Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 33
View Joyce Murray Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Joyce Murray Profile
2019-03-21 14:17 [p.26371]
moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $11,557,406, under Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada — Program expenditures, in the Interim Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, be concurred in.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Scott Brison Profile
2018-11-20 15:09 [p.23623]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of 86 departments and agencies, the departmental results reports for 2017-18 and, if I may add, what great results they are.
8563-421-256 Performance Report of Admin ...8563-421-257 Performance Report of Agric ...8563-421-258 Performance Report of Atlan ...8563-421-259 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-260 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-261 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-262 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-263 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-264 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-265 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-266 Performance Report of Canad ... ...Show all topics
View Harjit S. Sajjan Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Harjit S. Sajjan Profile
2018-06-15 3:30 [p.21055]
moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $46,614,069, under Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, be concurred in.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2018-06-15 3:36 [p.21055]
Madam Speaker, I think we have an unfortunate situation. When the roll call was made by the table officers, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development was named as having voted, but he is not in his seat at the moment. I would like the table to verify whether he was recorded as voting in the affirmative. Since he is not in his seat, I believe that the rules of the House call for his vote not being recorded as his having voted yes.
View Francis Drouin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As we continue to read Bill C-371, I would like to say that I support the purpose of the bill and the ideas that inspired it.
Curbing or preventing the flow of money that supports terrorism is one of the government's key concerns. Bill C-371 seeks to prevent the flow into Canada of foreign funds donated by sources who have been associated with radicalization. During our last debate, several hon. members pointed out that there was some overlap in the bill that conflicts with mechanisms that are already in place in Canada.
The bill also has significant flaws that would be hard to overcome. For example, under Bill C-371 some charitable organizations might be unduly penalized. This would prevent religious, cultural, or educational institutions in Canada from accepting money or goods from sources affiliated with the countries on the list, including senior officials, family members, or partners. Accepting donations from these individuals would become a crime.
The problem is that there would be no list of individuals barred from donating. Charities would have to do thorough background checks on everyone who offers them a cheque, and could face criminal penalties if they fail to do so. The due diligence required would be excessively complex and would require investigative capacity well beyond that available to most charities. Furthermore, the government would probably not be able to enforce the prohibitions in the bill because they are too vague and general. For example, people associated with the countries on the list would not be on the list.
Moreover, the bill is incompatible with government policies on radicalization that leads to violence. The fact is that existing laws and initiatives already fulfill the stated purpose of this bill. I would like to point out that the government is already taking concrete, effective measures to fight terrorism and radicalization leading to violence in Canada. Canada has a robust set of tools to protect Canadians and registered charities from the risk of terrorism and its deplorable acts. One of those tools is the terrorist listing regime in the Criminal Code.
As soon as an entity is added to that list, banks and financial institutions can freeze its assets. In fact, being added to the list can also lead to the criminalization of all support activities to help stop potential sympathizers in Canada from providing any financial assistance to terrorist groups. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act resulted in the creation of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, which oversees the financial system and gathers information to support investigations into terrorist financing.
FINTRAC is also supposed to hand over to the Canada Revenue Agency any financial information it has regarding charitable organizations suspected of being linked to terrorist financing. In addition, the State Immunity Act includes a list of foreign countries that support terrorism. The act makes is possible for victims of terrorism to seek justice from the countries on the list.
Bill C-371 states that anti-terrorism efforts should include charities. Once again, we already have effective mechanisms to do so. The Canada Revenue Agency already monitors registered charities to ensure that they remain focused on their stated charitable goals. Under the current rules, any charity using its resources to support terrorist activities, radicalization to violence, or incitement to hatred would be denied registered charity status or could have this status revoked.
The government also has measures in place to denounce and combat religious persecution, torture, and other human rights violations.
For example, some provisions of the new Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act make it possible to freeze the assets of those responsible for serious human rights violations.
There are apparently several measures already in place that can achieve the objectives of Bill C-371 without making legitimate charitable organizations liable to penalties. Consequently, despite the bill's good intentions, I cannot support it because of the overlaps and shortcomings in the bill.
Of course we all want to fight terrorism and extremism. That is why, for example, the government established the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence to fight the radicalization of young Canadians. In budget 2016, the government allocated funding of $35 million over five years for the work of the Canadian centre. The centre provides national leadership to support local efforts. It makes all the difference.
Communities across the country receive assistance through effective, innovative programs to combat radicalization leading to violence. This assistance often brings together law enforcement authorities, communities, and service providers. Furthermore, our security and intelligence agencies also have access to a series of prevention measures to help them monitor and intercept threats, maintain a no-fly list, refuse or revoke a passport, maintain public order, and lay criminal charges if there is sufficient evidence.
The government also introduced Bill C-59, which will increase accountability and effectiveness in Canada's national security framework. This bill was introduced in response to Canada's largest-ever national security consultation.
I know that all hon. members are united in the resolve to combat extremism, prevent terrorist violence, and bring perpetrators of such acts to justice. Unfortunately, Bill C-371 will not be an effective tool to help us achieve this common goal. I am sorry that I cannot support it, but I look forward to working with the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and all hon. members to ensure that Canadians are as safe as possible and can live free from all forms of extremism and violence.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, there is something that I need to tell him. Right now, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is studying Bill C-59. As part of that study, we noticed that there is a gap in Bill C-59, and that could be filled by Bill C-371, which was introduced by my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka. It would be nice if my colleague were listening to me, but that is fine.
Today, I am pleased to rise in the House to support my colleague's bill, Bill C-371. I think it is an essential tool for combatting terrorism in Canada. As proposed, the bill would give the government the ability to establish, based on the recommendations of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, a list of foreign states, individuals, and entities that suppress religious freedom, sentence individuals to punishment based on their religious beliefs, and engage in or support activities that promote radicalization.
This bill deals with what is known as the covert means by which money is paid to Canadian organizations and institutions that support radicalization. It would make it possible to prevent an individual, entity, or foreign state that supports, promotes, or is associated with radicalization from funding an institution through donations or gifts.
This bill is very important because the Liberals prove to us almost every day that they do not fully understand the very clear danger we are facing.
For example, all Canadians in every region of the country heard the Prime Minister say that the Islamic State jihadis can have an extraordinarily powerful voice in Canada.
It is incredible that a prime minister would make such a comment. Not only is it absurd, but it is completely irresponsible.
Many of these people have returned to Canada with terrorist training, which is based on hatred for everything that is contrary to their views. These terrorists have committed unthinkable acts of violence. They have shot homosexuals, raped women and young girls, and killed Christians, Jews, and members of other faiths.
Today, the Prime Minister not only believes that these animals can be integrated into our society, but that they can be a powerful voice. Does the Prime Minister mean that they are a powerful voice for radicalization? Does he perhaps mean that they are a powerful voice for turning back the clock on women's rights? Is the Prime Minister aware of the real danger that these people represent? Does the Prime Minister keep an eye on the news about terrorist attacks in other countries? I am not so sure.
Another example is that the Prime Minister reached a settlement agreement with a terrorist, but he is dragging our veterans, those who fought to protect Canadians, through the courts. Clearly, the Prime Minister lacks judgment. He does not have his priorities straight.
Bill C-371 is important because we know that there have been relatively few charges, prosecutions, or convictions of people who have taken part in or provided material support to the jihadi movement.
We are concerned about the failure to prosecute when it comes to terrorist financing.
We learned that between 2009 and 2014, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada identified 683 cases of terrorist financing, and that no legal action was taken under the relevant sections of the Criminal Code. The terrorist threat to the security of Canada has increased significantly.
In recent decades, a number of Canadians have been convicted in court for planning multi-target, mass-casualty strikes in this country. Threats have been forthcoming from Canadians who have joined terrorists hostile to Canada and its allies. We know that more than 80 Canadians have returned to Canada after participating with Islamist fundamentalist groups. Many of these people return with terrorist training, combat experience and may therefore pose a security risk to Canada. There have been relatively few charges, prosecutions, or convictions for participating in or providing material support to the jihadist movement.
Similarly, with the exception of the 2010 conviction of Prapaharan Thambithurai, who was charged with raising money for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, there have been no charges in the area of supporting listed terrorist entities like the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Islamic Relief Fund for the Needy and Afflicted.
Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy, as well as other witnesses, advised the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that extremist jihadist ideology is being spread at schools and universities in Canada, often under the guise of academic freedom and away from the eyes of CSIS.
The person who told us that is an imam. Specifically, he said this:
The money comes in different ways, in secret ways. Money comes through institutions. There are two organizations in Canada. Basically they are U.S. organizations that are operating in Canada. One is called AlMaghrib Institute, the other is called AlKauthar Institute. Both work in universities, not in mosques. Both give lectures. Both organize seminars. They are the ones who brainwash these young kids in lectures.
That is what the Calgary imam told the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. I did not make that up. When Shahina Siddiqui of the Islamic Social Services Association appeared before the same committee in 2015, she said this:
I can tell you that my own organization was offered $3 million. We refused, even though I had not a penny in my account at that time, when I started the organization, because this is a Canadian organization, and we don't need funding from anywhere else.
The same thing with our mosques in Manitoba. We were offered money from Libya when we made our first mosque. We refused it.
Did some mosques accept money from overseas because it was legal to do so? If we want to curtail that practice, we have to make it illegal, not just for Muslims but for all groups. One person said no. M. Siddiqui from Islamic Social Services said that he refused money. He was offered $3 million from Libya. He knew it was irregular. There was nothing stopping him from accepting that money. That is what is meant by secret ways. That money could have come in through the back door and, if these people were not honest, they could have had that money. There is no way to control that.
Richard Fadden, former director of CSIS and national security advisor to former prime minister Harper and to the current Prime Minister during the first few months of his mandate, confirmed that there are concerns about foreign financing of Canadian religious and quasi-religious institutions. The danger is real. This bill would serve as another tool to counter those who hate our society. As I said earlier, Bill C-59 is a massive, 140-page document that includes a lot of things. However, ever since the committee started hearing from witnesses, we have seen that this bill is flawed. I mentioned to my colleagues that Bill C-371 would address the gaps in Bill C-59. Despite the government's claims, I think that passing this bill would be very appropriate.
View Kelly McCauley Profile
CPC (AB)
View Kelly McCauley Profile
2018-02-09 13:29 [p.17018]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-371, the prevention of radicalization through foreign funding act, introduced by my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka.
Organized criminal and terrorist networks are constantly evolving to find new ways to finance their crimes. New opportunities for criminal networks to exploit things like funding chains and programs offered through non-governmental organizations are constantly surfacing and it is our job as legislators not only to recognize this pattern but to shut them down. Today I would like to talk about some of the gaps in our current law and what it means for Canadians and why I think this bill is a step in the right direction.
There are numerous scenarios that currently allow terrorist organizations to infiltrate Canadian networks. These are often wealthy foreign influencers who funnel funds from their propaganda machines into Canadian charities and institutions. Imam Syed Soharwardy told the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that this problem has been largely ignored, stating:
The money comes in different ways, in secret ways. Money comes through institutions. There are two organizations in Canada. Basically they are U.S. organizations that are operating in Canada. One is called AlMaghrib Institute, the other is called AlKauthar Institute. Both work in universities, not in mosques. Both give lectures. Both organize seminars. They are the ones who brainwash these young kids in lectures.
These are not amateur actors. They know where to find impressionable kids and how to pull them in using complex programs for recruitment through Canadian institutions like those based in education and faith. Richard Fadden, national security adviser to our ex-PM, and a former director of CSIS, explained that a major difficulty for managing this crisis in oversight is that money is coming from individuals and NGOs and not just foreign governments, which makes it more difficult to track. We know that between 2009 and 2014, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada identified 683 terrorist financing incidences, and yet we have not prosecuted any of these. Listed entities noted as operating are the Tamil Tigers, Hamas, and Hezbollah. A colleague on the Liberal side stated that there is no real need for improvement right now. However, there has not been a single charge in the 683 incidences of money coming in to terrorist organizations. It is clear the government does not take this issue seriously.
What happens when the funding network goes unchallenged or unchecked, and what does it mean for radicalization? Groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and Daesh have developed complex campaigns that seek out gullible audiences around the world, and any funding that these organizations get, whether through criminal activity or collusion with foreign governments, goes toward growing their network, enhancing their capabilities, and spreading their message to indoctrinate people beyond their borders.
Let us be clear here. Canada has been directly threatened by terrorist groups. Calls to action from these groups for domestic fighters have been made. These groups have a vested interest in using the funds they make and collect abroad for international recruitment because their existence goes as far as their message will carry it. Daesh alone has the participation of over 100 Canadians so far that we know of, and with the advancement of digital communication and the increasing use of the Internet, that number will continue to grow. A National Post story cited in the Senate committee report stated that it takes about 30 seconds to create a Twitter account and connect to somebody in Syria and then Facebook's algorithm suggests similar sites and friends with the same interests. These connections are used to establish contacts, create shell organizations, and nurture relationships with newly radicalized groups. Because this funding is being funnelled into existing local institutions, they can recruit en masse, making it a much more lucrative investment for time and resources.
This bill seeks to apply a framework that stops this from happening by setting out a schedule of foreign states and, by extension, for individuals and entities that suppress religious freedom, impose punishments for religious beliefs, or have engaged in or facilitated activities that promote radicalization. As an added protection, there is a built-in review and appeal process that ensures accountability and transparency throughout the process of assessment. This spurs a further need with regard to foreign funding and especially why we are not doing more to enhance transparency and accountability in funding that Canada looks after and puts toward incoming and outgoing funds from Canada.
The most glaring example right now was the Liberals' decision to return funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, an organization that is known to be infiltrated and used by Hamas. UNRWA, while operating as a non-governmental organization, has provided facilities directly to terrorist organizations that commit crimes against children, women, and the population as a whole. It even allows Hamas to build tunnels underneath schools for launching rockets at Israel. I have to ask why this is right. Why are Canadian taxpayers funding an organization that is contributing to violence against innocent people?
Let us talk about the main source of illicit funding coming into Canada and across the world: Saudi Arabia.
The following is from a Robert Fife article on the Saudis. It reports on a task force report on terrorist financing by the Council on Foreign Relations, which included former White House counterterrorist czar Richard Clarke and David Cohen, the CIA's former director of operations.
...Saudi Arabia is funding radical Islamic extremism in...Canada, where the Saudis have contributed millions of dollars to a mysterious...centre in Toronto....
“Saudi Arabia funds the global propagation of Wahabism, a brand of Islam that, in some instances, supports militancy by encouraging divisiveness and violent acts against Muslims and non-Muslims,” the report said.
“This massive spending is helping to create the next generation of terrorists and therefore constitutes a paramount strategic threat to the United States” [and other neighbouring countries].
Saudi Arabia has spent hundreds of millions of dollars...around the world, including in Canada.
The article goes on to cite an official Saudi report that stated that the Saudis have donated millions in Canada, including for the Salaheddin centre, which runs “a mosque and private elementary school where the Khadr family and other...radicals linked to [Al Qaeda] belong, and where the organization's website preaches against Jews and Christians.”
Here is a delightful statement from that website, which is funded with help from the Saudis:
Why do we hate the Jews? We hate them for the sake of our Lord, we hate them for the sake of Allaah because they slandered Allaah and they killed and slandered His Prophets.
Here we have Saudi funding coming into Canada promoting hate.
I want to chat more about the Saudis for a moment. Saudi attacks in Yemen have led to over 4,000 civilian casualties, hitting homes, hospitals, and schools as well as civilian factories, warehouses, and other protected sites. Its forces have admitted using banned cluster munitions.
Saudi law allows flogging, stoning, executions, and brutal jail time for supporting demonstrations or for merely harming the reputation of the kingdom. Women must obtain permission from a male guardian to marry, divorce, travel, get a job, or have elective surgery or any other health care treatment.
Here we have Saudi groups poisoning minds in Canada and around the world, and the response from the Liberal government is to happily bring in blood oil on the east coast of Canada at the same time it shuns Alberta oil by killing off energy east.
More than 122,000 oil workers have been without jobs in Alberta since the price of oil collapsed, and Alberta's unemployment rate sits at a 22-year high, yet here we are knocking on Saudi Arabia's door for access to a resource we have plenty of at home.
Why are we pouring funds into countries that act in direct violation of rights we strive to uphold and that commit violence and discriminatory practices against women, minority groups, the LGBT community, and all demographic groups the Liberal government claims to support? I suppose saying that we are promoting human rights is easier than actually promoting them, yet here we are.
We need to preserve the integrity of our local institutions, such as our churches, our mosques, and our schools, and ensure that they and the people who rely on them are protected. We need to cut off this funding at the head. We know it is happening. We know who is doing it. We are not doing anything to stop it.
The bill is an essential way for governments to ensure that radical groups are not able to use local and domestic institutions as a means of growing their networks and committing atrocities around the world.
We need to ensure accountability and fiscal transparency in the foreign funding coming into Canadian schools and places of worship.
I thank my hon. colleague for bringing this private member's bill forward, and I will proudly support it.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2017-11-29 18:28 [p.15761]
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for putting forward this motion, which is very well intentioned. It is an area on which we all share a great deal of concern.
I am wondering if the member could articulate—and I am going to talk about this in my comments—on the differences Bill C-371 has from the existing mechanisms and legislation that is in place. In other words, what would the bill do that is not already in place? How does it differ from FINTRAC and some of the other mechanisms that are in place, so that I can understand what gaps he is looking to fill?
View Tony Clement Profile
Ind. (ON)
View Tony Clement Profile
2017-11-29 18:29 [p.15761]
Madam Speaker, indeed, the purpose of the legislation is to fill gaps.
For instance, the legislation that is currently in place that is available for CRA targets charitable organizations, but there are many other organizations—educational organizations, not-for-profit organizations—that cannot be tracked in the same way and exist as gaps in our legislation.
This was identified in the Senate committee report and is an area of vulnerability that we have, because not-for-profit organizations, other educational organizations, or individuals may not be covered under the Revenue Canada organization, FINTRAC, or these kinds of things.
What I have identified is a gap that can be filled with this legislation. It is consistent with current legislation that is in place but does not extend to these organizations.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2017-11-29 18:34
Most of my comments today will centre on the question I asked concerning redundancy, namely the mechanisms that are already in place and whether this bill is filling a gap or overlapping the existing mechanisms, and what the consequences would be. I will run through these, if I could.
The proposals to create a mechanism to stem funding from foreign bodies known to promote radicalization and extremism in Canada are at the centre of this bill. It would also authorize the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, to recommend the listing of states that have engaged in religious persecution, torture, and the promotion of radicalization. Canadian religious, cultural, or educational institutions would then be prohibited from accepting money or other valuables from sources affiliated with those listed states. As I have stated, these measures are totally in line with the objectives of the government.
The bill also attempts to respond to recommendation 15 of the 2015 interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. That reference proposes that the government develop measures to prevent foreign funds from entering Canada, where such funds, donors, or recipients have been linked to radicalization.
My concern is that the stated aim of the bill seems, in some instances, to be inconsistent with its provisions. Only one of the three reasons to list a state has to do with promotion of radicalization. The other two do not. They have to do with subjecting individuals to human rights violations, either through religious persecution or torture and cruel punishments. Those violations are already covered under the new Magnitsky act, which allows Canada to impose broad asset freezes and financial prohibitions on individuals responsible for, or complicit in, gross violations of international human rights.
With respect to preventing funds from being used to support terrorist activities, we can say that the Government of Canada is committed to a strong and comprehensive regime. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act,, or the PCMLTFA, is a primary piece of legislation that establishes this framework. The act requires approximately 31,000 financial institutions and intermediaries to identify their clients, keep records, and have internal compliance programs in place. It creates a mandatory reporting system for suspicious financial transactions, large cross-border currency transfers, and certain proscribed transactions.
The legislation also established the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, which I was referring to earlier, Canada's main agency for monitoring money laundering and terrorist financing. FINTRAC is authorized by the existing legislation to collect and analyze financial transaction reports and disclose pertinent information to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. With the millions of financial transaction reports received every year, FINTRAC helps to establish links between individuals and groups in Canada and abroad suspected of financing and supporting terrorist activities. This intelligence assists police and national security agencies in their investigations of terrorist financing and threats to the security of Canada. It is also information that is used in assessing the level of risk posed by organizations that apply to be registered as charities.
There are a number of rules that govern how charities should operate, whether in Canada or abroad. The Canada Revenue Agency, as the federal regulator of charities, protects the charitable organization registration system from being abused by individuals or groups with links to terrorists. The charities directorate formally established the review and analysis division in 2003 to audit registered charities based on the potential risk of terrorist financing abuse. It works to prevent organizations with links to terrorism from being registered and to revoke the registration of those that are.
The Criminal Code's terrorist listing regime is another important tool in the fight against terrorism. The listing of entities counters terrorist financing and criminalizes certain support for listed entities. It is based on a principle similar to what we see in the bill before us today. When an entity is placed on the list, banks and financial institutions freeze its assets. The code makes it a criminal offence for Canadians at home and abroad to knowingly deal with the assets of a listed entity. Listings aim to help obstruct financial support for terrorist groups and supporters of terrorism. For example, Canadian charitable organizations that are maintaining connections to organizations already listed under the Criminal Code can be and are listed.
Furthermore, the list of entities helps to prevent registered charities in Canada from serving as a support network for terrorist organizations operating abroad. An organization can be denied charitable status or have its registration revoked when its resources provide any means of support for, or benefit to, an organization listed under the Criminal Code.
A further result of listing may be to deny its members, recruiters and facilitators entry to Canada.
The assessment process to identify potential entities to consider for listing is continuous and action can be taken when and if necessary. Under the code, Canada has the ability to apply appropriate criminal measures to deter terrorist activity in Canada. Once listed, an entity becomes defined as a terrorist group under the Criminal Code, which means various terrorism-related offences could potentially then be applied to the entity's supporters in Canada. These include offences related to terrorist financing, terrorist related-travel, recruitment and training.
When it comes to the prosecution of terrorism-related offences, however, it should be noted that the Criminal Code's definition of a "terrorist group" is not restricted to listed entities. Charges and prosecutions can even proceed if the group involved is not on the list. That is only one of several mechanisms we already use effectively.
When it comes to countering terrorism, the government understands that stemming the flow of dubious funding is only one part of the equation. That is why we have taken a recent major step further, through the effort to prevent radicalization to violence rather than only deal with it after the fact. That involves getting at the root causes and factors that contribute to terrorism by actively engaging with individuals and communities.
We know that our success in doing so relies on the support and participation from all levels of government and society, especially local communities and individual Canadians. The newly created Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence, or the Canada Centre, is a source of advice, research and funding in that respect.
Thanks in no small part to $35 million in funding over five years provided through budget 2016, the centre is already making a real difference. It is working with youth, communities, academia, and stakeholders to help prevent radicalization to violence in Canada. It is based on the understanding that there is no single ideology or cause of radicalization to violence and that prevention must be an essential component of Canada's efforts to counter terrorism.
All of this goes hand in hand with new security legislation, or Bill C-59, which is heading to committee now. It is designed to update our national security framework to reflect current realities, while putting the rights and freedoms of Canadians at the core.
The Canadian government already takes all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats to our country, to our people, to our way of life, and to our global interests. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the efforts of FINTRAC and our security agencies, the Criminal Code listings, and the new Canada Centre, in concert with our proposed overhaul of Canada's national security framework, are all parts of a well-functioning system. Every day, they are informing our work to combat terrorism and to keep Canadians safe.
As I mentioned at the top of my speech, Bill C-371 is a well-intentioned legislation. The concern I would have, and I raised it in my question for the member, is where it will fill in any gaps that might have been missed in the various mechanisms I have just articulated.
One of the things I would ask members to do is to consider the implications of that duplication and ensure the legislation is moving that forward.
I look forward to further conversations with the member. I very much appreciate him bringing forward the legislation and for his ongoing work and concern, which I very much share.
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
2017-11-27 15:14 [p.15625]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to the supplementary estimates (B), 2017-18.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Scott Brison Profile
2017-11-09 10:04 [p.15177]
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 84 departments and agencies, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the departmental results reports for the 2016-17 fiscal year.
8563-421-170 Performance Report of Admin ...8563-421-171 Performance Report of Agric ...8563-421-172 Performance Report of Atlan ...8563-421-173 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-174 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-175 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-176 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-177 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-178 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-179 Performance Report of Canad ...8563-421-180 Performance Report of Canad ... ...Show all topics
View Matt DeCourcey Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Matt DeCourcey Profile
2017-09-21 10:07 [p.13311]
Mr. Speaker, our government believes that regulating the international arms trade is essential for the protection of people and human rights. This is especially true for control and regulation that aim to prevent the illicit trade of arms.
The Arms Trade Treaty is about protecting people. It ensures countries effectively regulate the international trade of arms so that they are not used to support terrorism, international organized crime, gender-based violence, human rights abuses, or violations of international humanitarian law. Our government is committed to advancing export controls as a means of reducing the risks that come from the illicit trade in conventional arms. Joining the ATT, which calls on all of its state parties to set up effective export controls, is the next important step in advancing these export controls and reducing these risks.
Joining the Arms Trade Treaty will put Canada back on the same page as its closest partners and allies. Canada is the only NATO ally and the only G7 partner that has not signed or ratified the ATT.
The Arms Trade Treaty was negotiated in response to growing international concern about the direct and indirect consequences of the global arms trade on conflict, human rights, and development.
The goal is to ensure that all states take responsibility and rigorously assess arms exports. States must also regulate the legal arms trade and use transparent measures to combat illicit trade.
We recognize that unregulated or illicit arms transfers intensify and prolong conflict, lead to regional instability, contribute to violations of international humanitarian law and humans rights abuses, and hinder social and economic development.
Indeed, the proliferation of weapons, and particularly of small arms and light weapons, is one of the greatest security challenges faced by the international community. Armed conflicts affect civilians. Women and children are too frequently targeted or are innocent victims.
The consequences of illicit or irresponsible flows of conventional arms also go beyond the immediate threat of death, injury, or violence. Proliferation and illicit weapons trade contribute to a climate of persistent fear and insecurity, which undermines socio-economic growth and stability.
The Arms Trade Treaty has an important role to play in addressing these issues. Canada must be a leader in this effort, and we must lead by example.
The ATT represents the first time that the international community has agreed to a legally binding and global commitment to control exports of conventional arms. It sets a high common standard for export of arms, and seeks to eliminate illicit trade and diversion of conventional arms.
States acceding to the ATT must assess the risk that an export might be used negatively, including for human rights abuses or to contribute to organized crime. This is not always black and white. It requires looking not only at the state as a whole but also at who will take possession of the weapon, their track record, the risk that the weapon could be diverted from the purpose intended when it was exported, and other similar factors.
The ATT also requires states to consider mitigation measures to address identified risks. This treaty is very clear. If there is no way to ensure that a given export will not pose a serious threat to human rights or be used to violate international humanitarian laws or perpetrate international terrorism or crime, it must be forbidden.
Therefore, Bill C-47 would further strengthen Canada's existing processes in relation to the global movement of arms. Our changes, including those to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, will make Canada's export control system even more robust, and will ensure a continued high standard for addressing the pressing issue of arms proliferation around the globe.
Canada’s existing export control system complies with 26 of the 28 provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty. In that sense, some changes are needed to bring Canada into full compliance with the two articles of the treaty where we fall short, namely, article 7, export and export assessment, and article 10, brokering.
One of the things the bill before us does is introduce the necessary legislative changes to ensure that we meet our ATT obligations.
Article 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty establishes common, clear, and rigorous standards regarding the factors that states must take into account before authorizing the export of any items subject to the ATT. These factors include an assessment of the potential that Canadian exports could be used to commit serious violations of human rights law or international humanitarian law, as well as the potential that the exports could fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists.
The ATT is the first arms control treaty that focuses specifically on the issue of gender-based violence and violence against women and children, issues that are very important to our government. These criteria are designed to ensure that Canada assesses the risks associated with the export of a given product or piece of technology regarding the intended end use and end user.
Bill C-47 will also ensure that Canada can fulfill the stipulations of article 10 of the ATT, which requires that every state regulate brokering. Brokering captures the transfer of arms without an export permit. The provisions of the bill ensure that Canadians who arrange the transfer of arms between a second and a third country follow the same rules as those who export arms outside Canada.
Regulating brokering activities will give our government the ability to monitor the activities of individuals and organizations that serve as intermediaries between arms dealers and the end users of military goods.
Moreover, these brokering permit requirements would also apply extraterritorially, meaning they would apply to Canadians engaged in brokering activities abroad. This additional capability will allow us to have a better idea of the types of brokering control list transfers involving Canadians that occur globally and to bring a greater level of visibility on potentially high-risk transactions brokered by Canadians.
Our government intends to go beyond the standards set by the Arms Trade Treaty and ensure that brokering regulations cover not only the conventional weapons covered by the ATT but also military articles and dual-use items that are likely destined to a weapon of mass destruction end use.
Requiring permits for brokering would ensure that comparable levels of scrutiny would also be applied to brokering activities. As a result, Canadian export permit authorities can better assess the risks of potential arms transfers before they occur to determine their suitability, and to deny a permit for such transfers where there is an overriding risk of the negative consequences of one of the export permit criteria, including the risk of serious violation of international human rights law or international humanitarian law.
I would like to point out that there is a legitimate role for brokers who arrange or facilitate sales for reputable arms manufacturers. Unfortunately, there are also those who do not act responsibly and who choose instead to profit from the sales of arms, even though they know that they will fall into the wrong hands.
Internationally, there are far too many cases where unscrupulous arms dealers put profits ahead of human life. Transactions facilitated by those dealers have given rise to the transfer of firearms to conflict zones, in direct violation of United Nations firearms embargoes, and to terrorist or criminal groups. This legislation will make it possible for responsible Canadian dealers to hold permits and conduct legal activities. It will ensure that those who choose to act unethically will also end up acting illegally.
Beyond the changes required by the ATT, the bill will enhance Canada's export and import controls by addressing the issue of penalties imposed on individuals who try to circumvent Canadian law and regulations. The bill will increase the maximum fine for a summary conviction offence from $25,000 to $250,000 for any offence under the Export and Import Permits Act. Increasing the maximum penalty underscores the seriousness of these offences that contribute directly to destabilizing accumulations of weapons and technologies in conflict zones around the world.
Let me reiterate that these new measures would ensure that our government will be better able to pursue bad-faith actors and hold them to account. At the same time, Canada would be in a better position to review bona fide arms transfers to legitimate end-users. Canada would also be able to effectively penalize those who would try to circumvent these processes.
I would like to make it clear that Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty does not and would not affect domestic ownership of firearms or Canada's domestic firearms laws and policies. The ATT would govern the import and export of conventional arms, not the trade in sporting and hunting firearms owned and used by law-abiding Canadian citizens.
However, the ATT does not limit the number or type of arms a country can sell. The ATT simply requires states to establish rigorous export controls of the kind that Canada already has in place to ensure that exports are not put to unforeseen harmful use.
The ATT is not a one-size-fits-all system. It recognizes that states' export control systems must meet their national needs. It does not prevent states from including expedited processes in their export control systems, as Canada does for close allies, such as the United States.
The government will ensure that exports are assessed in accordance with the criteria set out in the ATT and that they do not violate the prohibitions in the treaty.
Turning now to the Export and Import Permits Act and to the Criminal Code, we have indicated to Canadians that our government is committed to strengthening Canada's export controls with respect to military and strategic goods and technology. This bill and our commitment to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty are part of our promise to increase the rigour of Canada's export-control system. As members are aware, Canada already has a robust export control system. We are a key member of a number of export control and non-proliferation regimes that allow us to exchange information on trends in arms movement and on best practices with our allies.
In addition, Canada has a strong sanctions regime that includes sanctions related to the export or sale of arms. Canadian sanctions are part of a multilateral action. They reflect the work we do in concert with our allies. Sanctions are implemented in Canada through the United Nations Act or the Special Economic Measures Act.
Canada has its own financial intelligence unit with respect to illicit financing of arms. The mandate of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada is to facilitate the detection, prevention, and deterrence of money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. Our government is taking steps to ensure that these new obligations do not unduly hinder or restrict legitimate transfers of military, dual-use, and other strategic items that are aligned with our national interests and do not pose undue risk.
It is the government's intention to apply the ATT assessment criteria not only to those goods specifically outlined in the ATT, but also to all dual-use, military, and strategic goods. Our government will also apply the ATT assessment criteria to both export and brokering permit applications. We will thus exceed the standards set by the ATT, and strengthen our export control system at the same time. Indeed, our government intends to see Canada establish a particularly high standard when it comes to gender-based violence and violence against women and children. The fact that this issue was included in the treaty is a clear sign of the power of advocacy by states like Canada who are determined to address gender-based violence.
While this is given less attention and consideration in the ATT than other criteria, Canada intends to propose including gender-based violence in the regulations, applying a higher standard, and assessing the risks related to gender-based violence to a broader set of exports than those defined within the ATT. These new measures would ensure that our government is better able to pursue bad-faith actors and hold them to account. Canada would also be better able to effectively penalize those who would try to circumvent these processes.
Canadian businesses would still be able to conduct legitimate transactions in pursuit of Canadian strategic and defence interests and the strategic interests of our allies.
Finally, these changes would allow Canada to meet its international obligations and accede to the ATT. I encourage all my colleagues here today to seek to advance this bill rapidly so that Canada can once again take its rightful place with its international partners as a state party to the Arms Trade Treaty.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Scott Brison Profile
2017-06-14 22:52 [p.12716]
moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $45,942,822, under Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada — Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, be concurred in.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2017-05-11 10:08 [p.11045]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to the main estimates 2017-18.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 425--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to pictures and pieces of artwork in government buildings, since November 4, 2015, broken down by department and agency: (a) how many pictures, paintings, or pieces of artwork have been installed or put on display in government buildings, not including employees individual offices, cubicles, or other personal space; (b) what are the costs associated with each of such pictures, paintings, or pieces of artwork including, but not limited of cost of acquisition or rental of image/artwork, framing, mounting and installation; (c) how many pictures of the Liberal leader and current Prime Minister have been installed or put on display in government buildings; and (d) what are the costs and location associated with each picture listed in (c), including, but not limited to cost of image, framing, mounting, and installation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 467--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to training provided for Ministers or their exempt staff since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all expenses, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) location, (iv) total amount, (v) contract file number, if applicable, (vi) any travel expenses associated with the training?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 538--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to fire safety education in First Nations communities: (a) what materials are distributed or provided by Indigenous and North Affairs to First Nations communities; (b) how much has Indigenous and Northern Affairs spent annually since 2005 to educate and train First Nations communities on fire safety and firefighting; (c) what amount does Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada budget annually specifically for education of fire safety in First Nations communities; and (d) how much does Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada spend annually, since 2005, on travel and expenses for Ministry Staff to inspect and report back to the Ministry on the fire protection preparedness in Canada’s First Nations communities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 592--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the announced closure of the Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Case Processing Centre in Vegreville, Alberta: (a) what are the details of any studies or assessments the government has conducted regarding the impact of the closure on processing times, broken down by study or assessment, including the (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) conclusion or findings, (iv) methodology, (v) title of individual or organization which conducted the study or assessment, (vi) date the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship was apprised of the findings, (vii) internal tracking or file number; (b) for every briefing document prepared in relation to the closure, (i) what is the date on the document, (ii) what is the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) what is the Department’s internal tracking number, (iv) who was the document prepared for; (c) on what date and by what method were the following individuals made aware of the closure, (i) the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, (ii) the Premier of Alberta, (iii) the Mayor of Vegreville, (iv) the local Member of the Legislative Assembly, (v) the employees impacted by the closure; (d) what are the details of any consultations conducted with any of the individuals referred to in (c), including the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) method, (iv) title of the government official who conducted the consultations, (v) title, date, and file number of any documents resulting from the consultations; and (e) which Cabinet committee approved the closure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 593--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Phoenix pay system backlog, in written form and in addition to graphs or diagrams: (a) what is the total number of all backlogged cases between January 1, 2016, to November 1, 2016; (b) what is the total number of all backlogged cases from June 1, 2016, to November 1, 2016; (c) what is the total number of all backlogged cases prior to February 1, 2016; (d) of the total number of all backlogged cases in (a), (b) and (c), what is (i) the total number of all backlogged cases in Priority 1, (ii) the total number of backlogged cases in Priority 2, (iii) the total number of backlogged cases in Priority 3; (e) what is the total number of backlogged cases that have been processed at the Miramichi Pay Centre; (f) what is the total number of backlogged cases that are being processed at the Miramichi Pay Centre; and (g) what is the total number of backlogged cases that are being processed at other pay centres, broken down by department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 594--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to infrastructure spending on consumer and commercial broadband internet connectivity in Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing: (a) what amount has been allocated for each of the past ten years and forecasted for the next five years; (b) which companies have been awarded contracts; (c) for each company in (b), (i) what services are they mandated to provide, (ii) to what specific communities are they providing service, or are required to provide service; (d) what is the minimum band width provided for each community; (e) what timelines have been set for the completion of service delivery; (f) what method is used to verify work is being completed as contracted; and (g) what progress has been made as of October 2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 595--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to the decision to classify Algoma Central Railway passenger service as rural and not remote: (a) what were the determining factors that the route was declared rural and no longer remote; (b) what roads service the community of Oba; (c) who maintains the roads in (b); (d) what information was provided to the new Minister of Transport to brief him on the decision to declare the route rural and not remote; (e) what are the details of all correspondence, evidence, or other information the Minister of Transport or Transport Canada possess that indicate that businesses in the area are thriving; and (f) what has the Minister of Transport done to encourage Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada to assist with the Missinabie Cree proposal to run the Algoma Passenger Train
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 597--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to youth programs and services: (a) what are all of the federal programs for young people aged 15 to 24 or for organizations that help people in this age group, broken down by department, for the year 2016; and (b) for each of these programs and services, (i) what is their operating budget, (ii) what are their objectives, (iii) what are their criteria for determining the amount to grant to the requester?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 599--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Fifty per cent Aboriginal Hiring Strategy agreed to by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), now Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC): (a) between 1996 and 2016, what percentage of employees of AANDC/INAC have identified as Aboriginal, broken down by year (i) at the director level and below, (ii) at the director-general level and above; (b) between 1996 and 2016, how many individuals who have self-identified as Aboriginal (i) have been hired into full-time positions, (ii) have been hired into part-time positions, (iii) have been promoted within the department; (c) since 1996, what efforts have been made by AANDC/INAC to (i) increase the recruitment of Aboriginal employees, (ii) increase the retention of Aboriginal employees, (iii) provide promotions to Aboriginal employees; and (d) between 1996 and 2016, what percentage of part-time employees who have self-identified as Aboriginal have become permanent employees?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 600--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces’ Operation IMPACT: (a) what was the original risk score assigned to the mission; (b) what is the current risk score assigned to the mission; (c) since the beginning of the mission, has the risk score changed and, if so, (i) when did it change, (ii) how many times has it changed, (iii) for each change, what was the original score and the new score; (d) are various risk scores applied to different Canadian Armed Forces personnel based on (i) location, (ii) rank, (iii) task; (e) if any responses to (d) are in the affirmative, what are all the risk scores that have been designated since the beginning of Operation IMPACT; (f) has the Department of Finance or the Department of National Defence changed the tax relief for personnel deployed on designated international operational missions for Operation IMPACT; (g) are all members of the Canadian Armed Forces deployed on Operation IMPACT entitled to the same tax relief measures; and (h) have any members received the tax relief measures provided to the members deployed since the beginning of the mission and, if so, what are the specific details of such relief measures?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 602--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the collection and retention of metadata or associated data by CSIS: (a) on what dates were the present or former Ministers of Public Safety informed of (i) the existence of the Operational Data Analysis Centre, (ii) the retention of metadata or associated data pertaining to third-parties or individuals who were deemed not to pose a threat, (iii) the possibility this practice could be deemed unlawful; (b) how was the information communicated for each instance in (a); (c) on what dates were the present or former Ministers of Justice informed of (i) the existence of the Operational Data Analysis Centre, (ii) the retention of metadata or associated data pertaining to third-parties or individuals who were deemed not to pose a threat, (iii) the possibility this practice could be deemed unlawful, (iv) the fact that the Federal Court had not been properly informed of this practice; (d) how was the information communicated for each instance in (c); and (e) what is the total number of Canadians whose metadata has been stored by CSIS in each year since 2006?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 603--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to all government funding to the province of Manitoba: (a) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of disbursing government funds, have been cancelled since November 4, 2015; (b) what was the rationale provided for the cancellation of each item identified in (a); (c) what amount of funding had been dispensed to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation; (d) what was the estimated value of each item identified in (a) prior to cancellation; and (e) what consultations, if any, took place in relation to the items identified in (a) prior to their approval?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 604--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the government’s planned legalization and regulation of marijuana, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of any consultations or meetings which have been held with stakeholders including (i) date, (ii) locations, (iii) attendees; (b) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence related to the meetings referred to in (a), including (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number; (c) what is the content of any information provided to the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretaries by (i) the Department of Justice, (ii) the Department of Health, (iii) the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, (iv) the Department of Finance, (v) the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; (d) has the Minister of Justice or her officials consulted other jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana; and (e) if the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, what are the details, including (i) jurisdictions consulted, (ii) findings for each consultation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 607--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to the involvement of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) does the Minister intend for the government to become the owner of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric facility, its high voltage power lines and its underwater cable if it has to make good on the loan guarantee; (b) has the Minister analyzed the constitutionality, especially as regards section 92(a) of the BNAA, of a situation where the government would own or operate a facility to produce electricity on provincial land and, if so, what were the findings of this analysis; (c) has the Department considered the possibly that, if the loan guarantee were called upon and the government of Canada takes possession of the facility, it could dispose of the Muskrat Falls assets, including transferring them to another province or one of its Crown corporations, without the approval of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what were the Department’s conclusions; (e) has the Department assessed the consequences for Quebec of its involvement in the Muskrat Falls project, in particular the arrival of a new competitor for the export markets sought after by Hydro-Québec in the Atlantic provinces and the northeastern United States; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what were the Department’s conclusions; (g) have the Minister or the Department contacted the Government of Quebec regarding this file, and what have they done to address the issues identified by the Quebec National Assembly in its unanimous resolutions of April 6, 2011, and November 30, 2012; and (h) has the government discussed with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador the possibility of authorizing infrastructure to transport electricity across Quebec’s territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 610--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the government`s commitment to implement all 94 calls to action in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, broken down by call to action: (a) what specific steps has the government undertaken towards implementation; (b) what are the next steps that the government will take towards implementation; (c) what is the projected implementation date; (d) what are the details of the costs to date; and (e) what are the projected costs to fully implement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 612--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to consultation surveys posted on various government websites, broken down by individual survey: (a) what is the title and description of each survey; (b) what steps were taken to ensure that results were representative of the Canadian population as identified by Statistics Canada; (c) what controls are used to ensure that those responding to the survey are from Canada and not from another country; (d) what efforts have been made to prevent an individual from taking the same survey multiple times; (e) were any outside groups or organizations consulted in the development of any survey; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what are the names of all groups or organizations that were directly consulted in the development of the survey questions, broken down by survey; and (g) what is the total cost of each survey?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 614--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program, between the program’s launch and November 18, 2016, what projects have been submitted from the constituency of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 616--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the budget of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, broken down by program and sub-program area: (a) from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017, what was the budget amount allocated, divided by base spending and program spending; (b) from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017, what was the budget amount actually spent, divided by base spending and program spending; (c) from 2016-2017 to 2020-2021, what is the amount that is projected to be allocated, divided by base spending and program spending; and (d) what are the amounts in (a), (b) and (c) that will be taken from the lump-sum dollar figure that is set out under the two per cent cap?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 617--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Independent Assessment Process (IAP): (a) how much of the Common Experience Payment (CEP) fund was paid to survivors and how much was paid to others through education credits; (b) what is the total amount paid to survivors under the IAP to date; (c) what is the total amount paid to survivors’ lawyers under the IAP to date; (d) what is the total amount that was paid to survivors’ lawyers under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) separately from claims under the IAP process; (e) what has been the total amount spent for the IAP administration, including payments to Justice Canada lawyers, arbitrators and other contractors; (f) what was the total amount spent by Justice Canada in defending residential school civil action claims and under the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, before the IRSSA; (g) what has been the total amount spent to date by Health Canada for health supports under the IRSSA; (h) what has been the total amount spent to date by Library and Archives Canada in relation to residential school claims, including under (i) civil court cases, (ii) the ADR process, (iii) the IRSSA; (i) what is the government’s best approximation of the amount spent by Canadian taxpayers for all aspects of the IRSSA; (j) what is the government’s best approximation of the amount spent by Canadian taxpayers for all aspects of residential schools, including all costs associated with defending such claims and operating the ADR process before the IRSSA took effect; (k) what is the total amount that each church was required to pay according to the terms of the IRSSA; (l) what is the total amount that each church agreed to pay according to the terms of its liability-sharing agreement with Canada before the IRSSA, in particular, (i) Anglican agreements, (ii) Presbyterian agreements, (iii) agreements with the United Church, (iv) agreements with the Catholic church and orders; (m) what is the total amount that the churches each paid directly to Canada to help pay the costs in (l), broken down by denomination; (n) what are the details of the agreement between Justice Canada and the TRC detailing exactly which documents the Department of Justice agreed in 2015 to provide to the TRC or the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation; (o) how many separate documents are in the IAP system; (p) how many IAP compensation claims were denied on the basis that (i) Canada was not responsible for the residential school at the time of the incident, (ii) the residential school child was abused “off premises”, (iii) the claimant was an “employee”, (iv) the touching was not done for a sexual purpose, (v) the school had ceased being a residential school, or that Canada was not jointly responsible for the residential school, or that the school in question was not a “residential” school; (q) what number and percentage of IAP claims fell into the different categories of (i) acts proven that are set out in Schedule D of the IRSSA, (ii) harm that are part of the IAP process and listed in Schedule D of the IRSSA; (r) what was the average IAP payment within each category of (i) acts proven, (ii) level of harm; (s) what number and percentage of IAP claims were made by (i) male claimants, (ii) female claimants; (t) what number and percentage of IAP claims were attributable to (i) each Indian Residential School, (ii) each of the churches that administered residential schools, broken down by denomination; (u) what number and percentage of IAP claims occurred (i) from age 0 to 18, broken down by age, (ii) from 1800 to 1990, broken down by year; (v) what number and percentage of IAP claims were (i) student-on-student abuse, (ii) staff-on-student abuse; (w) how many unique individuals were alleged to have committed abuse; (x) what was the number of IAP claims alleged against each of the alleged perpetrators; (y) what number and percentage of IAP claims were for (i) physical abuse only, (ii) both physical and sexual abuse, (iii) sexual abuse only; (z) what categories of negative impacts were reported in IAP claims and what percentage of IAP claims reported each of those categories, including (i) addiction, (ii) imprisonment, (iii) incomplete education, (iv) damages to loss of earnings, (v) apprehension of children by child welfare authorities; (aa) what amount did the IAP pay to lawyers representing IAP claimants, including (i) through the IAP program, (ii) through the ADR program, (iii) within the Settlement Agreement itself; (bb) how many claims resulted in legal fee reviews and how many of the legal fee reviews resulted in fees being reduced; (cc) how many lawyers had their fees reduced on ten or more occasions; (dd) what are the names of the lawyers who had their fees reduced; (ee) how many claimants were financially abused or negligently treated by their own IAP lawyers; (ff) is the IAP planning to publish the results of its investigations, findings and directives on claims resulting in legal reviews; (gg) is the IAP planning to publish a complete list of court and law society rulings on claims resulting in legal reviews; (hh) how many claimants died before their IAP decision was made or before their compensation was received; and (ii) how many different individuals, including (i) Government of Canada staff, (ii) IAP staff and contractors, (iii) survivors’ lawyers, had access to (i) the IAP decisions database, (ii) the master persons of interest list, (iii) Canada’s admissions of knowledge of student-on-student abuse, (iv) Canada’s school narratives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 618--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to policing and surveillance activities related to journalists and Indigenous activists since October 31 2015: (a) which security agencies or other government bodies have been involved in tracking Indigenous protest activities relating to (i) Idle No More, (ii) the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or other Aboriginal public order events, (iii) the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, (iv) the Northern Gateway Pipeline, (v) the Energy East and Eastern Mainline Projects, (vi) the Site C dam, (vii) the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project, (viii) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, (ix) other industrial or resource development projects; (b) how many Indigenous individuals have been identified by security agencies as potential threats to public safety or security, broken down by agency and province; (c) which indigenous organizations, and activist groups have been the subject of monitoring by Canadian security services, broken down by agency and province; (d) how many events involving Indigenous activists were noted in Government Operations Centre situation reports, broken down by province and month; (e) have any Canadian government agencies including Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) been involved in tracking Canadians travelling to Standing Rock Indian Reservation (North and South Dakota, United States of America); (f) has there been any request by the Canadian government or any of its agencies to the United States government or any of its agencies to share information on the tracking of Canadians citizens engaging in demonstrations at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation; (g) what are the titles and dates of any inter-departmental or inter-agency reports related to indigenous protest activities; (h) how many times have government agencies shared information on indigenous protest activities with private sector companies, and for each instance, which companies received such information, and on what dates; (i) how many meetings have taken place between representatives of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project and (i) RCMP personnel, (ii) CSIS personnel; and (j) what are the answers for (a) through (i) for journalists, instead of for Indigenous individuals or organizations, and only if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 619--
Ms. Cheryl Hardcastle:
With regard to assistance provided by the government to various offices and agencies in Honduras and diplomatic relations between Canada and Honduras: (a) what is the nature of the financial, technical, advisory or other assistance that Canada is providing to the Honduran General Attorney’s office; (b) regarding the assistance in (a), (i) is Canada providing specific support to the Special Prosecutor of Crimes Against Life (Fiscalía de Crímenes Contra la Vida) or other offices within the Honduran General Attorney’s office and, if so, which ones, (ii) which Canadian government department developed the agreement to provide this assistance, (iii) which Canadian government department is the source of funding or other support for this assistance, (iv) have other organizations or agencies been hired to deliver this assistance and, if so, who are they, (v) what are the terms of reference for Canada’s support to the Honduran General Attorney’s office and related agencies, (vi) what objectives does such assistance seek to meet, (vii) what is the time frame for the assistance, (viii) what is the expected final product or outcomes of this project, (ix) how will these outcomes be made available to the public in Honduras and Canada during or following completion of this initiative; (c) what is the nature of the financial, technical, advisory or other assistance that Canada is providing to the Technical Criminal Investigative Agency (ATIC in Spanish) in Honduras; (d) regarding the assistance in (c), (i) which Canadian government department developed the agreement to provide this assistance, (ii) which Canadian government department is the source of funding or other support for this assistance, (iii) have other organizations or agencies been hired to deliver this assistance and, if so, who are they, (iv) what are the terms of reference for Canada’s support to ATIC, (v) what objectives does such assistance seek to meet, (vi) what is the time frame for the assistance, (vii) what is the expected final product or outcomes of this project, (viii) are there any members of ATIC who have personally received financial or technical support stemming from Canadian support participating in the investigation into the murder of Berta Cáceres and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro Soto; (e) what is the nature of the financial, technical, advisory or other assistance that Canada is providing to (i) judges with national jurisdiction, (ii) the Inter-Agency Security Task Force (FUSINA in Spanish), (iii) the Honduran National Police Investigative Division (DPI in Spanish), (iv) the Military Police for Public Order (PMOP in Spanish), (v) the Intelligence Troop and Special Security Response Groups (TIGRES), (vi) the Strategic Information Collection Collation Analysis and Archiving System (SERCAA in Spanish), (vii) other security agents in Honduras; (f) regarding the assistance in (e), (i) what are the terms of reference for this support, (ii) does the government have information on the resolution or mandate creating FUSINA that was passed by the National Defense and Security Council (Consejo Nacional de Defensa y Seguridad) in 2014 and, if so, what are the details of that information, (iii) have other organizations or agencies been hired to deliver this assistance and, if so, who are they, (iv) what objectives does such assistance seek to meet, (v) what is the time frame for the assistance, (vi) what is the expected final product or outcomes of this project, (vii) are there any members of these agencies who have personally received financial or technical support stemming from Canadian support participating in the investigation into the murder of Berta Cáceres and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro Soto; (g) has Canada specifically urged Honduran officials to allow the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to oversee an independent, international investigation into the murder of Berta Cáceres and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro Soto; (h) has Canada specifically urged Honduran officials to revoke the permits for the Agua Zarca project; and (i) has Canada specifically urged Honduran officials to demilitarize Lenca territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 620--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the government's decision to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030, between January 1, 2016 and November 20, 2016: (a) what are the dates, times and locations of any consultations the Minister of Environment and Climate Change or any member of her exempt staff had with the Province of Saskatchewan related to this decision; (b) what are the dates, times, and locations of any meetings the Minister or any member of her exempt staff had with the Pembina Institute or any member of its staff or board of directors where coal-fired electricity was discussed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 621--
Ms. Tracey Ramsey:
With regard to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA): (a) what are the government’s estimates of the financial impacts on (i) prescription drug costs, (ii) provincial and territorial health care systems, (iii) the fisheries and fish processing industries, (iv) the dairy industry, (v) all other industries in Canada that will be affected by CETA, according to sectoral analyses or assessments of costs and benefits completed by the government; (b) has the government received or solicited any third party analysis on the potential impacts of CETA on any sector in Canada; (c) what is the exhaustive list of Canadian public services, at municipal, provincial, territorial and federal levels of government, to which investors would have market access, including (i) transportation infrastructure, including maritime transport, (ii) telecommunications, (iii) postal services, (iv) waste management, including wastewater, solid waste and recycling, (v) water supply networks, (vi) public transportation, (vii) electricity, (viii) education, (ix) emergency services, (x) environmental protection, (xi) health care and associated services, (xii) military, (xiii) public banking, (xiv) public broadcasting, (xv) public libraries, (xvi) public security, (xvii) public housing, (xviii) social welfare; (d) above the threshold of 200 000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) for goods and services, 400 000 SDRs for procurement by utilities entities, and 5 million SDRs for construction services, will minimum local content policies or practices in government procurement be permitted at the municipal, provincial, territorial or federal level; (e) has the government completed a study or assessment of the economic and employment effects that procurement provisions will or may have on the ability of municipalities and provinces to tender contracts locally and, if so, what were the results of this study or assessment; (f) has the government undertaken any consultation with Canadians on CETA and, if so, (i) on what dates, (ii) in which cities, (iii) with whom did the government consult; (g) does the government plan on holding consultations with Canadians, independently of the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, before CETA is ratified; (h) how many (i) labour, (ii) environmental, (iii) indigenous groups or individuals has the government consulted with on the potential costs, benefits and other impacts of CETA, and (i) what were the names of these groups or individuals, (ii) on what date and in which cities did the government consult with these individuals or groups, (iii) what were the results of these consultations; (i) has the government undertaken a study of the impact of having increased entrance of temporary workers and, if so, which sectors or industries has the government considered, and what are the results of these studies; (j) does the government intend to table in the House of Commons all sectoral assessments of financial and other costs and benefits, completed by Global Affairs Canada and other government departments, of the impact of CETA on Canadian industries; (k) does the government intend to table an explanatory memorandum related to CETA, as required by the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament, (i) if so, on what date, (ii) if not, why; (l) did the ministers of Foreign Affairs and of International Trade seek an exemption to the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament from the Prime Minister with regard to CETA and, if so, (i) on what date was the request made, (ii) in what manner, (iii) what was the rationale for the exception; (m) does the government intend to complete the final environmental assessment of CETA as required by the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposal, (i) if so, on what date, (ii) if not, why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 623--
Mr. Brad Trost:
With regard to court ordered firearm prohibitions and administrative orders related to firearms: (a) how effective is the government’s enforcement of court ordered firearms prohibitions including court orders that restrict the ownership of firearms and other weapons, such as restraining orders, protection orders, peace bonds, persons on parole or conditional release and specifically, (i) how many times in the last ten years has a person subject to the above orders acquired a firearm or other prohibited weapon illegally, (ii) how is information about these firearms prohibition orders, conditions, and restrictions transmitted to the Canadian Firearms Information System and police forces across Canada, (iii) what is the average number of days it takes to get information about these firearms prohibition orders, conditions, and restrictions into the hands of the Canadian Firearms Information System and front-line police personnel responsible for actual enforcement of these orders, (iv) what is the average time it takes from when information about these firearms prohibition orders, conditions, and restrictions gets into the hands of the police until the firearms and weapons are removed from the person’s possession, (v) for convicted offenders, who are subject to firearms prohibition orders, conditions, and restrictions, are periodic police searches conducted of their homes to ensure that they haven’t acquired firearms or other weapons illegally, (vi) once firearms prohibition orders, conditions, and restrictions are rescinded or expire, how long does it take to cancel them and how long does it take before this information is passed along to the Canadian Firearms Information System and front-line police personnel responsible for actual enforcement of these orders, (vii) are persons subject to firearms prohibition orders, conditions, and restrictions required to turn in any documentation related to their current or previous firearm ownership, usage, or licencing, and, in particular, are they required to turn in their Firearms Possession and Acquisition Licences, Authorizations to Transport, Authorizations to Carry and Firearms Registration Certificates to authorities, (viii) if the answer to (vii) is in the affirmative, what follow-up action is taken to ensure they have complied; and (b) how effective is the government’s enforcement of administrative orders such as firearms license refusals and revocation and specifically, (i) how is information about these license refusals and revocations transmitted to the Canadian Firearms Information System and police forces across Canada, (ii) what is the average number of days it takes to get information about these license refusals and revocations into the hands of the Canadian Firearms Information System and front-line police personnel responsible for actual enforcement of these orders, (iii) what is the average time it takes between the time information about these license revocations gets to the hands of the police before the firearms and weapons are removed from the person’s possession, (iv) are periodic police searches conducted of the homes of individuals, who are subject to license revocations to ensure that they have surrendered all their firearms and haven’t acquired firearms or other weapons illegally, (v) are persons subject to firearms license revocations required to turn in their documentation such as: Firearms Possession and Acquisition Licences, Authorizations to Transport, Authorizations to Carry and Firearms Registration Certificates to authorities and, if so, what follow-up action is taken to ensure they have complied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 624--
Mr. Brad Trost:
With regard to gun control laws in effect between 1979 and 2001, the period when the Firearms Acquisition Certificate program was in effect, and between 2001 and present, the period when the Possession and Acquisition Licence and Possession Only License programs were in effect: (a) what was the average annual cost for administering federal firearms laws, regulations, policies, and programs; and (b) for each of these two periods, what are the statistics that show which period was most effective at (i) reducing violent crime, (ii) reducing homicides, and (iii) reducing the number of armed crimes involving firearms?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 625--
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
With regard to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and the presence of diseases in salmon rearing facilities: (a) have the infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus, the infectious salmon anaemia, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, or any other disease been found in the waters on the Pacific Coast, including any hatcheries or facilities related to salmon rearing; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, (i) how many times have these diseases been found in salmon rearing facilities, (ii) what are the names and locations of salmon rearing sites where diseases have been found; (c) how many full-time employees and how many part-time employees are dedicated to the detection and monitoring of diseases in salmon rearing facilities and has this number fluctuated over the years; (d) how long does it take to inspect and test one salmon rearing facility for the presence of disease; and (e) have fish population impact studies been conducted to gage the impact of these diseases spreading to wild salmon populations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 627--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the government's disbursement of funds to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Oceana Inc. (Oceana): (a) what were the total disbursements of funds by the government to WWF during the periods of (i) November, 2015, to November, 2016, (ii) November, 2014, to November, 2015, (iii) November, 2013, to November, 2014; (b) what were the total disbursements of funds by the government to Oceana during the periods of (i) November, 2015, to November, 2016, (ii) November, 2014, to November, 2015, (iii) November, 2013, to November, 2014; (c) what services or activities were these funds intended for within each organization; (d) what were the associated dates and specific amounts of each disbursement; and (e) what were the file numbers of any associated funding agreements?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 630--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to policing and surveillance activities related to Indigenous activists since October 31, 2015: (a) which security agencies or other government bodies have been involved in tracking Indigenous protest activities relating to (i) Idle No More, (ii) the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or other Aboriginal public order events, (iii) the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, (iv) the Northern Gateway Pipeline, (v) the Energy East and Eastern Mainline Projects, (vi) the Site C dam, (vii) the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project, (viii) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, (ix) other industrial or resource development projects; (b) how many Indigenous individuals have been identified by security agencies as potential threats to public safety or security, broken down by agency and province; (c) which indigenous organizations, and activist groups have been the subject of monitoring by Canadian security services, broken down by agency and province; (d) how many events involving Indigenous activists were noted in Government Operations Centre situation reports, broken down by province and month; (e) have any Canadian government agencies, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) been involved in tracking Canadians travelling to Standing Rock Indian Reservation (North and South Dakota, United States of America); (f) has there been any request by the Canadian government or any of its agencies to the United States government or any of its agencies to share information on the tracking of Canadian citizens engaging in demonstrations at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation; (g) what are the titles and dates of any inter-departmental or inter-agency reports related to indigenous protest activities; (h) how many times have government agencies shared information on indigenous protest activities with private sector companies, and for each instance, which companies received such information, and on what dates; and (i) how many meetings have taken place between representatives of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project and (i) RCMP personnel, (ii) CSIS personnel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 632--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to credit cards issued to Ministerial staff: what expenses were charged to a government credit card, and not paid for by the government for the period of November 4, 2015, to September 23, 2016, including (i) the name of the vendor and the place of purchase, (ii) the date of the purchase, (iii) the value of the purchase, (iv) the due date of the statement, (v) the date on which the card holder provided reimbursement in full, (vi) the name of the card holder, (vii) the job title of the card holder, (viii) the department or agency of the card holder, (ix) the confirmation if that card holder is still an active holder of a government credit card?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 633--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to credit cards issued to Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries: what expenses were charged to a government credit card, and not paid for by the government for the period of November 4, 2015, to September 23, 2016, including (i) the name of the vendor and the place of purchase, (ii) the date of the purchase, (iii) the value of the purchase, (iv) the due date of the statement, (v) the date on which the card holder provided reimbursement in full, (vi) the name of the card holder, (vii) the official job title of the card holder, (viii) the confirmation if that card holder is still an active holder of a government credit card?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 635--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the government contracts awarded to the firm Morneau Shepell since January 2010, for each contract: (a) what was the (i) value, (ii) description of services provided, (iii) date and duration, (iv) internal file or tracking number; and (b) was it a sole source contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 636--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the government’s decision to explore purchasing 18 F-18 Super Hornet planes from Boeing: (a) what is the projected acquisition cost of these planes; (b) what is the Department of National Defence’s projected operational life span of an F-18 Super Hornet; (c) what is the projected yearly operation costs and maintenance of the fleet of F-18 Super Hornets; (d) what measures are in place to ensure that there is a fair and open competition for the permanent replacement fleet; (e) what specific measures are in place to ensure that Boeing does not receive an unfair advantage due to its status related to the interim fleet; (f) what are the dates, times, locations, and lists of attendees of all meetings between the government and Boeing since November 4, 2015; (g) what are the details of communications which have been received from the United States government to date related to the interim purchase of 18 Super Hornets from Boeing, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) relevant file number; and (h) on what date were each of the non-disclosure agreements referred to in the response to Q-531 signed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 637--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to the Community Action Program for Children (CAPC): (a) what is the Program’s total budget for each year of operation since it was established; (b) on an annual basis, how much funding is received per (i) province, (ii) territory, (iii) constituency; and (c) what are the Program’s operating costs since it was established, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 638--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to the Minister of Veterans Affairs series of announcements on the opening of new Veteran Affairs offices: (a) what was the cost for each event, including (i) venue rentals, (ii) audio-visual, (iii) advertising, (iv) accommodations, (v) travel, (vi) per diems for the Minister and staff; (b) how many people attended each event, broken down by location; and (c) what was the announced date for the actual reopening of each Veteran Affairs office, broken down by location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 639--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to contract beds under the jurisdiction of Veterans Affairs Canada, and broken down by facility: (a) what are the number of contract beds available; (b) what is the percentage of contract beds currently in use; (c) what is the placement and admission process; (d) what are the number of applications for contract beds received; and (e) what are the number of successful applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 640--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to interactions between the government and the Streit Group companies: (a) what support has the government provided to the Streit Group between 2009 and 2016; (b) what support has the government provided to the Streit Group through overseas embassies, including, but not limited to, all trade and consular support between 2009 and 2016; (c) did the Streit Group receive any marketing support through the Global Markets Action Plan or any other trade promotion programs, and, if so, what are the details of the support received; (d) what are the details of any studies undertaken by Global Affairs Canada on the Streit Group before deciding to sole-source the purchase of two vehicles; (e) did Global Affairs Canada receive any indications or information about the Streit Group's alleged sales to criminal gangs before October 17, 2016; (f) was a company profile prepared by the Department on the Streit Group prior to former Minister Ed Fast's visit to their factory in the spring of 2015; (g) what mechanisms are currently in place to monitor Canadian companies operating overseas and compliance with Canadian and United Nations sanctions; (h) what investigations is the government currently undertaking into Streit Group’s contravention of sanctions; (i) what are the sanctions Streit Group has contravened; and (j) is the government planning to change Canadian arms export guidelines to include Canadian companies operating overseas?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 641--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to Canada’s arms exports: (a) in 2016, by what means has the government monitored the use of its military exports to ensure compliance with Canada’s export control regime; (b) what information has the government received since April 2016 on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia that would contribute to an assessment of whether existing permits should be suspended or cancelled; (c) how much did the government spend between 2004 and 2016 on research and development relating to the manufacture of light-armoured vehicles; (d) what has been the trade balance in 2016 with regards to the Canadian defence and security industry with regards to export and import by government entities; (e) does the Canadian mission to Saudi Arabia monitor the use of Canadian weapons sold to Saudi Arabia, and, if so, how often does the mission report on this to Global Affairs Canada; and (f) has an economic impact assessment been carried out with regards to the 2014 agreement involving the export of military vehicles manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 643--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to all hard copy and soft copy communications that were exchanged between the Prime Minister’s Office, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Office of the Minister of Democratic Institutions and the Office of the Government House Leader, between October 20, 2015, and the date this question is placed on the Order Paper: (a) what are the details of all communications which discuss choosing the successor to Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, including the (i) dates, (ii) times, (iii) originators, (iv) recipients; and (b) what are the details of all communications which mention the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault, including the (i) dates, (ii) times, (iii) originators, (iv) recipients?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 645--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the mydemocracy.ca website: (a) what is the value of the contract the government has with Vox Pop Labs; (b) what specific services are being provided by Vox Pop Labs to the government; (c) what are the titles of the individuals who came up with the questions for the site, broken down by department; (d) what is the rationale for the website not having a question about a referendum; (e) what safeguards are in place to ensure that individuals do not submit multiple surveys that could skew the results; (f) what safeguards are in place to ensure that responses from non-Canadian entities do not skew the results; (g) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the survey is not skewed due to the use of “bots” or other similar devices; and (h) is there a limit on the number of responses that may come from a single IP address, and, if so, what is the limit and how is it enforced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 646--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to projects funded under the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what specific measures are in place to ensure that small and rural municipalities, specifically those municipalities with a population under 50 000, receive infrastructure funding from the bank; (b) what specific measures are in place to ensure that small and rural municipalities, specifically those municipalities with a population between 50 000 and 100 000, receive infrastructure funding from the bank; and (c) how much infrastructure bank funding has been specifically allocated for communities with a population under 100 000?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 647--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to contracts and standing offers the government has had with advertising agencies, since November 4, 2015: (a) what contracts and standing offers does the government have with advertising agencies, broken down by department and agency; (b) what are the specific details of each contract or standing offer in (a), including (i) vendor, (ii) value, (iii) duration; and (c) for each contract or standing offer in (a), what are the details of each associated advertising campaign including (i) title, (ii) description, (iii) dates, (iv) duration?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 648--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to appointments to federal boards, agencies, and associations since November 4, 2015, for each appointment: what is the name, province, and position of the appointee?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 649--
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren:
With regard to the government’s commitment to bring 25 000 Syrian refugees to Canada, since November 4, 2015: (a) what was the total cost for the government to bring the refugees to Canada; and (b) what is the itemized and specific breakdown of all the costs in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 650--
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren:
With regard to the government’s commitment to provide $54 million in relief funding to Haiti: (a) what is the specific breakdown of how the funding will be provided, including a breakdown by (i) fiscal year, (ii) specific organization or group which will receive the funding; (b) for each group listed under (a)(ii), what is the funding to be used for; and (c) what specific measures does the government have in place to ensure that the funding is utilized properly and as intended?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 651--
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren:
With regard to seizures by the Canada Border Services Agency since January 1, 2016: (a) how many times were illegal drugs or narcotics seized; (b) what is the total amount seized, broken down by substance; and (c) what are the details of each seizure, including (i) date, (ii) substance, (iii) amount, (iv) location, (v) country from which the substance was imported?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 652--
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren:
With regard to the fentanyl epidemic, since November 2015: (a) what statistics does the government currently have regarding the country of origin of fentanyl in Canada; (b) broken down by country of origin and by month, how much fentanyl has been stopped from entering Canada by the Canada Border Services Agency; (c) what specific communication has the government had with Chinese officials regarding fentanyl; and (d) what are the details, including dates, titles, recipients, and file numbers of any briefing notes which the government has regarding fentanyl?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 655--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to ministerial regional offices: (a) what is the location of each office; (b) what is the overall annual budget for each office; (c) how many government employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to each location; and (d) how many ministerial exempt staff or full-time equivalents are assigned to each location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 656--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to government sponsorship of the Open Dialogue Forum held in Ottawa on March 31, 2016, and April 1, 2016: (a) how much did the government spend to sponsor the event; (b) which government departments, agencies, or crown corporations sponsored the event; (c) which Ministers approved the sponsorships; and (d) what are the internal tracking or file numbers for the sponsorship contracts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 657--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to contracts issued by any department, agency, or crown corporation, under object code 0499 (Other Professional Services Not Otherwise Specified), since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of each contract including the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) file number; and (b) for each contract referred to in (a), what are the specifics of the professional services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 658--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the government’s commitment that by 2025, for all operations run by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), 100 percent of our electricity will be purchased from clean power: (a) how many buildings does PSPC currently operate, broken down by province and territory; (b) how many buildings does the government currently operate which are not operated by PSPC; (c) how many of the buildings operated by the government are currently powered exclusively by clean power; (d) for the next ten years, and broken down by year, how many of the buildings operated by the government are expected to be powered exclusively by clean power; and (e) for the next ten years, and broken down by year, what are the details of all planned expenditures related to the commitment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 659--
Hon. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to boil water advisories on First Nations Reserves: (a) how many advisories are currently in place; (b) which reserves are currently under a boil water advisory; (c) for each reserve listed in (b), how many individuals are currently under a boil water advisory; (d) when is each boil water advisory expected to be lifted; and (e) for each reserve listed in (b), what are the details of any funding which has been delivered for water infrastructure projects including (i) the date that the funds were received by the reserve, (ii) specific projects which funds were provided for, (iii) title and file number of related press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 661--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to payments made under Treasury Board object code 010 (Canoe Allowance), since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total amount spent, broken down by department, agency and crown corporation; (b) how many employees received the allowance, broken down by department, agency and crown corporation; (c) what are the job titles of the employees who received the allowance, broken down by department, agency and crown corporation; (d) what is the government’s policy regarding when an employee is entitled to such an allowance; (e) what was the average amount dispersed under the object code; and (f) what was the highest amount dispersed under the object code?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 662--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the government’s pledge of $20 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA): (a) what specific assurances has the government received that none of the funding will be used for any activities that promote terrorism; (b) were any of the assurances identified in (a) received in writing; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what are the details of each document, including the (i) sender, (ii) date, (iii) subject matter, (iv) file number; (d) does the government intend on making the documents referred to in (b) public, and if so, when; (e) by what means does the government monitor the work of the UNRWA to ensure that assurances identified in (a) are being fulfilled; and (f) what measures is the government prepared to take if assurances identified in (a) are not fulfilled?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 664--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to spending on photographers or photography services by Employment and Social Development Canada, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by individual expenditure and contract: (a) how much has been spent; (b) what were the dates and duration of each expenditure or photography contract; (c) what was the initial and final value of each contract; (d) what were the events or occasions which were meant to be photographed as a result of each contract and what were the costs associated with each photographic event; and (e) what were the locations where the photography work was performed for each contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 665--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to applications’ processing and wait times at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, from the date an application is received by the Department to the date it is processed: (a) what is the average wait time for an individual who applies for a work permit in Canada; (b) what is the average wait time for an individual who applies for a visitor visa in Canada; (c) what is the average wait time for an individual who applies for a student visa in Canada; and (d) what is the average processing time for an application made under the spousal sponsorship program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 666--
Mr. Kennedy Stewart:
With regard to the government’s recent approval and future efforts to facilitate the construction of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline: (a) what is the complete and detailed list of meetings in which the use of military or paramilitary force to facilitate Kinder Morgan’s expropriation of private property, municipal lands, First Nations’ traditional territories and Indian reserves was discussed; (b) were Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, local police, or any government agencies included in each of the meetings identified in (a); (c) what were the results of each of the meetings identified in (a); and (d) what are the projected costs of any considered actions and how will these costs be shared among different levels of government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 667--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the information in Chapter 2, on page 89 of the March 22, 2016, Budget, and as of that date: (a) what is the total amount for the remaining uncommitted funds from older federal infrastructure programs; and (b) for the information in (a), what are the amounts broken down by province, municipality, and by other recipient, of the remaining uncommitted funds as of this date that have, or have not, or will be transferred, from older federal infrastructure programs through the Gas Tax Fund in 2016-2017, as promised in the March 22, 2016, Budget?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 668--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program, between the program’s launch and November 30, 2016: (a) what projects have been submitted for funding from the constituencies of Kenora, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Thunder Bay—Superior North, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Timmins—James Bay, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Nickel Belt, Nipissing—Timiskaming, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Mississauga—Malton, broken down by constituency; and (b) for each of the projects in (a), which have been approved for funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 669--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to all government funding for the constituencies of Kenora, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Thunder Bay—Superior North, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Timmins—James Bay, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Nickel Belt, Nipissing—Timiskaming, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Mississauga—Malton between November 4, 2015, and November 30, 2016: (a) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of disbursing government funds, have been cancelled since November 4, 2015; (b) what was the rationale provided for the cancellation of each item identified in (a); (c) what amount of funding had been dispensed to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation; (d) what was the estimated value of each item identified in (a) prior to cancellation; and (e) what consultations, if any, took place in relation to the items identified in (a) prior to their approval?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 670--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to travel taken by Ministers and their exempt staff to the constituencies of Kenora, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Thunder Bay—Superior North, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Timmins—James Bay, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Nickel Belt, Nipissing—Timiskaming, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Mississauga—Malton between November 4, 2015, and November 30, 2016: (a) what are the details of all trips taken, including the (i) dates, (ii) amount spent, (iii) breakdown of expenses, (iv) details of any official meetings or government business conducted on the trips; and (b) what are the details of any briefing documents or dockets prepared in relation to the trips, including the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 674--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to relocation costs for exempt staff moving to a location outside of the National Capital Region, since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total cost paid by the government for relocation services and hotel stays related to moving these staff to a location outside of the National Capital Region; and (b) for each individual reimbursement, what is the (i) total payout, (ii) cost for moving services, (iii) cost for hotel stays?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 675--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to briefing documents, memorandums or dockets prepared regarding a price on carbon or a carbon tax by any department, agency, Crown Corporation, or other government entity, since November 4, 2015: what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number, (iv) the recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 677--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to meetings between the government and the Cannabis Friendly Business Association, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all meetings the government, including Ministers and their exempt staff Members, have had with the Association, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) attendees, (iv) topics discussed, (v) titles and file numbers of any related briefing notes or documents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 678--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to relocation costs for exempt staff moving to the National Capital Region since October 19, 2015, excluding costs revealed in the government’s response to Q-258: (a) what is the total cost paid by the government for relocation services and hotel stays related to moving these staff to the National Capital Region; and (b) for each individual reimbursement, what is the (i) total payout, (ii) cost for moving services, (iii) cost for hotel stays?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 679--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to government communications, for each announcement made by a minister or parliamentary secretary in the National Capital Region in a location other than the parliamentary precinct or the National Press Theatre, since November 4, 2015: (a) what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) purpose or subject matter, (iv) name and portfolio of the minister or parliamentary secretary involved; and (b) what were the amounts and details of all expenses related to making each such announcement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 681--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to private security expenditures by the government, broken down by department, agency, crown corporation, or other government entity, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of each such expenditure including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) details of contract, including duration, (v) location where security was to be provided, (vi) whether the contract was competitive or sole-sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 682--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 683--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canadian Grain Commission since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 685--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the Offshore Compliance Division of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), since April 1, 2014: (a) how many employees have been assigned to the division, broken down by fiscal year: (b) what is its operating budget, broken down by fiscal year; (c) how many audits have been conducted; (d) how many audits in (c) have been referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program; (e) how many investigations in (d) have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (f) how many prosecutions in (e) have led to convictions; and (g) what sentences were imposed for each conviction in (f)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 686--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the financial crime sector of the RCMP, since April 1, 2006: (a) what has been the sector’s budget, broken down by fiscal year; (b) how many investigators have been assigned to the sector, broken down by fiscal year; (c) how many of the sector’s cases have been referred to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Criminal Investigations Program; (d) how many criminal investigations have been opened, broken down by fiscal year; (e) how many criminal prosecutions have been launched, broken down by fiscal year; (f) of the prosecutions in (e), how many have resulted in convictions; and (g) what sentences were imposed for the convictions in (f)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 687--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the enforcement of the Criminal Code, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many accounting firms, tax professionals, and chartered accountants have been prosecuted pursuant to section 22; (b) of the prosecutions in (a), how many resulted in convictions; and (c) what penalties were imposed for each of the convictions in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 689--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Voluntary Disclosures Program, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many taxpayers have used this Program; and (b) of the taxpayers in (a), how many disclosed foreign amounts, broken down by country and by amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 690--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Criminal Investigations Program, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many taxpayers’ cases have been evaluated under this program; (b) how many of the cases in (a) have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) how many of the cases in (b) have led to prosecutions, broken down by year and by source of the funds or assets held; and (d) what were the findings and sentences for each prosecution in (c)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 691--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), since January 1, 2006: (a) how many financial transactions have been processed by FINTRAC, broken down by fiscal year; (b) how many files have been sent from FINTRAC to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (c) how many of the files in (b) have been audited by the CRA; (d) how many of the audits in (c) have been referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program; (e) how many of the investigations in (d) have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (f) how many of the cases in (e) have resulted in convictions; and (g) what sentences have been imposed for each of the convictions in (f)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 692--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the Foreign Income Verification Statement (Form T1135) declarations submitted by Canadian taxpayers to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), since January 1, 1998: (a) how many Canadian taxpayers have submitted a T1135 form to the CRA, broken down by year and by taxpayer type, that is, (i) individual, (ii) corporation, (iii) partnership, (iv) trust; and (b) how many penalties for failure to declare foreign income have been charged to Canadian taxpayers, broken down by year and taxpayer type, that is, (i) individual, (ii) corporation, (iii) partnership, (iv) trust?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 693--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the enforcement of the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many prosecutions have been initiated under section 239 of the Income Tax Act; (b) how many prosecutions have been initiated under section 163.2 of the Income Tax Act; (c) how many files in (a) and (b) involved (i) accounting firms, (ii) tax experts, (iii) chartered accountants; (d) of all the files in (c), how many led to convictions; (e) how many prosecutions have been initiated under section 245 of the Income Tax Act; (f) how many of the cases in (e) led to convictions, and what were the amounts recovered; (g) how many accounting firms, tax experts and chartered accountants were prosecuted under section 22 of the Criminal Code; (h) how many firms and people in (g) were found guilty; and (i) what sentences were imposed for each firm or person listed in (h)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 695--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Liechtenstein leaks, the “Panama Papers” and the “Bahama leaks”: (a) how did the CRA gain access to documents associated with these information leaks; (b) how many Canadian taxpayers were identified in the documents obtained in (a), broken down by type of taxpayer, that is (i) individual, (ii) corporation, (iii) partnership or trust; (c) how many audits did the CRA launch following the identification of taxpayers in (b), broken down by information leak; (d) of the audits in (c), how many were referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program, broken down by information leak; (e) how many of the investigations in (d) were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, broken down by information leak; (f) how many of the investigations in (e) resulted in a conviction, broken down by information leak; and (g) what was the sentence imposed for each conviction in (f), broken down by information leak?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 696--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to immigration to Canada, between November 4, 2015, and December 6, 2016: (a) how many economic class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (b) how many family class immigrants have been admitted to Canada; (c) how many refugees have been admitted to Canada; (d) how many temporary student visas were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary student visa; (e) how many temporary worker permits were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary worker permit; (f) how many temporary visitor records were issued and how many individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary visitor record; (g) how many temporary resident permits were issued; (h) how many temporary resident permits were approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; (i) for (a) to (h), what is the breakdown for source country for each class of migrant; (j) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible under section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (k) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible under section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (l) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible under section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; (m) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible under section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and (n) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible under section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 698--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s Investment Review Division and the proposed takeover of Retirement Concepts by the Anbang Insurance Group: (a) what specific connections between Anbang and the Chinese government is the Canadian government aware of; (b) what impact did or will these connections have in the review of the proposed takeover; (c) what steps are being taken to ensure that the Chinese government and its subsidiaries, including companies with close ties, do not play a major role in the implementation of health care in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Canada; (d) when was Anbang’s Canadian division incorporated; and (e) according to the incorporation application made to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, who is on the Board of Directors and who owns Anbang?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 699--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency: (a) what is the current number of outstanding cases where an objection has been filed; (b) what was the number of outstanding cases where an objection was filed as of December 1, 2015; (c) what amount owing in federal taxes do the current outstanding cases represent; and (d) for cases currently outstanding, what are the average, median, and longest expected processing times?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 700--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to Shared Services Canada and its reference to the development of an integrated IT infrastructure to support the whole-of-government and private sector effort to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada in 2015–16 outlined on page 7 of its Departmental Performance Report: (a) what is the total of all costs associated with this IT infrastructure program; (b) what is the detailed itemized breakdown of all costs; (c) what was the initial budget for the program; (d) what is the current budget for the program; (e) what IT infrastructure was developed by the program; (f) of the IT infrastructure items developed as part of the program, which ones are currently scheduled or planned to be used in a future government program; and (g) what are the details of any plans referred to in (f)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 701--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the government’s usage of collection agents, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by department, agency, and crown corporation: (a) how much has been spent on collection agents or agencies, including fees, commissions, salaries, recovery costs, and other expenses; (b) how many debts have been assigned to collection agents or agencies; (c) how many of the debts referred to in (b) have since been recovered in full; (d) how many of the debts referred to in (b) were (i) personal, (ii) corporate; (e) what is the total value of debts assigned to collection agents or agencies; (f) what is the total value of debts fully recovered to date by collection agents; and (g) what are the policies in place regarding fee structures paid to collection agents or agencies?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 703--
Mr. Gordon Brown:
With regard to materials prepared for ministerial exempt staff since November 4, 2015: for every briefing document, memorandum or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number, (iv) the recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 704--
Mr. Robert Sopuck:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contract values, (vii) final contract values if different from the original contract values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 705--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the government delegation led by the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities to Brazil in July and August 2016: (a) who were the members of the delegation, excluding security and media; (b) what were the titles of the delegation members; (c) what was the total cost to taxpayers of the trip; (d) how much was spent on accommodation; (e) how much was spent on food; (f) how much was spent on other expenses, including a description of each expense; and (g) what were the contents of the itineraries of the Minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 706--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to materials prepared for Ministers since May 4, 2016: for every briefing document, memorandum or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number, (iv) the recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 707--
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to China in August and September 2016: (a) what was the final cost to taxpayers for the trip; (b) if final costs are not available, what is the best estimated cost to taxpayers for the trip; and (c) what is the itemized breakdown of each expense related to the trip, broken down by individual expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 708--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to relocation costs for exempt staff moving to Ottawa since June 8, 2015, and excluding expenses revealed in the government’s response to Q-258: (a) what is the total cost paid by the government for relocation services and hotel stays related to moving these staff to Ottawa; and (b) for each individual reimbursement, what is the (i) total payout, (ii) cost for moving services, (iii) cost for hotel stays?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 709--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to funding provided by the government, since November 4, 2015: (a) what contributions, grants, or other funding has any department, agency, crown corporation, or other government entity provided to either the Clinton Foundation or The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership; and (b) what are the details of any such expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 710--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the Small Craft Harbours program: since, November 4, 2015, what are the details of all project expenditures which have been made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the program including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) project description or summary, (v) constituency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 711--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration): what are the details of all the consultations conducted by the Minister of Indigenous Affairs prior to the introduction of the bill including, for each consultation, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the First Nations, groups, or individuals consulted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 712--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to infrastructure funding by the government since November 4, 2015: (a) what projects have been funded; (b) what was the total value for each project; (c) what is the location of each project; (d) how much of the funding was provided by the relevant province or territory for each project; (e) how much of the funding was provided by relevant city or municipality for each project; (f) on what date was each project approved; (g) on what date was the expenditure made by the government for each project; and (h) what is the expected completion date for each project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 713--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With respect to infrastructure spending on federal assets: (a) how much money has the government spent or planned to spend on infrastructure in (i) 2015-16, (ii) 2016-17, (iii) 2017-18, (iv) 2018-19; (b) how much of the infrastructure spending in (a) was planned and announced under the previous administration; and (c) how much of the infrastructure spending in (a) is new spending announced in Budget 2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 714--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Global Affairs Canada since June 14, 2016: what are the (i) vendors’ names, (ii) contracts’ reference numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts’ values, (vii) final contracts’ values, if different from the original contracts’ values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 715--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 716--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to Liberia and Madagascar in November 2016: (a) who were the members of the delegation that visited Liberia and Madagascar, excluding security and media; (b) what were the titles of the delegation members; (c) what was the total cost to taxpayers of the trip; (d) how much was spent on accommodation; (e) how much was spent on food; (f) how much was spent on other expenses, including a description of each expense; (g) what were the contents of the itineraries of the ministers who were on the trip, including the Prime Minister; and (h) what are the details of all meetings attended by ministers on the trip, including (i) date, (ii) summary or description, (iii) attendees, (iv) topics discussed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 717--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge): what are the details of all consultations conducted by the government with either victims’ rights groups or police associations prior to the introduction of the bill, including the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) organization consulted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 718--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to Cuba and South America in November 2016: (a) who were the members of the delegation who visited Cuba and South America, excluding security and media; (b) what were the titles of each of the delegation members in (a); (c) what was the total cost to taxpayers of the trip, broken down by (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) other expenses, including a description of each expense; (d) what were the details of the itineraries of the ministers who were on the trip, including the Prime Minister; and (e) what are the details of all meetings attended by ministers on the trip, including (i) date, (ii) summary or description, (iii) attendees, (iv) topics discussed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 719--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to the hosting of foreign delegations since November 4, 2015: (a) which delegations were hosted; (b) what were the dates on which each delegation was hosted; (c) what was the size of each delegation; (d) what was the title of the highest ranking government official for each delegation; (e) which countries were represented by each delegation; (f) what were the total costs paid for by the Canadian government, broken down by delegation; and (g) what is the itemized breakdown of each cost referred to in (f)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 720--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 721--
Mr. Alupa Clarke:
With regard to the Public Service Management Advisory Committee (PSMAC), since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the dates of all PSMAC meetings where either the topic of Shared Services Canada (SSC) or the Phoenix pay system was discussed; (b) what are the details of each specific decision made by PSMAC related to either SSC or Phoenix; (c) what was the date of each decision in (b); and (d) when did each decision in (b) take effect?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 722--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP) since its introduction in 1988: (a) what amounts were allocated to the CVITP broken down by year, province and constituency; (b) how many volunteers participated in this program, broken down by year, province and constituency; (c) how many training sessions were given to volunteers, broken down by year, province and constituency; (d) how many training sessions given in (c) were online computer-based training sessions and how many were given in person by the Canada Revenue Agency and Revenu Québec, broken down by year, province and constituency; (e) how many organizations were involved in this program, broken down by year, province and constituency; (f) how many taxpayers have benefited from this program, broken down by year, province and constituency; (g) how many paper returns were filed, broken down by year, province and constituency; (h) how many online returns were filed, broken down by year, province and constituency; and (i) does the government plan to reinvest in this program in the coming year and, if so, how much funding is planned?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 723--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the use of prescribed medical marijuana by clients of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) how many medical marijuana users are there, broken down by year from 2007 to present; (b) how many VAC clients are prescribed, on a daily basis, (i) 3 grams or less, (ii) 4 grams, (iii) 5 grams, (iv) 6 grams, (v) 7 grams, (vi) 8 grams, (vii) 9 grams, (viii) 10 grams, (ix) any other amount; (c) for each of the prescriptions in (b), what is the form of the marijuana being dispensed, is it (i) dried, (ii) oil, (iii) cream, (iv) suppository; (d) how many VAC clients are permitted to grow their own marijuana for prescribed medical use; (e) what evidence, reports, scientific studies or other studies have been used as a frame of reference to evaluate the use, prescription or denial of the prescription of medical marijuana; (f) have any of the studies in (e) been used as justification for the government’s proposed reduction of the maximum allowed amount of medical marijuana prescribed to VAC clients to 3 grams per day in cases where there is no medical approval for prescribed amounts of medical marijuana of over 3 grams per day?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 724--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the cost paid by the government for prescribed medical marijuana and other prescribed pharmaceuticals for use by Members of the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces, that are administered by Veterans Affairs Canada: (a) what has been the total cost, broken down by year, from 2007 to present, prepared in chart format, for (i) medical marijuana, (ii) Diazepam, (iii) Clonazepam, (iv) Trazodone, (v) Zopiclone, (vi) Wellbutrin, (vii) Effexor, (viii) Celexa, (ix) Seroquel, (x) Ambien, (xi) Remeron, (xii) Nabilone, (xiii) Valium, (xiv) Prazosin, (xv) Oxycodone, (xvi) Demerol, (xvii) Dilaudid, (xviii) Fentanyl, (xix) Mirtazapine, (xx) Gabapentin, (xxi) Baclofen, (xxii) Propranolol, (xxiii) Targin, (xxiv) Pantoprazole, (xxv) Nortriptyline, (xxvi) Ketoconazole, (xxvii) all other prescribed pharmaceuticals, including opioids and other pain relief medications; and (b) what evidence, reports, scientific studies or other types of studies have been used as a frame of reference to evaluate the use, be it prescription use, non-use or non-prescription use, of the pharmaceuticals identified in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 727--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the government’s response to Q-258: what are the finalized amounts for all relocation costs referred to in the initial response to Q-258?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 728--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to long-term accommodation in the National Capital Region (NCR), since November 1, 2015, and broken down by department, agency, and crown corporation: (a) what is the total amount spent on long-term accommodation (7 nights or more) for (i) government employees, (ii) individuals working on a contract basis for the government; (b) how many times has the government paid for long-term accommodation in the NCR; (c) what is the total number of nights the government has paid for in (a); (d) how much has been spent, broken down by vendor; and (e) what is the total amount spent on long-term accommodation for exempt staff or individuals working on a contract basis for a Minister or Ministerial office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 729--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to employees of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) how many general and flag officers, including those ‘While So Employed’ are currently authorized by the CAF; (b) how many general and flag officers, including those ‘While So Employed’ were authorized as of (i) March 31, 2014, (ii) March 31, 2015, (iii) March 31, 2016, and what are their ranks and position titles; (c) how many Executive-level (EX-1 and above) officials are authorized in the DND and Assistant Deputy Minister, Material organization and how many were employed there as of (i) March 31, 2014, (ii) March 31, 2015, (iii) March 31, 2016, and what are the classification levels and position titles; (d) what are the job titles of all staff who are employed or contracted by DND and CAF to support the Future Fighter Capability Project, and for each of their contracts (i) when were they signed, (ii) what time periods do they cover, (iii) what is the amount; and (e) broken down by directorate, how many civilians, CAF members (regular and reserve) and contractors were working in the Materiel Group as of (i) March 31 2016, (ii) March 31, 2015, (iii) March 31, 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 730--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship on October 27, 2016, that the Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Case Processing Centre located in Vegreville would be moved to Edmonton: (a) what is the address where the new centre will be located; (b) what specific renovations to the new centre will be required to accommodate the move; (c) what is the total cost for the renovations required in (b); (d) what is the itemized breakdown of expected renovation costs; (e) what is the expected completion date for the renovations; (f) how many public servants are anticipated to work out of the new centre in Edmonton once it opens; (g) were any economic impact studies conducted related to the closure of the Vegreville centre on the Town of Vegreville and, if so, what are the details of these studies; (h) did the government do any analysis on the impact that the closure of the Vegreville centre would have on the tax base for the Town of Vegreville, and if so, what are the details of these analyses; and (i) does the government plan to compensate the Town of Vegreville for any lost revenue as a result of having a diminished tax base due to the relocation of this centre and, if so, what are the details of such compensation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 731--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Elections Canada since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 732--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 733--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the commitment on page 25 of the Liberal Party Platform, that Access to Information Requests which take longer than 30 days to fulfill, require a written explanation for the delay to the applicant and the Privacy Commissioner and since November 4, 2015: (a) how many Access to Information Requests have taken, or are taking, in the event the request is still not fulfilled, longer than 30 days to fulfill; (b) how many of the requests referred to in (a) have resulted in a written explanation being provided to the Privacy Commissioner; and (c) what are the dates and file numbers of each written explanation referred to in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 735--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to government expenditures on travel by non-pubic servants (Financial Object Code 026), broken down by department and agency, since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total amount spent; (b) what is the total amount spent which was approved by a Minister or exempt staff member; (c) what are the details of each expenditure related to (b), including the (i) date, (ii) travellers, (iii) origin, (iv) destination, (v) total cost of trip, (vi) itemized breakdown of costs; and (d) what are the details of each individual expenditure made by the either the Privy Council Office or Prime Minister’s Office, including (i) date, (ii) traveller, (iii) origin, (iv) destination, (v) total cost of trip, (vi) itemized breakdown of costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 736--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the commitment on page 14 of the Liberal Party Platform and specifically the transfer of uncommitted federal infrastructure funds to municipalities via temporary top-ups of the Gas Tax Fund at the end of the fiscal year: (a) how much of a top-up of the Gas Tax Fund was provided near the end of the 2015-2016 fiscal year; (b) how much of a top-up of the Gas Tax Fund is expected to be provided near the end of the 2016-2017 fiscal year; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by municipality?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 738--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to government expenditures since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the total expenditures related to the following companies, (i) Fairmont Chateau Montebello, (ii) Millennium Golden Eagle International Media Company, (iii) The Evergrande Group, (iv) Wealth One Bank, (v) China Cultural Industry Association; and (b) what are the detailed breakdowns of each expenditure related to the companies referred to in (a), including the (i) dates, (ii) amounts, (iii) itemized breakdown of each expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 739--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Service Canada since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 743--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regards to expenditures by Minister’s Offices, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by Minister’s Office: (a) what is the total amount spent on external translators; and (b) what are the details for each of the contracts or expenditures in (a) including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of work or project, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 745--
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Competition Tribunal since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 746--
Mr. David Yurdiga:
With regard to forensic audits conducted on First Nations reserves: (a) what is the list of reserves where a forensic audit has either begun, is ongoing, or was ongoing as of November 4, 2015; (b) what is the current status of each audit in (a); (c) for each audit that was initiated since November 4, 2015, and stopped prior to completion, what was the reason for the stoppage; (d) for each audit in (a) which is still ongoing, what is the expected completion date; (e) for each audit in (a) which was completed, when was the final report delivered to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs; and (f) for each completed report in (e), is the report publicly available, and, if so, how can the report be accessed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 747--
Mr. David Yurdiga:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Employment and Social Development Canada since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 748--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to incidents involving passenger or cargo airplanes since November, 2015: (a) how many incidents involving lasers pointed at or near airplanes have there been, broken down by month and location; (b) how many incidents involving drones located at or near airplanes have there been, broken down by month and location; (c) how many incidents in (a) or (b) resulted in a departure from the plane’s scheduled landing, flight path, or other flight procedures; and (d) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken to minimize the threat posed to aircraft from lasers or drones?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 749--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the revocation of citizenship by the government, since November, 2015, and broken down by month: (a) how many individuals have had their citizenship revoked and in each instance what was the (i) origin of citizenship of the individual, (ii) age of the individual, (iii) sex of the individual, (iv) specific reason for their citizenship revocation; and (b) for each of the reasons listed in (a)(iii), was is the total number given, broken down by reason?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 750--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to citizenship fraud uncovered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada since November, 2015: (a) how many cases of citizenship fraud have been uncovered; (b) which country of origin has had the highest level of citizenship fraud; (c) what type of fraud is the most common; and (d) how many of these cases have resulted in a deportation order?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 751--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to grants and contributions provided by the government since November 4, 2015, to bowling alleys, golf courses, yacht clubs, concerts, music festivals, or breweries: what are the details of these grants and contributions, including for each the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) description or purpose of grant or contribution, (v) file numbers of accompanying press releases?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 752--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to the 2015 general election: (a) what is the total number of votes cast by incarcerated electors; (b) what is the breakdown of incarcerated electors by riding; and (c) what were the results by riding for the Special Voting group, which includes incarcerated voters?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 753--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 754--
Hon. Candice Bergen:
With regard to responses or draft responses of questions on the Order Paper numbered Q-336 through Q-568, inclusively, which were submitted to PCO and subsequently returned for revisions: (a) which responses were returned; and (b) for each returned response, (i) to what department, agency, or crown corporation was the response returned, (ii) what was the number of the question, (iii) what was the nature of the requested revision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 756--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the mydemocracy.ca website: (a) what are the details of all briefing notes, memorandums or dockets related to the website or the contract with Vox Pro Labs, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 758--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the government’s decision to explore purchasing 18 F-18 Super Hornet planes from Boeing: (a) what is the proposed acquisition and lifetime cost of the contract; (b) what is the government rationale for pursuing a sole source contract; (c) is the proposed sole source contract linked to a previous strategy and, if so, what was the approved strategy; (d) notwithstanding the approved strategy, is it feasible or affordable to compete the requirement and, if not, what are the details of the related rationale, including, but not limited to (i) cost, (ii) schedule; (e) does the vendor or its approved distributors have exclusive ownership of, and rights to use, the intellectual property for the goods or services in question, and if so, what rights, if any, does the Crown have to use the intellectual property; (f) are there alternative sources of supply for the same or equivalent materiel and support and, if so, what other options were considered and why were they not recommended; (g) is the proposal related to commonality and compatibility with existing equipment and, if so, what are the operational costs and implications of managing multiple versions; (h) according to Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) sole source acquisition guidelines, why is the cost in (a) fair and reasonable and how was the price support obtained; (i) are there any other factors that have led to a recommendation for a non-competitive process and, if so, what are the details and rationale; (j) what efforts were taken to identify a variety of suppliers; (k) what impacts on trade agreement thresholds or contracts directive contract entry or amendment limits does the government anticipate the proposed procurement strategy will have; and (l) given the nature of PSPC’s mandate, what efforts were taken to put in place long-term procurement arrangements to address similar future requirements or activities in the future and were standing offers established?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 759--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the government’s participation in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: (a) what is the total amount the government has paid into the program since 1997; (b) how many individual payments have been made (i) broken down by date, (ii) broken down by amount of payment; (c) of the total amount paid into the JSF to date by the government, how much has been directed to Industrial Regional Benefits, broken down by individual payment; (d) what is the schedule for the remaining payments, including the date and payment amount; (e) how much of future payments are expected to be directed to Industrial Regional Benefits (i) broken down by date, (ii) broken down by amount of each payment; and (f) what options does the government have to leave the JSF program or end payments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 760--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the changes to the rules for mortgage insurance and eligibility announced by the Minister of Finance on October 3: (a) was an analysis done on the impact that these changes would have on the Canadian housing market; (b) was an analysis done on the impacts that this announcement will have on the Canadian economy; (c) what specific measures are in place to track the impact of these changes; (d) what are the details of all consultations that were undertaken by the government from November 4, 2015, to October 2, 2016; (e) what analysis did the Department of Finance conduct on the impact that changing the eligibility criteria for portfolio insurance will have on non-bank lenders; (f) what analysis was undertaken to determine what impact this announcement will have on the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's (CMHC)'s mortgage insurance business; (g) what impact has this change made to the Department of Finance’s forecast for CMHC's expected revenue; (h) what is the intended impact that a new stress test for low-ratio insured mortgages will have on first-time homebuyers broken down by province; (i) what is the intended impact for fixed and variable mortgage rates for the Canadian consumer; and (j) what are the details of any analysis reached related to (a) or (b), including (i) the date, (ii) the title, (iii) the summary of findings, (iv) who conducted the analysis, (v) the description of methodology, (vi) the file numbers of related reports?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 763--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the survey of 4273 people conducted by Vox Pop Labs between October 23, 2016, and November 22, 2016, that served to provide the base data for the survey conducted through the mydemocracy.ca website: (a) what were the questions asked during this survey; (b) what were the results for each question; (c) what were the properties of each of the clusters, or archetypes, identified in this survey; and (d) for each of the eight themes and graphs identified in the mydemocracy.ca website (i) how were the themes quantified, (ii) what was the range and distribution of answers, (iii) what was the mean of each cluster, or archetype, (iv) which of the clusters were statistically significantly different from one another?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 765--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to data that are submitted through the mydemocracy.ca website: (a) can results be submitted successfully from outside of Canada and included in the overall results of the study; (b) can multiple results be submitted successfully from the same IP address and included in the overall results of the study; (c) is there an upper limit to the number of results that can be submitted from the same IP address and still be included in the overall results of the study; (d) can an individual successfully submit results without providing personal information; (e) is it clearly stated, on the survey itself, what the user must do to ensure his or her results are included in the overall results of the study; (f) if users submit a survey that will not be included in the overall results of the study, will they be informed of that fact; and (g) if users are not informed whether their submission is going to be excluded from the overall results, what quality controls have been put in place to ensure that results will not be skewed by the process, such as by the exclusion of people who wish to protect their personal information?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 766--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the personal information collected through the mydemocracy.ca website by Vox Pop Labs: (a) what are the authorized uses of this information; (b) what is considered to be (i) authorized, (ii) unauthorized, (iii) access, (iv) use, (v) modification, (vi) disclosure; (c) who has the authority to determine which uses can be authorized; (d) with respect to retention of personal information, (i) for which purposes and legal requirements will the information be retained, (ii) what is the estimated time it will take to meet these purposes and legal requirements, (iii) will the information be destroyed if these purposes and legal requirements are met, (iv) is there a maximum time that the information can be retained, (v) does the government have a means of ensuring that the information is destroyed after a reasonable time; and (e) with respect to the data collected, as related to electoral reform, what is the relevance accorded to (i) education, (ii) occupation, (iii) combined household income, (iv) interest in politics, (v) interest in current affairs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 767--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to contracts signed by the government with the Bluesky Strategy Group or its principals, since November 4, 2015: for each contract, (a) what is the (i) value, (ii) description of the service provided, (iii) date and duration, (iv) internal tracking or file number; and (b) was the contract sole sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 768--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to investigations related to the possible leak of information related to the Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation, and the unusual stock trading pattern which occurred in November, 2016: (a) what related matters has the Minister of Justice referred for investigation; (b) on what date did the Minister refer the matter for investigation; (c) did the Minister refer the matter for an internal investigation, or to law enforcement; (d) were any matters referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and, if so, what are the details of such matters; (e) what investigations are currently ongoing related to this possible leak; and (f) what is the employment status of any public officials currently under investigation related to the leak of information?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 769--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 771--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Enhanced Representation Initiative (ERI) run by Global Affairs Canada and its predecessors DFAIT and DFATD, since January 1, 2015: (a) what was the total cost of the ERI in 2015 and 2016; (b) what is the total cost of running each new consulate and consulate general implemented by the ERI, broken down by (i) year, (ii) type of cost, including, but not limited to, salaries and rent; (c) what is the total cost of employing each of the 20 honorary consuls taken on by the ERI, including housing and relocation costs, broken down by (i) year, (ii) city where each honorary consul is located; (d) what is the total number of formal meetings with United States officials, and business, trade, and foreign relations stakeholders held with each consulate, consulate general, and honorary consul, broken down by year; and (e) for all states and cities where a new consulate was opened, an existing consulate upgraded, and a honorary consul appointed, what has been the total economic effect for Canada as a result of implementing the ERI, including, but not limited to, economic benefit through trade and cooperation due to increased diplomatic presence, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 773--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the visit to Ottawa of Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States, from December 8 to December 9, 2016: (a) what is the list of agreements signed during the visit; and (b) what are the details of each agreement identified in (a), including the (i) title, (ii) summary (iii) signatories, (iv) content of the text of the agreement or the website address where it can be found?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 774--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and the granting of a visa waiver for citizens of a foreign country: (a) what is the Temporary Resident visa refusal rate, for the past three years, and for which data is available, for citizens of the following countries (i) Mexico, (ii) Ukraine, (iii) Russia, (iv) Belarus, (iv) Moldova, (v) Romania, (vi) Bulgaria, (vii) Serbia, (viii) Albania, (ix) Macedonia; (b) what is the rate of immigration rules violation, for the past three years, and for which data is available, for citizens of the following countries (i) Mexico, (ii) Ukraine, (iii) Russia, (iv) Belarus, (v) Moldova, (vi) Romania, (vii) Bulgaria, (viii) Serbia, (ix) Albania, (x) Macedonia; and (c) what are the thresholds or standards which apply when IRCC considers the above rates in granting a visa waiver?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 775--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the 49 public transit projects announced for Alberta on September 1, 2016: (a) how many of these projects have been started to date, broken down by (i) project, (ii) municipality; (b) how many new jobs have been created through these projects, broken down by (i) project, (ii) municipality; (c) what is the expected or estimated completion date for these projects, broken down by (i) project, (ii) municipality; (d) which projects had been funded in part or in whole by the previous government, broken down by (i) project, (ii) municipality; and (e) which projects had been implemented or started in part or in whole by the previous government, broken down by (i) project, (ii) municipality?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 776--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to Table 51 “Organization Summary (dollars) – Health” in Supplementary Estimates (A), 2016-17: (a) what are the projects that receive funding from this allotment; (b) for each project identified in (a), and broken down by department or agency, what is the (i) amount allocated, (ii) amount spent, (iii) description of project, (iv) location; (c) for each project identified in (a), what is the total amount allocated to each department or agency; (d) for each project identified in (a), what is the total amount spent by each department or agency, as of present; and (e) for each program identified in (a) that has been awarded a contract and received funding from the allotment, what is the line by line expenditure, broken down by department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 778--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to anticipated outcomes by the government related to the Public Health Agency of Canada’s HIV and Hepatitis C Community Action Fund: (a) how, by whom, and when will the amount of the “transition-based funding” to be provided, in each instance, be determined; (b) will the “transition-based funding” to be received by each funded organization be equal to the full amount payable to it for the 2016-2017 fiscal year under the current contracts, and if not, what amount of “transition-based funding” will each group be eligible for; (c) will any currently funded activities no longer be fundable under the “transition-based funding”, and, if so, which ones; (d) as the “transition-based funding” is to be provided for the purpose of addressing “gaps in priority areas”, how, and by whom, and using what criteria, will those gaps and priority areas be identified and assessed; (e) will currently contracted organizations eligible for “transition-based funding” be permitted any input into assessments regarding “gaps in priority areas” and consequent decisions; (f) is there to be any difference between the process and associated “transition-based funding” to be accorded to organizations approved for projects at lower amounts than current funding on the one hand and organizations that were unsuccessful in the application process on the other and, if so, what will those differences be; (g) what further opportunities to secure renewed or new contract funding will be accorded to the affected organizations during the 2017-2018 “transition year”; (h) how will provincial and territorial Ministries of Health and health authorities be engaged in this transition funding review process and decision making; (i) to what extent will decisions regarding fundable activities be based on areas previously identified by provincial and territorial governments as geographic and population gaps; (j) from what source will the “transition-based funding” be drawn; (k) will consumer organizations dedicated to Hepatitis C Virus Mono-Infection issues be considered for “transition-based funding” regardless of whether or not they were previously funded by PHAC, and will there be any opportunity for such organizations to seek further future funding during the next fiscal year; (l) will there be any funding available to assist in addressing identified gaps after March 31, 2018; (m) what further opportunities to secure renewed or new contract funding will be provided to impacted organizations during the 2017-2018 “transition year”; (n) when will the next Public Health Agency of Canada funding call occur for the HIV and Hepatitis C Community Action Fund; (o) of the 224 project submissions received by the Public Health Agency of Canada following an open call for Letters of Intent (LOI), which organizations were (i) invited to submit full project proposals with no changes required, (ii) invited to submit a full application at a reduced budget amount, (iii) not recommended for further consideration; (p) for organizations invited to submit a full application at a reduced budget amount, what is the dollar value of each reduction; and (q) for every LOI received, what was (i) the name of the organization or organizations submitting it, (ii) the response provided to item twenty of the Letter solicitation; (r) what criteria were used to evaluate LOIs in the review process; (s) what were the qualifications of reviewers evaluating LOIs; (t) to what extent were people with lived experience involved in the LOI review process; (u) what regions of Canada do those who were involved in the LOI review process reside in; and (v) how were Indigenous people engaged in the review process?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 779--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS), in fiscal year 2014-2015: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each of the following components of the FTCS (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control and, if so, how much was reallocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 780--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy, in fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014: was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control, and if so, how much was reallocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 781--
Hon. Diane Finley:
With regard to the government’s decision to explore purchasing 18 F-18 Super Hornet planes from Boeing: (a) what is the projected acquisition cost of these planes; (b) what is the Department of National Defence’s projected operational life span of an F-18 Super Hornet; (c) what are the projected yearly operation costs and maintenance of the fleet of F-18 Super Hornets; (d) what measures are in place to ensure that there is a fair and open competition for the permanent replacement fleet; (e) what specific measures are in place to ensure that Boeing does not receive an unfair advantage due to its status related to the interim fleet; (f) what are the dates, times, locations, and lists of attendees of all meetings between the government and Boeing since November 4, 2015; (g) what are the details of communications which have been received from the United States government to date related to the interim purchase of 18 Super Hornets from Boeing, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) relevant file number; and (h) in the open competition for a full replacement of the F-18 fleet, how will the Statement of Requirements be developed, when and by whom?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 783--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to Transport Canada’s British Columbia North Coast oil tanker moratorium: (a) how many submissions were received during the consultation; (b) what are the names of the individuals and organizations who participated in the consultation; (c) has the government produced any studies on the impact the moratorium will have on (i) job creation, (ii) marine traffic, (iii) environmental protection; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the findings of each study?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 784--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the 94 Calls to Action prepared by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: (a) what are the details of all the consultations conducted by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, including for each consultation the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the First Nations, groups, or individuals consulted, (iv) recommendations that were made to the Minister; and (b) with regard to consultations in (a), what is the (i) total of travel costs covered by the government, (ii) total of accommodation costs covered by the government, (iii) daily per diem rate to which stakeholders are entitled, (iv) total paid out in per diem?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 786--
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to the Northern Gateway Project: what consultations did the government undertake with the 31 First Nations and Métis communities who constitute the Aboriginal Equity Partners between October 19, 2015, and November 29, 2016, including the (i) date of meeting, (ii) location, (iii) First Nation or Métis community present, (iv) itemized breakdown of costs related to each meeting, (v) a summary of each meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 787--
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project (TMX) Ministerial Panel: (a) what compensation was provided to each member of the panel; (b) what were the itemized expenses filed by each member of the panel; (c) what were the itemized expenses incurred by the committee in each city where a public meeting was held; and (d) what were the total expenses incurred by the advisory panel?
Response
(Return tabled)

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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 790--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to Pre-Budget Consultations: who has met with the Minister of Finance for Pre-Budget Consultations in advance of the 2017 Budget, and for each meeting, (i) what are the names of individuals and organizations represented, (ii) what is the date of the meeting, (iii) what are the details of the meeting agenda, (iv) what are the details of any presentations or briefing materials provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 794--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the First Nations-Canada Joint Committee on the Fiscal Relationship: (a) what are the names and titles of each individual member of the Committee; (b) what are the titles of all briefing notes provided to this Committee between July 13, 2016, and December 13, 2016, from the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs; (c) what are the details of all meetings of this Committee, including for each meeting, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) agenda, (iv) minutes; (d) what is the total of travel costs for this committee covered by the government; (e) what is the total of accommodation costs for this Committee covered by the government; (f) what is the daily per diem rate which members of the committee are entitled to; and (g) what is the total paid out in per diem?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 795--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s commitment to introduce an Indigenous Languages Act and specific plans the government has to implement this commitment: (a) when will the legislation be introduced in Parliament; (b) what proposals will be contained in the legislation; (c) what is the total amount of funding that will be attached to it; (d) what are the details of all the consultations conducted by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs prior to the announcement of the upcoming bill, including for each consultation, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the First Nations, groups, or individuals consulted, (iv) recommendations that were made to the Minister; and (e) what are the titles of all briefing notes provided to the Minister regarding this proposed legislation between November 4, 2015, and December 13, 2016 from the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 796--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement on December 6, 2016, that the federal government had taken steps on 36 of the 45 Calls to Action prepared by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that are solely in the federal government’s jurisdiction: (a) which of the Calls to Action has the government taken action on; (b) what action on each has been taken, broken down by the specific Call to Action; (c) has a cost analysis been undertaken on implementing each of the 36 Calls to Action the Prime Minister referenced; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what is the cost of implementing each of the previously mentioned 36 Calls to Action?
Response
(Return tabled)
8530-421-17 Answer to question Q-538 on ...8555-421-425 Pictures, paintings or piec ...8555-421-425-01 Pictures, paintings or p ...8555-421-425-02 Pictures, paintings or p ...8555-421-467 Training provided for Ministers8555-421-467-01 Training provided for Mi ...8555-421-467-02 Training provided for Mi ...8555-421-538-1 Fire safety education in ...8555-421-592 Closure of the Immigration, ...8555-421-593 Phoenix pay system8555-421-594 Spending on internet connec ... ...Show all topics
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Scott Brison Profile
2016-12-01 17:57 [p.7541]
moved:
That Vote 1b, in the amount of $473,938, under Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada — Program expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, be concurred in.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2016-11-29 10:04 [p.7349]
Mr. Speaker, I have two reports from committee to present today.
First, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.
Mr. Speaker, second, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to Supplementary Estimates (B) 2016-17.
View Arnold Chan Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arnold Chan Profile
2016-09-28 17:03 [p.5228]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and join the debate on Bill C-22. I want to use my time to focus not so much on why I am supporting Bill C-22, because I think the arguments have already been advanced quite significantly by the members of the government. I want to use my time instead to address some of the substantive concerns coming from the opposition parties, which is what I will do in the time that has been allotted to me today.
There are some broad themes that have clearly emerged from the opposition that I want to address and put to rest to try to allay their concerns.
The first, which has been advanced by the official opposition members, is the concept that the architecture of Bill C-22 undermines the independence of parliamentarians because of the apparent supremacy of the executive branch over the legislative branch. They have cited the various provisions in the act that deal with the Prime Minister's capacity to appoint the members of the committee under section 5, and the ability of ministers of the crown to withhold information in certain situations under section 16. They have highlighted issues with respect to the ability of the Prime Minister, in consultation with the chair of the committee, to redact certain portions of the proposed report coming from the committee that might be injurious to national security or might disclose information that might be subject to solicitor-client privilege or might be injurious to or impact international relations.
I appreciate this particular point because we do live in a Westminster model, wherein our branches of government, both our executive branch and our legislative branch, are fused into the same body. The supremacy of the executive branch is particularly exacerbated in this type of model, unlike, for example, in the United States, under a congressional model, where there are very clear and separate branches of government, and the executive branch is specifically divorced from the legislative branch.
I would remind my colleagues of a point that was specifically highlighted by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in his address to the House on the bill. The mandate of this committee is very broad. If we look carefully at the language of the legislation under section 8, it says that the committee's mandate is to review:
(a) the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence;
(b) any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security; and
(c) any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to the Committee.
Therefore, the oversight role, the review role, is very broad as set out specifically in the act. However, I would point out that the purpose of this piece of legislation is to do exactly that, to review the broad mandates of our national security and intelligence agencies. It is not to go and delve into the specific operational endeavours of the military or our police services to examine specific matters that are of a specific ongoing operational nature. I would submit that falls within the purview of the government's executive branch, to execute, in real time, responses to potential national security threats and to deal with those instances. The role of the committee is to look at these particularly broad mandates.
Some of the committee's other mandates are to review that our security and intelligence services have the right legislative tools, that the resources appropriated to our national security agencies are appropriate, that we have the appropriate interagency co-operation, and that the legislative framework allows for that appropriate exchange of information. I would also argue that it has to deal with some of the concerns that the third party has advanced, which is to ensure that the appropriate procedural and substantive protections are afforded to individuals who may be impacted by the actions of our security agencies.
I believe those are the appropriate measures of review, not the actual review of specific ongoing operational issues. The way I would frame it is that the role of the committee is not to play M in MI6 in a James Bond movie. Its role is to provide oversight and a check on the exercise of executive authority.
The second theme I wanted to address that I think has been overplayed by the opposition is with respect to the ability in terms of both access to information and the ability to redact information. Again, I would invite my colleagues on the opposite side to carefully review the actual language in the bill as it relates to those specific limitations.
Let me take, for example, the provisions that are dealt with under the access to information provisions in clauses 13 and 14, particularly as they relate to the exceptions under section 14. My colleagues on the other side have noted that there are seven exceptions, and they refer to them as being problematic. However, if we examine them carefully, they are very narrowly construed. Basically, they are construed with respect to other rights and immunities and privileges of other classes of persons other than parliamentarians.
Again, I think it is a bit of a mis-characterization that the supremacy of Parliament and the role of parliamentarians somehow supersedes the rights, privileges, and immunities of other classes of persons. I do not think that is a fair characterization. I think we have to always constantly engage and make sure that there is a balance.
We can take a look at the seven specific provisions in section 14. The first one is “a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, as defined in subsection 39(2) of the Canada Evidence Act”. In plain English, that means cabinet confidences. The question is whether parliamentarians should be subject and be able to access information as it relates to the deliberations of cabinet. Again, I think not.
The second one refers to “information respecting ongoing defence intelligence activities supporting military operations”. My point is that those are operational decisions. Again, I do not think that it is within the purview of the committee to be reviewing ongoing military action.
The third is “information the disclosure of which is described in subsection 11(1) of the Witness Protection Program Act”. If somebody goes into the witness protection program, I do not think we need to know the identity of who that particular individual is.
The fourth is “the identity of a person who...has been approached to be...a confidential source of information, intelligence or assistance to the Government of Canada”. Therefore, if somebody is prepared to spy on behalf of Canada, again, I do not think we need to have that specific type of information.
The fifth one is “information relating directly to an ongoing investigation”. Again, that is an operational matter. We can certainly look at it retrospectively and review if there was a problem, but I do not think that this committee should be in a position to compromise an ongoing active investigation.
The sixth is information related to the Investment Canada Act, and seventh is information relating to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. Again, if we look at these particular sections, they are very narrowly construed.
Therefore, the exceptions that are articulated in the bill are very narrow. Again, I would argue that these are very narrow areas that are carved out, and that the mandate of the committee is in fact very broad.
The other point that has been raised is with respect to subclause 21(5), the writing of reports and the Prime Minister's capacity to edit the reports.
Again, I invite my colleagues to read subclause 21(5) carefully with respect to what it means. It does not mean that the Prime Minister rewrites the report. It means that a report that has been received by the Prime Minister is reviewed to make sure there is no sensitive confidential information that is then subsequently disclosed to the public. It is this information alone that would be redacted. Through consultation with the chair that information would be subject to review and allowed to be redacted on the basis of national security, on the basis that it might be injurious to international relations, or that the information is confidential because of solicitor-client privilege.
Again, it is very narrowly construed. I simply submit that to my colleagues—
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Scott Brison Profile
2016-03-21 18:46 [p.1848]
moved:
That Vote 1c, in the amount of $127,996, under Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada—Program expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016, be concurred in.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Scott Brison Profile
2016-03-21 18:58 [p.1849]
moved:
That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016, except any vote disposed earlier today, be concurred in.
View Andrew Leslie Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Andrew Leslie Profile
2016-03-21 18:58 [p.1849]
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yea.
Results: 1 - 30 of 33 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data