Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 7 of 7
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 1260--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to comments made by the Minister of Finance on October 19, 2017, that he has recused himself “at least twice” in order to avoid a conflict of interest: (a) how many times has the Minister recused himself in order to avoid a conflict of interest; and (b) for each instance in (a), (i) what was the topic or item, (ii) on what date did the Minister become aware that the item could cause a conflict of interest, (iii) on what date did the Minister recuse himself, (iv) on what date did the Minister report his recusal to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is an independent officer of the House of Commons who administers the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is responsible for helping appointed and elected officials prevent and avoid conflicts between their public duties and private interests.
As per her recommendations, the conflict of interest screen is administered by the minister’s chief of staff and supported by the department. Instances that are caught by the conflict of interest screen are reported to the Ethics Commissioner’s office.
Minister Morneau continues to work closely with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure all the rules are being followed, and has gone above and beyond her recommendations.

Question No. 1262--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the announcement made by the Minister of Finance in Hampton, New Brunswick, on October 18, 2017: why was the Member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay not invited to attend the announcement?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance is unable to respond as it is does not manage the Minister of Finance’s invitations to parliamentarians.

Question No. 1263--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and Assembly of First Nations v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal File No. T134017008: what are the total legal costs incurred by the government in this matter since January 25, 2016?
Response
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal crown asserts that privilege and, in this case, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs. Justice lawyers, notaries, and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no external legal costs were incurred. Based upon the hours recorded, client departments are charged an internal government rate. In this case, the calculation amounts to $807,000 since January 29, 2016.

Question No. 1264--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to Statistics Canada's Table 204-0001, “High income trends of tax filers in Canada, provinces and territories, and census metropolitan areas (CMA), national thresholds annual (percent)”, for 2015 and 2016, and broken down by year: (a) what is the number of tax filers in the (i) top 1%, (ii) top 10%, (iii) bottom 50%; and (b) what is the percentage of federal and provincial or territorial income tax paid as a percentage of total tax paid for each group in (a)?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Statistics Canada's Table 204-0001, ''High income trends of tax filers in Canada, provinces and territories, and census metropolitan areas (CMA), national thresholds annual (percent)'', for 2015 and 2016, and broken down by year, the 2015 update will be released on November 15, 2017. Data for 2016 will be released the following November, 2018.

Question No. 1265--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard Ship Hudson: (a) when will the ship be back in service; (b) why did the refit of the ship not meet its original completion date and has the refit of the ship been delayed; (c) will the refit be completed under the original $4 million budget and, if not, what is the new budget; (d) how many voyages and research missions have been cancelled as a result of the delay; (e) what are the details of the cancellations in (d); and (f) what are the details of any briefing notes related to the ship, including for each the (i) recipient, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number?
Response
Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary for Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), on November 13, 2017, the CCGS Hudson arrived at its home base of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Further work, which has been planned for many months, will be undertaken on the Hudson in preparation for its 2018 programming which is projected to commence on April 4, 2018.
With regard to part (b), the refit of the vessel did not meet its original completion date, as the refit work being carried out by a contractor was not completed on time.
With regard to part (c), the contract for the refit has not been amended to increase the budget. A determination of the final budget cannot be made at this time, as Public Services and Procurement Canada is reviewing the terms of the contract with the original shipyard.
With regard to part (d), a total of seven science missions were impacted due to the unavailability of the CCGS Hudson for the 2017 field season. Of those, one mission was conducted on another Coast Guard vessel, four requests for proposals were issued to carry out other missions on charter vessels, one mission was cancelled outright, and another mission was substantially reduced.
With regard to part (e), the two missions involving cancellations are as follows. The majority of the Atlantic zone off-shelf monitoring program, AZOMP, mission scheduled for May 2017 was cancelled as the initial attempt to charter a vessel was unsuccessful. Some of the high-priority activities, namely the recovery of a subsurface oceanographic mooring and the deployment of Argo floats in the Labrador Sea, have been rescheduled on other Coast Guard vessels. The Natural Resources Canada Baffin Bay geoscience mission had to be cancelled, as no charter was available for the required time frame to conduct the mission.
With regard to part (f), (i) Commissioner Thomas; (ii) September 13, 2016; (iii) Gregory Lick, Director General, Operations; (iv) Memorandum for the Commissioner Vessel Life Extension of CCGS Hudson; (v) The memo seeks effective project approval and spending authority to proceed with the vessel life extension of the CCGS Hudson, at a cost of $26.6 million. The memo also explains that the department will manage project expenditures until the funds become available in fall 2016. (vi) GCCMS: 2016-012-00707; EKME#3656821.
Not all briefing notes are included, pursuant to the government security policy and/or the Access to Information Act.

Question No. 1266--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the 3 metric tonnes of Nova Scotia lobster confiscated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on October 16, 2017: (a) what country were the lobsters destined for; (b) who owned or was in possession of the lobsters prior to confiscation; (c) what are the reasons for the confiscation; (d) what was the condition of the lobsters on October 16, 2017 (alive, processed, etc.); (e) what is the current status and condition of the lobsters; (f) where and how were the lobsters stored or located once confiscated; and (g) what is the process by which the lobsters will be disposed of (sold as government surplus, returned to water, etc.)?
Response
Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary for Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as this occurrence is the subject of an ongoing investigation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada cannot respond to this question at this time.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1253--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to disbursements through the Treasury Board Secretariat for trustee fees, in order to establish and maintain a blind trust, since November 4, 2015: (a) did the Minister of Finance claim any such expenses; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the amounts?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Finance Canada has not disbursed trustee fees in order to establish and maintain a blind trust since November 4, 2015.

Question No. 1256--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the implementation of a lottery system for the parent and grandparent stream of family reunification, broken down by province and by country of origin of sponsored individuals: (a) how many online applications for the 10,000 sponsorship spots were submitted; (b) how many applications were repeat submissions from the same sponsor; (c) how many applications were repeat submissions for the same sponsored individual; (d) of the original 10,000 applications that were drawn, how many were deemed ineligible on the basis of (i) being incomplete, (ii) not meeting financial requirements, (iii) not submitting the full application after being selected, (iv) was a repeat submission by the same sponsor, (v) was a repeat submission for the same individual being sponsored (iv) other reasons; (e) when were department officials made aware that fewer than 10,000 eligible applications were selected; (f) what was the decision-making process to determine a second lottery drawing would occur; (g) to date, how many completed applications have been submitted; (h) how many completed applications have been returned due to errors; (i) what is the current average processing time for these applications; (j) how many online applications were considered eligible for the draw; and (k) how many applications will be selected in the second lottery draw?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), IRCC received 100,211 interest to sponsor web form submissions.
With regard to part (b), from the 100,211 interest to sponsor web form submissions received, the department identified and removed 5,113 duplicates.
With regard to part (c), the interest to sponsor web form did not include a field to identify the individual(s) to be sponsored. As such, the department cannot determine how many of those who submitted an interest to sponsor wish to sponsor the same individual. If a potential sponsor was chosen, they could sponsor their parent(s) and grandparent(s).
With regard to part (d), the department is still receiving parent and grandparent applications for 2017. For the first round of invitations, potential sponsors had until August 4, 2017, for IRCC to receive their complete applications. IRCC received 6,020 applications. IRCC validates that the sponsor was invited to submit an application and conducts a completeness check before starting processing. Eligibility is determined as part of processing an application. As such, IRCC does not know how many applications will be ineligible.
With regard to part (e), for the first round of invitations, potential sponsors were given until August 4, 2017, for IRCC to receive a complete application. The department confirmed that 6,020 applications were received from the first round of invitations and has now invited additional potential sponsors to submit complete applications. These potential sponsors have until December 8, 2017, for IRCC to receive a complete application. Eligibility is determined as part of processing an application. As such, we do not know how many applications will be ineligible.
With regard to part (f), since the department did not receive 10,000 complete applications as of August 4, 2017, additional individuals from the randomized list of persons who submitted an interest to sponsor were invited to submit an application to sponsor their parents or grandparents. The department is committed to receiving as close to 10,000 complete applications as possible in 2017.
With regard to part (g), the department is still receiving parent and grandparent applications for 2017 and completeness checks are ongoing. For the first round of invitations, sponsors had until August 4, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application. IRCC received 6,020 applications in the first round of invitations. For the second round of invitations, potential sponsors have until December 8, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application.
With regard to part (h), IRCC is still receiving parent and grandparent applications for 2017 and completeness checks are ongoing. For the first round of invitations, potential sponsors had until August 4, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application. For the second round of invitations, potential sponsors have until December 8, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application. If potential sponsors are missing a document, they are able to submit a letter of explanation in lieu of the document. IRCC is being facilitative in order to minimize rejections.
With regard to part (i), processing times are posted on the IRCC website. Please see the following link for the latest processing times for parent and grandparent applications: www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/times/index.asp.
With regard to part (j), IRCC received 100,211 interest to sponsor web form submissions. After duplicates were removed, the department had 95,098 interest to sponsor web forms. IRCC validates and checks the completeness of the applications before starting processing. Eligibility is determined as part of processing an application. As such, we do not know how many applications will be ineligible.
With regard to part (k), IRCC worked to determine how many potential sponsors should be invited throughout the year to yield up to 10,000 complete applications. Applications received are still being validated to confirm the sponsor was invited to submit an application and to ensure the application is complete. Potential sponsors who were invited in the second round of invitations have until December 8, 2017, for IRCC to receive their application.

Question No. 1258--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985: did the Minister of Finance sign the memorandum to Cabinet proposing the Bill?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the name of a minister who signed a memorandum to cabinet, like the memorandum itself, is a cabinet confidence.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1237--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the decision taken by the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on July 7, 2017, to inscribe Hebron and the Tomb of the Patriarchs as a Palestinian site on the World Heritage List and on the List of World Heritage in Danger: what is the government’s official position on the UNESCO decision?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is disappointed by the continued politicization of the work of the world heritage committee as evidenced by the decision to include the Old Town of Hebron/Al-Khalil on the list of World Heritage in Danger.
This decision hurts UNESCO and it does nothing to advance prospects for the comprehensive, just, and lasting peace to which we aspire for the sake of all Israelis and Palestinians.
Canada is not a member of UNESCO’s world heritage committee. Therefore, Canada could not vote against this decision, but expressed our opposition during the world heritage committee meeting in Krakow, Poland, in July 2017.

Question No. 1238--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to the conflict of interest screen for the Minister of Finance: (a) since November 4, 2015, how many times did the chief of staff warn or notify the Minister that he may be contravening the conflict of interest screen; (b) when did each instance in (a) occur and what was the nature of each warning or notification; (c) for each instance in (a), was action taken as a result of the warning or notification, and if so, what action was taken; (d) did the Minister disclose the fact that Morneau Shepell relocated its headquarters to Barbados in 2016 to his chief of staff; (e) did the Minister attend any meetings concerning the Barbados tax treaty or the use of Barbados as a tax haven, and if so, did the Minister inform his chief of staff about the meeting; and (f) did the chief of staff advise the Minister that the changes proposed in the consultation paper “Tax Planning Using Private Corporations” could benefit Morneau Shepell or the Minister personally, and if so, on what date was the advice given?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is an independent officer of the House of Commons who administers the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is responsible for helping appointed and elected officials prevent and avoid conflicts between their public duties and private interests.
Per her recommendations, the conflict of interest screen is administered by the minister’s chief of staff and supported by the department. Instances that are caught by the conflict of interest screen are reported to the Ethics Commissioner’s office.
Minister Morneau continues to work closely with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure all the rules are being followed, and has gone above and beyond her recommendations.

Question No. 1239--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to correspondence, in both paper and electronic format, between the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister, in relation to the proposed tax changes announced by the Minister of Finance on July 18, 2017: what are the details of all such correspondence, including the (i) date, (ii) format (email, letter), (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) title, (vi) summary of contents?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office does not have any correspondence, neither in paper nor electronic format, between the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister, in relation to the proposed tax changes announced by the Minister of Finance on July 18, 2017.

Question No. 1241--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to the Minister of Finance’s paper entitled “Tax Planning Using Private Corporations” and the consultations, which closed on October 2, 2017: (a) how many submissions did the Department of Finance receive by (i) mail (paper), (ii) email, (iii) phone; (b) for each submission in (a), what are the details, broken down by submitter’s (i) profession, (ii) province; (c) how many submissions were in favour of the government’s proposed changes to passive income rules; (d) how many submissions were opposed to the government’s proposed changes to passive income rules; (e) how many submissions were in favour of the government’s proposed changes to so-called “income sprinkling” rules; (f) how many submissions were opposed to the government’s proposed changes to so-called “income sprinkling” rules; (g) how many submissions were in favour of the government’s proposed changes to so-called “income stripping” rules; (h) how many submissions were opposed to the government’s proposed changes to so-called “income stripping” rules; (i) how many submissions were received after the deadline, and what did the government do with these submissions; (j) which section of the Department of Finance was responsible for receiving submissions; (k) what is the government’s estimation of revenue to be generated by the proposed changes to passive income rules; (l) what is the government’s estimation of revenue to be generated by the proposed changes to so-called “income sprinkling” rules; and (m) what is the government’s estimation of revenue to be generated by the proposed changes to so-called “income stripping” rules?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), over 21,000 submissions were received in response to the consultation on tax planning using private corporations via email in the dedicated consultation mailbox. This total includes over 11,000 form letters. In addition to the emails received through the consultation mailbox, over 10,000 related items of correspondence to the Minister of Finance were received by the department.
With regard to part (b), the department has not kept a record or a tally of submissions based on their source, such as place of residence, occupation, etc. Individuals and groups making submissions to the consultation mailbox were not asked to provide this information .
With regard to parts (c) to (h), the department is in the process of reviewing submissions to ensure that comments and proposals are properly taken into account in the further development of the policy. Through this process, the department is not keeping a record or a tally of all these submissions based on their degree or type of support. That said, various opinions were expressed.
With regard to part (i), the consultation mailbox received over 200 submissions via email from October 2, 2017 to October 17, 2017, i.e., the date of the question. Concerns raised in these submissions will be considered by the Department of Finance.
With regard to part (j), the tax policy branch of the Department of Finance is receiving the submissions directly.
With regard to part (k), as announced in the fall economic statement 2017, the government will propose measures to limit tax deferral opportunities related to passive investments, and will release draft legislation as part of budget 2018. The department will provide a revenue estimate after key design aspects are determined.
With regard to part (l), the government’s estimation of revenue to be generated by the proposed measures to limit income sprinkling using private corporations is about $215 million in 2018-19, growing to $245 million by 2022-23.
With regard to part (m), the government announced in the fall economic statement 2017 that it is no longer moving forward on the proposed changes regarding the conversion of income into capital gains and that the draft legislative proposals released with the consultation will not proceed.

Question No. 1242--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the working group referred to by the Minister of Finance’s spokesman in the Toronto Star on February 28, 2017, “to collaborate on transparency and beneficial ownership”: (a) what is the mandate of the working group; (b) on what date was the working group created; (c) on what date does the working group anticipate concluding; (d) since being created, on which dates has the working group met; (e) for each meeting in (d), what were the items on the agenda; (f) what is the membership of the working group, broken down by (i) position or title, (ii) level of government, (iii) department, (iv) responsibilities related to the working group; (g) who was present for each meeting in (d); (h) was the Minister of Finance present for any items pertaining to Barbados being used as a tax haven; (i) If the answer to (h) is affirmative, did the Minister disclose the fact that his company, Morneau Shepell, relocated its headquarters in 2016 to Barbados; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, did the Minister inform his chief of staff; (k) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, did the Minister inform the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; and (l) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, did the Minister inform the Prime Minister?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), the Government of Canada is committed to implementing strong standards for corporate and beneficial ownership transparency that provide safeguards against money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion, and tax avoidance, while continuing to facilitate the ease of doing business in Canada. Timely access for competent authorities to accurate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information is vital for combatting illicit financial flows, including money laundering, terrorist financing, and tax evasion and avoidance.
The federal-provincial committee on taxation is a committee composed of senior federal, provincial, and territorial tax officials who meet generally on a semi-annual basis to discuss common tax policy issues and examine their consequences for the national and provincial/territorial economies. The proposal to create a working group of federal, provincial, and territorial officials to examine tax avoidance and evasion, with the first issue proposed for examination being strengthening the collection of beneficial ownership information, was first adopted at the federal-provincial committee on taxation held June 6-7, 2016 in Winnipeg and support for the formation of this working group was confirmed by finance minister at the federal, provincial, and territorial finance ministers’ meeting on June 19 and 20, 2016. Key objectives for the working group are to raise awareness and understanding of the international standards and importance of corporate and beneficial ownership transparency, and collaborate on identifying and advancing options to improve availability of accurate beneficial ownership information.
With regard to parts (c) to (e), the work of the working group is ongoing. The working group met via conference call on September 26, 2016, February 14, 2017, September 12, 2017, and September 29, 2017.
The objective of the working group is to collaborate to advance the issue of strengthening the transparency and collection of beneficial ownership information. The agenda for the first meetings centered on the development of the working group’s objectives and terms of reference and an analysis of the current state of the corporate registry requirements in each of the participating jurisdictions. Subsequent working group meetings have focused on an international comparison regarding what other jurisdictions have proposed or introduced to strengthen the collection of beneficial ownership information and a discussion on potential options for strengthening the collection of beneficial ownership information.
With regard to parts (f) to (l), the working group operates at the officials’ level. Participants at the federal level are officials from the Department of Finance responsible for tax policy, in the tax legislation division, and financial sector policy, financial crimes, and officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada responsible for federal corporate law policy, marketplace framework policy and Corporations Canada. The working group is supported by at least one official from each of the provinces and territories with responsibility for tax and/or corporate law policy.
Various officials from the Department of Finance, from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and from most or all provinces and territories participated in each working group meeting, but specific attendance was not recorded.
The working group has not discussed items pertaining to the use of any particular jurisdiction for the purposes of tax avoidance or tax evasion.

Question No. 1244--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the relationship between the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the Standards Council of Canada and the Department of Industry, since January 1, 2016: (a) what role does the CSA play in the development or recommendation of regulations imposed by the Department of Industry; (b) what specific measures are in place to ensure that groups recommending standards or regulations are not influenced by foreign money; (c) what specific regulations, which were recommended by the CSA, have been put into place by either the Standards Council of Canada or the Department of Industry; (d) what is the website location of any regulations referred to in (c); and (e) what are the details of any memorandums at the Department of Indsutry, which reference the CSA, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) file number?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Canadian Standards Association, operating as CSA Group, is one of nine standards development organizations accredited by the Standards Council of Canada, SCC, which can be found at: www.scc.ca/en/accreditation/standards/directory-of-accredited-standards-development-organizations. CSA Group is not a regulatory entity and does not report to the Minister of Innovation, Science or Economic Development, ISED, either directly or indirectly through the SCC. SCC is a federal crown corporation whose role includes the coordination of Canada’s voluntary standardization network. SCC does not have any regulatory authority in its mandate.
With regard to part (b), SCC is not aware of any specific measures in place to ensure that groups recommending standards or regulations are not influenced by foreign money. SCC takes its mandate from the Standards Council of Canada Act, its governing legislation, to promote efficient and effective voluntary standardization in Canada, which can be found at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-16/index.html. SCC promotes the participation of Canadians in voluntary standards activities and coordinates and oversees the efforts of the persons and organizations involved in Canada’s standardization network.
With regard to part (c), neither SCC nor CSA Group is a regulatory entity. SCC is not aware of any regulations put in place that have been recommended by CSA Group.
With regard to part (d), neither SCC nor CSA is a regulatory entity.
With regard to part (e), ISED officials have confirmed that there are no active memoranda referencing the CSA since January 1, 2016.

Question No. 1248--
Mr. Bob Benzen:
With regard to the decision by the Ontario Superintendent of Financial Services to appoint Morneau Shepell as the administrator for the pension plan of Sears Canada Incorporated: (a) when did the Department of Finance first become aware of the decision; (b) which other departments or agencies were notified of the decision, and when were they notified; (c) was any government agency or department consulted prior to naming Morneau Shepell as the administrator, and if so, (i) who was consulted, (ii) on what date did consultation take place; (d) did the Minister of Finance recuse himself from this matter; and (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative (i) what specific steps were taken by the Minister, (ii) on what date did the Minister recuse himself, (iii) who is replacing the Minister with regard to ministerial responsibility on this file?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, private pension plans are regulated under the applicable pension standards legislation, which can be either federal or provincial, depending on the employer’s business operations. Plans sponsored by employers in federally regulated industries, which include banking, interprovincial transportation, and telecommunications, are regulated under the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, PBSA.
The Sears pension plan falls under provincial jurisdiction and is regulated by the Ontario Pension Benefits Act. Decisions pertaining to the supervision and administration of this plan are the sole responsibility of the Ontario Superintendent of Financial Services. The federal Department of Finance is not involved in any way.

Question No. 1251--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to appointments by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) of administrators to wind-up the pension plans of bankrupt or insolvent companies, since January 1, 2004: (a) has OSFI hired Morneau Shepell; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each instance, including the (i) internal tracking number, (ii) name of the company for which OSFI was seeking an administrator, (iii) date OSFI commenced its search for an administrator, (iv) date Morneau Shepell was hired, (v) date the contract was approved by the Treasury Board Secretariat, (vi) value of the contract, (vii) position or title of the public servant who approved the contract, (viii) date Morneau Shepell concluded its work?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI, is an independent federal government agency, established under the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, that regulates and supervises more than 400 federally regulated financial institutions and 1,200 private pension plans to determine whether they are in sound financial condition and meeting their regulatory and supervisory requirements.
OSFI is funded mainly through assessments on the financial institutions and private pension plans that it regulates. The deputy head of OSFI is the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, who is appointed for a seven-year term and may not be removed without cause.
OSFI does not hire replacement administrators, rather it has the authority to appoint a replacement administrator under subsection 7.6(1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, PBSA. As such, there is no formal contract between OSFI and an appointed replacement administrator. OSFI does not consult with the Department of Finance on the appointment of replacement administrators.
As per the provisions of the PBSA, a replacement administrator is appointed if the plan administrator is insolvent or unable to act or the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the members, or former members, or any other persons entitled to pension benefits under the plan that the administrator be removed. Replacement administrators may recover their reasonable fees and expenses from the pension fund.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1188--
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau:
With regard to funding applications from dairy producers submitted to the Dairy Farm Investment Program (DFIP) during the first application window, which ended August 29, 2017: (a) what is the total number of applications received from producers, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) applications approved per province and territory, (iii) applications rejected per province and territory, (iv) applications put on a waiting list per province and territory; (b) how many applications for large investment projects have been received, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) applications approved per province and territory, (iii) applications rejected per province and territory, (iv) applications put on a waiting list per province and territory; (c) how many applications for small investment projects were received, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) applications approved per province and territory, (iii) applications rejected per province and territory, (iv) applications put on a waiting list per province and territory; (d) how much of the total $250 million in DFIP funding has been allocated, broken down by (i) large investment project, (ii) small investment project, (iii) province and territory; (e) what is the total value of funding applications that were rejected, broken down by (i) large investment project, (ii) small investment project, (iii) province and territory; and (f) how much of the total amount has already been allocated to Quebec producers, broken down by (i) large investment project, (ii) small investment project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1190--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the protection of Canadian journalists working abroad: (a) has the Canadian government raised any concerns with the Chinese government regarding freedom of the press in China following the detention of Globe and Mail journalist Nathan VanderKlippe; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including (i) the date, (ii) who raised the concerns, (iii) with whom, within the Chinese government, were the concerns raised; and (c) what response, if any, has been received by the Canadian government in response to any concerns raised?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1194--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to correspondence received by the Minister of Finance from Liberal Members of Parliament in relation to the proposed tax changes which were announced on July 18, 2017: what are the details of all such correspondence, including for each piece the (i) date, (ii) Member’s riding, (iii) title, (iv) date response was sent by the Minister of Finance, if applicable, (v) file numbers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1199--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the legal settlement paid to Omar Khadr: (a) on which date was the settlement between the parties signed; (b) what was the date of the settlement’s payment; (c) what is the average processing time between the settlement and the payment regarding out-of-court settlements paid by the government; (d) were there any orders given to expedite the payment to Omar Khadr; and (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, who gave the order
Response
(Return tabled)

*Question No. 1224--
Mr. Ed Fast:
With regard to the tendering and construction of a new fire hall in Grasslands National Park: (a) what are the details of the tender, including (i) criteria, (ii) amount of the winning bid, (iii) winning firm, (iv) number of bidders; (b) what are the details of the construction of the new fire hall, including (i) total budget, (ii) construction start date, (iii) expected completion date; (iv) overall construction budget; and (c) what are the details of any government expenditures in relation to the new fire hall, with the exception of the tendered payment to the winning bidder referred to in (a), including (i) date, (ii) vendor or recipient, (iii) description of goods or services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 596--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) how many jobs were created through this program from 2014 to 2016, broken down by year; and (b) for each of these years, how many jobs (i) were full time, (ii) were part time, (iii) lasted more than 12 weeks, (iv) lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, (v) lasted between 4 and 8 weeks, (vi) lasted less than 4 weeks?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the jobs created by the Canada Summer Jobs, or CSJ, program are as follows: for 2014, 34,538; for 2015, 34,470; and for 2016, 65,874.
For 2014, with regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), through CSJ there were 34,538 full-time and part-time jobs. It should be noted that jobs must be full time--i.e., from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Under exceptional circumstances, students with disabilities or with other barriers to full-time employment are eligible to work part time.
With regard to (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v), and (b)(vi), the estimated duration is based on average project data: 11% of the jobs lasted more than 12 weeks; 51% of the jobs lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, and 38% of the jobs lasted less than 8 weeks.
For 2015, with regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), through CSJ there were 34,470 full-time and part-time jobs. It should be noted that jobs must be full time--i.e., from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Under exceptional circumstances, students with disabilities or with other barriers to full-time employment are eligible to work part time.
With regard to (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v), and (b)(vi), the estimated duration is based on average project data: 11% of the jobs lasted more than 12 weeks; 66% of the jobs lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, and 23% of the jobs lasted less than 8 weeks.
For 2016, with regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), through CSJ there were 68,874 full-time and part-time jobs. It should be noted that jobs must be full time--i.e., from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Under exceptional circumstances, students with disabilities or with other barriers to full-time employment are eligible to work part time.
With regard to (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v), and (b)(vi), the estimated duration is based on average project data: 2.5% of the jobs lasted more than 12 weeks; 77.5% of the jobs lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, and 20% of the jobs lasted less than 8 weeks.

Question No. 598--
Mr. Alupa Clarke:
With regard to Supplementary Estimates (B), 2016-17 and the $46.7 million listed for Public Works and Government Services Canada under “Funding for incremental costs related to post-implementation pay operations”, how was the total of this funding used, broken down by line item and expense?
Response
Hon. Judy Foote (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of November 10, 2016, the supplementary estimates (B) have had not been approved by Parliament.
Should they be approved by Parliament as tabled, PSPC plans to allocate this funding (of $47.6 million) in the following way: $5.7 million for additional support provided by IBM, which includes 24-7 troubleshooting support and refinements to processes and functionality.; $22.2 million for satellite offices in various locations, including Gatineau, Montreal, Shawinigan, and Winnipeg, as well as the call centres in Toronto and Ottawa.; $14.6 million for additional resources to manage our complaints centre, provide training and support to departments, and provide other support to ensure that system maintenance is performed with minimal disruption and that systems interacting with Phoenix are running as they should; and . $4.2 million as contingency to address unforeseen issues as they arise.
This is also subject to receiving the necessary spending authorities from Treasury Board.

Question No. 605--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the regulations and guidelines outlined in sections 241.31 (3) and 241.31 (3.1) of the Criminal Code: (a) since June 17, 2016, has the Minister of Health established a process for monitoring and reporting on medical assistance in dying; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, what information has been gathered, on (i) the types of medical conditions that motivate requests, (ii) whether the safeguards in the law are working as intended, (iii) demographic information about people who request the service, (iv) whether there are regional differences in how the service is carried out across Canada, (v) the number of requests made for medical assistance in dying both approved and not approved; (c) what are the details of any statistics available related to information gathered; and (d) if the answer to (a) is in the negative, what steps has the Minister of Health undertaken to begin collecting the information in (b)?
Response
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the new legislation, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), formerly Bill C-14, authorizes the federal Minister of Health to make regulations for the purpose of establishing a system for monitoring medical assistance in dying.
With regard to (a), a process for monitoring and reporting on medical assistance in dying is currently being developed. While most sections amending the Criminal Code to permit the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying came into force with the passage of the legislation, the sections on monitoring, sections 4 and 5, will come into force 12 months later--i.e., June 17, 2017. This means that the federal Minister of Health’s authority to make regulations with respect to monitoring will only become active at that point, but it does not require that the regulations be completed by that time.
For these reasons, (b) and (c) are not applicable.
With regard to (d), federal officials are currently working on the parameters of a federal monitoring and reporting system, including what information will be collected; to whom it must be sent; information technology requirements; and how information will be protected, analyzed, and released. The complexity of these regulations and the consequences for health care professionals require that the government must take the time necessary to get the regulations right, and include opportunities for consultations. Until these federal regulations are in place, health care professionals will not be required to provide information to the federal government; however, each province and territory has its own approach to the implementation and oversight of medical assistance in dying and may require its health care providers to provide data for these purposes.
All governments in Canada recognize the importance of timely public reporting on medical assistance in dying. To this end, federal, provincial, and territorial officials are working collaboratively to produce interim reports with available national data during the regulatory development period.
The government expects an initial release of data in early 2017. Subsequent interim reports will be released on a periodic basis until annual reporting commences under the federal regulatory regime.

Question No. 606--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to the Minister of Finance’s involvement in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) what were the findings of the risk analyses conducted by the Department of Finance to justify two federal loan guarantees of $6.3 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively, to enable Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor to carry out the Muskrat Falls project; (b) does the Department recommend that the government offer further loan guarantees to cover the project’s rising costs; (c) is the value of the assets of the Muskrat Falls project greater than the $9.2 billion in loan guarantees; (d) does the fee of 0.5 per cent that the government applied to the $2.9-billion loan guarantee announced in November 2016 indicate that this new extension of funds will not be backed by Muskrat Falls assets; (e) has the Department assessed the ability of the Newfoundland and Labrador government to repay the federal government in relation to the Muskrat Falls project should the federal loan guarantee be implemented and, if so, what were the findings of the assessment; and (f) has the government considered the possibility that Newfoundland and Labrador may default on payments to the government following the implementation of the federal loan guarantee, which enabled it to carry out the Muskrat Falls projects, and, if so, what conclusion did the government reach?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (e), and (f), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes advice or recommendations and cabinet confidences.
With regard to (c), Nalcor Energy, found at www.nalcorenergy.com/publications.asp, and Emera Inc., found at http://investors.emera.com/corporateprofile.aspx?iid=4072693, both value property, plant, and equipment assets at historical cost in their financial statements. Once construction is completed, costs and therefore asset values are expected to be in excess of total federal loan guarantees.
With regard to part (d), the specific conditions of additional loan guarantee support will be negotiated with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor Energy in the near future with provisions for commercial terms. The Government of Canada will remain protected by a strong legal construct, as with the first federal loan guarantee.

Question No. 608--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to the involvement of the Minister of Natural Resources in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) on the basis of what analysis did the Minister decide that the Muskrat Falls facility would enable Nalcor to cover project costs; (b) at what price will the electricity produced at Muskrat Falls have to be sold for to enable the project to achieve a breakeven point; (c) before offering a new loan guarantee of $2.9 billion, did the Minister conduct market research to determine that the price of electricity in the Atlantic provinces and northeastern United States would enable the Muskrat Falls project to achieve a breakeven point; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what were the findings of this study?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the cost recovery framework for Muskrat Falls consists of a series of revenue agreements available on the Muskrat Falls website at https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/newsroom/reports/, in English only, in provincial legislation, and in orders in council. This cost recovery framework legally requires that all project costs be recovered from electricity consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of the final costs.
With regard to (b), the prices paid to the project entities will be set at a value that ensures full cost recovery plus a return on equity. These prices will be determined once the projects are complete and the final construction cost is known.
With regard to (c), the Muskrat Falls project’s viability is not dependent on electricity exports; all project costs will be covered by electricity consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador. As such, no market research was required to determine whether export prices would enable achievement of a break-even point.
For these reasons, (d) is not applicable.

Question No. 609--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to the involvement of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) before authorizing the Muskrat Falls project, did the Minister ensure that the necessary environmental assessments were completed pursuant to the Fisheries Act, particularly as regards mercury contamination of fish stocks; (b) was the Minister informed of the findings of independent studies indicating that the Muskrat Falls project would result in high levels of contamination and, if so, why did the Minister not cancel the authorization?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, was actively involved in the environmental assessment of the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project, which was carried out by a federal-provincial joint review panel and concluded in August 2011. Among other things, the environmental assessment examined in considerable detail the bioaccumulation of methylmercury as a result of the project. It was recognized during this environmental assessment that the Muskrat Falls component of the project and other hydroelectric projects on the Churchill River would likely result in some bioaccumulation of methylmercury, including in downstream areas.
During the environmental assessment, DFO reviewed various technical documents, submitted information requests, and prepared both a written submission and an oral presentation for the hearings. DFO provided expert science-based advice that downstream bioaccumulation of methylmercury could be greater and extend further than predicted by the proponent, Nalcor Energy. This was recognized in the report and conclusions of the joint review panel. In response to the joint review panel’s conclusions and recommendations, the Government of Canada required Nalcor Energy to extend downstream methylmercury monitoring into Goose Bay and Lake Melville. This monitoring would assess the extent and duration of any increases in methylmercury in fish and seals and enable Nalcor Energy to implement consumption advisories if needed.
The requirement to implement a comprehensive methylmercury monitoring program was formally prescribed as a condition of the authorization DFO issued to Nalcor in 2013, under section 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act, for impacts on fish and fish habitat from the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam and reservoir creation.
With regard to (b), over the past three years, the Nunatsiavut government has carried out and supported studies on methylmercury in Lake Melville, including work by Harvard University researchers published in 2015. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, was made aware of these studies as a result of meetings with the Nunatsiavut government in October of 2015.
In February 2016, DFO carried out a scientific review of the implications of the Harvard study on methylmercury in Lake Melville through a Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, or CSAS, process. DFO and Environment and Climate Change Canada scientists determined that predictions in the Harvard study were consistent with the advice the DFO provided during the environmental assessment. The scientific review recommended some adjustments to downstream methylmercury monitoring protocols, which DFO implemented.
These adjustments are covered under the Fisheries Act authorization issued to Nalcor Energy in 2013, which allows for the implementation of adaptive management in the monitoring of post-project predictions and adjustments to the program to respond to new information. As a result of this condition, the authorization did not require cancellation or amendment.
Departmental officials have maintained an ongoing dialogue with the Nunatsiavut government with respect to the project. The minister of DFO has also met with the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources for the Nunatsiavut government to acknowledge and discuss the Nunatsiavut government’s concerns related to methylmercury in Lake Melville. Furthermore, in October 2016 an agreement was made between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and indigenous leaders to create an independent expert advisory committee, or IEAC, that would determine and recommend options for mitigating human health concerns related to methylmercury. While DFO does not possess expertise in relation to human health risks associated with methylmercury, DFO will be participating in the IEAC as an expert adviser in relation to the bioaccumulation of methylmercury in fish and seals downstream of the project.

Question No. 611--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the decision to not issue a commemorative medal as part of the Canada 150th celebrations: (a) what was the justification for this decision; (b) what are the details of any documented evidence to support this justification; and (c) what process was used to make this decision, in particular, (i) who was consulted, (ii) how they were consulted?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation is a unique opportunity to bring Canadians together and strengthen our connection to our communities by inspiring a vision of a vibrant, diverse, and inclusive country.
Canada 150 celebrations will be rooted in community building, engagement, and family celebrations from coast to coast to coast. These celebrations are for each and every Canadian. They are about connecting with one another.
Our government will mark the 150th anniversary of Confederation by inviting all Canadians to participate, celebrate, and explore via the numerous initiatives in their communities.
The Government of Canada is providing funding for community-driven activities and pan-Canadian signature projects as well as major events. Our government is empowering and encouraging all Canadians to engage with their community and to make 2017 a year to remember. We want all Canadians to join in the celebrations.
The vision for the 150th anniversary of Confederation is intended to inspire Canadians and bring them together by highlighting the themes of diversity and inclusion, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, young people, and the environment.
Our government is proud to support and promote initiatives that will inspire a generation of Canadians to help build Canada’s future and creating a lasting economic, cultural, and social legacy for our country.

Question No. 613--
Mr. Gordon Brown:
With regard to wait times at the Thousand Islands Bridge Border Crossing and the Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Border Crossing, broken down by crossing, between May 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016: (a) what was the average wait time for vehicle traffic, broken down by month, day and hour; and (b) what was the volume of vehicle traffic, broken down by month, day and hour?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
:Mr. Speaker, the CBSA cannot provide the requested information within the prescribed time frame. The request would result in an exceptionally large volume of information, and translating thousands of lines of data would require significant human and financial resources.
Current and forecasted border wait times, however, are available at the following web address: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/bwt-taf/menu-eng.html.

Question No. 615--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the work integrated learning program mentioned by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, in the House of Commons on November 18, 2016: (a) what are the details of the program; (b) how much government funding has been allotted for the program; (c) what is the duration and yearly budget for the program; and (d) what are the specific goals of the program?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as announced in Budget 2016, the student work-integrated learning program, or SWILP, is a $73-million program that will support new work-integrated learning, WIL, opportunities, such as co-ops and internships for young Canadians, with a focus on high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM, and business, as well as through sustainable partnerships to align skills training with jobs in demand. Details will be provided once the SWILP is officially launched.
With regard to (b), as announced in Budget 2016, the student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, is a $73-million program that will support new work-integrated learning, or WIL, opportunities, such as co-ops and internships, for young Canadians, with a focus on high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM, and business, as well as through sustainable partnerships to align skills training with jobs in demand.
With regard to (c), the student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, is a four-year program. Yearly budget for the SWILP will be provided once the SWILP is officially launched.
With regard to (d), the student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, is a four-year initiative that will support sustainable and innovative partnerships between employers and willing post-secondary education, or PSE, institutions to create quality work-integrated learning, WIL, opportunities for PSE students in high-demand fields related to science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM, and business.
The WIL opportunities created through these partnerships will better align the technical, foundational, and work-ready skills of students. PSE students will be encouraged to approach learning and WIL opportunities with an entrepreneurial mindset, to better position them to secure employment in their chosen fields of study and make immediate and meaningful contributions to Canada’s future growth and innovation.
The student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, will bring stakeholders from post-secondary education institutions and employers in key growth and innovation sectors of the Canadian economy.

Question No. 622--
Mr. François Choquette:
With regard to the Critical Habitat of the Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) St. Lawrence Estuary Population Order, published on May 14, 2016: (a) when will the Order come into force; (b) how many stakeholders have commented on the project; and (c) what are the names of the stakeholders who commented on the project, if this information is available?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the ministerial order is expected to come into force in early winter 2017.
With respect to (b) and this ministerial order, four comments were submitted during the 30-day Canada Gazette part I comment period.
With regard to (c), the stakeholders who commented on this proposed ministerial order are Madame Amélie Larouche, chef conseillère, Première Nation Malécites de Viger; Philippe Gervais, vice-président, Capital Hill Group; Lloyd Sykes, a citizen; and from the Government of Quebec, Minister Laurent Lessard, Ministre des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, and Minister David Heurtel, Ministre du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques.

Question No. 626--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and specifically, the section which called for the review of the previous government's changes to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Protection Acts: (a) specifically what lost protections is the mandate letter referring to; (b) what harms or proof of harm, to fish or fish habitat, attributed to the previous government's changes to these two Acts exist; and (c) specifically what protections lost, or alleged to have been lost as a result of the previous government's changes to these two Acts, is not provided for under other federal, provincial, or territorial legislation or regulations?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the previous government’s changes to the Fisheries Act were made with little consultation or transparency and were poorly received by environmental and indigenous groups. Various partners, stakeholders, and indigenous groups have emphasized the need for improved engagement and collaboration in developing and implementing any new legislation and policy to protect fish and fish habitat.
Since the Fisheries Act was changed in 2012-2013, indigenous groups, the academic community, stakeholders, and the public more generally have expressed concern with the changes to the act and their implementation. The department has continued to hear these types of concerns during the initial stages of public engagement related to the review of the 2012-2013 changes to the Fisheries Act this year.
For example, concern has been expressed about the legislative change from a prohibition against “harmful alteration, destruction or disruption of fish habitat” to a prohibition against “serious harm to fish”, defined as the “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. Some people have expressed concern that under this new wording, temporary alterations to fish habitat are no longer prohibited, even though temporary alterations can have significant effects on fish and fish habitat productivity.
There has also been concern raised that since 2012-2013, the habitat protection prohibition only applies to fish and fish habitat that are part of or support commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries and that are currently harvested.
The department has received comments that the reduction in offices and staff that coincided with the 2012-2013 amendments also reduced protections, as they resulted in a decreased capacity to deliver on fish and fish habitat protection through project review, monitoring, and enforcement.
With regard to (b), the department has not been either resourced or mandated to conduct this type of comprehensive monitoring and has not undertaken specific monitoring or analysis to compare the impacts of the changes to the act. The department is, however, developing new processes to monitor projects as well as to report back to Canadians on how fish and fish habitat are being protected in these specific areas.
With regard to (c), while management of inland fisheries has largely been delegated to the provinces and the Yukon Territory, the administration of the provisions related to the protection of fish and fish habitat remains with the federal government across Canada. Provincial and territorial authorities do deliver a range of natural resource conservation initiatives under various provincial and territorial laws that complement those of the federal government. For example, land use decisions made by these authorities may have a significant bearing on the quality and function of fish habitat in a given watershed.

Question No. 628--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the Community Participation Fund program: (a) how many grants were issued from January 1, 2016, to November 23, 2016; (b) how many of the groups who received grants were (i) Indigenous groups, (ii) local groups and local organizations, (iii) municipalities with a population of less than 10 000, (iv) not-for-profit organizations; (c) how many requests for funding were received; and (d) what percentage of grants went to (i) reviewing documents and providing written comments to contribute to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system in Canada, (ii) preparing for, travelling to, and participating in meetings related to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system in Canada, (iii) hiring expertise or conducting studies that contributes to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system in Canada?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples in Canada. That is why the community participation funding program, CPFP, helps eligible indigenous groups and local communities take part in developing and improving Canada's marine transportation system. The CPFP gives recipients the opportunity to contribute their knowledge towards tailoring marine transportation systems to local conditions and the environment.
Eligible recipients include indigenous groups, local groups and local organizations, municipalities with a population of less than 10,000, and not-for-profit organizations. Applicants must also prove that they depend on the local marine environment in an area that is being considered for social, economic, or commercial activities.
With regard to (a), 36 grant recipients were approved during this time period, and 29 grant payments have been issued to date.
With regard to (b), of the groups that received grants, 22 were indigenous groups, none were local groups or local organizations, one was a municipality with a population of less than 10,000, and 13 were not-for-profit organizations.
With regard to (c), 39 funding requests were received.
With regard to (d)(i), 100% of grants went to reviewing documents and providing written comments to contribute to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system. With regard to (d)(ii), 100% of grants went to preparing for, travelling to, and participating in meetings related to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system. With regard to (d)(iii), 16.6% of grants went to hiring expertise or conducting studies that contributed to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system.

Question No. 629--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to Transport Canada’s online consultation on the Navigation Protection Act: (a) how many submissions were received; and (b) what are the names of the individuals and organizations who participated in the consultation?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Transport Canada’s online consultation on the Navigation Protection Act, with regard to (a), from June 20 to August 31, 2016, Canadians were encouraged to participate in an online questionnaire to help inform the government's review of environmental and regulatory processes, including the Navigation Protection Act, as outlined in the Minister of Transport’s mandate letter. This questionnaire included one question specific to the Navigation Protection Act, to which 155 people provided a response. This consultation was in addition to the continual engagement work conducted by Transport Canada.
With regard to (b), names of individuals and organizations that participated were not collected through this questionnaire. This online questionnaire was conducted anonymously to encourage more openness in responses, as is common practice. Anonymously filling out the questionnaire also eliminates the risk of unauthorized or inappropriate use or disclosure of personal information because no personal information is collected.

Question No. 631--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the most recent request for funding by the Canadian Administrator of VRS (CAV), Inc. from the National Contribution Fund: (a) what is the amount of the total 2017 CAV budget; (b) what is the amount of CAV’s 2016 deficit; (c) what is the amount of the 2017 administrative expenses in the CAV budget; (d) what is the amount of the 2017 CAV budget to provide 76 hours per week in both English/ASL and French/LSQ services; (e) what is the CAV’s forecast in the 2017 budget of the number of VRS users on average throughout the year and the average number of minutes per month; (f) what is the amount being paid by CAV to the contractor for the VRS Platform, IVèS, in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017; (g) what is the amount being paid by CAV to Convo Communications for seat-hours in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017; (h) what is the amount being paid by CAV to Service d’interprétation visuelle et tactile (SIVET) in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, for VRS service to meet the needs of French/LSQ speakers; and (i) what is the amount being paid by CAV in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, to Convo Communications as an incentive to establish Canadian-based operations?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the amount of the total 2017 budget for the Canadian Administrator of VRS, or CAV, is $25,419,405.
With regard to (b), the amount of CAV’s 2016 deficit is $666,693. With regard to (c), while there is no line item in the budget specifically called “administrative expenses”, the CAV projected $375,419 for administration for 2017.
With regard to (d), by “the amount of the 2017 CAV budget to provide 76 hours per week in both English/ASL and French/LSQ services”, it is assumed that the question refers to the CAV’s operations expenses and operations-contingency, which are as follows: for operations, 19,703,898; for operations-contingency, $3,487,416.
With regard to (e), the CAV’s forecast of VRS users for 2017 is an average of 3000 users, and the average number of minutes per month is 100 minutes per user.
With regard to (f), (g), and (h), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and the information requested has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes third party information related to material loss and contract negotiations.
With regard to (i), while the CAV’s application to the CRTC notes that there are incentives within the contract they concluded with Convo Communications to incite them to establish Canadian-based operations, no further details were provided and the CRTC has no additional insight.

Question No. 634--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Canada 2020: how much funding did SSHRC provide to Canada 2020 in order to sponsor the Canada 2020 conference held from November 2 to 4, 2016, in Ottawa?
Response
Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Minister of Science, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, SSHRC, has an agreement with Canada 2020 that includes a $15,000 contribution to the conference.

Question No. 642--
Hon. Candice Bergen:
With regard to the guidelines set out in the Prime Minister’s “Open and Accountable Government” document: (a) what processes are in place when a public office holder is accused of violating the Prime Minister’s guidelines; (b) what processes are in place when the Prime Minister is accused of violating the said guidelines?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, “Open and Accountable Government” sets out the Prime Minister’s expectations for his ministry. The Prime Minister may determine whether a particular minister is meeting those expectations and whether any corrective action should be taken. Similarly, it is the responsibility of each minister to ensure that the exempt staff in his or her office are acting in accordance with guidelines applicable to those staff. Privy Council Office, PCO, officials may support the Prime Minister in providing advice on how such guidance can be interpreted or applied and how it relates to other documents or legal instruments, such as the Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act. PCO officials further support the Prime Minister with respect to Governor-in-Council appointment processes for senior government officials.

Question No. 644--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), since October 20, 2015: (a) which divisions within the RCMP equip some or all of their cruisers with automated external defibrillators (AEDs); (b) in each RCMP division, how many police cruisers are equipped with an AED; (c) has the number of RCMP cruisers equipped with AEDs increased, and if so, in which RCMP divisions has the increase occurred, and what is the number of the increase experienced in each division; (d) what policies or procedures exist which dictate (i) the use of AEDs by RCMP officers, (ii) the dispatching of RCMP vehicles to incidents where a sudden cardiac arrest is suspected, (iii) how to equip patrol cruisers with AEDs; (e) are there any existing or developing plans, at the divisional or national level, to increase the number of RCMP cruisers equipped with AEDs; and (f) what are the dates, times, originators and recipients of all communications to and from the Office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness which mention automated external defibrillators and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Speaker, in response to (a), the divisions within the RCMP that equip some or all of their cruisers with automated external defibrillators, AEDs, are C, Québec; D, Manitoba; E, British Columbia; K, Alberta; and National.
In response to (b), the number of police cruisers by division equipped with AEDs are as follows: C Division, Québec, six police cruisers; D Division, Manitoba, two police cruisers; E Division, British Columbia, is unable to provide an accurate response at this level of detail, as it would require an excessive amount of resources and time; K Division, Alberta, six police cruisers; and National Division, two police cruisers
In response to (c), there was no recent increase in the number of RCMP cruisers equipped with AEDs in Divisions C, D, K, and National. E Division is unable to provide an accurate response at this time.
In response to (d), training for the use of AEDs is included in the standard first aid curriculum that all RCMP members take every three years.
The RCMP has approved the implementation of AEDs for the following RCMP operational areas: the emergency medical response team, the divisional fitness and lifestyle program, the Prime Minister’s protection detail, and where provincial policing standards require that an AED be available or carried in conjunction with a conducted energy weapon.
In response to (e), if an RCMP workplace is not outlined in (d) and requires AED implementation, the detachment commander or manager can obtain approval through the commanding officer.
In response to (f), between October 20, 2015, and December 5, 2016, the RCMP executive services and ministerial liaison unit received one piece of correspondence on defibrillators on February 26, 2016, from the office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. A response was provided on March 18, 2016.
National and divisional RCMP policies with respect to the use of AEDs by the RCMP can be found in chapter 9 of the RCMP National Occupational Safety Manual.

Question No. 653--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees the government has issued through the Department of Canadian Heritage, in excess of $1000 and since November 4, 2015: what are the details of these funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees, and for each one, what is the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) constituency of the recipient, (iii) program for which the grant, loan, or loan guarantee was given, (iv) date the application was received, (v) amount of the individual grant, loan, or loan guarantee, (vi) date the payment was made?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of January 1, 2016, in the effort to increase transparency, Canadian Heritage became the first department to go above and beyond Treasury Board policy requirements on proactive disclosure and committed to disclosing awards from one dollar and above.
Please note that the requested information is available on the departmental website at http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1453476384672/1453476482298. The department does not provide loans or loan guarantees.

Question No. 654--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to bonuses paid out for employees of Shares Services Canada, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many employees have received bonuses; (b) what is the total amount paid out in bonuses; (c) how many employees have received performance bonuses; (d) what is the total amount paid out in performance bonuses; and (e) what is the total amount paid out in performance bonuses to employees at the EX-01 level or higher?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the performance management program for executives is a government-wide program guided by a directive set by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and a responsibility of the deputy head, which is adhered to by SSC.
Executives in the core public administration are eligible to earn performance pay when they meet the commitments outlined in their performance agreements. Executives do not earn performance pay if they do not meet expectations. Performance pay includes at-risk pay, which is a portion of the pay that must be re-earned each year, and, potentially, a bonus for exceptional performance.
The terminology used in the answers below covers fiscal year 2015-16 as follows: “at-risk pay” covers sections (a) and (b); “bonus” covers sections (c) and (d).
Accordingly, (a) employees that have received at-risk pay, 117.
According to (b) total amount paid out in at-risk pay, $1,532,968.
According to (c) employees that have received performance bonuses (bonus), 19.
According to (d) total amount paid out in performance bonuses (bonus), $82,683.
According to (e) total amount paid out in performance bonuses (at-risk pay, plus bonus) to employees at the EX-01 level or higher, $1,615,651.

Question No. 660--
Hon. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the government and middle-class Canadians: (a) what is the government’s definition of the middle-class; and (b) what salary range does the government consider to be middle-class for (i) individuals, (ii) couples, (iii) families?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada defines the middle class using a broader set of characteristics than merely income. Middle-class Canadians can generally be identified by the values they hold and the lifestyle they aspire to. Middle-class values are values that are common to most Canadians and from all backgrounds: they believe in working hard to get ahead and hope for a better future for their children. Middle-class families also aspire to a lifestyle that typically includes adequate housing and health care, educational opportunities for their children, a secure retirement, job security, and adequate income for modest spending on leisure pursuits, among other characteristics. The income required to attain such a lifestyle can vary greatly based on Canadians’ specific situations, e.g., whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive.
As a result, it is not possible to pin down a specific income range that would capture everyone who is in the middle class and exclude everyone who is not. In addition, Canada has no official statistical measure of what constitutes the middle class.

Question No. 663--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the RCMP ceremonial guard at the Canada 2020 reception at the Renwick Gallery in Washington, D.C., on March 9, 2016: how much did Canada 2020 pay the RCMP for the ceremonial guard?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada 2020 did not pay the RCMP, but they covered all travel-related expenses.

Question No. 671--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank: what contingency plans does the government have in the event that private-sector funding for the Bank is either unavailable or withdrawn?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker governments in Canada cannot address all of the country’s infrastructure needs alone. Large institutional investors, such as Canada’s public pension funds, have a large pool of capital that the infrastructure bank can help attract and leverage to meet the country’s infrastructure requirements.
The Advisory Council on Economic Growth’s report on infrastructure released in October 2016 highlights that given the historically low and, in many cases, negative interest rate environment, there is an abundance of institutional capital around the world waiting to be deployed. The report broadly illustrates this point in noting that there is approximately $11.7 trillion “parked” in negative-yield bonds.
The report also states that pension funds and sovereign wealth funds have approximately $170 billion invested in infrastructure. The infrastructure investment potential for these institutional investors is estimated at $1.7 trillion to $2.5 trillion, representing 10 to 14 times the level of current investment.
Canada is a stable country with fiscal room for significant investment and a well-grounded system in place. Furthermore, Canada has a long and solid tradition of partnering with the private sector, with a solid reputation in developing and leading in public-private partnership projects. Thus, Canada is well positioned to attract its share of the large amounts of capital that the private sector is seeking to invest in infrastructure.
The Canada infrastructure bank will be responsible for investing at least $35 billion on a cash basis from the federal government into large infrastructure projects that contribute to economic growth, through direct investments, loans, loan guarantees and equity investments. Part of this amount—$15 billion—will be sourced from the announced funding for public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation, and rural and northern communities. An additional $20 billion in capital will be available to the Canada infrastructure bank for investments, which will result in the bank holding assets in the form of equity or debt. This $20 billion will therefore not result in a fiscal impact on the government.

Question No. 672--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the 59 different expense claims made by the exempt staff of the Minister of International Development for trips to Sherbrooke, Quebec, between November 20, 2015 and August 30, 2016, as listed on proactive disclosure: (a) what are the details of any official government business which occurred on each trip, broken down by specific event or meeting; and (b) what government business related to the Minister’s International Development portfolio occurred on each trip, broken down by specific event or meeting?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, 55 of the 59 claims submitted as listed in the proactive disclosure are transportation related. Despite the significant distance between Ottawa and the riding of Compton--Stanstead, there are very limited flight or train options to travel. The most cost-efficient solution is to use the driver provided by the department for transportation.
Further details are provided in the “Policies for Ministers’ Offices--January 2011”, available online at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/structure/pgmo-pldcm/pgmo-pldcmtb-eng.asp

Question No. 673--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to studies conducted by the government about the impact a carbon tax will have on food and grocery prices, since November 4, 2015: (a) have any studies been conducted regarding the increase in food and grocery prices as a result of a carbon tax; and (b) what are the specific details for all studies in (a) including (i) date of completion, (ii) title, (iii) file number, (iv) summary of conclusions?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the first ministers meeting on December 9, 2016, most provinces and territories agreed to implement the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The framework includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, such that carbon pricing will be implemented across the country by 2018. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to choose between two systems: a direct price on carbon pollution or a cap and trade system. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, representing over 80 per cent of the population, have already implemented or have introduced legislation to implement carbon pricing.
The federal government will introduce a backstop pricing system that will apply in jurisdictions that do not meet the national carbon pricing benchmark. The revenues from pricing carbon pollution will remain in the province or territory where they originate. Each jurisdiction can use carbon pricing revenues according to their needs, including to address impacts on vulnerable populations and sectors, and to support climate change and clean growth goals.
The impact of pricing carbon pollution on food and grocery prices in Canada will depend on the approaches taken individually by provinces and territories in implementing a carbon price that meets the pan-Canadian benchmark for carbon pricing, as well as the decisions made regarding how revenues from carbon pricing will be used.
An overview of the analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of the pan-Canadian framework can be accessed on the Canada.ca website at the following address: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/economic-analysis.html.

Question No. 676--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the submission from the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) to the Standing Committee on Finance which recommends exempting group medical structures and health care delivery from Budget 2016’s proposed changes: (a) has the Department of Finance done a cost analysis on this recommendation, and if so, what were the results; (b) does the government plan on implementing the CMA recommendation; and (c) what is the rationale for the decision in (b)?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the department has not done a cost analysis for the recommendation made by the CMA.
With regard to (b), implementing CMA’s recommendation would be inconsistent with the intent of the amendments, which clarify that each small business is entitled to one small business deduction.
With regard to (c), the government is committed to ensuring tax fairness for all Canadians and businesses so that everyone pays their fair share. This includes ensuring that private corporations are not being used to inappropriately reduce tax obligations for high-income earners. The Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 amended the Income Tax Act to address certain tax planning arrangements that could allow access to the small business tax rate in unintended circumstances. It ensures, for example, that if the $500,000 income limit is intended to be shared among partners in a small business partnership, the partners cannot multiply the limit. The amendments will only affect structures that attempt to multiply access to the small business deduction through the use of a partnership or corporation. It will not affect certain alternative structures that are available for group operations, such as cost-sharing arrangements.

Question No. 680--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to civil aviation enforcement actions by Transport Canada: (a) how many operators currently do not have the confidence of Transport Canada, and specifically the confidence of Prairie and Northern Region (PNR) Civil Aviation and are considered to not be operating safely; and (b) what specific actions have been taken by Transport Canada or PNR to address the assessment on the final page of the Minister’s transition binder that “minimal compliance with regulations has proven to be insufficient to deem these operators safe”?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, continually improving aviation safety in Canada is a priority. As such, the Government of Canada does not hesitate to take the necessary actions to keep Canada’s skies safe. With respect to civil aviation enforcement actions by Transport Canada and question (a), when Transport Canada believes an operator is operating unsafely, it immediately takes action to require the operator to correct the issue or, if deemed appropriate, it suspends the operator’s operating certificate until the situation can be corrected. All Canadian air operators are treated in this manner across the country.
With respect to (b), Transport Canada suspends or cancels an operator’s operating certificate when it believes they are operating unsafely. A suspended operator cannot operate until they demonstrate that they have met the conditions of reinstatement.
In the public interest, Transport Canada cancelled the air operator certificate of one company, prohibiting them from operating aircrafts commercially due to the company’s inability to sustain the required level of compliance needed to maintain safe operation. The air operating certificate was cancelled after Transport Canada conducted a comprehensive review of the company’s full compliance and safety record.
Transport Canada also suspended a second operator, as deficiencies were identified in the company’s operational and maintenance control. After being suspended, Transport Canada approved corrective action plans developed by the company. As a result, Transport Canada reinstated the company’s air operator certificate. Following their reinstatement, the company was placed in enhanced monitoring to enable department officials to closely monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions. Transport Canada continues to monitor the company to ensure that its corrective action remains in place and is effective.
Transport Canada takes its aviation safety oversight role very seriously and expects every air operator to fully comply with aviation safety requirements. When air operators fail to comply with regulations, Transport Canada will take action in the interest of public safety.

Question No. 684--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With regard to the International, Large Business and Investigations Branch of the Canada Revenue Agency, since it was created in April 2016: (a) how many employees have been assigned to it; (b) what has been its operating budget; (c) how many taxpayer audits have been active; (d) of the audits in (c), how many have been referred to the Criminal Investigations Program or the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (e) of the audits in (d), how many have been or are before the courts; and (f) of the cases before the courts in (e), how many have resulted in convictions?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the international, large business and investigations branch, ILBIB, was formerly part of the larger compliance programs branch, CPB. ILBIB was created in April 2016 to provide more focus on international tax audit, aggressive tax planning, criminal investigations and the development of strategies to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. As of June 29, 2016, the most recent date for which current information is available, ILBIB had 2,654 full time equivalents FTEs.
With regard to (b), ILBIB has an annual operating budget of $271,283,229, which includes funding from budget 2016 related to the cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance commitment.
With regard to (c), since April 2016, there have been 15,602 active audits in ILBIB, of which 5,184 audits were completed as of November 25, 2016, the most recent date for which current information is available. Please note that many of the completed and active files were created in the former CPB, prior to the creation of ILBIB.
With regard to (d), while the CRA is able to provide the number of new criminal investigations opened since April 1, 2016, it cannot do so in the manner requested (i.e., with respect to the data provided in part (c)). Since April 1, 2016, 56 new criminal investigations have been opened. Criminal investigations can be complex and require months or years to complete. This will be dependent on the complexity of the case, the number of individuals involved, the availability of information or evidence, cooperation or lack thereof of witnesses or the accused, and the various legal tools that may need to be employed to gather sufficient evidence to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt.
None of the 56 have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC, in the nine months of the scope of the question. Generally speaking, whether or not a file is accepted for criminal investigation and possible subsequent prosecution is based on many factors, including the evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and the likelihood of securing a conviction if charges are laid. The criminal investigations program investigates suspected cases of tax evasion, fraud, and other serious violations of tax laws and recommends to the PPSC cases for possible prosecution where an investigation has been carried out and where evidence accumulated indicates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
With regard to (e) and (f), for the reasons outlined in part (d), since April 1, 2016, no files are before the courts and, consequently, there have been no convictions.

Question No. 688--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to the audits conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency concerning international tax evasion, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many cases have resulted in a negotiated settlement, broken down by (i) year, (ii) amount of the penalties imposed, (iii) interest charged?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, please note that as of April 2014, through the creation of the offshore compliance division, the CRA began to track offshore related audits that resulted in a negotiated settlement. For this reason, the CRA is only able to provide data from that date. Information prior to April 2014 is not available in the manner requested (i.e., by year, since January 1, 2006).
The CRA strives for effective and efficient resolution of audit issues, on the basis of facts, and only settles files on a principled basis in accordance with legislation that it administers (the Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act, and other fiscal legislation). Reaching an agreement with the taxpayer has numerous potential benefits, such as the reduction of litigation risk and costs, taxpayer agreement to the taxability of the income earned, consistency in resolution of complex issues, and the commitment by the taxpayer to pay the liability within a specific time frame.
With regard to part (a)(i), since 2014, 34 of the over 293 tax audits of offshore non-compliance resulted in a settlement.
With regard to part (a)(ii), these 34 audit cases settled resulted in over $6 million in federal taxes assessed and $3.8 million in penalties. In total, the 293 audits yielded $155 million in federal tax and penalties assessed.
With regard to part (a)(iii), the CRA does not track the interest charged from the negotiated settlements noted above.

Question No. 694--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Offshore Tax Informant Program (CRA) (OTIP), since its creation in 2014: (a) what have the CRA’s operating costs for this Program been; (b) how many leads have been provided under OTIP; (c) of these leads, how many resulted in audits; (d) what sums were recovered by the CRA as a result of OTIP; (e) what was the amount of each award given to OTIP informants; and (f) what percentage of the amounts recovered did the awards to OTIP informants represent?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. The offshore tax informant program, OTIP, was launched on January 15, 2014, as part of the CRA’s efforts to fight international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. OTIP allows the CRA to make financial awards to individuals who provide information related to major international tax non-compliance that leads to the collection of taxes owing.
Individuals who wish to participate in the OTIP and who have specific and credible information about a situation of major international tax non-compliance are recommended to first contact the OTIP hotline. During the call, the CRA discusses how the program works on a no-names basis. If it appears that the case generally meets the criteria, individuals are provided with a case number and instructions on how to submit the information to the program. Information that the CRA receives is collected under the authority of federal tax legislation and will be used to determine if there is non-compliance with Canada's tax laws. Where the CRA determines that the submission does not meet the program criteria or qualify for a reward, the CRA can still use this information for other purposes in carrying out its mandate to ensure that all taxpayers pay the correct amount of tax under the law. The information provided can be referred to other program areas for compliance action.
More information is available on the CRA website: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/cmplnc/otip-pdife/sbmt-eng.html.
In response to part (a), from January 2014 up to November 2016, the date to which current figures are available, the CRA’s operating costs for the offshore tax informant program, OTIP, are $1,866,090.
In response to part (b), as of November 30, 2016, the date to which current figures are available, the OTIP has received 398 written submissions; 127 are active submissions, of which the OTIP has entered into over 20 contracts with informants and are reviewing the balance. Of the 271 cases that did not qualify under the OTIP, 94 have been closed and 177 were referred to other areas within the CRA for possible compliance action.
In response to part (c), of the leads received in part (b) through the OTIP, the CRA has completed or is currently conducting audits involving over 218 taxpayers.
In response to part (d), while the CRA is unable to confirm the amount recovered, to date, the CRA has reassessed more than $1 million in federal tax and foreign reporting penalties as a result of information submitted to the OTIP. As these are multi-year audits, this represents a small number of the over 218 taxpayers that were or are currently under audit.
In response to part (e), an individual, or “informant”, must be eligible for the offshore tax informant program, OTIP. Information about the eligibility for the offshore tax informant program is available on the CRA website: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/cmplnc/otip-pdife/lgblty-eng.html.
An OTIP analyst will consider the information provided by the informant, evaluate the merits of the case, and make a recommendation about inclusion in the program. If a case is recommended for inclusion in the program, it is referred to an oversight committee of senior management representatives for approval to enter into a contract. Once approved, the informant and the CRA will enter into a contract. A payment can be denied and a contract can be terminated in certain situations. The CRA works to conclude the process as efficiently as possible. However, it may take several years from the date of entering into a contract with the CRA until the additional federal tax is assessed, the taxpayer's appeal rights have expired, and the amount owing is collected.
The CRA has entered into over 20 contracts with informants and others are in process; however, for the reasons noted above, no rewards have been paid to date.
In response to part (f), for the reasons noted in part (e), the CRA has not paid any awards to date. However, under the OTIP, if the CRA assesses and collects more than $100,000 in additional federal tax, the amount of the reward will be between 5% and 15% of the federal tax collected, not including interest or penalties.

Question No. 697--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the carbon pricing plan announced by the Prime Minister: (a) has the government produced any economic impact studies on the impact of a $50 per tonne carbon price on the following sectors (i) commercial aviation, (ii) freight rail, (iii) passenger rail, (iv) marine shipping; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each study, including (i) dates and duration of each study, (ii) who conducted each study, (iii) findings of each study?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the first ministers’ meeting on December 9, 2016, most provinces and territories agreed to implement the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The framework includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, such that carbon pricing will be implemented across the country by 2018. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to choose between two systems: a direct price on carbon pollution or a cap and-trade system. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, representing over 80%of the population, have already implemented or have introduced legislation to implement carbon pricing.
The federal government will introduce a backstop pricing system that will apply in jurisdictions that do not meet the national carbon pricing benchmark.
The revenues from pricing carbon pollution will remain in the province or territory where they originate. Each jurisdiction can use carbon pricing revenues according to their needs, including to address impacts on vulnerable populations and sectors and to support climate change and clean growth goals.
The impact of pricing carbon pollution on commercial aviation, freight rail, passenger rail, and marine shipping in Canada will depend on the approaches taken individually by provinces and territories in implementing a carbon price that meets the pan-Canadian benchmark for carbon pricing, as well as the decisions made regarding how revenues from carbon pricing will be used.
An overview of the analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of the pan-Canadian framework can be accessed on the Canada.ca website at the following address: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/economic-analysis.html.

Question No. 702--
Mr. Gordon Brown:
With regard to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA): what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and CBSA since November 4, 2015, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a preliminary search was done in ccmMercury, the file tracking system of the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, to find the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and the CBSA since November 4, 2015. As a result of the volume and the processing required to provide the detail requested, the CBSA cannot produce a response by the specified deadline.

Question No. 725--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the political activities regime set out in the Public Service Employment Act: (a) how many allegations of improper political activities were reported between October 2015 and December 2016, broken down by department; (b) of the reports listed in (a), how many investigations were performed, broken down by department; (c) of the investigations listed in (b) how many resulted in disciplinary action, broken down by department; and (d) of the investigations listed in (b), how many were initiated by the Deputy Minister, the Associate Deputy Minister, and other management level officials?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), from October 1, 2015, to December 6, 2016, the Public Service Commission received five allegations of improper political activities concerning employees from Shared Services Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Justice, and Natural Resources Canada.
In response to (b), of these allegations, two investigations were launched In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes personal information.
In response to (c), to date, no disciplinary action has been ordered by the commission regarding these investigations. One of these investigations was discontinued, while the other one is still ongoing. In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes personal information. Disciplinary action can also be taken by the employee’s home department under the deputy head’s authority. The Public Service Commission does not collect data related to disciplinary action taken by departments
In response to (d), both investigations were initiated by managers.

Question No. 726--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to public service staffing and the Veterans Hiring Act: (a) how many veterans have been hired since October 19, 2015; (b) how many veterans applied; and (c) how many veterans were rejected, and what were the reasons for each rejection, in list format?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), a total of 266 veterans were hired since October 19, 2015, of which 255 were statutory or regulatory priorities. This data originates from the Public Service Commission’s priority information management system. It includes appointments from organizations subject to the Public Service Employment Act, as well as appointments using similar criteria at the Canada Revenue Agency. In addition, 11 were through preference and mobility provisions. Information on preference and mobility appointments is available up to March 31, 2016.
With regard to (b), a total of 1,350 veterans submitted 3,813 applications from October 19, 2015 to November 30, 2016. This includes applications to organizations subject to the PSEA, based on the closing date of the advertisement. Cancelled advertisements are excluded. Some veterans submitted multiple applications. Due to information being captured through monthly extracts, applicant data is only available up until November 30, 2016.
With regard to (c), of the 3,813 veteran applications, 457 were screened out of internal and external appointment processes from October 19, 2015 to November 30, 2016 for the following reasons: 420 applications did not meet the screening requirements identified for the job opportunity, 30 applications did not meet the unsupervised Internet test requirements identified for the job opportunity, six applications did not indicate that the applicant was residing or employed in the specified radius identified for the job opportunity at the time they submitted their application, and one application did not meet the experience requirements identified for the job opportunity. This data originates from the Public Service Commission’s public service resourcing system, PSRS. Decisions on the remaining applications were made by the hiring organizations at later stages in the appointment process and may have been based on assessment tools such as written examinations, interviews or references.

Question No. 734--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the government's proposal for the Canadian Infrastructure Bank: (a) what will be the corporate structure of the bank; (b) how much funding will the government provide to the bank; (c) how much in loan guarantees will the government, including any federal agency, provide to the bank; (d) how much private investment is needed to ensure the sustain the bank; (e) what is the value of all firm financial commitments the government received to the bank from private investments so far; (f) are there any requirements that private investments in the Canadian Infrastructure Bank come from Canadian firms; (g) will the Canadian Infrastructure Bank allow investments from individuals or groups with ties to the Chinese government; (h) will the Canadian Infrastructure Bank allow investments from individuals or groups with ties to other foreign governments; and (i) will the Canadian Infrastructure Bank allow investments from individuals or groups with ties to a listed terrorist group?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the 2016 fall economic statement announced the investing in Canada plan, proposing to invest over $180 billion over 12 years, starting in 2017-18, in public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, transportation that supports trade, and Canada’s rural and northern communities. As part of this plan, the government is proposing the creation of a Canada infrastructure bank that will work with provinces, territories, and municipalities to further the reach of the government funding directed to infrastructure. The Canada infrastructure bank, federal and provincial/territorial governments, and investors will work together to identify potential projects and identify investment opportunities that provide the biggest economic, social, and environmental returns.
The Canada infrastructure bank will make investments in revenue-generating infrastructure projects and plans that contribute to the long-term sustainability of infrastructure across the country. It will be mandated to work with project sponsors to structure, negotiate, and deliver federal support for infrastructure projects with revenue-generating potential; use innovative financial tools to invest in national and regional infrastructure projects and attract private sector capital to public infrastructure projects; serve as a single point of contact for unsolicited proposals from the private sector; and improve evidence-based decision making and advise governments on the design and negotiation of revenue-generating infrastructure projects.
Regarding the corporate structure of the Canada infrastructure bank, it will be accountable to, and partner with, government, but will operate at greater arm’s length than a department. It will work with provincial, territorial, municipal, indigenous, and investment partners to transform the way infrastructure is planned, funded, and delivered in Canada.
In terms of funding and investments, the Canada infrastructure bank will be responsible for investing at least $35 billion on a cash basis from the federal government into large infrastructure projects that contribute to economic growth through direct investments, loans, loan guarantees, and equity investments. Part of this amount, $15 billion, will be sourced from the announced funding for public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation, and rural and northern communities. An additional $20 billion in capital will be available to the Canada infrastructure bank for investments, which will result in the bank holding assets in the form of equity or debt. This $20 billion will therefore not result in a fiscal impact for the government.
Regarding potential private sector investments in Canada’s public infrastructure, the Investment Canada Act provides for the review of significant direct acquisitions of control of Canadian businesses by foreign investors for their likely economic net benefit to Canada. The act also provides for the review of foreign investments that could be injurious to national security.
The government will announce further details on the investing in Canada plan through budget 2017.

Question No. 737--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to any federal payments made, or to be made, as a result of the decision by the Ontario government to cancel a project with Windstream Energy LLC: (a) what is the current amount of federal funds which are slated to be delivered to Windstream Energy LLC as a result of the related NAFTA ruling; (b) what steps is the government planning or considering in order to recover the money from the individuals involved; (c) has the government asked any of the following individuals or entities for repayment on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, (i) the former Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, (ii) the current Premier of Ontario, (iii) the Liberal Party of Ontario, (iv) any of the individuals facing charges in relation to the cancellation of the project, or in relation to the deletion or destruction of related emails; (d) does the government have any plans to take legal action against any individuals in order to recover the federal funds required as a result of the NAFTA ruling; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what are the details of any action the government is planning to take?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 2016, the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal constituted to hear Windstream v. Canada issued its final award, which awarded the claimant, Windstream Energy LLC, $25,182,900 in damages and $2,912,432 in costs.
This award is but a small fraction of the damages requested as the majority of the company’s claims were dismissed by the tribunal. Post-award interest, as agreed to by the parties, is also payable. The public version of the award is available here at www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2036. The Government of Canada is currently in consultation with the Government of Ontario with regards to payment details.
This dispute represents a very small portion of the billions in investments that Canada attracts and the billions that Canadian companies invest abroad.

Question No. 740--
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
With regard to Lt. Gen. Michael Hood’s testimony at the Senate Standing Committee for National Security and Defence in which he indicated that our NORAD and NATO commitments were previously being met, but a policy change which required meeting these commitments concurrently resulted in a requirement to increase the number of fighters available: (a) who made this policy change; (b) was Lt. Gen. Hood consulted prior to the decision to make this change; (c) if the answer to (b) is in the negative, what is the rationale; (d) on what basis or recommendation was this policy change made; (e) on what date was this policy change made; (f) why was this change made before the completion of the government’s Defence Policy Review; (g) what is the rationale for this policy change; (h) since November 3, 2015, has the Armed Forces’ policy requirements changed for the (i) Chinook helicopter fleet, (ii) CP-140 Aurora surveillance plane fleet, (iii) Griffin helicopter fleet, (iv) Sea King helicopter fleet, (v) C-17 Globemaster fleet, (vi) C-130 Hercules fleet; (i) if the answer to any part of ( h) is affirmative (i) what was the change, (ii) who made it, (iii) on what basis or recommendation was it made, (iv) on what date was it made, (v) why was it made before the completion of the government’s Defence Policy Review, (vi) what is the rationale for it; (j) what are the estimated additional operational costs of this policy change; (k) what is the total number of fighter jets required for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to implement this policy change; (l) what will be the result of this policy change with respect to the RCAF’s NATO contributions; and (m) what is the expected result of this policy change with respect to the RCAF’s NORAD contributions?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has made the decision to no longer risk manage our ability to simultaneously meet our NORAD and NATO commitments. Canada’s current CF-18 fighter aircraft fleet is now more than 30 years old and down from 138 to 76 aircraft. Canada has been risk managing its ability to meet these commitments for a number of years. The government is no longer willing to accept this risk, and is consequently exploring the acquisition of an interim fleet of Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18 fighter aircraft fleet until the permanent replacement arrives. This decision was announced on 22 November 2016.
By taking action now, the government will ensure that our defence needs will continue to be met in both the short- and long-term, and that Canada remains a credible and dependable ally. In making this decision, advice to the Minister of National Defence was funneled through his two main advisors, the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister.
The specific information requested about on what basis or recommendation this policy change was made constitutes advice to ministers and is cabinet confidence.
Since 3 November 2015, there have been no changes to policy requirements for any of the other fleets of the Royal Canadian Air Force listed in the question.
Canada has obligations to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, to be ready to deploy a fighter capability. Specifically, Canada has committed six fighter aircraft on standby to the NATO Response Force. The number of Canadian fighter aircraft committed to NORAD is classified. However, the number of mission-ready fighter jets Canada can concurrently provide to these organizations is fewer than the sum of these obligations could demand, which means, as a result, that the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, faces a capability gap.
Details on the permanent fleet size and the anticipated costs will be defined by the defence policy review and budget 2017.

Question No. 741--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the statement made in the House of Commons by the Minister of National Defence on November 23, 2016, that on September 11, 2001, Canada had to “put every single fighter up in the air”: (a) how many of Canada’s CF-18s flew sorties on September 11, 2001; (b) how many of Canada’s CF-18s were put on readiness on September 11, 2001; and (c) were any of Canada’s CF-18s diverted from their NATO obligations on September 11, 2001?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, in response to terrorist attacks against the United States, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, took control of Canadian and American airspace and mobilized assets to address the threat. The airspace in both Canada and the United States was shut down, and all airborne civilian and military aircraft were ordered to land at the nearest suitable airfield.
In Canada, all NORAD rapid reaction assets were immediately deployed, primarily to escort international air traffic to coastal airfields. Throughout the day, the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, recalled personnel and prepared combat capable, mission-ready air assets in response to the uncertain security situation. The RCAF continued to generate forces at the two main operating bases, Canadian Forces Base Bagotville and Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, until each base reached its maximum operating capacity. NORAD has responsibility for detailed information related to operations on September 11, 2001, and has classified information related to the number of sorties flown that day.
Readiness is a measure of how prepared the Canadian Armed Forces are to deploy, and readiness levels are always classified. In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information relates to national security, defence and international affairs. In keeping with the principles of these acts, while we are in a position to state that all NORAD rapid reaction assets in Canada were deployed, specific details such as the number of aircraft fuelled and armed or the number of sorties flown on September 11, 2001 cannot be released.
A review of our historical data found no record of CF-18s being diverted from their North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, obligations, specifically on September 11, 2001.

Question No. 742--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the deletion from the Department of National Defence’s website of the Defence Research and Development Canada June 2014 report in relation to fighter jets: (a) when was the report deleted from the website; (b) who ordered the deletion; (c) when was the Minister or his office made aware of the deletion; (d) did the Minister or his office approve the deletion, and if so, on what date; (e) what is the rationale behind the decision to delete the report; and (f) what are the details of any briefing notes, memorandums, or other dockets related to the deletion of said report including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the report was removed from the website on November 4, 2016.
The director of staff, strategic joint staff, ordered the deletion of the report.
The minister and the minister’s office became aware of the deletion after the Department of National Defence had taken action to remove the report from the website.
Neither the minister, nor the minister’s office, approved the deletion of the report. The Department of National Defence did not seek the minister’s approval.
Given the current threat environment, the director of staff, strategic joint staff, judged the information contained in the report should no longer remain public.
No briefing notes, memorandums or dockets were produced on the subject.

Question No. 744--
Hon. Candice Bergen:
With respect to the mydemocracy.ca website: (a) what are the details of the membership of the advisory panel who decided on the questions, including for each individual their (i) name, (ii) title, (iii) affiliation; (b) what is the breakdown of expected costs associated with the postcards promoting the website, including (i) postage, (ii) printing, (iii) preparation, (iv) other costs broken down by individual cost; (c) what was the total cost of the development of the website, broken down by individual line item; (d) did the Minister of Democratic Institutions approve the questions on the website, and if so, on what date did the Minister approve the questions; and (e) on what date were the questions (i) finalized by the advisory panel, (ii) submitted to the Minister for approval?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part a) of the question, Vox Pop Labs developed the questions, in consultation with the Government of Canada and an advisory panel of prominent scholars in areas such as research design, survey methodology, and electoral politics. The panel members included the following academics: André Blais, professeur titulaire, Université de Montréal; Elisabeth Gidengil, Hiram Mills professor, McGill University; Richard Johnston, professor, University of British Columbia; Peter Loewen, associate professor, University of Toronto; Scott Matthews, associate professor, Memorial University; Jonathan Rose, associate professor, Queen’s University; Laura Stephenson, associate professor, Western University; and Melanee Thomas, assistant professor, University of Calgary.
The members of the academic advisory panel issued a statement that can be found at: http://individual.utoronto.ca/loewen/Electoral_Reform_files/statement%20advisory%20board%20FINAL.pdf.
With regard to part b), the Government of Canada wanted to engage as many Canadians as possible in a conversation about electoral reform. Postcards were sent to every Canadian household inviting them to participate in MyDemocracy.ca. The breakdown of expected costs for the postcards includes $1,673,921.08 for postage and a total of $295,128 for the printing and preparation of the cards, which were done by the same firm. There were no other individual costs.
With regard to part c), the contract with Vox Pop Labs for the development of the application along with analysis and reporting of results is expected to cost $369,058.00, including HST.
With regard to part d), the final approval of the questions included in MyDemocracy.ca was given in November 2016.
With regard to part e), Vox Pop Labs developed the questions, in consultation with the Government of Canada and an advisory panel of prominent scholars in areas such as research design, survey methodology, and electoral politics.
The process for developing, reviewing, and providing feedback on questions was an iterative, consultative, and collaborative process. Final approval for the questions included in MyDemocracy.ca was given in November 2016.

Question No. 755--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada what is: (a) the criteria for benefits for veterans with injuries or disease due to exposure to toxic chemicals, including, but not limited to, (i) asbestos, (ii) lead, (iii) lubricants, (iv)cleaners, (v) chemical spraying, (vi) spraying at CFB Gagetown, (vii) depleted uranium, (viii) radiation, (ix) other chemicals; (b) the number of claims that have been made for exposure to toxic chemicals, including, but not limited to, (i) asbestos, (ii) lead, (iii) lubricants, (iv) cleaners, (v) chemical spraying, (vi) spraying at CFB Gagetown, (vii) depleted uranium, (viii) radiation, (ix) other chemicals; and (c) the number of successful claims for toxic chemicals exposure, including, but not limited to, (i) asbestos, (ii) lead, (iii) lubricants, (iv) cleaners, (v) chemical spraying, (vi) spraying at CFB Gagetown, (vii) depleted uranium, (viii) radiation, (ix) other chemicals?
Response
Hon. Kent Hehr (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part a), a diagnosed medical condition and evidence that the condition or disability is related to military service is required to receive a disability benefit from Veterans Affairs Canada. Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans with a disability associated with exposure as a result of military service or any other service-related disability are encouraged to apply for disability benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada. Additional guidance for the adjudication of disability benefit applications related to hazardous material, radiation exposure, and exposure to Agent Orange and other unregistered United States military herbicides may be found at the following website addresses: www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1315 and www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1190.
With regard to b) and c), toxic chemicals are not a condition but rather a potential cause to other conditions. Veterans Affairs Canada does not track the causes of the conditions, only the conditions themselves. As a result, Veterans Affairs Canada is unable to provide the data requested.

Question No. 757--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to projects funded by the government on the O’Chiese First Nation: (a) what is the total value of invoices which have been received but not paid as of December 7, 2016; (b) what are the details of any such invoices, including the (i) amount, (ii) date received, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) reason for non-payment; (c) what are the details of all correspondence between the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs and the O’Chiese First Nation or the vendors regarding non-payments, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) file number?
Response
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada is concerned, no invoices were unpaid as of December 7, 2016.

Question No. 761--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the Free 2017 Parks Canada Discovery Pass Program offered by Parks Canada: (a) how many passes have been requested as of December 7, 2016; (b) how many passes were requested by (i) individuals residing in Canada, (ii) families residing in Canada, (iii) individuals residing outside of Canada, (iv) families residing outside of Canada; (c) what has been the cost to produce the passes, broken down by (i) staff time, (ii) staff overtime, (iii) printing, (iv) design, (v) mailing, (vi) postage, (vii) other costs, indicating nature of such costs; (d) how many passes have been provided to other agencies, such as the Canadian Automotive Association or Alberta Motor Association, identifying which agencies received passes and how many passes each agency received; (e) how many passes were purchased in the 2015-2016 fiscal year and what was the total gross revenue from purchased passes; and (f) what was the cost to produce the passes in the 2015-2016 fiscal year broken down by (i) staff time, (ii) staff overtime, (iii) printing, (iv) design, (v) mailing, (vi) postage, (vii) other costs, indicating nature of such costs?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is very pleased to offer free admission for all visitors to national parks, national historic sites, and national marine conservation areas operated by Parks Canada in 2017 to celebrate Canada 150.
Canada’s national parks and national marine conservation areas provide outstanding examples of our country’s natural landscapes, generate economic activity by attracting visitors from Canada and abroad, and provide Canadians with access to our natural heritage.
As Canada’s largest provider of natural and cultural tourism, Parks Canada’s destinations form important cornerstones for Canada’s local, regional, and national tourism industry. Parks Canada places are an important part of local economies, helping to generate billions of dollars annually and employ tens of thousands of people.
The millions of visitors to Canada’s national parks, national historic sites, and national marine conservation areas make a substantial and widespread contribution to the Canadian economy, through job creation and revenues generated for local businesses.
With regard to a), as of December 7, 2016, there were 377,879 pass orders for 661,925 passes.
With regard to b), Parks Canada received 360,926 orders from individuals or families residing in Canada for 632,146 passes. Parks Canada received 16,953 orders from individuals or families outside of Canada for 29,779 passes. The agency cannot differentiate between families or individuals based on orders.
With regard to c)i), the amount is $40,000. Over three months, the Discovery Pass program represented 70% of the work of two staff and 30% of the work of one staff person. No staff overtime has been incurred. Each pass costs $0.342 to produce. As of December 7, 2016, approximately 661,925 passes were ordered. Print costs would be approximately $226,378. With regard to c) iv), the amount is $2,713. No mailing costs were incurred. No postage costs were incurred. No other costs were incurred.
No passes were provided to other agencies.
The free 2017 Discovery Pass replaces both regular entry and traditional Discovery Pass sales. The total number of 2015-16 entry passes purchased, including Discovery Passes and daily entry, was 5,884,127, totalling $65,991,356 in total gross revenue. The number of Discovery Passes purchased for 2015-16 is 176,557 passes, totalling $21,435,577 in gross revenue.
With regard to f) i), the amount is $55,000 over 12 months. The Discovery Pass program represented 50% of the work of one staff and 20% of the work of one staff person. No staff overtime has been incurred. The cost of printing the 2016 Discovery Pass was $0.36 per pass for a total of $63,561. With regard to f) iv), the amount is $2,713. Packaging and mailing passes cost $34,250. Some 8,250 Discovery Passes were ordered for distribution by mail. With an average postal charge of $0.98 per order, the total cost was $8,085. No other costs were incurred.

Question No. 762--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to the list of chronic diseases maintained by the Public Health Agency of Canada: (a) why are Crohn's and colitis not included on the list; (b) when were Crohn's and colitis last reviewed for inclusion on the list; (c) what criteria do Crohn's and colitis not meet for inclusion on the list; (d) when will Crohn's and colitis next be reviewed for inclusion on the list; and (e) what is the full criteria used for determining whether a disease is included on the list?
Response
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to a), the list of chronic diseases and conditions on the Public Health Agency of Canada’s website was updated in December 2016 to include Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, see www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/index-eng.php. In addition, surveillance information on diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease, IBD, collected on an annual basis via Statistics Canada’s Canadian Community Health Survey, is also publicly available online via PHAC’s Chronic Disease Infobase DataCubes, see http://infobase.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cubes/index-eng.html.
With regard to b), the list of diseases and conditions was reviewed in December 2016, and PHAC’s website has been updated to include Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, see www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/index-eng.php.
With regard to c), generally, the list includes those diseases and conditions on which PHAC conducts ongoing national surveillance.
With regard to d), as mentioned, the list of diseases and conditions was reviewed in December 2016, and PHAC’s website has been updated to include Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, see www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/index-eng.php.
With regard to e), generally, the list includes those diseases and conditions on which PHAC conducts ongoing national surveillance. Surveillance activities are prioritized based on criteria such public health considerations, such as epidemiologic and economic burden; technical aspects, such as feasibility to collect data at the national level; validity of collection methods for the condition; alignment with PHAC’s mandate and government’s priorities; and resource availability. Surveillance experts revisit the coverage of their activities regularly, in light of these parameters.

Question No. 764--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the cancellation of the Enbridge Northern Gateway: (a) what scientific data was provided with regard to the impacts of the proposed pipeline route subsequent to the approval of this project by the Joint Review Panel in 2014; (b) how did this additional scientific input contradict the science that supported the original decision by the Joint Review Panel; and (c) what were the (i) potential consequences identified by this new scientific input, (ii) the risk or likelihood that these consequences would occur, (iii) the likelihood that additional conditions or measures intended to mitigate could have reduced these risks to an acceptable level?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in its 2014 report, the joint review panel made a non-binding recommendation to the Governor in Council on the project application. The report documents the extensive technical, scientific, traditional, and specialized information and knowledge the panel received from a variety of sources in relation to the project. In its November 25, 2016 decision, Order in Council 2016-1047, the Governor in Council directed the National Energy Board to dismiss the Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership’s application for a certificate. The National Energy Board acted on the Governor in Council’s direction on December 6, 2016, by dismissing the project application.
The Governor in Council’s decision on the project application relied on the joint review panel’s 2014 report including the scientific evidence, analysis, and data contained in that report. The report contained scientific and other evidence documenting the unique and irreplaceable nature of the ecosystem of the Great Bear Rainforest, including the Douglas Channel. The sensitivity of this ecosystem was central to the Governor in Council’s conclusion that the waters of the Douglas Channel must be protected from any spills of crude oil from tankers and was also, therefore, central to its direction to the National Energy Board to dismiss the project application. As the joint review panel did an adequate job of documenting the scientific evidence, it was unnecessary to consider additional scientific sources beyond those documented in the panel’s report.

Question No. 770--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the initiative of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism: (a) what is the number of nominations for the Award received in 2015 and in 2016, broken down by each of the following categories (i) youth, (ii) organization, (iii) lifetime achievement or outstanding achievement; (b) what is the number of valid candidates for each year and category referred to in (a); (c) who is the winner of the 2016 Award; and (d) what is the full and complete list of all news release and other communication or notification products used in relation to the Award?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part a), in 2015, (i) 4 nominations, (ii) 12 nominations, (iii) 25 nominations.
In 2016, there were no nominations received as no call for nominations was made.
With regard to part b), in 2015, (i) 3 nominations, (ii) 11 nominations, (iii) 23 nominations. Three nominations received in 2015 were incomplete and were therefore not valid.
In 2016, there were no nominations received as no call for nominations was made.
With regard to part c), the format of the Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism is being re-evaluated following the return of the multiculturalism program to the Department of Canadian Heritage.
With regard to part d), communication and notification products used in relation to the 2015 Paul Yuzyk Award included a news release on January 19, 2015,
“Nominations now being accepted for the 2015 Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism”, see http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=922589.
On social media, on Twitter, 44 award-related messages were posted in English and French. These were retweeted 95 times and favourited 85 times. Other Twitter users posted 40 external messages related to the Award, which were in turn retweeted 20 times and favourited six times.
On Facebook, starting in March 2015, approximately eight award posts were made before the nomination deadline. Facebook had not previously been used to promote the award because of departmental restrictions.
In email marketing, messages were sent to approximately 1,800 contacts. These encouraged nominations and provided information about the new categories.
Messages were sent on four occasions: targeted launch messages for each of the three categories, a reminder to all contacts in early March, a deadline extension notice in late March, and a targeted message to previous sponsors encouraging repeat nominations, also in late March.
Details of the award were listed on Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s website, which had responsibility for the multiculturalism program at the time.

Question No. 772--
Mr. Alain Rayes:
With regard to the Mydemocracy.ca website: (a) did the Minister of Democratic Institutions make changes to add or remove any of the questions on the survey and, if so, what specific changes were made; (b) did the exempt staff of the Minister make changes to add or remove any of the questions on the survey and, if so, what specific changes were made; (c) who made the final decision regarding which questions were included; and (d) what role did (i) academic experts, (ii) Privy Council Office officials, (iii) political staff, have in the development, approval, and implementation of the questions?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows: Vox Pop Labs developed the questions, in consultation with the Government of Canada and Vox Pop Lab’s advisory panel of prominent scholars in areas such as research design, survey methodology, and electoral politics. Inclusion of or changes to some questions was also based on empirical testing.
The process for developing, reviewing, and providing feedback on questions was an iterative, consultative, and collaborative one, but the Government of Canada was responsible for final approval of the questions.

Question No. 777--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces' Treasury Board submissions, for each fiscal year from 2014 to present: (a) how many submissions were approved for (i) capital equipment projects, (ii) infrastructure, (iii) information management and information technology; (b) for each item in (a), what is the title and value of each submission; and (c) did any of the submissions in (b) refer to article 506.11(a) in the Agreement on Internal Trade, and if so, which ones?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles of the Access to Information Act, and as such, the information requested in the question has been withheld on the grounds that it constitutes a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.

Question No. 782--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the Prime Minister's Open and Accountable Government guidelines: who has the mandate to conduct an investigation into alleged breaches of the guidelines?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, “Open and Accountable Government” sets out the Prime Minister’s expectations for his ministry. The Prime Minister may determine whether a particular minister is meeting those expectations, and whether any corrective action should be taken. Similarly, it is the responsibility of each minister to ensure that the exempt staff in his or her office are acting in accordance with guidelines applicable to those staff. Privy Council Office officials may support the Prime Minister in providing advice on how such guidance can be interpreted or applied, and how it relates to other documents or legal instruments such as the Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act. PCO officials further support the Prime Minister with respect to Governor in Council appointment processes for senior government officials.

Question No. 785--
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
How many additional full-time jobs have been created in Canada between November 2015 and November 2016?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, between November 2015 and December 2016, 204,000 additional jobs were created in Canada, 88,100 of which were full-time jobs.

Question No. 788--
Mr. Erin Weir:
With regard to the approval of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project: what measures, if any, do the government and the National Energy Board plan to take to ensure that it be built with Canadian-made steel?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board recommendation report for the Trans Mountain expansion project does not require Kinder Morgan to purchase pipe materials, including steel, from Canadian suppliers. Country of origin is not a factor in material requirements for this project. Rather, materials must comply with the specifications and quality standards detailed in Condition 9 of the NEB’s report and the Canadian Standards Association’s oil and gas pipeline systems standards, CSA Z662, clause 5. These conditions and standards are designed to keep Canadians and their environment safe.
The proponent, Trans Mountain ULC., has stated its intent to source approximately 230,000 metric tonnes of line pipe material from a domestic supplier, which includes the use of Canadian-made steel. According to the proponent, Trans Mountain’s sourcing strategy is to maximize the amount of locally sourced pipe material, within the production capability and capacity of the domestic supplier.

Question No. 789--
Mr. François Choquette:
With regard to the recovery strategy for the Copper Redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi) and its population in Quebec, published in 2012 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada: (a) when will the proposed regulations to identify the species’ critical habitat in southwestern Quebec be published in the Canada Gazette; and (b) when will the Order come into force?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), officials with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are actively working with their colleagues in other federal departments on this matter. It is anticipated that an order would be published in the Canada Gazette as early as winter 2017.
In response to (b), orders made under subsections 58(4) and (5) of the Species at Risk Act typically enter into force after they are signed by the competent minister or ministers and formally assigned a unique number by the Privy Council Office, i.e. “registration”.

Question No. 791--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to changes made to capital gains taxes and mortgage insurance rules in October 2016 by the Department of Finance: (a) what analysis has been done on the effects of such changes with respect to (i) housing prices by region, (ii) construction activity, (iii) value and rate of mortgage approvals for Canadians, especially first time homebuyers, (iv) GDP and employment; and (b) for each of the analyses conducted related to (a)(i) through (a)(iv), what conclusions were reached?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these measures follow an in-depth analysis of the housing market conducted by the Department of Finance Canada, in conjunction with various government agencies, including the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Bank of Canada, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. They were also informed by the views of the wide range of stakeholders with whom the Department of Finance and government regularly meet, including ongoing collaboration and information sharing done through a working group with provincial and municipal officials.
Prior to the announcement regarding the changes to mortgage insurance eligibility, loan-level data from recent quarters was used to determine the extent to which mortgage lending would have been affected if the new rules had already been in place. The analysis found the new restrictions could have impacted roughly 8% of recent home sales in the first year of the policy, with impacts spread across the country. This estimate did not account for adjustments buyers could make to remain in the market by using savings for a larger down payment or purchasing a cheaper home.
The potential reduction in home sales was then translated into estimated impacts on residential investment, home prices and GDP growth, finding that the measures would be a modest drag on house prices and GDP growth in the short term.
These estimates did not incorporate the impact of the measures on enhancing the long-term stability of the Canadian housing market, financial system, and economy due to more sustainable mortgage debt. The intended impact of the new stress test is to help ensure new homeowners across all provinces can afford their mortgages even if economic conditions change, such as an increase in interest rates. This requirement will help promote the stability of the Canadian housing market and economy over the long term.

Question No. 792--
M. Glen Motz:
With regard to Budget 2016: according to the most recent data available, what has been the economic and employment impact of the fiscal measures outlined on p. 256-258, both in total and broken down by specific measure?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, overall, the fiscal measures in budget 2016 are “expected to translate into 100,000 jobs created or maintained by 2017-18.” This is based on the historical relationship between the types of spending and revenue measures announced in budget 2016, and their impact on growth in employment and real GDP in Canada.
Funding for the most substantial measures of budget 2016 began to flow into the economy in the third quarter of 2016--Canada child benefit and investments in infrastructure. Given that the estimates for economic impact included in budget 2016 were calculated based on a two-year time horizon, having only one quarter of GDP data does not provide sufficient information to assess their impact with any degree of precision.
However, employment data are available for the last two quarters of 2016. While it is not possible to attribute gains to specific budget measures, it is notable that employment gains in the last quarter of 2016--108,000 jobs--were the highest since the second quarter of 2010.

Question No. 793--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the Minister of Finance's tax expenditure review panel: (a) what materials have been developed for the review panel; (b) what are the mandate, terms, and conditions of participation in the panel; (c) what is the list of tax expenditures which have been reviewed by the panel for potential elimination; (d) does the government have any targets with respect to revenue raised and, if so, what are they; and (e) what is the net cost of each expenditure referred to in (c)?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the review of federal tax expenditures is led by the Department of Finance Canada, with the support of a group of external advisers. The objective of the review and the role of the advisers are further explained in the response to part (b).
Advisers have been provided with internal analysis prepared by the Department of Finance Canada in the context of the review. Advisers have also been provided with general background information on federal tax expenditures.
In response to part (b), as stated by the government, the objective of the review is to ensure that federal tax expenditures are fair for Canadians, efficient and fiscally responsible--see Department of Finance Canada news release, June 17, 2016: http://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-077-eng.asp). This review is part of a broader government commitment to eliminate poorly targeted and inefficient programs, wasteful spending, and ineffective and obsolete government initiatives.
The review of federal tax expenditures is led by the Department of Finance Canada. To ensure that the review is informed by a range of perspectives, the following external experts have been engaged to provide advice to Department of Finance Canada officials: Robin Boadway, Queen’s University; Kim Brooks, Dalhousie University; Kevin Dancey, former CEO of CPA Canada; Luc Godbout, Université de Sherbrooke; Jinyan Li, Osgoode Hall Law School; Kevin Milligan, University of British Columbia; and Jennifer Robson, Carleton University.
Terms and conditions under which the advisers are providing advice to the Department of Finance Canada were set out in the letters of agreement between the department and the advisers. As per the statements of work attached to these letters, the advisers are expected to participate in periodic meetings, either in person or through conference calls, with other advisers and government officials; and provide advice to the Department of Finance.
The letters of agreement cover the period up to March 31, 2017. Advisers are remunerated on a per diem basis, up to maximum amounts that are set out in the letters of agreement. One adviser has declined to receive a per diem. Travel and living expenses incurred in the performance of these agreements are reimbursed by the department in accordance with the rates and conditions that are specified in the Treasury Board travel directive, up to maximum amounts that are set out in the letters of agreement. Total contract values are posted on the Department of Finance Canada website at www.fin.gc.ca/disclose-divulgation/discl_cont-eng.asp.
In addition to the above, Mr. Kevin Milligan was on assignment with the Department of Finance Canada until December 31, 2016. The terms and conditions of this assignment are set out in an Interchange Canada letter of agreement, which has been agreed upon between Mr. Milligan, his employer--the University of British Columbia--and the Department of Finance Canada. Mr. Milligan’s work during his assignment consists of special research projects directed by the Department of Finance Canada in the context of the review.
In response to part (c), as per the budget 2016 announcement, the department is undertaking a comprehensive review of tax expenditures. The scope of the review of federal tax expenditures is broad, and includes personal income tax expenditures, corporate income tax expenditures, as well as goods and services tax expenditures. The external experts who have been engaged to provide advice to Department of Finance Canada officials are providing advice in respect of all analysis performed by the department in the context of the review.
In response to part (d), the Government of Canada has not set a specific revenue target for the review of federal tax expenditures.
In response to part (e), estimates of the fiscal cost of each federal tax expenditure can be found in part 2 of the “Report on Federal Tax Expenditures” that is published annually by the Department of Finance Canada. The latest edition of this report is available on the department’s website at www.fin.gc.ca/purl/taxexp-eng.asp.
150th Anniversary of Canadian Confederation8555-421-676 Submission from the Canadia ...Air safetyAlbrecht, HaroldArnold, MelAssisted suicideAubin, RobertAudits and auditorsAwards presentationsBacklogsBeluga ...Show all topics
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 569--
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to the attendance by the Finance Minister on October 13, 2016, at an event hosted by the Laurier Club in Halifax, Nova Scotia: (a) what are all the details of all expenses related to travel and hospitality incurred by the Finance Minister and his exempt staff related to his trip to Halifax on or around October 13, 2016, including the amount spent on (i) air transportation, (ii) other transportation, (iii) hotels, (iv) per diems, (v) other expenses; (b) was government-owned aircraft used for any portion of the trip; (c) what are the details of any official government meetings or announcement the Finance Minister had on October 13, 2016, including (i) time, (ii) location, (iii) list of attendees; and (d) did the Finance Minister receive approval from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner prior to attending the Laurier Club event, and if so, when was approval received?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the expenses related to travel and hospitality incurred by the minister and his exempt staff related to his trip to Halifax on or around October 13, 2016 were $5,020.73 in total, of which (i) air transportation was $3,231.04; (ii) other transportation, $573.11; (iii) hotels, $757.77; (iv) per diems, $458.81; and (v) other expenses, $0.00.
With regard to (b), government-owned aircraft were not used for any portion of the trip.
With regard to (c), on Friday, October 14, Minister Morneau held an open town hall in Halifax as part of the pre-budget consultations for budget 2017. A photo opportunity and media availability took place at a local business in Dartmouth prior to the pre-budget consultation.
In particular, with regard to (c)(i) and (ii), the photo opportunity and media availability were held at 10:00 a.m. local time, at the Bodega Boutique, 104 Portland Street, Dartmouth, NS; and the pre-budget consultation was held from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. local time, at the Halifax Seaport Farmers’ Market, 1209 Marginal Road Halifax, NS.
With regard to (c)(iii), representatives from the following organizations attended: Nova Scotia Association of Realtors, Laing House, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia Community College’s Truro Campus, Efficiencyone, Canadian Medical Association, Leave Out Violence, Maritime Lumber Bureau, Metroworks, City of Halifax, Clean Foundation, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Easter Seals Nova Scotia, Municipality of the District of Digby, Nova Scotia Home Builders Association, the mortgage sector, CMBA Altlantic, National Bank, Common Goods Solutions, and Remax Nova.
With regard to (d), the Department of Finance does not have information regarding the minister’s private engagements.

Question No. 570--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the national debt of Canada: (a) what was the national debt on November 4, 2015; (b) what is the current national debt; and (c) what is the projected amount of national debt for the end of each of the following fiscal years (i) 2016-2017, (ii) 2017-2018, (iii) 2018-2019?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the federal debt, or difference between the Government of Canada’s total liabilities and its total assets, is calculated on a monthly basis, once the annual financial results for the previous fiscal year, including the closing balance of the federal debt, have been finalized, audited, and published. The federal debt stood at $613.3 billion as of October 31, 2015, the month-end closest to November 4, 2015.
With regard to (b), based on the most recent finalized monthly results available, of August 31, 2016, the federal debt stood at $622.4 billion.
With regard to (c), as per the November 2016 “Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections”, the projection of the federal debt is (i) for 2016-17, $642.0 billion; (ii) for 2017-18, $669.8 billion; and (iii) for 2018-19, $695.7 billion.

Question No. 571--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the attendance of the Minister of Finance at a fundraising event and the statement in the House from the Leader of the Government on October 20, 2016, that, “This event was open, and anyone who purchased a ticket was welcome to attend. The event was made public online,”: (a) what was the website address where the event was made public; (b) what were the dates, locations, and ticket prices for all similar type events where Ministers have been in attendance since November 4, 2015; (c) what are the dates, locations, and ticket prices for all similar type events which Ministers are currently scheduled to attend; and (d) what are the website addresses for all similar type events which Ministers are currently scheduled to attend?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as this question does not relate to the administrative responsibilities of the government, the government has no information to provide.
Results: 1 - 7 of 7

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data