipelines over their entire length from Ontario to Quebec, broken down by (i) pipeline, (ii) type of test, (iii) date, (iv) federal entity or contractor, (v) test location and province, (vi) test result; (b) when requesting flow reversal for the 9B and Trans-Northern pipelines, did the government or any other entity calculate the greenhouse gas emissions upstream and downstream of the project; (c) if the answer in (b) is affirmative, what are the upstream and downstream emissions for each of the projects; (d) since 2008, how many leaks have there been on all the pipelines, in either Ontario or Quebec, broken down by (i) pipeline, (ii) location and province; (e) for each of the leaks in (d), what is (i) the quantity of the spill in litres, (ii) the company responsible for the pipeline, (iii) the direct or indirect cost to the federal government, (iv) the date of the spill, (v) the date on which the government or one of its regulatory agencies became aware of the spill; (f) since 2008, have the official emergency response plans been sent to the municipal public safety authorities and the regional county municipality for each of these pipelines; (g) if the answer in (f) is affirmative, for each plan sent, what is (i) the date it was sent, (ii) the date of confirmation of receipt, (iii) the names of the sender and the recipient; (h) since 2008, what are the details of all the cases of non-compliance, deficiencies and violations of federal laws and regulations found by the National Energy Board with respect to the pipelines, including (i) the date, (ii) a description of the deficiency found and the corrective action requested, (iii) the location of the deficiency, (iv) the pipeline and the name of the company that owns the pipeline, (v) the amount of the fine paid; (i) for each case of non-compliance, deficiency or violation in (h), on what exact date did the National Energy Board or a federal government department follow up with the respective companies and verify that the corrective action had been carried out; (j) for each follow-up in (i), what actions were taken; (k) since 2008, how many detection system failures have been identified by the National Energy Board on the pipelines and what are the details of each failure, including (i) the date, (ii) the pipeline, (iii) the location, (iv) the reason for the failure; (l) for each pipeline, in the event of a spill in the Soulanges area, what is the expected time (i) to detect it, (ii) to stop the flow of oil, (iii) for emergency services to arrive on site; and (m) where are the companies that have been hired to respond to a spill in the Soulanges area and how long will it take them to arrive on site?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2147--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With respect to the Energy Services Acquisition Program and the modernization plan for the five heating and cooling plants and the associated infrastructure, including pipes and tunnels, in the National Capital Region: (a) has the government conducted any studies or evaluations of the plan, including but not limited to (i) a cost-benefit analysis of proceeding with the plan as a public-private partnership as opposed to a fully public implementation, (ii) an estimate of the plan’s impact on the heating and cooling plants’ greenhouse gas emissions; (b) for each study in (a), what are the details, including (i) dates, (ii) titles, (iii) file numbers, (iv) value for money analysis, (v) metrics developed to assess the benefits of using the public private contract; (c) what are the consequences of this privatization with respect to (i) the number of public service jobs required for the maintenance and operation of the heating and cooling plants, (ii) the reliability of the heating and cooling plants, in particular, during extended power outages and when emergency repairs are required, (iii) site security and the security impact for any buildings served by the heating and cooling plants; (d) in what way were the relevant public sector unions informed of the plan, including (i) dates, (ii) process for consultation, (iii) timeline for participation; (e) in what ways was the input from the relevant public sector unions considered in the decision to move forward with the plan; (f) in what ways were the associated public unions informed of the ultimate decision; and (g) what are the projected impacts and planned changes on (i) the municipal infrastructure, (ii) the rest of the system outside of the heating and cooling plants themselves?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2148--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With respect to the document “Allocations from Treasury Board Central Votes for Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19”, published online: (a) for each allocation from “Vote 25--Operating Budget Carry Forward” and “Vote 35--Capital Budget Carry Forward” to a given “Organization”, what is the corresponding “Authority”; and (b) why are authorities listed proactively for each allocation under “Vote 5 – Government Contingencies” and “Vote 40 – Budget Implementation”, but not those under “Vote 25 – Operating Budget Carry Forward” and “Vote 35 – Capital Budget Carry Forward”?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-2030 Trans Mountain pipeline8555-421-2031 Infrastructure projects8555-421-2032 Cyberattacks8555-421-2033 Communications with the bo ...8555-421-2034 Elementary and Secondary E ...8555-421-2036 Recipients of the Canada C ...8555-421-2042 Unofficial ports of entry ...8555-421-2043 Cannabis licences8555-421-2045 Office of the Commissioner ...8555-421-2046 Prison Needle Exchange Program8555-421-2047 Infrastructure projects in ... ...Show all topics
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2018-11-21 16:26 [p.23682]
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has demonstrated that he can do two things at one time. He can give a speech while adding almost a million dollars to our national debt, in the same half-hour. I congratulate the minister, and we know that Canadians will get the bill for that new debt.
Our government has told us, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, that budgets balance themselves. He predicted that this self-balancing budget would manifest in the year 2019, barely a month from today.
Today, the finance minister has presented a fiscal update, in which the deficit is three times the size the Liberal Party promised in the last election and in which the deficit will not only be in place next year, when it was promised to be gone, it will actually be bigger than it is right now. In fact, this economic update reports that the deficits for the next five years will all be larger than the Liberals projected just six months ago in the 2018 budget.
None of us on this side is surprised that the finance minister and the Prime Minister failed to take responsibility for these promise-shattering deficits. Like most Canadians, we have come to accept that these Liberals never take responsibility for anything, but what is startling about this particular statement is that they just go on doing more and more damage to the fiscal situation of this country, without any concern or hesitation.
What we learned in this document that we did not already know is that not only do the Liberals break their promise, not only will they fail to balance the budget next year as they said, but they now admit that under their plan the budget will never be balanced. There is no time period into the future when they are even committing to returning to a situation where the debt stops growing. That is effectively the election platform they are running on today, that there will be deficits forever and that there could never be an occasion where the government would live within its means.
These two gentlemen of great privilege have inherited enormous fortune: balanced budgets from the previous government; booming U.S. and world economies; a roaring housing sector in Vancouver and Toronto, which has poured more revenue into government coffers; record low interest rates, which make debt more affordable temporarily. All of these factors are out of the government's control but have, through the goddess Fortuna, rained money on the current government, $20 billion of additional revenue, I am pleased to report to the House.
The Prime Minister took that $20 billion and did the responsible thing. He put it against our national debt. He saved it up for a rainy day. He reinforced our foundation against forthcoming storms. I am kidding. He blew every single penny of it, and it was not enough. On top of that windfall, he had to spend $20 billion more.
We are told to take comfort in the debt-to-GDP ratio. All ratios have numerators and denominators. With the Prime Minister lecturing us all about the need to teach us all in the House, as his pupils, he should actually know that. The reality is that the only way for that debt-to-GDP ratio to decline is if inflation and GDP are constantly going up. I just pointed to the factors that the government admits have led to the windfall of revenue before us. That can only continue as long as the world factors, which are out of the government's control, continue on at this pace.
In other words, if a crisis of any kind, another international financial recession, a massive problem with international security, a natural disaster or any other such kind of difficulty, led to the compression of the denominator, then we would face a crisis in the nation's finances. In that crisis, the Liberal government, if it were to keep its promise, something that none of us believe it would ever consider doing, would then be in a position where it would have to raise taxes or cut spending at a time when the economy needs the opposite. Therefore, the Liberals are putting our future in a reckless state of danger by spending our tomorrow on their today.
The second consequence of these growing deficits is this. When governments spend more than they have, they compete for scarce goods and services, which drives up inflation, making the cost of living more and more expensive. We have seen inflation reach nearly 3%, the upper end of the Bank of Canada's range of acceptable levels of consumer price index increases. That is in part, I believe, because the current government is overspending, increasing demand with unnecessary government spending, pouring money into the purchase of the same goods and services that Canadians have to compete for.
Furthermore, when governments borrow, they have to sell bonds. When those bondholders purchase the bond, they get interest in return for it. Why would they lend money to a Canadian homeowner for 2.5% when a rapidly borrowing government will give them 2.75% or 3%? The answer is they would not. That is the reality of the credit markets. When governments borrow, they compete with Canadian consumers and homeowners and drive up the cost of interest on those same people. In other words, while Canadians face record household debt, the government's insatiable appetite for debt is actually making that problem worse, not just in the future but here in the present.
Speaking of the future, we all know that debt today means higher taxes tomorrow. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that the cost of borrowing for the Government of Canada will rise by two-thirds, to almost $40 billion, over the next four to five years. That is almost as much as we transfer to the provinces to fund our entire health care transfer. In today's update, the government admits that the cost of borrowing is going up. For the first half-year, the increase in the borrowing cost has been 14.3%. That is the combined result of growing deficits and higher interest rates. In other words, at this pace, there will be a massive wealth transfer from working-class Canadians, who will pay higher taxes so that wealthy bondholders and bankers can collect more interest. Even socialist economists recognize that interest on national debt represents a wealth transfer from the working class to the wealthy, because those who own bonds are those who can afford to buy them. One cannot lend money if one does not have money. Therefore, those with money benefit when governments go out and borrow. Instead of the government favouring the have-nots, it once again favours the have-yachts, something we have come to expect from it for a very long time.
We were told that this economic update was going to respond to the attempt by the U.S. President to take our money, business and jobs. So far, the Prime Minister has been prepared to help the President in all of those objectives. His carbon tax, his decision to block pipelines and his massive regulatory state that prevents businesses from functioning here in Canada have driven money out of our country. Canadian investment in the U.S. is up two-thirds and U.S. investment in Canada is down by half, and when money leaves, jobs leave.
A senior at the Business Council of Canada says that the result of this imbalance could lead to half a million jobs lost in this country. What is the government's response to that? Liberals tell us they are going to be bringing forward something called the centre for regulatory innovation. I think that for most people who have dealt with the red tape the government has put forward, the last thing they want to see is more regulatory innovation because so far, that regulatory innovation has meant blocking the northern gateway pipeline. They came up with innovative ways to make it impossible for Trans Canada to build the energy east pipeline. Of course, their most innovative stroke of genius has been to drive Kinder Morgan out of this country by giving them $4 billion of Canadian tax money in order to buy a 65-year-old pipeline that we already had, money that the Texas oil company is now using to build pipelines in the United States of America.
When the Prime Minister took office, three of the world's most respected pipeline companies were ready to put shovels in the ground. Kinder Morgan was going to build Trans Mountain. Enbridge was going to build northern gateway and Trans Canada was going to build energy east. They had the financial commitments, the applications in and they were ready to go and all three of those companies have now left. What does the government offer? A centre for regulatory innovation.
However, that is not all. I should give the Liberals credit for another very exciting announcement they have made in regard to regulation. They are going to make the building code available to all Canadians for free and just in time for Christmas. That is if Canada Post is not on strike and unable to deliver the building code to those Canadians who are anxiously waiting to receive it.
That is the plan that the Liberals have to unwind the massive regulatory obstacles that have driven our oil, our money, our businesses and our jobs right into the arms of Donald Trump and nothing in this announcement today will reverse that direction. In fact, the government has backed down on NAFTA, giving President Trump everything he asked for and getting nothing in return that we did not already have.
We on this side of the House will stand up for the common sense of the common people, the people who understand that budgets do not balance themselves because those people, unlike our leader, have actually had to balance a household budget. A future Conservative government would recognize that we cannot spend what we do not have and we cannot borrow our way out of debt.
I conclude today by challenging the government. I know how painful it is for the Liberals to hear the truth, the painful truth from which they have for so long tried to turn away their eyes. Unfortunately, they have to face up to the fact that they shattered their promise to balance the budget next year, they have built up massive new debt not only for future generations, but for present-day Canadians, the cost of government is driving up the cost of living and that is leading to a serious crunch on the backs of everyday Canadians, Canadians who know what it is like to live within their means.
This is why a Conservative government will make sure that the budget will be balanced in the medium term, to deal with the massive deficits accumulated by the Liberal government and previous governments.
The Conservatives recognize that Canadians work hard for their money and they must balance their own budgets. As a government, we will help them and will not make things harder for them, like the current government is doing.
As the official opposition, we are calling on the government to meet Canadians' demands, tell them how the budget will be balanced, create a plan to do so, and lower taxes so that Canadians can keep the money they earned.
We will put forward a government in the future that will stand with those who know how to balance a budget, because they do so in their own households and they expect the very same of the Government of Canada. Under a Conservative government, they will get no less.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2018-11-06 12:47 [p.23317]
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in this place, and today, in some ways, perhaps more than others, because I will be only one of a handful of members who will have the opportunity to debate this bill at second reading.
We have heard already today, as we debated the time allocation motion, about how this is an 800-page omnibus bill that will now be debated under the guillotine of time allocation. This is not a scenario where debate had become stale or an opposition filibuster was looming that the government had to move time allocation. This is an example of a government that is simply trying to ram through an 800-page bill without proper debate. There really is no other explanation for what is happening right now.
This bill is an omnibus bill. As was mentioned by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo during the debate on time allocation, it is a bill that contains within it three bills on indigenous policy. We understand it contains two transportation bills and changes to some 20-plus statutes, and that the government has allocated a truncated day today plus last Friday for debate on it. It is a shame.
It is shameful in particular because the Liberal government campaigned heavily on the issue of omnibus legislation. The Liberals promised they would never table omnibus bills. They promised they would change the Standing Orders to prevent any government from tabling omnibus bills, yet amid the debacle in the spring of 2017 over changes to the Standing Orders, the result was a change to the standing order that did give the Speaker some power to split a bill. Indeed, that is what is before us now.
We are debating this bill in the limited time that we have without knowing yet if the bill will be divided. With every minute that passes, we are closer to having to vote on this bill without clarity as to what we will actually be voting on. The NDP has requested to have this bill split and we do not know yet what the Speaker's ruling is going to be. It is difficult enough to digest an 800-page bill and here we are debating it without even knowing how the final vote will be put to the House later today. It is a shame that we are so hopelessly rushed on this bill.
This bill is a culmination of several Liberal broken promises. In my riding it came up fairly often during the campaign. People talked about omnibus legislation, and the Liberals promised never to table an omnibus bill. They promised never to invoke closure. They also promised that they would balance the budget by 2019. They actually went out of their way in their campaign to differentiate themselves from both the Conservatives and the New Democrats, who had in our own ways promised balanced budgets.
A key point of differentiation which the Liberals took to the doors was that they would run a modest $10-billion deficit for a maximum of three years and return to a balanced budget by 2019. They were elected on a promise to run a modest deficit solely for the purpose of funding an infrastructure program. This was not to be a structural deficit. This was not to be a deficit through which to fund ongoing program expenditure. This was a capital deficit that the Liberals were going to run in order to fund infrastructure and infrastructure only. This was what they took to the doors and this is the primary premise upon which the Liberal government was elected.
The Liberals have broken their promise on omnibus bills. They have broken their promise on closure. They are hopelessly and helplessly breaking their promise over and over again on the debt and deficit.
If we look at this bill, at 800 pages, combined with the 400-odd pages each in the spring BIA and in the budget itself, we are up to 1,600 pages of budget bills tabled in this House without mention of any kind of a plan to return to a balanced budget. This was a promise. This was not something that the Conservatives would just fixate on because this is what we promised in the election as to what we think the Liberals should do. They actually took it to their own voters. The people who voted for the Liberal Party voted for a party with an expectation of a balanced budget by 2019, and it has not happened and it is not going to happen.
We see now that the Liberals government has been lucky. The Liberals walked into a stronger than expected world economy. They have been lucky on interest rates. They have been lucky on real estate inflation. They have been lucky to receive another $20 billion in unbudgeted revenue that they have blown through as well without being able to balance the budget. We know that the finance department's own numbers say that the government will not balance the budget until 2045. How can the government and the governing party members possibly take this to the doors in 2019? The Liberals did not promise their talking points on maintaining a low level of debt-to-GDP. That is not what they promised.
As for this budget implementation act, which contains no plan for a balanced budget, the Liberals neglect to address an important issue in the budget itself. On page 290, the budget comments on the $20 price differential on Alberta crude. The budget addressed this as a concern. It said that a price differential of $20 a barrel on Canadian crude was a concern and a threat for revenue projections going forward. The budget claims that the differential would shrink in the year ahead from $20 to $15 and that this would be good. Their forward revenue projections assumed a reduction in the differential because new pipelines would be built and the Trans Mountain expansion would go ahead and would get Alberta crude to Vancouver. Then it could be taken to refineries in California, where the heavier oil would get a much better price than if taken by rail to Oklahoma or if it did not go anywhere for lack of any transportation capacity.
We all know that has not happened. Here we are today with a $50 differential. What is that going to do to the revenue projections? The Liberals are already expecting it to shrink. It has ballooned out to $50 per barrel. There is no plan for a balanced budget. We know that their revenue is threatened by the differential on oil. It is substantial. Billions of dollars in tax revenue are at stake in the differential. We have an 800-page bill on which we have a few hours to debate. I understand it has 300 complicated pages in its pay equity section. There are complicated labour code changes. There is an intellectual property component. There are new CRA components to this as well. All of that has to be dealt with somehow in a short period of time, yet this BIA gives us more spending, more deficits, likely more red tape and more difficulties for small business. There is no plan for a balanced budget. There is no plan to fix the Alberta discount and the threat it represents to Canadian governments, provincial and federal.
Therefore, I cannot support this bill and the current government because of its broken promises and shameful use of time allocation and omnibus legislation.
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
NDP (QC)
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
2018-06-14 11:17 [p.20916]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to an important topic in the context of the Conservatives' opposition motion.
I am a bit surprised to have to rise yet again to speak to a question that is very similar to others that have been raised by my Conservative colleagues. Here they are again on the issue of carbon pricing and its cost. It is the famous question that they keep asking over and over again in the House of Commons. It seems that they will never be satisfied with the answers from the government and the interventions by our colleagues in the House.
Today I will address the issue in a broader context and talk about climate change leadership. It is leadership that was completely lacking from the Conservative side. They were content to bury their heads in the sand. As for the Liberals, they are being completely inconsistent when it comes to fighting climate change, especially in light of their recent decisions. I will come back to that later in my speech.
Let me begin by saying that I am disappointed that the Conservatives are so obsessed with this issue that they do not see all the other important issues that we could be discussing in the House. They are obsessed with this topic. They are fixated on a document from October 20, 2015, the day after the election of that same year. The document, to which they keep referring, is some sort of memo or email from the Department of Finance in which the figures are redacted. If the Conservatives seriously want to obtain this document then I do not understand why they have not managed to get their hands on it. That document was dated the day after the election and was highly likely prepared during the 2015 election campaign, when the Conservatives were technically still in power. The Conservatives have developed a baffling fixation with this document.
I am fortunate to sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, where we heard public servants being quizzed about this. They said that the document was prepared during the campaign along with many documents put together in the event that a new government was elected. They worked on several scenarios based on the election platforms of the different parties. It seems that it was common practice in the public service, during and a little after the campaign, to start doing the groundwork for potential changes in government policies and in advance of the swearing in of the prime minister and cabinet. That is what the Conservatives continue to refer to. They are fixated on this document, which is a little surprising given that it was prepared under their watch.
It is also a little surprising to see them so opposed to the polluter pays principle whereby those who pollute have to pay for the cost of that pollution to our environment and our society. In several other areas, paying for one's pollution is standard practice. Our municipal taxes, for instance, pay for our garbage to be taken to the dump. The same principle applies to recycling, because there is a cost associated with taking recyclable materials to a recycling centre. The polluter pays principle applies in most sectors. We pay for the pollution we create.
Until just recently, however, this principle has never applied to greenhouse gas pollution. That is what this government is trying to do, as are the provincial governments and many governments around the world that have already taken action in that regard. It is the right thing to do. As in other areas, whoever is responsible for polluting should have to pay for the cost it imposes on our society. The Conservatives do not seem to understand, nor are they willing to try to understand, that this principle should also apply to polluting our atmosphere.
If this principle is good enough for the garbage we bury in landfills, why should it not also apply to the pollution we put in the air, which goes out into the atmosphere and surely has a significant impact? I do not think we still need to make a case for the existence of and the science behind climate change. Only a few Conservatives still deny the existence of climate change, or more specifically, the fact that human activity affects climate change. Thankfully, their numbers are dwindling.
During the recent campaign in Ontario, we heard Conservative candidates denying that humans had anything to do with climate change. Some of them are in complete denial. Fortunately, a few of them have seen the light with regard to the action that we must take and some others support the polluter pays principle. There are also some Conservative thinkers who have realized that this is the right thing to do. Take for example, Mr. Manning, a well-known Conservative, who has come to realize that a carbon tax is one of the most effective ways to combat climate change. I am also thinking of Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, which did a lot of work on this issue. This commission is made up of a number of thinkers from various backgrounds, including some who are a bit more fiscally conservative. They realized that a carbon tax is the best way to fight climate change.
Based on their studies, they came to the conclusion that, of all the possible tools at their disposal, pricing carbon is the most effective way of meeting our objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives alone continue to deny the facts and the studies and findings that have been confirmed by countries around the world.
It is really unfortunate that they are still in denial. Fortunately, leaders around the world have begun implementing polluter pays mechanisms and putting a price on carbon. Take for example British Columbia. It put a price on carbon over 10 years ago. Alberta did the same just recently, and so did Quebec and Ontario. They joined California in implementing a carbon exchange, even though Ontario may end up changing its system. Provinces across Canada have been showing leadership on this issue, and they have had some success.
I do not necessarily want to repeat the Liberal government’s words, but we are told that 80% of Canadians are currently subject to a carbon pricing system. We see that these jurisdictions are the most economically successful. This flies in the face of the Conservatives’ message and talking points; they say that carbon pricing will spell the end of the economy, that it will catastrophically blow up the Canadian economy, and that as a result, the economy will go into a tailspin. However, Alberta has the highest economic growth, at over 4%, and has also had carbon pricing for a few years now. The economies of British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario are also doing well.
It is hard to understand why the Conservatives think that there is a cause and effect and that a Canada-wide carbon price will be catastrophic, as well as lead to an economic apocalypse in Canada as soon as it is brought in. This is not supported by any facts, and these are just political talking points for the Conservatives.
This brings me to the importance of the fight against climate change. I am pleased to speak to this issue and say to my constituents that it is extremely important to me. This must be our primary concern here in Ottawa.
In Sherbrooke, hundreds of people constantly write to me on this and other environmental topics. These are very important concerns for us. People are aware of the impact of the climate change that we are seeing across Canada and around the world. They understand that Ottawa must have leaders in the fight against climate change. I am therefore very happy to represent them and to stand up and assure them that this is also very important to me.
It is often said that we must protect the planet for future generations. I still count myself among them to a certain extent, although I am already 27 years old and quite a bit older than when I was first elected. When they say that climate change will affect the youngest, it is because they will have to live with its long-term impacts. I can understand that, and I am certainly worried about my own future on this planet.
We must do everything in our power to slow the impact of climate change, because everyone understands that the process is already under way. We are already seeing the effects, unfortunately, but we have a duty to slow down this process and minimize its impact on future generations and my generation. We want to continue to have a planet where we enjoy living. As my colleague said, we can still swim in our lakes and rivers across Canada, but I fear that this will change in the long term. When I am 80 or 90 years old, if we keep going in the direction we are heading in now, I am not even sure that I will be able to enjoy the same quality of air or water.
That is why I am always happy to share my thoughts on this issue and demand more action from the government. Clearly, doing nothing is not an option, but that still seems to be the Conservatives' preference. They just want to wait, hope, and pray. Some Conservatives pray many times a day, but prayers will not slow the effects of climate change. To do that, we need a real plan.
We must also remember that the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action. That is another thing the Conservatives seem to be forgetting here. Yes, there is a cost to taking action, and when the government takes action, it has to get good value for money. An example of that is carbon and pollution pricing, as I was saying off the top. The cost of inaction is much higher, though. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which the Conservatives shut down in 2011, pegged the cost of inaction at $5 billion per year by 2020 and up to $43 billion per year by 2050. Those costs are much higher than the cost of carbon pricing. The Conservatives seem to have lost sight of that in this discussion.
At the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Carleton asked the same questions every time, just like he asks the same questions every day in question period. When people talk to him about the cost of inaction, he does not seem to get that such a things exists.
It is truly unfortunate that the Conservatives are so blinded by their ideology. They do not understand that these measures are necessary.
I also want to talk about what various provinces have done, particularly Alberta, which is a real role model in this area. There is the principle of revenue neutrality, which is also part of this government's approach. This means no cost to Canadians. Once again, the Conservatives do not seem to understand. Every time we remind them, either in committee or here in the House, that this will be revenue neutral, they do not seem to understand that every dollar raised by carbon pricing is reinvested directly into the economy. The Conservatives cannot seem to grasp this concept.
Alberta is an excellent example of revenue neutrality, and less fortunate low-income families even have a surplus at the end of the year. They receive more money than they pay for carbon pricing. These figures are obviously put forward by the Alberta government. I do not have the exact numbers in front of me today, but costs are estimated at around $400 for each low-income family.
Furthermore, these are the families least affected by the carbon tax because they consume the least. The tax is estimated at $400 per family, but the Government of Alberta gave out direct rebates of about $500. They came out on top at the end of the year. I used the past tense, but I should also use the present. They come out on top at the end of the year. This system is still in place in Alberta. An important part of the discussion should be that the money from the carbon tax is directly invested into the provinces or given directly to citizens through direct transfers.
This brings me to the Liberals' inconsistent approach to the environment, even though today we are talking about the carbon tax and we support this initiative, as we said earlier. All of the major political parties, except one, promised some kind of carbon tax in the last election. I must commend the Liberals on their initiative. However, I condemn their inconsistent approach to combatting climate change.
Everyone, including the people of Sherbrooke, saw what happened recently. We were outraged by the government's decision to invest $4.5 billion of our money in a pipeline transporting oil sands to British Columbia, in spite of obvious opposition in several regions of British Columbia, including indigenous reserves.
The government decided to take money from the people of Sherbrooke, who pay their taxes every year and every day. It decided to take taxpayers' money to invest in a 70-year old pipeline that leaks. Just recently that pipeline leaked 5,000 litres of oil. I want to use the very apt analogy that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie used yesterday, I believe. He said it is as though the government decided in 1990 to invest in the VHS industry, which was obviously doomed to sputter, if not fail, with the arrival of new technologies.
In this case, the government is deciding, with a glaring lack of long-term vision, to take taxpayers' money and invest it in the energy of yesterday, specifically in a pipeline and even a pipeline expansion. The government is going to inject an additional $12 billion to $15 billion of public money into the expansion of this pipeline in order to transport even more oil.
This is completely inconsistent with the current narrative of the Liberals, who signed the Paris Agreement and say they want to fight climate change. They then turn around and take our money to invest it in a pipeline, an extremely bad deal for Canadians. No private investor was prepared to invest money in this project, and the company that owned the pipeline could not find a buyer.
How can the government claim that this is good for Canadians when the Prime Minister was the only person willing to kick in? This project certainly conveys no vision for our country's future. I just wanted to make sure I condemned that in my speech today. We are talking about climate change and greenhouse gas reduction measures, but we have a government that is inconsistent, to say the least. It says it wants to fight climate change, but then it turns around and spends an eye-watering $4.5 billion on this pipeline. That is an astronomical sum. What could we do with $4.5 billion? The opportunities that could be created with $4.5 billion would be amazing, especially if invested in an energy transition. However, the government has chosen to spend it on a project that is utterly devoid of any vision for the future and is doomed to fail, given that no private investor was willing to risk a penny on it.
I would be happy to take questions from my colleagues to elaborate further on the points I addressed today.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2018-05-30 23:15 [p.19946]
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place. It is a tremendous honour and privilege to represent the constituents of Calgary Rocky Ridge. Many of the constituents of Calgary Rocky Ridge have very strong feelings on the budget.
It is no mystery that our party is opposed to it. We are opposed to the budget implementation act. Notwithstanding the 400-odd amendments that have been introduced and suggested, we will do what we can to try to salvage something from it. We will see how it goes with the amendments. However, I do not think any number of amendments could possibly salvage the budget in total. I am rather down on the budget, as are most of the constituents whom I have spoken to about it.
There are several key aspects of the budget that really still need to be addressed.
When the budget came out, the book was about 400 pages long. The budget implementation act is similar in length. Nowhere in any of these documents will we see the words “balanced budget”. One might ask if that is important or is it an issue. It is important for two reasons.
First, it is prudent management to eventually either have a balanced budget or some kind of a plan toward a balanced budget. All 10 provinces and all three territorial governments are either currently running a balanced budget or have a clearly articulated plan and path toward a balanced budget. The only jurisdiction, the only government in Canada that does not have any type of plan whatsoever for a balanced budget is the federal government. The only finance minister in Canada among all the provincial and territorial governments, including the federal government, who does not have a plan for a balanced budget is the federal finance minister. That is disappointing for its own sake, or even just on the point of policy alone.
Why this is particularly disappointing is that the government ran on a very clear promise. On page 12 of the Liberal platform in the 2015 election, it states:
We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure and our middle class. After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.
The Liberals promised no more than $10 billion in deficits. They promised to return to a balanced budget in 2019. This was not something they tucked away in some obscure part of their platform in hopes that nobody would notice. This is something they took to the doors. They said that there would be a modest deficit only to facilitate the infrastructure spending they had planned.
I want to depart from that for one moment and raise how the Liberals' infrastructure plan is going along. Not too long ago the Prime Minister made his first visit to Calgary in quite some time. He came to make a historic spending announcement while he was there in the name of the Liberals' infrastructure plan, $1.53 billion for the green line, an important infrastructure piece for the city of Calgary. It is a critical piece of infrastructure. The only problem is that these funds had been committed and announced by the previous government. The Liberals fly around the country re-announcing projects that were already announced in some cases, like this one, before they were even elected, taking credit for them, and expecting extraordinary credit for the projects. I do not want to digress too far. However, the point is that the budget is a broken election promise.
The Liberals promised no more than $10 billion in deficits and a return to a balanced budget by 2019. The finance minister will not acknowledge in any way that these commitments were made and ignores all questions put to him, including at committee, where he was asked repeatedly when the budget would be balanced. He ignored these questions.
That alone is enough reason to render the budget and its implementation act unworthy of support, but I want to move briefly to the carbon tax. The previous speaker devoted his time to a defence of the carbon tax. Let us even set aside the arguments for and against a tax on carbon; what about evidence-based policy and what about transparency and openness with Canadians?
The government refuses to tell Canadians what the tax will cost. Surely that is a minimum standard to which the government could hold itself, to just simply be honest with Canadians and share what the tax is going to cost as the Liberals compel provinces to adopt it—some of them against their will, some of them in contravention of their own climate change strategies that they have developed through carbon capture, such as the Province of Saskatchewan—without telling Canadians what this tax will cost them and while claiming that it is revenue neutral.
“Do we not know what revenue neutral means?” a member asked in an earlier debate on this. Most Canadians know that “revenue neutral” is code for “it is really going to cost us a whole bunch”, and Liberals will not tell us how much. The first part of revenue neutral that is flagrantly false is that there will be GST on the carbon tax that the federal government is going to collect. That is not revenue neutral. That is a tax on the tax, which the federal government is going to keep.
As for the latitude that the government says it is leaving provinces to decide how they will deal with the carbon tax, that is not revenue neutral to a family. If a family has to pay more tax on all the normal things that families spend money on, such as gasoline to get to work or to take their children to school, it does not matter whether they put gasoline in a car and drive a child to school or whether they pay the bus fee for their child; this tax would apply to all of them.
The tax puts giant holes in municipal governments' budgets, because municipalities have to pay this tax. They have to pay the tax when they fuel their buses so people can take public transit. They still have their cost increased and they still have to pay the carbon tax. Heating homes in a cold country and transportation are things that Canadians spend money on, and they are made more expensive by the carbon tax. I wish the government would please just spare us this talk of revenue neutrality, because it is not washing with Canadians. It really does not make any sense.
Perhaps the Prime Minister came closest to his true feelings when he encouraged Canadians to “make better choices” or change behaviour when people asked how they are going to be able to afford to fill their car with gas so they can go to work.
On page 290 of the budget, the finance minister basically took credit for pipelines that were yet to be built, such as the Trans Mountain expansion. The finance minister acknowledged the differential and the significant discount that Canadians receive for their energy products because of a shortage in pipeline and said that the revenue should improve because new pipe is going to reduce the differential.
Here we are. The pipeline is not any closer to being built. We just spent $4.5 billion on an old pipeline, without even finding out what the cost is going to be to build the new pipeline and deal with all the obstacles that were preventing it from being built by Kinder Morgan. The Liberals' own budget projections rely on new tax revenue that will result from a pipeline that is not even built yet.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2018-04-16 19:26 [p.18355]
moved:
That this House do now adjourn.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.
I am speaking for the hard-working Canadians, investors, and industries who are waiting for the Trans Mountain expansion to be built. Canada's Conservatives requested this emergency debate, because on April 8, Kinder Morgan set May 31 as the deadline to stop the challenges, settle the obstacles, and provide certainty once and for all.
However, this was not the first warning that there were too many barriers and delays, that this vital infrastructure so clearly in the national interest is at serious risk. For a year and a half since the approval, the Prime Minister has failed.
Trans Mountain is crucial for Canada, a $7.4 billion initiative that will create 15,000 jobs directly and sustain hundreds of thousands more in the energy sector across Canada, and in all the other sectors that depend on thriving Canadian oil.
The Conference Board of Canada said that the combined government revenue impact for construction and the first 20 years of expanded operations is $46.7 billion, including federal and provincial taxes for public services such as health care and education. B.C. would receive $5.7 billion, Alberta $19.4 billion, and the rest of Canada would share $21.6 billion. Municipal tax payments before adjusting for inflation total $922 million to B.C. and $124 million to Alberta over the first 20 years.
It will provide necessary access to export markets for landlocked environmentally and socially responsible Canadian oil, which is crucial now more than ever before, since the Liberals have killed the only two other new opportunities to tidewater, the Conservative-approved northern gateway pipeline and energy east. That leaves Canada almost entirely dependent on the U.S., which is now Canada's biggest energy competitor. Without Trans Mountain, Canada will remain wholly captive, which is an acute problem because the U.S. is aggressively pursuing its own domestic energy production and supply while exporting crude oil for the first time in 40 years and flooding world markets.
However, it has not been built yet, and construction season is soon. It faces highly organized, ongoing political, legal, and even foreign-funded opponents, who promise they will use every tool in the tool box to stop it. It is death by delay. The Prime Minister's failure has forced innocent Canadians, businesses and families, neighbours and friends, to be caught and at risk, in the crossfire of an escalating trade war and even threats to restrict energy supply between three neighbouring provincial governments.
Kinder Morgan's deadline is an alarming but predictable economic and constitutional emergency. It is a direct result of the Prime Minister's failure to act. Now it is about more than the pipeline itself; it is about investor confidence and certainty in Canada overall. Canada's international and economic reputation is at stake. That is because it is the latest in a pattern of multi-billion dollar energy investments and projects that have been cancelled under this Prime Minister.
The reality is that more Canadian energy investment has been lost under this Prime Minister in two years than under any other prime minister for the same time frame in 70 years. The total dollar value is like losing 75% of auto manufacturing and almost the entirety of the aerospace sector in Canada. The collateral damage is hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs, families in turmoil and struggle, on this Prime Minister's watch. What is scary is that it is the tip of the iceberg if the Liberals ram through their new energy regulations, their tanker ban, their offshore drilling ban, the carbon tax, and more.
Provincial governments, energy investors, economists, and oil and gas proponents are all rightfully demanding certainty and clarity about Trans Mountain and the future of energy development and transportation in Canada. There is no firm commitment that barriers will cease. The Liberals will make it worse.
Oil and gas provides billions in tax and royalty revenues to all governments, hundreds of millions to charities and in partnership with academic and educational institutions across Canada. It directly and indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians in every part of the country, and hundreds of thousands more in spinoff jobs. It lifts the standard of living of every Canadian.
The escalating crisis over Trans Mountain is causing investors and proponents to speak out. That is rare, and elected representatives should take note. The CEO of one of the biggest midstream oil and gas operators in Canada, Keyera, said, “Canada is not looked upon as a good place to invest when it comes to oil and gas these days....partly because the U.S. environment is quite positive.”
CEO David Smith outlined critical priorities for Canadian energy, “market access” and “competitiveness, as well as making sure that government is “not layering on additional costs that make it more difficult for us to compete.”
The CEO of Suncor, the leading integrated oil and gas company in Canada, and a pioneer in the oil sands, said:
We’re having to look at Canada quite hard. The cumulative impact of regulation and higher taxation than other jurisdictions is making Canada a more difficult jurisdiction to allocate capital in....
...other jurisdictions are doing much more to attract business, so Canada needs to do much more to up its game.
Absent some changes...you’re going to see us not exercising the very big capital projects that we’ve just finished.
Upstream oil and gas developers are calling on the Prime Minister to ensure Trans Mountain can proceed. The CEO of Cenovus Energy said, “If the rule of law is not upheld and this project is allowed to fail, it will have a chilling effect on investment not just in British Columbia, but across the entire country.”
Banks and investment firms are throwing up red flags. The Royal Bank said, “In real time, we're seeing capital flow out of the country. If we don't keep the capital here, we can't keep the people here.” Scotiabank said, “We're going to lose our competitive advantage on a number of things. Canada has a productivity issue and it has a competitiveness issue. I'm concerned about the resource-based economy, and access to tidewater.” CIBC said, “Slowdown or uncertainty regarding a pipeline is clearly a major factor impacting business investment in the energy space.”
Among the most passionate are business owners in B.C. The CEO of the Business Council of B.C. said, “This is no longer about a pipeline but whether you can rely on government and the rule of law if you choose to invest. This can have lasting consequences.” The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said, “If uncertainty is allowed to continue, it risks doing serious damage to this country’s reputation.”
The B.C. NDP-Green coalition has been challenging federal jurisdiction aggressively, asking for more studies about the product that has been in the pipeline for decades, putting up roadblocks through construction, and intending more if the expansion does get built.
The Prime Minister obviously should have anticipated this attack, since it never supported it and openly campaigned on killing it, but he did not even bring up the pipeline in his first call with the premier. It has taken 10 months and a full-blown economic and constitutional crisis for him to meet about it, with the project on the line. It is a crisis of the Liberals' own making. Now governments are floating the concept of taxpayers financing or backstopping it.
The Prime Minister suggests the only way for Trans Mountain to be built is to nationalize or subsidize it. However, before him, major energy projects and pipelines could be built in Canada with no risk to taxpayers. The challenges will not stop. It is a death knell for private sector interests and investments in the future. It is an indictment of his own record.
Another aspect that makes Trans Mountain so necessary is the economic opportunities and social benefits for indigenous communities now and for future generations. Trans Mountain is partly owned through equity partnerships with 43 communities along the route, worth more than $400 million. Every indigenous community directly impacted by the expansion and within a 10 kilometre buffer zone all along the route support it. As of August 2015, 120 indigenous entities were consulted. About 85% of the owners or occupants on the pipeline route raised no issues or concerns.
Chief Ernie Crey of the Cheam First Nation said, “If this project doesn't go through, it will hurt our people.”
Arthur Bird of the Paul First Nation said, “We have to support the development of the country and its economics, because the economics of the country affects all of us in one way or another.”
In 2016, when the project was waiting for approval, Mike Lebourdais, former chief of the Whispering Pines/Clinton Indian Band said, “I want the money from our resources...so that we can pay for our health, so that we can pay for our education, so that we can pay for our elders, so that we can pay to protect our environment, so we can build better pipes, we can build better bridges, we can build better railways.”
The Peters First Nations said they are concerned that among all of the well-funded and highly publicized opposition to the project, the voice of indigenous nations that support TMX has been lost.Peters First Nation said it has lived with the original pipeline that was built over 50 years ago seated at the base of their mountain and above their homes with no worries or incidents. They said that the TMX pipeline is the safest way to transport needed natural resources out of the country for the benefit of all Canadians.
Of course, opinions of indigenous people are diverse, and everyone has a right to advocate their views and assemble peacefully. However, it is quite the spectacle to see NDP and Green activists outright oppose economic opportunity and security for 43 Indigenous communities while seven challenge the expansion in court. It is stunning hypocrisy to hear politicians speak of this “most important relationship” and worry publicly about the crippling poverty and particular socio-economic challenges and barriers facing indigenous Canadians, while deliberately using every possible means to block financial opportunities and undermine all their efforts and work to secure agreements to benefit their communities, youth, and future.
It was already an embarrassment that Kinder Morgan had to announce to the world in January that it was still committed to the project. In spite of all the delays, uncertainty, prospect of failure, enemies on all sides, it was still trying to get Trans Mountain built. The Prime Minister should be ashamed of his utter failure to champion it, but that is what energy investment in Canada looks like under the Liberal government and the Prime Minister's failure of leadership.
Energy is Canada's number one private sector in the economy. It is Canada's second biggest exporter. Canada's pipeline monitoring system has the strongest safety standards in the world, and risk mitigation, prevention, protection and response advance continuously. Canada is a global leader in energy innovation. Canadians must have industry to work, innovate, build, invest, and profit. Canadians must also steward and protect the environment, air quality, water, land, and habitat.
Canada is the most responsible developer of oil and gas in the world, and the world will continue to demand and need Canadian oil. The Liberals have to champion Canadian energy, Canadian innovation, and Canadian jobs.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address what is becoming a crisis of confidence. I spent the last two weeks in my riding and I had the privilege of travelling throughout Alberta visiting communities that I represent. Like many in the House, I heard from my constituents about this crisis.
I heard from a young father named Adam. He told me he had just purchased a home. He works for a pipeline company. He said that he believed there was long-term opportunity in the province when he purchased that house just two months ago. He told me that he has a personal crisis right now, that if the pipeline does not get built, he will not have a job. His kids will not have the opportunities that he had hoped he might be able to afford to provide for them, such as the opportunity to live in a vibrant community, to be involved in sports and all the rest of it, the opportunity for mom and dad to have a job.
There is a crisis of confidence and we are hearing those voices. Many politicians in this room will have heard the voice of Saskatchewan's Premier Scott Moe, the voice of the premier of Alberta, the voice of Jason Kenney, the official opposition leader in Alberta, the voices from western Canada that are desperately calling on the Prime Minister to intervene in what is becoming an unmitigated disaster. It is a crisis.
When I go home, I listen to the voices who are going to live out this crisis, the moms and dads who will not be able to provide the opportunities they had hoped to provide for their children, the young people who are looking for their first jobs in engineering, their first jobs in construction, jobs that would have been provided by either the pipeline construction or the facilities that those pipelines would tie into.
This crisis is not just about this one pipeline. This is such a crisis right now. The premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the people in my constituency are so animated about this because this is the only hope left.
The crisis started when the Prime Minister cancelled a project that had already been duly approved. This all started when the Prime Minister unilaterally decided to overrule the national regulator and said he would cancel the northern gateway project. That happened after the election. He put forward the tanker ban on northern British Columbia. There was no consultation.
Now first nation communities are suing the Prime Minister for not consulting them on limiting their long-term opportunities and prosperity for their communities, their children and their children's children. This is how the Prime Minister's time in office started. Then he stalled all the regulatory processes and then Petronas withdrew its project which was the Pacific NorthWest LNG project that would have seen natural gas going from Dawson Creek all the way through to the coast.
Not only did we see delays and cancellation of approved projects, we also saw the changing of the rules. Midway in the approval process of the energy east project that was being undertaken, in the eleventh hour the Prime Minister announced there was going to be a whole set of new rules. The company that was building pipelines would now be responsible for the upstream and downstream emissions from that project. The company would have to assess and determine what those would be, increasing the cost to that company to the point in this case where it could no longer afford to continue to build that project.
Hon. Jim Carr: Unbelievable.
Mr. Chris Warkentin: The Minister of Natural Resources is heckling, Mr. Speaker.
It is unbelievable that the minister would heckle me during my speech when I am talking about the desperate position in which he has put people living in my constituency, people living throughout the province of Alberta, and people living throughout western Canada. It is a wonder that the minister still wonders where this crisis is coming from. He seems oblivious as to what is happening in the part of the country I represent.
I am hopeful that tonight the Minister of Natural Resources will spend some time in the House listening to my colleague from Lakeland, who is probably one of the most informed members of the House of Commons on the topic of energy. He might learn something. He will learn what leadership looks like. He will learn what it means to defend the hard-working people who built our country and continue to build it and who work week after week away from their families to ensure they have enough money to pay the bills. They do not just support their families; they support our communities. In fact, they support our country. We as Albertans are proud that the province has done well, and it is partly because of the energy sector. We are where we are because of the innovation, drive, and hard work of the men and women who work in the industry.
If the minister wants to heckle anyone today, let it be the Prime Minister for not allowing him to do his job to get these projects moving forward. Where I come from, that is who the people who I represent are heckling.
Canada is a producer of oil and gas. We should be proud of the products we pull out of the ground and ship. We are one of the most environmentally and socially responsible countries in the world when it comes to the development of our natural resource sector, and oil and gas. Opponents of pipelines often say we do not need oil and gas anymore and therefore we should no longer build these pipelines. In fact, one person has famously said, in response to a pipeline, that we do not need an alternate route for this pipeline; we need an alternate economy. Interestingly, the principal secretary to the Prime Minister said that.
I think Gerry Butts, the principal secretary, would say that we no longer need oil and gas, that the world no longer needs it. However, the world is buying oil and gas. We have a choice. We can be the country that will sell the resource to the countries that want it, and therefore we need a pipeline to tidewater. If the minister would do something for Canada, it would be to get that pipeline to tidewater.
Why is it important for Canada? I know why it is important for the people who I represent. It means jobs and opportunity, and long-term prosperity for the communities I represent. However, why does Canada need pipelines? Because there is a race to get our commodities to the consumer, and the first country that does so will be the country that succeeds. How as a country will we succeed if in fact we get that product to market? It means jobs and opportunity, and long-term prosperity for the people who I represent. It also means more provincial and federal tax revenue. What does that mean? It means better health care, education, and infrastructure for every Canadian.
This is what the current government is sacrificing. The reason we are at this crisis is not because of one single pipeline. It is because of the attitude on the government benches, including from the Prime Minister, who of course famously promised that he would phase out the oil sands. It seems he is doing that by cancelling all of the infrastructure that would get our products to market.
Therefore, we know the Prime Minister has effectively cancelled the northern gateway. He has effectively cancelled energy east. He has effectively cancelled the Petronas LNG project. Now he is in the process of cancelling this. We are in a crisis. The government has to act.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
2018-04-16 20:12 [p.18362]
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate.
The Prime Minister has said repeatedly, and reaffirmed on Sunday, that the Trans Mountain pipeline will be constructed.
Interprovincial pipelines are the responsibility of the federal government, and when making decisions on interprovincial pipeline projects, it is the Government of Canada's duty to act in the national interest. That is exactly what happened when we approved the $7.4 billion Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.
It is worth reviewing the process that was undertaken in order to remind Canadians that the decision to approve the project was taken only after careful review, extensive consultations, and thoughtful deliberation based on sound science and Canada's best interests. I would like to highlight some of that tonight.
When our government took office, we committed to reviewing and reforming the way the federal government makes decisions with respect to major projects. In February of this year, we introduced Bill C-69, the impact assessment act, which would accomplish exactly that through better rules to protect our environment, fish, and waterways; rebuild public trust and respect indigenous rights; strengthen our economy; and encourage investment.
We also committed not to send projects already under review back to the starting line.
That is why we implemented an interim approach to address projects that were then in the queue, such as Trans Mountain. That interim approach was based on five guiding principles, principles such as expanding public consultations, enhancing indigenous engagement, and assessing upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with projects.
As part of this, our government appointed a special ministerial panel of distinguished Canadians, who travelled the length of the proposed pipeline route, ensuring indigenous peoples and local communities were thoroughly canvassed and heard.
On the TMX expansion, we also completed the most in-depth consultations with rights holders ever undertaken on a major project in Canada. To date, 43 first nations have negotiated impact benefit agreements with the project, 33 of those in British Columbia. In the end, the project was approved with 157 conditions that reflected these consultations, robust scientific evidence, and the national interest.
The economic benefits of this project are clear. It would create thousands of construction jobs and countless more spinoff jobs in every part of the country. It would generate billions of dollars in new government revenues over 20 years of operation, new tax dollars to help pay for our hospitals and our schools, build new roads and safer bridges, and help fund Canada's transition to a low carbon future. The project would also open up new economic opportunities for the 43 indigenous communities that have signed more than $300 million in impact benefit agreements along the pipeline's route.
However, we should not look at the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in isolation. We also need to consider how the pipeline will fit in with our government's overall vision for Canada in this clean growth century and how this government has responded to legitimate concerns of Canadians, in particular those who live in the British Columbia Lower Mainland, those being issues relating to spill prevention and climate change.
We have signed the Paris Accord on climate change. We have worked hard with the provinces and territories to develop the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, a plan that lays out Canada's clear path to achieving our targets under the Paris Accord.
At the same time, our government is putting a price on carbon, accelerating the phase-out of coal, promoting energy efficiency, regulating methane emissions, creating a low carbon fuel standard, and making generational investments in clean technology, renewable energy, and green infrastructure.
The pan-Canadian framework incorporates all of the upstream and direct emissions associated with the Trans Mountain pipeline. Its greenhouse gases are also well within the 100-megatonne cap on oil sands that was brought in by Alberta's NDP government. It is complemented by the most ambitious oceans protection plan in our country's history, a $1.5 billion investment to protect our waters, coastline, and marine life.
The oceans protection plan builds on and maximizes every possible safeguard against an oil spill happening in the first place. Measures include air surveillance, double-hulled tankers, and double pilotage.
Kinder Morgan must provide enhanced tanker escorts using tethered and un-tethered tugboats beyond the Lions Gate Bridge into the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Canada's 12-mile nautical limit. New, larger vessels are being purchased for this purpose, as tugs of this size are not currently available on the west coast.
We have made the largest investment in the Canadian Coast Guard in years, strengthening its eyes and ears to ensure better communication with vessels and making navigation safer by putting more enforcement officers on the coast and adding new radar sites in strategic locations.
An important example of this was our decision to reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard base with new rescue boats and specialized pollution response capabilities, and we are funding more scientific research and new technologies to make cleanups even more effective.
The House should note that it was the previous Harper Conservative government that announced the immediate closure of the only Coast Guard station located in Canada's busiest harbour in Vancouver. That is their record when it comes to protecting B.C.'s coasts.
Our approach is world class, an approach that meets or exceeds the gold star standards set by places such as Norway. Our government has been very clear about the path forward regarding this project. We can and must protect our environment and communities while growing our economy. Our approval of the Trans Mountain expansion project, along with measures that will enable our oceans and coastal communities to remain healthy and safe, achieves these goals.
As we have said before, federal jurisdiction with respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project is very clear, and we are actively pursuing options to provide the certainty required for this project to move ahead. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will have more to say in the coming weeks.
Some will take issue with our government's approach, and we respect that. We are lucky to live in an open society where people with different views can debate them respectfully and choose to protest peacefully and lawfully.
Our government will continue to listen and work hard on behalf of all Canadians to ensure that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is completed and that it moves forward safely and responsibly.
View Todd Doherty Profile
CPC (BC)
View Todd Doherty Profile
2018-04-16 21:38 [p.18375]
Mr. Speaker, we are here today for one reason and one reason only, and that is we are in a crisis, a crisis of confidence. We have investors who, whether they are foreign or domestic, lack the confidence in Canada as a place to invest, as their confidence in the government to create an environment for them to invest in and protect their investment has gone sideways.
It has gone that way because if the Prime Minister's contradictory messages or comments, policies, and inaction on core projects. This has absolutely rocked the investor community. As a matter of fact, at the COFI conference which I was at just last week, as was the Minister of Transport, we heard very soundly from economists who stood on the stage and said that investor confidence in Canada is at an all-time low.
Investment is flowing out of Canada at record levels, levels that have not been seen in over 70 years. Why is that? As mentioned, it is due to legislation such as Bill C-69, Bill C-49, a tanker moratorium, and the Prime Minister killing energy east at the eleventh hour by introducing new rules. Let us not forget northern gateway, a project that was approved. It was a project that underwent rigorous environmental standards and testing, a project that had indigenous equity partners. As the Prime Minister and the government came to power, the rug was pulled out from underneath the project.
I remind this House that it was just over a year ago when the Prime Minister said that he was phasing out the oil sands. I will also remind my colleagues that one of the very first statements the Prime Minister made on the world stage after gaining power was that Canada will become known more for its resourcefulness than its resources. That is shocking.
On Trans Mountain, the reason we are here tonight, the Prime Minister has failed to deliver a clear action plan from the very beginning. Truthfully, I do not believe for a moment he ever wanted this project to go forward. He will stall while saying those words with his hand on his heart, that he and his cabinet are seized with this project and that it is their intention to have it go through. We have seen a few ministers today and over the last couple of weeks state that this project will go through, yet it has taken over a year for them to even come to the province of British Columbia, my beautiful province, to actually say those same strong words. Where have the 18 MPs from B.C. been? They have been silent on this issue.
I will go as far as saying that I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and his 18 Liberal MPs from the province of British Columbia for the situation we are currently in provincially. They failed to stand up for the Trans Mountain pipeline. That was a major issue in the provincial election last summer when the NDP and the Green Party campaigned that this project will never go through under their watch. The B.C. Liberals were fighting it out and doing their very best to try to win back our province. What we saw was essentially a deadlock. Then there was a coalition with the NDP and the Green Party. Premier Horgan might be in a little trouble because if he supports the pipeline, what will happen to his majority? He is going to have a bit of an issue in terms of how he can hang on to power.
Domestic and foreign investors looking at Canada and British Columbia as places to invest are comparing the ease of doing business and returns on capital that can be achieved here with those in other jurisdictions around the world.
We have to remember that investors have choices. What we do as a government or as a parliament, or what the Liberals do as government, can have a significant impact on investor confidence. That is what we are seeing currently. Under the current government, investors in Canada have been besieged by significant federal and provincial tax increases, which taken with the recent substantial tax reductions in the United States and the ever-increasing protectionist government, as well as the opportunities they are seeing south of the border, underscores that Canada's small, open trade-exposed economy is no longer competitive.
Economists are speaking out. Dave McKay, president and CEO of RBC, raised a concern about investment capital leaving Canada in real time, noting that a significant exodus of capital from Canada to the United States is well under way and that we should be worried.
These comments have been echoed by John Manley, president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada, who stated recently that real issues of competitiveness are absent from the federal government's thinking, noting that Canada is, “always in this difficult competition to attract investment and to retain investment — and it's not be taken lightly because investment can move quickly.”
We even have the Suncor president and CEO Steve Williams saying that his company, Canada's largest integrated oil firm, will not embark on new major projects in our country because of the burdensome regulations and uncompetitive tax rates.
Finally, late last year, the TransCanada Corporation, after spending over a billion dollars, cancelled its proposed $17-billion energy east pipeline project out of frustration with the government and the project approval process.
These and other examples across the country demonstrate that policy-makers have a definite impact on our economy. That is what we are seeing with Justin Trudeau's failure to get this job done and creating burdensome regulations on investors. We must always remember that investors have choices.
I want to touch on the indigenous partners aspect, because this has been brought up time and time again. I will relate it to a story in my own riding, the Mount Polley disaster, which I have brought up before. There are no two ways about it, it was a disaster. However, the proponent, the company, and our indigenous first nations partners within our riding, as well as our communities, banded together and got the job done with respect to mitigating the disaster.
We had protesters out there day in and day out. When a card check was done on those people, it was shocking to find that most of the protesters were not from our region, and some of them were not even from Canada. However, they were there making sure that Canadian businesses had every roadblock put in front of them. There is a lot to be said in the media about how our indigenous partners and indigenous communities are tired of being pawns for environmental groups, of being trucked out in the media and being used as pawns in this. Our indigenous communities only want an opportunity to be self-sufficient and to be partners in these programs. In the Trans Mountain pipeline, over 43 indigenous communities are equity partners in this project.
In the seconds that I have left, I want to read this. It states, “A Conference Board of Canada report has determined the combined government revenue impact for construction in the first 20 years of expanded operations is $46.7 billion, including federal and provincial taxes...for public services such as health care and education.”
It also notes that B.C. alone would receive $5.7 billion, Alberta would receive $19.4 billion, and the rest of Canada would share $21.6 billion because of this project.
If there is a project that has national interest, this is the one. Unfortunately, through delay tactics and confusing comments, the Prime Minister has shaken investor confidence, and that is unacceptable.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
2018-04-16 22:48 [p.18385]
Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate. I will be splitting my time this evening with my friend and colleague, the member for Surrey—Newton.
The Trans Mountain expansion pipeline represents a crucial test of this country's ability to get infrastructure built that is in Canada's national interest. Watching the Prime Minister's leadership on this file over the past number of months has no doubt reassured Canadians from coast to coast to coast that their country is in good hands. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly, with quiet but firm determination, that the TMX pipeline will be built, and it will. Why? It is because our government has appropriately determined that this $7.4 billion project is in Canada's national interest. It will create thousands of construction jobs and countless more spinoff jobs in every part of the country. It will ensure Canadian access to global oil markets and world prices. It will open new economic opportunities for the 43 indigenous communities that have signed on to more than $300 million in benefit agreements along the pipeline's route. It will generate as much as $3.3 billion in new government revenue over 20 years of operation. That would be new tax dollars to help pay for our hospitals and schools, to build new roads and safer bridges, and to help fund Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy. Those are just some of the reasons the Prime Minister has promised that this pipeline is going to be built, and in a responsible way.
Interprovincial pipelines are the responsibility of the federal government, and when making decisions on interprovincial pipeline projects, it is the Government of Canada's duty to act in the national interest. That is exactly what happened with the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.
As a member from the province of Ontario, tonight's debate is not some esoteric disconnect that I am involved with or wanted to discuss. It is something that is very near and dear to me. I grew up in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, a riding situated on the northwest coast underneath the Alaska panhandle, a riding that is beautiful, with mountain scenery, which sometimes I miss.
I am very proud that our government has put in place a $1.5 billion oceans protection plan so that up and down the B.C. coast, whether it is on the Sunshine Coast, in the Lower Mainland, or up in Prince Rupert, our oceans will be protected.
My parents and my family have resettled in the riding, in North Burnaby, where the current TMX pipeline runs and where the Chevron refinery sits, approximately two kilometres away from where my parents enjoy their retirement, just down from Burnaby Mountain. It is something that is very important to me. It is very important that we get this right, and we are getting this right.
I sat on Scotiabank's bond desk for 10 years, and I covered the oil and gas sector, the midstream sector. For 10 years, I saw the large differential in prices for our Canadian product, our Alberta oil. It was at a much larger discount than what one could get for what was called WTI or Brent. This discount is costing our economy billions of dollars. There are schools that could be built and hospitals that could be funded. We are working to close this gap, and one way we are doing it is by building a pipeline to tidewater to diversify our markets. We need to. It is the right thing to do for our economy. It is the right thing to do for the literally hundreds of thousands of middle-class families and middle-class workers that will benefit from this project.
During the Conservatives' time in government, for 10 years, they did not build a pipeline to tidewater. That is a fact. I am sorry to have to tell them that, but it is a truth about their government. They failed. Let us put it straight. That differential has cost the economy billions of dollars, whether it was provincial revenues, municipal revenues, or federal revenues.
I was proud of the Prime Minister, on April 15, when he commented on why this pipeline is in our national interest. He mentioned the aluminum workers in Alma, Quebec. He mentioned the aerospace workers in Montreal. He mentioned the auto factory workers down in Windsor. He mentioned the forestry workers up in my old hometown of Prince Rupert, British Columbia.
We will stand as a government, today and tomorrow and for years to come, for middle-class Canadians who want to work hard, save, and build a better future for their families. That is what this debate is about this evening. We stand and say that we will build this pipeline. We will get it done.
Let us not forget the people who will actually be building the pipe: the pipefitters, the tinsmiths, the millwrights.Those are the folks we work hard for here every day, day in and day out. Those are folks whom we have come to Ottawa to represent.
I worked on Bay Street and Wall Street, but my roots are on Main Street. They are on those streets in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, where half the population was indigenous and the rest of us were new Canadians. Whether we were born there or not, we all came from somewhere else, except for our indigenous brothers and sisters. We have many indigenous groups that have joined us to build this pipeline. We will work with them and we will continue to consult, unlike the other side, who failed to consult. It was proven in the courts.
I think it is worth reviewing that process in order to remind Canadians that the decision to approve this project was taken very seriously. It was only green-lighted after careful review, extensive consultations, and thoughtful deliberation based on sound science and Canada's best interests. I would like to highlight some of that this evening.
First, Canadians know that as our government was developing a permanent fix to the way major resource projects are reviewed, we implemented an interim approach to address projects that were then in the queue, such as TMX. That interim approach was based on five guiding principles, such as expanding public consultations, enhancing indigenous engagement, and assessing upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the projects.
As part of this, our government appointed a special ministerial panel of distinguished Canadians who travelled the length of the proposed pipeline route, ensuring indigenous peoples and local communities were thoroughly canvassed and heard. Our government made those discussions public on the Internet for all Canadians to see.
In the end, we accepted the National Energy Board's recommendations, including 157 conditions as part of our wider approval of the project and our larger plan for clean growth. We are also investing approximately $65 million over five years to co-develop an indigenous advisory and environmental monitoring committee for the life cycle of this pipeline, as well as the Line 3 pipeline. This is a Canadian first for any energy infrastructure project in our country. We are doing it right and we are going to get it right.
We have also developed a targeted action plan to promote recovery of the southern resident killer whale population. These are the kinds of specific measures we should expect for a project of this magnitude, but we should not look at TMX in isolation. We also need to consider how the pipeline fits within our government's overall vision for Canada in this clean-growth century.
For example, we have signed the Paris Agreement on climate change. We have worked with the provinces and territories and consulted with indigenous peoples to develop the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, a plan that lays out Canada's clear path to a clean low-carbon economy.
At the same time, our government is putting a price on carbon; accelerating the phase-out of coal, which will benefit our environment, lower asthma incidents, and save lives; promoting energy efficiency; regulating methane emissions; creating a low-carbon fuel standard; and making generational investments in clean technology, renewable energy, and green infrastructure.
The TMX pipeline fits within all of this and will support our government's efforts to make Canada a leader in the transition to a low-carbon economy. For example, the TMX pipeline is consistent with Canada's climate plan to 2030. Its GHG emissions are well within Alberta's 100 megatonne cap on the oil sands. It is complemented by the most ambitious oceans protection plan in our country's history, a $1.5-billion investment to protect our waters, coastline, and marine life for literally generations and generations to come.
The oceans protection plan builds on and maximizes every possible safeguard against an oil spill happening in the first place with measures that include air surveillance, double-hulled tankers, and double pilotage. Transport Canada has been leading the way on this with its creation of an expert panel a few years ago to guide government actions on spill responses.
The new oceans protection plan reflects this and includes the largest investment in the Canadian Coast Guard in years, strengthening its eyes and ears to ensure better communication with vessels and making navigation safer by putting more enforcement officers on the coast and adding new radar sites in strategic locations.
Should something happen, there will be more primary environmental response teams to bolster the Coast Guard's capacity, including several Coast Guard vessels equipped with specialized tow kits that will improve its ability to respond quickly.
Amid all of this, we are enforcing the polluter pays principle. This is a world-class approach that meets or exceeds the gold standard set by places such as Alaska and Norway.
View Vance Badawey Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Vance Badawey Profile
2018-04-16 23:50 [p.18393]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House today to speak to this very important issue.
I have to say I have been here all night, and the parliamentary theatrics that have been going on are quite impressive from the opposite side of the floor.
However, I do want to be very clear. This is an issue that is about our country, about our nation, that is looking at taking the next step, enhancing and elevating doing business to the next level and sending a strong message internationally that Canada is in fact open for business.
The TMX project is of vital strategic interest to Canada, and it will be built. Our government has initiated formal financial discussions with Kinder Morgan, the result of which will be to remove uncertainty overhanging this particular project. We are also actively pursuing legislation, the actions that will assert and reinforce the federal jurisdiction in this matter, which we know we clearly have. Hundreds of thousands of hard-working Canadians depend on this project being built. Protecting our environment and growing our economy are not opposing values. On the contrary, each makes the other possible.
I want to give those members on the opposite side of the floor a bit of a history lesson in comparison to what I have heard today. The member for Durham mentioned that the government was in comparison to a Hail Mary pass. Let me just say this: I think on the opposite side of the floor it is the opposition that is throwing the Hail Mary.
Some will recall that the Harper government refused to officially endorse the northern gateway pipeline project until the National Energy Board's joint review panel had a chance to finish its review. The Hail Mary came when the party, attempting to shore up its western vote, asked this government to endorse the project before the experts had a chance to review it. This government was very clear in the process, being both accountable as well as responsible and, most importantly, respectful.
We consulted, for example, with the indigenous community. Our government was and continues to be committed to renewing the relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and, equally as important, partnership. We are committed to reconciliation and will work in partnership to address the issues of importance to indigenous communities.
On the TMX expansion, Canada has in fact completed the deepest consultations with rights holders ever on a major project in this country. To date, 43 first nations have negotiated benefit agreements with this project, and 33 of those are in British Columbia. We have listened, and we will continue to listen.
Once again, in contrast, the Conservative Party had 10 years to build a pipeline to ship Canada's resources to new global markets. It built zero. The Conservatives had 10 years to consult indigenous and local communities. They ignored them. The Conservatives had 10 years to rally the country around the need for new pipeline capacity to end the discount on landlocked Canadian crude. They did not. The Conservatives had 10 years to address environmental concerns. They failed. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives.
The economic benefits to this nation will be compounded on the strengths that we have already established throughout many years: thousands of new jobs during construction, hundreds of permanent jobs per year during operation, $4.5 billion in government revenues to reinvest in priorities such as hospitals and roads, clean-energy initiatives, and innovation technology, which I will get back to in a second.
Strategic access to new global markets unlocks the value of Canada's natural resources. This $7.4-billion project has significant economic benefits, including providing an expected $4.5 billion in government revenues. It will create thousands of new jobs in Alberta and B.C. during construction, not to mention the supply chain that exists from coast to coast to coast. Indigenous peoples will also benefit from jobs and business opportunities as a result of over $300 million in mutual benefit agreements signed with the proponent.
The project will expand access to Canada's export market access for oil markets in Washington State, northeast Asia, Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan, and secondary markets in the United States, such as California, Hawaii, and Alaska. It will also help address an emergency bottleneck in Canada's pipeline network, which might otherwise drive producers to greater reliance on transportation by rail.
As I mentioned earlier, community consultations consisted of 44 public meetings in 11 communities on pipeline routing, more than 35,000 questionnaire submissions, more than 20,000 email submissions, and 1,600 participants in the review process.
In May 2016, the Minister of Natural Resources named a three-member ministerial panel for the proposed project. The ministerial panel heard the views of Canadians, local communities, and indigenous groups along the proposed pipeline and shipping route, who may not have been considered as part of the review in the past.
Some people would ask, as the member for Niagara Centre, what interest I would have in this. The interest is from coast to coast to coast, with respect to Niagara being an international trade corridor; the Great Lakes; the ability to contribute as a region and as a riding to the integration of distributional logistics; ensuring we become an enabler for the nation to perform a greater and higher degree of transportation, thus placing our great nation on a higher level globally when it comes to the economy. There is our supply chain, Oskam Steel, Thurston Machine, Barber Hymac, JTL Machine, ITT, all contributing to the sector, from Ontario, from Niagara.
This government has been deliberate in putting forward an overall strategy for jobs and the economy. The oceans protection plan, the trade corridor strategy, the ports modernization plan, the infrastructure plan, science and innovation, international relations, all of which this government has been participating in over the course of the past two years. They are all in step with Canada's new economy and ensuring that this project aligns with the other efforts this government has been working on for the past two years to create jobs, to create the economy, to create health, to create wealth, and to ensure that our product, our GDP, as well as the relationships we are accruing over time throughout our global economy are healthy. This project, supported by this government moving forward sooner rather than later, is one that we as a nation will be truly proud of well down the road for the future generations, to once again ensure that the economy of Canada extends to the economy of the global markets that we are inevitably going to partner with.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1353--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to Fogo Island in March, 2017: (a) what are the details of each expenditure including (i) flights, (ii) vehicle rentals, (iii) accommodations, (iv) meals and per diems, (v) other transportation costs, (vi) other expenses, (vii) security; and (b) of the expenses incurred in (a), which expenses were incurred by the following groups of individuals (i) the Prime Minister and his family, (ii) ministerial exempt staff, including staff in the Office of the Prime Minister, (iii) departmental staff, (iv) Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other security?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1307--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to all government funding to the province of Manitoba: (a) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of disbursing government funds, have been cancelled since November 17, 2016; (b) what was the rationale provided for the cancellation of each item in (a); (c) what amount of funding had been dispensed to each item in (a) at the time of cancellation; (d) what was the estimated value of each item in (a) prior to cancellation; and (e) what consultations, if any, took place in relation to the items in (a) prior to their approval?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1308--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to information related to the applications submitted to the National Energy Board by TransCanada for its Energy East Pipeline and Eastern Mainline projects and the subsequent withdrawal of their applications, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of any consultations or meetings which have been held with the Minister of Natural Resources, his officials, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and stakeholders, including (i) date, (ii) locations, (iii) attendees; (b) have there been any briefing notes or documents for the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary; (c) if the answer in (b) is affirmative, what were the (i) dates, (ii) titles, (iii) subject matter and content; (d) have there been any meetings between the Minister and (i) the Parliamentary Secretary, (ii) the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, (iii) the Associate Deputy Minister of Natural Resources; and (e) if the answer in (d) is affirmative, what are the details of all meetings, discussions, and other documentation regarding the status of the projects?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1309--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the Generation Energy forum held in Winnipeg on October 11 and 12, 2017: (a) what are all the expenditures related to the forum, including travel costs; (b) what is the detailed, itemized breakdown of all expenditures in (a), including for each the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description, (iv) vendor; (c) who were the Members of Parliament and the government staff in attendance, broken down by (i) Members of Parliament, (ii) staff from the Office of the Prime Minister, (iii) staff of Members of Parliament, (iv) other government staff; and (d) what were the total costs for those listed in (c), broken down by (i) airfare, (ii) hotel accommodations, (iii) vehicle rentals, (iv) taxi or Uber rides, (v) limousine services, (vi) per diems, (vii) other meal costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1311--
Mr. Alexander Nuttall:
With regard to applications for the Disability Tax credit by persons with mental illnesses or mental health conditions: (a) for each month since October 2012, what was the percentage of approvals, disapprovals, and incomplete applications returned to applicants respectively; (b) with respect to rejections of applications in (a), what percentage of rejected applicants appealed the rejection decision; (c) with respect to rejections of applications in (a), what percentage of appeals were granted or declined respectively; (d) with respect to rejections of applications in (a), has any part of the government withdrawn or withheld funds, bonds, and grants from the Registered Disability Savings Plans of any applicants; (e) with respect to withdrawals or withholdings in (d), how many applicants who were previously approved for the Disability Tax Credit have had withdrawals or withholdings made from their Registered Disability Savings Plan accounts since May 2017; and (f) with respect to withdrawals or withholdings in (d), what is the total value of funds withdrawn or withheld from Registered Disability Savings Plan accounts since May 2017?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1313--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the statement by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on November 1, 2017, that “We are investing $5 billion to ensure mental health supports for over 500,000 Canadians under the age of 25”: (a) what is the detailed breakdown of the $5 billion investment, including (i) amount, (ii) recipient, (iii) program title, (iv) program description, (v) date of expenditure, (vi) fund from which expenditure was made; and (b) what is the total of all expenditures in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1315--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to Chart 2.1 on Page 27 of the Fall Economic Statement 2017 and specifically the chart titled “Nearly 300,000 Children Lifted Out of Poverty”: (a) what income level was used as the poverty line for the chart; (b) if the income level used in (a) differentiates between regions, what are the various income poverty lines used for the chart, broken down by region; (c) does the government consider families who’s income is slightly higher than the poverty line to be “middle-class”; (d) is there a classification for income levels which is between “poverty” and “middle-class” and, if so, what is that classification known as and what is the associated income level; (e) of the “nearly 300,000”, what is the breakdown by (i) province, (ii) municipality; (f) as of what date are the figures referred to in (e) representative of; (g) what was the start date to which the figures in (e) were compared to in order to make the 300,000 claim; and (h) what is the government’s definition of poverty and what official measure is used to track it?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1319--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to employment in departments, Crown corporations, agencies and other government entities: (a) what are the complete job titles for every employee whose job title includes the words “tax”, “taxes”, “taxation”, “taxing”, “taxable”, “revenue”, “revenues”, “duty”, “duties”, “dutiable”, “fee”, “fees”, “levy”, “levies”, “tariff”, “tariffs”, “toll”, “tolls”, “charge”, “charges”, “rate”, “rates”, “excise”, “customs”, “impost”, or “imposts”; (b) how many employees have job titles listed in (a), broken down by job title; and (c) for the employees with job titles listed in (a), what is (i) the aggregate of salaries paid in the 2016-17 fiscal year, (ii) the aggregate value of benefits, expense claims, and other employment costs paid in the 2016-17 fiscal year, (iii) the aggregate of salaries forecasted to be paid in the 2017-18 fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1322--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With respect to rail safety: (a) what is the current number of rail safety inspectors; (b) how many rail safety inspectors were there in (i) 2010–11, (ii) 2011–12, (iii) 2012–13, (iv) 2013–14, (v) 2014–15, (vi) 2015–16, (vii) 2016–17; (c) what is the training budget for rail safety inspectors, broken down by each year listed in (b); (d) how many hours were allocated to rail safety inspector training, broken down by each year listed in (b); (e) how many railway safety inspectors are anticipated for (i) 2017–18, (ii) 2018–19, (iii) 2019–20; (f) what are the document numbers for the training manuals for rail safety inspectors; (g) what updates have been made to the manuals in (f) since November 2015; (h) when does Transport Canada plan to complete its review of the fatigue risk management systems implemented by railway companies; (i) what are the findings to date of the review in (h); (j) in detailed terms, what steps has Transport Canada taken since November 2015 to mitigate the risk of fatigue among crew members on freight trains; (k) how many preventive inspections has Transport Canada conducted since November 2015, broken down by year; (l) how many reactive inspections has Transport Canada conducted since November 2015, broken down by year; (m) what is the total number of violations of laws and regulations committed by rail companies since November 2015; (n) how many monetary penalties has Transport Canada imposed on rail companies since November 2015; (o) in detailed terms, what is the budget for the 2017–18 Railway Safety Act Review Committee; (p) what consultations have been conducted to date by the review committee in (o); (q) what organizations have been consulted to date by the review committee in (o); (r) does the review committee in (o) contract out to fulfil its mandate; (s) if the answer to (r) is affirmative, what are the sole source contracts; and (t) what is the anticipated total remuneration for the members of the review committee in (o)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1323--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With regard to aviation safety: (a) what was the annual failure rate from 2005 to 2016 for the Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) conducted by Transport Canada inspectors for pilots working for 705 operators under the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs); (b) what was the annual failure rate from 2005 to 2016 for the PPC in cases where industry-approved check pilots conducted the PPC for pilots working for Subpart 705 operators; (c) how many annual verification inspections did Transport Canada inspectors conduct between 2007 and 2016; (d) how many annual Safety Management System assessments, program validation inspections and process inspections of 705, 704, 703 and 702 operators were conducted between 2008 and 2016; (e) how many annual inspections and audits of 705, 704, 703 and 702 system operators were carried out pursuant to Transport Canada manual TP8606 between 2008 and 2016; (f) how many aircraft operator group inspectors did Transport Canada have from 2011 to 2017; (g) what discrepancies has Transport Canada identified between its pilot qualification policies and the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 2005; (h) what are the ICAO requirements for pilot proficiency checks and what are the Canadian PPC requirements for subparts 705, 704, 703 and 604 of CARs; (i) does Transport Canada plan to hire new inspectors and, if so, what target has it set for hiring new inspectors; (j) what is the current number of air safety inspectors; (k) how many air safety inspectors were there in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, (iii) 2012-13, (iv) 2013-14, (v) 2014-15, (vi) 2015-16, (vii) 2016-17; (l) what is the training budget for air safety inspectors broken down by each year listed in (k); (m) how many hours were allocated to air safety inspector training, broken down by each year listed in (k); and (n) how many air safety inspectors are anticipated for (i) 2017-18, (ii) 2018-19, (iii) 2019-20?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1325--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the figure of 15,000 jobs related to the Trans Mountain project cited by the government, what are the details of: (a) any correspondence, reports, or documents prepared to brief the Minister of Natural Resources' office; (b) any correspondence, reports or documents prepared to brief the Office of the Prime Minister; and (c) any correspondence, reports, or documents that relate or support this figure of 15,000 jobs including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipients, (iv) title?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1327--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS), in the fiscal year 2015-16: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each of the following components of the FTCS (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control and, if so, how much was reallocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1329--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the new policy to cut the monthly allowances of Canadian Armed Forces members who cannot return to active service after more than 180 days: (a) how many Canadian Armed Forces members are expected to have their monthly allowance cut as a result of the policy; and (b) how much does the government expect to save as a result of the new policy for the fiscal years (i) 2017-18, (ii) 2018-19, (iii) 2019-20?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1331--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to wrapping expenditures for the exteriors of government buildings since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total amount spent on wrapping, broken down by individual building; (b) what are the details of all wrapping expenditures for the building located at 59 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario, including (i) vendor, (ii) scope or description of services or goods provided, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (v) file number; and (c) what are the details of all wrapping, tarp, or similar type expenditures for any other buildings, broken down by individual building, including (i) vendor, (ii) scope or description of services or goods provided, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (v) file number, (vi) address of building?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1332--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to paragraph 43(a) of the Conflict of Interest Act: (aa) has the Prime Minister received from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner advice with respect to the application of the Act to an individual (i) minister or minister of state, (ii) parliamentary secretary, (iii) member of ministerial staff; and (b) has the Prime Minister requested from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner advice with respect to the application of the Act to an individual (i) minister or minister of state, (ii) parliamentary secretary, (iii) member of ministerial staff?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1335--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion (OHRFI) and the situation of the Tamil community and other minority communities in Sri Lanka: (a) what projects have been undertaken, or what work has been done, on this subject by the OHRFI since December 1, 2015, and for each project or work item, (i) what was the project or item name, (ii) what was the project description, (iii) what funds were allocated, (iv) what was the timeline, (v) what local consultations were conducted, (vi) what recipient organizations or individuals were involved, (vii) how much funding did each recipient receive, (viii) what report or result was accomplished; and (b) what other projects or work have been proposed or considered by the OHRFI on said subject but not undertaken, including proposals received from third parties or potential partner organizations but not proceeded with, and for each project or item, (i) what was the project or item name, (ii) what was the project description, (iii) what were the projected costs, (iv) what was the proposed timeline, (v) what local consultations were projected, (vi) who were the proposed recipient organizations or individuals, (vii) what funding for each recipient was proposed, (viii) what reports or results were prescribed in the proposal, (ix) for what detailed reasons was the proposed project or work item rejected?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1336--
Mr. Ed Fast:
With regard to the negative economic impacts of government regulations and the decision to impose a carbon tax between 2016 and 2026: (a) according to government projections, what are the ten industries most likely to be negatively impacted by a $50 per tonne price on carbon; (b) for each of the industries in (a), what are the details of the projected negative impacts, broken down by year, beginning in 2016, including (i) projected job losses, (ii) projected number of business bankruptcies, (iii) projected number of personal bankruptcies, (iv) lost federal revenue as a result of the job losses and bankruptcies; (c) what is the average age of the employees who will lose their jobs as a result of the government’s decision to impose a carbon tax; (d) according to government projections, what are the ten industries most likely to be negatively impacted by the proposed regulatory steps under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change; (e) for each of the industries in (d) what are the details of the projected negative impacts, broken down by year, beginning in 2016, including (i) projected job losses, (ii) projected number of business bankruptcies, (iii) projected number of personal bankruptcies, (iv) lost federal revenue as a result of the job losses and bankruptcies; and (f) what is the average age of the employees who will lose their jobs as a result of the proposed regulatory steps under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1338--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to claims for pensions for disabilities under the Pension Act processed by the Department of Veterans Affairs since January 1, 1997, broken down by year: (a) how many people have received pensions for disabilities; and (b) how much money has been spent in total on pensions for disabilities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1339--
Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie:
With regard to the conference on tax gap estimation, held jointly by the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canadian Tax Foundation on June 6, 2017, in Ottawa: (a) who were the event sponsors; (b) who were the event speakers; (c) who were the experts invited to appear at this event; (d) who participated in this event; and (e) what corporations carried out promotional activities either at or near this event, including (i) distributing promotional materials, (ii) having an information booth, (iii) hosting social activities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1340--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to Section 2.33 of the Fall 2017 Report of the Auditor General of Canada which states in reference to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that “They gave us wrong information almost 30 per cent of the time”: (a) what specific recourse is available to taxpayers who received the wrong information; (b) how is the CRA notifying taxpayers who received the wrong information about their recourse options; (c) how many taxpayers who received the wrong information have been proactively contacted by the CRA to correct the wrong information, since January 1, 2016; (d) what specific action has been taken against the CRA employees who provided the wrong information; and (e) how many CRA employees have faced disciplinary action as a result of providing the wrong information to taxpayers, since January 1, 2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1341--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to the Phoenix pay system: how many public servants were affected financially by the Phoenix pay system between December 1, 2015, and November 21, 2017, both in total and broken down by (i) city, (ii) constituency, (iii) place of employment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1342--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to Article 1103 of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and Article 809 of the Agreement on Internal Trade: (a) what are the details of each meeting of the Working Group on Alcoholic Beverages since July 1, 2017, including (i) date, (ii) list of attendees, (iii) agenda items, (iv) decisions and agreements reached; (b) what are the details of each meeting of the Working Group on Party-Specific Exceptions since July 1, 2017, including (i) date, (ii) list of attendees, (iii) agenda items, (iv) decisions and agreements reached; and (c) what are the details of each meeting of the Working Group on Party-Specific Exceptions since November 4, 2015, including (i) date, (ii) list of attendees, (iii) agenda items, (iv) decisions and agreements reached?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1343--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With respect to the consumer price of gasoline in Canada: (a) what action is the government taking to monitor the price of gas; (b) what action will the government take to control the price of gas; (c) how does the government ensure that gas prices are the result of free competition and not collusion between producers and retailers; (d) what impact does the current high price of gas have on the Canadian economy; and (e) will the government enact a plan for a gas price monitoring agency to ensure the market remains fair and competitive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1344--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the Canada child benefit, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many mothers have applied for the benefit; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were rejected; (c) what were the reasons for rejection, including the number of mothers’ applications rejected for each reason; (d) how many mothers who applied for the benefit, but were subsequently rejected, were required to reimburse the government the amounts received in relation to the benefit; (e) what is the total amount recovered as a result of the reimbursements in (d); (f) how many mothers have had their marital status changed by the Canada Revenue Agency for taxation purposes following a rejection of benefits in (b); and (g) for the mothers in (f), what was the number of each type of status change, such as single to common-law, married to single and any other status changes, broken down by status change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1347--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With respect to the Immigration Information Sharing Treaty: (a) what departments and agencies send information to the United States; (b) what departments and agencies receive information from the United States; (c) what Memorandums of Understanding or procedures exist to share data received from the United States with other government departments; (d) what are the data retention and deletion policies for information received from the United States; (e) what databases contain information received from the United States; and (f) if a decision has been rendered on a matter requiring the receipt of data from the United States prior to its receipt, how is the data handled?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1348--
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to the Prime Minister's trips to the Lac-Saint-Jean constituency in Quebec and to Edmonton, Alberta, and surrounding areas, in October 2017: (a) what are the costs associated with (i) the flights, broken down by individual expense, (ii) other transportation costs, (iii) accommodation costs, (iv) food and beverage costs, (v) other expenses, broken down by individual type of expense; (b) what specific government events did the Prime Minister attend while on the trip; (c) what were the dates, times, and locations of all events in (b); (d) how many employees of the Privy Council Office (PCO) traveled with the Prime Minister on either the entire trip, or a portion of the trip; (e) what public business did PCO employees, including the technical employees, conduct for this travel; (f) was any of the work conducted by PCO employees partisan or to the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada or a local Liberal campaign and, if so, was the government reimbursed; (g) did any PCO employees provide assistance, including technical set-up or assistance, related to any by-election related campaigns or events by the Prime Minister and, if so, (i) what assistance was provided, (ii) what are the details of any invoice submitted to the campaign, or to the Liberal Party of Canada resulting from such assistance; and (h) was any government property used for partisan purposes during the Prime Minister's trip and, if so, what amount was the government reimbursed by the Liberal Party of Canada or a local Liberal by-election campaign?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1349--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government expenditures on and policy towards sharing economy products, including Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by department and agency: (a) what is each department and agency's policy regarding employees using such products or services while on government business; (b) what are the total expenditures, broken down by month, on (i) Uber, (ii) Lyft, (iii) Airbnb, for government employees; (c) what are the total expenditures, including a monthly breakdown, for ministers, parliamentary secretaries and ministerial exempt staff on (i) Uber, (ii) Lyft, (iii) Airbnb; and (d) what is the total amount spent by government employees, broken down by month, on (i) taxis, (ii) hotels?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1350--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion: (a) what is the current annual budget for the Office; (b) how much of the budget referred to in (a) is earmarked for (i) human rights and indigenous affairs, (ii) inclusion and religious freedoms, (iii) democracy, (iv) other expenses; (c) what isthe number of full-time equivalents, along with the associated Treasury Board classification, employed in the Office; (d) what are the current Treasury Board salary ranges associated with the classifications referred to in (c); (e) what is the number of full-time equivalents, along with the associated Treasury Board classification assigned to (i) human rights and indigenous affairs, (ii) inclusion and religious freedoms, (iii) democracy, (iv) other; (f) as of November 27, 2017, what projects receive funding through the Office, broken down by (i) organization, (ii) location of project, (iii) project description; (g) what is the breakdown of projects referred to in (f), broken down by (i) human rights and indigenous affairs, (ii) inclusion and religious freedoms, (iii) democracy, (iv) other expenses; and (h) what evaluations or criteria are used to determine if an organization has their project approved or reapproved for funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1352--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Compensation Advisors in all departments and agencies, since November 5, 2015, to present: (a) how many job postings have been posted for the position of Compensation Advisor, broken down by department, date of posting, and geographic location; (b) how many applications have been received for the position of Compensation Advisor, broken down by date of receipt, department, and geographic location; (c) of the applications received in (b), how many applications were from (i) jobs.gc.ca, (ii) direct applications to each respective department and agency, (iii) internal applications; and (d) how many Compensation Advisors have been hired, broken down by date of hire, department, and geographic location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1354--
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to the Skills Link Program under the government’s Youth Employment Strategy: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided to date; (b) what is the total amount of funding provided to each (i) project, (ii) group or recipient; (c) what is the breakdown of projects or recipients by federal riding; (d) what is the description and purpose of each project; (e) what specific criteria were used in the selection of each project and recipient; (f) what are the review outcomes for all (i) projects, (ii) recipients, (iii) applications; (g) what was the processing time for each project from application to announcement; (h) for the projects that were rejected, what was the processing time from application to when proponents were informed of the rejection; (i) which projects have been announced to date; and (j) what is the amount of funding still outstanding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1356--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to the Alberta Pine Beetle infestation and the $87,000,000 invested by the government in scientific infrastructure upgrades: (a) what specific steps has the government taken to stop the infestation; (b) what are the details of the investment including (i) recipient, (ii) project description, (iii) amount, (iv) date, (v) link to media release and background information on project, if applicable; (c) what is the most recent update on the severity of the infestation; (d) what is the most recent outlook for each of the next five years in regard to the infestation; (e) why has the current approach been unsuccessful in stopping the infestation; (f) has the government considered culling or burning in order to stop the infestation and, if so, why have those strategies not been applied; (g) what funding has been delivered, since January 1, 2017, including the (i) recipient, (ii) project description, (iii) amount, (iv) date; and (h) is any further funding currently planned to address the infestation and, if so, when and to whom will the funding be provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1357--
Mr. Ed Fast:
With regard to expenditures on electric vehicle charging stations on government property since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all expenditures, including for each the (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) date, (iv) location of charging station, (v) description of expense; (b) what is the total amount of expenditures in (a); (c) for each charging station, what is the average time, broken down by month, in which the charging station has been charging a vehicle; (d) what are the locations of all such charging stations; and (e) how many charging stations are scheduled to be installed before December 31, 2018, and what is the proposed location of each such station?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1358--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the ministerial working group to address Phoenix pay issues announced on April 27, 2017: (a) what are the dates of all meetings of the group; (b) for each meeting referred to in (a), was it an (i) in person meeting, (ii) teleconference; and (c) what are the details of all expenses related to the group or its meetings, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1359--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the response by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to Q-1211, in which she stated that “the departmental financial system does not have specific line object coding to track costs related to bottled water”: (a) what is the complete list of specific line object codes which are utilized by the departmental financial system; and (b) what are the details of all expenditures under the object code which includes bottled water expenditures, since November 4, 2015, including for each expenditure the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of product or service, (v) location, (vi) file number, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1363--
Mr. Louis Plamondon:
With regard to employees who worked for the Governor General in 2015, 2016 and 2017: how many employees worked for the Governor General, broken down by function, with a description of duties and the total of all salaries, including all benefits and management positions, broken down by department including the Office of the Governor General, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, National Defence, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Global Affairs Canada and Canadian Heritage?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1364--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s official residence: (a) since the appointment of the Chef, how many meals have been prepared at the Prime Minister’s official residence for the Prime Minister, his family and guests; (b) for each meal listed in (a), what are the details per meal item, including drinks, broken down by (i) food group, according to Canada’s Food Guide, (ii) source of food by country of origin, (iii) estimated cost per meal; (c) what is the residence’s policy for food that is prepared but not consumed; (d) what is the residence’s annual budget allocation for food and beverage purchases; and (e) how much of that annual budget has been spent to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1365--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to materials prepared for Associate Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers from September 19, 2016 to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is the (i) date on the document, (ii) title or subject matter of the document, (iii) department’s internal tracking number, (iv) title of individual for whom the material was prepared, (v) sender?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1366--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to materials prepared for Deputy Ministers from June 15, 2016, to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is the (i) date on the document, (ii) title or subject matter of the document, (iii) department’s internal tracking number, (iv) sender?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1367--
Mr. Bernard Généreux:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Environment and Climate Change Canada since September 16, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the products or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1368--
Mr. Bernard Généreux:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Global Affairs Canada since December 6, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' value?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1369--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by by the Privy Council Office since September 16, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1370--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Health Canada since September 16, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) description of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1371--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence campaign on the Status of Women Canada’s website: (a) what are all expenditures related to the website campaign, including (i) amount spent on website development and graphic design, (ii) promotion and advertising, (iii) other expenses; (b) what are the details of all expenditures referred to in (a), broken down by item including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of product or service provided, (iv) date, (v) file number; (c) what is the total of all expenditures referred to in (a); (d) does the “Take the pledge” link on the website allow for the same IP address to take the pledge multiple times or is there a limit on the number of times the same IP address may take the pledge; and (e) does Status of Women Canada, or any server operated by, or on behalf of Status of Women Canada track the IP addresses of computers which click on the “Take the pledge” link and, if so, what are the details related to how they are tracked?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1372--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to materials prepared for Ministers from January 1, 2017, to present: for every briefing document prepared, (i) what is the date on the document, (ii) what is the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) what is the department’s internal tracking number, (iv) who was the sender?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1374--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: (a) what specific instructions has the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs provided to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada regarding how is should support the inquiry; and (b) what was the date of each instruction referenced in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1375--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the purchase of promotional products for handouts or giveaways at trade shows, conferences and other events, broken down by department, agency, or Crown corporation, since September 19, 2016: (a) what products were purchased; (b) what quantity of each product was purchased; (c) how much was spent on each product; (d) at what events, or type of events, were the products distributed; (e) in which country was each product manufactured; and (f) what is the relevant file number for each purchase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1376--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the threat of a missile attack from North Korea: will the government join the Ballistic Missile Defense System and, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1378--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Canadian Heritage since September 16, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1379--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to videos developed for or by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of expenses related to the videos, broken down by individual video, including (i) graphics, (ii) production, (iii) human resources, (iv) editing, (v) total amount spent, (vi) platforms for which the video was used, both traditional and social media; and (b) what are the details of any contracts, for which the goods of services were used, either in whole or in part, in relation to the videos, including for each contract the (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1380--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the ice rink on Parliament Hill and the original budget of $5,600,000: (a) what is the revised budget estimate after the decision to keep the rink open past the end of December; and (b) what is the new itemized breakdown of the budget?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1381--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Employment and Social Development Canada since September 16, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the products or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1386--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to Service Canada’s national in-person service delivery network, for each Service Canada Centre: (a) how many full-time employees (FTEs) were there on December 1, 2016; (b) how many FTEs were there on December 1, 2017; and (c) which offices have changed their hours of service, and for each office that has changed its hours of service, what are the new hours?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1387--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to all expenditures on Management Consulting (Treasury Board Object Codes 048 and 0491) by Employment and Social Development Canada, since January 1, 2017: what are the details of all expenditures including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1390--
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to Policy 1.1.16: Opening and Closing Procedures for all CBC/Radio-Canada stations: (a) is it still in effect; and (b) if it is no longer in effect, (i) why was it rescinded, (ii) what was the date on which it was rescinded, for both English-language and French-language networks, and for both radio and television stations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1391--
Mr. Louis Plamondon:
With regard to the Christmas celebrations on Parliament Hill for the period from 2013 to 2017: (a) what is the cost of the Christmas preparations and decorations, including the trees and lights, for each building on Parliament Hill; (b) what is the cost of the Christmas trees that adorn Parliament Hill; (c) what is the total cost of the Christmas Lights Across Canada display for the winter season since the first year of the display; and (d) what is the cost of the Canada 150 rink and the adjacent facilities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1392--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to all expenditures on hospitality (Treasury Board Object Code 0822), since January 1, 2017, and broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1395--
Mr. Ed Fast:
With regard to Canada’s conservation objectives and federally protected terrestrial and marine spaces: (a) which terrestrial and marine spaces does the government intend to protect to meet Canada’s Aichi Targets by 2020; and (b) what are the details of all areas referred to in (a), including (i) the geographical size and location of each space, (ii) the scientific rationale for protecting each proposed site, (iii) the forecasted costs associated with the protection of each space broken down by type, (iv) the economic impact for each proposed protected site, (v) all community stakeholders consulted for each project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1396--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to government procurement since July 1, 2016: what are the details of all contracts awarded to bidders who were federal public servants who received a lump sum payment pursuant to the terms of a work force reduction program, including (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the products or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1397--
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to the meeting held on August 31, 2016, between the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and stakeholders regarding the Pont de Québec bridge: (a) what is the complete list of government representatives at the meeting, including all Ministerial Exempt Staff; (b) what is the complete list of stakeholders at the meeting; (c) what decisions were made at the meeting; (d) when were the decisions referred to in (c) made public, and how were they made public; and (e) how did the government determine who would qualify as a “stakeholder” for the meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1398--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to government expenditures in relation to the Canada 2020 event on September 29, 2017, with former United States President Barack Obama: (a) how many tickets were purchased; and (b) what was the total amount spent on tickets, broken down by department, agency, or Crown Corporation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1399--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Natural Resources Canada, since January 1, 2017: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1400--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, since January 1, 2017: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1402--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to all government contracts awarded for public relation services, since January 1, 2017, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of these contracts, including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided, (vi) start and end dates of services provided, (vii) total value of all contracts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1403--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Public Works and Government Services Canada, since January 1, 2017: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1404--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to Access to Information Requests filed between January 1, 2017, and November 1, 2017, broken down by department, agency, Crown Corporation or other government entity: (a) how many requests were received; (b) of those requests in (a), in how many cases were the documents produced within the statutory thirty-day time limit; and (c) in how many cases was there an extension?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1405--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the backdrops and podiums used by the government for the announcements since January 1, 2017, for each backdrop purchased and for each podium purchased or rented: (a) what was the date of purchase or rental; (b) when was the tender issued for the backdrop or podium; (c) when was the contract signed; (d) when was the backdrop or podium delivered; (e) what was the cost of the backdrop or podium; (f) was there an announcement for which the backdrop or podium was used and, if so, for which ones; (g) which department paid for the backdrop or podium; and (h) when were the backdrops or podiums used, broken down by event and date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1406--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Transport Canada, since January 1, 2017: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1407--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to government expenditures on sporting event tickets, since December 1, 2016: what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) ticket cost, (iv) title of persons using the tickets, (v) name or title of event for tickets purchased by, or billed to, any department, agency, crown corporation, or other government entity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1408--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to fees collected by government departments and agencies, since December 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount collected by the government; (b) what is the monthly breakdown of fees collected, broken down by department or agency; and (c) what is the monthly breakdown of fees collected by specific fee?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1410--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to negotiations related to NAFTA, since January 1, 2017: (a) how many times has the Prime Minister met with Canada’s chief negotiator; (b) what are the dates of all such meetings; and (c) what form did each meeting take (phone, in person, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1412--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the consumption of alcohol on flights taken on government-owned Airbus and Challenger aircraft, since December 1, 2016: (a) on which flights was alcohol consumed; and (b) for each flight where alcohol was consumed, (i) what is the value of alcohol consumed, (ii) what was the origin and destination of the flight, (iii) what was the flight date, (iv) what is breakdown of alcohol beverages consumed by specific beverage and quantity, (v) how many passengers were on each flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1413--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to statements made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on Thursday, November 30, 2017, during the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs’ meeting on Supplementary Estimates (B) 2017-18, where the Minister, in his statement, made claims that funding to Veterans Affairs had been diminished before the current government was elected: (a) what were the announced budgeted spending amounts for the Department of Veterans Affairs each year in Budgets tabled from 1999 to 2017; (b) what was the change in funding, by percentage, for Budgets announced from 1999 to 2017; (c) within the Department of Veterans Affairs, what were the amounts budgeted, since 1999 for (i) benefits, (ii) administration of Veterans Affairs Canada, (iii) Military Resource Family Resource Centres, (iv) Veterans Affairs Service Centres, (v) the Ministry of Veterans Affairs; and (d) what were the staffing levels in Veterans Affairs Canada since 2010 in (i) Veterans Affairs Service centres, (ii) Benefits Administration, (iii) the Ministry of Veterans Affairs, (iv) program administration?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1414--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to untendered, sole-sourced contracts over $50,000 by the Department of Public Works and Government Services: what are the details of each such contract signed since December 1, 2016, including : (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the products or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values, (viii) rationale for not conducting an open tender for the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1415--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to capacity assessments done for major projects by Public Services and Procurement Canada: (a) when was the department made aware of all workplace adjustment notices for compensation advisors in Public Services and Procurement Canada; (b) was a capacity assessment done for staff capability prior to the Phoenix Pay System roll-out in February, 2016, and, if so, what were the results of the assessment; (c) were the staff reductions for workplace adjustment notices accounted for in the capacity assessment done by Public Services and Procurement Canada; (d) if the answer to (c) is no, why were these staffing changes not included in the capacity assessment; and (e) what factors were taken into account in developing the assessment, and what were the outcomes and findings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1416--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the court cases Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 1494; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 BCCA 237; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), (29 March 2012) SCC File No. 34387; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCCA 300; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), (30 January 2012) SCC File No. 34387; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General Trial decision (Garson J.)--2009 BCSC 1494; BC Supreme Court Docket No. S033335; BC Court of Appeal Docket Number CA037707; the Supreme Court of Canada’s file number 34387; and all related cases: what are, including information from the Attorney General and the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and Environment, for each case, the (i) total cumulative dollar amount spent by the Crown between January 1, 2006, and October 15, 2017, (ii) total dollar amount, adjusted for inflation, (iii) total dollar amount spent by the Crown by category (travel, salary, supplies, etc.), (iv) total dollar amount spent in each fiscal year from 2005 to 2017 (up to December 10, 2017), (v) total payment that has been, or is projected to be, paid by the Crown, and an explanation as to how this figure was calculated, (vi) date by which it will be, or is projected to be, paid by the Crown?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1417--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the use of taxi chits and Uber by the government, broken down by department, agency, and Crown corporation, since December 1, 2016: (a) how much has been spent on taxi chits for government employees; (b) how much has been spent on Uber or other ride sharing companies for government employees; (c) how much has been spent on public transportation for government employees; (d) broken down by ministerial office, including the Office of the Prime Minister, how much has the government spent on taxi chits for ministerial exempt staff; (e) how much has the government spent on Uber or other ride sharing companies for ministerial exempt staff; and (f) how much has the government spent on public transportation for ministerial exempt staff since December 1, 2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1418--
Mr. Robert Sopuck:
With regard to raw sewage since October 1, 2016: (a) how much raw sewage has been dumped in Canadian waters, broken down by river, lake, ocean, and other body of water in which the sewage was dumped; (b) of the sewage dumps in (a), which were approved after October 1, 2016, what was the date on which the Minister of Environment and Climate Change approved the sewage dump; (c) what studies, if any, have been done or are ongoing regarding the impact of dumping raw sewage; (d) what were the conclusions of any such studies, completed since October 1, 2016; (e) what are the dates, titles, subject matter, and file numbers of any memos or documents related to the dumping of raw sewage; and (f) what are the dates, titles, subject matter and file numbers of any correspondence between the federal government and provincial governments or municipalities concerning raw sewage?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1419--
Mr. Robert Sopuck:
With regard to Canada's delegation at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP22): (a) what are the first and last names of each delegate; (b) which organization did each delegate represent; (c) what is the total cost for using government aircraft to transport delegates to and from Marrakech; (d) broken down by each delegate who stayed in Marrakech, how many days and on which dates did the government cover the costs; (e) what were the total costs for the delegation, broken down by (i) cumulative total, (ii) air transportation, (iii) accommodation, (iv) food and per diems, (v) other transportation, (vi) carbon offsets, (vii) other expenses broken down by type; and (f) what is the estimated size of the carbon footprint as a result of the delegation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1420--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to expenditures made by the government since June 12, 2017, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not Elsewhere Classified): what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1421--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to government telecommunications: what is the total amount of late payment charges incurred in each month, since and including September 2016, for cellular telephone services and services for all other wireless devices other than cellular telephones, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) service provider, (iii) month, (iv) reason for late payment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1423--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to government expenditures and communication with CRRC Corporation Limited (CRRC) of Beijing, China, broken down by department and agency, and since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all expenditures including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) file number; (b) what are the details of all communication between the government and CRRC, including communication by ministerial exempt staff and Staff of the Office of the Prime Minister, including (i) date, (ii) individuals involved in the communication, (iii) type of communication, (iv) title or subject matter; and (c) what role did CRRC have in the development of any of the 29 points in the Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and China which was announced by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1424--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to all contracts awarded by the government, since January 1, 2017, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to a foreign firm, individual, business, or other entity with a mailing address outside of Canada; (b) for each contract in (a), what is the (i) name of vendor, (ii) date of contract, (iii) summary or description of goods or services provided, (iv) file or tracking number, (v) amount; (c) for each contract in (a), was the contract awarded competitively or was it sole-sourced; and (d) what is the total value of all contracts in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1426--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (CIC) decision to accept bids for an outside contract to “develop a pool of (400) multiple choice official questions, a test blueprint, and 15 versions of the Canadian citizenship knowledge test”: (a) is it the government’s position that CIC does not have the employees or the means required to develop a citizenship test without spending money on an outside contract; and (b) how many employees are there currently in the government who develop tests as part of their jobs, broken down by department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1427--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trips to the riding of Saint—Laurent in February, March, and April of 2017: (a) what are the amounts and details of all expenses related to the trips; (b) what are the details of all official government business conducted on the trip; (c) what amount has been received by the Receiver General from the (i) Liberal Party of Canada, (ii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Saint—Laurent, (iii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Saint—Laurent for re-imbursement related to the Prime Minister’s trips; and (d) what are the details of any payment received in (c), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of expenses for which taxpayers were reimbursed, (iv) sender?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1428--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trips to the riding of Markham—Thornhill in February, March, and April of 2017: (a) what are the amounts and details of all expenses related to the trips; (b) what are the details of all official government business conducted on the trip; (c) what amount has been received by the Receiver General from the (i) Liberal Party of Canada, (ii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Markham—Thornhill, (iii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Markham—Thornhill for re-imbursement related to the Prime Minister’s trips; and (d) what are the details of any payment received in (c), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of expenses for which taxpayers were reimbursed, (iv) sender?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1429--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to Health Canada’s Drinking Water Safety Program, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) capital expenditures on drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on reserve, and INAC expenditures on maintenance and operations for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on reserve: (a) what amount has been allocated, broken down by program and by year (and, where applicable, by region), over the last ten years; (b) what amount has been spent, broken down by program and by year (and, where applicable, by region), over the last ten years; and (c) why, in applicable instances, were allocated funds left unspent or transferred away from the originally-intended line item?
Response
(Return tabled)

*Question No. 1316--
Ms. Lisa Raitt:
With regard to the tweet by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change on November 7, 2017, which stated that “Canada salutes Nicaragua and Syria for joining on to the Paris Agreement!”: what are the titles of all individuals who approved the tweet?
Response
(Return tabled)

*Question No. 1317--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to programs delivering mental health services to Indigenous children, programs delivering health services to Indigenous children, and the implementation of Jordan’s Principle: (a) how much has been allocated over the last five years, broken down by program and by year; (b) how much has been spent over the last five years, broken down by program and by year; (c) how much has been allocated through the Non-Insured Health Benefits program on hospital beds over the last five years; (d) how much was spent on hospital beds over the last five years; and (e) how many individual hospital beds were purchased and acquired and then distributed to recipient individuals or institutions over the last five years?
Response
(Return tabled)

*Question No. 1318--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the Child and Family Services program, the Aboriginal Head Start on Reserve and other programs offered by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and Health Canada for the purposes of early child development and early childhood education for Indigenous peoples, the Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program and other programs offered by INAC and Health Canada for the purposes of diagnosing and treating addictions and other mental health and wellness issues, including suicide prevention initiatives, and the Mental Health Continuum Framework: (a) what, if any, concerns, vulnerabilities, gaps, shortfalls and other lacunae in funding, program design and delivery were identified by the two respective departments, broken down by program; (b) what steps, if any, have been taken to rectify the concerns, vulnerabilities, gaps, shortfalls and other lacunae mentioned in (b), broken down by program; and (c) how much has been allocated and spent for each of these programs, in aggregate and broken down by region, for each year between 2009 and 2017?
Response
(Return tabled)

*Question No. 1345--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to terminology used on the government’s Mandate Letter Tracker: what is the difference between a “commitment not being pursued” and a broken promise?
Response
(Return tabled)
16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence8555-421-1307 Government funding to the ...8555-421-1308 Energy East Pipeline and E ...8555-421-1309 Generation Energy forum8555-421-1311 Applications for the Disab ...8555-421-1313 Statement by the Prime Minister8555-421-1315 Fall Economic Statement 20178555-421-1316 Tweet by the Minister of E ...8555-421-1317 Mental health and health s ...8555-421-1318 Programs offered by Indige ...8555-421-1319 Employment in departments, ... ...Show all topics
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Arnold Viersen Profile
2017-11-09 17:19 [p.15241]
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the proposed legislation on marijuana.
This is nothing more than the Liberals raising taxes once again. I have been spending quite a while trying to figure out what drives the Liberals. I have come to the conclusion that it is how to raise taxes on all Canadians.
This legislation makes no sense. There is no coherent message to it whatsoever. The Liberals say that they want to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and, at the same time, they will legalize it. If we look at it through the lens of raising taxes, it starts to make some sense. This bill is all about that.
The Liberals have this figured out that if they legalize marijuana, there is perhaps a tax windfall, although not a great tax windfall. The Liberals do not go after the big fish. They go after people who have small tax credits, and things like that.
I do not think this will raise a whole bunch of money for the national coffers, but it will raise a little cash from legalizing marijuana, and therefore taxing it. The bill is all about that.
People may wonder why the Liberals need to raise taxes. They need to raise them so they can give it to their friends around the world. They have given nearly half a billion dollars to an infrastructure bank in Asia. In turn, that bank will use some of that money to build pipelines in Asia. We cannot even get pipelines built in this country. However, we are giving money to infrastructure banks across the world and they are building pipelines with that money.
This Liberal government is completely out of touch with the needs of Canadians, and this bill is nothing more than that.
What else are the Liberals doing with this money? They are bailing out Bombardier. I sent out a ten percenter to my riding, asking if anybody was in favour of the Liberals bailing out Bombardier. Believe it or not, nobody sent it back to me saying he or she was totally happy with the Bombardier bailout, that this was amazing work.
Bombardier is being sold to Airbus, a company out of France. Will Bombardier repay the taxpayer? Will it make them whole? No. Do the Liberals have a balanced budget issue? Yes. How will they raise the money? One of the ways they will raise it is through taxing marijuana.
As I said, this bill is nothing more than a way to raise some tax money. The government has been spending it on infrastructure banks in Asia and on Bombardier.
When I questioned the innovation minister on why the taxpayer would not be made whole with the deal between Airbus and Bombardier, he said that I did not stand up our aerospace industry. However, I do stand up for the aerospace industry in Canada and I am very proud of it. In fact, one of the greatest airplanes ever produced in the world would be the Avro Arrow, and that came from Canada. I am very proud of that fact.
What I am not proud of is the way the Liberals have treated the oil industry. The Liberals have never once stood up for the oil industry. They went to Calgary to announce an innovation cluster. We would have expected they had gone there to announce the innovation cluster for the oil industry or the energy sector, which is one of the most innovative sectors in our economy, but no. It was for agriculture. Agriculture in Calgary is completely out of touch.
What else do the Liberals need the money for? Members may have seen a $5 million skating rink on the front lawn. A hockey rink or a skating rink is quintessential Canadian and I grant that. However, I believe that within spitting distance of this very fancy hockey rink being built on Parliament Hill is the longest skating rink in the whole world. It is called the canal. That is the kind of thing the Liberals need to raise money for with the increase in taxes.
How do we know the Liberal government needs money so badly? I do not think putting a tax on marijuana is going to raise a great deal of money, particularly because I do not think the method the government is using to introduce it will stave off the black mark.
We already have a lot of contraband products when it comes to cigarettes. I do not see the difference here. I am not sure that when we get the government involved in regulating the prices, it will get the price perfect, and we will see the black market disappear. I am not convinced of that at all. Therefore, I do not see that there would be a great windfall.
The Liberals do not have a particular philosophy on how they raise taxes. They just think they can raise taxes wherever they can get it. We have seen this with the cancellation of the tax credit for folks with diabetes. Eighty per cent of the people who were formerly approved for the type 1 diabetes tax credit have now been taken off that list. It was not a great deal of money, but it was for those particular individuals. We can see the Liberals are not worried about raising taxes on everyday Canadians.
When we look at legalizing marijuana in order to tax it, suddenly it all makes sense. This is not about legalizing marijuana, or keeping it out of the hands of kids. It is not about making our country a safer place. This is about raising some tax dollars. As we look at it, we see the legalizing of marijuana is going to have some very detrimental effects. Granted, we may raise some money. I will give them that, but we will see increased traffic fatalities. We have seen this in other jurisdictions that have brought this on. Colorado, for example, has seen a 40% increase in traffic deaths in its jurisdiction since it legalized marijuana. In Canada, we have about 1,000 impaired driving fatalities in the country every year. A 40% increase is another 400 deaths. I do not know how we can justify legalizing marijuana when we know it is going to cause deaths across the country.
Not only that, we always get the comparisons with alcohol and smoking. They say those things are legal, why can marijuana not be legal. First, there is not really a direct connection with either of those other products. Neither of those other products permanently alter one's mind. Marijuana does permanently alter one's mind. I speak at schools, and the marijuana issue comes up. I always say that that is the number one thing. If someone smokes marijuana, there is a significant likelihood of them not graduating from high school; I am not sure exactly what the number is. I tell them that all the time.
Also folks who smoke marijuana have double the rate of psychosis. It doubles the rate of schizophrenia. Someone who is susceptible to schizophrenia and smokes marijuana is twice as susceptible to schizophrenia.
I do not understand this at all. The Liberals say they want to keep it out of the hands of children. To tell children that we are now legalizing it and then at the same time tell them we do not want them to use it, those two messages cancel each other out or even encourage marijuana use. It has nothing to do with the age limits they put on this stuff. I think that is left to the provinces, but they have definitely not put in an age limit. We hear everyone saying after 25 it may not affect your brain, but before 25, marijuana definitely affects one's brain in very detrimental ways.
I can come to no other conclusion than this particular bill to bring in legalization of marijuana has nothing to do with keeping our country safer, has nothing to do with keeping marijuana out of the hands of children, and has everything to do with raising a tiny amount of taxes.
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2017-10-20 13:56 [p.14359]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill by the member for Langley—Aldergrove. Bill C-342 would amend the excise act so that the government cannot collect GST or HST on provincial carbon pricing systems.
Last year, the Prime Minister imposed a national floor price on carbon that would require all provinces and territories to have some form of carbon pricing by the year 2018. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec have already introduced carbon pricing systems. Most other provinces are working to do the same before the 2018 deadline.
The Liberals have claimed that putting a price on carbon pollution is the best means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Before I go on, I want to remind everyone of a recent report tabled by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, titled “Progress on Reducing Greenhouse Gases”. It concludes that the minister's department did not make progress toward meeting Canada's commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. This brings into question the effectiveness of the carbon pricing scheme.
The fact is that the Liberals did not introduce carbon pricing to reduce the emissions. They introduced it to fund their excessive spending habits. I believe that Canadians are willing to pay their fair share of taxes. However, the government is demanding so much money from hard-working Canadians that soon there will not be any more money for them to take.
Despite promising that carbon pricing would be revenue neutral, the Liberals' 2016 budget projected a 21% increase in GST revenues from the 2016 to 2021. Why? The GST rate didn't change in those calculations. What did change was the massive growth in taxable consumption of carbon, via carbon pricing.
The carbon tax is just that, simply another tax. The carbon pricing scheme isn't revenue neutral because it increases costs down the line and will increase the cost of the GST and HST on consumers and businesses. That is exactly why I believe this bill is necessary.
If the government wants to keep its promise to make carbon pricing revenue neutral, it needs to support this bill. Otherwise, it will be taking billions of dollars from hard-working Canadians because of this tax on a tax. Canadians are being taxed enough. This is just another Liberal tax grab designed to make Canadians pay for the Prime Minister's out-of-control spending habits and his resulting legacy of deficits that our grandchildren and children will have to pay.
Consumers and businesses are finding it more and more difficult to survive under the Liberals. The Liberals say that carbon pricing will force businesses to be more environmentally friendly by raising their operating costs. However, those costs will just be passed down to the consumer.
If someone wants to take their family on a Christmas vacation, it will be more expensive because airlines will pass that cost down to the consumer. Carbon pricing will not change how many gallons of fuel it takes to get from one city to the next. If it does, it will probably be because they have invested in more fuel-efficient technology. That is already in their interest to do because it saves them money. They do not need a carbon tax imposed on them to tell them to be more efficient. They are already trying to be.
A carbon tax targets generally taxes emissions from the burning of fuels like coal, petroleum, and natural gas in the hope of discouraging their use. While these fuels produce emissions, they are needed by us to drive our cars, heat our homes, and produce our electricity. The problem is that it does not matter how much these fuels cost us, because we still need to consume them every day, and winter is coming. It does not matter how much it will cost to fill up a gas tank, because many of us still have to drive. It is a half-hour from one end of my riding to the other. I am definitely not going to walk.
It does not matter how much our electricity bills go up, we still have to heat our homes. I have to plug in my vehicle in the wintertime or I will not get back to the house. My riding of Yellowhead is full of oil and gas fields. It is not like in those questionable documentaries where we see a massive hole dug into the earth with no signs of life for miles. The oil and gas leases are scattered throughout the forests and farmland, and are most often just a small teardrop of gravel with a small building or shack on top of the well.
Each company has an operator that has to check on each of these leases every day to make sure they are functioning properly. Additionally, they have to bring in water trucks and other service vehicles to maintain these leases. This is all necessary to ensure compliance with environmental regulations and the safe functioning of wells. Even though carbon tax makes it more expensive to operate and drive to each of these leases every day, the companies cannot decrease their safety oversight and well maintenance. They have to pass the cost on to the consumer at the pump.
As well, a carbon tax is a huge hit to the Canadian farm sector, which relies on these fuels to plant the crops that grow the food we eat. CIBC noted that some experts say that the total additional cost to a farm would be $6 an acre. For someone who has planted 1,000 acres of oats, that is $6,000 more in fuel costs to that farmer. When the cost to farmers goes up, so does the cost of food to consumers. Again, we are just paying again.
I also want to draw everyone's attention to another issue. I have said that the cost from carbon pricing is passed down to the consumer, making the cost of living more expensive. However, some businesses are forced to absorb the blow at the bottom line, jeopardizing the future of these businesses and jobs they provide, all while doing nothing to impact their emissions.
For example, in the auto body industry, companies do not set their own prices. If a person gets their car into accident and needs to get it fixed, their insurance company decides how much it should cost and dictates that to the auto body shop. They tell the auto body shop how much to charge, even though the insurance company does not know the overhead costs of that body shop. This is unfortunately the way insurance systems are set up.
In speaking with one owner near my riding, I learned that suppliers have passed the cost of carbon pricing on to his company. The insurance companies dictate how much he can charge and there has been no increase provided to offset the costs of the carbon tax. It is out of his pocket, the bottom line. Considering that about 90% of his work comes from insurance, his operating costs have increased by 12%, and that comes completely off his bottom line. What does that mean? It means choked growth and maybe staff cuts.
When the Alberta carbon pricing took effect in January, it just so happens that there was an increase in gas prices at the same time. The gas bill for this person's shop went from $500 a month to almost $1,600 a month. He went to his MLA to find out why, and found out that GST collected on top of the provincial carbon tax was the major factor. That is exactly why this bill is important. Small businesses and consumers alike are seeing their costs skyrocket under this Liberal government.
As representatives, it is our duty and responsibility to ensure each of our constituents can afford their groceries, to heat their homes in the middle of January, and to keep providing jobs for their communities. No one should ever have to be let go from a job because their company is being taxed to death.
The Liberal government will collect billions in new tax dollars as a result of charging GST on their mandatory price on carbon. This shameless tax grab is unfair to Canadians, and it is not what the Prime Minister promised, which was to keep the price on carbon revenue neutral. I call on those sitting across from me today and to all of their colleagues to support this bill and help the Prime Minister keep his promise to Canadians.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Jim Carr Profile
2017-06-01 10:51 [p.11812]
Madam Speaker, more important than my agreement with the content of this motion is my complete agreement with the views on this project of our Prime Minister.
As hon. members will know, in the immediate aftermath of the election in British Columbia, the Prime Minister publicly and clearly reiterated our government's support for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion project. He reinforced the case that our support for this project was made using a rigorous and thorough process, and it was based on science and facts, not political rhetoric.
At the moment, the future of the British Columbia government remains in question. Premier Clark has indicated her intention to face the legislature and test its confidence in her government. I cannot predict the outcome of a vote of confidence in the British Columbia legislature, but what I can say is that whatever the result of that vote, our government stands behind the decision we made to approve the Trans Mountain expansion project. Why? It is because it was the right decision when we made it last November. It was the right decision the day before the British Columbia election, and it is the right decision now. While the government in B.C. may change, the facts, the science, the evidence, the environmental considerations, the economic benefits, and the jobs all remain unchanged.
The project was, and this project is, in the best interests of Canadians, so I welcome the support of the members opposite. I welcome their recognition of the wisdom of our decision. I welcome their pointing out through this motion that the project has social licence to proceed, that it is critical to the Canadian economy and the creation of thousands of jobs, that it is safe and environmentally sound, as recognized by the National Energy Board, and that it is under federal jurisdiction with respect to approval and regulation.
It is rare when the official opposition is a leading advocate for a government policy, but I can tell the House that it is something I could get used to.
The motion before us deserves a fuller articulation, so let me address its various elements one by one. It asks the House to agree that the project has social licence, although I think we can all agree that this is an outdated term. One does not simply get a “lose” or a “yes” of social support. It is a daily responsibility to serve Canadians and constantly rebuild trust in the government.
How did this project achieve something the previous government was unable to do, which was diversify markets for our resources, during its entire time in office? The answer is straightforward. Our government listened to Canadians. The previous government believed it knew best without needing to ask for any other opinion. There must be a certain comfort in knowing all without asking Canadians what their opinions are on such projects as this. We listened closely. We heard that not all Canadians agreed, and that is okay. What we heard most strongly was that Canadians are tired of the polarization of the environment versus the economy. We are all in this together.
Under the previous government, Canadians had simply lost trust in the environmental assessment and review processes, because the outcomes were predetermined. They had come to believe that when weighing economic benefits and environmental stewardship, the scales had become tipped too far in one direction. Our government set about regaining the trust of Canadians. We did so by taking a different approach. We reached out to indigenous communities. We consulted meaningfully, something the Federal Court of Appeal said the previous government had not done sufficiently with the northern gateway project, which is the reason its permit was revoked.
In the case of the Trans Mountain expansion project, government officials consulted with 117 indigenous groups, and the results are publicly available. We have set aside more than $64 million to fund an indigenous advisory and monitoring committee to meaningfully engage indigenous groups in monitoring the project over its lifespan, the first time in Canadian history. It is a step never before taken by any previous government.
Our government listened to environmental groups and those living in the affected communities. We listened to academics and industry. We extended the consultation period to ensure that as many voices as possible could be heard. However, we did not stop there. To regain the confidence of Canadians, we also initiated a modernization of the National Energy Board to ensure that its composition reflected regional views and had sufficient expertise in environmental science, community development, and indigenous traditional knowledge. We are now in the process of determining how these changes can best be made.
Canadians know that the path to a lower-carbon future may be long, but it is well under way. It is accelerating, and its trajectory is clear. They know that the economy of tomorrow will require investments today in clean technologies, energy efficiency, and renewable sources of energy. Our government has taken action on all these fronts, including doing what virtually every economist and energy company says is the best, most effective way to lower greenhouse gas emissions and spur innovation: putting a price on carbon. In fact, in our government's first budget, we made generational investments in clean energy and new technologies, including technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. We will build that clean-growth economy, and we are, but we are not there yet, due to nearly a decade of inaction by the previous government.
With all these initiatives—consulting indigenous communities, engaging Canadians, focusing on sustainability, modernizing the National Energy Board, and investing in green technologies—we sent a very clear signal to Canadians and the world that under this government, environmental sustainability will go hand in hand with economic development. We cannot have one without the other. The actions we took, the investments we made, and the approach we embraced demonstrated that commitment and earned the confidence of Canadians.
The motion before us also speaks to the importance of the Trans Mountain expansion project to the Canadian economy and in creating thousands of jobs. Indeed, this $7.4 billion project will have significant economic benefits. The project is expected to create 15,000 new jobs during construction. This is good news for workers in Alberta, it is good news for workers in British Columbia, and it is good news for all of Canada. It is also good news for indigenous peoples, who will benefit from jobs and business opportunities as a result of the impact and benefit agreements they have signed with Kinder Morgan.
The Trans Mountain expansion is also expected to generate more than $3 billion in revenue for governments, revenues that can be used to invest in health care, schools, water treatment plants, and safer roads, improving the lives of millions of Canadians. This is a vital project in a vital industry, an industry that has been hit hard over the past few years.
I know that every member in the House understands what the effect of lower oil prices has been for Albertans. The economic impacts may be measured in rigs being closed, barrels cut, or investments deferred, but they are felt in the lives of families and experienced in hard conversations around kitchen tables. We took action to support families in the energy sector by extending EI benefits in affected regions, including parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, northern Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. We also provided additional support to families in the prairie provinces under the Canada child benefit.
To give more Canadians greater access to good, well-paying jobs, our government invested in training for unemployed and underemployed workers and will develop a new framework to support union-based apprenticeship training.
For families in Alberta and British Columbia, the Trans Mountain expansion project offers much-needed help and good jobs. It is no wonder, then, that Premier Notley praised the Prime Minister for extraordinary leadership and said, “It has been a long, dark night for the people of Alberta.... [But] we are finally seeing some morning light.”
The Premier also pointed to a key benefit of this project when she said, “We're getting a chance to reduce our dependence on one market, and therefore to be more economically independent. And we're getting a chance to pick ourselves up and move forward again.”
Nor is it just Canadians in Alberta and British Columbia who will benefit from the Trans Mountain expansion project. A 2014 study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute found that for every job created in Alberta's oil patch, at least two more jobs were created across the country. It could be a manufacturing company in Ontario, an engineering firm in Quebec, or an oil worker commuting from one of our coasts. Quite simply, a strong energy industy strengthens us all, and projects such as the Trans Mountain expansion benefit all Canadians.
The motion also points out the environmental soundness of this project, as determined by the National Energy Board. In approving this project, our government considered the evidence and weighed the facts. We agree with the National Energy Board that the project should proceed, subject to the 157 binding conditions that will be enforced by the board.
Our government considered the fact that without new pipelines, more diluted bitumen would be forced into more rail tanker cars for transport. That would be less economic, more dangerous for communities, and would produce higher greenhouse gas emissions.
At the same time that we approved the Trans Mountain expansion project, we also announced a ban on oil tankers on the northern B.C. coastline, specifically around Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound. This coastline is vital to the livelihoods and cultures of indigenous and coastal communities and is part of a unique and ecologically sensitive region.
Hon. members will know that Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, has now been introduced in this House. I look forward to their support for this vital legislation in the days ahead. As the Minister of Transport has said, the Great Bear region is no place for an oil pipeline, and it is no place for oil tankers either.
Our government has also made the most significant investment ever to protect our oceans and coastlines, with a $1.5-billion oceans protection plan that includes improving marine traffic monitoring; setting tougher requirements on industry, including for spill response times; making navigation safer; and co-managing our coast with indigenous and coastal communities.
Our government is also committed to consistently increasing our action on climate change. A 1.5-degree world helps no one, and that includes every one of us here and every Canadian we represent. Inaction comes at too high a cost, whereas a clean growth economy will build more good, middle-class jobs across the country.
These measures reinforce the importance of carefully balancing environmental protection with economic development as Canada makes the transition to a low-carbon economy.
The motion put forward by my hon. colleague points out that the Trans Mountain expansion project falls under federal jurisdiction for approval and regulation. Certainly the Constitution assigns the federal government jurisdiction over interprovincial and international trade. With that jurisdiction comes responsibility to consult widely, to act prudently, and to stand firmly.
We know that there are some who disagree with our decision to approve this project and that they may use the legal system to seek redress. We respect their right to do so, but we will strongly defend our decision in court.
Our position is clear: the jurisdiction is federal, the decision has been made, and our government will continue to support the Trans Mountain expansion project. On every aspect of this motion, our government finds itself in full agreement. Indeed, as I said in this House to a question from the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn, I appreciate their making the case for us.
As I have said many times, one of our government's key responsibilities is to help get Canadian resources to market. With our major customer, the United States, producing more of its own energy, it is essential that Canada build the infrastructure to get our oil and gas to new global markets. That is exactly why we have approved projects such as the Trans Mountain expansion, doing more in one year than the previous government did in a decade: protecting our oceans, pricing carbon pollution, resetting our nation-to-nation relations, building a climate change plan, and putting middle-class Canadians back to work today by approving the pipelines we need to reach those new markets.
There is one final element of this motion that I have not yet addressed: that the Trans Mountain expansion project “should be constructed with the continued support of the federal government, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister personally announcing the approval of the project.”
I would have thought that the answer to that request would have been clear from the Prime Minister's statements of the past week, so I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle ask in this House whether the Prime Minister will “stand up to the forces that are seeking to kill these jobs, or will he fold like a cardboard cut-out?” If I may paraphrase one of the more famous phrases uttered by one our heroes, Sir Winston Churchill, in this very place, some cardboard, some cut-out.
Our government will not falter. We will not fail. We will certainly not fold in our support of the Trans Mountain expansion project, nor will we shy away from being a leading force in the global clean growth economy. Neither can be ignored. It is the right thing to do for Canada.
Results: 1 - 15 of 25 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data