Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 7 of 7
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2035--
Mr. Hunter Tootoo:
With regard to the financial reviews to which the Nunavut Planning Commission was subjected for the financial years ranging from 2012 to 2017: (a) what are the names and titles of the persons who determined that these reviews were necessary; (b) what was the rationale for determining that the audits were necessary; (c) how much did the KPMG review, which covered the years 2012-13 to 2014-15, cost; (d) how much did the Ernst and Young review, which covered the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, cost; and (e) what were the findings and observations of these reviews?
Response
Mr. Marc Miller (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC, and its special operating agency Indian Oil and Gas Canada, IOGC, are concerned, the response is as follows. With regard to part (a), it was Anne Scotton, chief audit and evaluation executive, CIRNAC.
With regard to part (b), the 2018 financial review by Ernst & Young was a follow-up on the previous review of the Nunavut Planning Commission, NPC, completed in August 2016 by KPMG. The purpose of both reviews was to provide an independent and objective opinion on whether CIRNAC funding had been expended in accordance with the terms and conditions of CIRNAC’s funding agreement with the NPC for the 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 fiscal years, for both core and supplemental funding. Both reviews were conducted to examine compliance with the approved funding agreement and did not examine value for money.
With regard to part (c), for 2015-16, the professional fees were $82,617.84, and the travel fees were $8,844.20. For 2016-17, the professional fees were $18,897.24, and the travel fees were $2,662.56.
With regard to part (d), for 2017-18, the professional fees were $48,055.26, and the travel fees were $12,555.09.
With regard to part (e), a summary of the 2016 financial review of the Nunavut Planning Commission by KPMG and of the 2018 financial review of the Nunavut Planning Commission by Ernst & Young can be found at the following links: for 2016, https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1473944259394/1473944507036; for 2018, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1536847791557/1536848025495.

Question No. 2037--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With respect to proposals being considered by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada with regard to Internet services in rural areas since November 4, 2015: (a) has the department considered a proposal that would take broadband spectrum used by rural wireless providers and auction it off for 5G wireless to be used mainly in large urban centres; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) is the department pursuing this proposal, (ii) how many Canadian households would be affected by this change, (iii) has the department undertaken an analysis to determine the impact of a decline in Internet services in rural communities, (iv) does the department have a plan to provide alternative spectrum to existing users, (v) has the department engaged in consultations with rural Canadians and other stakeholders about this proposal; (c) if the answer to (b)(iii) is affirmative, what did the analysis determine; (d) if the answer to (b)(iii) is negative, why was no analysis undertaken; (e) if the answer to (b)(v) is affirmative, (i) what were the dates and locations of each consultation, (ii) who was consulted, (iii) what feedback was provided; and (f) if the answer to (b)(v) is negative, why were no consultations undertaken?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, rural Internet is not at risk. The government is delivering on its commitment to connect more and more rural Canadian communities.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, is considering how best to prepare for 5G in a way that lets all Canadians, including those in rural and remote communities, benefit from the next generation of wireless technologies. 5G is expected to add $40 billion to annual GDP by 2026, creating more jobs for Canadians.
As the 3500 MHz band is expected to be one of the first used for 5G services, the government held a public consultation on proposals to facilitate the initial deployment of 5G in Canada. The proposal included options for repurposing some spectrum from existing licensees in both urban and rural areas. All comments received through this consultation process are available online at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11401.html.
This process is about maintaining and expanding rural broadband coverage, while establishing conditions where faster and cheaper Internet is more widely available through modern technologies.
Rural Internet is a priority for the government. This is demonstrated by investments totalling $500 million in connectivity for rural communities. The connect to innovate program is bringing new or improved high-speed access to more than 900 rural and remote communities, because all Canadians deserve equal opportunities in the digital economy, regardless of their postal code.

Question No. 2038--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to Member of Parliament inquiries to the Immigration and Refugee Board on behalf of constituents: (a) what is the average time it takes to respond in full to an inquiry, broken down by year from 2015 to 2018; and (b) how many staff are currently assigned to answer Member of Parliament inquiries?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, IRB, is concerned, with regard to (a), the IRB aims to respond to inquiries by members of Parliament, or MPs, and their constituency staff within two weeks of receipt. The IRB does not keep track of processing times for each inquiry by calendar year.
As of December 10, 2018, there are no inquiries that remain to be addressed, which is well within the working inventory of 20 requests at any given time.
With regard to (b), one half of a full-time equivalent employee, FTE, is assigned to MP inquiries.

Question No. 2039--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to Pakistani refugees in Thailand with currently pending private sponsorship applications before Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) how many cases are currently awaiting resettlement to Canada; (b) what is the current wait time for privately sponsored Pakistani refugees in Thailand to be resettled; and (c) when does the government anticipate reducing the wait time to 12 months, as was promised?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, is concerned, with regard to (a), as of November 26, 2018, in the inventory there are a total of 160 privately sponsored refugee applications, which excludes cancelled and prospective applications, representing 450 persons of Pakistani origin--principal applicant based on country of citizenship--residing in Thailand.
With regard to (b), processing of privately sponsored refugees is influenced by numerous factors, including the security situation of the area in which the refugee is located, exit clearance processing, and difficulty reaching refugees in remote areas. Wait times are further influenced by individual office capacity and intake management.
Processing times are posted by the migration or visa office and are not broken down by specific nationalities or populations. While IRCC cannot provide specific timing for processing of privately sponsored Pakistani refugees from Thailand, the current processing time for the majority of privately sponsored refugees applying from Thailand is 25 months. The processing time indicates how long it has taken to process most complete applications in the past 12 months.
IRCC is closely monitoring the situation in Thailand regarding the government restrictions on all irregular migrants. IRCC is actively making efforts to expedite the processing of recognized refugees in Canada’s resettlement process who are at imminent risk of refoulement.
With regard to (c), due to the generosity of Canadians, IRCC has seen an increase in demand for the private sponsorship of refugees. The continued high level of interest from private sponsors is a reflection of the success of the program. At the same time, IRCC must manage the intake of applications in order to be able to process them in a timely way based on the immigration levels plan.
IRCC is working to achieve our goal of reducing wait times to an average of 12 months. These changes will ensure the long-term success of the program, which is, and will remain, an integral part of Canada’s immigration program.
The government has more than tripled the number of spaces available in the privately sponsored refugee program over pre-2015 levels, to allow even more Canadians to sponsor refugees to Canada and to reduce wait times.
IRCC is continuing to discuss options for a way forward with sponsors and remains committed to reducing the privately sponsored refugee inventory in a way that is fair for sponsors and refugees alike.

Question No. 2040--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With respect to the Supplementary Estimates (A) 2018-2019 and the voted appropriations for the Funding for the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: what are the details of Vote 1a estimated at $10,698,215, broken down by (i) operating expenses for transport, (ii) operating expenses for furniture rental, (iii) operating expenses for equipment, (iv) operating expenses for photography, (v) operating expenses for broadcasting, (vi) operating expenses for communications?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada was proud to hold the G7 presidency from January 1 to December 31, 2018, and used this important opportunity to speak with a strong voice on the international stage on issues that matter to Canadians, as well as to engage G7 counterparts on global challenges. The themes chosen by Canada focused discussions on finding concrete solutions to the challenge we all face: how to create growth that benefits everyone, including the middle class and those working hard to join it. Canada’s presidency resulted in the G7 community making important progress on the goals of ensuring that all citizens benefit from our global economy, and that we leave a healthier and more secure world for our children.
The $10,698,215 in supplementary estimates (A) for 2018-19 was not requested for the specific line items as listed above.
The amount of $10,698,215 is a reprofiling request to transfer unused G7 summit funding from the 2017-18 fiscal year to 2018-19. As such, this amount was not a request for new funding.

Question No. 2041--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) what is the amount of tax collected and assessed by the CRA because of the deemed disposition of assets that is triggered pursuant to paragraph 128.1(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act as a result of an individual becoming a non-resident of Canada, broken down by taxation years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017; and (b) what is the amount of gains and losses reported to the CRA by individuals on prescribed forms T1161 and T1243, broken down by taxation years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the information provided on forms T1161 and T1243 by taxpayers is not captured on CRA databases for reporting purposes, and cannot be used to produce aggregate data in the manner requested.

Question No. 2044--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With respect to the Paradise Papers affair, the fight against offshore tax non-compliance and aggressive tax planning: (a) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files are currently open at the Canada Revenue Agency; (b) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files have been sent to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files are linked to the marijuana industry; (d) how many employees are assigned to Paradise Papers files; (e) how many audits have been performed since the release of the Paradise Papers; and (f) how much has the Canada Revenue Agency recovered in total?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the CRA has obtained and is actively reviewing all the information contained in the paradise papers that was released publicly by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, ICIJ, to determine whether an audit had already occurred or whether an audit should be undertaken.
The CRA has identified over 3,000 individuals or corporations with links to the paradise papers. Please note this figure includes those non-residents or taxpayers identified by the CRA prior to the release of information by the ICIJ, who may have been engaged in tax avoidance transactions.
With regard to part (b), to date, no Canadian taxpayer or company has been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for criminal prosecution as a result of information received from the paradise paper affair.
With regard to part (c), the CRA does not have this information.
With regard to part (d), more than 25 CRA employees have been assigned specific work relating to the paradise papers, including research, data analytics, risk assessments, audits and coordinating efforts with the agency’s international partners.
With regard to part (e), to date, approximately 100 taxpayers with links to the paradise papers have been identified for audit.
Through its international agreements, the CRA continues to obtain the required source documents from other tax administrations. Audits and criminal investigations such as those linked to the paradise papers are complex and, due to those complexities, can require months or years to complete.
With regard to part (f), as of the date of this question, the CRA has not made any reassessments for audits related to the paradise papers, including those audits that had begun prior to the receipt of the information from the release of information by the ICIJ.
The CRA has reported on collection related to offshore compliance projects in the past, several years after the projects were completed to allow time period for the objection rights of taxpayers. The CRA will do so for the paradise papers. The CRA will report on these figures publicly once they are compiled.
Also, the CRA decided to restrict access to the voluntary disclosure program, if the CRA has already received information on a taxpayer’s, or a related taxpayer’s, potential involvement in tax non compliance--for example, a leak of offshore financial information such as the paradise papers. This choice will extend the time to finalize the CRA’s work, but will deliver stronger consequences to those involved in offshore non-compliance schemes.

Question No. 2055--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the $477 million provided to the Canada Infrastructure Bank in the 2018-19 Supplementary Estimates (A): what is the itemized breakdown of how the $477 million is projected to be utilized?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, supplementary estimates (A) listed a transfer from the Department of Finance to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, CIB, in the amount of $477,284,533 for the 2018-19 fiscal year. This amount represents $450,000,000 for capital appropriations and $27,284,533 for operating appropriations for CIB’s 2018-19 approved budgets.
The CIB announced that the investment in the Réseau Express Métropolitain, REM, light rail project in Montréal will come from capital appropriations.
The operating appropriations are allocated to administration activities, such as human resources, premises and equipment, information technology and professional fees and services, including finance, legal, accounting, external audit and consultants and advisers for the REM investment.
As it is legislatively appropriated, the CIB’s appropriations are held in the consolidated revenue fund, and the CIB will request a drawdown from the Department of Finance up to the amount required, as required for its operating and capital needs and based on approved budgets in its corporate plan.

Question No. 2065--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to funding for legal assistance provided to government employees, broken down by department or agency, and by year since 2016: (a) how many employees received legal assistance funding; (b) how many employees requested or applied for legal assistance funding in relation to a matter arising from their actions as a government employee; (c) of the individuals in (b) how many were (i) approved for funding, (ii) denied funding; and (d) what was the (i) average amount spent per individual who received legal funding, (ii) total expenditure on legal assistance?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. A response to the question could disclose personal and solicitor privileged information.

Question No. 2070--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to construction delays for the new Champlain Bridge and the new negotiations between the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group and Infrastructure Canada: (a) how much is the fine for every day of delay; (b) what is the maximum fine amount; (c) what caused the delays that were beyond the control of the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group, broken down by type; (d) on what date will the fines come into effect; (e) will the financial penalty system outlined in the contract signed in 2015 be maintained; and (f) what is the estimated final financial cost incurred due to the construction delays?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to construction delays of the new Champlain Bridge and the new negotiations between the Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group and Infrastructure Canada, and (a) in particular, the liquidated damages related to the bridge opening are of $100,000 per day for the first seven days of delays and of $400,000 per day, minus interest on the senior debt, afterward.
With regard to (b), the maximum amount of liquidated damages that can be charged for delays to the bridge opening is $150 million.
With regard to (c), the various causes of the delays and impacts of each cause are part of ongoing confidential commercial discussions. However, part of the delays is due to the crane operators strike.
With regard to (d), as per the contract, liquidated damages only start if the private partner is late in opening the bridge to traffic and subsequently late in delivering the whole corridor. The contractual dates are December 21, 2018, and October 31, 2019, but are subject to change if there are events out of the private partner's control, such as strikes.
With regard to (e), it is Canada’s intention to apply the contract.
With regard to (f), the costs, if any, and the responsibility for these costs are part of ongoing confidential commercial discussions.

Question No. 2071--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to the Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018–19, and Votes 1a and 5a for the Funding for the New Champlain Bridge Corridor Project: (a) what is the detailed justification for the difference between the payment to Signature on the Saint Lawrence provided by the settlement agreement dated April 13, 2018, of $235 million and the amount in Vote 5a of $257,522,708; (b) what will be the total amount paid to Signature on the Saint Lawrence under the settlement agreement between the government and Signature on the Saint Lawrence; and (c) what are the details of the funding requirement for Vote 1a of $34,234,247?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there were two items in the Supplementary Estimates (A) that were approved for the new Champlain Bridge corridor project, the NCBC project. The first was for $235 million, which is for approval to amend an existing contract authority and to fund acceleration measures and a negotiated settlement pertaining to the new Champlain Bridge corridor project, as per budget 2014. The second was for $22.5 million, which is part of the $56 million lapsed funding from fiscal year 2017-18 that was reprofiled into 2018-19 through Supplementary Estimates (A). Of this, $15.2 million will be used to settle expropriation claims for one property belonging to Nuntip and 31 properties from the City of Montreal. The remaining funding will be used to finance postponed work as it related to flagmen as part of the CN agreement, for $3 million, and various environmental compensation projects, for $4.3 million. The total is $257.5 million.
With regard to (b), a maximum of $235 million will be paid to Signature on the Saint-Lawrence under the settlement agreement.
With regard to (c), the amount of $33.2 million represents funding for future project operating requirements. Reprofiling this amount will ensure that funds remain available to address project needs. The remaining balance of $1 million will cover costs associated with the lease of properties from PWGSC to complete delayed environmental compensation projects. The total is $34.2 million.

Question No. 2072--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to the lawsuit filed with the Superior Court of Québec by Signature on the Saint Lawrence against Infrastructure Canada in March 2017: what were the government’s total legal expenses in (i) 2017, (ii) 2018?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the lawsuit filed with the Superior Court of Québec by Signature on the Saint Lawrence against Infrastructure Canada in March 2017, the government's total legal expenses incurred were $75,561.09 in 2017 and $1,419.54 in 2018, taking into consideration the fact that the parties consented to a stay of the legal proceedings in order to allow them to use the contractual dispute resolution mechanism.

Question No. 2075--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With respect to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s trip to China in November 2018: (a) who were all the participants on the trip, broken down by (i) the Minister’s staff, (ii) Members of Parliament (iii) Senators, (iv) departmental employees, (v) other invitees; (b) for each participant identified in (a), what was the cost of the trip, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodations, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what are the details for all events and hospitality organized during the trip, including (i) dates, (ii) city, (iii) number of participants, (iv) total cost; and (d) what agreements or arrangements were signed?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) through (c), this information will be made available on proactive disclosure through the website https:// open.canada.ca/en/ search/travel.
With regard to (d), the government is committed to expanding trade opportunities with China for our agriculture, agri-food and seafood sectors, which will help create good middle-class jobs and more opportunities for Canadians and help increase agricultural exports to $75 billion by 2025. While in China, Canada signed 18 agriculture and agri-food deals with Chinese companies worth over $353.3 million. They are described here. The Canadian organization Natural Burg Group signed an agreement with Chinese organization Shaanxi Investment Group / Huashan Venture Technology Development Co., Ltd. The Canadian firm Canada Grand Enterprises Inc. signed an agreement with Chinese organization Zhejiang International E-commerce Service Co., Ltd. The Canadian government and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese organization Shanghai Hema Network Technology Co. Ltd. The Canadian firm All Impact Foods Inc. signed an agreement with Chinese organization Wuhan Jinyu Free Trade Development Co., Ltd. The Canadian firm CAC Natural foods Inc. signed an agreement with Chinese organization China Certification & Inspection Group, or CCIC. The Canadian firm Sun Wah Foods Ltd. signed an agreement with Chinese organization China Certification & Inspection Group, or CCIC. The Canadian organization Avalon Dairy Limited signed an agreement with Chinese organization China Certification & Inspection Group, or CCIC. The Canadian organization Avalon Dairy Limited signed an agreement with Chinese organization Dandong Chengxie Trade Co.,Ltd. The Canadian organization Atlantic Canada Business Network signed a memorandum of understanding with Greenland Zhongxuan (Shanghai) International Trade Co. Ltd. The Canadian organization Red Rover signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese organization Greenland Zhongxuan (Shanghai) International Trade Co. Ltd. The Canadian organization Cavendish Farms signed an agreement with Chinese organization COFCO Premier. The Canadian firm Richardson International Limited signed a letter of intent with Chinese organization China SDIC International Trade Co., Ltd. The Canadian firm CAC Natural foods Inc. signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese organization Greenland Zhongxuan (Shanghai) International Trade Co. Ltd. The Canadian firm Natunola Health Inc. signed an agreement with Chinese organization Shanghai Liangyou Group Company Limited. The Canadian organization Canadian Beef International Institute signed an agreement with Chinese organization Shanghai HaiBo Investment Co., Ltd. / Million Group. The Canadian firm Maple Horizons Ltd. signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese organization Greenland Zhongxuan (Shanghai) International Trade Co. Ltd. The Canadian firm Maple Horizons Ltd. signed a letter of intent with Chinese organization Anhui Imported Foods Industrial Park.

Question No. 2076--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to government advertising during the 106th Grey Cup broadcast on November 25, 2018: (a) what is the total amount spent on advertising during the broadcast, including the pre-game and post-game shows; (b) of the amount in (a), how much was spent on (i) ads promoting the Trans Mountain Pipeline, (ii) other ads, broken down by campaign; and (c) what is the breakdown of the amounts in (a) and (b) by station?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, PSPC is responding on behalf of the Government of Canada specifically for those institutions under Schedules I, I.1 and II of th Financial Administration Act.
With regard to (a), the government spent $92,678 during the broadcast. No government advertisements aired during the pre-game or post-game shows. Members should please note that this amount is a planned expenditure; the actual amount is not yet available as final invoices have not been received.
With regard to (b), none of the amount spent on advertising by the government was spent on ads promoting the Trans Mountain pipeline. The government advertising campaigns featured were Health Canada ads on opioids and vaccination, and National Defence ads on the 100-plus careers campaign.
With regard to (c), in total, five advertisements ran on TSN and RDS. With regard to the breakdown of the amount spent per campaign and per station, the Government of Canada does not disclose information about the specific amounts paid for individual ad placements or the amounts paid to specific media outlets with which we have negotiated rates. This information is considered commercially sensitive third party information and is protected under the Access to Information Act.

Question No. 2083--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the CBC report in November 2018 showing that the privacy of at least 10,000 Canadians was compromised by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) employees “snooping” on their information and accessing taxpayers private financial data without authorization: (a) how many Canadians were affected by CRA employees accessing data without authorization since November 4, 2015; (b) of the Canadians in (a) whose data was compromised by CRA employees, as of today, how many have received notification from the government that their data was compromised; (c) for each instance in (a), but where Canadians were not notified that their data was compromised, for what reason were they not notified; (d) how many CRA employees accessed data without authorization since November 4, 2015; and (e) of the CRA employees in (d), how many were disciplined, broken down by type of disciplinary actions (reprimand, termination, etc.)?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, members should note that the CRA has over 40,000 employees working across Canada. Employee behaviour and expectations are guided by the CRA code of integrity and professional conduct, “the code”, and the values and ethics code for the public sector. The consequences of misconduct are set out in the CRA directive on discipline, “the directive”.
Please note that the code contains specific references to the privacy and confidentiality of taxpayer information and refers to CRA’s detection and prevention of unauthorized access or unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information.
With regard to the failure to protect information, the code notes that the legal obligation to safeguard the confidentiality and integrity of taxpayer information flows from the Income Tax Act; the Excise Tax Act; the Excise Act, 2001; the Privacy Act; and the Access to Information Act.
The code references the protection of CRA proprietary and taxpayer information. Employees are informed that they must never access any information that is not part of their officially assigned workload, including their own information; disclose any CRA information that has not been made public without official authorization; serve, or deal with the file of, friends, acquaintances, family members, business associates, current or former colleagues, or current or former superiors unless prior approval has been obtained from their manager; or use any CRA information that is not publicly available for any personal use or gain, or for the use or gain of any other person or entity. If the security of CRA or taxpayer information is compromised, the code requires that it must be reported immediately.
With regard to (a), between November 4, 2015, and November 27, 2018--that is, the date of the question--the CRA had 264 confirmed privacy breaches as a result of unauthorized access to taxpayer accounts by CRA employees. A total of 41,361 Canadians were affected by these incidents.
With regard to (b) and (c), in every case in which a CRA investigation determines that an employee has made unauthorized access to taxpayer accounts, the CRA uses Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada guidelines, found at http://www. tbs-sct.gc.ca /pol/doc-eng. aspx?id=26154) to assess the risk of injury to each affected individual and notifies them accordingly. Notification is done predominantly by letter, which includes information about the taxpayer’s right of complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
To date, the CRA has notified 1,640 of the affected individuals that unauthorized accesses have been made to their accounts. An additional 34 notifications are in progress and the notification letters to the affected individuals are currently being prepared.
For 37,502 individuals for whom the risk of injury was assessed as low, the individuals were not notified. Information was viewed as part of various ALPHA T searches, but accounts were not directly accessed. An ALPHA T search is used to search for an individual using various search criteria (name, address, postal code, etc.), when the SIN is not available.
For a number of other reasons, 2,185 individuals were not notified. These reasons included the individual being deceased with no authorized representative on file, there being no valid address on file, or the risk of injury to the individual being assessed as low.
With regard to (d), 264 CRA employees accessed data without authorization between November 4, 2015, and November 27, 2018--that is, the date of the question.
With regard to (e), the applicable steps and consequences of misconduct are covered under the code and the directive. Consequences of misconduct are based on the severity of the incident and its impact on trust both inside and outside the CRA. Misconduct may result in disciplinary measures, up to and including termination of employment. Of the 264 CRA employees who accessed data without authorization since November 4, 2015, 182 were disciplined; 46 left the CRA; and 36 are pending a decision.
The CRA is limited in its ability to respond in the manner requested. Pursuant to section 8 of the Privacy Act, disciplinary action is considered personal information and is protected from disclosure. Furthermore, when the number of employees is so small that an employee could be directly or indirectly identified, aggregate data cannot be released.

Question No. 2085--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the weather vane which was removed from atop the Confederation Building: (a) when will the weather vane be reinstalled; (b) who is the artist who created it; and (c) who is restoring it?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there is currently work being conducted on the exterior of the Confederation Building to preserve the building and ensure ongoing operations until the building undergoes a complete rehabilitation. To protect the integrity of the weather vane during this construction, it was removed and is being stored in a Crown-owned facility while the Confederation Building undergoes its restoration.
With regard to (b), a condition assessment of the weather vane conducted in March 2008 by John G. Cooke & Associates Ltd., indicates that the weather vane is believed to have been designed by Mr. Thomas Dunlop Rankin, the architect who supervised the original construction of the building.
With regard to (c), the weather vane was restored between 2011 and 2012 by Dominion Sculpture, Philip White, and his employee at the time, Ken Adams. Mr. White restored the copper work, while Mr. Adams restored the ironwork.

Question No. 2101--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the mystery illness which has struck diplomats and their families in Cuba: (a) what is the total number of (i) federal employees, (ii) family members of employees, who have suffered from the illness; (b) what are the ranges of symptoms of which the government is aware; (c) what are the details of any compensation or accommodation that the government provided to employees and their families who suffered from the illness; and (d) does the government consider the Cuban government to be responsible for the mystery illness and, if so, what punitive measures, if any, has it taken against the regime in retaliation?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canada’s diplomats and their families is a top priority for Global Affairs Canada.
The government remains deeply troubled by the health problems experienced by some Canadian diplomats and their families who were posted to Cuba. There are currently 13 confirmed cases of affected Canadians. The reported range and severity of symptoms among these Canadians vary.
All those affected by these health problems have our unwavering support. The Government of Canada will continue to do all we can to provide advice and support to them under these difficult circumstances.
The government is investigating any and all possible causes, and we will continue to take measures necessary to protect our diplomats and their families.
Canada has an evidence-based approach to addressing this situation, and our response is guided by the advice of medical experts and treating physicians.
At the current time, the cause of these health problems remains unknown. The investigation into these issues continues.

Question No. 2102--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to Phase 3 of the competitiveness analysis of the output-based pricing system: (a) what were the findings of the analysis; (b) what is the website location where the public can access the findings; and (c) on what date was the analysis completed?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal carbon pollution pricing system has two parts: a regulatory charge on fuel, or federal fuel charge, and a regulatory trading system for large industry--the output-based pricing system. The output-based pricing system is designed to ensure there is a price incentive for companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining competitiveness and protecting against carbon leakage. Instead of paying the charge on fuels that they purchase, facilities in the output-based pricing system will be subject to the carbon pollution price on a portion of their emissions. The portion of emissions will be determined based on a facility’s production and relevant output-based standards, expressed in emissions intensity—i.e., emissions per unit of output.
In July 2018, the government proposed that the starting point for all output-based standards be set at 80% of national sector average emissions intensity and that consideration be given to revising this level based on a three-phased approach to assessing competitiveness and carbon leakage risk to sectors from carbon pollution pricing.
Phase 1 and 2 analysis is quantitative analysis of the level of emission intensity and trade exposure of industrial sectors. The analysis is similar to that used in other jurisdictions to assess the risks posed by carbon pricing to competitiveness and carbon leakage for industrial sector.
Phase 3 analysis focuses on the ability to pass through costs from carbon pollution pricing; domestic or international market considerations that could heighten competitiveness risks due to carbon pollution pricing; consideration of indirect costs from transportation and electricity; and other specific considerations related to carbon pollution pricing that could affect the sector as a whole, a particular region within that sector, or individual facilities.
To support phase 3, stakeholders were invited to submit additional information and analyses relevant to competitiveness impacts of carbon pollution pricing. Environment and Climate change Canada officials engaged with stakeholders through in-person meetings and conference calls and reviewed submissions from stakeholders. Analysis was conducted based on publicly available data as well as stakeholder submissions that provided sector and facility-level data and information.
To date, the government has identified five sectors as being at higher competitiveness and carbon leakage risk due to carbon pollution pricing and output-based standards. They are: cement, iron and steel manufacturing, lime, petrochemicals and nitrogen fertilizers. Proposed output-based standards for these sectors are set at 90% of sector average emissions intensity for iron and steel manufacturing, petrochemicals and nitrogen fertilizers, and 95% for cement and lime. Draft regulations for the output-based pricing system, including output-based standards that will reflect the outcomes of the three-phase analysis, were released for public comment on December 20, 2018 and are available at https:// www.canada.ca/en/environment- climate-change/services /climate-change/pricing- pollution-how -it-will-work/output -based-pricing-system /proposal- regulations.html. Final regulations and final output-based standards are targeted for mid-2019.

Question No. 2105--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the skating rink installed on Parliament Hill as part of the Canada 150 events: (a) what was the final total of all costs associated with the rink, including any resulting repairs required to the lawn on Parliament Hill; and (b) what is the detailed breakdown of all related costs?
Response
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, wih regard to (a) and (b), the final costs of the skating rink on Parliament Hill, including costs associated with the repairs to the lawn, will be available upon receipt of financial reports from the Ottawa International Hockey Festival, the OIHF, in June 2019.

Question No. 2106--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to government involvement and funding for Digital Democracy Project at the Public Policy Forum: (a) on what date did the government provide funding for the project; (b) how much money did the government provide for the project; (c) what is the detailed description of this federally funded project; (d) what specific assurances did the government receive, if any, to ensure that this project is not biased towards the Liberal Party of Canada; and (e) will this project expose and examine “fake news”, propaganda, and non-answers given or perpetuated by the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers?
Response
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of December 3, 2018, the Department of Canadian Heritage has not provided funding for the digital democracy project at the public policy forum.

Question No. 2117--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the government’s policy to allow oil imports from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia: has a Gender-based Analysis been conducted on the importation of oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been committed to conducting GBA+ analysis on legislation, policies and programs since 1995. GBA+ plays an important role in the government’s domestic regulatory, program and policy development. Decisions on where to import crude oil from are private sector commercial decisions. As such, federal GBA+ analyses are not conducted on crude oil imports; however, many companies do conduct their own gender-based analyses.

Question No. 2144--
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the $177,718.18 spent by Environment and Climate Change Canada on Non-public servant travel – Key Stakeholders (object code 0262) during the 2017-18 fiscal year: (a) what are the names of the “key stakeholders” who received funds under this expenditure; (b) how much did each “key stakeholder” receive; and (c) what was the destination and purpose of each trip related to each expenditure?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Environment and Climate Change Canada does not have specific coding to track information related to Question Q-2144.
Audits and auditorsBacklogsBains, NavdeepBlaney, StevenBroadband Internet servicesCanada Infrastructure BankCanada Revenue AgencyCarbon pricingChamplain BridgeCharlevoixChina ...Show all topics
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 2148--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With respect to the document “Allocations from Treasury Board Central Votes for Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19”, published online: (a) for each allocation from “Vote 25--Operating Budget Carry Forward” and “Vote 35--Capital Budget Carry Forward” to a given “Organization”, what is the corresponding “Authority”; and (b) why are authorities listed proactively for each allocation under “Vote 5 – Government Contingencies” and “Vote 40 – Budget Implementation”, but not those under “Vote 25 – Operating Budget Carry Forward” and “Vote 35 – Capital Budget Carry Forward”?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-2030 Trans Mountain pipeline8555-421-2031 Infrastructure projects8555-421-2032 Cyberattacks8555-421-2033 Communications with the bo ...8555-421-2034 Elementary and Secondary E ...8555-421-2036 Recipients of the Canada C ...8555-421-2042 Unofficial ports of entry ...8555-421-2043 Cannabis licences8555-421-2045 Office of the Commissioner ...8555-421-2046 Prison Needle Exchange Program8555-421-2047 Infrastructure projects in ... ...Show all topics
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1998--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the 1,559 organizations whose 2018 Canada Summer Jobs applications were rejected due to issues with the attestation requirement: what are the names of the organizations whose applications were rejected, broken down by riding?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, per the privacy notice statement contained in the Canada Summer Jobs 2018 Applicant Guide, applications deemed ineligible will not be disclosed.

Question No. 1999--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to the handling of evidence related to the leak of information pertaining to the November 2015 Cabinet meeting where shipbuilding was discussed: (a) why has the Office of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office not released all relevant evidence; (b) can the government guarantee that no evidence has been destroyed by the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office; and (c) what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that the records are not destroyed or altered in any way?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the handling of evidence related to the leak of information pertaining to the November 2015 cabinet meeting where shipbuilding was discussed, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows.
With regard to (a), this matter is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice. The court has been asked to determine the relevance of government information as well as the application of any privileges and cabinet confidentiality to such information, and will determine what government information should be released.
With regard to (b), the Government of Canada takes seriously all laws and policies concerning retention and disposition of government information, for example, under the Library and Archives Act and the Treasury Board Secretariat Access to Information Manual.
With regard to (c), the government is committed to handling government information in a manner that respects relevant laws and policies concerning retention and disposition of information.

Question No. 2000--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments in April 2017 that the case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would likely end up before the courts, and in February 2018 that it would inevitably lead to court processes: (a) was the Prime Minister revealing classified information by saying those comments; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, was an investigation launched against the Prime Minister for leaking classified information; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, on what specific unclassified information were the Prime Minister’s comments based; and (d) who provided the Prime Minister with the information mentioned in (c)?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this matter is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice. The Government of Canada takes seriously all relevant laws and policies regarding the protection of classified information, including the policy on government security.

Question No. 2002--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the Study on Competitiveness of Canada's Upstream Oil and Gas Industry which was put up for tender by Natural Resources Canada in April 2018: (a) who conducted the study; (b) what were the findings and methodology of the study; (c) what was the final contract value of the study; and (d) what is the website address where the findings can be located?
Response
Hon. Amerjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to a request from the provincial and territorial energy and mines ministers, Natural Resources Canada commissioned a study on the competitiveness of Canada’s upstream oil and gas industry.
With regard to (a), the contract for a study on the competitiveness of Canada’s upstream oil and gas industry follows a joint ministerial commitment made at the 2017 Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference, EMMC, to examine regulatory barriers to investment in Canada’s oil and gas industry. Given the specialized knowledge and expertise that exist outside government, particularly in terms of project valuations and modelling of the effects of various policies and regulations on project returns, it was decided that a study would be contracted to a third party. Following an initial advance contract award notice, ACAN, process, a request for proposals was posted in April 2018. A contract was awarded to Wood Mackenzie, a leading oil and gas consultancy, on June 7, 2018. A final study, titled “Study on Competitiveness of Western Canada’s Oil and Gas Resources”, was delivered to Natural Resources Canada on July 31, 2018.
With regard to (b) and (d), a comprehensive summary, including a detailed look at the methodology and key findings, can be found on Natural Resources Canada’s website at:
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/emmc/pdf/2018/en/Summary%20-%20Competitiveness%20of%20Western%20Oil%20and%20Gas_en.pdf.
With regard to (c) the final contract value of the study was $88,000.

Question No. 2003--
Mr. Robert Sopuck:
With regard to all Marine Mammal Regulations introduced or amended by the government since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all biological, ecological, population, and impact studies conducted by the government, broken down by regulation or regulatory change, including (i) completion date, (ii) who conducted the study, (iii) findings, (iv) website location where the findings can be located, (v) methodology?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there were no scientific studies specifically conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to inform the marine mammal regulations amendments post November 4, 2015; therefore, the answer to the above questions (i) to (v) is nil. However, the most recent amendments to the marine mammal regulations were informed by the best available science from the department’s scientists, as well as external scientific research, and through consultations with indigenous groups and stakeholders.
In the early 2000s, concerns about the cumulative effects of disturbance to marine mammals were brought to the attention of the department by industry and marine mammal researchers. The department commissioned Dr. Jon Lien of Memorial University in Newfoundland to provide his professional recommendations with respect to addressing these concerns. Dr. Lien’s report, found at http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/462620/publication.html, published in 2001, indicated that repeated exposure to, and interaction with, humans may interrupt or prevent marine mammals from completing their normal life processes, e.g., mating, calving and nursing; cause habituation of marine mammals to human activities; and threaten the survival of individual animals. At that time, section 7 of the marine mammal regulations, MMR, did prohibit the disturbance of marine mammals by any person. However, they did not expressly and effectively identify specific activities that may disturb the normal life processes of a marine mammal.
The department considered a general approach distance for vessels on the water of 100 metres for whales, dolphins and porpoises to be a practical and comprehensible means to prevent disturbance to the animals; however, the practicality of setting a single approach distance applicable to all species, areas and circumstances proved to be a very difficult task. Although 100 metres is considered to be a reasonable distance to minimize disturbance both nationally and internationally, including by Australia, New Zealand and the United States, after consultation in several locations in Canada, DFO considered different distances and ultimately decided to introduce a schedule to the MMR that tailors vessel approach distances to particular areas and circumstances and species.
Specific approach distances in the amended MMRs were informed by a number of external studies. For example, DFO contracted Chris Malcolm to conduct a study on the behaviour of beluga whales in the presence of whale watching vessels in Churchill, MB. This study, published in 2011, found at http://cbwtoa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MalcolmPennerBelugaBoats.pdf, recommended a 25 metre minimum approach distance in Churchill, and a 50 metre approach distance for beluga feeding aggregations. On the Pacific coast, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has compiled scientific evidence regarding approach distances for killer whales. Research results indicated that killer whale behaviour can be affected by approaches at distances greater than 100 yards, or 91.4 metres, according to Lusseau et al, 2009, https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v6/n3/p211-221/; Noren et al, 2009, https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v8/n3/p179-192/; Williams et al, 2009, https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v6/n3/p199-209/, due to behavioural changes and therefore potential impacts on life processes.
In consideration of flight manoeuvres, the amendments prohibit activities such as taking off, landing or altering the course or altitude of the aircraft for the purpose of bring the aircraft closer to a marine mammal or otherwise disturbing it. This prohibition is applicable when the aircraft is being operated at an altitude of less than 304.8 metres, or 1000 feet, within the radius of one-half nautical mile from the marine mammal. The 1000 feet altitude distance is considered a best practice domestically and internationally, including in the United States. However, helicopters that are being used for the seal pup observation industry are exempted from section 7.2 of the regulations, as there is evidence that the brief interaction people have with seal pups on these excursions have no negative effects on the pups, according to Kovacs and Innes, 1990, https://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/0168-1591(90)90083-P/abstract.
The approach limits specified in the amended MMR are also generally consistent with standards adopted internationally, including Australia’s environment protection and biodiversity conservation regulations 2000, and most of the guidelines in the United States. There are various guidelines, codes of conducts and best practices guides in the U.S. under which the approach distance to marine mammals varies depending on the region, state, and species. Although they are distinct in their application, these regulatory and non-regulatory instruments reflect a common purpose for conservation and protection of marine mammal species, and include rules such as keeping a minimum approach distance of 100 yards from all marine mammals. Moreover, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s northwest office has established a regulatory requirement specific to killer whales in the Pacific region, which requires that vessels must not approach any killer whale any closer than 200 yards, or 183 metres, and must stay 400 yards, or 366 metres, out of the path of oncoming whales. Finally, vessels are forbidden to intercept a whale or position a vessel in the path of a whale.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1933--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the Veterans Affairs Canada service standard of 16 weeks in regards to decisions for disability benefit applicants for the 2017-18 fiscal year, or the last year in which statistics are available: how many and what percentage of applications received a decision within (i) the 16-week standard, (ii) between 16 and 26 weeks, (iii) greater than 26 weeks (6 months), (iv) greater than a year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1936--
Mrs. Salma Zahid:
With regard to the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive, which reimburses federal employees when relocating for work, for the calendar years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015: (a) how many employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government made claims for relocation funding each year, broken down by government department or agency; (b) how many employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government were provided with reimbursement for relocation each year, broken down by government department or agency; (c) in the instances where relocation funding was provided, how many instances arose from employer-requested relocation in each year; (d) in the instances where relocation funding was provided, how many instances arose from employee-requested relocation in each year; (e) what was the annual aggregate amount in Canadian dollars spent by each government agency or department in remitting relocation funding, broken down by the benefit categories outlined in appendix B of the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive; (f) which employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government received relocation funding in each year, itemized to include their agency or department, their job title, the amount of relocation funding remitted, broken down by the benefit categories outlined in appendix B of the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive, and where the individual was relocated from and to; (g) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to real estate commission and realtor fees; (h) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to home equity loss; and (i) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to mortgages, mortgage default insurance, and mortgage paydown penalties?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1937--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the online application system run by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) how many hours has the online system been down in total since January 1, 2017; and (b) what is the number of hours the online system has been down, broken down by week, since January 1, 2017?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1938--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the comments made by the Prime Minister on September 25, 2018, in relation to the 2015 election that Canada did not have “much direct interference” by Russia: in what specific ways did Russia interfere in the 2015 election?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1939--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Churchill Rail Line: (a) what are the details of all correspondence, including electronic, that the government has sent or received, since November 4, 2015, including (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) title and subject matter, (v) description or summary of contents, (vi) file number; and (b) what are the details of all memorandums about the Churchill Rail Line, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title and subject matter, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1940--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Joint Support Ship (JSS) project: (a) how many extensions have occurred since the project’s inception; (b) what are the costs associated with the extensions to date; (c) how many amendments have occurred since the project’s inception; (d) what are the costs associated with the amendments to date; (e) how many full-time equivalents work on the project; (f) are there any anticipated lay-offs occurring from project extensions and amendments and, if so, how many; and (g) what are the rationales for each instance of an extension and amendment to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1941--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi, since December 1, 2015, broken down by year: (a) how much has been spent on employee overtime for those working at the Centre; and (b) of the employees in (a), how many hours have been logged, broken down by amount paid out per person and job title?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1942--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the air travellers security surcharge since January 1, 2016: (a) how much is collected from passengers, broken down into averages for (i) day, (ii) month, (iii) year; (b) how much is used to pay for security services; (c) what other programs or services are funded with the security surcharge; and (d) of the programs in (c), how much funding did each program receive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1943--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Senate Advisory Board within the Privy Council Office, since January 1, 2018: (a) what are the full job descriptions as they are written for each job posting within the secretariat to the Senate Advisory Board; (b) what is the pay scale and occupational group and level of the positions being filled in the secretariat to the Senate Advisory Board; (c) what is the budget for the occupational group assigned to the secretariat to the Senate Advisory Board; (d) how much has been spent by the secretariat to the Senate Advisory Board, broken down by (i) accommodation, (ii) travel, (iii) per diems, (iv) incidentals, (v) office renovation, (vi) office set-up; (e) how much has been budgeted for the support group to the Senate selection group; (f) how many openings were posted in this time period, broken down by province; (g) how many resumes were received for each opening; and (h) how many interviews were facilitated for each opening?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1945--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the requirement for dissolving corporations to apply for and receive tax clearance certificates from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) before disbursing remaining capital to investors: (a) how many applications for tax clearance certificates are in process at the CRA at this time; (b) what is the CRA’s target for processing tax clearance certificate applications; (c) for each year between 2014 and 2018, what percentage of applications for tax clearance certificates did the CRA process within its target timeline; (d) for each year in (c), what was the average processing time for tax clearance certificate applications; (e) for each year in (c), what was the average value of capital awaiting disbursal while a tax clearance certificate application was in process; (f) for each year in (c), what was the aggregate value of capital awaiting disbursal further to processed tax clearance certificates; (g) what is the aggregate value of capital awaiting disbursal further to applications for tax clearance certificates at this time; and (h) what is the average value of capital awaiting disbursal further to applications for tax clearance certificates at this time?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1946--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what was the total allotments, expenditures and amount and percentage of all “lapsed spending“ for the 2017-18 fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1947--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to the United Nations in September 2018: (a) what is the complete list of world leaders with whom the Prime Minister had official meetings; (b) what topics were discussed at each of the meetings in (a); (c) what was the government’s objective or reason for each meeting in (a); and (d) what was the date of each meeting in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1948--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments on September 26, 2018, that “Conversations I've had with Cuban leadership over the course of my tenure have always included human rights and a push for better respect for democracy”: (a) what are the details of all such conversations, including (i) date, (ii) with whom the conversation was held, (iii) specific topics raised; and (b) what are the details of any specific commitments which the Prime Minister received from the Cuban leadership related to human rights or democracy, including (i) date of commitment, (ii) who gave the commitment, (iii) summary or contents of commitment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1951--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Elementary and Secondary Education and the High-Cost Special Education Programs: (a) how much money has been granted, awarded or transferred to Grassy Narrows First Nation and their education authority under the Elementary and Secondary Education Program’s special education services each year for the last ten years, with direct and indirect support reported separately; and (b) how much money has been granted, awarded or transferred to Grassy Narrows First Nation and their education authority under the High-Cost Special Education Program each year for the last ten years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1952--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Department of Indigenous Services and the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs: (a) do the departments collect data about incidence and impacts (health, social, etc.) of mold in on-reserve housing; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) which First Nations communities, listed by region, reported incidents of mold in housing, (ii) how many such incidents did they report, (iii) what were the reported or assessed impacts; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why do the departments not collect this information and do they plan to do so in the future?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1955--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to Correctional Service Canada: (a) how many individuals convicted of first-degree murder are in a minimum-security institution; (b) how many individuals convicted of second-degree murder are in a minimum-security institution; (c) how many individuals convicted of manslaughter are in a minimum-security institution; (d) of those individuals referred to in (a) through (c), how many of these convictions involved a child as a victim; (e) of those individuals referred to in (a) through (c), how many individuals are located in an Aboriginal healing lodge; (f) how many individuals are currently serving time in Aboriginal healing lodges; and (g) of the individuals in (f) how many are non-Aboriginal?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1957--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to crude oil transportation by rail cars in Canada since November 2015: what are the government’s statistics or estimates on how much oil has been transported by rail each month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1958--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to inmates in facilities operated by Correctional Service Canada who have escaped custody or have been unlawfully at large: (a) how many individuals were unlawfully at large in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, (iii) 2018 to date; (b) how many individuals are currently at large, as of the date of this question; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) by correctional facility and by security classification?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1959--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to Operation IMPACT, the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) support to the Global Coalition to degrade and defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria: (a) for what length of time will Operation IMPACT be extended beyond March of 2019; (b) will the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, airwomen, and highly-skilled CAF members deployed on Operation IMPACT increase, decrease, or remain the same between September 2018 and March 31, 2019; (c) what are the projected total expenditures related to an extension of Operation IMPACT, broken down by type of expenditure; (d) what amount of funding has been allocated to date in relation to the projected expenditures under (c); and (e) what are the reasons for the shift in nature of Operation IMPACT, announced on June 7, 2018, by the Chief of Defence Staff?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1960--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the potential adoption of a new standard camouflage pattern for the Canadian Armed Forces, and the subsequent replacement of the Canadian Disruptive Pattern (CADPAT) military equipment: (a) what is the deficiency being addressed by acquiring the MultiCam camouflage pattern over CADPAT; (b) does Defence Research and Development Canada endorse the deficiency used to justify buying a foreign camouflage pattern; (c) what consultations were done prior to adopting this policy; (d) what evidence is there that the transition to MultiCam over CADPAT will or will not increase survivability for Canadian Armed Forces members; (e) are there environments identified in which this camouflage is believed to be more effective or less effective in terms of concealment and survivability; (f) have there been concerns expressed about Canadian military personnel appearing very similar in the field to Russian, U.S. or other foreign militaries due to this camouflage transition; (g) has the benefit of replacing this perceived deficiency been weighed against the cost of Canadian factories losing business, or going out of business entirely; (h) have factories and manufacturers expressed to the Department of National Defence that they will be forced to go out of business if CADPAT is cancelled; (i) has the potential effects of adopting a U.S. camouflage pattern been considered in terms of effects to national identity and esprit de corps; and (j) has the fact that “1947 LLC” manufactures fabrics for military use in China been considered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1961--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Canadian weapons originally intended for distribution to the Kurdish Peshmerga: (a) what plans are currently in place or being considered regarding the future of weapons originally intended for the Kurdish Peshmerga; (b) in which locations and storage facilities are these weapons currently being stored, either domestic and international; and (c) what are the specific types, quantities, and commercial values of these weapons?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1962--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to reports that Health Canada is considering shutting down or cutting funding to certain organizations, and that a gag order has been issued to the affected organizations not to discuss the matter, namely Mental Health Commission of Canada, Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement, Canada Health Infoway, Canadian Patient Safety Institute, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer: (a) why is the government reviewing the funding that these organizations receive; (b) why have each of the organizations been given a gag order; (c) was the Minister of Health’s office made aware of the gag order and, if so, on what date; (d) was the Office of the Prime Minister informed that a gag order was being issued and if so, on what date; (e) what is the complete list of organizations which were subject to the External Review of the Federally Funded Pan-Canadian Health Organizations; (f) has anyone from Health Canada, the Minister of Health’s office, or Deloitte instructed or advised any of the organizations subject to the review not to publicly discuss the review; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, what are the details of any such non-disclosure clause or gag order including (i) who issued the order, (ii) date of the order, (iii) scope of the gag order; (h) have any of the organizations in (e) been told that they will lose their funding, in whole or in part, and if so, which organizations have been notified of this decision; and (i) for each organization whose funding is being eliminated or reduced, what is the rationale being used by the Minister of Health for the funding reduction?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1963--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic from the Grand Valley Institution for Women to the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge: (a) on what date did the transfer occur; (b) on what date did the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness become aware of the transfer; (c) did the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness approve the transfer; (d) on what date did the Office of the Prime Minister become aware of the transfer; and (e) did the Prime Minister or anyone in his office approve the transfer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1964--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the Asian Infrastructure Bank, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many Canadian businesses are investing in projects in the Asian Infrastructure Bank broken down by year; (b) how much Canadian money is spent on projects in the Asian Infrastructure Bank broken down by year; and (c) of the projects listed in (a), how many of these businesses are operating through, either directly or indirectly, the Canadian Government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1967--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to government procedures in relation to accusations of harassment or misconduct: (a) what is the procedure when there is an accusation against the Prime Minister, including (i) who decides if a complaint has merit and warrants an investigation, (ii) who conducts the investigation, (iii) does the individual conducting the investigation have the ability to recommend sanctions, (iv) are the recommended sanctions binding, (v) what is the policy regarding whether or not the reports and findings are released to the public, (vi) what mechanism, if any, exists for the temporary suspension of certain duties of the Prime Minister pending the outcome of an investigation; and (b) does the procedure in (a) apply to incidents which occurred prior to the individual becoming Prime Minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1968--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to government procedures in relation to accusations of harassment or misconduct: (a) what is the procedure when there is an accusation against a cabinet minister, including (i) who decides if a complaint has merit and warrants an investigation, (ii) who conducts the investigation, (iii) does the individual conducting the investigation have the ability to recommend sanctions, (iv) are the recommended sanctions binding, (v) what is the policy regarding whether or not the reports and findings are released to the public, (vi) what is the criteria for deciding if a Member is to be removed from Cabinet pending the outcome of an investigation; and (b) does the procedure in (a) apply to incidents which occurred prior to the individual becoming a cabinet minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1969--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to International Mobility Program work permit holders under the Canada-International Agreements section, and broken down by each of the four rows (NAFTA, FTA, GATS and non-trade): for each of the past ten years, what is the number of permit holders for each row who came from (i) the United States, (ii) Mexico?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1970--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to all government contracts awarded for public relations services, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of these contracts including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided, (vi) title of public relations campaign related to contract (vii) start and end dates of services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1971--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to the new round of consultations announced on October 3, 2018, in relation to the Trans Mountain Pipeline by the government: what is the complete list of individuals, First Nations and organizations which the government is planning on consulting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1972--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to all expenditures on hospitality since June 11, 2018, broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number, (vii) number of government employees in attendance, (viii) number of other attendees, (ix) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1973--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the Champlain Bridge project: (a) what are the details of all expenditures since November 4, 2015, related to the project, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services; (b) what is the total of all expenditures in (a); (c) what is the total projected cost of the project, including a breakdown by type of expense; and (d) what are the details of any projected costs not yet incurred, broken down by type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1974--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the bike and walking trail that connects Tofino and Ucluelet in the Pacific Rim National Park: (a) what was the original projected cost of completing the trail; (b) what is the current estimated cost of completing the trail; (c) how was the current route chosen and what was the rationale for choosing the route; (d) what are the details of any environmental impact studies completed related to the construction of the trail, including (i) findings, (ii) who conducted the studies, (iii) date the studies were completed, (iv) website address where the findings can be found, if applicable; (e) what are the details of all consultations conducted in relation to the trail with (i) local governments, (ii) local residents, (iii) other organizations or individuals; and (f) what are the details of all work completed to date, including how much of the trail is currently completed?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-1933 Department of Veterans Aff ...8555-421-1936 National Joint Council's R ...8555-421-1937 Immigration, Refugees and ...8555-421-1938 Comments made by the Prime ...8555-421-1939 Churchill Rail Line8555-421-1940 Joint Support Ship8555-421-1941 Public Service Pay Centre ...8555-421-1942 Air travellers security su ...8555-421-1943 Senate Advisory Board8555-421-1945 Tax clearance certificates8555-421-1946 Department of Veterans Aff ... ...Show all topics
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 1768--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With regard to plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas: (a) how much debris has washed ashore, broken down by Park, in the last ten years; (b) how many deaths of seabirds, marine animals and other species in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas have been attributed to plastic pollution, broken down by Park, over the last ten years; (c) what measures does the government have in place to ensure the appropriate collection of plastic pollution, waste and debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (d) what measures does the government have in place to mitigate and address the potential impacts of plastic pollution, waste and other debris on seabirds, marine animals and other species in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; (e) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis; (f) what measures does the government have in place to ensure the timely and coordinated removal of plastic pollution, waste and other debris in, and surrounding, Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas; and (g) how often does the government review its policies and procedures regarding plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada takes the protection of national parks and national marine conservation areas very seriously, including pollution from marine debris. Materials such as plastic in oceans are always a concern, as they can entangle marine wildlife, impact habitat and be ingested as food, among other concerns.
The amount of plastic pollution, waste and other debris in Canada’s national parks and national marine conservation areas varies widely by site, ranging from microplastics and plastic bags to lost fishing gear and marine debris from lost shipping containers. The amount that accumulates at different sites often depends on the character of the shoreline, currents and tides. Parks Canada has both a comprehensive ecological monitoring program that tracks the health of ecosystems, as well as an incident management system to track and respond to a wide variety of incidents, including pollution events. There is not, however, a national database to track marine debris and plastic pollution.
When marine incidents occur within the boundaries of national parks and national marine conservation areas, Parks Canada’s first action is to report the incident to relevant parties, such as the Canadian Coast Guard, affected first nations and other stakeholders. An action plan is developed to clean up the debris, reduce threats to ecosystems and minimize risks to public health and safety. Removal operations often involve specialized skills and equipment, such as helicopters and barges; at different stages, partners and local volunteers also provide assistance. Parks Canada will conduct an investigation to determine if charges should be laid and seek damages when warranted. This can result in polluters funding clean-up efforts, as was the case with the Hanjin container spill of 2016.
Parks Canada works with coastal communities and other organizations on regular beach clean-ups, e.g., the great Canadian shoreline cleanup. These initiatives not only help clean up coastal areas, but also generate awareness among visitors and other participants of the threat of pollution and marine debris, and ways to achieve zero plastic waste and reduce marine litter.
Most marine debris originates offshore from unknown sources, so there is limited ability to manage this issue except by removing it when it appears. Regulations apply, such as those under the Canada Shipping Act, which prevent the disposal of waste or debris from vessels, and aid the management of marine pollution and debris in both national parks and national marine conservation areas. Parks Canada is working together with other federal departments to co-ordinate efforts to address the ongoing issue of marine debris and to strengthen partnerships with indigenous partners, communities and provincial governments.
Across Canada, Parks Canada facilities offer recycling and waste disposal. The agency also provides comprehensive pre-trip messages to visitors regarding appropriate behaviour and to enlist the support of campers to “keep campsite clean” and “pack it in, pack it out”. Parks Canada has a national policy in place to prevent littering, which is enforced through the national parks general regulations, section 31.
Marine debris is an ever-present issue in the management of protected marine environments. Parks Canada will soon be consulting the public on a new management plan for the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve in the year ahead. We welcome the public’s input on this plan, including the development of a formal protocol for responding to marine debris within the park reserve boundaries.
Parks Canada contributes to the implementation of the greening government strategy through its 2017-2020 departmental sustainable development strategy. The government aims to reduce the environmental impact of waste by diverting at least 75 percent by weight of all non-hazardous operational waste by 2030; diverting at least 90 percent by weight of all construction and demolition waste and striving to achieve 100 percent by 2030; and minimizing environmentally harmful and hazardous chemicals and materials used and disposed of in real property operations.
The greening government strategy is updated every three years.

Question No. 1777--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the government’s development of a federal co-operative strategy, as called upon by M-100: (a) what is the overall status of developing such a strategy; (b) what organizations, including provincial, municipal, and territorial governments and Indigenous representative organizations have been consulted; (c) how does the government plan to integrate the strategy into existing economic development programming, such as regional economic development agencies or the Community Futures Program; (d) what “goals and targets” as stated in the motion does the government plan to use to assess the strategy’s success; and (e) how is the government planning to support next-generation and innovative cooperative forms such as platform cooperatives?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s development of a federal co-operative strategy, and part (a) specifically, on April 5, 2018, the Government of Canada announced a plan to respond to Motion M-100. The plan focuses on three key areas: accessing federal programs and services, including highlighting relevant options for co-operatives while ensuring that these programs are accessible; raising awareness of the co-operative business model among Canadians and across federal departments to ensure that co-operatives are considered in relevant strategies and initiatives; and modernizing co-operative sector data to ensure that Canadians have access to the latest and most relevant data on the co-operative business model. The announcement also outlined a commitment to continued engagement with the co-operative sector, federal, provincial and territorial colleagues, and indigenous communities to identify additional steps it can take to support the co-operative business model. This process will focus on how the model can support government priorities, including indigenous economic development, women and youth entrepreneurship, clean tech and renewable energy, and community-based innovation
With regard to part (b), the three areas outlined in the response were identified on previous consultation and are based on known challenges facing Canadian co-operatives. Also, the Government of Canada has committed to continued engagement on this important issue. Innovation, Science and Economic Development, ISED, will connect directly with provincial and territorial governments through its federal, provincial, territorial working group, with relevant federal departments through the federal network on co-ops and directly with the co-operatives sector, including indigenous-owned co-operatives and indigenous business development organizations. ISED will facilitate a policy forum event in the fall of 2018 that will gather more targeted information on the three key areas of focus, including access to federal programs and services, raising awareness of the co-operative business model, and modernizing co-operative sector data. The forum will also explore how co-operatives contribute to indigenous economic development, women and youth entrepreneurship; clean tech and renewable energy; and community-based innovation.
With regard to part (c), as part of its initial response to the passing of M-100, ISED conducted a scan of its own programming, including regional development agencies, RDA, and other portfolio organizations, to determine current support for the co-operative business model. During the 2016-17 fiscal year, ISED and the portfolio provided a total of $8.9M in support, including grants, loans and loan guarantees. That includes approximately $6.1M through the regional development agencies and $2.8M through the Canada small business financing program. Co-operatives are also eligible for funding under the community futures program. Over the last decade, ISED and the portfolio have provided an estimated $132M in support to more than 530 Canadian co-operatives. In order to ensure that additional action taken is in line with existing economic development programming, representatives from the RDAs and the community futures program will be included in future discussion on how the Government of Canada can continue to support the co-operative sector.
With regard to part (d), the Government of Canada’s response to M-100 will focus on three key areas, including accessing federal programs and services, raising awareness of the co-operative business model and modernizing co-op data. Under the first area, the goal is to ensure that federal programs and services are accessible to co-operatives and that co-operatives are aware of those programs and services, and that front-line business development officers understand the co-operative model. The goal is to increase awareness of the model publicly and across relevant federal departments to ensure that co-operatives are being considered in relevant strategies and emerging priorities. Modernizing co-operative data is about ensuring that the co-operative sector and Canadians have access to the latest and most relevant data on this innovative business model. The continued engagement will be focused on additional steps the Government of Canada can take to support the co-operative business model.
With regard to part (e), platform co-operatives represent another unique opportunity that will be explored during the engagement process. Canada’s innovation and skills plan also represents an opportunity to support innovation in the co-op sector. This ambitious effort aims to make Canada a world-leading centre for innovation, and in the process strengthen and grow the middle class. With a focus on six key areas, including advanced manufacturing, agri-food, clean technology, digital industries, health/bio-sciences and clean resources, the innovation and skills plan focuses on expanding growth and creating jobs. Budget 2018 outlined a historic reform of business innovation programs to create a suite of programs that is easy to navigate.

Question No. 1779--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry (MMIW): (a) how much money has been allocated to the MMIW Inquiry for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 fiscal years; (b) what are the Inquiry’s anticipated budgetary needs for each of these two fiscal years; (c) is the Inquiry expected to overrun its monetary allocations in either or both of these years; and (d) if the answer to (c) is in any way affirmative, what contingencies or plans are in place to ensure the continuing function of the Inquiry?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’, “the Inquiry”, budget over three fiscal years is $5.1M for 2016-17, $34.4M for 2017-18 and $14.2M for 2018-19. As reported in last year’s Public Accounts, the inquiry spent $2,883,721 in fiscal year 2016-17. The inquiry’s expenses for the 2017-18 fiscal year will appear in the Public Accounts scheduled to be tabled this fall 2018.
Commissioners exercise their authority under the Inquires Act and are responsible for planning and managing within their budgets, helping to preserve the investigative and advisory independence of commissions of Inquiry.
Following the recent announcement of an extension to the time provided for the inquiry to complete its final report, the government will work with the inquiry to ensure it has the resources required to complete its mandate.

Question No. 1784--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to the government’s Feminist International Assistance Policy: (a) has the government developed specific qualitative criteria to grade the level of success or lack thereof for the six defined action areas; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) when were the criteria established, (ii) what were the criteria?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the feminist international assistance policy integrated gender equality throughout Canada’s international assistance and positions Canada as a leader on gender equality. The policy advances a more flexible, innovative and integrated approach toward achieving gender equality and addressing the root causes of inequality. This approach also aims at reducing poverty, building peace and addressing humanitarian crises in the world’s least-developed countries and among its most vulnerable populations.
The department has a well-established practice of collecting and analysing programming data for all international assistance programming. Both quantitative and qualitative results data are collected, assessed, and used to inform policy and programming decisions. The data is made available to Parliament and all Canadians through the departmental results report and the report on the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, ODAAA.
The feminist international assistance policy outlines specific changes to which Canada will be contributing in each of the policy’s action areas. To assess progress on each of the policy’s action areas, the department has developed a set of performance indicators. These indicators have evolved as the action area policies have been developed. A full suite of indicators is now being used to assess progress. This includes global indicators that provide data based on international indices, as well key performance indicators that provide data based on Canadian international assistance project results.

Question No. 1785--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the government's decision to expedite work permits for individuals who have entered Canada irregularly and made refugee claims with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, since January 1, 2017: (a) how many individuals have (i) applied for and received a work permit, (ii) applied for but were denied a work permit, (iii) applied for and then withdrew their application for a work permit; (b) of those indentified in (a)(ii), what rationale was given for rejection; and (c) on average, how long is the period from which a work permit application is received by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to the issuance of the permit to the applicant?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), between April 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018, IRCC issued 17,334 work permits to asylum seekers who arrived irregularly across Canada. With regard to (a)(ii), 615 asylum claimants who arrived irregularly applied for and were denied a work permit. With regard to (a)(iii), 8 asylum claimants who arrived irregularly applied for and later withdrew their application for a work permit.
With regard to (b), the most common rationale for the refusal of a work permit was the client having failed to comply with the department’s request for a medical examination, as per subsection 16(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
With regard to (c), on average, work permits for those who entered Canada irregularly were processed within 25 days of IRCC receiving the application.
Note that IRCC began tracking asylum claims made by irregular migrants in the IRCC case management system in April 2017. Historically, asylum claims made by irregular migrants were part of IRCC’s broader overall number of asylum claims.

Question No. 1789--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the government’s decision to move Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) agents away from the Toronto Pearson International Airport to deal with the influx of individuals illegally crossing the border in Quebec: (a) will the government compensate airlines whose services are disrupted as a result of longer processing times; (b) apart from any compensation provided by the airlines, will the government provide passengers stranded on the tarmac or who missed their connections as a result of these actions on the part of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; and (c) does the government have any projections on the economic loss resulting from travel disruptions resulting from its decision to relocated CBSA agents and, if so, what are the projections?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, any decisions to redeploy staff will have no impact on CBSA services at the Toronto Pearson International Airport. As part of its planning, each of the CBSA’s operational regions has initiated the establishment of a “surge capacity workforce” that can be called upon in the event of increased operational requirements. As not all of the CBSA’s staff in the greater Toronto area work at the airport, surge capacity requirements may include administrative staff or non-frontline employees.

Question No. 1793--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to reports that China detained hundreds of thousands of Uyghur Muslims in prison-like detention centres: (a) what estimates does Global Affairs Canada has on the number of Uyghur Muslims being held in such detention centres; and (b) has the government raised concerns about these detentions with the government of China and, if so, what are the details for each occasion, including (i) who raised the concern, (ii) which Chinese government official was the concern raised with, (iii) date, (iv) summary or nature of concern raised?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is deeply concerned about the ongoing persecution and repression of religious and ethnic minorities in China, and in particular the situation facing Uyghur Muslims. Their persecution violates China’s international obligations and is incompatible with its constitution. Canada is particularly concerned by reports that between several hundred thousand and as many as one million people are being held in detention on baseless charges. In Xinjiang province, Uyghurs confront increasingly repressive security and mass surveillance practices deployed by Chinese authorities, which aim to systematically deny Uyghurs their fundamental human rights, including the freedom to practise their faith.
The promotion and protection of human rights are core priorities in our engagement with China. The Government of Canada urges the Chinese authorities to immediately release all individuals detained in China for exercising their human rights, including their right to freedom of religion and expression, and to protect advocates for linguistic and cultural rights. Canada condemns the lack of transparency and due process in the cases of the thousands of Uyghurs detained in so-called “re-education camps,” and has denounced these repressive measures publicly, including through our public statement at the March 2018 session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which raised not only the case of the Uyghurs but also China’s Tibetan minority.
Canada continues to raise its objections about the treatment of Uyghurs directly with the Chinese government. On June 8, 2018, Ambassador John McCallum raised our concerns with a vice-minister of Foreign Affairs. On June 15, 2018, our concerns were conveyed by Canada’s deputy head of mission in Beijing to the Chinese special representative for human rights. At both of these meetings, Canada raised the ongoing detention of Uyghurs and the growing concern, not only on the part of the Canadian government but by many governments around the world, of persecution of this ethnic minority on grounds that are in violation of China’s international obligations, as well as its constitution. We will continue to raise the human rights situation in China, including the persecution of Uyghurs, at every possible opportunity.

Question No. 1794--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the government’s plan to send officials to Nigeria in an attempt to dissuade individuals from illegally crossing the Canadian border: (a) what is the total budget allocated for this campaign; (b) what is the budget, broken down by (i) airfare, (ii) other travel expenses, including accommodation, (iii) other expenses, further broken down by type; and (c) does the government have any projections regarding how many illegal crossing the trip to Nigeria will prevent and, if so, what are the projections?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since January 2018, IRCC has sent a total of three temporary duty (TD) officers to Nigeria on six- to eight-week rotations to work with government authorities and other international partners to deter irregular migration to Canada. These IRCC officers have engaged with U.S. embassy officials in Lagos to establish information exchange protocols related to Nigerian irregular migrants in possession of valid U.S. non-immigrant visas. IRCC officials are also working with U.S. officials to identify cases of mutual concern where one consulate has identified an issue with a case that is common to both countries (e.g., the applicant already has a U.S. visa however fraud is detected when they apply for a Canadian visa). Both Canada and the U.S. are cancelling visas when fraud is encountered in the application process. IRCC officials are also conducting research into local country conditions in order to improve our understanding of the basis of claims for Nigerian claimants including the LGBTQ communities and female genital mutilation and providing this information to other lines of business responsible for refugee determination.
With regard to (a), funding allocations to send officials to Nigeria fall under IRCC irregular migration budget. A breakdown of IRCC’s expenses related to efforts in Nigeria to dissuade irregular migration from January to June 2018 is outlined below.
With regard to (b) (i), airfare costs were approximately $19,000. With regard to (b) (ii), accommodation fees were approximately $19,000. With regard to (b) (iii), meal costs and incidental fees were approximately $22,000. The amounts disbursed from January to June 2018 are for three TD officers.
With regard to (c), it is difficult to predict irregular arrival patterns. However, IRCC and its federal partners are carefully monitoring trends and studying the data in order to ensure Canada is prepared and that effective strategies are used to respond to any fluctuations. The Government of Canada has built a national operations plan, designed to enable departments and agencies to respond quickly to fluctuations in irregular migrants wherever they occur.
The Government of Canada is working closely with provinces as well as other government and non-government organizations to ensure the support provided is as effective and efficient as possible.
IRCC is also supporting targeted communications and outreach to encourage the use of regular migration pathways and highlighting the risks associated with irregular migration. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the department are engaging Nigerian officials on these issues and will continue to do so, as well as continue collaborative work with the U.S. to address the misuse of their visas by those intent on coming to Canada.

Question No. 1795--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to individuals returning to Canada, since November 4, 2015: what is the number of High Risk Returnees who entered Canada, broken down by month?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, given its mandate and specific operational requirements, CSIS does not disclose details related to operational activities.
As stated in the most recent “Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”, as of December 2017, there were just over 60 individuals with a nexus to Canada who had travelled abroad to engage in terrorist activities and subsequently returned to Canada. Those numbers have remained relatively stable over the past two years, as it has become more difficult for extremists to successfully leave or return to Canada. Any further disclosure of more detailed information regarding extremist travellers could identify specific operational interests.

Question No. 1796--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the email sent out on March 8, 2018, by the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments to over 1,500 organizations regarding the upcoming applications review cycle: (a) to which organizations was the email sent; (b) how were the organizations chosen; and (c) were any organizations originally on the list prepared by the Advisory Board Secretariat subsequently removed and, if so, (i) which organizations, (ii) who removed them?
Response
Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments was established to build a more effective and less partisan Senate. Since 2016, 38 independent senators were appointed through this process.
It is important that Senate appointments best reflect all backgrounds and the diversity of Canadians. The independent advisory board has undertaken outreach with various organizations in order to ensure that a diverse slate of individuals, with a variety of backgrounds, skills, knowledge and experience were informed of the process to apply for an appointment. This list, which continues to expand with every applications review cycle, includes indigenous organizations; linguistic, minority and ethnic communities; provincial, territorial and municipal organizations; labour organizations; community-based service groups; arts councils; academia; provincial or territorial chambers of commerce; and many others.
The independent advisory board prepares a report to the Prime Minister at the end of each cycle, which includes data on the outreach undertaken, applications received, costs incurred and the recommendation process. This report is made available on the independent advisory board’s website. The full list of organizations that received an email from the independent advisory board’s outreach during the winter 2017 cycle can be found on its website at: www.canada.ca/en/campaign/independent-advisory-board-for-senate-appointments/report-process-december-2016-june-2017.html#annF.

Question No. 1798--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the comments by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on May 10, 2018, that “You should not engage in behaviour that would provoke or prompt an American border officer to be suspicious about your behaviour”: what specific behaviour is the Minister referring to?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been clear with United States officials that Canada expects travellers crossing the border in either direction to be treated fairly, respectfully and in accordance with the law. Canada has been engaging with U.S. officials to ensure that they understand the intent and effect of Canada's new cannabis laws.
Under the new laws, transporting cannabis across the border in either direction will remain illegal.
Like all countries, the U.S. has the authority to establish standards for admissibility and to provide training and guidance to its border officers about what constitutes suspicious behaviour. Behaviours, odours or other indicators associated with cannabis use may result in additional examination by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers.

Question No. 1800--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the government’s Prison Needle Exchange Program: (a) what specific measures are being taken to ensure that guards do not get stuck or injured from the needles; (b) what specific measures are being taken to prevent inmates from using the needles or syringe as a weapon; (c) does the government have any estimates or projections on the number of guards who will become victims of inmate violence annually following the implementation of a needle exchange program and, if so, what are the projections; and (d) what specific additional safety measures or additional training for correctional service officers will take place directly related to the Needle Exchange Program and how much funding is committed for each?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) to (c), according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, evidence from countries with prison needle exchange programs shows that they are not associated with attacks on employees or inmates. Rather, the evidence shows that these programs can help reduce the sharing of needles and the related spread of infectious diseases, without increasing rates of drug use or violence. These programs have also been found to facilitate referral to drug dependence treatment programs.
Correctional institutions with lower rates of infectious diseases are safer places to work.
A threat risk assessment model similar to the one currently in effect for offenders who possess EpiPens and insulin needles is used to determine who can participate. CSC’s prison needle exchange program (PNEP) kits, which come in transparent containers, must be kept in an approved storage area within the cell and presented to staff for visual inspection on a daily basis.
With regard to (d), at each institution, the implementation pathway for PNEP involves engagement with institutional staff, the distribution of written information to staff and inmates, and information sessions with staff, management, citizen advisory committees, inmate committees, workplace health and safety committees, and others. After the first several weeks, the project lead visits the site to assess implementation and address additional questions and issues that may arise. Costs are being absorbed within existing CSC operational budgets.

Question No. 1801--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the new record-keeping requirements or “registry” being proposed by Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms: (a) will any individual, agency, department, or police force be required to share any information obtained from the new record-keeping requirements or “registry” with the Canada Revenue Agency; and (b) what specific measures, if any, will the government take to ensure that government departments and agencies do not share information obtained or collected as a result of measures contained in Bill C-71?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, if passed, would standardize an existing best practice among firearms businesses by requiring them to keep inventory and sales records of non-restricted firearms, as was the case between 1977 and 2005. Law enforcement would request access to business records in the context of a criminal investigation and in accordance with existing legal authorities, including judicial authorization, where appropriate.
As the Member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe said at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-71 on June 7, 2018, “everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”.
With regard to (a), Bill C-71 does not contain any requirements to this effect.
With regard to (b), sales records will be privately maintained by vendors. Law enforcement will require judicial authorization, where appropriate, in order to access them.

Question No. 1803--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to refugee claimants who have arrived in Canada by irregular means since December 2016, what are the total costs incurred by the government for: (a) Interim Federal Health Program; and (b) transfers to provinces for social services and housing?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in April 2016 the interim federal health program, IFHP, was restored by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to provide refugees and asylum claimants with full health care coverage. Restoring the IFHP has also provided financial relief to Canadians who privately sponsor refugees, reduced the administrative burden faced by health care professions serving refugees, and eased health care funding pressure on provincial and territorial governments.
With regard to (a), from December 2016 up to May 31, 2018, costs related to IFHP for irregular migrants is $20,676,052. Providers have up to six months to submit a claim for reimbursement, therefore the data should be considered preliminary.
IRCC received supplementary funding for the interim federal health program special purpose allotment of $58.8 million in 2017-18 and $89.9 million in 2018-19 to cover the costs related to the provision of health care services for eligible beneficiaries, including resettled refugees, refugee claimants, rejected refugee claimants and certain others who are not eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance.
With regard to (b), from December 2016 up to May 31, 2018, IRCC did not transfer any funds to provinces for social services and housing.
The federal government provides the provinces and territories with support through the Canada social transfer, CST, which is a federal block transfer to provinces and territories in support of post-secondary education, programs for children, social assistance and other programs. For 2018-19, the CST is $14.1 billion compared to $13.7 billion in 2017-18, which represents an increase of $400 million.
Although provinces and territories are responsible for managing and delivering social housing to refugee claimants, IRCC will be making a financial contribution under its resettlement assistance program in the amount of $50 million to provinces in 2018-19, as follows: Quebec $36 million, Ontario $11 million and Manitoba $3 million. This is for extraordinary costs related to the provision of temporary housing for refugee claimants.

Question No. 1808--
Mr. Bernard Généreux:
With regard to the over 26,000 individuals who illegally crossed the border from the United States into Canada, since January 1, 2017: what proportion and number were (i) in the United States on a valid visitor visa, (ii) in the United States on a valid visa of another type, such as a temporary worker visa, (iii) illegally present in the United States prior to crossing, (iv) asylum seekers whose claims have been denied or abandoned in the United States, (v) legal United States residents under a temporary protected status, (vi) United States citizens or permanent residents?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker,between June 30, 2017, and June 3, 2018, there were 25,857 persons intercepted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police across Canada, and of those, 24,657 were in Quebec.
Of the intercepts in Quebec, with regard to (i) and (ii), 13,867, approximately 56%, had a valid United States Non-Immigrant Visa. Since the vast majority of intercepts occur in Quebec, IRCC conducts an in-depth analysis of Quebec intercepts only. IRCC has not analyzed national intercept data in detail. As a result, detailed national data with respect to intercepted persons who had a valid U.S. Non-Immigrant Visa or had legal status in the U.S. is not available at this time.
With regard to (iii), 15,935, or 65%, had legal status in the U.S. prior to their travels to Canada.
With regard to (iv) and (v), IRCC and the RCMP do not track the types of visa held by intercepts prior to entering Canada, the status of a prior refugee claim in the U.S., or whether the intercepts had U.S. Temporary Protected Status or had Permanent Resident Status in the U.S.A.
With regard to (vi), 1,632, or 7%, were U.S. citizens, who were typically the children of non-U.S. parents.
The data is available as of June 30, 2017, as the RCMP did not track irregular migrants to this level of detail prior to this date. The reported number of intercepts by the RCMP is subject to change due to the manner in which it is collected.

Question No. 1809--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the Senate Chamber on May 29, 2018, that “most farmers support the moves we have made to make sure that we put a tax on carbon”: what evidence, if any, does the government have to back up this claim?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, taking action to tackle climate change is essential for the economy and the environment. Carbon pricing is an important part of Canada’s plan to transition to a cleaner and more innovative economy. In many aspects, agriculture is leading the way in our transition to a low-carbon economy. The agriculture sector has a solid track record in using sound management practices, being innovative, and adopting new technologies to improve environmental performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Canadian farmers have long been responsible stewards of the land and will continue to be part of the climate change solution.
Our government recognizes that farmers and farm families are important drivers of the Canadian economy. The federal carbon pricing system has been carefully designed to limit its impact on the agricultural sector. Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and crop production are not subject to carbon pricing, and gasoline and diesel fuels for on-farm use will be exempted from carbon pricing under the federal backstop.
In Canada’s plan to price carbon pollution, the provinces can decide on the type of carbon pricing system to adopt and how the revenues will be invested. Revenues can be used in different ways, such as returning money directly to households and businesses, cutting taxes, or funding programs that reduce the cost of clean technology. In some provinces, there are also opportunities for producers to earn revenue from selling carbon offset credits generated through the adoption of practices such as conservation tillage and precision agriculture techniques.
The government is investing in a number of areas, including science and innovation, to help the agriculture sector grow sustainably and to create opportunities for farmers, businesses, and Canadians. For example, the $3-billion Canadian agricultural partnership between federal, provincial, and territorial governments will help producers continue to take action to address soil and water conservation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adapt to climate change.
The government also delivers climate change programming outside of the partnership. The agricultural greenhouse gas program of $27 million over five years, 2016-2021, supports projects that will create technologies and practices and will transfer information on these advances to enable their successful adoption by farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The agricultural clean technology program, a three-year, $25-million investment, aims to support the research, development, and adoption of clean technologies in the areas of bioproducts and precision agriculture. These technologies will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generate a range of positive impacts, and promote sustainable and clean growth.

Question No. 1817--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what is the complete list of infrastructure projects financed by the bank to date; and (b) for each project in (a), what are the details including (i) amount of federal financing, (ii) location of project, (iii) scheduled completion date of project, (iv) project description?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, to date the bank has not financed any projects. The bank is in the process of engaging with stakeholders in the other orders of government and the private sector to better understand the needs of Canadian communities, and how the bank could play a role in meeting them.
The bank is an important part of the government’s more than $180-billion plan to build stronger, more sustainable, and inclusive communities across Canada. The bank is designed to engage private capital to build better public transit, energy transmission, trade corridors, and more across Canada. By engaging private capital in these projects, public dollars can go further and free up more funding for the record investments being made in areas such as social housing, disaster mitigation, women’s shelters, and clean water and wastewater systems.

Question No. 1820--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to government action in response to the Volkswagen diesel engine emissions scandal: (a) what specific actions has the government taken in response to the scandal; (b) how much GST or federal portion of HST did the government collect on Volkswagen vehicles which were found to violate emissions standards; (c) how many Volkswagen vehicles have been returned to a Canadian vendor in relation to any program or agreement with which the government, or any government agency or entity, was involved; (d) what is the total estimated value of vehicles in (c); (e) how much GST or federal portion of HST has the government remitted to purchasers of Volkswagen vehicles in (c); and (f) does the government plan on reimbursing all the GST or federal portion of the HST to all owners of the effected vehicles, and if not, why not?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Environment and Climate Change Canada routinely conducts emission testing on a sample of on-road and off-road vehicles and engines offered for sale in Canada to verify compliance with applicable emission regulations. This testing is conducted in coordination with the U.S. EPA to help broaden the scope of our coverage and maximize efficiencies in the administration of our respective programs. Various diesel vehicles offered for sale in Canada are being tested as part of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s usual compliance verification testing program. Additionally, the Government expanded its on-going collaborative work with its U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assess vehicles for the potential presence of defeat devices and other compliance issues.
Environment and Climate Change Canada continues to investigate the potential illegal importation into Canada of certain Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche vehicle models equipped with a prohibited defeat device. Environment and Climate Change Canada also launched a separate inquiry into the sale in Canada of 2015 Volkswagen models that received an EPA-approved partial fix following the receipt of an application made pursuant to section 17 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
With regard to (b), this information is not reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada as part of its role of administering the federal vehicle emission regulations.
With regard to (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada has been tracking the quantity of vehicles repaired by Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. authorized dealers through voluntary notices of defect filed under section 157 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. To date, over 19,000 vehicles have been reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada. This includes cases of owners electing to have their vehicle repaired and of owners electing to return vehicles to the company. Volkswagen has informed the department of its intention to resell vehicles that have been returned and repaired.
With regard to (d), the value is not reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada as part of the regulatory reporting process described in question (c).
With regard to (e), the value is not reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada as part of the regulatory reporting process described in question (c); therefore, GST/HST cannot be determined by Environment and Climate Change Canada.
With regard to (f), Environment and Climate Change Canada neither administers nor regulates the GST or federal portion of the HST and is therefore not in a position to comment.

Question No. 1830---
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the skating rink on Parliament Hill: (a) what is the final cost of the skating rink, broken down by item and type of expense; (b) if the final cost is not available, what is the total of all costs incurred to date, broken down by item and type of expense; and (c) does (a) and (b) include the cost of the tear down and repairing the lawn and, if not, what is the total of those costs?
Response
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), and (c), the final costs of the skating rink on Parliament Hill, including the tear-down and the repairing of the lawn, will be available upon receipt of financial reports from the Ottawa International Hockey Festival, the OIHF, in December 2018.

Question No. 1838--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to government expenditures related to David Piot v. Her Majesty the Queen and Joanne Schnurr v. Her Majesty the Queen, including any expenditures related to the appeals associated with the cases: (a) what are the total expenditures on each of the cases, broken down by case; (b) which law firms were retained by the government related to each of the cases; and (c) what are the total expenditures to date on outside law firms related to the cases, broken down by firm?
Response
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts that privilege and, in this case, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total legal cost.
The amount billed by the Department of Justice is $964,575.94 for all matters related to the Piot case and $285,281.04 for all matters related to the Schnurr case. For clarity, the amount billed is for time for departmental lawyers, notaries and paralegals as well as the time of legal advisers in the legal service unit who provide advice to the client. All are salaried public servants, and therefore no external legal costs were incurred.
With regard to (b) and (c), no outside law firms were retained by the government with respect to these cases.

Question No. 1849--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to discipline and incidents of misconduct at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) in each of 2015, 2016, and 2017, how many incidents of mismanagement, fraud, or bribery, respectively, involving CRA employees were discovered; (b) for each category of offence in (a), what was the cost to the Treasury in legal expenses; (c) for each category of offence in (a), what was the cost to the Treasury in damages awarded further to legal action; (d) for each category of offence in (a), what was the cost to the Treasury in lost revenue; (e) with respect to each category of offence in (a), for each year, how many person-hours did CRA expend to address them in each of: (i) Human Resources, (ii) Management (iii) Legal Affairs, (iv) Public Relations, and (v) Government Relations; (f) with respect to each category of offence in (a), for each year, how many person-hours did CRA expend to correct them through activities including but not limited to (i) contacting affected taxpayers, (ii) issuing re-assessments, (ii) reviewing the work of the relevant employees; (g) with respect to the Government’s response to Order Paper Question Q-1626, and to the May 28th, 2018 CBC article titled “More than 1000CRA employees disciplined for misconduct over past 4 years,” of the 1071 cases of discipline over four years, how many cases were for (i) single incidents or offences, (ii) more than one kind of offence or incident by the same employee, (iii) more than one count of the same offence or incident by the same employee; (h) with respect to each category of offence in (a), what is the most frequent means of discovering the offending conduct?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the CRA does not track the information in the manner requested. It should be noted that the number of cases is based on a fiscal year, April to March, and not a calendar year. In addition, the category of fraud is defined by the CRA through the CRA’s code of integrity and professional conduct and is included under the category of “financial management and fraud”.
With regard to parts (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) and with regard to discipline and incidents of misconduct at the CRA, the CRA’s corporate administrative system, the CAS, does not capture the information at the level of detail requested, so a response cannot be provided.
With regard to part (g), the CRA does not track the information in the manner requested. However, the CRA is able to provide the following information: Out of the 1071 employees disciplined over four years, 703 employees were disciplined for inappropriate behaviour that involved only one type of misconduct, meaning that these cases involved a single act of misconduct; 368 employees were disciplined for inappropriate behaviour that involved more than one type of misconduct, meaning that these cases involved multiple misconducts; and 15 employees were disciplined on more than one count, in the specified period, for the same type of misconduct.
With regard to part (h) on the most frequent means of discovering misconduct, the most common source was management notification of the CRA’s Internal Affairs and Fraud Control Division with suspicions of misconduct with respect to fraud.

Question No. 1850--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the government’s response to Order Paper Question Q-1709 concerning the withholding of an application to tax debts of federal and provincial transfer payments, in particular the response to parts (g), (j), (k), and (l) asserting that, “The CRA is unable to provide the information in the manner requested as it could not be completed in the time provided under Standing Order 39(5)(a),”: (a) for each of year 2016, 2017, and 2018, how many transfer or benefit payments did CRA withhold and apply to tax debts before the deadline for paying taxes owing; (b) for each year in (a) in which CRA withheld and applied transfer or benefit payments to tax debts before the deadline for paying taxes owing, how many tax debts to which such payments were applied did taxpayers pay in full by or on the deadline, such that an overpayment resulted; (c) for each year in (a), how many overpayments in (b) did CRA refund to the applicable taxpayers; (d) for each year in (a), how many transfer or benefit payments which CRA withheld and applied to a tax debt which resulted in an overpayment in (b) did CRA retain to apply to taxes owing in the future?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. The CRA is not able to respond as the information is not readily available in the manner requested. Given the detailed nature of the request, to produce the information in the manner requested, including the time needed to identify the proper criteria to respond, perform the requisite data collection and validate and verify the data collected, would require more time than is provided for under House of Commons Standing Order 39(5)(a).

Question No. 1851--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to comments made by the Minister of Natural Resources on June 11, 2018, regarding the “polluter pays” principle in the Pipeline Safety Act, can the minister: (a) confirm whether, as the owner of the Trans Mountain pipeline, the government is required to adhere to the liability provision within the act; and (b) confirm that the government has put aside one billion dollars to meet the absolute liability for any unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or any other commodity from the pipeline?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), regarding liability, the Pipeline Safety Act amended the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, which are both binding on Canada. Anyone that is authorized under the National Energy Board Act to construct or operate a pipeline would be required to adhere to the liability provisions under the act.
In response to (b), section 48.13(1) of the National Energy Board Act requires a company authorized under the act to construct or operate a pipeline to “maintain the amount of financial resources necessary to pay the amount of the limit of liability” that applies to it. While the act does not require the company that operates a given pipeline to actually put aside funds, the company—operator--has to satisfy the National Energy Board, NEB, as the regulator that it meets the requirement to maintain these financial resources and also that it is in compliance with any order that may be issued by the NEB as to the availability of these funds. This ensures that funds are available to respond to an unintended or uncontrolled release from a pipeline. This is consistent with the polluter pays principle and the government’s commitment to a strong pipeline safety regime. This requirement would equally apply to any federal Crown corporation if it were to operate the pipeline.

Question No. 1857--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to access to information requests, broken down by each department or agency of government subject to the Access to Information Act: (a) what is the practice to release records in digital form pursuant to a request made under the Act and in what electronic format are such records released to a requester; (b) following an access to information request, are records released in the original format in which they were created and, if another format is used, what is it; (c) if records are released in digital format, why and, if not, why not; and (d) in what policy, circular, notice, memorandum, directive or other document is the department or agency's policy concerning release or non-release of electronic records contained?
Response
Ms. Joyce Murray (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a), (b) and (c), when requesters submit a request, the requesters are asked to indicate whether they would like to receive an electronic or paper copy of the record, or to examine the record in person. When a requester asks for an electronic copy, it is normal practice to provide documents in PDF or digital image format.
The release in PDF or digital image format is for both operational and security reasons. The software programs currently used by government institutions to process access to information requests rely on records being scanned into the software. The software is then used to black out content on the scanned images to protect any information that has been withheld under the Access to Information Act for reasons of privacy, confidentiality or security. The records are then given to the requester in either PDF image or paper format. These formats prevent the blackout from being reversed to prevent privacy, confidentiality or security breaches.
Some records cannot be provided in electronic formats due to size limitations or the type of originals (such as microfiche) that were requested. Most often, information in response to an access to information request is released in paper or readable PDF format. This reflects both operational limitations and security considerations. For the year 2016–17, 80 per cent of records were released in digital format.
In response to part (d), the interim directive on the administration of the Access to Information Act (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=18310) directs government institutions to ensure that, wherever feasible, requesters will receive information in the format of their choice, including modern and easy-to-use formats. Heads of institutions can decline to provide a record in the format requested by the requester when it would be unreasonable or impracticable to do so, for example, when there would be considerable costs to convert the records to a different format, or when security, confidentiality or privacy could be compromised.
Regarding format of release, clause 7.4.6 of the directive states: “When privacy, confidentiality and security considerations would not be compromised and it would not be unreasonable or impracticable to do so, provide records in the format requested by the requester, including machine-readable and reusable formats.”
Additional requirements on the format of released records are found in subsection 4(2.1) (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-1.html#h-6) and section 25 of the Access to Information Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-5.html#docCont) and subsection 8.1(1) of the access to information regulations (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-83-507/page-1.html#h-8).

Question No. 1861--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the comments by the Commissioner of Lobbying in an interview with the Canadian Press that “If we want to be able to modernize, there is no way we will be able to do it with the current budget”: will the government increase the budget of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying and, if so, by how much?
Response
Ms. Joyce Murray (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to supporting the independence of the Commissioner of Lobbying. Agents of Parliament manage their resources to meet their operational requirements. Where the Commissioner of Lobbying makes a request for additional resources, the government considers such a request to ensure that the office can continue to fulfill its mandate efficiently and effectively.

Question No. 1866--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the new sauna and other upgrades made to Harrington Lake (Lac Mousseau), since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) description of upgrade, (iii) total amount; and (b) what is the breakdown of the amount in (a)(iii) by type of expense, such as installation, re-wiring, ski-trail grooming, etc.?
Response
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the expenditures by the National Capital Commission, NCC, for the sauna at Harrington Lake were to create access for an electrical connection from the main house to the temporary location for the sauna and to connect the electrical cable for the sauna to the main house electrical panel.
The details are: coring work for the electrical conduit, November 21, 2016, in the amount of $1,763.79; electrical connection, December 16, 2016, in the amount of $2,414.71. The total cost was $4,178.50.
Note that the Prime Minister paid for the sauna himself.
The NCC considers upgrades to be capital expenses, not operating expenses, that enhance the buildings or property and extend the life or value of the property and assets in question. No such expenditures have been incurred at Harrington Lake since November 2015. Any capital expenses during this time period were for investigation, research and design work only for potential future projects.
Expenses such as installation, rewiring, ski trail grooming, etc., are considered operational and are therefore charged to the operations and maintenance, O and M, budget. As such, the information requested is not readily available in the NCC’s tracking systems. An extensive manual search would be necessary in order to provide a comprehensive response. This operation cannot be completed within the allotted time frame.

Question No. 1868--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to expenditures by the government on presenters and performers for the Canada Day events on Parliament Hill in 2016 and 2017: (a) what is the total amount spent on performance fees, talent fees and other similar type expenditures for the events, broken down by year; and (b) what is the breakdown of the total amounts in (a) by performer or presenter?
Response
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in 2016, the total amount was $338,910. In 2017, the total amount was $1,341,413.
In response to (b), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and some information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes third party information.

Question No. 1871--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the Chief Science Advisor: for which bills and motions has the Chief Science Advisor provided advice to the government, broken down by (i) bill or motion (number and title), (ii) Minister responsible?
Response
Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Minister of Science and Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the chief science advisor provides advice in the development and implementation of guidelines to ensure that government science is fully available to the public and that federal scientists are able to speak freely about their work. The advisor also provides and coordinates expert advice to the Minister of Science and Sport and members of cabinet, as appropriate and requested, on key science issues, including the preparation of research and oversight papers for public dissemination.
The report of activities of the office of the chief science advisor and the state of government science, including the federal science workforce and federal scientific infrastructure, is delivered by the chief science advisor to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Science and Sport annually.

Question No. 1872--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the national space strategy the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development committed to publishing in June 2017: (a) how many drafts of the strategy have been reviewed by the Minister or his senior staff; (b) how many stakeholders were consulted in direct relation to the strategy; and (c) on what date will be the final strategy be released?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s participation in space science and exploration has benefited Canadians on earth, from the development of new medical technologies to the strengthening of our tech industry economy. It has allowed our space scientists to make important discoveries in areas such as astronomy and contribute to monitoring and understanding climate change.
In recent budgets the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has been committed to supporting scientific research and development, and commercialization of the space sector.
In budget 2016, $379 million was allocated for Canada’s continued participation in the International Space Station through to 2024 and $30 million was allocated for Canada’s continued participation in the European Space Agency programs.
In budget 2017, $80.9 million was allocated to the Canadian Space Agency, CSA, to support new projects and utilize Canadian innovations in space including the quantum encryption and science satellite, QEYSSat, mission.
In budget 2018, $100 million was allocated to focus on supporting projects that relate to low earth orbit satellites that will be available exclusively to the space sector.
With regard to supporting commercialization in the space sector, the CSA has announced planned expenditures of $84.9 million in contracts and contributions through its earth observation application development program and space technology development program since October 2015.
In looking to the long-term benefits and importance of the space sector, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development renewed the mandate of the space advisory board to consult Canadians and help define key elements of a long-term strategy for space.
The minister tasked the board to consult with space sector stakeholders and to report its findings. From April 21 to May 19, 2017, the board held seven round table discussions across Canada, in addition to two webinars focused on youth and the north, involving almost 200 stakeholders from a broad cross-section of industry, academia, civil society and government, to help support the development of space sector priorities and to define key elements of a space strategy.
In addition to round table participation, the board received nearly 350 responses via CSA social media platforms--Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram--and more than 60 email--written--submissions via an Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada online portal at Canada.ca.
The feedback received from these consultations has now been released and will inform the ongoing work on a long-term vision for the space sector.

Question No. 1874--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the recent extension of the Halifax Class in-service support contract: (a) was a fully public competition undertaken for the awarding of this support contract and, if so, what are the details of the competition, including (i) number of bidding companies, (ii) name of bidding companies, (iii) winning bidder, (iv) details of all bids, (v) location of the contract posting on buyandsell.gc.ca; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, who advised the government not to undertake a fully public competition, including (i) names, (ii) dates, (iii) any meetings held on the subject; and (c) will all future extensions of the Halifax Class in-service support contract be conducted in fair and open public bidding processes?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Halifax class in-service support contract was publicly competed and awarded in 2008 to include post-midlife refit, MLR, activities until at least 2019. In response to (i), two companies submitted bids in 2008. In response to (ii), it was Victoria Shipyard Ltd. for the west coast and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. for the east coast. In response to (iii), both companies were awarded contracts. In response to (iv), bidding was conducted in a free and open competition in 2008. Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, cannot release details about the bids because the information is proprietary and commercially sensitive, the disclosure of which could cause irreparable harm to the entities. In response to (v), these contracts were awarded in 2008 prior to implementation of buyandsell; therefore, they were not posted on buyandsell, but rather on MERX at that time. MERX data only goes back seven years, and therefore, further information about this competition is unavailable
Paragraph (b) is not applicable.
In response to (c), the contract extensions are routine amendments throughout the approved contract term. The Government of Canada continues to move forward in establishing a follow-on contract or contracts and has conducted industry consultations. The marine sustainment directorate posted a request for information, RFI, in December 2016 which was followed by an industry day in June 2017. The contracts were awarded with an expiry date of 2019 with an option for one year and five months to 2021. There are no further contract extensions as the process for the new in-service support contracts commenced in December 2016 and is ongoing.

Question No. 1876--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to the national digital and data consultations announced by the government on June 18, 2018: (a) which individuals and organizations were sent invitations to the launch of the consultations; and (b) how were the individuals and organizations in (a) chosen?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on June 19, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development launched national consultations on digital and data transformation with an announcement in the foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill and the opening of the online portal (https://canada.ca/digital-data-consultations). The department sent out media advisory notifying media outlets of the announcement.
Following the launch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada held the first of many cross-Canada round tables. The round tables will take place over the summer/early fall in cities across Canada with business, academia, civil society and others. Because there is strength in our diversity, the round tables will include women, indigenous peoples and other under-represented groups. These round tables will take place in Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Waterloo, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Fredericton, Charlottetown, Halifax, St. John’s, Whitehorse and Iqaluit.
These consultations will allow the government to better understand how Canada can drive innovation, prepare Canadians for the future of work, and ensure they have trust and confidence in how their data is used. Canadians and stakeholders are encouraged to conduct their own round tables and share with us what they heard. The online portal will provide the necessary documents to host these events and allow for direct submissions of these round table reports.

Question No. 1878--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the May 1-3, 2017, Coastal Ocean Research Institute workshop that examined noise impacting southern resident killer whales and the October 11-12, 2017, Southern Resident Killer Whale Symposium, both funded by the government, and broken down by event: (a) who attended each event and what organization did they represent; (b) which attendees received government funding to attend the events; and (c) how much funding did each attendee receive to attend the events?
Response
Mr. Jonathan Wilkinson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding the Coastal Ocean Research Institute, CORI, workshop on May 1 to 3, 2017, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, provided $44,100 through a contribution agreement to the Vancouver Aquarium, CORI, for a scientific workshop.
CORI managed the distribution of these funds, including the selection and invitation of participants, and provision of any honoraria and travel reimbursement for non-government participants and coordination of the workshop. Thus, not all information requested was available from departmental officials. Participants in the workshop included a broad range of experts from government, academia and non-governmental agencies.
Among the participants were five scientific experts from DFO: Patrice Simon, national capital region; Svein Vagle, Pacific region; James Pilkington, Pacific region; Shelia Thornton, Pacific region; Brianna Wright, Pacific region.
On October 11 and 12, 2017, as part of the Government of Canada’s oceans protection plan activities, DFO, Transport Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada co-hosted a symposium on the recovery of the southern resident killer whale population in British Columbia.
Hundreds of participants from government, indigenous organizations, academia, and non-governmental agencies registered to attend the symposium. Attendance of participants was not tracked; however, 67 DFO officials attended some part of the symposium.
DFO provided honoraria for the following participants to participate in a panel discussion at the symposium: Carla George, Squamish Nation, $200; Tim Kulchyski, Cowichan Tribes, $250; Teresa Ryan, University of British Columbia, $750; Carleen Thomas, Tsleil-Waututh Nation, $450.
DFO also reimbursed the travel expenses of Dr. John Ford at a total of $824.31.
Aboriginal peoplesAboriginal reservesAboultaif, ZiadAccess to information requestsAlbrecht, HaroldAngus, CharlieArnold, MelAttorney General of CanadaAutomotive industryBacklogsBains, Navdeep ...Show all topics
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 580--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to the government’s participation in the Global Progress 2016 forum held in Montreal on September 14 and 15, 2016: (a) what is the total of all costs associated with the government’s involvement in the forum; and (b) what is the itemized breakdown of all costs associated with the government’s involvement in the forum?
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. 842--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Table 6 “Horizontal Items (dollars) – Funding to support the management of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber initiative, including negotiations towards a new agreement, ongoing monitoring of exports, and legal preparations for possible trade remedies action” in Supplementary Estimates (A), 2016-17, used before negotiations officially resumed on February 5, 2017: (a) what was the allotment used for legal fees, and related to this allotment, (i) how much was spent on a retainer for legal counsel, (ii) how many of these lawyers worked directly on the softwood lumber initiative; (b) which departments provided the funding, broken down by the amount spent by each department; (c) what expenses were claimed by the lawyers who were retained, broken down by individual lawyer and their claimed (i) travel expenses, (ii) accommodation expenses, (iii) meal expenses, (iv) incidental expenses, (v) per diems; (d) how many government employees or full-time equivalents were assigned to provide legal advice on this matter; (e) how many outside lawyers were retained; (f) how many hours per month did each of the lawyers in (d) and (e) spend working on the softwood lumber initiative; and (g) how many meetings were held relating to the softwood lumber initiative, and who was present at each of meeting, broken down by meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 843--
Mr. McCauley (Edmonton West):
With regard to public service training for the Phoenix Pay System: (a) what was the Public Services and Procurement training plan for public servants prior to February 10, 2016, (i) was this training mandatory for all public servants, (ii) how many public servants successfully completed this training, broken down by department; (b) what was the Public Services and Procurement training plan for public servants between February 10, 2016, and April 21, 2016, (i) was this training mandatory for all public servants, (ii) how many public servants successfully completed the training, broken down by department; (c) how many compensation advisors were employed by the government on February 20, 2016, (i) how many successfully completed training referenced in (a), broken down by department; (d) how many compensation advisors were employed by the government on April 21, 2016, (i) how many successfully completed training referenced in (b), broken down by department; (e) what measures were taken by Public Services and Procurement Canada to confirm training for Phoenix was completed by each department; (f) if Public Services and Procurement Canada does enot have access to these numbers, which department does?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 844--
Ms. Tracey Ramsey:
With regard to government funding in the riding of Essex, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006, inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 845--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to expenditures made by the government since October 19, 2016, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not Elsewhere Classified): what are the details of each expenditure including (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 847--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to the government’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2021: (a) how many government employees are currently assigned to work on the bid on a (i) full-time basis, (ii) part-time basis; (b) how many government employees are projected to work on the bid in each of the next five years on a (i) full-time basis, (ii) part-time basis; and (c) what are the projected costs for the bid, broken down by line item, object, and fiscal year for each of the next five fiscal years, beginning with the 2016-17 fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 848--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to altered or fraudulent passports or visa documents discovered by the Canada Border Services Agency at ports of entry, since January 2016: (a) what is the monthly breakdown of such discoveries; (b) what is the monthly breakdown, further broken down by country represented on the document; and (c) what is the monthly breakdown, further broken down by last embarkation and disembarkation point of the traveler?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 849--
Hon. Tony Clement:
With regard to comments made by former National Security Advisor Richard Fadden in the Globe and Mail on January 15, 2017, and information the government has about the actions of foreign governments to influence the 2015 Canadian election: (a) is the government aware of any attempts by Russia to influence the 2015 Canadian election through (i) hacking or other cyber espionage, (ii) influence operations, (iii) propaganda or false news reports, (iv) other intelligence activities; (b) is the government aware of any attempts by agents sponsored by Russia to influence the 2015 Canadian election through (i) hacking or other cyber espionage, (ii) influence operations, (iii) propaganda or false news reports, (iv) other intelligence activities; (c) is the government aware of any attempts by any other country, other than Russia, to influence the 2015 Canadian election through (i) hacking or other cyber espionage, (ii) influence operations, (iii) propaganda or false news reports, (iv) other intelligence activities; and (d) is the government aware of any attempts by agents sponsored by any other country to influence the 2015 Canadian election through (i) hacking or other cyber espionage, (ii) influence operations, (iii) propaganda or false news reports, (iv) other intelligence activities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 850--
Hon. Candice Bergen:
With regard to the Conflict of Interest Act and the Prime Minister, since October 1, 2016: (a) did anyone in the Privy Council Office inform the Prime Minister or the Office of the Prime Minister that riding in a private helicopter may violate the Conflict of Interest Act; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, who informed the Prime Minister or the Office of the Prime Minister; (c) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, who was provided with the information; and (d) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, on what date was the Prime Minister or member of the Office of the Prime Minister informed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 851--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to user fees collected by the government: (a) what is the complete list of user fees collected; and (b) what are the specific details of each fee collected, including for each (i) a description or summary, (ii) the current rate or rates, (iii) the total amount collected during the 2015-2016 fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 852--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to a federal carbon tax or price on carbon: (a) what analysis has been conducted from 2015 to present by the government with regard to the impact on Indigenous family household budgets and Indigenous community budgets; (b) what analysis has been conducted from 2015 to present by Employment and Social Development Canada with regard to the impact on Indigenous persons and families falling below the low-income cut-off line; (c) what analysis has been conducted from 2015 to present by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada with regard to the impact on (i) Indigenous persons and families falling below the low-income cut-off line, (ii) the cost of building and maintaining community infrastructure, including power generation; (d) what analysis has been conducted from 2015 to present by Health Canada with regard to the impact on the cost of delivering health care on-reserve; (e) when fully implemented, how much does the government anticipate the $50-a-tonne price on carbon will increase food prices for the average Indigenous family of four, in each province and territory; (f) how much does the government anticipate a $50-a-tonne carbon tax will increase electricity costs, in percentage terms, in each province and territory; (g) has the government calculated the average financial impact of the carbon tax on Indigenous people living below the low-income cut-off line and, if so, what is the average monetary impact on the average Indigenous family of four living below the low-income cut-off line; (h) how many Indigenous individuals does the government anticipate will fall beneath the low-income cut-off line as a result of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon; (i) did either the Department of Finance Canada or Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada conduct analyses regarding the impact of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon on Indigenous low-income families and, if so, what were the conclusions of these analyses; (j) did either the Department of Finance Canada or the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada conduct an analyses regarding the impact of a $50-a-tonne price on carbon on the distribution of wealth and income in Canada and, if so, what were the conclusions of these analyses; and (k) by how much does the government estimate a $50-a-tonne price on carbon will reduce carbon emissions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 853--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to Canada’s Indigenous peoples: how many Memorandum of Understanding agreements did the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs sign with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples between November 4, 2015, and February 9, 2017, broken down by (i) name of group, (ii) location of official signing ceremony, (iii) date of official signing ceremony?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 854--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs on May 10, 2016, that the government intends to adopt and implement the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: (a) what are the details of all the consultations conducted by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs between May 10, 2016, to present, 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. 855--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to First Nations financial transparency: (a) how many First Nations bands have complied with the requirements of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016, by making available to all band members audited consolidated financial statements, the Schedule of Remuneration and Expenses, the auditor's written report respecting the consolidated financial statements, and the auditor's report or the review engagement report; (b) which bands, leaders, communities, and organizations has the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs consulted regarding financial transparency; (c) with regard to consultations in (b), what was the location of each consultation; and (d) for each consultation in (b) in which stakeholders or other individuals being consulted were required to travel, 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 amount paid out in per diems?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 856--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the budgets for ministerial offices, broken down by Minister, including the Prime Minister: (a) how many exempt staff members are in each Minister’s office; (b) what is the total budget for salaries for each office for the 2016-2017 fiscal year; (c) what is the projected budget for salaries for each office for the 2017-2018 fiscal year; (d) what is the overall budget for each Ministerial office for the 2016-2017 fiscal year; and (e) what is the overall projected budget for each ministerial office for the 2017-2018 fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 857--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to delegations from China hosted or paid for by Global Affairs Canada, since November 4, 2015: (a) what were the dates on which each delegation was hosted; (b) what was the size of each delegation; (c) what was the title of the highest ranking government official for each delegation; (d) what were the total costs paid for by the Canadian government for each delegation; and (e) what is the itemized breakdown of each cost referred to in (d)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 858--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to payments given to First Nations families through the Canada child benefit (CCB): (a) how many First Nations families living on reserve are eligible for CCB payments; (b) how many of these families are currently receiving CCB payments; (c) with regard to First Nations families on reserve who are eligible for CCB payments, and are not currently receiving these payments, why are they not receiving these payments; and (d) what is the government’s plan to improve the distribution of CCB benefits to eligible First Nations families who are not currently receiving these benefits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 859--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the Community Futures Program in Ontario: (a) how much funding was given to the program for wach fiscal year from 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, with each year’s total broken down by (i) the total amount of funding distributed by FedDev Ontario, (ii) the total amount of funding distributed by FedNor, (iii) the total amount of funding given to each Community Futures Development Corporation (CFDC) in Ontario; (b) what CFDCs in Ontario were reduced in funding in the 2016-2017 fiscal year, broken down by federal electoral district in which each CFDC is located; (c) how much funding was reduced for each CFDC, broken down by individual CFDC; (d) why were certain CFDCs reduced in funding, broken down by individual CFDC; and (e) what rationale was provided to each CFDC for the reduction in their funding, broken down by individual CFDC?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 860--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to usage of the Canada 150 logo: (a) how many total applications have been processed by the Department of Canadian Heritage, broken down by (i) individual applications, (ii) authorized representatives of groups, (iii) organizations, (iv) companies, (v) commercial organizations, (vi) provincial, territorial, or municipal governments, (vii) Members of Parliament, (viii) Senators; (b) how many applications have been approved, broken down by the categories in (a); (c) how many applications have been denied usage, broken down by the subcategories in (a); (d) how many applications are currently awaiting review or in the midst of being processed, broken down by the categories in (a); (e) for the denied applications in (c), why were these applications denied, broken down by applicant; (f) for each application that has been processed, what is the mandated processing time for applications; and (g) what has been the average processing time for applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 862--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the Phoenix pay system: (a) how many individuals received (i) overpayments, (ii) underpayments, during the 2016 calendar year by the Phoenix pay system; (b) how many individuals (i) owed the government money, (ii) were owed money as of January 1, 2017, as a result of receiving either overpayments or underpayments during the 2016 calendar year; (c) what specific measures have been put in place by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) related to individuals who received overpayments or underpayments in 2016; (d) as of February 13, 2017, had the Minister of National Revenue provided any directives to CRA regarding relief for the individuals in (a); and (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what are the dates and contents of any such directives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 863--
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) which federal and provincial government agencies, departments, and services has the government met with regarding the implementation of the pipeline; (b) what are the dates on which the meetings in (a) took place; and (c) what were the topics or subjects discussed at each of the meetings in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 864--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to aircraft usage by the Canadian Embassy and Consulate in Ukraine and by the Canadian Embassy in Poland between May 25, 2016, and July 13, 2016, excluding regularly scheduled commercial flights: (a) what flights or aircraft rental were paid for or utilized by the embassies or consulate; (b) what were the costs associated with each flight or aircraft rental; and (c) what were the details of each flight, including (i) date, (ii) departure location, (iii) arrival location, (iv) list of passengers, (v) type of aircraft?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 865--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the answer to Order Paper question Q-616 on the budgets of Indigenous and Northern Affairs and for Health Canada’s First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB): (a) how do the departments follow Treasury Board Secretariat policies of internal control, as well as provisions in the Financial Administration Act, if they do not track base spending and sunsetting funds; (b) how do the departments project future funding if they are not tracking what funds are sunsetting and what funds are in base spending; (c) how do the departments determine necessary additional budget investments without tracking what funding sunsets; (d) how does the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs provide information about base spending on the sections of its website entitled (i) National First Nations Consolidated Infrastructure Investment Report 2014-15, (ii) National First Nations Infrastructure Investment Plan 2015-2016, if it claims to not track base spending; (e) how did the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs calculate, in its answer to Order Paper question Q-616, the spending above the two per cent cap both for the 22% figure and the 16% figure; (f) what are the details of the calculation in (e); (g) what is the formula with which the calculation in (e) was made; (h) what is the amount of money that is the two per cent base spending for 2016-2017 that the Department used to calculate its answer to Order Paper question Q-616; (i) what is the amount of money from budget 2016-2017, broken down by program, that the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs used in its answer to Order Paper question Q-616 to calculate the amount above the two per cent cap the government would be spending; (j) did the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs use the same formula to provide the amount the Department spent above the two per cent cap for each year since 1994; (k) for each year since the two per cent cap was put in place, what amount of money in both dollars and percentage was above the level of funding that would have been provided under the two per cent funding cap as calculated with the formula used in the answer to section (d) of Order Paper question Q-616; (l) did the Office for the Coordination of Parliamentary Returns (OCPR) at the Privy Council Office (PCO) assign Order Paper question Q-616 regarding analysis conducted by the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs; (m) what is the title of the individual who put together the response; (n) on what date was the response finalized; (o) did OCPR assign any part of the analysis of Order Paper question Q-616 to the Department of Finance; and (p) did anyone from either the Office of the Prime Minister, the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, or the Minister’s office provide any advice or instruction regarding the response to Order Paper question Q-616 and, if so, what are the details of these communications, including (i) the titles of the individuals who provided the advice or instruction, (ii) the specific advice or instructions that were given?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 866--
Ms. Dianne L. Watts:
With regard to Phase 1 and the second Long-Term Infrastructure Plan under the New Infrastructure Plan undertaken by Infrastructure Canada: (a) what provinces and territories have submitted lists of priorities or projects to be funded under Phase 1 and for each, (i) what is the itemized list of projects and priorities from each province and territory, (ii) how many of the projects listed in (a)(i) have been approved for funding, (iii) what is the federal contribution of each project or priority listed under (a)(ii), (iv) what is the construction start date of each project or priority listed under (a)(ii) if such a date has already passed; (b) what provinces and territories have submitted lists of priorities or projects to be funded under the Public Transit: Faster Commutes and Innovative Communities program under the Long-Term Infrastructure Plan, including (i) the itemized list of projects or priorities from each province and territory, (ii) the number of the projects listed in (b)(i) that have been approved for funding, (iii) the federal contribution of each project or priority listed under (b)(ii); (c) what provinces and territories have submitted lists of priorities or projects to be funded under the Green Infrastructure: Clean Air, Clean Water program under the Long-Term Infrastructure Plan, including (i) the itemized list of projects or priorities from each province and territory, (ii) the number of the projects listed in (c)(i) that have been approved for funding, (iii) the federal contribution of each project and priority listed under (c)(ii); (d) what provinces and territories have submitted lists of priorities or projects to be funded under the Rural and Northern Communities program under the Long-Term Infrastructure Plan, including (i) the itemized list of projects or priorities from each province and territory, (ii) the number of projects listed in (d)(i) that have been approved for funding, (iii) the federal contribution of each project or priority listed under (d)(ii); (e) what amount of money has been earmarked for each project listed in (a)(ii), (b)(ii), (c)(ii) and (d)(ii); (f) what data was used to determine which projects would be selected; and (g) when will these projects be announced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 867--
Ms. Dianne L. Watts:
With regard to spending by Environment and Climate Change Canada, between November 4, 2015, and February 10, 2017: (a) what amount has been announced, committed, promised, and spent outside of Canada on (i) other sovereign states, (ii) international programs, (iii) global initiatives, (iv) United Nations initiatives or programs, (v) for-profit programs and organizations, (vi) not-for-profit programs and organizations; and (b) what data was used to determine which projects, countries, or initiatives from (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) would be funded?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 868--
Ms. Dianne L. Watts:
With regard to spending by Global Affairs Canada, between November 4, 2015, and February 10, 2017: (a) what amount of money has been announced, committed, promised, and spent outside of Canada on (i) other sovereign states, (ii) international programs, (iii) global initiatives, (iv) United Nations initiatives or programs, (v) for-profit programs and organizations, (vi) not-for-profit programs and organizations; and (b) what data was used to determine which projects, countries, or initiatives from (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) would be funded?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 871--
Ms. Georgina Jolibois:
With regard to funding for Athabasca Health Authority (AHA) in Saskatchewan: (a) what is the current level of funding for the AHA and what portions of that are provided by the federal government and the provincial government, if that amount is known; (b) which services must the AHA provide to the five main communities it covers and what service standards must be met in order to receive federal funding; (c) how many staff, broken down by profession, work for the AHA; (d) what standards, metrics, or other frameworks does the federal government use to evaluate the effectiveness of mental health service delivery by the AHA; (e) what is the standard process by which an individual gains access to a mental health worker at the AHA; (f) what criteria are used to assess the seriousness of a case when individuals are seeking face-to-face access to a mental health worker through the AHA; (g) has the federal government conducted any service delivery evaluations or staff conduct surveys of the AHA and, if so, what are the details of all such such studies and surveys?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 872--
Ms. Georgina Jolibois:
With regard to the additional $69 million in funding for Indigenous mental health services announced in June 2016: (a)what is the itemized list of all entities and programs that have received a portion of this additional funding since June 2016; (b) which communities are served by each entity or program in (a); and (c) what criteria have been used to assess applications or requests for this funding, or to guide proactive allocations of this additional funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 873--
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits received between December 1, 2015, and January 31, 2017, and Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIA) granted after November 5, 2015: (a) how many individuals in Atlantic Canada, with previous work experience in fish and seafood processing plants, were receiving EI regular benefits, broken down by month; (b) how many Canadians at any point received EI regular benefits at the same time as one of their former employers employed temporary foreign workers, broken down by month; (c) how many Temporary Foreign Workers did the Department grant positive LMIA decisions in National Occupation Classification positions in which EI regular beneficiary recipients in the same EI Economic Region had prior work experience; (d) how many LMIA did Employment and Social Development Canada grant for Temporary Foreign Workers in fish and seafood processing positions, broken down by (i) month, from December 1, 2015, to January 31, 2017, (ii) name of Fish and Seafood Processing Plant, (iii) number of Temporary Foreign Worker positions, (iv) number of EI regular benefit recipients with previous fish plant experience living within a one-hour commute (one-way) of the Fish and Seafood Processing Plant; (e) which organizations were granted LMIA after November 5, 2015, broken down by (i) month, from December 1, 2015, to January 31, 2017, (ii) name of Fish and Seafood Processing Plant, (iii) number of Temporary Foreign Worker positions, (iv) number of EI recipients living within a 40 kilometre distance of the Fish and Seafood Processing Plant; and (f) how many Temporary Foreign Workers were employed in National Occupation Classifications that were formerly held by EI recipients in the same Employment Insurance Economic Region, broken down by (i) Employment Insurance Economic Region, (ii) month, from December 1, 2015, to January 31, 2017; (iii) National Occupation Classification, including occupation name, (iv) number of EI recipients formerly employed in that National Occupation Classification, (v) number of Temporary Foreign Workers Employed in that National Occupation Classification whose LMIA were approved, (vi) cumulative totals for each column?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 874--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the Canada 150 program: (a) how many employees or full-time equivalents (FTEs) have been assigned to work on the Canada 150 program; (b) how many employees or FTEs have been temporarily assigned to the Canada 150 program; and (c) what is the breakdown of departments and sections where the temporarily assigned employees or FTEs worked prior to being assigned to the Canada 150 program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 875--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the government’s responses to Questions on the Order Paper since January 1, 2016: what directives have been issued by the Director of Issues Management in the Office of the Prime Minister, other members of the Issues Management section of the Office of the Prime Minister, or as a result of advice or direction given by the Issues Management section of the Office of the Prime Minister, broken down by (i) question number, (ii) content of directive or advice, (iii) date of directive or advice, (iv) the individual who issued the directive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 876--
Mr. Alupa Clarke:
With regard to the fighter jets procurement and any contact with Lockheed Martin: (a) what was the most recently projected cost of F-35 Lightning II aircraft; (b) what is the estimated annual operating and maintenance cost for the F-35 Lightning II fleet; (c) what are the (i) dates, (ii) times, (iii) locations, (iv) lists of attendees, including their titles, of all meetings between the government and Lockheed Martin since November 4, 2015; and (d) what are the details of all communications between (i) all officials in the Office of the Minister of National Defence and Lockheed Martin since November 4, 2015, (ii) all officials in the Office of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Lockheed Martin since November 4, 2015?
Response
(Return tabled)
150th Anniversary of Canadian Confederation8530-421-30 Supplementary answer to ques ...8530-421-31 Revised answer to Q-763 on t ...8530-421-33 Answer to question Q-842 on ...8530-421-34 Answer to question Q-843 on ...8530-421-35 Answer to question Q-844 on ...8530-421-36 Answer to question Q-845 on ...8530-421-38 Answer to question Q-847 on ...8530-421-39 Answer to question Q-848 on ...8530-421-40 Answer to question Q-849 on ...8530-421-41 Answer to question Q-850 on ... ...Show all topics
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)